I just heard on CNN that Obama has contributed $700,000 to super-delegates, while Ms. Clinton has contributed $200,000. This disturbed me. One of those discussing it on CNN said you could draw a direct correlation between the contributions and how the super-delegates intend to vote at the convention. I'm looking for an article about it and will post one when I find it. This had just come out and there's nothing in the major media, yet, that I've seen. Does this bother anyone else? To me, it looks like an attempt to "buy" their support. Sure, this is politics as usual, but the Obama campaign has run on not having "politics as usual" in their campaign. The Obama campaign said, according to CNN, that any implication that this is anything but helping to fatten those super-delegates campaign chests is absurd (that's paraphrased). I find that more than a bit disingenuous. The Clinton campaign has done some of the same thing, but with less than a third of the amount Obama's has. Thoughts? (any chance this can be discussed without mad, crazy accusations?) Impeach Bush.
When more comes out about this we will see. If Obama wins Wisconsin and does OK in Texas and Ohio, he shouldn't need to do this.
I'm pretty perplexed. If this is money going to superdelegates during the race for the nomination (if this is going on... haven't seen it in print), It looks like "politics as usual" to me, but wouldn't be for Obama in the context of how he's running his campaign. But you're right. Unless I see more proof of this than the discussion I saw on CNN a few minutes ago, this thread might be out of line. We'll see. Impeach Bush.
This question was asked to a Obama supporter(some congress woman. I did not catch the name) on Newstalk radio show this morning and she said it is a standard procedure and It is done sometimes to help superdelegates campaign. But 'Bill' questioned the disparity in the amount spend and asked why is that not 'buying' the delegate. I dont think she gave a straight answer. Unfortunately, I can't recall that part of conversation. I will see if I can find this anywhere on net but this issue did come up today.
I have serious doubts about the validity. It doesn't seem logical for either side because the superdelegates will go with the flow of these late states. There are so many of them that $700,000 is peanuts to that many people and buying 9 or 10 of them won't make a difference.
Here is something I found. http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/02/15/buying-superdelegates/ A form of campaign payola has been noticed by a Washington, D.C. think-tank. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have pumped $890,000 into the campaign coffers of elected delegates who have a duel-roll as Democratic elected officials. The "Hope Fund" an Obama political action committee (PAC), has paid more than $694,000 to Democratic "super-delegates." As of this week, of the 81elected officials who are "super-delegates" supporting Obama, 40 percent had received cash contributions. 52 of his super-delegate members are not currently serving elected officials and therefore don't have a current campaign committee into which they can legally deposit checks. While none of this is technically illegal, it doesn't mean it's ethical either. The Clinton camp is also playing the payola scam. HILLPAC, Clinton's PAC, and her campaign committee have paid $195,500 to super-delegates. 12 percent of the 109 super-delegates who have said they will support her have received campaign cash. CRP quotes University of Virgina political science professor Larry Sabato saying: Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to super-delegates. My guess is that if the nomination actually depends on super-delegates, the unwritten rule may be, 'ask and ye shall receive.' So much for hopefully discarding the 'old politics'; the audacity of corruption continues its hold.
That's good info, AB. I'd be curious: 1. When these contributions were made 2. How many other people were contributed to On #1, if it happened last year or whatnot, it seems less relevant. No one expected this to come down to superdelegates back then. If it happened in the last month or two, that's really sketchy. On #2, if the HopeFund pac is giving out money left and right, then it's less relevant. If it seems to be specifically targeting superdelegates, that's a huge problem.
According to this: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Good_to_be_a_superdelegate.html These numbers are over the past 3 years, but no breakdown of how much was when. I wouldn't think much of money given out in 2005-2007.
The way the story is framed is misleading. I found this in the comments section over at TPM: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/report_obama_far_outpacing_hil.php In essence, he's basically just supporting other Democratic candidates, who also HAPPEN to be Superdelegates - many of whom haven't even endorsed him. As somebody else mentioned, Obama was supporting Democratic candidates in 2006 - apparently, he also made more campaign appearances with candidates in 2006 than any other Senate Democrat. In this context, the fact that Hillary raised over $30 million dollars in her 2006 Senate reelection campaign against a nobody opponent, and ONLY gave out $195,000 to fellow democratics, kind of reflects poorly on her.
A candidate paying off somebody who can vote them in. So shocking. Did you really think that Obama was going to be any different? Please...
Makes sense - I didn't consider that everyone the PAC might contribute to would be superdelegates since they are all Congresspeople/Senators. If he was donating just as much or more in 2006, then unless he had incredible foresight to know a Presidential campaign two years later might come down to superdelegates, then it's a nonstory. Here, you can see the specific people donated to in 2006 and 2008: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00409052&cycle=2006
Since at least LBJ and probably before, this has been standard practice in both parties. You campaign with, you give cash to, and you support party candidates across the nation. This helps you build a national organization (something Hillary already had thanks to Bill) and helps like-minded folks get elected. The only reason it's getting any press now is because Congressmen and Senators are also superdelegates and for once we have a situation where that role may make a difference. In the last election, a number of Dem politicians, including Hillary and Kerry, got criticized for not spreading their cash around to help on the bubble Dems. Obama was out their campaigning and helping candidates raise money. He worked it in a way that helped the party and probably helped himself. Change the rules if you want after this election, but he definitely took a different path than Hillary did... she tried to run the margins up in her NY Senate race and didn't spend much time out of state. He gets credit for working the system in an effective manner that helped both himself and the party.
Superdelegates are, by and large, politicians. Politicians run for office. And that costs money. It is in no way uncommon for other politicians to raise money to help them win. It is hilarious though to think that Obama's buying superdelegates. He's been losing on superdelegates from the start. And, if he's started to pull ahead by that metric, it's more about his electability than any trumped up bribery thing. If he's given money it's been in order to help elect Democrats. Seems to me Democrats would appreciate that.
If they both play by the rules, then it is ok with me. If you don't like that, then change the rules and to have them take effect in the NEXT primary.
This guy is a superdelegate: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=4044553
Folks, I hated to start this thread (something I almost never do and did 5 minutes after I saw the piece on CNN) and bail, but I had my wife's family reunion to go to in SA. Thanks to everyone that found out what they could. And thanks for not dismissing this out of hand simply because it involved our two Democratic Presidential candidates. I think it's fair to find out who gave how much to which superdelegate and when they did it. As was pointed out, people contemplating a run for President have been making campaign contributions to possible supporters since time out of mind, but this situation is different. Here, you have these odd ducks, the superdelegates, that may be critical to who gets the nod. The appearence of "paying them off" for their vote is not something we want to have our nominee, whoever it may be, accused of. We'll have enough crap tossed at us during the general. I hope this doesn't turn out to be that kind of situation, but it deserves to be cleared up. So far, it's not cleared up to me. Impeach Bush.