Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

George,

I think FreeDuck is the voice of reason here, and I dont really have anything to add to what she just posted. She said it better than I could. You're just grasping now, and especially the Ayers "connection" is such a grasp that it looks, well, a little out in leftfield.

0 Replies

Does anyone else despise the all-too-common "pretend to point and wave at an old friend in the crowd" maneuver?

Quote:

This Is an Ex-Candidate

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, May 14, 2008; A03

Customer: "Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."

Pet-shop owner: "No, no he's not dead, he's -- he's resting! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian blue, isn't it, aye? Beautiful plumage!"

-- From "Monty Python's Flying Circus"

11:45 a.m., Melrose Hotel, Foggy Bottom: It's Day 7 of the Clinton Campaign Death Watch -- a full week since the official arbiter of the Democratic primary, Tim Russert, declared the campaign over and Barack Obama the nominee. Hillary Clinton's advisers continue to insist that the candidate's prospects are very much alive, but the press isn't buying it. Exhibit A: There are two press buses waiting at the hotel here for Clinton's trip to her victory rally in West Virginia, but the entire press contingent doesn't quite fill one. It isn't until the entourage arrives at Dulles Airport that Clinton aides learn that the second bus is still idling, empty, at the hotel.

If there is importance in the results of the primary in West Virginia, the press corps isn't letting on. During the security sweep at Dulles, some play Hacky Sack with a cigarette carton. Awaiting the candidate on the tarmac, two guys from CNN toss a football. Aboard the plane, one member of the press corps entertains his colleagues by flopping down the aisle on his belly, like a fish.

But Clinton, wearing a salmon-colored jacket and dark sunglasses, is all smiles as she boards the jet. She hugs and kisses her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe. Still grinning, she helps herself to a cracker with spread from the snack tray as the plane taxis to the runway. And why shouldn't she be happy? Within minutes, Clinton has crossed the Blue Ridge and is over the green hills of West Virginia, home of what she calls the "hardworking Americans, white Americans." This is Clinton Country.

Customer: "That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk."

Pet-shop owner: "Well, he's, he's, ah, probably pining for the fiords."

2:57 p.m., Yeager Airport, Charleston, W.Va.: A steep descent brings Clinton's plane to Charleston's hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.

On the way into town, she makes an unscheduled stop at an upscale farmers market, but about 30 Clinton supporters, several wearing AFSCME T-shirts and waving Clinton campaign signs, have

somehow gotten wind of it. Clinton works the crowd, signing autographs and making small talk ("Is that your dog?"). She makes her way past rows of geraniums and marigolds.

But even among the blooms, Clinton is reminded of her troubles. She stops at Ellen's Homemade Ice Cream and orders a scoop of espresso Oreo and a scoop of butter pecan. "Ooh, that looks good," she says after taking the confection, then pauses. "Now, let's see. Who's got my money?" asks the woman who has lent her campaign $11 million to keep it afloat. She laughs. "Where -- where'd they go, the people with my money?" Finally, two aides arrive to retire Clinton's dessert debt.

Customer: (Takes parrot from cage, bangs its head on counter, lets it drop to floor.) "Now, that's what I call a dead parrot."

Pet-shop owner: "No, he's stunned! . . . You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian blues stun easily, Major."

7:30 p.m., South Hall, Charleston Convention Center: The moment the polls close, the networks declare Clinton the winner of the primary. This is no surprise: Exit polls show a 2 to 1 margin for Clinton.

There is no television playing on the red-carpeted floor of the convention center, where all of 89 Clinton supporters have arrived so far. After a 12-minute delay, somebody thinks to turn on the TV in the hall, and the small group breaks into a chant: "It's not over."

Or is it? A week ago, Clinton won the Indiana primary by two percentage points -- and the media decreed that she had lost. Now she's trouncing Obama by double digits in West Virginia -- and nobody seems to care. This, no doubt, has something to do with the fact that she is trailing Obama in the popular vote, states won, pledged delegates and, now, superdelegates. Even Clinton loyalist James Carville calls Obama the likely nominee.

