Obama BUYING Super-delegates.. Is he trying to "buy" the Nomination? WOW!

[Tellurian]

Lovely!

"Both McCaskill and Matsui are among the nearly 800 superdelegates who'll have a big say in who heads the Democratic ticket this fall. While both women say the PAC contributions didn't influence their choice for president, a study by the Center for Responsive Politics concludes that campaign contributions have become a fairly reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take.

And if that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.

The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who'd endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31905.html

[anonymous171]

1. Campaign contributions, you mean Obama helps other democrats more?

[izzybeans]

2. Yeah how dare he try to win a bigger majority in Congress. That fiend!!! A Fiend I say!!!

None of this matters if we can't strengthen our hold on congress.

We weren't born yesterday.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoFerret]

16. Erm..

I don't think so.
Your sense of proportion is more than a little off balance.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dchill]

64. Good one!

;)

[Changenow]

76. Something to look forward to

When the trolls are expelled. Hillary is almost out of money, so it won't be long.

[Window]

19. LMAO!

:rofl:

[gateley]

4. Another example that Obama actually knows how to win!

He looks smarter and smarter to me all the time! Thanks for this!

GOBAMA! :headbang:

[SoCalDem]

5. nope.. she was saving her money for HER.. he shared with others to get them elected

:hi:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

52. exactly, Obama helped us turn more states blue

she raised more than needed for senate, kept it to herself.

50 state strategy is better for all of us,
Big state strategy is better for power brokers.

[merh]

6. LOL, from your article

And if that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.

Seems he simply out bid Hillary. :rofl:

[Tellurian]

42. Lot to be proud of when..

You support a candidate who would be better off seen in a casino than in his own church!

[merh]

48. I will comment on the silly way you portray the facts

The way you twist them in an effort to smear while overlooking Hillary's behavior that is consistent with the behavior you damn. That is a legitimate response to what you consider the "issues".

If you want to discuss the issues then I am willing to try to do that with you.

I will not throw petty barbs at Hillary to try to play the gotcha hate game that seems to fuel your posts.

You want to tear apart the party that is your perogative, but imho, that makes you a part of the problem, a co-conspirator in the RNC's game to yet again cheat the people.

Both Hillary and Obama have given to democratic candidates and that is a good thing. The fact that Hillary was outspent is reflected in your OP.

Maybe you could funnel your energies into fund raising for her, that is something she appears to need help with and it is a much better way to support your candidate and the democratic party.

[Tellurian]

67. No, I don't want to tear the Party apart, that is a victim's excuse..

I do care for my country more than I care about the Party. I will continue supporting the candidate I think will stand the best chance of beating the Republicans and who will work for ALL of us for the betterment of the country.

My candidate isn't a racist. She doesn't discriminate against the GLBT community. She also doesn't discriminate against Baby Boomers. My last three statements are more than enough reasons NOT to support Obama and just several more reason for supporting Hillary for the nomination.

[merh]

78. You have spent weeks tearing apart the party.

You don't post the positives of your candidate, you post the opposition's negatives as you perceive them. If you spent half as much time fund raiser for her your efforts would be of more use and less harmful to your candidate, imho.

The negatives from both sides hurt all.

My candidate isn't a racist. - Obama isn't either.

She doesn't discriminate against the GLBT community. - Obama doesn't either.

She also doesn't discriminate against Baby Boomers. - Obama doesn't either

Your last three comments are personal opinions not supported by the facts.

I'll give you the reasons why I don't support HRC. Keep in mind, this are my opinions. I'm honest in that regard, but I can back up most of them with links if you like.

Her vote for the IWR

Doug Coe and The Fellowship

Her constant lies like Bosnia and the Irish Peace effort

Nasty campaign tactics to include, but not be limited to: the false accusations of plagiarism and racism when she has no room to talk - glass houses and all that; speaking favorably of McCain while degrading Obama; rolling eyes and downplaying hope; professing experience when she has none or when her experience is comparable to Obama's (though her legislative experience is less than Obama's); her aligning with those that are the right wing attack hounds; her false feminism position - pretending to be a victim, crying to give a "human" face to her campaign, yet sending out messages like "don't hit a girl" - her husband has to fight her battles for her; the treatment of her fellow dems that don't support/endorse her, the attacks on them.

