<ol>
<li><p>I wonder if B. Clinton severed his ties with Ron Burkle for financial reasons with regard to the campaign.</p></li>
<li><p>I wonder what would happen if the superdelegates threw the nomination to Clinton. How would the grassroots feel and then vote in November?</p></li>
<li><p>Although not a democrat, I am very much enjoying the excitement – here, at my daughter’s college, in my real life – created by the Obama campaign. He seems like a good man and it’s nice to see people energized by something positive, rather than viciousness.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I agree with Janieblue that nothing is certain yet.<br>
Clinton has the most superdelegates, though they can change their minds; and there’s still the tricky issue of FL and MI “delegates.” I hate for these two large states not to count, but Clinton did not win these delegates fair and square.</p>
<p>“Clinton has the most superdelegates, though they can change their minds; and there’s still the tricky issue of FL and MI “delegates.” I hate for these two large states not to count, but Clinton did not win these delegates fair and square.”</p>
<p>I’m confident that, like in Nevada, her surrogates will be filing a law suit at some point. It’s even been alluded to.</p>
<p>Today’s The New Republic has an article detailing the shady contributors to Clinton. Ron Burkle is not among them. But he is an embarrassment because he has enabled Bill’s skirt-chasing since leaving the presidency.</p>
<p>“Today’s The New Republic has an article detailing the shady contributors to Clinton. Ron Burkle is not among them. But he is an embarrassment because he has enabled Bill’s skirt-chasing since leaving the presidency.”</p>
<p>Clinton recently severed a partnership for $20 million (with Burkle) and I was wondering if that money was what would go to the campaign, not saying that Burkle, himself, was a donor. That would be too stupid even for the Clintons.</p>
<p>Howard Dean is sure already telling them that he doesn’t want the superdelegates to decide, so I don’t think that is going to happen. Does anyone else think Hillary sounds a bit desperate? First the “debate a week” thing and then the tone of her news conference yesterday. And just the idea of her loaning her campaign that much money, not that it hasn’t been done many times before. </p>
<p>When you think about it…Obama has been building his campaign structure for about a year. Clinton, hers, for at least 5 years and in reality a lot longer. Isn’t it amazing that he is tied with her at this point, more or less, in both popular vote and pledged delegates, and way outstripping her in fundraising? </p>
<p>Way over 7 million. I wonder what the total from February 1 is!</p>
<p>And oh by the way (added this later)–in a way, the amazing fundraising says something else about what Obama is capable of doing. He has coaxed more money from more of us than any other politician, ever, I think, and we are giving it gladly. Doesn’t that also say something about his power to mobilize us to do other things that the country needs, like help curb energy use, deal with raised taxes and/or reduced spending, etc., reach consensus on difficult issues?</p>
<p>"Howard Dean is sure already telling them that he doesn’t want the superdelegates to decide, so I don’t think that is going to happen. "</p>
<p>Yeah, I heard Dean saying that, and McAuliffe dangling the VP spot to Obama. It does sound a little desperate. But interesting as all get out (in a good way).</p>
<p>“At this point do any of you think the funds matter? Do you think there are still people undecided who’ll be influenced one way or the other by advertising?”</p>
<p>Yes, they matter, although as Romney proved, no amount of money can save you if the voters just say no. But in general, the more people see of Obama, the more support he gets. TV ads urging people to turn out, and paid staffers getting people to the polls, could make a difference in a race this close.</p>
<p>I made my first ever contribution to Obama yesterday as well. Here’s what pushed me to do it:SuperBowl Sunday at a party I heard a discussion by three people I thought were educated and rational about Obama being a Muslim who took his oath of Senate Office on a Koran.Then yesterday my sister in law told me with certainty that Obama doesn’t “salute the American flag”.In between I heard the story of Hillary “lending” her campaign $5 mill,which is a sneaky way of getting around campaign limits…you loan, then get it back through fundraising after the campaign limits expire. I expect more crocodile tears soon and wonder if they’ll set Bill free (unmuzzle) to start up his shenanigans again.