But Clinton aides press on in their effort to demonstrate life in her candidacy. At the Charleston victory celebration, McAuliffe charges up to the lectern. "Hillary Clinton is in this to the end," he tells the crowd. "She's going to Denver as the nominee!"

Customer: "He's not pining! He's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! . . . His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!"

9:06 p.m., still in the South Hall: The announcer has just introduced "the next president of the United States." And with the TV now turned off, it almost seems possible. The confetti guns are loaded and ready. The streamers hang from the ceiling. And the crowd -- now up to 500, all but about 10 of them white -- is rapturous as Clinton rebukes the "pundits and the naysayers."

"There are some who wanted to cut this race short!" Clinton says from the faux-wood lectern. They boo.

"I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign," she says. They cheer.

"There are many who wanted to declare a nominee before the ballots were counted or even cast," she says. They boo.

"This race isn't over yet," she says. They cheer.

The sound system emits a loud screech of feedback. The confetti cannons fire.

See? She wasn't dead; she was just pining for the fiords.

0 Replies

This is for you, Tico.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/hillarys-hand-g.html

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

George,

I think FreeDuck is the voice of reason here, and I dont really have anything to add to what she just posted. She said it better than I could. You're just grasping now, and especially the Ayers "connection" is such a grasp that it looks, well, a little out in leftfield.

I don't think so. She at least didn't attempt to defend that generational canard, however for the rest her defense was highly selective, and added no new information to the original that preceded it.

In effect, the two of you are saying that the Ayers and Wright matters plus a few other slips - all suggesting that Obama may not be all that his rhetoric suggests - are, and ought to be, indicative of nothing, even though there is damn little other than his books and campaign rhetoric that denys it. By inference then they should have no effect on the result in November.

I don't think that is a conclusion that is warranted by the available facts. As you and others have previously noted, 2008 is a year in which the Democrats should be able to achieve a sweeping victory, transforming both the Congress and the Presidency in a manner reminiscent of 1980. While the polls and the odds-makers do forecast substantial gains for them in the Congress, they do not forecast such a clear victory for the presidency - even those most favorable in their estimates for Obama.

We will all know in November. I believe questions relating to Obama's character and "real" political motivations will indeed be a significant factor in the behavior of most voters. Whether this will be enough to cause his defeat, I don't feel able to forecast reliably, however, I strongly believe it will be viewed as a significant factor in the retrospective polling and analysis that follows the election, and thus give the lie to FreeDuck's assertion that the evidence of it will be considered as "nebulous" to most voters.

0 Replies

Quote:

In effect, the two of you are saying that the Ayers and Wright matters plus a few other slips - all suggesting that Obama may not be all that his rhetoric suggests

How does "the Ayers matter" suggest that Obama may not be all that his rhetoric suggests?

What IS "the Ayers matter"?

(The "Wright matter" has been discussed at length so I'm choosing the simpler of the two.)

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Does anyone else despise the all-too-common "pretend to point and wave at an old friend in the crowd" maneuver?

YES

0 Replies

I'm not very interested in arguing the thing, the meaning of which was further clarified by the part of the sentence you left out of the quote.

Quote:

In effect, the two of you are saying that the Ayers and Wright matters plus a few other slips - all suggesting that Obama may not be all that his rhetoric suggests - are, and ought to be, indicative of nothing, even though there is damn little other than his books and campaign rhetoric that denys it.

If you prefer you can imagine that I just wrote "Wright".

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Quote:
In effect, the two of you are saying that the Ayers and Wright matters plus a few other slips - all suggesting that Obama may not be all that his rhetoric suggests

How does "the Ayers matter" suggest that Obama may not be all that his rhetoric suggests?

What IS "the Ayers matter"?

They sat on the board of a charity together! He even once hosted a fundraiser for him! Who knows what kind of dangerous lefty extremist ideas might have seeped into Obama's mind, which he's never let on about in any shape, way of form, by the mere proximity of this guy!

In other news, an ex-lover of mine was fiercely conservative. Now I know that you have read seven years worth of my posts, and that I've never demonstrated any sign of having turned even partly conservative myself, but dont you see? That doesnt tell us anything yet, not really! Who knows how she may have impacted my thinking and beliefs in ways that will only ever come out once I'm elected to position X?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think so. She at least didn't attempt to defend that generational canard, however for the rest her defense was highly selective, and added no new information to the original that preceded it.

