What $6.4 Million Can Do

Kristin Teigen

Before I became a graduate student and mother, I was a nonprofit administrator, and worked with a wide variety of organizations. Each group had very ambitious plans, along with ample energy, ideas and commitment. What was in short supply, as with most nonprofits, was money. What we could do with more money, I always thought.

That’s why, when I heard of Hillary Clinton’s decision to lend her campaign $6.4 million dollars, I found myself shaking my head. While I’m an avid Obama supporter, I had believed that Clinton was a person committed to social change. If someone said that her run for the presidency was simply an ego trip, I would disagree and say, no, the woman has heart. When she decided to spend $6.4 million on what is now a lost campaign, however, I had to question my impression of her.

Certainly, she can do whatever she wants with her money. Her loan of $5 million earlier in the campaign seemed to make a bit more sense, given that she then stood a small but unmistakable chance. If she truly wanted to pursue social change, though, and improve the everyday lives of Oregonians, let’s look at what $6.4 million could have done.

The Environment: Clinton has tried to portray herself as more committed to the environment than Barack Obama. However, a tidy little sum of $6.4 million would cover the entire budget for 1000 Friends of Oregon for 6 years.

Lesbian, gay, bi, transgender and queer rights: Clinton has tried to align herself with the LGBTQ community, Ellen Degeneres and all. With a donation of $6.4 million, however, Basic Rights Oregon could pay every last bill they have for almost 7 years.

Women’s Rights: Clinton also tries to portray herself as the true feminist, and seems to pursue her candidacy as a singular effort to better the lives of all women. If she bowed out now, though, she could fund the National Organization for Women Foundation for over 12 years.

Health Care: Clinton is supposedly the health care candidate, proving her point with her recent visit to Oregon’s Doernbecher Children’s Hospital. Now, the hospital has an exceptional program, unique to the West Coast, to provide comprehensive support to families with a baby in the neonatal intensive care unit. With the money just lent to her campaign, Clinton could have paid for that program for an astonishing 90 years.

Unless Barack Obama self-destructs in an unprecedented conflagration, Clinton’s money will be a wasted investment. So, given that her candidacy will most likely last just a few more weeks, isn’t there a better way to spend the money?

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Kristin, You are so smart! What a great contrast for that money. I also find it interesting that she paints Obama as elitist, while she can afford 12 million over a few months for her campaign.

  • gl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So having $12m is elitist?

  • (Show?)

    I'd gladly take 50,000 from Hillary Clinton since she seems to be tossing her money around. I just need a little to pay off my loans and maybe buy some more Wii games.

  • Admiral Naismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So it's come to this. A once promising campaign for President has devolved into an expensive mid-life crisis.

    I can't help feeling sorry for her. Hopefully, at least, she'll go on to be a legendary Senator whose very name will cause Republicans to descend into inarticulate raging for decades to come. Just like Ted Kennedy.

  • (Show?)

    So having $12m is elitist?

    It does reduce one's credibility in accusing others, especially others without your advantages, of being elitist, yes.

    It's the same lack of credibility that McCain has, with his multi-millionaire wife, eight homes, private jets . . .

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is on a level of (il)logic equal to criticizing Phil Knight for wanting to give a gazillion dollars to the University of Oregon. Clinton's dollars are hers to dispose of as she wishes. Knight--similarly. (The issue with Knight is his using the money as a lure to entrap the State of Oregon into floating bonds to help pay for Knight's latest monument to his ego...I mean, stadium.)

    I could probably find some way to criticize Ms. Teigen over the way she spends her money, and then feel morally superior to her. And she could turn the tables on me.

    I feel drained by the Clinton/Obama match. We're into endless overtimes here. I wish it would all just go away. But sorry, this is one Obama supporter who will not tell Hillary Clinton what to do.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is on a level of (il)logic equal to criticizing Phil Knight for wanting to give a gazillion dollars to the University of Oregon. Clinton's dollars are hers to dispose of as she wishes. Knight--similarly. (The issue with Knight is his using the money as a lure to entrap the State of Oregon into floating bonds to help pay for Knight's latest monument to his ego...I mean, stadium.)

    I could probably find some way to criticize Ms. Teigen over the way she spends her money, and then feel morally superior to her. And she could turn the tables on me.

    I feel drained by the Clinton/Obama match. We're into endless overtimes here. I wish it would all just go away. But sorry, this is one Obama supporter who will not tell Hillary Clinton what to do.

  • (Show?)

    Joel,

    Yeah, I agree that she can do what she wants with it..I think I wrote something to that effect...but for someone who says she suggests she wants change, I was pointing out some other ways the money could be very well spent.

  • Alex W (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kirstin, it's a LOAN! A loan, not a donation. And that's not the only problem with your reasoning. If you are 'serious', as you choose to put it - and think that's a poor choice of word - about your interest social change etc., why are you not also raising the wider issue of the huge amounts of money raised for and spent on these campaigns?

    Clinton, like many of her supporters, myself included, does not believe Obama will be able to make the changes that he would like to make. Now, the examples you've given, I sorry - and surprised - to have to point out, are examples of short-term, palliative, remedies to problems which require real solutions. You may think that's a good way for a formidable politician to invest her money, but I'm not sure you should think so except that it serves your purpose, of course.

    Yours, with these examples, is a very cheap shot at what is at least an historic candidacy which no-one but Clinton and her supporters (of which, remember, you are not one) should calling an end - which is essentially what you're doing by criticizing her in this way.

    Besides, even if you do not believe she is investing in America's future, it should have occurred to you that her political future may depend very much on her seeing this through until June. If you don't know why this might be, I suggest you google it or, better still, if you know a politician ask them and they will explain it to you.

  • (Show?)

    I'm a solid Obama fan but Alex does raise a legit issue - the vast sums raised and spent on both of these campaigns.

    I was talking to a conservative friend of mine about politics last night over pizza and at the end of the conversation he said that it will be very interesting to see what kind of special interests Obama has taken money from. It's a legit concern. Weakened, IMHO, by the political realities which require raising vast sums from which ever quarter one can. But the fact remains that while Obama has done incredibly well raising huge sums from average citizens, he (like Hillary and McSame) has taken vast sums from special interests too.

