Vewwy Intewesting.

Maybe that's because he has three times as much money as the Clinton Campaign?

verbal_jizm: Maybe that's because he has three times as much money as the Clinton Campaign?

Perhaps, but it's pocket change for the backers of said Clinton. I keep thinking about that letter that was sent to Pelosi telling her to shut her pie hole. That was interesting in a tin foily kind of way.

Senators Obama and Clinton have both engaged in a legal and open manner while providing funds to members of their political party. Some of the funds were provided three years ago. I first heard about this story at least a week ago on POTUS-08 on XM radio and didn't see why it is particularly news worthy then or now. Can someone please explain what the problem is?

GaryPDX: verbal_jizm: Maybe that's because he has three times as much money as the Clinton Campaign?

Perhaps, but it's pocket change for the backers of said Clinton. I keep thinking about that letter that was sent to Pelosi telling her to shut her pie hole. That was interesting in a tin foily kind of way.

what about the other donor that maxed out the annual donation in response to their letter? those donors are trying to pull weight they don't really have.

curmudge: Senators Obama and Clinton have both engaged in a legal and open manner while providing funds to members of their political party. Some of the funds were provided three years ago. I first heard about this story at least a week ago on POTUS-08 on XM radio and didn't see why it is particularly news worthy then or now. Can someone please explain what the problem is?

people just looking for something they can spin negatively.

read the headline in a normal voice. not scandalous, you're kinda like "so?"

now read it as the fox news promo guy. suddenly it sounds like the trailer to a horror movie.

curmudge: Senators Obama and Clinton have both engaged in a legal and open manner while providing funds to members of their political party. Some of the funds were provided three years ago. I first heard about this story at least a week ago on POTUS-08 on XM radio and didn't see why it is particularly news worthy then or now. Can someone please explain what the problem is?

It's legal. It just seems distasteful, as though the nomination were in the hands of the old smoke-filled rooms. Which it is, metaphorically speaking.

That man just gives, and gives and gives!

On a serious note, curmudge brought up POTUS 08 on XM (channel 130.) It's the best unbiased coverage I've found. Intelligent, balanced, and no shouting matches.

Nabb1: It's legal. It just seems distasteful, as though the nomination were in the hands of the old smoke-filled rooms. Which it is, metaphorically speaking.

Um, how is it not simply donating to the campaigns of people you support politically?

So now he's a humanitarian too?

wasn't this posted a while ago and had to do with money leftover from Obama's 2004 senate race redistributed (by the party) to other campaigns?

And all of a sudden, out of the blue, they are going toward him.

Funny how that works.

/Can we please kill everyone in DC?

What is the significance of this? Sincerely.

That's how you get hope & change in Washington. You buy it.

There is a common practice among the Democrats and Republicans (especially among Senators who only run every six years) to donate some of their extra campaign funds to other politicians in their party.

In comparison to most Democratic Senators, Clinton has long been considered to be a scrooge. And in 2006 there was quite a bit of criticism of Clinton's lack of donations to contested races. She was running a campaign in New York in 2006, but nobody considered her opponent a serious contender, and she was sitting on a $15 Million PAC. She outspent her opponent by a ten to one margin and donated less than half a million dollars to other Democratic races.

This is one of the reasons why a lot of Democrats see Obama as having much longer coattails than Clinton. She is stingy, and he is generous.

To all the people saying this is a non-issue: Put Republican names in there instead of Democrat names and rethink your position. Better yet, replace Hillary and Obama.

I heard once (no source, sorry) that one of the things a lot of Democrats have against Hillary is that she pulled in a crap load of money during her 2002 - 2006 fundraising drives and, unlike most other Democrats, hardly shared any of it with other candidates. Many Democratic candidates could have used the funds in the 2006 election, but Hillary sat on her money instead of helping the party.

Obama has more superdelegates; he also has more money.

Wow Hillary is stingy? Color me shocked.

She has proved time and again that her ambition are more important than the democratic party. It should come as not surprise that she doesn't donate to democratic campaigns. More democrats mean more competitors for her. Remember that it was under the Clinton administration that the democrats lost both houses of Congress in dramatic fashion. The Clintons have never been good for the Democratic party.