Err, yeah, I have no intention of defending your characterization of my generational hypothesis, which I stand by.

Quote:

In effect, the two of you are saying that the Ayers and Wright matters plus a few other slips - all suggesting that Obama may not be all that his rhetoric suggests - are, and ought to be, indicative of nothing, even though there is damn little other than his books and campaign rhetoric that denys it. By inference then they should have no effect on the result in November.

Leaving aside that he does have plenty of actions that he can be judged on and a record in Illinois (which you haven't said yet whether you've actually looked into), here is what I'm saying -- which I don't believe resembles your characterization. It is a stretch to string together loose associations and a gaffe or two with out of context remarks to weave an elaborate shadow of something suspicious. If there was anything concrete there, surely one could do better. The fact is that we know about these things because political operatives have presented them as an attack on him. The whole point is to put all of these unrelated random things together to create doubt. Do you not think that an equally malicious and creative effort could yield all sorts of suggestions about every single elected official? Here, just for fun, how many members of the House of Representatives are now sympathetic to the Black Panthers? I'll give you a hint -- all of them, using the same sort of logic used to create doubt about Obama, who I'm certain now has been heavily influenced by Ayers' radical and revolutionary ideas about... education.

Quote:

I believe questions relating to Obama's character and "real" political motivations will indeed be a significant factor in the behavior of most voters. Whether this will be enough to cause his defeat, I don't feel able to forecast reliably, however, I strongly believe it will be viewed as a significant factor in the retrospective polling and analysis that follows the election, and thus give the lie to FreeDuck's assertion that the evidence of it will be considered as "nebulous" to most voters.

Oh I'm certain that it will matter to many voters -- most of whom would be voting Republican anyway but some who wouldn't have -- and will be pushed hard by the right wing precisely because it plays to some innate suspicions many people have of "the other". But I think that anyone who is looking at it honestly will come to the conclusion that it's weak, and the very fact that it is so weak when lots of oppo research has been done to make it the very strongest it can be makes it that much more easily dismissed.

Of course, this is all just my opinion which I'm spouting mostly because I enjoy arguing with you, george, and because you're a good and brave sport.

0 Replies

If george is looking for evidence of what Obama's done, this is a good place to start:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

(Only goes up to 2006, when it was written.)

0 Replies

Nimh, a dedicated political savant, will surely know about the life and political career of Francois Mitterand, President of France for about 15 years, beginning in 1981. I would be very interested to hear/read Nimh's analysis of this very interesting man, a former minor official in the Vichy government during WWII, who later transformed himself into a far left wing (this is France mind you) socialist, and then governed France for 15 years as an entrenched conservative. It illustrates an important fact about human beings and politics that has so far been dissappointingly (to me) absent from your analysis of the situation before us now.

Ambitious politicians say, write, and do the things they believe they must say, write and do to achieve their ambitions and objectives. This is the rule, not the exception in politics - American and otherwise. All of you appear (to me) uncannily inclined to dismiss all of this in the case of Barac Obama (but not, as FreeDuck has shown, Mccain.). Something I find a bit amazing, given his relative (to most other candidates with longer public & political records) inexperience in this campaign.

I suppose the most extreme example in this country is Franklin Roosevelt's 1940 campaign, which was based on his promise to keep the country out of the war in Europe. We now have the record of his concurrent correspondence with Winston Churchill in which he was conspiring to do just that. This one is a bit remote now, but there have been many examples since then - i.e. G.W. Bush's promise to pursue a more cooperative foreign policy with our allies and add some "humility" to the conduct of our foreign relations - just for one!

We know relatively much more about John McCain than we do about Obama - and that applies to all aspects of his life, political and otherwise. There is no fault in Obama for this: it is merely a fact. That fact makes the little we know all the more significant in assessing his potential for surprising us.