    We need serious, fundamental campaign finance reform in this nation in the worst way!! And sooner rather than later!

  • (Show?)

    One key reason that I'm an Obama supporter is that he does not believe the efforts of grassroots organizations like 1000 Friends, Basic Rights Oregon, or NOW are simply "palliative" efforts, but a key and undeniable part of the process that brings about substantial social change. The presidency isn't a dictatorship -- Obama knows that bottom up democracy is what it takes to create change.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Carl Fisher | May 10, 2008 11:40:05 AM I'd gladly take 50,000 from Hillary Clinton since she seems to be tossing her money around. I just need a little to pay off my loans and maybe buy some more Wii games.

    ROFLMAO - I love it!

    ;-)

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kirstin, it's a LOAN! A loan, not a donation.

    Regardless of whether it is a loan or a donation, it is a waste of money. There were stories floating around that her campaign has lots of unpaid bills. It seems like a good idea, if that is true, to make sure they are paid. As for the National Organization of Women it represents a great idea, but the leadership has shown a willingness to abandon women, like those who have been killed and maimed and raped in Iraq and the mothers and loved ones who have lost husbands, brothers and other loved ones in an illegal war that Hillary endorsed and supported.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary might want to save a couple of bucks for aspirin. Obama has an almost 100% white crowd in Bend cheering him on.

  • (Show?)

    Despite my strong disagreement with NOW's endorsement decision (National Organization FOR Women btw), they have been very outspoken critics of the war. Also, disclosure...the organization is a former employer, one of those nonprofits I mentioned.

  • (Show?)

    I have heard speculation that Clinton needs to continue to campaign precisely because she needs to raise money to pay down her debt -- and that the Obama campaign is in a position to do just that.

  • (Show?)

    If it's a loan, then presumably she'll be raising more money to pay herself back? How much does political fundraising compete with non-profit fundraising?

    There are a couple of philosophical issues this raises for me. One is electoral politics vs. advocacy politics vs. philanthropy (including much smaller scale) vs. volunteerism as ways to address social problems and meet social needs.

    E.g. every year I give a certain amount of money to non-profit advocacy or advocacy & service groups -- but maybe I should give it all to service groups.

    Also, with non-profits, I have some concerns about the way that they construct themselves as in essence marketers of political or other services. There are a few in which if I become "a member" I actually have some sort of say in the governance and priorities of the organization. But mostly I don't. My role is to give money, period, especially for the D.C. focused groups. This leads to seeing activism & advocacy through consumerist eyes. It also I think leads to a certain fragmentation of progressive politics, through competition and turf-divvying. Organizational priorities overtake movement building and single issue focus (or identity-defining/ branding issue choices for ostensibly multi-issue groups) overtake cooperation, coordination, analysis & organizing and mobilizing around the interconnections of issues.

    And then there is ideas/ "think tanks" question. Big progressive funders tend to want to give to groups that deliver services, whereas on the right, there is a willingness to fund analytical and ideological work that sustains their politics. (Bringing us back around to politics vs. supporting direct practical work on problems). Probably media questions fit somewhere in here too.

    Bill's point about campaign finances is right I think. A couple of related dimensions are the abominably long political campaigns, and perhaps most pertinent to Kristin's main point, the rules about what can be done with political donations.

    Let's imagine Barack Obama, if through whatever unlikely process Hillary won the nomination. He would be sitting on a big pot of $$. Now, he'd be allowed to keep it for future campaigns, and also to donate it to other politicians for their campaigns. But I think he'd probably be legally restricted from donating to the kinds of things Kristin suggests and the many other variants thereof, or from say something like endowing Air America or some other progressive media organization (extant or start-up). He could form a PAC, but I'm not sure about a progressive think tank or advocacy group.

  • John Mulvey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not sure where you get off thinking other people have a moral obligation to give their money to the things you like.

    It's the typical Obamite double-standard: You could call on your own candidate to put his money into funding NOW for 12 years instead of spending it on uplifting soft-focus ads. But you won't. Only Hillary Clinton has some special ethical obligation to you.

    You also could respond directly when she points to her better environmental record, her better record on gay and lesbian equality and her better record on women's issues. If you could, you'd describe how your candidate is better on those issues. You don't, because you can't.

    Now tell me again how your campaign is about bringing us together?

    John

  • Bpaul (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Admiral, "Hopefully, at least, she'll go on to be a legendary Senator whose very name will cause Republicans to descend into inarticulate raging for decades to come. Just like Ted Kennedy."

    CRACKED me up, I love it.

    I agree.

  • julie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Once again we are off on a tangent. Once again we are focusing away from Obama's lack of experience and lack of an action plan to carry about the great vision of change he preaches. Once again, you all have been distracted away from Obama's inability to lead this country. Youv'e been mislead and duped by this man.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is NOT an endorsement of Hillary Clinton:

    Obama's Money Cartel

    The Obama Bubble Agenda

    "Senator Obama’s premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists."

    "Those critical thinkers over at the Black Agenda Report for the Journal of African American Political Thought and Action have zeroed in on the making of the Obama bubble:

    'The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in memory. That’s not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience.'"

    "Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a President Obama to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes, 'Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing.'"

  • (Show?)

    John,

    I'm not suggesting that Hillary support organiztions that I like, but to those that further issues she purports are priorities for her. If she wants to further her social agenda, giving to organizations might do far more for what she suggests she believes in than campaigning for a few more mere weeks.

  • admiralnaismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clinton and McCain are just the latest examples of spoiled rich people attempting to buy their way into office. Their behavior raises the question, "is it possible to have both Democracy and rich people"?

    A question at least as old as wealthy General Washington.

  • (Show?)