Obama needs all the money he can get to make sure the American people know who he is and to get his message across.</p>
<p>BTW, I did think it was nice that the good voters of Connecticut were not swayed by the tears at Yale! Sheesh, is she taking acting lessons or something?</p>
<p>And yes–I think there is some dirty politics going on, and I am glad that Obama is smart enough to see it, clever enough to know how to respond in the media, and solvent enough to counteract it :).</p>
<p>As you know, I support Obama. But I don’t begrudge Hillary her tears. However hard-boiled one may be, exhaustion can render one more emotional, less in control. She may have been moved (CT), she may have indulged in a bit of self-pity (NH), but either way, she is entitled to her tears.
marite, who cries at movies and over sad books. :(</p>
<p>I agree marite, let’s all cut Hillary some slack. This woman can’t win: when she’s tough she’s a ballbuster, when she cries she’s acting. I initially supported Hillary and still would feel OK voting for her. But at this stage I support Obama, just bought some bumper stickers & made a small donation, because I am completely impressed by how he’s run his campaign (clean, classy) and by his power to inspire the young. If he does win the presidency, I think he’ll draw the best and the brightest to Washington. Also, I believe he’ll be better at building consensus and easing party divisions. But that’s not to say that Hillary makes a bad candidate, and much of the hateful response towards her you hear bandied about appears almost comically pathological.</p>
<p>I doubt anyone wants to get into a public debate about contributions from shady characters. Let’s not forget Obama’s relationship to Rezco (whose corruption trial starts in about 2 weeks), and with whom he made a property deal-- knowing full well at the time that Rezco had already been indicted on federal corruption charges.</p>
<p>On the debate issue-- while I think one debate a week might be overdoing it, I am very disappointed, though not at all surprised, that Obama does not want more debates. His strengths are definitely in speaking to big crowds, not in those debates. I suspect he also doesn’t want debates starting about the same time Rezco goes into trial.</p>
<p>Honestly, the fact that he has turned away from doing any more debates-- at least any time soon-- makes me take a look at Hillary a little more closely. Does he have a good reason for not wanting to debate her? Again, I get not wanting to do one a week-- but is there no compromise? For many of the voting public, those debates are worthwhile.</p>
<p>"woman can’t win: when she’s tough she’s a ballbuster, when she cries she’s acting. "</p>
<p>It’s the timing of the tears that many question.</p>
<p>" doubt anyone wants to get into a public debate about contributions from shady characters. "</p>
<p>I definitely do. Categorically. I want to know who has purchased influence with each candidate.</p>
<p>“Honestly, the fact that he has turned away from doing any more debates-- at least any time soon-- makes me take a look at Hillary a little more closely. Does he have a good reason for not wanting to debate her? Again, I get not wanting to do one a week-- but is there no compromise? For many of the voting public, those debates are worthwhile”</p>
<p>I’ve watched every debate on both sides and I can’t for the life of me what’s left to be said right now.</p>
<p>More and more debates are usually demanded by poorly funded challengers to get free airtime. It is shocking to see that Hillary is reduced to this strategy to compete against Obama. </p>
<p>If her donors smell defeat they are going to abandon her very quickly. They have been funding her for years and years in the hope that they can buy influence in an ‘inevitable’ future administration. They are not going to throw more money at her if it looks like she won’t be able to deliver. </p>
<p>I don’t expect any kickbacks for the $100 I gave online for Obama. I suspect most of the 650,000 other people who gave him money feel the same way. Oh and I am willing to send him more money for the general election if he needs it.</p>
<p>“I don’t expect any kickbacks for the $100 I gave online for Obama. I suspect most of the 650,000 other people who gave him money feel the same way. Oh and I am willing to send him more money for the general election if he needs it”</p>
<p>You make a brilliant point that I hadn’t even considered. Many small donors versus a few big donors equals very different expectations. Hmmmm.</p>
<p>I agree that debates are free publicity, so it makes sense for Hillary to demand more of them and Obama to try to avoid giving Hillary free publicity.</p>
<p>I think it was brilliant of him to talk about that old woman who sent him $3.01 in an envelope. He highlighted the fact that he is gets and appreciates small contributions, and rejects lobbyists. Also in a very subtle way he invites others to contribute, even if they can only part with $10, $50 or $100.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen one major news outlet stating the obvious: momentum’s in Obama’s favor, money’s in Obama’s favor, he tied the delegate count at the very least against a much more recognized and more organized challenger:</p>
<p>Obama’s going all the way, unless something unforeseen derails him.</p>