Politicians, presidential candidates in particular, are most certainly NOT exactly what their rhetoric (and the self-serving autobiographical books they all write with such presience a couple of years before the run for office) implies. That is the lesson and the rule (in the sense that it usually happens that way) of history, and it is an observable trait of human beings generally. You all, in effect, assert that this is, a priori, most certainly not the case with Barac Obama, but you provide no evidence on which to base this assertion. Further you insist there is a burden of proof on anyone who would suggest otherwise.

I find that rather amazing.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Does anyone else despise the all-too-common "pretend to point and wave at an old friend in the crowd" maneuver?

YES

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1323/artclintongijp9.jpg

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Does anyone else despise the all-too-common "pretend to point and wave at an old friend in the crowd" maneuver?

YES

http://www.ivygateblog.com/images/barack-obama.jpg

0 Replies

george, you seem to be arguing two different things. I am not at all suggesting that Obama is not a politician, or that he might take on policies that are not as liberal or conservative as some people assume they will be. In fact, this is what I like about him. He seems less married to ideology and more willing to consider and do things that work rather than things that are ideologically driven.

But that's not the same as raising questions about his patriotism or doubts that he might be a closet radical.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

george, you seem to be arguing two different things. I am not at all suggesting that Obama is not a politician, or that he might take on policies that are not as liberal or conservative as some people assume they will be. In fact, this is what I like about him. He seems less married to ideology and more willing to consider and do things that work rather than things that are ideologically driven.

But that's not the same as raising questions about his patriotism or doubts that he might be a closet radical.

I haven't expressed any doubts about his patriotism, and frankly don't have any. I do believe his real political motives may well be different from those indicated in his political rhetoric, which we apparently agree is somewhat vague and non-specific.

You apparently chose to believe that non-specific quality suggests only a beneficial pragmatism. The problem is there is very little evidence in his political record to support that. (And yes I have done some research into his record in the Illinois legislature, including a statistical summary of his votes (with or against his party, missed, and "present".)

I don't deny the possibility that he is as you chose to believe, however, I recognize it as an unsubstantiated assumption on your part. In concrete terms I fear he may reveal himself to be much farther left in his foreign and domestic views than he has so far indicated. I also harbor doubts that he has the strength of character required to actually lead a complex and divisive government. Jimmy Carter provided us an excellent example of a benevolent fool who leaves chaos and disarray in his wake. I believe these ideas will reflect his greatest vulnerabilities in the coming election. I believe there is room for doubt on these points and the public concerns about them are real and significant - you apparently dismiss them out of hand.

For yourself, I believe you are allowing your own chariacatures of those you most oppose in the political arena to cloud your view & understanding of what is really before you. That isn't wise - don't make yourself the first victim of your own propaganda. Believe it or not I say that with your interest in mind.

0 Replies

Hi George

I think that even if he purported otherwise in his campaign rhetorics, many people knew at the time that Roosevelt was in fact less than committed to keeping the US out of war. Had our conversation taken place back then, surely you would have been able to reference some evidence that this was so - disputable, but concrete enough, ground for such an argument.

This stands in stark contrast with the insinuation that Obama has really been very influenced by the radicalisms of Ayers, Wright and BLT, even though he's succesfully kept that under wraps throughout his life, works and writings so far. All our questions, to those arguing that possibility, about what kind of evidence such suspicions are based on have yielded nothing more than flagpins and how Obama says "change" a lot.

Mitterand, as you mention, was a minor Vichy official, and afterwards was quite pragmatic on questions of war legacies for a while, something that came back to embarass him once he became the leftist leader you describe. So again, it would have hardly taken much effort at the time, prior or during his 1980 campaign, to suggest evidence that he might actually turn out to be more of a pragmatist than a socialist radical as President if the winds were to change, as they indeed did.

(I dont think your characterisation of Mitterand as an "entrenched conservative" is right, btw - I'd say more of a right-wing social democrat. I.e., I think it would be fairer to group his later years as President with those of Chirac in an umbrella category of mushy middle, statist centrism.)