Didn't we already know he played better with the other DC children than Clinton does?

BobtheFascist: That's how you get hope & change in Washington. You buy it.

Pfft. You don't hope and change Washington by buying it; you sweet talk legions of people into to buying it for you.

Yea, but Hillary pimped out her daughter. THAT has to be worth more than just money.

And for those of you who want to attack the above statement, the Clinton's sent Chelsea to have breakfast with a superdelegate. If that is not "pimping her out", then there are no pimps in this world.

Unless, of course, you prefer PANDERING.

Either way - Hillary will not be the next President, nor will she be the next mother of the year.

If one takes the traditional understanding of the word "mother".

When super-delegates come out and support their candidates there are more that will be likely to support Obama than Clinton.

And since Dean is also a super-delegate, why does he not lead by example and support a candidate right now? That could end this thing real quick, assuming he'll support Obama.

Spitzer wannabe: Yea, but Hillary pimped out her daughter. THAT has to be worth more than just money.

And for those of you who want to attack the above statement, the Clinton's sent Chelsea to have breakfast with a superdelegate. If that is not "pimping her out", then there are no pimps in this world.

Unless, of course, you prefer PANDERING.

Either way - Hillary will not be the next President, nor will she be the next mother of the year.

If one takes the traditional understanding of the word "mother".

I wonder how many breakfast's she had with delegate's that aren't a horny 21 year old male? Probably none. Good thing it didn't work. The kid came out in support of Obama.

Also, from DailyKos:

"The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time."

CravenMorehead: When super-delegates come out and support their candidates there are more that will be likely to support Obama than Clinton.

And since Dean is also a super-delegate, why does he not lead by example and support a candidate right now? That could end this thing real quick, assuming he'll support Obama.

I think it is pretty safe to say he would support Obama. Obama seems to embrace the 50 state strategy and I get the feelings the Clinton's really hate Dean.

Somebody please take my apostraphes away.

Gregory F. Stuart: Who cares. I want McCain will to be president, because Americans are I am a farking retard who haven't hasn't learned their my lesson yet.

Sorry Greg... I'm going to have to give you a "D" on this because there were far too many corrections needed for it to be true. Please try harder next time... we won't be around forever to help you with your mistakes.

So are the Clinton fans going to come up with some Dolchstoßlegende about Obama sabotaging Hilary's rightful path to the presidency?

He's helping other Democrats get elected. That's a bad thing?

DamnYankees: He's helping other Democrats get elected. That's a bad thing?

If Obama funded a group who cured cancer, the Clinton camp would try to say that he had "undermined the prescription drug industry". I mean seriously, they have so little dirt (because there is so little to be had) on Obama himself, that they grasp and reach for anything they can.

You Obamabots are really some piece of work. The way you spin articles is amazing... if this were the other way around we'd be hearing about how Hillary is trying to buy the superdelegates and corrupt the process. But if Obama does it he's generous and a god-fearin' patriot while Hillary is a stingy cheap biatch.

Pathetic.

verbal_jizm: Maybe that's because he has three times as much money as the Clinton Campaign?

THIS
Link (new window)
If you don't RTFA just look at the graphs

CravenMorehead: When super-delegates come out and support their candidates there are more that will be likely to support Obama than Clinton.

And since Dean is also a super-delegate, why does he not lead by example and support a candidate right now? That could end this thing real quick, assuming he'll support Obama.

I'd guess it's because if (when) this goes to the convention Dean will be one of the key players in sorting out some sort of deal, and doesn't want to appear partisan.

The nice thing about this headline is that is talks about relative values. For example, maybe Obama donated $0.03 and Hillary donated $0.01. That would be compatible to the headline.

/Won't read the article
//Happy trolling

Gregory F. Stuart: Who cares. McCain will be president, because Americans are farking retards who haven't learned their lesson yet.