    Given Obama's inexperience at launching a campaign, at least compared to HC, he has carte blanche led a national campaign that will go down in the books of history as a new model. While not perfect, it has been incredible to watch it grow from the beginning. The people, the strategy and much of the fundraising have been spot on, intuitive and responsive. On the other side, a candidate who had much "built in", HC, has squandered every advantage, political and financial. It has appeared top heavy, unsure, corporate , tone deaf and usually a step behind. Bordering on the bizarre. It is approaching a tragedy. The rather far reaching and interesting theories as to why she would spend 6.4 million on a lost cause right now are rooted in a gut feeling by many people, regardless of political ideology, that the Clinton machine will always try to bend the will of people and reality to suit their personal needs. If you have to "win" on a technicality or a loophole no one else foresaw, is it really a victory ?

  • (Show?)

    John Mulvey,

    It isn't a double standard, it's a difference of opinion on whether Hillary Clinton still has a legitimate chance to win the nomination.

    The premise of the piece is essentially that Senator Clinton is throwing good money after bad ("bad" only in the sense that what she's spent hasn't got her what she hoped, and "good" only in the sense of not yet spent).

    Kristin said it's Hillary's money to do with as she wishes. She provided heuristic examples. If Hillary were to choose alternate uses for this money for social change, Kristin hasn't said a word about where she should choose to spend it.

    I agree with Kevin that Alex has a legitimate point about the vast expenses of these campaigns, including Senator Obama's.

    On "records," as far as I am concerned there is not much to choose between them. Nor on their actual policy positions. I intended to abstain until Hillary went too far with talk about "obliterating" another country. If I hadn't already voted, her USA Today statement equating "hard working Americans" with "white Americans" would have reinforced my decision to vote against her.

    No primary campaign is about "bringing us together" -- primaries are inherently divisive. Obama is articulating a vision of using the presidency, not the campaign, to bring people together. Whether he'll get the chance, and if he does, whether he'll succeed, we'll just have to see.

    Personally I have two worries about that: 1) that he will compromise things that should not be compromised in the name of unity, and 2) that the feelings he has inspired and mobilized may be turned to cynicism if he doesn't live up to the promises or is prevented from doing so.

    I have different worries about Hillary, if she were nominated. First there is the bellicosity. Beyond that, Jonathan Chait in the New Republic has what is in my view an acute analysis of her populism which I find all the more persuasive because it describes Bill Clinton's politics and policies as president very well too.

    Also, I don't see much difference between the fervor that he inspires and that which Hillary inspires.

    Both have been subject to unfair attacks, but I don't think in the same way.

    While there was a period, particularly around Iowa and New Hampshire, when Hillary was being subjected to gross and unfair misogynist attacks and framing, they came primarily from Republicans and the media.

    Unfortunately a section of Hillary's supporters have actively taken up Republican Muslim-baiting smears (including in this forum), and unfortunately some of her supporters with the collusion of the media have taken up considerable race-baiting, and most unfortunately of all, Hillary herself and Bill Clinton have at least played footsie with the race-baiting themselves.

    However, I would accept it as fair comment that Obama passively took advantage of the misogyny. Neither candidate has done what one might have hoped in terms of rejecting identity-based attacks on the other one, in the common name of opening up opportunity to all that they each represent, and could both have represented together, had they chosen. That they didn't perhaps goes back to the inherent divisiveness of primaries.

    I remain greatly worried that either Clinton or most likely Obama may end up being like Al Smith was in 1928 -- a historic first nominee (Smith being the first Catholic nominee) who is defeated in the general because the prejudices that prevented an earlier female or black nominee are still too active in society.

  • (Show?)

    John Mulvey,

    It isn't a double standard, it's a difference of opinion on whether Hillary Clinton still has a legitimate chance to win the nomination.

    The premise of the piece is essentially that Senator Clinton is throwing good money after bad ("bad" only in the sense that what she's spent hasn't got her what she hoped, and "good" only in the sense of not yet spent).

    Kristin said it's Hillary's money to do with as she wishes. She provided heuristic examples. If Hillary were to choose alternate uses for this money for social change, Kristin hasn't said a word about where she should choose to spend it.

    I agree with Kevin that Alex has a legitimate point about the vast expenses of these campaigns, including Senator Obama's.

    On "records," as far as I am concerned there is not much to choose between them. Nor on their actual policy positions. I intended to abstain until Hillary went too far with talk about "obliterating" another country. If I hadn't already voted, her USA Today statement equating "hard working Americans" with "white Americans" would have reinforced my decision to vote against her.

    No primary campaign is about "bringing us together" -- primaries are inherently divisive. Obama is articulating a vision of using the presidency, not the campaign, to bring people together. Whether he'll get the chance, and if he does, whether he'll succeed, we'll just have to see.

    Personally I have two worries about that: 1) that he will compromise things that should not be compromised in the name of unity, and 2) that the feelings he has inspired and mobilized may be turned to cynicism if he doesn't live up to the promises or is prevented from doing so.

    I have different worries about Hillary, if she were nominated. First there is the bellicosity. Beyond that, Jonathan Chait in the New Republic has what is in my view an acute analysis of her populism which I find all the more persuasive because it describes Bill Clinton's politics and policies as president very well too.

    Also, I don't see much difference between the fervor that he inspires and that which Hillary inspires.

    Both have been subject to unfair attacks, but I don't think in the same way.

    While there was a period, particularly around Iowa and New Hampshire, when Hillary was being subjected to gross and unfair misogynist attacks and framing, they came primarily from Republicans and the media.

    Unfortunately a section of Hillary's supporters have actively taken up Republican Muslim-baiting smears (including in this forum), and unfortunately some of her supporters with the collusion of the media have taken up considerable race-baiting, and most unfortunately of all, Hillary herself and Bill Clinton have at least played footsie with the race-baiting themselves.

    However, I would accept it as fair comment that Obama passively took advantage of the misogyny. Neither candidate has done what one might have hoped in terms of rejecting identity-based attacks on the other one, in the common name of opening up opportunity to all that they each represent, and could both have represented together, had they chosen. That they didn't perhaps goes back to the inherent divisiveness of primaries.

    I remain greatly worried that either Clinton or most likely Obama may end up being like Al Smith was in 1928 -- a historic first nominee (Smith being the first Catholic nominee) who is defeated in the general because the prejudices that prevented an earlier female or black nominee are still too active in society.