Point being, your analogies are flawed. Of course Obama is also just a politician, and of course politicians will change course when situations change. GWB ran as compassionate conservative, and turned out to govern as a radical neocon. But again, a look at his record, however slim, as Texas Governor, not to mention a look at his political and policy advisors, could have told one that there was a fair chance of this happening. Not saying it was some kind of unescapable conclusion that all should have foreseen; all I'm saying is there were some actual, concrete grounds, in terms of his record, his proposals and his political advisors, to believe that a radical conservative policy was a real possibility. But as your refuge into analogies underscores, in a way, there is no evidence at all that Obama really, despite everything he's consistently said, done and written, has internalised Black Liberation Theology, or that he's osmosed Ayers' radical revolutionary beliefs. That he's not just a progressive politician, but secretly an extremist one.

I mean, to go back to the specific here: you wrote earlier that there is no way for us to know whether "Obama's relationship (whatever it is) with Ayers ... didnt have a particularly strong influence in Obama's experience". For Pete's sake, he sat on the board of a charity with him. Surely you know many people who have sat on the board of charities or similar organisations, or maybe you have done so yourself as well. Do you really think there is any reason to assume that sitting on a board with the man might well have had a "particularly strong influence" on Obama? And more so, one that he has then purposefully hid from the public to such perfection as to not let out a shred of evidence of it? That this is a real issue?

I mean, yes, sure, I admit - everything is possible in this strange, strange world. Aliens might walk among us. You might have been a communist spy. But possibilities that ephemeral are usually rightly recognized as being part of the irrational realm, that of conspiracy theorists.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I haven't expressed any doubts about his patriotism, and frankly don't have any.

I know you haven't, but you seemed to say it was ok, natural, and somewhat justified if voters have those doubts based on these little snippets of negative associations.

Quote:

I do believe his real political motives may well be different from those indicated in his political rhetoric, which we apparently agree is somewhat vague and non-specific.

You apparently chose to believe that non-specific quality suggests only a beneficial pragmatism.

No, it's not his motives that I believe may well be different. I don't doubt his motives. It's policy that I think could change depending on circumstances and based on what will actually work.

Quote:

The problem is there is very little evidence in his political record to support that.

I disagree and think that his record actually does suggest pragmatism. Soz's link is a good reference for that and actually what I had in mind when I asked you if you'd looked at his record. I read that around the time it was written and went digging myself, and that's where my opinion of him mostly came from.

Quote:

I don't deny the possibility that he is as you chose to believe, however, I recognize it as an unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

Again, I disagree that it is unsubstantiated any more than any assumption about any candidate is. Obviously we can't know what kind of president someone will be until they are. But my opinion of him is based on things he's done as well as said.

Quote:

In concrete terms I fear he may reveal himself to be much farther left in his foreign and domestic views than he has so far indicated. I also harbor doubts that he has the strength of character required to actually lead a complex and divisive government. Jimmy Carter provided us an excellent example of a benevolent fool who leaves chaos and disarray in his wake. I believe these ideas will reflect his greatest vulnerabilities in the coming election. I believe there is room for doubt on these points and the public concerns about them are real and significant - you apparently dismiss them out of hand.

No, I don't. Again, we were discussing different "doubts" with the Wright and Ayers crap. The kinds of doubts you raise are not in any way suggested by nebulous associations to 60s radicals or membership in a church where the preacher once said God Damn America.

Quote:

For yourself, I believe you are allowing your own chariacatures of those you most oppose in the political arena to cloud your view & understanding of what is really before you. That isn't wise - don't make yourself the first victim of your own propaganda. Believe it or not I say that with your interest in mind.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate your benevolence, but of course I disagree.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

2:57 p.m., Yeager Airport, Charleston, W.Va.: A steep descent brings Clinton's plane to Charleston's hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.

Dana Millbank: This Is an Ex-Candidate (or is she just pining for the fjords?)

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

george, you seem to be arguing two different things. I am not at all suggesting that Obama is not a politician, or that he might take on policies that are not as liberal or conservative as some people assume they will be. In fact, this is what I like about him. He seems less married to ideology and more willing to consider and do things that work rather than things that are ideologically driven.

But that's not the same as raising questions about his patriotism or doubts that he might be a closet radical.

