Would Obama Help Clinton Pay Off Her Campaign Debt?

Obama should tell her to stick it in her ear. Put me down as one donor who won't chip in to make Hillary go away. It's like indulging a spoiled, screaming child.

I can't see Clinton taking money from snobbish, university educated, liberals. They would likely be reluctant to give her money as well, unless some of her supporters are left out, like Lanny Davis, Paul Begala or James Carville.

Speaking myself as a small ticket Obama donor, I think if it helps in November and will aid in the Democrats closing ranks and stop taking swipes and potshots at each other, I'd pony up again, no sweat.....

You're a better person than me, Paul Dirks. If Mrs. Clinton's base of working whiteys is so broad and committed (as she claims) I think she should ask them to pay off the debt.

As another small amount Obama donor I'll split the middle between Paul and Cookie. If Obama's campaign helps pay off vendors that the Clinton camp has been stiffing I'm cool with that. But to pay off Mark Penn? Well, come to think of it, Mr. "Democratic Primaries are Winner Take All" was probably one of the best assets the Obama campaign had, so maybe he should get a bonus…

Mrs. Clinton's base of working whiteys

As I said, if we can somehow reduce the rancor and all set our sights on disabling the oil-gouging, weapons producing, propoganda publishing, public manipulating (ahem) elitist forces that are currently driving our nation into the ground, then it's worth doing.

Disabling the current machine is more important than arguing about who is more qualified to pull it off.

If Hillary continues her racist "hard working white people" campaign much longer she will be irrelevant. As an Obama supporter and donor if she continues this campign style another two weeks, count me out donating to help her. Let the hard working, low income, white people who love her so much pay off her debts. Let's see she should be able to get what, $655.00 paid off through their efforts. Her problem with her campaign which no one will talk about is that many of her voters are low income white registered Democrats who will likely vote for McCain in the fall, even if she is the candidate.

Well said, Paul Dirks. Everyone needs to focus on McCain - he's not still talking about Huckabee.

And this may not even be completely about Clinton. She's a powerful Senator with a committed base, and she can probably handle her campaign debt eventually. But Obama needs her to be available to help unite the party in the fall, especially when McCain is going after the Reagan Democrats, and it would be useless for her to be wasting her time at fundraisers. I know that many Obama supporters will say that they don't need her to campaign in the fall, but they do. She's more popular with swing Democrats than Obama is, and her endorsement will mean something to her supporters. She can make strong criticisms of McCain's expertise on the economy, and she will be able to appeal to women on abortion.

Also, paying off her debts would be a gesture that her supporters would appreciate. Obama was able to win the nomination with his coalition of about half the Democratic party, but he needs to fight for every Democrat he can get now. There's a big difference between even 85% and 90% support among Democrats in the GE.

And Ted Kennedy should shut up. He is just not helping this process.

"Her problem with her campaign which no one will talk about is that many of her voters are low income white registered Democrats who will likely vote for McCain in the fall, even if she is the candidate." - Floridian, any data to support that?

Without a guaranteed written commitment that both Bill and Hillary will actively support and work for his election, I would recommend that Obama not commit to paying off any of Hillary's debt.

Will Obama's legions of small donors really be eager to send in another $20, $50 or $100 to make sure that Clinton's high-priced consultants are paid?

I, for one, will be very unhappy. Let her blackmail squad--Harvey Whatsits the movie guy, one of the Pritzkers, Chelsea's boss at the hedgefund, Lady Rothschild--let them pay off her debts, they love her so much. Pelosi and Dean have their names, I believe.

How much do I have to pay to never hear from her or Bill again? $100? No problem.

But didn't they earn $100 million this decade? $15 is little more than a years' income - Bill will make that back on speaking engagements and dodgy Kazakhstan deals in no time.

Paul Dirks, I would agree with you about setting aside the rancor but Mrs. Clinton apparently hasn't received that memo.

And Rose, if you are so committed to Mrs. Clinton, I'd suggest you round up your friends and send your money to her campaign. When are we going to stop letting Bill and Hillary treat all the world like the Lincoln Bedroom? Enough!

Mixed feelings here: on board with Paul and Rose. Get off the tram when I recall this couple has over a $100m. Blood pressure goes up at the thought of Penn and assorted high priced flunkeys getting exorbitant fees, for what? For having failed?

So what about this: The Clintons come up with one third, their more committed supporters pony up another third. THEN they can ask Obama for help. I really find it hard to swallow the fact that the elitists and Blacks will have to come up with some more bucks. Not that they will mind if it puts this whole business to rest.

After some time for reflection Clinton should feel able to bring her supporters around (not all but enough) for the good of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, to Obama's more enthusiatic supporters: relax, keep your powder dry, rein in your anger and frustration. The express is nearing the end of its travels towards the nomination. Time for some magnanimity. You have lots more to do from June on.

If Hillary continues her racist "hard working white people" campaign much longer she will be irrelevant.

Good going, Peggy Noonan.

Gooooooooo Democrats!

Mrs. Clinton apparently hasn't received that memo.

I will patiently withhold judgement on that for a few more weeks.

In the meantime, at least one source is willing to claim otherwise:

http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_9216250

Clinton changes her tone
AS SHE LOSES SUPERDELEGATES' SUPPORT, SHE SOFTENS ATTACKS ON OBAMA AND AIMS AT MCCAIN.

Again, time will tell......

She's running out of time to "leave early." Leaving early doesn't mean that she promises not to take this to the convention, it needs to mean she stops negative campaigning immediately. Otherwise he's paying her to screw him. Pay the vendors, don't pay her consultants, don't repay her loan to herself.

I've had mixed feelings about this since the idea was floated.

Then I got to thinking what Obama represents, what he asks us to support: a new kind of politics.

I donated money several times to his campaign to do with as he sees fit. If this is the way he feels he needs to go to marshal unity in the party, I trust his judgment until he gives me reason to feel otherwise.

I'm supporting him and his vision for a new way of doing things. Rising above petty punishment for Hillary's obvious shortcomings (financial and spiritual), is a lot more in the spirit of the kind of leader I want for my country than insisting on my right to micromanage every $25 contribution I've made.

I'm 63 and I approved this message. And I'm white, Hillary.

Rose, please tell me why you think Obama's supporters should be bringing Hillary's coffers back up to $109 million.

1) "She's more popular with swing Democrats than Obama is"

2)"Obama needs her to be available to help unite the party in the fall"

Rose

On 1) Not necessarily, if at all. The Clinton brand was established for longer, but that doesn't mean much now that she's lost. Obama had to fight against the machine politicians in PA and OH, and once they move to the victor's side, I doubt that Hillary herself will have much to do. Find a good, solidly Christian white southerner or mid-westerner, and that's the ticket.

On 2) It might help if she quit now, stopped spouting rubbish about white voters, and generally behaved like a Democrat, not a Republican race-baiter. She is not a unifying figure, and the less we see of the Clintons from now on, the better. Every time she appears in the fall will simply jeopardize the message. She simply is not credible as a campaigner for Obama. She knows it, and so does every other informed voter. You can't throw mud so persistently and then pretend to support the nominee. As for Democrats bolting to McCain, some will, but most will look at what he's actually selling and follow their interest - economic sanity, a foreign policy which does not mean a new war every year, and a serious attempt to rebuild a damaged nation.

