Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
__Kratos__

Obama donates to Clinton campaign

20 posts in this topic

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, each donated $2,300 Thursday to the campaign of his former opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton, which is millions of dollars in debt.

In addition, Obama's national finance chairman, Penny Pritzker, and her husband donated another $2,300 each, said Obama communications director Robert Gibbs. The $2,300 is the maximum individual contribution allowed.

"[Obama] wrote a check himself, as well as his finance chairman, so I got two checks in my pocket for Hillary," said Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe.

Asked how much the checks were for, he responded, "They maxed out."

Obama communications director Robert Gibbs confirmed the Obamas' donations.

The move comes nearly three weeks after Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

This week, Obama asked top contributors to help Clinton retire her campaign debt of $22 million, about $12 million of which she loaned to her own campaign.

The two Democrats met Thursday night in Washington with her top fundraisers.

On Friday, they are to appear together at a rally in Unity, New Hampshire, a town on the state's western border where they tied in the January primary.

Clinton and Obama endured a protracted and, at times, fierce primary season. After months of divisive contests that took them through every state, the two are focused on uniting their party in order to defeat the Republicans in November.

More of the article here: Link

-------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like a bribe to me... If someone was giving me money and then helped me to raise 10 million dollars they've got my vote. Hell, just give me the $2,300 and you've got my vote, mmkay? That'll get me a decent tv and a blu-ray player! :D Go *reads name on check* for President!!! Wooooooo! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bribe as you see it, Kratos?

I don't understand. I had figured Clinton would have thrown her support to Obama no matter what.

I don't think she was likely to go support John McCain.

Did you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a bribe as you see it, Kratos?

I don't understand. I had figured Clinton would have thrown her support to Obama no matter what.

She did support him after she lost but he needs and wants her on going support on the campain trail so yes, it is a bribe to me so he can rein in ticked off Clinton voters and others that were leaning more towards her for 'unity'.

I don't see how a push for 10 million dollars for her support and her husbands support can be considered a 'gift'. Do you?

I don't think she was likely to go support John McCain.

Did you?

It's not even about that. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not even about that. :blink:

Oh, so you hinted at something sinister here? like Clinton gave up because Obama bribed her instead of because she had no chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, so you hinted at something sinister here? like Clinton gave up because Obama bribed her instead of because she had no chance?

I don't think she was bribed to give up. I think she's being bribed to keep up appearances for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think she was bribed to give up. I think she's being bribed to keep up appearances for him.

Like I want to see the headlines if she can't pay her campaign debts.... (or your postings, for the case). They just want to get a source of distraction away, as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Obama: Campaign proved 'the progress we have made'

(CNN) -- They beamed, hugged and praised one another. Their outfits even matched.

The long-awaited Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton unity event in Unity, New Hampshire, on Friday was carefully choreographed, with the images and speeches all designed to achieve one goal: returning Democrats to the White House.

Obama and Clinton appeared together in a town where they tied in the January primary.

"We may have started on separate paths ... today our hearts are set on the same destination for America ... to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States," Clinton said.

"We are one party; we are one America," she added.

The two Democrats walked onstage together to U2's song "Beautiful Day" as an enthusiastic crowd chanted: "Yes, we can!"

Large signs reading "Unite For Change" and "UNITY" were held aloft throughout the outdoor rally as an enthusiastic crowd cheered Clinton and Obama.

Obama praised the New York senator for helping "bring this country a new and better day."

"For 16 months, Sen. Clinton and I have shared the stage as rivals. ... But today, I could not be happier and more honored and more moved that we're sharing the stage," Obama said.

More of the article here: Link

-----------------------------------------------------------

Least he's getting his money's worth already...

Like I want to see the headlines if she can't pay her campaign debts.... (or your postings, for the case). They just want to get a source of distraction away, as simple as that.

So the fact that Obama stated he needed their support and Bill was going to play a role in his campain has nothing to do with a 10 million dollar push? Give me a break.

The senator from Illinois has made it clear, however, that he wants Clinton's help.

"I want her campaigning as much as she can. She was a terrific campaigner. She I think inspired millions of people, and so she can be an extraordinarily effective surrogate for me, and the values and ideals that we share as Democrats," Obama said Wednesday in Chicago.

Edited by __Kratos__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They're Democrats. He's the leader of the Democratic party. He doesn't have to bribe them with money, power (or rather the threat of them losing it) should be plenty. This is about unity and Obama being a magnanimous bastardo.