And Katrina

[Tellurian]

79. Merh, when you can post something other than Obamnation talking points..

we can have a conversation. Other than that, you're preaching on deaf ears. Obama is a media creation and has accomplished nothing in his lifetime to even be recognized as a bonified candidate for the Democratic Nomination..

I'm not going to go back and forth with you. The instances you cite about Hillary are negligible. The instances I cite regarding Obama's preferences are about real people who have concerns he will never address and who will never be treated justly if he comes to power. Obama is a fraud and a charlatan.

Thank you for your concern for the financing of Hillary's campaign. It's being addressed as we type.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/images2/hillaryclinton_wideweb__470x308,02.jpg

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/donate-c.html?sc=a725

[merh]

81. Stop with the childish name calling.

Show some signs of being a mature adult.

My post reflect the facts and not talking points. I am willing to back them up if you like?

That is the problem with your posts, when you are truly challenged you go on the attack and you post using silly names while dodging the issues.

Did she vote for the Iraq War? yes

Is she a member of The Fellowship and has she praised and endorsed Doug Coe? Yes. (I haven't even mentioned her support of the Rev. Moon's odd efforts.)

Has she lied about her experience? Yes. Were her versions of Bosnia or the Irish Peace talks true? No.

Hillary is a creation of her own expectations, she has no experience - without Bill Clinton she would be where? He fights her battles, bloodies on her behalf, she claims her experience by virtue of being married to him yet she is a feminist? IMHO, not hardly.

Again, when it comes to discussing the things you perceive to be the issues you don't want discussion, you just want to attack and run - slam and bash and downgrade.

Tell me, what is her foreign policy position?

What about her views on the economy?

Is she for the war or against it, I haven't kept track of her flip flops to know the position of the week.

How did she explain that her health care program does include provisions that will require that wages be garnished to pay for the mandatory health care?

I could go on, but as you admit, my words fall on blinded eyes (though you said deaf ears - this is a written effort so you can't hear me). Just like your OP reflects, you view things as you want and not honestly. Hillary gave to dems in the same manner that Obama did. She just didn't give as much. If your OP reflected Hill and Obama buying super delegates, I never would have posted in your threads. I try to avoid them, they tend to be so negative and full of misinformation.

[OzarkDem]

95. You misrepresent her health care reform plan

and do a great disservice to the millions of uninsured Americans by spreading Obama's false information.

You may want to think about what it means to be a Democrat and whether throwing health care for uninsured Americans overboard by repeating GOP talking points is really what you believe in.

[merh]

98. yeah

okay, sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e18Qa56tMBU


she seems pretty clear

And it not talking points to discuss the facts, it is just discussing the facts and the issues I have with her "positions".

[OzarkDem]

101. I've read both plans in detail

as well as studied the economic impact of both plans on their long term sustainability. Obama's is unsustainable and he knows it. Clinton's plan was created to last for the long term and will keep health care costs down by covering everyone.

Using GOP talking points to kill attempts at universal health care is the icing on the cake.

[merh]

104. Mischaracterizing my post, another weak attempt to deflect

from the facts being discussed. She said garnishment would be one of the tools of enforcement in that video, don't you agree?

I'm not using GOP talking points, I am not trying to kill attempts at health care, I'm posting of my concerns relative to her positions and disputing the out right lies. Your projections and drama add nothing to the discussion and , imho, only prove the weak position of your candidate.

[OzarkDem]

106. Fearmongering of universal health care

is a GOP tactic.

I have insurance, I don't have to worry about it. But those who don't have insurance will be hurt. Someone should be thinking of them, and it appears Clinton is the only one.