On Clinton's debts - let her pay them herself, and learn some responsibility. If you can't manage your finances, while damaging your party, you deserve no sympathy. Besides, you really think she's going to go cap in hand to the person she's denounced so dishonestly? What credibility would she have left for 2012? It's hardly impressive when you have to have your debts paid by someone else so publicly.

Posted by Cookie Puss | May 10, 2008 10:54 AM:

...if you are so committed to Mrs. Clinton, I'd suggest you round up your friends and send your money to her campaign.

Cookie Puss:

At the risk of being a concern troll for Obama supporters, may I suggest that it might be slightly counter-productive for your campaign to actually encourage Clinton supporters to get together and mount fundraising drives? If the only thing that could stop Obama from getting the nomination is some kind of Eliot Spitzer "who could have seen that coming" information, do you want to have baited Hillary's people into fundraising enough money to get that on the air in the next eight weeks?

When are we going to stop letting Bill and Hillary treat all the world like the Lincoln Bedroom?

Spoken like a long-time Rush listener.

Yeah! Screw that Vince Foster-murdering lesbian!

Honestly, if you're such a big Barack fan (or liberal or Democrat), why don't you look yourself in the mirror, and ask yourself:

1) "Would Barack Obama really be on board with how I'm treating fellow Democrats?

2) "What does he mean when he talks about 'reaching out' to Republicans and Independents?

3) "How does the manner in which the winner's supporters treat the 49% of Democrats who didn't vote for that candidate affect the nominee's prospects going forward?"

4) "What happened after 2000, when talk-radio listening Republicans adopted the sneering mantra 'Get over it, Democraps!', in spite of their candidate promising to be a 'uniter, not a divider'"?

5) "How would I prefer to be spoken to if the situation were reversed?"

Can you please answer these questions for yourself honestly before you inflict your ire on fellow Democrats going forward, Cookie Puss?

Reading JimNY's comment, which I mostly agree with, I got to thinking about these further implications of Barack paying off Hillary's debt so that Hillary's supporters will come along. This seems fraught to me with the feminists. Unless Hillary asks Barack to pay off the debt, someone will suggest that Barack thinks he's entitled to do what he wants because "he's paying for it." Please, tell me I'm wrong about this.

Doesn't Obama have his share of fat cat donors?

If they each write a $2300 check straight to the Clinton campaign and then he headlines one or two fundraising dinners with her; the democratic party can get this done without turning to his small donor list IMO. Which is something that I do not see as politically teneble.

Stu:

I sleep just fine at night, thanks. It's funny, every time somebody criticizes a fellow Democrat, the "spoken like a Republican line" is trotted out.

That's a nice way to avoid the fact that she (or any Democrat for that matter) is acting like a prat. It's a distraction, a way to avoid dealing with a problem. She ran her race, she is not going to win. She can get out or stay in for as long as she feels like.

But it is not Obama's responsibility to pay off her debt or pay for the loyalty of her supporters. That is crazy. If we really need to be focusing on McCain, wouldn't it make more sense for the presumptive nominee to focus his energies on that instead of rounding up dollars for the second-place finisher?

Senator Clinton should mull over the idea that this hurts her long-term policy goals. If she took her fight to say.. the Senate, where laws are made, then she would be writing the health-care plan that she needs Barack to sign. Instead she is so focused on being President now that she is racing toward irrelevance.

KathyR: We have to decide on how we can get the most Democrats to come together at the Convention. Once Barack assumes the leadership he will have to bring together people who, until now, have been saying intemperate things about the candidate they oppose. It is pointless talking about reaching out to Republicans while not doing the same to Democrats. Sure, lots of people are angry about the white working class and "race". But we have to show those voters that Barack is for all Democrats and whoever else wants to come on board. Hillary can help with that. She has to do that if her promise to unite behind the nominee is to be credible.

No matter how successful Barack is, he will still need some of Clinton's supporters. If past practice is any help I think a large part of that Clinton base will come round. But if they watch Clinton being bashed at every turn there will be a backlash.

My great fear is that we Democrats know how to do ourselves in. By contrast watch the Republicans. McCain is making blunder after blunder. But the right wing blogs are holding back. For them victory is all. For us???

Now all I want is for surrogates to shut up and leave Obama to drive the message home.

No way Hillary should get bailed out by Obama donors. She can spend herself into oblivion (which I hope she does).

Stuart Zechman, you are being unfair to Cookie Puss. The Clintons do come with baggage, much of it very much because of their own choices. That's a fact, not a talking point. To give you four examples: no-one made them rent out the Lincoln Bedroom, no-one forced them to pardon criminals and terrorists because of family and fund-raising connections, no-one forced them to take furnishings from the White House, and no-one forced them to run a Republican-style smear campaign against fellow-Democrats. You can't just pretend that they are hard done by innocents. They made choices, and a good number of them were bad. Sure, the Republicans played up some slanders, as the Clintons have done to Obama. That does not mean the Clintons are innocent. Notice that I haven't even touched the more sordid scandals surrounding Bill.

It's all very well to talk about party unity - but we also have to realize just how much damage the Clintons have done and continue to do. Yes, unity for the fall - but how do you achieve that when some hardcore Clinton fans keep repeating Hillary and Bill's lies, while pretending that somehow the pair of them are above criticism? If you push back, and point to the Clintons' long record of dishonesty, they say it's all Republican talking-points. If you say nothing, they assume you agree with them. You can't bring in everyone to the party, and some hardcore fanatics will spite themselves and vote McCain. Trying to win them over is waste of breath, and should not be an excuse for refusing to face the Clintons as they were and are.

If Democrats are going to progress as a party, we deperately need to move on past the Clintons, admit that they were not very good for us, and find a real Democratic compass. We can't do that by pretending that Clinton was a great president, or that they are innocent victims. He was a moderately successful politician, who faced weak contenders and got lucky with the economy, while packing the Democratic party power structure with cronies. Not unusual, but not great either. Once the Clintons are gone, you'll find the party is much better positioned, and can function much more effectively.

If HRC is really bailing, then maybe she can get back to actually doing her job. She has little time to introduce and pass that gas-tax legislation that she so urgently wants for this summer. Maybe McCain should co-author the bill - the McCain-Clinton (or is it, Clinton-McCain?) Gas-Tax Act of 2008?

Cookie Puss:

...every time somebody criticizes a fellow Democrat, the "spoken like a Republican line" is trotted out.

No, every time somebody brings up Sean Hannity's talking point about the Clintons "violating" the sacred "Lincoln Bedroom", the "spoken like Ann Coulter line" is trotted out.

...she...is acting like a prat.

...According to you. According to the other 49 percent of Democrats who voted for her, and who still believe in her, she's not acting in any way that's wrong whatsoever, it's that pissy-pants scared Obama supporters are terrified that another Wright will come up in the next few weeks, and are desperate to rush her out, so that at least the hated Hillary won't be the nominee when that happens.

Remember, "prat"-acting is probably in the eye of the beholder. Oh, and your candidate sucks.

...it is not Obama's responsibility to pay off her debt or pay for the loyalty of her supporters.