You post this is almost every Political thread I've seen. You're a broken record at this point. Your comment is not helpful. It's not interesting. It's not even smirk-worthy. It's just whiny biatching. Come up with something interesting, or funny, or even original to say, or take your emo-whining somewhere else.

deltabourne: You Obamabots are really some piece of work. The way you spin articles is amazing... if this were the other way around we'd be hearing about how Hillary is trying to buy the superdelegates and corrupt the process. But if Obama does it he's generous and a god-fearin' patriot while Hillary is a stingy cheap biatch.

Pathetic.

Check your facts, Skippy. Most of this happened in 2006, long before anybody cared about superdelegates being a factor in this election.

Indeed, this is old news. And the contributions came well before the 'death match' qualities of this nomination battle became apparent. For that reason, I don't see this in any way being an attempt to "buy" Superdelegates.

I think that depending on which side you root, you can say that Sen. Clinton hasn't been quite as willing as Sen. Obama to help get other Democrats elected .. or that Sen. Obama was planning for this eventuality since 2005 or so.

In fairness, it's been apparent for awhile now that one of these campaigns is not like the others as far as long-term planning is concerned.

random_brit_39: I'd guess it's because if (when) this goes to the convention Dean will be one of the key players in sorting out some sort of deal, and doesn't want to appear partisan.

He's stated pretty clearly that he doesn't want it to go to the convention. That's my whole point. He could start the process of ending this right now by supporting a candidate or by having a few of his buddies announce their support for their favorite candidate.

deltabourne: You Obamabots are really some piece of work. The way you spin articles is amazing... if this were the other way around we'd be hearing about how Hillary is trying to buy the superdelegates and corrupt the process. But if Obama does it he's generous and a god-fearin' patriot while Hillary is a stingy cheap biatch.

Pathetic.

Yes, when he gave handed around money in 2005 and 2006 it was all part of a diabolical plan to sway superdelegates to his side 3 years later! It couldn't possibly have anything to do with him having a good deal of money in his PAC, not being up for election himself that year and wanting to try to help the democrats take back the house and senate in 2006.

And it's farking hilarious to see someone such as yourself chastise others for assuming the worst about a Clinton.

deltabourne:

if this were the other way around we'd wouldn't be hearing about how Hillary is trying to buy the superdelegates and corrupt the process almost universally reviled by her fellow Democratic Senators.

FTFY

Part of the reason why Hillary's support among Supers is coming primarily from the folks who aren't elected is because she's such a cheap biatch when it comes to helping non-DLC Dems get elected.

Edsel: Check your facts, Skippy. Most of this happened in 2006, long before anybody cared about superdelegates being a factor in this election.

Do you really believe that this wouldn't be brought up as an attack against Hillary? Take your blinders off for a second and look.

In fairness, it's been apparent for awhile now that one of these campaigns is not like the others as far as long-term planning is concerned.

Well, Obama has been planning this since kindergarten.

sarcastrophe:

Do you really believe that this wouldn't be brought up as an attack against Hillary?

If the situations were reversed, then the people using it as an attack would be equally retarded as the stupid farks using it now. Something doesn't stop being idiotic just because the folks doing it happen to share your viewpoint on one issue or another.

sarcastrophe: Edsel: Check your facts, Skippy. Most of this happened in 2006, long before anybody cared about superdelegates being a factor in this election.

Do you really believe that this wouldn't be brought up as an attack against Hillary? Take your blinders off for a second and look.

So, if something would hypothetically be used unfairly against Hillary, we're supposed to use it unfairly against Obama?

I'm confused. I don't think it would be right to attack Hillary on this, so why would I attack Obama on it?

sarcastrophe: Do you really believe that this wouldn't be brought up as an attack against Hillary? Take your blinders off for a second and look.

What makes you think it won't be brought up as an attack on Obama? Hillary will take anything and spin it in her favor.

CravenMorehead: What makes you think it won't be brought up as an attack on Obama? Hillary will take anything and spin it in her favor.

How's that working out for her?

How to post in this thread without looking like an idiot, a partisan troll or both:

- Read the posts by Code_Archeologist, SomeoneDumb, and FeedTheCollapse

- Read them again

- Count to 10, let it sink in

- Ask yourself if you have anything sensible to contribute

- Hit the back button and surf over to a Wright thread anyways