[merh]

109. Not fear mongering about universal health care

just posting of my concerns about her plan as supported by the facts, as supported by her own words on that video.

Stop mischaracterizing my words and stick to the facts. She admitted in that video that garnishing wages would be one of the methods used to regulate and enforce her plan. I find the garnishment concept to be a bad part of her plan.

I don't have insurance, it matters a great deal to me.

And stop accusing me of using GOP tactics, that is just as childish as the name calling and as weak a discussion tool as your mischaracterizing of my posts.

[NDambi]

128. We have a winner.....you shut them both down with facts and calm...Kudos

[cali]

84. bwahahahaha! So sayeth Princess Hillbot

Too funny! What a hilly dittohead you are, with your hillyis44 avatar. You really are a brainwashed cultist.

[dchill]

69. I just love it when you drink too much!

Vodka and Ad Hominem. Bottoms up!

[Tellurian]

70. Ijust love the excuses you stoop to posting..

[dchill]

71. Me, too!

:hi:

[OzarkDem]

102. Welcome to DU

:eyes:

[dchill]

105. Right back at ya!

:)

[Drachasor]

7. I wish I could recommend AGAINST this thread

What a misguided accusation.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. The whole set up of American elections is about "buying" offices. If you think that's sleazy

(as I do) then look into getting publicly financed elections set in place across the board.

[totodeinhere]

9. I know Doris Matsui and nobody could buy her support.

But if she does end up endorsing Obama, remember that he won her congressional district.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Based on your "criterion" for buying super delegates, Hillary is doing the same thing.

This was stated clearly in your story.

Are you fucking blind?

[NanceGreggs]

55. You obviously don't understand ...

The amount Obama contributed was excessive (and an obvious attempt to buy votes), while the amount Hillary gave was reasonable and demonstrates that she was simply helping out her fellow Dems.

The reasonable amount threshold is $236,101. Hillary gave $236,100 - her contribution is thereby acceptable.

It's Hill-Math. Get it now?

[Buzz Clik]

73. Oh. I'm sorry.

:( :dunce:

[NanceGreggs]

77. Don't feel bad.

Hill-Math is incredibly hard to master at the best of times. And the fact that its mathematical basis keeps changing makes it almost impossible to grasp.

:hi:

[Bad Thoughts]

11. Democrats get Clinton elected ...

... Obama gets Democrats elected. It's quite simple.

[aquarius dawning]

12. don't forget Tellurian, it's OK when Obama does it....because he's Obama.

[anonymous171]

17. It's OK that they both do it.

They are helping other democrats by giving them campaign contributions. Obama just cares more about the party than Hillary.

[aquarius dawning]

25. I doubt it. he'd be playing the same game Hillary is playing if roles were reversed

and if it was perceived that Hillary was using a money advantage to purchase super delegates, we would never hear the fucking end of it. And God help us all if she was maintaining her delegate lead while simultaneously fighting to supress voters in states where Obama was favored. There would be riots in the streets if she pulled that stunt. No, it's OK because Obama is doing it and his supporters are motivated enough to ignore any and everything in their quest for power.

[juajen]

88. Hillary gives her time and has ever since she came to the Senate.

Her contribution is limitless, because she is very popular and her name at a fundraising event for a superdelegate is worth a lot of money, and goes directly into that person's campaign fund. Hillary also has given her time extensively at Dem Party Fund Raisers.

How many fundraisers did Barry give for fellow congress critters? Got any idea? Inquiring minds want to know.

[roguevalley]

27. they are both doing it. a lot of dems with dough help others, always

have. what is the problem here, that she gives less than Obama? She was busy buying first class hotels and corden bleu or she would have more to give. I suppose.

[Orangepeel]

35. From the link, they are both doing it. Obama is just doing it better.

I don't stipulate that donating to other candidates is a bad thing. But even if it were, Clinton would have no moral high ground on the issue. She just doesn't have as much money to give.

:shrug:

[dchill]

75. Some people call it "buying..."

others call it supporting. Obama supports fellow Democrats more than Candidate X.