No, of course not. It sounds like blackmail to me. Gosh, if I were a hardcore Obama partisan, I sure would be outraged! Is that why Mark Halperin is "musing" (making sh-t up) about "possible outlines" (made up sh-t)? You know, so that we can get back to being pissed off at each other...er..."discussing" it around the water cooler, like good little proles who get political news to have something to talk about?

This is the entirety of Halperin's post:

Outlines of Possible Obama-Clinton Deal

Clinton agrees to leave the race in return for help paying off her campaign debt, a key role at the convention, and a guarantee that she becomes the lead Senate sponsor of the health care reform bill under a President Obama.

Does this rank speculation really deserve your outrage, Cookie Puss?

...is something else going on, perhaps?

This is a tempest in a teapot. I'd find it irksome if he were to give Clinton herself (or Penn's firm) millions of dollars. But if he does, it will be a distant memory during the KSM show trial in September.

Note that if he does do this, he would put paid to the Clintons' party leadership. And wouldn't you pay to see Carville, Begalla, Lanny Davis and Mark Penn all marginalized?

stu--

this speculation is far more widespread than Halperin's little item. I actually thought it kinda cheap for KT to cite him, rather than any number of other sources who have been writing about this.

jayackroyd:

OK, let me look it up, and then assess the sources. So far it seems like a rumor to me, but I'll check it out before I comment further.

jayackroyd, I'd be delighted to pay for a round-the-world cruise for the whole Clinton crew on a ship with a jammed rudder, but I very much doubt that paying them off would get rid of them. Do you see Carville taking the money and settling down to grow tulips? If Penn is out, it's because of gross incompetence. Davis and Begala will pop up as "experts" for years to come, regardless of what one pays to keep Clinton quiet. I'd say that making Hillary pay for her own mistakes might be useful curb to future ambitions. Also, I just don't see your average small donor for Obama being at all happy to subsidize Hillary's atrocious behavior.

You got me Stu. I'm freaking out because I know Obama is a Manchurian Candidate and the other shoe is about to drop.

And yes, the rank speculation does deserve my outrage. That's what we're here for, to do a whole lot of talking that in the end will have absolutely no bearing on anything.

P.S. I don't think Mrs. Clinton "sucks."

In Hillary's case, "campaign debt" is a euphemism for fiscal waste -- more than $30M of it -- that is a direct result of her own shocking executive and political incompetence (partial translation: Mark Penn and Patti Solis Doyle).

This, coupled with the fact that the Clintons have made more than $130M in the last eight years, and thus are in a position to take responsibility for all $30M, is going to make an awful lot of people -- and not just Obama supporters -- queasy about the prospect of Obama helping her, thereby risking his political and personal capital at the very moment -- the launch of his general election campaign -- when he most needs it.

And although, yes, Obama needs the Clintons' vigorous and unabashed support during the general, Hillary runs her own an extreme political risk, if -- right at the moment when her party is coalescing around Obama -- she is seen to be greedily trying to extract from Obama too many pounds of flesh, as a quid pro quo for her support.

At the very least, not a single penny that is raised with Obama's help should go to reimburse her $11.4M of self-loans or to pay Mark Penn's invoices.

In Hillary's case, "campaign debt" is a euphemism for fiscal waste -- more than $30M of it -- that is a direct result of her own shocking executive and political incompetence (partial translation: Mark Penn and Patti Solis Doyle).

This, coupled with the fact that the Clintons have made more than $130M in the last eight years, and thus are in a position to take responsibility for all $30M, is going to make an awful lot of people -- and not just Obama supporters -- queasy about the prospect of Obama helping her, thereby risking his political and personal capital at the very moment -- the launch of his general election campaign -- when he most needs it.

And although, yes, Obama needs the Clintons' vigorous and unabashed support during the general, Hillary runs her own an extreme political risk, if -- right at the moment when her party is coalescing around Obama -- she is seen to be greedily trying to extract from Obama too many pounds of flesh, as a quid pro quo for her support.

At the very least, not a single penny that is raised with Obama's help should go to reimburse her $11.4M of self-loans or to pay Mark Penn's invoices.

In Hillary's case, "campaign debt" is a euphemism for fiscal waste -- more than $30M of it -- that is a direct result of her own shocking executive and political incompetence (partial translation: Mark Penn and Patti Solis Doyle).

This, coupled with the fact that the Clintons have made more than $130M in the last eight years, and thus are in a position to take responsibility for all $30M, is going to make an awful lot of people -- and not just Obama supporters -- queasy about the prospect of Obama helping her, thereby risking his political and personal capital at the very moment -- the launch of his general election campaign -- when he most needs it.

And although, yes, Obama needs the Clintons' vigorous and unabashed support during the general, Hillary runs her own an extreme political risk, if -- right at the moment when her party is coalescing around Obama -- she is seen to be greedily trying to extract from Obama too many pounds of flesh, as a quid pro quo for her support.

At the very least, not a single penny that is raised with Obama's help should go to reimburse her $11.4M of self-loans or to pay Mark Penn's invoices.

..........Mrs. Clinton's base of working whiteys

..........Good going, Peggy Noonan.

..........I'm 63 and I approved this message. And I'm white, Hillary.

The above comments reflect the damage that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has done. The anger expressed is directed really at Sen Clinton.

The message that most took home from the Peggy Noonan article is that it is time for someone to have a sit down with Sen Clinton and tell her that it is time to go. For a variety of reasons that message might be heard best if it came from a female rather than a male.

It is a disservice to suggest that people cannot read Noonan, realize that she is a Republican flack, extract a grain of truth, and move on. People realize that she will be attacking Obama next week.

Sen Clinton has worked hard on her own to create divisions in the Democratic Party. Peggy Noonan took advantage of the opening given her by the Senator's own behavior.

Lanny Davis was still quoting the Clinton campaign's racial division meme on Larry King last night.

Finally, this is a blog, not a Democratic Party platform committee. People get to blow off steam. Comments that seem outrageous to some, are refreshingly comical to others.

If you really want to see venom being spewed, just venture over to Taylor Marsh. Her lead post today was a link to a group of Barack Obama cartoons from the National Black Republic Association. Marsh is scary. Floridian and JimNY are just opinionated.

There's no way on God's green earth that the Clinton campaign will stiff its vendors. Period. Na ga happen. She still has way too much skin in the game of her political future.

As far as Obama paying off Mrs. Clinton's vanity debts, well, let's see...he wouldn't pay street money in South Carolina, and he wouldn't pay street money in Philly. So what makes the regurigitated same-old same-old political expections of Mark Halperin relevant here?

Horizonr-

If you want to talk campaign debt being a euphemism for shocking fiscal waste, you should really include the $36 million that Senator Clinton spent on her Senate race here in NY, in which she had no real opponent, and likely used in order to lay the ground work for her Presidential campaign.

A review of that campaign's expenditures would provide even more insight into how her money problems started.

It took me a long time to become and Obama supporter, but you know what did it for me? Looking at who started with what, how they spent it, and what they got for their money. Period.

Like Carny's Hillary's Day After Option post this is more BS just put out to start fights between the two Democratic camps.
We fall for it every time.

Jayack, you bring up something I hadn't thought of - that Hillary paying off her own debts means Hillary publicly raising money, which means Hillary speaking. Not sure that's necessarily a great idea.

