Letters to the Editor
-
Not surprising: The shape of things to come
It is pretty clear that many in the democratic leadership are disgusted and distracted by the old and ineffectual ways of the party and the fratricidal trash and slash political gamesmanship demonstrated by the Clinton team. The timing of Mr. Andrews' defection from Clinton to Obama is obviously designed and likely will send a strong signal to other party loyalists that it is now time to look in a different, more positive, direction.
I think they want to save the party and the candidates- both of them, before it is too late, and they are putting the end game strategy into play.
-
Just a question...
Why are all these former Clintonistas now switching loyalties. They must know something we don't know...like what they are really like behind closed doors
-
Another judas
for James Carville to crucify!
-
I think Obama has a stash
of comitted superdelagates waiting in the wings. He brings them out 1-at-a-time when they can serve a strategic purpose in the news cycle. Smart politics.
-
Best explanation
Why the supers are breaking for Obama: he's bringing a lot of young people to the polls. As someone said on NPR -- Reagan made a generation of republican voters, Obama could make a generation of dems -- people chose their affiliation in their 20s. Clinton's winning some battles with Boomers-and-older turnout, but demographically speaking, Obama could win the war for the party for the next 30 years.
-
Obama is a politician
Says his pastor for 20 years. And whoever says he is not is nut and should not be qualified to vote. I am going nut myself for all those people thinking they are voting for someone who is not a politician but actually is a politician in DC. Look at his campaign and manipulation, he is more a politician than a politician.
-
It's fun to watch the old gaurd
point their trembling fingers and shriek "FOUL! FOUL! FOR SHAME!" when their rules are broken.
-
No, its not necessarily because they like Obama
The realists are deciding that the ongoing fight damages the eventual nominee. Fastest way to end it is to back Obama since he is the leader. Though I'm sure there are some who are also unhappy with the way HRC has run her campaign
-
SHOW ME THE MONEY
It's simple, Obama has much more money and can afford to pay these people.
WASHINGTON — When Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, she said she'd found a candidate who "gives us a reason to believe again."
Obama believed in her, too, donating $10,000 from his political action committee to McCaskill's 2006 campaign. She received nothing from the PAC of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
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.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/31905.html
-
God Bless Joe Andrew...
and every super delegate who goes on the record as being for Obama.
And especially those who, in doing so, may incur the wrath or alienation of the Clintons (or a freakout and excommunication from Ragin Cajun Carville.)
Because these super delegates are TRUE patriots. They are people who love America enough to want to do what's right.
They don't want us to enter willy-nilly into another pointless war as two out of the three current candidates supported, or to bomb or annihilate Iran as two out of the three current candidates supported have suggested they would be more than willing to do.
They want to elect someone who can restore America's faith in itself, and the rest of the world's faith in America.
The fact that Obama is still standing, still earning support, still winning over superdelegates, and still inspiring people -- despite the destructive efforts of McCain, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, all their surrogates, Jeremiah Wright, Joan Walsh, Salon and many of Joan's nattering nabob and media pundit pals -- tells us that he is a fighter, and survivor of the highest order, but unlike McCain and Clinton, he is also an inspiration, with vision and the ability to elevate the national discussion.
-
WHAT UP HRC FAN?
How can you claim that Obama is paying off supers? I mean, it's reflective of how Hillary Supporters tend to be oblivious to what this new style of politics is all about.
I guess it makes sense because Hillary has been against building the democratic party from the ground up. She wants the power. She doesn't want the people to have the power. Yeah, so Obama spends money helping other dems get elected. CRIME! Obama supprts Dean's 50 State Strategy. TYPICAL POLITICIAN!
You guys know, of course, that selling your soul to the devil means losing your soul, right?
-
Your Point Being?
It's simple, Obama has much more money and can afford to pay these people.
WASHINGTON — When Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, she said she'd found a candidate who "gives us a reason to believe again."
Obama believed in her, too, donating $10,000 from his political action committee to McCaskill's 2006 campaign. She received nothing from the PAC of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
-- sonofloud
Hmm, donating money to the campaign of a fellow Dem, to give her a better chance of winning, thus boosting party strength and laying the foundation for future policy change, where strength in numbers is required. Seems like a good idea to me. Seems to me that's what you'd WANT in a party leader.
I take it, sonofloud, you prefer Clinton's policy of "everyone for his or herself."
-
Well Obama Blessed be he
Did pay off contributors in 2000 with several hundred thousand dollars in grants once he was elected. So you can't say there's no precedent.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-killerspin27apr27,1,7650855.story?track=rss
-
You have a depression era mentality
Here we go - the "money is the root of all evil / Obama is just buying it" BS. What a craven argument by the weak.
Now that's just the wrong way to look at it.
We, as Democrats, should revel in the fact that we now raise more money than the GOP. We have a broader base and embrace new and innovative ways to energize people and get them to donate. It is now a decisive advantage.
Dems USED to decry the influence campaign money when they didn't have it. But now that we have it, we should use it to full effect. I never heard of Bill Clinton talking about an even playing field and spending caps when he was out-raising Dole and HW Bush. Not a word from Ed Rendell when he slaughtered Lynn Swann, far outpacing the latter's ad spend.
This is loser, whiny talk.
Politics is money. Money comes from energized voters who buy into a candidate. It is an extension of support.
If you want real campaign finance, I am all in. But until then, let's not cry and whine about the fact that we're being successful in this realm.