[lligrd]

13. Perhaps You Better Donate More To Hillary

Looks like she can't afford any super-delagates. I thought they were your last hope.

[dkf]

93. lol. good suggestion to the OP.

[VolcanoJen]

14. Outrageous!!! The AUDACITY of giving money to Democratic politicians and their reelection coffers!

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. McCaskill and Obama have been allies since way before this campaign

He came to MO and helped her campaign in 2006. That was the first time any of us wondered if he might consider running for prez. And since she was elected, he has been her ally in the Senate.

So it isn't the least bit surprising that she is supporting him. It would be a surprise if she DIDN'T back him.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. Yes. Which is why the Richardson endorsement was a big deal in this campaign. It was

unexpected.

Clinton dumped vanity millions above and beyond what was necessary into her 06 Senate race, and now she comes out on the short end in terms of supporting fellow Democrats.

She also is relatively tapped out for her own needs.

Mis-management is catching up to her. She just doesn't appear to produce much in the competitive environment Obama brings to the primaries.

He seems to constantly be a couple of steps ahead of Clinton as first evidenced in Iowa, and then all the way through.

[mckeown1128]

Rumor has it he even campaigned for some Superdelegates...

in November of 2006... how dare he try to get them elected to fuel his ambitions as president.

[Vinca]

18. Isn't this a good thing since the superdelegates are Democrats

who will be running their own election campaigns? You make it sound like he's shipping them crates of champagne and sending them on cruises. Why is he giving more money than Hillary? Because he's taking in more money than Hillary.

[jgraz]

20. What a GREAT IDEA!!! I'm going to go donate to him right now!

I encourage all Obama supporters to do the same and help grow the Democratic majority this fall! At least we know OUR donations won't be used to buy donuts for Mark Penn.

Thanks, Tellurian! :hi:

[mckeown1128]

24. Wow.. they paid him 6 million in donuts... that explains a lot. nt

[jgraz]

29. More like 10

And yes, it does explain quite a bit.

[indimuse]

21. Are you F*cking kidding me?

This is SO Chicago! and disgustingly low...................

[Buzz Clik]

39. Huff! Huff! puff puff!

read the article. :eyes:

[madrchsod]

117. this is so chicago?

people who live in glass houses should put on clothes...the corruption in illinois is nothing compared to florida.

[Tatiana]

22. It's called "getting democrats elected." n/t

[TahitiNut]

23. I'm SHOCKED! Shocked I tell you that there's money given to political campaigns!!

Asshat.

[Forkboy]

26. This helps Dems so I can see why you'd be against it.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

62. Maybe we can set up a collection to buy Crazy over here some much needed treatment. n/t

[gaspee]

28. It's funny

The reactions to your post. If it were Clinton spending that much on superdelegates, the reaction would be a complete 180. Don't ever forget that Obama can do no wrong. That's the way to survive at DU these days.

[Nailzberg]

30. Using his fundraising and leadership powers to help other democratic campaigns? HAS HE NO SHAME?

[karynnj]

31. All this shows is that he helped Democrats more in 2006 than HRC

Obama used his leadership PAC to help elect Democrats - this is GOOD, not BAD. Some of these Democrats have gone on to endorse Clinton.

This is a contorted, twisted version of what "some people" tried in October 2006 with the "Hey, John" website - that targeted Kerry, who was using his PAC to raise something like $14 million for individual Democrats running in 2006, while praising Clinton for a $2 million donation to the DSCC - after a huge nationwide campaign with Bill Clinton calling her the number one GOP target to raise over $45 million for a 2006 campaign for Senate where her opponent was a sacrifical lamb- and a crazy one at that. ($10 million was given to the Presidential campaign - and that effort gave the 2008 race a huge donor list they could return to.)

This was posted extensively a month ago - refuted then - and it's back again - Why?