I'm really conflicted about all this. I've thought for some time that Barack was behaving more charitably toward Hillary than we his supporters were. Though I feel no antipathy at all toward Hillary's supporters, I'm not happy about what she's done to our party by the particular way she's roughed up Barack and insulted voters.

I guess my hope is that Barack can find a way to reach out to Hillary that:

1) doesn't make him look spineless for bowing down to Hillary
2) defuses Hillary soon enough so she doesn't continue to do damage.
3) appeals to the better angels of her nature so that she wants to help him,
4) doesn't deplete his treasury, time, and energy for the general election.
5) demonstrates to her supporters that he really is an unusually generous person who really does want to do politics differently

Sounds like blackmail, but I'd still pay it. All that matters is winning, and Hillary can help Obama win. That is the only calculus Obama should be engaging in...does this $X million gain me more electoral votes than spending it in some other way?

Morally its the wrong thing to do, but this is politics, and it has its own moral structure.

I love the simple, certain lives that some people lead, as evidenced by their commentary.

Pretty much every negative event or situation is the fault of Hillary Clinton, or the consequences of some character flaw of hers.

In this world we've got good people and bad people, sort of like the heroes and villains in professional wrestling, and Barack Obama is good, whilst Hillary Clinton is bad.

The millions and millions of people who make up the 49 percent of Democrats who haven't voted for Barack Obama?

Racists, idiots, Republicans-in-disguise, women who couldn't help themselves from responding to Hillary's gender card play, gullible pander-accepters, and other victims of Hillary Clinton's misdeeds and general villainy.

I love it.

Hey, if any segment of the population (or their unofficial spokespeople) finds something offensive during a political campaign, it can't be that the offense has been ginned up for the sake of division by those who might benefit from such a situation. No, if there's smoke there must be fire; if there's offense, it must be because offense was given. There simple must be a grain of truth to such charges, no matter how they are repeated without respect to their objective merits, no matter who gleefully megaphones the "disastrous news for Democrats", and no matter how similar that process seems to another situation in the very recent past.

...and we know this with simple certainty because the unquestionable facts are that professional politician from Illinois Barack Obama is rectitude incarnate, and former First Lady Hillary Clinton is the personal incarnation of everything wrong with America.

What a lovely perspective to hear from liberal Democrats. What confidence it gives me in our future. This sort of thing doesn't sound like right-wing moralists or the "with us or against us" crowd at all. It's the sort of generosity one would expect from supporters of Senator "reaching out/yes we can" Obama. I can't wait to get out there and run the flag up the pole for Barack Obama's general election candidacy. I'm sure that millions of people feel exactly the same way.

Goooooo Democrats!

KathyR, the short answer - which is all I have time for, because real life is intruding on my obsession with politics! - is that it will help beat John McCain, for the reasons I outlined in my first post.

Thems a lot of words Stuart, how about A-Holes and crybabies. That's all I see anymore.

horizonr

What I really wonder about is what she spent her senate money on. She raised at least 30 and maybe 50 million, and didn't spend it on advertising.

She really seems to have trouble controlling expenditures.

Stuart - It's going to take a while for some of us to make the transition away from (fearing) Hillary, just as it's going to take some time for you to embrace Barack (and I wouldn't blame you at all if that took longer), just as I acknowledged yesterday in another thread that it will take Hillary time to let go of her dreams: "This is clearly being very hard for Hillary to face, and I guess that's not a surprise. So difficult to let go of such cherished dreams held for so long, and to have to let go in a very public way."

None of this can happen fully for any of us until Hillary really is out of the race and Barack is really the nominee.

I've given twice to Obama during the primary season. $25 each time.

If any Obama bigwigs are reading this: do recognize that if you pay off Hillary's debt out of the general fund I've contributed to, I won't be contributing any more during the general election campaign.

I say this not out of any rancor toward Hillary. Rather, I see it - as the blog post stated up top - as a use of campaign money very different than I thought I was giving to.

If Obama wants to help her pay off her debt, he should go do some big fund raisers for her after the election is over (President or not.)

Not to change the subject, but are any Time reporters looking through this:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/

(I know Ana linked to it.)

It's 8000 pages of source material and Glenn is having a field day with it. You might want to pay a little attention if for no other reason, that you manage to find a spin angle that doesn't complete discredit your brand (which is after all, affiliated with CNN)

Was this already up when the li9nk was posted:

Update on Debt: If Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would happen to broker a deal to help pay off her campaign debts – this remains a big if, aides said, because nothing has been formally discussed – the money would not be taken from Mr. Obama’s campaign account. Instead, he would have to make a fund-raising appeal on her behalf, asking people to contribute.

It would assuage some of the fears being expressed here about their own contributions being misdirected.....

Racists, idiots, Republicans-in-disguise, women who couldn't help themselves from responding to Hillary's gender card play, gullible pander-accepters, and other victims of Hillary Clinton's misdeeds and general villainy.

-------------------------
I don't know how you got that interpretation from my words. I was focusing in on candidate Hillary Clinton herself. I also cited a Clinton surrogate. The focus was Sen Clinton, not those who were voting for her. Sorry that I didn't make that clearer.

I have accused the Clinton campaign of race-baiting. I referred to the Lanny Davis appearance on Larry King this evening. Davis was stating that Obama was not getting White votes. another panelist pointed out Obama's win in Iowa and White vote percentage in Virginia.

I used Taylor Marsh because I thought her warped views were far worse than anything Floridian, for example, had posted.

Again this is a blog, a someone limited forum.
People are giving their opinions based on personal observations and articles and books read. Never claimed to be anyone's national representative.

We are allowed to have differences of opinion, have discussions, and at the end just agree to disagree. People can disagree with being disagreeable. Just because people disagree doesn't mean that the other is forcing their opinion on someone else.

I see a "My viewpoint or the highway" coming from the other direction.

Regarding liberal Democrats, I'm proud to be considered in that group. Thanks for the compliment.

Believe it or not, I do not feel Sen Obama is infallible. I just see Sen Clinton as a person who sometimes has a unique relation with the truth. The sniper fire in Bosnia comes to mind. The recent reviews of her campaign's financial status also raises some questions. $10 million
was said to have come into the campaign after PA. That does not appear to be a truthful statement. What else does she say that is untrue?

I started as a Clinton supporter. I didn't leave Sen Clinton, Sen Clinton left me.

I generally agree with Danny. I contributed $250 of my hard earned money to Senator Obama (in 4 chunks). I think the Clintons should just eat the loss. After all, their loan to the campaign of $11.6 million is about a tenth of what they reported as income in the last 8 years. Also, nothing should go to that idiot Mark Penn. However, to the extent the campaign debt exceeds these amounts, Senator Obama should help out.

We need a lot more information before we go with Mark Halperin ( who is, of course, i a great believer in Drudge's "force multiplier" : MH being one of the conductors) MH abased himself before Hugh Hewitt last year when he desperately sought that man's approval in an hour long interview some time ago - before joining TIME.

So before we we get all hot and bothered let us have details of any discussions that may be taking place so that comments can be fact based.

Too many Swampland posts (by the staff) seem to be gossip dressed up as "what do you think about this". It provokes predictable outrage no matter which side of the race you are on.

