Right.
Josh Marshall hits the nail on the head tonight at TPM when he discusses the rumor that the Obama campaign might pay off Hillary's debt. He covers it well.
Terms IIAccording to the Huffington Post's Tom Edsall and a number of others, one of the possibilities in the offing if Hillary Clinton quickly ends her presidential campaign is that the Obama campaign will not only retire the $10 to $15 million in unpaid campaign related expenses the Clinton campaign owes but will also help the Clinton campaign pay back to the Clintons personally the $11.4 million they have loaned to the campaign during the last three months.
Helping to retire an opponent's campaign is not unprecedented and can sometimes be justified in the interests of party unity. (Remember, this isn't just money in the abstract. A lot of it is payment to people who provided services or goods of various sorts to the campaign and need to be paid or paid back.) But using more than $10 million raised in large part by small individual donations to pay back the Clintons who appear to be worth many tens of millions of dollars simply seems wrong.
This isn't meant to sound ungracious. I don't begrudge the Clintons their very substantial wealth. And even for really, really rich people, $11 million isn't nothing. But that is simply too much money raised from small givers to give to people who loaned it with full knowledge of the odds and have more than enough money to really know what to do with.
Frankly, I'm surprised that it's even being suggested. It would be a mistake for the Clintons to ask (and just because people are chattering about it -- don't assume they have or will), a mistake for Obama to offer and one that would risk a severe backlash.
Amen to that.
Wrong.
And Nancy Pelosi, on a related topic, would have done better just not to say anything at all.
Pelosi: The Race is not OverWASHINGTON (CNN) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Wednesday the Democratic presidential race is not over yet and that it is still possible for Senator Hillary Clinton to win.
“I think the race is alive and well and will continue,” Pelosi said during a news conference to promote Democratic energy proposals.
Pelosi, who has repeatedly said she remains neutral in the Democrats’ nomination battle, was asked whether Clinton's slim margin of victory in Indiana meant her campaign was finished.
"A win is a win. A win is a win. Let's just call it what it is," Pelosi said.
"I believe the races must continue. The people should all have the opportunity to speak as long as two candidates wish to compete in those primaries and caucuses. In a few weeks we will be on our way to nominating the next President of the United States," she said.
Fine, Nancy, but you and Howard Dean and some others are really forgetting that the longer the anger goes on needlessly....the harder to come back together.
And another "Right."
Kid Oakland at his blog offers a thought. I am now tending to agree with him. I think perhaps a little tough love is in order. Maybe past time for it.
The Judgment of HowardI wrote months ago comparing the current demographic situation in the Democratic Party to the Judgment of Solomon where two women go before the King each claiming to be the true mother of a child and the King suggests cutting the child in half and each mother taking part.
The true mother relents and cedes out of love and maternal passion for her infant, and the King, satisfied he has found the true mother, orders the infant given to her whole.
Of course,we are in just such a situation now, if you'll forgive the literary metaphor. These polls spell that out on some level. The true mother has been apparent since Iowa.
One wise commenter in that thread on dailykos, however, made an interesting point about the actual historical moral of that tale. As well as being about maternal love, the Judgment of Solomon is a story about how Solomon unified Israel by bringing a sword at a crucial moment, forcing a decision about Israel's future and his own leadership.
Kid Oakland asks some questions that it is beyond time to ask.
He says
"Who loves the party more? Who is reaching out to bring us together? Which campaign has sacrificed and worked to bring us together, has worked to lay the foundation of the future of our party? Which campaign best represents the future of the Democratic Party?"He could also have said who is supporting the party more by using the party voter files, paying the state parties for them to replenish their coffers. Then also replenishing the party voter files with the new people registered to vote. One candidate did this, the other often did not...instead used a private database. One cared enough to rebuild the state parties in conjunction with the 50 state plan, one did not.
What Kid Oakland didn't say is important as well. Which campaign seeks to divide by race, gender, and by manipulating the voters of two large states.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