  • (Show?)

    Actually, if this all plays out in the way it normally does in American presidential politics, Hillary's not spending her money now, she's spending Obama's money.

    As of this week it's clear that Hillary has no chance of winning the nomination unless Obama forfeits it in some way.

    Traditionally, that means negotiations will soon start for how Hillary is going to get out of the race. One aspect of those negotiations will be how much of her campaign debt the Obama campaign will underwrite when she discontinues her campaign and starts stumping for his.

    If Hillary and her campaign stop attacking Obama and instead turn more positive/more toward attacking McCain, that will be the sign that negotiations are imminent or already in progress. If she does that, chances are the Obama campaign will cover her debts, including a good chunk--and quite possibly even all--of the money she lent her campaign.

  • (Show?)

    Doretta,

    Man, that is so depressing and gives me an even more unfortunate impression of her.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary might want to save a couple of bucks for aspirin. Obama has an almost 100% white crowd in Bend cheering him on.

    An all-white crowd in Bend does not count. Only all-white crowds in a place like Shepherdstown, West Virginia count.

    The Shepherdstown crowd is entirely Godfearing working class folks. The Bend crowd consists entirely of childless creative-class doofuses who work at home, plus Californicators who liquidated their assets and moved to Oregon in order to drive up our housing prices, corrupt our youth, smoke a little weed, and try to impose their decadent life style on everyone else. They only like Obama because it allows them to feel smug and superior.

    The Willamette Valley does not count, either, for the same reasons as Bend.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Also, those white folks in Bend and the Willamette Valley are all Buddhists, which is practically the same as Muslim, just like Osama Obama.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Also, those white folks in Bend and the Willamette Valley are all Buddhists, which is practically the same as Muslim, just like Osama Obama.

  • (Show?)

    I understand finding what Doretta said depressing. But I have the exact opposite reaction to it because the fact that it's even being discussed means that the end of this wearying, frustrating campaign is very near. I also think that what she described is political reality and I no more blame Hillary for following the inside baseball conventions of presidential politics than I do the men who created those conventions long before she became a candidate.

  • Isabella , Canada (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Did it ever occur to anybody that Hillary Clinton is running for President because she truly thinks that she has the right vision and solutions for your country. The press has been against her from the start and applied far more scrutiny to her than Obama. She had to work twice as hard to show that gender would not go against her whilst Obama learned right away how to use his race to his advantage. This has been an eye opener for me , never thought Americans could be so mean spirited and unfair. This should be a democratic process to find the best candidate to run in the general election. One vote and have it counted. Instead you are mired down with an inept DNC and leadership ,never ending amounts of endorsements and let's not forget the mess with Florida and Michigan. The enormous amounts of money being raised and bragged about , are quite frankly obscene. I have great respect for Hillary Clinton , she is extremely smart and intelligent , and her knowledge of world affairs is impressive. I can't understand that you would consider one of the most liberal and inexperienced Senators to lead your country. He , who voted 133 times " PRESENT " when it was his elected duty to take a stand. I was really hoping that after the last 7 years , you would get it right , yet once again you opt for likability over substance.

  • (Show?)

    Joel,

    Please tell me you're being satirical otherwise I'm gonna have to delete you for hate speech. Even then, some satire goes too far. Seriously.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Actually according to what was published on Huffpo the figure is $25 million in increments, considering the original $ 5 mil was never paid off. So basically Hillary is asking her donors to contribute so she can move the money into her personal account.

  • Tara (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kristin , You go to great lenght regarding Clinton's money , however you fail to address the large amounts of money Obama has raised and spent , actually many times out spent Clinton at times 3 to1. The outrageous part , which is rarely mentioned , is that certain amounts of money find their way to districts where a delegate has come forth with an endorsement. I believe Patrick Murphy received $ 30 000.00 after endorsing Obama. You call that democracy..???

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The unravelling state of the Clinton Campaign, as seen in Op/Ed pieces around the country:

    http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/smattering-of-stories-from-around.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Seeds+of+Destruction&st=nyt&oref=slogin

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joel,

    Please tell me you're being satirical otherwise I'm gonna have to delete you for hate speech. Even then, some satire goes to far. Seriously.

    Do him a favor, Kristin, and delete him.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama has been very successful in democratizing the funding of a political campaign. 1.5 million small donors. That's success, that's democracy, instead of going to lobbyists to raise money for him. The money he has given to allies to help them win elections has come, not from his campaign funds but a PAC he set up to help those people. There is nothing illegal or unethical about it. People donated that money to help Democrats get elected. If he an win Dem. allies by helping them win elections, there's nothing at all wrong with that. What he doesn't do is ask his donors to give money so he can pay himself back, which is what Hillary is doing right now, with growing failure.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Doretta: "If Hillary and her campaign stop attacking Obama and instead turn more positive/more toward attacking McCain, that will be the sign that negotiations are imminent or already in progress. If she does that, chances are the Obama campaign will cover her debts, including a good chunk--and quite possibly even all--of the money she lent her campaign."

    <hr/>

    Actually this is wrong.This can't happen. It is illegal to transfer funds from one campaign to another for this purpose. What he can do, to help her eliminate the debt, is assist with fundraising new money. That's the extent of it. He might do that in order to win peace in the party. But right now that's all speculative.

  • Tara (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill R. Your comment is misleading , a lot of obama's money is being channeled through black churches and I believe there have been several investigations already as they are enjoying tax free status. Without question his campaign has been very successful raising funds. Let us not be too naive however , all candidates will owe something to somebody , whoever wins.

  • (Show?)

    Man, is it just me or are Clinton supporters getting so desperate that they'll do anything (i.e. "he's gonna owe black churches) to win. Give it up.

  • (Show?)

    Bill,

    Joel has proven himself to be rationale in other comments so I'm thinking that either pod people ate his brain or he was making a joke. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • Tara (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kristin , read my comment again and you will see that my last sentence was not relating to any particular candidate. Obama supporters only see what they want to see and going by your last comment , certainly not so smart after all. I am not supporting any candidate , I would like to think that I am entitled to my humble unbiased opinion.