I'm OK with it, subject to the following stipulations:

1) All help is deferred until after the general election and is contingent upon Obama winning. That means a) 100% of resources between now and November are devoted to beating McCain and b) Clinton has added incentive to help in the general.

2) Clinton's paid campaign staff and consultants agree to take no more than $.50 on the dollar (with a floor of $5,000/mth -- I don't want lower paid staffers to be screwed by limiting Penn and Wolfson's pay). Furthermore, they agree to defer payment until after November.

3) Deal is limited to debt as of May 6th. Obama should not finance her continuing folly.

4) No relief for their personal loans to date. That's on them. She's a US Senator and he's a former President -- they have the ability to make and raise money on their own.

5) The Clintons promptly loan their campaign funds sufficient to pay all private, third-party vendors, who should not have to wait until November to be paid. This loan would be included as part of any Obama-aided debt retirement.

First, let's give Peggy Noonan some credit for thoughtfulness and balance above and beyond the standard "Republican hack." Second, I agree that the Clintons and their mystery friends who have backed the Library and Foundation should be the lead source of debt retirement, instead of drawing down Dems' funds needed for the general election. Third, I don't see much evidence of the Clintons' soft-pedaling their message regarding Obama...at least not as far as Bubba is concerned.

If Senator Obama intends to cover Senator Clinton's campaign debt, I would like to request he return my donation to him. This lady is a millionaire 100 times over. I'm not. Guess who needs the money more?

We here @ http://www.steeldoorarmor.com love this country and hope for the best, for all!!

Just to follow up on Paul Dirk's comment, it's not that the Obama campaign could just write a big check to the Clinton camp. That would violate campaign finance laws. The support would be more organizational, in terms of joint fundraisers, etc. They would not be taking the small donations many of have made to cover Clinton's debt.

Also, we should keep in mind that it is still all very hypothetical. All we know for sure is that Obama is open to the idea. But it is also Obama who has fostered the idea that the 1.5 million who have give to the campaign are "owners," so I don't have a problem with the owners chiming in to say what kind of bailout would be acceptable.

Steve in Sacto: Fully agree with your post. very well thought out. It answers any and all my objections.

Our colleague Mark Halperin

This is still really perplexing to me. Why, if he is your colleague, does he blog on his own special (very special) little site? Isn't he kind of an embarrassment? Maybe I'm projecting my embarrassment for him onto you all, but man, those superhero graphics, and especially Obama's white fist, gives me digestive trouble.

Why should anyone reward Hillary for running such a lousy, poorly planned and divisive campaign? Would she as President be requesting the same kind of bail out once her brilliant management skills (as shown in the primary) create further havoc with our nation’s financial resources. I guess if we extend to her a financial life preserver to make her money pains go away then we should do the same for every other CEO or individual who also fails by surrounding themselves with terrible advisors or makes poor financial decisions. The point is she should have to live with the consequences of her actions, all of them including the racial issues. Most of us do that every day, she should too.

Now some have comments about my opinionated statements about running a racist campaign but guess what? She and her talking heads are using all the code words and phrases used by so called good Democrats during the 50’s and 60’s in the south. I am probably a bit older than some of the bloggers and remember those days where a few words and a wink and a nod sufficed to say what you really meant. I hate to say this but sometimes Hillary and her talking heads sound like they are doing the old George Wallace shuffle. What we are getting from her camp is a steady diet of black people don’t really matter. Folks, black voters are the backbone of the Democratic Party. Lose them and you lose the Presidency and many Senate seats.

Yeah, Yeah Cookie Puss will chime in about the women vote… but do they really want to risk a Supreme Court that eliminates abortion rights, a government that is anti-woman issues, anti-environment, anti-middle class, and about anti everything that really matters.

Hillary is just a bad candidate running a lousy campaign with a lot of baggage, and don’t tell me she’s been fully vetted. There are all kinds of stuff still lurking about with Bill’s side deals etc. In 2006 and most of 2007 I was the biggest Hillary supporter. I worshiped Bill Clinton and have a framed Arkansas Traveler certificate signed by Bill Clinton. I was in Little Rock Ark. three days before election night of his first Presidential election. I had Clinton bumper stickers, yard signs, went door to door, etc. I voted for Bill both times, and thought it was a great thing that Hillary would one day be President. But things changed and the Clintons have changed.

I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t think it’s time to have a woman President. Hell, we white men have screwed this thing up royally! It’s time for all Democrats to come together to help Senator Obama become the next President. Then in 2016 we can all work our hearts out to get the first woman elected President. I'll be on board with everything for that campaign

Oh, and uh...I'm OK with Obama retiring Clinton's debt, but not the money she loaned herself, provided she signs a contract in blood that once the deal is done, she will stop campaigning.

I should take a second away from my work to point out how opposed I am to the concept of a deal like this being struck between the parties.

Both sides would be engaging in a shameful, fundamentally corrupt, anti-democratic quid pro quo, IMO.

That said, I think that further speculation about this sort of thing is not the most productive use of Democratic energy at the moment...

Floridian

I didn't mean to give offense about your being "opinionated". It was my poor attempt to respond to what I saw as a point of view that one could not address problems that one had with Sen Clinton without being an Obama zombie or robot or whatever.

Some seem to think that they alone are objective. Anyone who varies from their rigid point of view seems to be a mental defective.

Again, sorry. I'm "opionionated" as well. The Clinton campaign has race-baited.

rmrd0000

No offense taken. We are all opinionated that's why we respond on the bloggs. Love freedom of speech!!! Even when it is practiced by Rustydog, Rose or Cookie Puss.

The golden parachute plan for Hillary's retirement from the Presidential race is really quite a metaphor for what ails America, and certainly seals her brand as the candidate of corporatists.

Witness reality: If the rest of us ordinary humans were to do sub-par work, waste millions of money and utterly fail to meet our objectives at our job (no matter how many times we adjust those objectives downward), we would get fired. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, it would appear, seems to be weighing the option of a golden parachute type of buy out.

Hillary Clinton, the Bear Sterns candidate.

I have an idea.

Obama should pay off clinton's debt.

But he should only do so with money made from fundraising events - both high dollar and low dollar - in which the two of them appear together on stage in a show of party unity.

Their could be a Clinton-Obama unity tour in which both of them campaign together to heal the party and at night, they fundraise together to pay off HIllary's debt.

People would pay to see the 2 of them on stage together and Obama wouldn't need to use the money of folks who already contributed who don't want their money going to the Clintons...

Win-win?

Bill Clinton: I just wanted to ask about the debt. Paying off our campaign debt, for Hillary. When does she get
it?

Obama: He doesn't.

Bill Clinton: Why not?

Obama: Because she broke the rules.

BC: What rules? We didn't see any rules, did we,
Hillary?

O: Wrong, sir, wrong! Under Section Thirty-Seven B of
the DNC rules it states quite clearly that all
offers shall become null and void if--and you can read it
for yourself in this photostatic copy: "I, the undersigned,
shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein
and herein contained, et cetera, et cetera . . . fax mentis
incendium gloria culpum , et cetera, et cetera . . . memo bis
punitor delicatum!
It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You played the race card. You made a stain on the party which now
has washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You
lose! Good day, sir!