[nichomachus]

32. Clinton Campaign Deathwatch

Slate starts Clinton Campaign Deathwatch

[jgraz]

34. Obamanauts: please rec this thread up

Let's all help Dear Tellurian get the word out that Obama is helping other Democratic candidates. This should generate plenty of new donations for him.

Thanks! :toast:

[ima_sinnic]

36. gee, is Hillary too "pure" and "ethical" to contribute to Democratic campaigns?

or too broke? :rofl:

I don't understand your problem with this, except that Obama's contributions are bigger than Hillary's. So apparently you are just jealous. If you were truly righteously indignated, you'd be upset that Hillary is playing the exact same game, except she apparently can't afford to do it right. Please explain how Hillary is NOT trying to "buy" the nomination.

[BearSquirrel2]

85. That's a lie ...

Obama's contributions are NOT bigger than Hillary's. They're much smaller, and he gets a LOT more of them.

;-)

[1776Forever]

37. HRC tried this last year to no avail ...Obama's campaign struck back, sending out an e-mail ........

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/26/clinton_critiques_obama_pac.html

Obama's campaign struck back, sending out an e-mail with the subject line, "response to another false attack from hillary clinton."

"Whatever happened to the confident front-runner who said she wouldn't attack other Democrats just two weeks ago?" asked Bill Burton, the Obama campaign spokesman.

"The latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton is a completely false attempt to misrepresent Barack Obama's full disclosure of his campaign finances. Senator Obama's commitment to disclosure is one that Hillary Clinton does not share, and until Senator Clinton is willing to make this commitment - by disclosing her White House records, the list of donors to her husband's presidential library, how much her bundlers raise, and releasing her personal tax returns to the public -- she's not really in a position to point fingers at others."

The Obama campaign's campaign finance lawyer, Bob Bauer, also declared that " Senator Clinton's attack is completely meritless. These donations did not in any way violate the law."

............

Hypocrisy Alert: HRC Attacks Obama For Skirting Campaign Rules She Skirts

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/11/6293_hypocrisy_alert.html

You know the one about Caesar's wife?

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama has decried the dirty influence in Washington of lobbyists and their campaign contributions, suggesting that he--not Hillary Clinton--has the desire and ability to clean up Washington. After all, in the Senate, he did manage to pass an ethics and lobbying reform bill, and he has eschewed campaign contributions gathered ("bundled," in political parlance) by lobbyists. At the recent Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa, Obama proclaimed:

I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists -- and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am President.

That was a not-too-subtle dig at Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is fueled and guided by lobbyists.

So now the HRCers are fighting back, using whatever they can to tarnish the reformer challenging the Establishment favorite. The Washington Post reported today that Obama has used his leadership political action fund, Hopefund, to make $180,000 in donations to Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the critical early states. Which means he has been exploiting the leadership PAC scam long embraced by pols on both sides of the aisle to bolster their presidential ambitions--and to duck various rules about political fundraising and spending. Politicians routinely use these PACs to dole out contributions to present and future supporters, to underwrite their own political activity, and to keep aides on the payroll between elections. In fact, Hillary Clinton's leadership PAC, HillPAC, has been one of the biggest of these operations.

[unblock]

38. is the complaint that he's doing it at all? or that he's better at it than hillary?

[AX10]

40. McCatskill (McCatshill) has been in the Obama camp for a long time.

She was willing to call HRC a racist in order to boost support for Obama.
I will celebrate the day she is defeated.

[Lucky 13]

41. Karma's a bitch.

Let's review.

Obama legally gives money to help other Dems win, unconditionally - whether they are for or against him. Thereby helping the party and the superdelegates.

Hillary has her supporters send threatening letters to Pelosi/DCCC stating that they will cut funding if Pelosi won't change her statements to be more favorable to Hillary. Thereby hurting the party and the superdelegates.

I WONDER which the superdelegates, the DCCC, and the party will respond better to?