Besides, all campaign contributions could be considered a bribe. Or speech. Whatever.

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's already lost though, this is for her to pay off her debts. The day after she starts getting money, she's up on stage like a puppet even dressed to match him giving a standard submission speech for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's already lost though, this is for her to pay off her debts. The day after she starts getting money, she's up on stage like a puppet even dressed to match him giving a standard submission speech for him.

They are democrats, they stick together...they always backed whoever was their candidate...in fact they even backed Mondale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's already lost though, this is for her to pay off her debts. The day after she starts getting money, she's up on stage like a puppet even dressed to match him giving a standard submission speech for him.

All that for $ 2300 wow Hilary is bought pretty cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are democrats, they stick together...they always backed whoever was their candidate...in fact they even backed Mondale.

I'm sure that 10m helps though...

All that for $ 2300 wow Hilary is bought pretty cheap.

And is pushing another 10 million for her...

Our correspondent adds that Thursday's fundraising dinner was important for both sides - the Clinton campaign needs an injection of cash to pay off $20m (£10m) debts, but Mr Obama needs the financial muscle of the Clinton money raisers.

bbc news - source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"He's the leader of the Democratic party." Star

Obama would be, if he were inaugurated as U.S. President.

But that hasn't happened yet, and may never.

Until it does, Senator Robert Byrd holds the most tenure, but not the highest rank. The ones with highest rank are the majority leaders, Reid and Pelosi.

And Pelosi may outrank Reid, because she's the one that's 3rd in the line of Presidential succession.

"All that for $ 2300 wow Hilary is bought pretty cheap." TST

Good point TST.

It's not at all clear to me whether we're talking about tens of $dollars, or tens of $millions.

- - -

Does anyone know from which accounts these two checks were drawn?

There seem to be some suggestions that Obama wrote his check from his own personal funds.

Was any check from Obama to Hillary drawn from Obama's campaign fund?

- - -

One final note.

I don't think Obama was buying Hillary's support. I think she would have supported Obama over McCain anyway.

I think Obama was buying party unity. For Hillary it may be substantive (depending on the sum total of the value of the $checks).

But for Obama I suspect it was more symbolic; mending fences, etc.

It ain't over.

It hasn't even begun ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama would be, if he were inaugurated as U.S. President.

But that hasn't happened yet, and may never.

Until it does, Senator Robert Byrd holds the most tenure, but not the highest rank. The ones with highest rank are the majority leaders, Reid and Pelosi.

And Pelosi may outrank Reid, because she's the one that's 3rd in the line of Presidential succession.

That doesn't matter. As the nominee, Obama is the head of the Democratic Party. That's why he gets to reshuffle the DNC to his liking and gets control of the party apparatus (until the 3rd, Howard Dean was the head of the party). Reid and Pelosi lead the Democratic caucuses in their respective chambers of the legislature and in many ways are public faces of the party, but neither of them were ever the official head; Howard Dean, as chairman of the DNC, had that role.

Now it falls to Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"That doesn't matter." Star

Oh.

OK

Well if you're right, then it should be a simple matter for you to quote the relevant Democratic Party bylaws which support your assertion.

I invite you to do so here.

Until you do, I'll continue to regard your assertion with skepticism.

"That's why he gets to reshuffle the DNC to his liking ..." Star

Oh.

I thought it was because he's the prospective nominee. And as the candidate, he's entitled to modify the party machine to best suit his campaign style; for the benefit of the party.

But before this, HoDean had supervisory control over the DNC. And he wasn't the head of the party.

So why DNC control shifting to Obama makes Obama head of the party escapes me.

"(until the 3rd, Howard Dean was the head of the party). Reid and Pelosi lead the Democratic caucuses in their respective chambers of the legislature and in many ways are public faces of the party, but neither of them were ever the official head; Howard Dean, as chairman of the DNC, had that role." Star

"Interesting" suggestion.

Please quote they bylaws.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if you're right, then it should be a simple matter for you to quote the relevant Democratic Party bylaws which support your assertion.

I invite you to do so here.

Unfortunately you won't find that little tidbit codified anywhere (nor will you find the assertion that the president is the de facto head of his political party enshrined in a bylaw). It's merely a statement of how the realpolitik of the situation shakes out when you watch it. In situations where the nominee doesn't control his party, the defections may leave him with a disaster of McGovernesque proportions on his hands.