RKA - You wrote: "Obama should pay off clinton's debt.

But he should only do so with money made from fundraising events - both high dollar and low dollar - in which the two of them appear together on stage in a show of party unity."

This is a fantastic idea. It puts in place a financial incentive for HRC to show up and say nice things about Obama.

But this entire discussion is based on nothing but speculation about what supporters of the candidates might be open to discussing. Considering that Clinton believes that the final few primaries will favor her target demographic of working class, older white people, I can see no reason why she would stop campaigning at this point. From her point of view, nothing has really changed in her strategy to convince the Superdelegates that she is more electable. For their part, the Superdelegates have locked themselves into waiting for the final primary until they make their choice. They have their reasons (respecting everybody's right to vote, etc.) but the result is that we cannot count on them to put a stop to this process.

So do not expect Clinton to change course at this point. And if you want to be angry at anything then focus it entirely on a stupid six month primary schedule. The very fact that it was planned to be this long meant that they expected the later primaries to be worthless. For my part, I could not care less which state goes first as long as the process is compressed into a manageable two- to three-month period. If anything constructive is to come of this death march then it ought to be a sustained committment to reorganize the primary calendar.

Finally, I want to take issue with the idea that the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention makes any difference as to how those states vote in November. The theory that is being floated around is that the delegates and the voters within those states would be somehow 'insulted' and that Democrats would have a hard time winning those states in the general. Hogwash. I cannot think of a notion which illustrates how self-important the party leaders and delegates must think of themselves than this idea. Do they really think that actual voters give a wet hot damn as to how the party leaders feel about anything? What a load of nonsense.

And if it is a matter of how hard the state party will work for the candidates in the general then that smacks of a kind of extortion that has no place in an election with stakes as high as this one. If they are going to jeopardize their own party because they do not think that they have been stroked enough due in large part to actions that they themselves undertook then they can go to hell.

Please excuse me while I laugh after re-thinking my own post. Have we become a banana republic? If this suggestion was offered by pols a Third World country our State Department would issue an indignant condemnation about the subversion of the democratic process; of buying off one's opponent, of using money to steal the nomination. The country might even have to have their elections observed by Pres Carter and his team of observors.

This is ridiculous. Until Sen Obama is confirmed as the nominee why should he get into this kind of discussion. He will then be accused by some group of buying out his opponent.

Forget it.

RKA, a unity tour combined with fundraising is a pretty good idea. But there's more to gain than lose by paying her campaign debts out of a common fund. Is there anyone here who is going to vote for McCain because Obama paid off some of Clinton's campaign debt? And I'm not saying that any Clinton supporter would vote for McCain because Obama refused to pay her campaign debt, but there are many of us who are annoyed by the suggestions that our candidate is evil, and we're only supporting her because of ignorance or prejudice. Since it's difficult to say "we respect and like you, but our money is too good for you," the Obama campaign should pay some of her campaign debts.

"I should take a second away from my work to point out how opposed I am to the concept of a deal like this being struck between the parties.

Both sides would be engaging in a shameful, fundamentally corrupt, anti-democratic quid pro quo, IMO.

That said, I think that further speculation about this sort of thing is not the most productive use of Democratic energy at the moment..." - Stuart, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, except that the whole campaign finance system is morally corrupt, and since this would actually help Obama win, it makes sense. And there are a lot of reports on a deal, so I think it's a reasonable subject of discussion.

"Racists, idiots, Republicans-in-disguise, women who couldn't help themselves from responding to Hillary's gender card play, gullible pander-accepters, and other victims of Hillary Clinton's misdeeds and general villainy." - Yes, that's what we're called by a lot of people. Most of the Obama supporters on Swampland are much fairer - that's one reason why I post much more here than on other sites - but there are many Obama supporters who feel that way. But the Democrats will have a much better chance in the GE if Clinton supporters can actually feel good about voting for Obama.

"And if it is a matter of how hard the state party will work for the candidates in the general then that smacks of a kind of extortion that has no place in an election with stakes as high as this one. If they are going to jeopardize their own party because they do not think that they have been stroked enough due in large part to actions that they themselves undertook then they can go to hell." - Terrapinion, first it was the Republican state legislatures who moved the dates. I wonder why they did that... And second, you're right the stakes are high, because McCain shouldn't have his finger anywhere near the button. So let's not tell swing states to "go to hell."

Rose - I promise you that I am not telling swing states to go to hell. In fact, your perception of my comment illustrates the point I was trying to make - that is, there ought to be a difference between the voters in the state and the delegates and party leaders that got us into this mess.

Let me put it this way, if my state's delegates were not seated at the convention (which is the consequence we are talking about) then I can promise you that my vote in November will not change in any way imaginable. And I think that the same could be said about all the other voters in my state. The only people that are going to get their panties in a twist about this are the delegates and party leaders themselves.

And if they decide that they are going to drag their feet during the campaign simply because they were treated at the convention in a manner consistent with the rules of their party then they, the delegates and party leaders, are the ones who have forgotten the stakes of this election and they should be publicly condemned for it.

It is my contention that the voters will not behave any differently in November no matter what happens at the convention - all of this hand-wringing is ridiculous.

It is also my contention that if the state parties of Florida and Michigan do not campaign with all of their abilities then they should be replaced with people who care more about this nation than their careers as party insiders.

Casey Morris | May 10, 2008 3:56 PM
wins the thread.

It is critical that if any deal to relieve Hillary's debts takes place, a quid pro quo from Clinton to actively campaign for Obama's election be explicit and iron-tight. I like the idea that any debt repayment would be contingent upon an Obama victory, but doubt that will be the case.

I think Hillary would be a better Majority Leader than Harry Reid (would go so far as to say many Dems would be better), and believe she could be a tremendous asset in finally enacting a universal health care that frees US manufacturers from the crushing burden of the most expensive per capita health care system in the world.

If Democrats can get health care somewhere close to right, and substantially reduce the country's military presence in the Middle East, Democrats will likely establish the type of permanent majority government that rather recently Karl Rove imagined for his slash and burn Republicans.

Ironic.

Rose - There may be some legal issues with Obama just writing a $15 million dollar check for Hillary. He can only give her $2300 like anyone else. I think that the money would have to come from new sources, not already-donated money.

Terrapinion...Don't worry, I don't want Hillary to get out, for selfish reasons though. If she got out now, Obama might still lose WV and KY and that would be embarrasing if Clinton had dropped out. I don't mind her staying in the race until June.

RKA, yes I don't know the campaign finance rules on this. It happens a lot - like with Giuliani - so there must be some mechanism.

And that's a great point about the embarrassment of an uncontested loss in WV and KY. That story would dominate the media, who would love to talk even more about how the Democrats are in disarray and Obama is unelectable because working-class whites are too racist. It would actually be a disaster.

"Let me put it this way, if my state's delegates were not seated at the convention (which is the consequence we are talking about) then I can promise you that my vote in November will not change in any way imaginable. And I think that the same could be said about all the other voters in my state." - Terrapinion, of course I personally agree with you that it's a really bad reason to vote for McCain, but I find it hard to believe that at least a few thousand Floridians wouldn't vote for McCain because their delegates weren't seated, especially with Republicans working to exploit this. Obviously that was the whole point of moving the dates. Clearly the Republican strategists do not share your optimistic view of human nature!