  • (Show?)

    Tara, it is a projection by Clinton supporters that Obama supporters think they are smarter. Look at Isabella's statement, quite typical of committed Hillary supporters. Clearly she thinks that she and others who support Hillary are smarter (better able to discern substance) than Obama supporters. The deeply committed on both sides believe their reasons best. It is much more frequent around here to find people saying "I can't believe you're supporting Obama" as if no reasonable or sane person could. On the other hand, it is more common to find Obama people saying things like "you are (or Hillary is) deluded if you/she still think/s she can win." These are both insults, though different forms. We might all do well to lay off of them.

    There are numbers of stories around about the issue of Clinton's debts being one of several pieces of negotiation that would have to go on -- several I have read say that of $11 million Hillary owes, $10 million are to Mark Penn and that that is actually an obstacle for the Obama campaign.

    Kristin, that all of this money is being spent by anyone in the ways it is, is a big problem for democracy in this country.

    Also Joel has identified himself as an Obama supporter elsewhere & is being satirical. Notice that in talking about Bend he doesn't mention any old people? In the retirement hub of Oregon? It's just the old e-mail too flat for satire & irony problem.

    It is true that Obama has a high ratio of small donor sourced contributions in his huge war chest. But they are the margin or part of it of how much more he has than Clinton. He also has taken a fortune from corporate interests & big money bundlers.

    Isabella, of course it has occurred to me that Hillary Clinton is running for exactly the reasons you state, at least in part. My doubts and questions about her don't have to do with her motives for running. They have to do with whether I agree with her about her visions and solutions being the right ones. I don't -- actually I don't think Obama's are either, on some I'd give him an edge, on some Clinton, but both have very serious policy deficiencies from my point of view.

    What made decide to vote for Obama was Hillary going too far with her bellicosity and willingness to throw around the idea of "obliterating" another country for campaign advantage. If that's the kind of "judgment" her experience has given her, no thanks. The increasing racialization of her campaign might have pushed me to vote against her too, if Iran hadn't got there first.

    It is too bad. I don't know if the pressure to "prove" that "her gender would not go against her" as you put it contributes to her overly aggressive military positions, or if that's just what she thinks. But I completely agree with you that the press was enormously unfair to her, especially before New Hampshire (after which they backed off some). The ways they were unfair do show that sexism and misogyny are more acceptable in public than racism, in my view. Had she run a different campaign that might have been enough to lead me to vote for her, because as I say I'm not all that favorable to the policy positions of either of them, except by contrast to John McCain.

    But in my case, anyway, Obama didn't win my vote so much as Hillary pushed me into giving it him. If she would say and do so much that I don't think she really believes to win, how can I trust that she's saying what she really believes that I do like? Especially when the record of the Clinton administration of which she was a part and offers as her experience acted quite differently on them?

  • (Show?)

    Proving once again that regardless of who I support, my brain is cheese and unable to remember to hit the preview button.

  • (Show?)

    Obama supporters only see what they want to see and going by your last comment , certainly not so smart after all.

    Once again I am evidently an unintelligent, uninfomed, blind sheep herd member because I support Obama over Clinton.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tara: "Your comment is misleading , a lot of obama's money is being channeled through black churches and I believe there have been several investigations already as they are enjoying tax free status."

    You are making specific and unsubstantiated allegations. Proof, proof!!.. This is pathetic.. it's those "blaaaaaaaaaaack, churches.." So this is part of the new Hillary bumper sticker, "Vote White!" Keep those awful blaaaaaaaaaaaaaack people from taking over! Really pathetic! It's over!! Deal with it!

  • (Show?)

    Kristin, actually, I don't find it all that problematic. Politics is often mostly a matter of horse trading, when it gets down to it.

    Bill, stay tuned.

  • redcellpolitical (unverified)
    (Show?)

    HRC remains in the race because she has come closer than any woman in history. HRC remains in the race because she genuinely believes she can beat John McCain and though she said Obama could, she doesn't believe it. HRC is still in the race because something tells her Democrats and Independents and disaffected Republicans are more racist than misogynist. HRC is still in the race because if not her ops team, then a Republican ops team or a dissident Democratic team is searching hard for the one thing that will deflate or pop the Obama balloon, like he slept with white women, like he didn't only use drugs, he sold them, or still uses them, something anything that leaves her not an also ran but the person who can pick up the pieces and carry on the fight.

    I am a bit pissed that the media (left right and center) got so tipsy on the black guy and the woman thing that they sucked up all the oxygen and everyone else suffocated from lack of coverage, or coverage of them as pathetic non-starters. I believe either one of these people could be an effective President in different ways and really a computer set up with maybe a vocabulary of 300 words with a few algorithms to prevent a nuclear launch could do a less destructive job than GHB has. But John Edwards was truly devoted to ending poverty in america and was willing to face it as a historic challenge that might even deprive him of spending time with his very sick wife, Bill Richardson blew both Obama and Clinton out of the water in terms of experience. Senator, Governor, Cabinet Secretary, UN Ambassador etc etc representative of the next ethnic majority in the US. Joe Biden... very experienced but a bit of nutter, even poor misunderstood and laughed at Dennis Kucinich (sp) deserved much better than he got. I think its a bit late to be worried about how much money has been raised and spent, or how much will be raised and spent before the convention. I believe both of these people could beat McCain if the wind is right. I am beginning to care not a bit about which one wins.

  • (Show?)

    This whole thread is stupid. Sorry folks, just stupid.

    Want to take the moral high ground?

    Fine. Obama is backing out of a pledge to take public financing because he says he's created a "new" public finance system.

    Kristin, don't you think Obama, if he's "really committed to change" (your words) should go for public financing and encourage all of his supporters to donate money to those wonderful causes you list above?

    Hell, that would put Hillary Clinton's five million to shame!

    Senator Clinton is trying to win the nomination. Loaning her campaign money shows one thing and one thing only: her campaign is struggling to raise money.

    It does not say one thing at all about her commitment or lack of commitment to social change.

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton will be our next president.