I thought it was because he's the prospective nominee. And as the candidate, he's entitled to modify the party machine to best suit his campaign style; for the benefit of the party.

That's the point. He now wields the power of the party apparatus and the machinery does what he wants under the direction of operatives handpicked by him. He is now the brand of the Democratic party and the power lies with him (of course, he won't retain it very long if he loses the election but that should be a given). Which is why, as my original post was intended to point out, he doesn't need to bribe with money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star,

Yours is an interesting theory. But it's not even consistent with the titles these elected officials carry.

Senator Harry Reid is officially referred to as "The Majority Leader".

He would hold this title regardless of the party membership of the President.

Your theory is that there were at least two Democrats that have out-ranked "The Majority Leader".

1) HoDean, and now

2) Obama.

Your suggestion is an implicit contradiction in terms. Reid can't possibly be "The Majority Leader" if he's subordinate to any other congressman.

And for a quick review, Senator Obama is a junior Senator. And though he may be the "presumptive" nominee of his party, he has not yet been formally nominated.

And he has not been elected President.

You seem to be conferring upon him rank he is not entitled to.

Dean may have held, and Obama may hold the highest authority within the DNC. But there's more to the Democratic party than the DNC.

"he doesn't need to bribe with money." Star

I know of no Democrat party bylaw which makes such bribery obligatory.

But:

The Democrat's nominee is expected to do his due diligence; and get elected.

And Democratic party unity is widely viewed as key to that electoral victory.

Thus, while such bribery may not be explicitly obligatory, it may be a prudent approach; and thereby in some subjective sense, obligatory.

Again, I don't even know the amount of money we're talking about here, or from which account the checks were drawn.

Do you?

Does anyone, other than Hillary, Obama, and the few that have born the checks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sear, you're confusing a political party with the Senate and/or Congress. Reid is the majority leader in the senate and ONLY in the senate. Pelosi is the majority leader in the House and only in the house. Obama is the leader of the Democratic political party. Bush is the leader of the Republican political party because he is a sitting president although it could be argued that McCain is the leader instead. Leaders of of both sides of congress are leaders for their majorities but they are not leaders of the party. They are completely different things. It is not a "theory", it is the reality of politics in America. Dean was the leader of the Democratic political party after the failed Democratic bid in the last presidential election in 2004 until Obama became the presumed presidential nominee. If you don't live in America or didn't learn civics, I can understand your confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sear, you're confusing a political party with the Senate and/or Congress. Reid is the majority leader in the senate and ONLY in the senate. Pelosi is the majority leader in the House and only in the house. Obama is the leader of the Democratic political party. .................Dean was the leader of the Democratic political party after the failed Democratic bid in the last presidential election in 2004 until Obama became the presumed presidential nominee. If you don't live in America or didn't learn civics, I can understand your confusion.

Organizational Leaders

Gov. Howard Dean DNC Chairman: Gov. Howard Dean

As Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Gov. Howard Dean is making the Democratic Party competitive in every race, in every district, in every state and territory, while integrating national and state party operations and standing up for Democrats' core values.

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/ourleaders.html

Oddly enough, Senator Obama isn't listed anywhere in the list of Democratic Leaders. Ninja, you're wrong again..................

Edited by Incorrigible1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sear, you're confusing a political party with the Senate and/or Congress. Reid is the majority leader in the senate and ONLY in the senate. Pelosi is the majority leader in the House and only in the house. Obama is the leader of the Democratic political party. Bush is the leader of the Republican political party because he is a sitting president although it could be argued that McCain is the leader instead. Leaders of of both sides of congress are leaders for their majorities but they are not leaders of the party. They are completely different things. It is not a "theory", it is the reality of politics in America. Dean was the leader of the Democratic political party after the failed Democratic bid in the last presidential election in 2004 until Obama became the presumed presidential nominee. If you don't live in America or didn't learn civics, I can understand your confusion.

Exactly. Dean was Chairman of the DNC, which governs the national Democratic Party, making him the head of that party and its apparatus. Obama has, in effect, taken control of the national party over Dean, which is why we are saying he's more or less the leader of the Democratic Party. Reid and Pelosi outrank him in official office in the government, but they do not have the control over party policy the way Obama does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.