Anyway, I'm certainly not suggesting that millions of Floridians will vote for McCain because of this (I'd like to see some polls on this). But we all know the impact even a very small number of Floridians can have.

Put me down as another donor who'd gladly pony up and pay out to get rid of Senator Clinton.

How big a donation does Senator Obama need from me? I probably couldn't go above a hundred, but I'd gladly give that yesterday to finally end this thing.

This may be, and I repeat, may be, my last time on this thread so I will say this as a non American and a person that cannot vote.

1) If the people posting such venom and vitriol, at this stage of the game, against Hillary Clinton are Democrats, this is a most disappointing party.
It is a shame because through history it was the one I have always thought I identified with. No wonder you lost TWICE against someone like Bush. Wow!

2) Hillary Clinton is not going anywhere and she might end up being one of the most admired and influential people in the world. History will give her her due regardless of the irresponsible media and hate filled Americans.

3) I will not say that I will never again buy an issue of Time Magazine, but it will be a loooong time before I do and believe me, there are a lot of people out there that feel like I do.

And to Rose, on this thread, you have been a class act. The rest of your fellow Democrats (if you are a Democrat) have something to learn from you. And you are absolutely right, Teddy Kennedy was despicable. And that is putting it mildly. No wonder he never got even close to a presidency.

Hillary Clinton has run a tough and tenacious campaign. If she wants to stay in until the end, great.

But I'm sorry candidates concede all the time. It's the only way elections ever end. Count me as one of those who, though trying to be successful, doesn't quite totally understand the outrage at the notion that having mathematically lost she will one day (very soon) have to concede.

Given that the Democratic Party (long before she came along) has always had a history of treating its losers bad, unless they pull out early I fail to understand why, from a strategic point, she won't do so. If she were to pull out and Obama were to lose (which her campaign keeps telling me is a fait accompli) she would easily be the frontrunner for 2012.

However as long as she insists on dragging this out she is hurting any chance she ever has to be a nominee again. Nancy Pelosi knows this, John Edwards knows it, and Diane Fienstein knows it too which is why she was hinting at what I said the other day.

Obviously Hillary is free to do whatever she wants. But everyday she continues on in this thing the more she hurts her (what would have been almost sure 100%) chance to be the Democratic nominee at sometime in the very near future be it 2012 or 2016 (if Obama wins the election which I think he would.)

It's just mystifying to many of us that she either can't or won't see this. Again it's her right. And I don't mind. But strategically it's VERY stupid.

Rose:
"She's more popular with swing Democrats than Obama is"
Maybe it is time to realize that her popularity may be overrated.
"American Idol" notwithstanding, The loser in a popularity contest cannot really claim to be the most popular.
2)"Obama needs her to be available to help unite the party in the fall"
The Clintons need the democratic party more than the party needs them.
If she intends to try again for the nomination in 2016 (or 2020, 2024, 2028 ..he he..) - she will need no incentive to work for the party this fall.
Many have not forgotten that she did not campaign hard for the party's nominee in 2000 or 2004. (Bad Karma, I say)
The Clintons can absorb their loss - and still be millionaires many times richer than the Obamas. But rapaciousness would not let the Clintons do that.
And please don't embarrass the Clintons by pushing them into reneging on their debt and playing by different rules from those that the rural folks (facing debt and foreclosure) play by when they get into debt way over their heads. Here is what Monica's Billy says:
"The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules," Bill CLinton said. "In West Virginia and Arkansas, we know that when we see it."
And the Clintons detest walking away from their debts. Treat them like any other bum.
----
Cookie Puss
"But it is not Obama's responsibility to pay off her debt or pay for the loyalty of her supporters."
AGREED - especially now that she is recklessly piling on even more debt and feeding her friendly, fat-cat, incompetent consultants - perhaps with a view to sticking Sen Obama with the tab.
Like the rest of us, the Clintons SHOULD, and can, pay their own debt (arising from a miscalculation leading to a foolish investment) or declare bankruptcy like the rest of us bitter rural working people do.
----
stuart_zechman
"... may I suggest that it might be slightly counter-productive for your campaign to actually encourage Clinton supporters to get together and mount fundraising drives..."
If her faithless supporters are THAT driven, why do they need "encouragement" to shore up their hero, 'Bosnia' Hillary, who they have been cheering on to incur more debt? Who is the more despicable scum, Hillary or her supporter?
How about you, stuart_zechman, writing off the debt, Mr Clintons-admirer?
----

NO. Millions own a bit of that Obama brand.
And those millions have better things to do than worry about the Clintons.
Like planning for elections 2012.

Does the past matter?
Do past or present associations matter?
Cain says they do.
'Punk', Decadence, Stripper Culture / McCain '08, WRONG for America

This ( http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/10/154245/021/244/513343 ) is the best explanation I've read of why money already contributed to Obama's campaign cannot and will not be used to pay off Clinton's debt. DHinMI explains that Obama supporters don't have to worry that the money they've donated would go to Clinton. What Obama could do is ask people to donate directly to Clinton's campaign to pay off her debt. It was be a choice instead of the financial kidnapping of funds that has been presented.

It was be a choice instead of the financial kidnapping of funds that has been presented.

Yeah, after reading that it became much less clear to me why Clinton has to remain a candidate in order to get her debt retired.

As Stuart says, this is not something to get worked up about, if it's even in the works. As long as Hillary isn't making outrageous demands or continuing to make demands after previous ones have been met, I'm sure she can make off with decent severance the parties in question can be happy with. And yes, I for one think the D party would really be helped by Clinton so it strikes me, an ardent Obama supporter, that throwing Clinton to the wolves isn't the most desirable outcome.

Of course, this isn't about me or what I want, and I'm not inclined to set the terms of an imaginary deal that Mark Halperin may or may not have concocted. I propose that magnanimous indifference toward the whole affair is best for everyone's sanity.

The NYT Blog KT linked to has been updated:

"Update on Debt: If Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would happen to broker a deal to help pay off her campaign debts – this remains a big if, aides said, because nothing has been formally discussed – the money would not be taken from Mr. Obama’s campaign account. Instead, he would have to make a fund-raising appeal on her behalf, asking people to contribute"

To stuart_zechman: "Both sides would be engaging in a shameful, fundamentally corrupt, anti-democratic quid pro quo, IMO."

I assume this was posted pre-update, but if not, why in gods name would you think that? It's not like they are diametrically opposed politically.

To everyone: Please take a chill pill. Give Clinton time to find a way out with dignity - she's earned that much.

I read this will probably not even happen, it usually happens if the other candidate made a bank loan or mortgage their home, to help them out. In this case with the Clinton's I would'nt say they are in the poor house.

Posted by billiecat | May 10, 2008 9:57 PM:

"Both sides would be engaging in a shameful, fundamentally corrupt, anti-democratic quid pro quo, IMO." ...why in gods name would you think that? It's not like they are diametrically opposed politically.

billiecat:

I have this funny idea that paying somebody not to still run against someone, or accepting money not to continue a candidacy is, well, just contrary to what I understand to be democratic principles.

Make sense? Doesn't it sound like Tammany Hall sort of stuff to you?