There's a little something called KARMA. If you act with generosity, people will do the same in return. They want to help your campaign - endorsements, interviews, donations, stumping, etc. If you try to EXTORT leaders of your own party for your own personal gain, people grow tired of your endless bullshit and will not only NOT support you, but ask you to fucking hit the bricks so we can all get behind the generous guy.

Karma's a bitch, ain't it?

[doublethink]

94. Nice Post. n.t.

[JKaiser]

43. I guess Obama isn't perfect either... GO Hillary!! Go Obama! Go Dems!

[POAS]

44. Shouldn't this headline read:

"Clinton tries but cannot outspend Obama in contributions to Democratic candidates."

Seems to me that both sides are playing that game but Obama has more cash.

[JKaiser]

45. I am donating to my candidate! Yippie!

[mopinko]

did you hurt your self with that triple lutz

tonya?

[intaglio]

46. K & R for the first time on a Tellurian thread!

Obama is doing more for Democrats than Clinton!

[rzemanfl]

47. I hope he gave them some of the money I sent him. Maybe he

gives more because he has more financial support from the people.

[Eric J in MN]

51. Only if you gave to the Vote Hope PAC. NT

NT

[MNDemNY]

49. It' is a campaign.

This is nothing unusual.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

50. sounds pretty smart to me. HCR doing it too - just didn't have enough

support to raise enough money to match his.

[Eric J in MN]

53. Another reason to end the superdelegate system for 2012.

The appearance of a conflict-of-interest when Leadership PACs donate shouldn't be allowed to continue.

We should get rid of the superdelegate system, get rid of Leadership PACs, or both.

[nichomachus]

74. Not so fast

I'm not crazy about this superdelegate mess, but let's look at the real world.

With the stupid, drawn-out primary process we have, public mood, opinion, and the support for candidates may change dramatically as the primaries progress.

There are people who knew things about both Obama and Hillary now that they didn't know when they cast their votes months ago. They may have changed their mind. Or, one or the other of the candidates may have done something by the time of the convention to turn the entire public mood against them and make them unelectable even among Democrats.

Superdelegates were created to avoid that.

I can imagine Candidate A (this is fictional) winning some of the early states, picking up big wins on SuperTuesday, and then getting enough primary delegates to win the nomination. Then, some time in late May, the candidate is overheard telling someone he hates labor unions and will do everything he can to eliminate them.

Without superdelegates, the convention would have to nominate Candidate A as the nominee, even knowing that he won't carry one state. Superdelegates could make sure that doesn't happen.

They say that in politics a week is an eternity. Six months is 26 times an eternity and a lot can happen.

If we had had a national primary four months ago, Hillary might have been the candidate, but it's possible that many people who voted for her when the primaries first started might change their vote if allowed to vote again today. Or vice versa.

To simply say, "Well that's how you voted and now you're stuck" is a death wish.

However, having said that, the superdelegates should vote for what they think the best interests of the party are, who is most electable, and who better represents the wishes of the members of the party. They shouldn't be bribed, arm twisted, threatend, etc. That's the problem -- not superdelegates.

[Eric J in MN]

111. Is your solution to eliminate Leadership Pacs...

...or to keep things as they are in this regard?

As long as Leadership PACs exist, they're going to donate to candidates who will later act as superdelegates.

[grantcart]

54. Obama helps his friend and his friends help him - its not fair whaaaaaa

[OzarkDem]

56. His corporate donors are buying them

And, please Obama supporters, we know that Obama is an expert at bundling.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. So the problem is that Obama donated more to other Democrats than Clinton?

But they both donated to Democrats who are also superdelegates? So Clinton is doing this nasty thing, and Obama is also doing this nasty thing, only Obama is doing more of it than Clinton. I'm confused here. Is it wrong for these candidates to donate to the campaigns of superdelegates or not? Please clarify.

By the way, Clinton's campaign terminated this week over the self inflicted Bosnian Delusion kerfluffle. How are you going to adjust when this fact becomes official?