Excellent exchange between Free Duck and george, but in the debate on this topic (the significance of Obama's associations with Wright and Ayers) it seems as if Freeduck and her fellow supporters of Obama wish to focus on the grossest of the interpretations of their opponents, which certainly doesn't equate (in my estimation) with george's position.

The most extreme interpretation is that Obama is secretly a racist anti-American who, once in office, will reveal himself and proceed to lay waste to American traditions and institutions. I suppose there are some people who believe this, but then there are people who think George Bush is a homicidal megalomaniac.

In defending Obama's associations with these individuals, a great deal of effort has been expended towards either marginalizing the individuals and the extent of the relationships with Obama or criticizing the concern expressed by opponents as either mean spirited or feeble.

Ayers:

Without hyperbole, Ayers is a former terrorist who participated in, if not led, bombing attacks on the Pentagon, the Capital and other governmental buildings. He and his group, clearly, did not target people and never intended to injure anyone. That they did not is as much a matter of luck as their intent, and if they had, they would have been entirely responsible, irrespective of their intent.

After being on the run for 10 years Ayers surrendered, but beat federal charges and imprisonment because of a legal technicality -- improper surveillance by the prosecution.

In 2001, Ayers told a NY Times reporter "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" he replied "I don't want to discount the possibility." He later made attempts to explain that, by these statements, he didn't mean what any reasonably intelligent person would conclude.

That he has been welcomed by Academia and has established a successful career is not surprising, but it doesn't exonerate him for his past crimes. It's also not surprising that in defending Obama in connection with his association with Ayers, his liberal supporters have minimized Ayers' crimes. It now appears that they have also developed the argument that the entire flap is the result of a generational hangover on the part of folks, trapped in a ideology of the past, who can't get beyond the overblown notion that Ayers and his fellow criminals were bad guys.

I suspect that these same people would not find it generational projection if they expressed concern about John McCain associating with individuals responsible for burning black churches or bombing abortion clinics.

So what is the significance of the Obama/Ayers association?

Politically, its a small semi-precious stone. One more brush stroke in a portrait of Obama as someone with questionable sentiments for America. (Wright on the other hand is a large jewel that has, for many people, provide a much clearer representation of Obama).

Substantively, it depends, largely, upon one's opinion of Ayers' past crimes and his apparent lack of remorse, and whether or not one believes Obama was aware of the Ayers biography during his association with him. I doubt he would have agreed to participate with OJ Simpson on a panel studying student athletics, or been warm to him if he somehow felt he had to participate.

That he did participate on the panel with Ayers and, by all accounts, had at least a cordial and cooperative relationship with him, tells me that he didn't find Ayers' past and lack of remorse at all troubling. Does this mean that he commends that past or shares Ayers prior or even current radical views? No it doesn't, but it does tell us something about the way he thinks. This way of thinking may not concern you, nimh or others, but I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss it as a legitimate concern for others who attempt to rationally evaluate Obama's candidacy.

Obama is a relatively unknown quantity and with a limited history of public service and a carefully fashioned public image, it's reasonable that people will look outside the crafted frame for signs of what he is really all about.

I wasn't ever going to vote for Obama, as I disagree with virtually all of his positions and so these associations play no part in my decision, but I do think that it is legitimate for his opponents to raise them for consideration by undecided voters, just as it is legitimate to raise the associations of McCain for consideration.

0 Replies

Superdelegates Turned Down $1 Million Offer From Clinton Donor
May 19, 2008 02:50 PM

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.

Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

Contacted about the report, Saban, initially very friendly, became curt. "Not true," he said, "it's simply not true." He declined to elaborate. Did he talk to the YDA superdelegate? "I talk to many, many superdelegates. Some I don't even remember their names." Did he propose any financial transaction? "I have never offered them or anybody any money" in exchange for support or a vote, he said. The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.

Members of the Young Democrats agonized about the potential fallout of Saban's call; his financial offer represented one-third of the group's 2008 budget. Democratic officials and fundraisers were consulted about how to respond, and at times the discussions were "emotional," one participant said. "It is scary for them, Haim is very powerful, he has great influence over donors who give to them."
link

0 Replies

Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know