    Hillary is spending millions in Her campaign ,but a political campaign is important for our country and for all democratic nations. Obama is also spending millions in His campaign ( more than Hillary) and I think is ok.

    In this country many people spend their money in things that are not importants for others and regularly not many people care about that.

    When we are going to give an opinion about money use in a political campaign we need to consider that we are not living in the 60's, we are living in 2008 and now everything is more expensive.

    Hillary care about poors, workers and middle clase people and that include most of the non profit organization employees.

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kristin

    How much money for year earn an administrator in a non profit organization.

    How much money for year earn an a worker .

    Alberto

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why wait until an election time to care about the problems our people are facing everyday?.

    Make this country a better places for all Americans is a responsability of everybody and not only the our Gov.

    Thank you Hillary Clinton for fighting for an Universal Care System in this country.

    Alberto

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm an Obama supporter and have been from the beginning, but I can put that aside and utter a statement that reflects my deepest thoughts.

    What began as a campaign with so much potential has turned into a national nightmare. I pitty my daughters' generation (teenagers) who became excited by politics many months ago only to wonder now what they were thinking.

    That's my thought. As for my feelings, Bill and Hillary Clinton make me sick-- as do many members of the media. They need to leave the scene for a while and let us have our sanity back. (And if enough Democrats feel the same way about Obama, then McCain probably will get elected.)

  • (Show?)
    Joel has proven himself to be rationale in other comments so I'm thinking that either pod people ate his brain or he was making a joke. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    I could be wrong but it seemed like a Rashneesh joke which wasn't thought out real well. I'd cut him slack just for trying to work the Bhagwan Shree Rashneesh into a joke at all. That's usually extra-credit territory.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Very shortly it will be over and we can start battling with the McCain trolls. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1943910/Barack-Obama-'has-enough-super-delegates-to-win-Democratic-nomination'.html

  • (Show?)

    Paul,

    Please feel free to write a post about campaign finance...I'd be interested in reading it. When you do, I hope that those who choose to comment do so with kindness, tact and respect.

    Have a great day!

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's just the old e-mail too flat for satire & irony problem.

    A word of caution. Satire is a very difficult form to write. It may be fun to write for many people, but only the very skilled should publish their efforts. Writers who fail will certainly be misconstrued. Instead of recognizing incompetence in writing, readers are more likely to have a highly derogatory opinion of the author.

  • Isabella , Canada (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris Lowe , I enjoyed reading your comment , you explained your support for Obama very well and I respect that. However , I do find that the Iran issue has been taken out of context . The question was , if Iran used nuclear weapons against another country.., it was a hypothetical and perhaps she should have avoided answering it but as she did , her answer was absolutely right. The western world , not just America , would nor could sit idly by and allow nuclear weapons being used by radical and unstable countries.

  • (Show?)

    Jeebus. By the time Joel got around to "all the white people in Bend and the Willamette Valley are Buddhists" I thought the satire was pretty obvious. It wasn't a knee-slapper but it was mildly amusing. The responses to it, on the other hand, are about as humorless and stuffy as one could expect from the worst parodies of Leftists.

  • ameeks (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think it's worth noting that the $10 million (out of $109 million) that the Clinton's have donated to charity has gone entirely to The Clinton Foundation.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Evidently a very poor satirical effort on my part, Kristin, apologies. I was attempting to comment on a previous comment about Obama drawing an overwhelming white audience in Bend, and by extension on this tiresome claim by Hillary Clinton:

    "Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again."

    Not my words, folks; Hillary Clinton's words.

    At one level, I am appalled, but mostly I'm just sad: sad that the campaign has turned into this sort of absurd commentary not just by the chattering class, but by the candidates themselves.

    Hillary Clinton could have chosen to comment on voting patterns and demographics in a thoughtful way. She didn't.

    Clinton was my preferred candidate at one time, back when the debris of Super Tuesday was starting to sort itself out. But I became increasingly disaffected by the tenor of her campaign: dissing "small" states, the "shame on you, Senator Obama" nonsense, the sense of entitlement on her part, and especially, the way she turned her campaign into a referendum on her spouse's administration.

  • (Show?)

    Joel,

    Thanks for the clarification and with regard to your latest comment, I feel your pain and totally agree. I can't wait for this to be over.

  • Stephen Holland (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ameeks: There are two different Clinton foundations. There's the William J. Clinton foundation, which is much, much larger and has contributors from all over the world, and there's the Clinton Family Foundation, which was set up as a way for the Clintons to personally channel a lot of money to various causes and charities. It's not unusual for philanthropists who want to donate a great deal of money to many causes to set up a personal independent foundation.

    The over $10 million that Bill and Hillary have donated has gone to the Clinton Family Foundation. Neither Bill, Hillary, nor Chelsea are compensated for their positions within the foundation.

    You can actually even see the full tax returns for the foundation here.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    However , I do find that the Iran issue has been taken out of context . The question was , if Iran used nuclear weapons against another country.., it was a hypothetical and perhaps she should have avoided answering it but as she did , her answer was absolutely right.

    The fact that Hillary, a contender for what many still consider the most powerful office in the world, could think of obliterating an entire nation is cause for great concern. Presumably, she was appealing to that segment of the public that bought into Bush's "Bring 'em on" bravado without regard to the consequences of Iraqi insurgents "bringing it on." There is also the problem of the U.S.-sponsored United Nations sanctions on Iraq presided over by hubby Bill with whom she would have us believe she was closely associated in running the White House. That crime against humanity has been estimated to have cost one to two million Iraqis, including half a million children, their lives. Presumably, an experience like that might desensitize one to obliterating a few more million.

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton Will be our next president.

    Christian for Hillary.

    Alberto

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Cinton will be our next president.

    I don't understand how so many people don't see where the light come from.

    Hillary will be our next president and she will bring order and prosperity to our nation. Hillary will care of everybody for equal like our constitution establish. Alberto I encorage the people go to the college and take political sciences classes, after that will be easier for all to give a better opinion . I enjoy having the free speech right that millions of people around the world don't have.