[dchill]

66. "Bosnian Delusion kerfluffle"

That's a keeper. It's one of those cuts-to-the-heart phrases that's also funny as hell. It's also a heckuva Hertz Donut.
:)

[PoliticalAmazon]

59. Obama doesn't need to buy SDs. Hillary Clinton is reason enough to vote for Obama.

[texas_indy]

60. How horrible!!! He should be threatening them like Hillary does!! (nt)

[AZBlue]

61. How dare he help out other Dems, unlike Clinton who ONLY helps herself!

[Forkboy]

63. This thread has been a huge backfire.

:rofl:

[jgraz]

91. And there's a Hillary campaign tactic that hasn't been?

:D

[Forkboy]

97. Good point.

:spank:

[dchill]

65. If they were for sale...

then it was an auction, and Obama was the high bidder. Your candidate was too stingy.

[surfermaw]

And his voters threating with 11%

[surfermaw]

68. And his voters threating with 11%

[thewiseguy]

72. He also donated money to Hillary's senate campaign moran

[Warren Stupidity]

82. Does every senator get a campaign moran?

Can I get one too?

[jgraz]

92. Apparently Tellurian has the spot locked up for Hillary

[asthmaticeog]

80. So in *2005* he knew he'd be in a fierce, two-person race that came down to superdelegates?

Fuckin' hell, I'd be glad to have a prez with that kind of foresight.

[DrFunkenstein]

83. You Said It...I Want a Commander-in-Chief That Can See The Future!

Time to Donate!!!

[JVS]

126. Chelsea did hint that he was clairvoyant.

[SOS]

86. Obama's PAC gave Clinton $4,200

Is he trying to buy her SD vote?

[ima_sinnic]

87. another kick to remind everyone that Obama is more supportive of Dems

than you-know-who

the teeth-gnashing by HRC supporters on this thread is ridiculous! somehow Obama is "corrupt" because he gave MORE than HRC!! see, it's okay that she donates money to SD's, because she gives LESS! :rofl:

[GarbagemanLB]

89. OBAMA HELPS FELLOW DEMOCRATS MORE? Good to know! K&R!

[Yael]

90. Great news! K&R

Thanks!

[madfloridian]

96. All the Hillary 44s kicking each others' posts?

We heard that might happen, but not until Tuesday?

[cornermouse]

99. Reading down through the posts, I see a whole lot of ugliness on DU.

I thought some of you were better than that. Do you really think you can say these things now and expect the people you attacked so mercilessly help you get the candidate elected after the convention? What are you thinking?

[Inspired]

100. You mean like the campaign debt of Vilsack's that Hillary was paying for? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

103. There are two ways to look at it.

The first is that Obama is investing more money in the Democratic party's success than Clinton is.

The second way would be to think that campaign contributions are immoral. If that's the case, I expect you to petition Clinton to stop this activity, as well as all fundraising activities.

[CreekDog]

107. by your standard, they are both buying superdelegates

:eyes:

[Yael]

108. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

Ok then. Another kick.

:hi: Tellurian. Thanks again for the heads up!

[Crunchy Frog]

110. Boycott over already?

Gosh, I just missed you so much. :(

[jgraz]

112. Tellurian wasn't part of the boycott

Even the rabid Hillaroids have standards.

[40ozDonkey]

113. Is this the warm-up excuse for why the supers are leaving Hillary?

Because I was hoping for some more imagination, this registers about a 6/10. Can we say that Reverend Wright delivered the money to them in cloth bags with dollar signs painted on them? Can we say that Aníbal Acevedo-Vilá smuggled the money out through his socks?

Rise, meme, rise!

[graycem]

114. They tried this attack before...

Is this resurfacing as an attack point or is the OP late to the game? Hillary's campaign was whining about this apparently in late November.

Nov. 27th, 2007:

"with the theme that the increasingly desperate-sounding Clinton campaign is
pushing that Obama has essentially traded money from the Hope Fund for
endorsements in the early primary and caucus states, I find it supremely
ironic that one of the recipients of a contribution from the Hope Fund (in
the amount of $4,200) was none other than the Senate campaign of one Hillary
Clinton. Given the fact that she dumped $10 million in unused money from
her Senate campaign into the Presidential campaign, it's pretty clear that
the Hope Fund has indirectly supported Hillary's campaign.