Someone up above made a really intriguing point: all the Repugs have to do is throw out some allegation, much like chum, and then watch the non-Repugs talk about it, discuss it, fractionalize over it, and the spin ourselves into pointlessness.

Not bad: they don't have to lift but a finger to disable their opponent; the non-Repugs do it themselves, like some gruesome hari-kari ritual.

And, ya know, the Repugs probably get a good chuckle out of the whole thing, too.

And, ya know, the Repugs probably get a good chuckle out of the whole thing, too.

I'll bet Mark Halperin does, as well...

Forget it. Now it looks like she's angling for the VP spot, according to CNN. Personally, I don't see how BHO would go for that - I mean 2 Presidents are bad enough, but a tri-Presidency?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/10/bernstein.clinton/index.html

With the way Bill's talking this looks set to continue for at least another 10 days.

billiecat | May 10, 2008 9:57 PM
" ..To everyone: Please take a chill pill. Give Clinton time to find a way out with dignity - she's earned that much..."

"earned that much" of what - "dignity"?
Are we referring to the same Clintons?

Have you ever heard of the word "reciprocity"?

When did the Clintons earn 'dignity'?
Why should Sen Obama's supporters dignify the Clintons when the Clintons have liberally heaped indignities on others - and especially their candidate, Professor Obama?

Think back - tell us what you missed: "I have experience, he has a speech"; "celestial choir"; "sniper fire all around"; "not electable"; "as far as I know"; "he is out of touch"; "black vote in S.C."; "no tax returns to be analyzed until more that 40 states have voted"; "Clinton Foundation out of bounds"; "fairy tale"; "elite/expert opinion is overrated"; "What is wrong with Obama?"; "meet me in Ohio"; "white people will not vote for him"; etc.

The shame of the first Clinton presidency is still fresh. It is a testament to the generosity of the democrats and the Obama supporters that the Clintons have not yet been forced to scram off the public stage into an ignominious political sunset.
--
'Dignified' Hillary (of Bold Deceit and Bizarre Logic) would harp on Rev Wright issue and reminds us that associations matter.
Is there a reverend in Hillary's closet?
http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857

Rev Procanick / Hillary '08, WRONG for America

I am sorry...I couldn't resist. I guess I'll stick around until the convention or until there is REALLY a nominee, officially, not the one anointed by Time Magazine or the rest of the pathetic U.S. Media.

I had to comment on those who keep insisting that BO should not have Hillary on his ticket because Bill would be in the White House stealing his thunder?

Are you kidding me? Is this the confidence you have in a guy with such charisma, that has swept the media in a manner I have never seen before?

I find these assertions as well as the ones that he really doesn't need her to win faulty (instead of saying flat out wrong). Bill Clinton may be many things but he would not jeopardize his wife's future, and his own, in all honesty, by behaving like that. And for those who believe he already has by his behavior in this campaign, think again. Millions of people don't think so, obviously. This is a self righteous and snobbish attitude. She is his wife and the media went after her like there was no tomorrow. He responded like a husband and many see it like this and understand it and even like it! This is one of the many things people like about the Clintons: that they are humans and sometimes they act like it.

If she were to be his Veep and they were to get to the White House, BC would continue on his humanitarian thing and be there ONLY if asked.

I mean, these people are not stupid, you know?

I just wonder if Obama will be that smart and humble. Doubt it, humility is not one of his strengths as he has shown over and over again and which will prevent him from being the "Great President" so many insist he will become.

So, he is sure he can win over her voters but it ain't gonna happen. Obama supporters have been vicious, arrogant and completely disrespectful not conceding an inch to Clinton's strengths and throwing her in the gutter relentlessly, especially on the web. And the sad thing here is that his camp did nothing to ameliorate this and this was evident when his foreign policy adviser, Power, said that Hillary Clinton was a monster, remember? That was a clear example of the kind of language being used in the intimate circles of that campaign and how about Mrs. Obama?. Nah, nah, nah. He either plays really nice or someone will bring all that up in the general and remind Hillary's supporters how thoroughly and unfairly she was maligned.

I will agree that HRC has some mending to do as well and I am sure, absolutely sure that she will do it. Regardless of being given the spot or not. She will do it because unlike what many here think, she will put her country (not her party) her country, first. I am sorry to say what I am going to say because it may sound unashamedly sexist, but she will do it because she is a woman. Women have the strength (not the submissiveness) to put others ahead of themselves. It is just the way it is. And that is the most important quality a US President needs right now, at this moment in history and it seems you might miss out on it. But of course, that is entirely your choice.

poh123

.....And the sad thing here is that his camp did nothing to ameliorate this and this was evident when his foreign policy adviser, Power, said that Hillary Clinton was a monster, remember?
-------------------
Power quit the Obama campaign!

Ferraro threatened to stop being a fundraiser

Harvey Feinstein threatened to to raising funds

Lanny Davis is stilling using "cooked books" race voting data.
-------------------
All of these people are rabid Clinton supporters. Should they all be ushered out of the Democratic Party?

How would you compare Clinton's response to Ferraro to Obama's response to Powers?

ERROR

Above comment should read Harvey Weinstein (the Hollywood mogul), not Harvey Feinstein (the actor)

If Barack is forced to choose Clinton as VP, that guarantees many more dem votes for John McCain. We who fought so diligently to stop the Clintonistas from a third co-presidency will not tolerate "that woman" in the White House ever again.

OK, so it's her or me. My one vote may not mean diddly, but added to friends and family, and I am certain that we have a lot of company in that stand.

"I mean, these people are not stupid, you know?"

Sure, not stupid at all those Clintons. I mean, it's clear that only a supremely talented president could manage to commit perjury and have an affair with an intern while passing trivial legislation and damaging his reputation and that of his party. Naturally, we all remember the success of the healthcare plan. Sheer genius. And then there is their masterful primary campaign. I mean, who else, starting with huge advantages in name recognition, money and a strong base in the party could possibly have managed to lose? Now that's what I call brilliance!

john d rock and basilbrush, do you two not want Obama to win?

RKA:

This is an EXCELLENT suggestion!

The best I've seen and an excellent way to heal the wounds!

...who else, starting with huge advantages in name recognition, money and a strong base in the party could possibly have managed to lose?

Somebody who, along with their supporters, surrogates and voters wasn't accused of racism or racism-based tactics at the drop of a hat by an opposition that has an unquestioning, scandal-mongering media to help spread the word among key constituencies.

..or at least somebody whose campaign had at least given half a thought about responding to such swift-boating, instead of throwing their hands up in the air in shock and dismay, and saying either the first things that came to mind or nothing at all.

And, lest the argument descend again into whether Nobel Prize-winning race relations dissertationist Peggy Noonan is somehow accurately describing Senator Clinton's most recent "shockingly racist" description of Reagan Democrats using the terrifying, cross-burning code words "white" and "hard-working", even if the Clinton campaign did in certain desperate moments engage in tactics attempting to cast Obama as unelectable because of his skin color, it wouldn't mitigate the more despicable Obama campaign strategy of using swift-boat tactics (including the tacit approval of Noonan's gleeful malice) to cast the Clintons as race-baiters, no matter what they said or didn't say.

Somebody who starts out with great name recognition, but whose opponents are able to redefine