    If we want to save our freedom and make the America a better country we should work every day for that. Every day there are news on the television, radio, news paper and internet telling us about the serios problem many nations are facing include encomomics problems and lack of freedom in totalitarim regimens that will permit us understant how lucky we are living in America and also will permit us work hard to save and improve what we have.

    God bless America.

    Alberto

  • Tara (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill Bodden , Nobody likes war and I didn't agree with the war on Iraq. However , Iran is an unstable ,radical country that promotes terrorism. You have no choice but to take a firm stand against these extremists. I know it has become popular to equate concerns for national security to fearmongering. That is political rhetoric and irresponsible. I have travelled to the middle east and it took only a 4 hour flight from Vienna to Damascus. Europeans have a lot more awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands . Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass distruction and one wouldn't get a second chance.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill Bodden , Nobody likes war and I didn't agree with the war on Iraq. However , Iran is an unstable ,radical country that promotes terrorism.

    Thank you for the benefit of your insights. However, I trust you will forgive me if I continue to prefer opinions on the Middle East from Robert Fisk, Juan Cole, Tariq Ali, and other correspondents writing for the Asia Times On-Line. As for instability in Iran, the U.S.-British engineered coup that replaced the democratically-elected prime minister in 1953 can claim some responsibility for that. After that, it appears more than a little hypocritical for people in the U.S. government and establishment accusing Iran of terrorism.

  • Tara (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As for the coup d'etat of 1953 , I totaly agree with you that it changed the course of iranian political history and leaves an eternal shameful blemish on american legacy, as it was solely done with the hope to take control of the oil fields. I am only expressing opinions and by all means feel free to disagree , I believe that is what these comment boards are all about. Iran today , is an unstable country and harbours and trains terrorists . Should they ever have access to nuclear weapons it would be disastrous. I have wonderful iranian friends who would love to return to their country but are scared to do so under the current regime.

  • (Show?)

    Tara's comment is absolutely right: all candidates do owe something to somebody. the exciting thing is that in 2008, Obama will owe his election to millions of supporters from across the country. granted, he's gotten big donations, has heavy-hitters doing some heavy lifting, etc. but that's the smallest part of his financial base. and he began with none of that kind of support. the only thing Obama had going for him was a bunch of citizens who demanded something better than what was being offered by the various candidates (including the so-called populist Edwards). once it was clear Gore wasn't going to come to the rescue, a bunch of knuckleheads decided Barack Obama might be a good choice.

    turns out we were right.

    people will continue to try and tie him to money interests, etc, but that's not going to work. his life's history, not to mention the source of his campaign's funding and volunteer support, put that lie to rest (or would, but for the efforts of political enemies). what began in 2003 with a grassroots-born and run effort to elect Howard Dean with culminate in 2008 with that same effort, but more widely spread and fully successful.

    Howard Dean, in announcing his candidacy for president:

    The great lie spoken by politicians on platforms like this is the cry of "elect me and I will solve all your problems." The truth is the future of our nation rests in your hands, and not in mine. Abraham Lincoln said that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth. But this President has forgotten ordinary people. You have the power to reclaim our nation's destiny. You have the power to rid Washington of the politics of money. You have the power to make right as important as might. You have the power to give Americans a reason to vote again. You have the power to restore our nation to fiscal sanity and bring jobs back to our people. You have the power to fulfill Harry Truman's dream and bring health insurance to every American. You have the power to give us a foreign policy consistent with American values again. You have the power to take back the Democratic Party. You have the power to take our country back. And we have the power to take the White House back in 2004.

    to which, Obama and his supporters — the millions of us — say, Amen. Right on.

  • (Show?)

    the exciting thing is that in 2008, Obama will owe his election to millions of supporters from across the country. granted, he's gotten big donations, has heavy-hitters doing some heavy lifting, etc. but that's the smallest part of his financial base. and he began with none of that kind of support.

    And therein lies a stand alone post TA.

    Comparing the Obama B-2 bomber shaped pyramid (virtually flat with a bulge in the middle) with the McCain Transamerican Tower shaped pyramid (virtually vertical with a slightly larger base), with the Clinton, Giza shaped pyramid (the standard dem pyramid shape since '68) is an extremely useful metric of who has their fingers in the puppet strings.

    Obama, with over 1.5 million discreet puppetmasters, is going to be constantly reminded to keep the interests of the grassroots in mind.

  • (Show?)

    TA,

    DAMN! That's the second comment you've made in the past few weeks that made me tear up...Jeebus!

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tara:

    The U.S. "...is an unstable, radical country that promotes terrorism." It "...harbours and trains terrorists." It has "...access to nuclear weapons" and "...it would be disastrous" if it were able to continue to terrorize other nations by threatening to use them.

    Only one nation has used nuclear weapons (and continues to use them in the form of uranium-coated ammunition). It is that nation that should first give up its arsenal so that it might then hold the moral high ground required to make demands on others.

    A candidate for president of the U.S. should help to inform us about these matters, and she should explain how she would change our history of exploitation and empire.

    I thought Joel's remarks were very funny, whether ironically intended or not.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Iran is unquestionably a nation that we must regard with concern which makes Obama the least problematic of the three viable presidential candidates. He gives every indication that he is more inclined to use his brain than muscle. John McCain has a lifetime history of being the opposite with much in common with Bush. Both were saved from well-deserved punishments by influential fathers. Hillary Clinton appears to be closer to McCain than Obama in this regard. There have been many examples of negotiators resolving international crises and obviating a perceived need for war. We have had more than enough wars over the last century. It's time for a change.

  • casey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To be so enamored with a candidate as to see them as some kind of saint is frightening. Do any of you Obamanites think that your "god," in the next 15 years of his life, won't make at least as much money as the Clintons?

    He's already a millionaire. How many of you are? Is he turning any of that money down? If he is so wonderful, why does he have to outspend Clinton three to one? Why can't he match what she spends, and give the rest to starving children?

    My greatest dream was to be self-employed, and to do so, I had to take out an equity line from my home, and loan it to my business several times over to make my business successful. I fully intend for my business to pay back my equity line, and rightly so. How is this any different from a candidate, whose dream is to become the first woman President, investing what she has into her dream?