Since these were supposedly all about getting endorsements, I wonder when
Hillary will be endorsing Barack Obama. (And FWIW, some of the other
recipients have endorsed Hillary.)"

By the way, here's a listing of all the House candidates who got money from
the Hope Fund for House races:

Altmire, Jason (D-PA) $7,500
Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) $5,000
Barrow, John (D-GA) $2,500
Bean, Melissa (D-IL) $15,000
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) $15,000
Boyda, Nancy E (D-KS) $2,500
Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $10,000
Burner, Darcy (D-WA) $2,500
Busby, Francine P (D-CA) $10,000
Carney, Chris (D-PA) $10,000
Castor, Kathy (D-FL) $1,000
Courtney, Joe (D-CT) $5,000
Cranley, John (D-OH) $5,000
Davis, Jack (D-NY) $5,000
Derby, Jill T (D-NV) $5,000
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $5,000
Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) $10,000
Edwards, Chet (D-TX) $5,000
Ellison, Keith Maurice (D-MN) $2,500
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) $7,500
Evans, Lane (D-IL) $10,000
Farrell, Diane Goss (D-CT) $6,500
Filson, Steve N (D-CA) $2,500
Gillibrand, Kirsten E (D-NY) $2,500
Goldmark, Peter James (D-WA) $1,000
Hafen, Tessa (D-NV) $5,000
Hall, John (D-NY) $1,000
Hare, Philip G (D-IL) $5,000
Hill, Baron (D-IN) $10,000
Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) $10,000
Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) $2,100
Jennings, Christine (D-FL) $2,500
Johnson, Hank (D-GA) $5,000
Kagen, Steven Leslie (D-WI) $2,500
Kellam, Phil (D-VA) $3,500
Kilroy, Mary Jo (D-OH) $5,000
Klein, Ron (D-FL) $7,000

[madrchsod]

115. obama helped bill foster take the illinois 14th

with an ad and endorsement. first time our district has a democrat representative for a thousand years...but where was hillary`s endorsement? ...every vote counts in the house and she did`t see fit to say anything. but that`s ok we did fine without her...why ? because it was grass roots democrats that did it.

foster`s up again in november will hillary endorse him? i know barack will.

bill foster gave the rebuttal to the bush`s drivel.


so i take it the Hillary supporters can not raise enough money for the rank and file democratic candidates? sure sounds like they are upset because he`s got more juice...

[AmericanUnity]

116. VOTED FOR BILL TWICE - NOW THE CLINTON'S ARE APPROACHING BUSH LEVEL DISDAIN IN MY HOUSE

[madrchsod]

118. caps lock key is stuck......

the level of disdain has reached critical mass here....

[rateyes]

119. Whodathunk that Obama would end up with much more

money than Clinton with which to campaign? That should tell you something.

[RBInMaine]

120. Uh, they BOTH have these PACS, his just has more $ because he's better as raising it.

[RBInMaine]

121. Another SLICKHILLY Desperation post.

[Johnny__Motown]

122. Have you heard about the Clinton supporters' letter sent to Pelosi?

[Danger Mouse]

123. Is this the official Tellurian Smear of the Day?

[DarienComp]

124. you mean Obama is helping democrats win?

string him up, I say.

[zulchzulu]

125. PACs are part of political reality in American politics.

If you think that PACs should not be in politics, then let's really address political financing in elections.

The OP apparently wants to point out how Obama's PAC gives money while Clinton's PAC gives money. Oh...Okie dokey...

[susankh4]

127. It is a somewhat disturbing trend, isn't it?

Coming from someone who claims to be so squeaky clean when it comes to financial influence.

[Hoof Hearted]

129. He's going to have to register himself as a lobbyist pretty soon.

[FogerRox]

130. Like I care.