    You all could learn a lot of very important good stuff from this woman's belief in herself, her willingness to risk a fortune on herself (there is no guarantee her campaign will ever be able to repay her), her strength and endurance to attain her dream, and her refusal to sink into your miserable hole and disappear, especially when the popular vote is as close to even as most elections ever come.

    Just remember: "Dewey beats Truman," and don't be stunned if the superdelegate vote shocks the hell out of you by nominating Clinton. Either way, they are going against the will of at least half of the Democratic constituency, and with the will of the other half. They have the same to lose either way, so they may as well vote for the person whose experience, knowledge and time at the top vastly outweighs Obama's.

  • (Show?)

    I don't actually live in a miserable hole...I live in a three bedroom bungalow in SE Portland with my family. It's actually pretty comfortable. Our yard is a bit miserable right now...trying to plant a bigger garden...maybe that's what you meant?

    Anyway, good luck on that business of yours, and good luck on May 20th.

    Have a wonderful day, Casey!

  • Viki (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Because the earned delegate numbers are so close, no nomination can be certified until the Democratic National Convention. (August)

    In plain English, until all the super delegates officially register their votes at the convention, Hillary Clinton is an official option for the nomination. It doesn’t matter if she campaigns or not – it’s the reality of the earned delegate numbers.

    This is why John McCain is the “presumptive nominee” – he can’t be certified until the Republican National Convention.

    Don’t let the TV spin steer you wrong! Get out there and vote for Hillary. You are the lifeline to the nomination.

    Regarding money… Obama spent more money than any politician. All this money he spends on buying SD endorsements he could probably rebuild New Orleans.

  • (Show?)

    Tara,

    Respectfully, I disagree -- the irresponsibility comes with throwing around words like "obliterate" -- it lowers the threshold on genocide.

    Hillary went along with the premise of a scare-mongering question. The reality -- Iran has no nuclear weapons, and no likely prospect of acquiring them any time soon. The reality -- Israel has its own nuclear deterrent.

    A responsible answer would have been to reject the premise of the question, say that the point is to prevent things from ever getting close to that situation, which is remote now, then move on to talking about her views on the actually existing situation.

    Instead she accepted a scare-mongering question that lends aid to the Bush administration threats to start a war with Iran. Hillary says in essence she was suckered into voting for war authorization against Iraq, in good company, and it is true that in 2004 Obama essentially let John Kerry off the same hook. But here's Bush doing the same thing again -- and here's Hillary going along with the war-ginning rhetoric again. So the general pattern of her bellicosity seems to be there to me.

    And my understanding of the ways genocides happen is that rhetoric that dehumanizes "the enemy" and normalizes the idea of entirely wiping them out lowers the threshold of what people will accept. It is a bad thing for our culture and nation to treat as normal, acceptable rhetoric the idea of "obliterating" a whole other nation. It is dangerous anywhere, but it is particularly irresponsible in the nation which has the greatest capacity to visit death and destruction in the world (that would be us).

    Iran has 60-70 million people. To speak lightly of "obliterating" them is irresponsible in the extreme. IMO.

  • (Show?)

    I could not agree with Chris more. I just watched the documentary "Control Room" and saw the reality of what saber-rattling, even before bombs are dropped, can do to exacerbate tensions in a nation full of people with the capacity for complex thought and myriad forms of expression. Electing Clinton will send a certain message to those millions of people that I wish, with all of my heart, I could stop mid-stream.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Speaking of debt. The Clinton Campaign acknowledges they are $20 million in debt. It would appear financial management is not a strong point for Hillary Clinton. From Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/11/AR2008051101865.html?nav=hcmodule

  • casey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kristin-- I never said or implied you lived in a miserable hole. The "miserable hole" is hyperbole for, say, a grave, where you throw dead people. Every time I hear or read someone talking about Hillary's campaign as if it is dead, I can't help but think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail--the part where you see a guy with a big horse-drawn cart, and he's yelling, "Bring out your dead!" Someone throws, presumably, a relative onto the cart, and the relative's saying, "But I'm not dead," and the guy with the cart says, "Yes you are!" and bops him on the head to make it so.

    Sorry, you can't bop this lady hard enough to make her go away, which is what I really respect about her. Despite all of you, the likes of Time magazine, and a salivating media, she still has a substantial following, close enough to Obama's that it comes down to .5% lead. That ain't much. Reminds me of Bush claiming he had a mandate from the people with that same lead. Yuk!

    You want to know why she just won't disappear? Because I don't want her to, along with at least 16 million others who also don't want her to.

    About that house you live in...sounds nice. I love to watch other people garden. It gives me a peaceful feeling. I'm the waterer. You pull the weeds, I'll keep the grass alive! :)

  • Viki (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Speaking of debt. The Clinton Campaign acknowledges they are $20 million in debt. It would appear financial management is not a strong point for Hillary Clinton. From Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/11/AR2008051101865.html?nav=hcmodule"

    It does prove there are very reach people behind Obama. He always outspends her. She is running very competitive campaign. Your rationale is wrong. By the way, if you need real analysis of this campaign here is good read. http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

  • (Show?)

    T.A., I'm afraid I just don't buy it. The 1.5 million won't have access. The big bundlers and the big corporate interests whose contributions they bundled will. As they have with Senator Obama in the past.

    His actual policy program is very cautious about challenging any established corporate interests.

    Hillary is no different, of course -- there is probably some difference as to which industries each is closest to, although neither has anything comparable to the deep and narrow dominance of oil and energy industries over the Bush administration.

  • (Show?)

    Kristin, I read and responded to your email before reading the rest of the thread. Sorry if my tone was brusque--I see that my comments were pretty mild given what followed. So again I apologize.

    I'll still say here what I said in the email--I don't think it's time (at least for me) to call for Clinton to withdraw, and while I realize that you didn't intend a personal attack on her principles, it's all too easy to read the posting that way.

    Given the tone of the blogosphere right now, I'd prefer to keep things positive. Obama vitally needs the support and the active campaigning of Clinton to win the election.

connect with blueoregon