What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Sony make.believe
Award Winning Filmmaking view!
youtube.com - Watch how Jessica Sanders turned a family tradition into award winning filmmaking.
308 Comments
- kwazyhulk, on 02/15/2008, -23/+145Not as bad as it looks. Read the supporting article linked in the main one. http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336 "Hillary Clinton received a $4,200 contribution from Obama"
This is how politicians support each other. They campaign for each other and support each other financially. Heck, Obama even donated money to Hillary's senate re-election campaign. Some politicians are better fund-raisers than others. And this is one way of, ostensibly, helping their political party. They spread the wealth for either altruistic or selfish motives depending on how cynical you are. And yes, Republicans do the same.
However, this is another reason why Democrats need to remove super delegates from the nomination equation. - NManX, on 02/15/2008, -18/+83This article is really misleading as it goes back to 2005 which was before Obama even announced he was running. Obama is one of the best fund raisers around and when it was obvious that he was going to win in Illinois, he used the money to support other democrats who were running. This is a non-issue basically.
- RansomHoldiay, on 02/15/2008, -8/+69ehh, we don't want facts... we just want to write hateful comments...
- whateverman76, on 02/15/2008, -14/+44"you say you want a revolution?" - John Lennon
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -7/+34Obama promised me a pony!
- thebellmaster1x, on 02/15/2008, -4/+25Were you born in 2001?
- tmessing, on 02/15/2008, -16/+37Just when you think it's going to get better it gets worse
- floor, on 02/15/2008, -8/+29COUNT EVERY VOTE! And count the ones we pay cash for twice.
What a system. Let the people have 80% of the vote, but hold back 20% for the dem machine in case the people are led astray. - johnhummel, on 02/15/2008, -7/+25OK - let's slow down and look at the actual report. This line caught my eye:
And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
So, three years - back in 2005. Anybody remember what was happening in 2005? That's right - people were running for election for lots of seats for 2006, and the Democrats took over Congress and (barely) the Senate.
Why then is money raised such a big deal? It's not uncommon if, one candidate in District A raises a ton of money (as Obama did), that he use that war chest to support other candidates of his party? He was running against Alan Keyes - hardly a guy you need a lot of money to show he was a nutcase. So Obama's flush with cash, and figures "Hey, I'll help these guys out with their congress/senate races - then we'll have a better chance of getting a majority in the House/Senate, and I'll find it easier to get my bills passed."
Same thing with Clinton. In fact, if you recall, John Kerry was being criticized for not using some of the money he had raised in the 2004 election to assist with the other races across the country as part of Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy".
So yeah, this looks funny. But considering that Super Delegates are made up of congress critters and the like, and candidates of both parties usually help fund raise/financially support other congress critters to support their party, I'm not too terribly surprised. - Eiknujrac, on 02/15/2008, -14/+31No, it doesn't. As you can see if you read comments below, all this means is that both of them have been great fundraisers for fellow party members running for congress, etc. These numbers date all the way back to 2005! Also, you don't plan on "buying out" superdelegates, as they don't decide the nomination 99% of the time. These were simple fundraising contributions, however the anti-obamabots and paulbots will take every opportunity to spin the facts their way.
- j0hneb0y81, on 02/15/2008, -4/+21just going to quote NManX from down much further (since i most people will read this without checking)
"This article is really misleading as it goes back to 2005 which was before Obama even announced he was running. Obama is one of the best fund raisers around and when it was obvious that he was going to win in Illinois, he used the money to support other democrats who were running. This is a non-issue basically." - jlhoben, on 02/15/2008, -7/+19"Super delegates" - another propagandistic explanation for why democracy has left America. Too bad the public is too stupid and/or lazy to do anything about it.
- martalli, on 02/15/2008, -5/+15Last I heard, he was elected to his Senate seat as a third party candidate. He ran against the Democratic nominee...so he doesn't sound like a Democrat to me.
- RetlawST, on 02/15/2008, -6/+16Before you start getting your panties in a bunch, look at what this statement actually means. Both Hillary and Obama have donated money to other congressional democratic candidate campaigns. For example, when Leonard Boswell was running for Congress in Iowa, Obama donated money to his campaign. This wasn't back alley money, this wasn't a bribe, it was one congressman supporting another. And guess what? Boswell is a Hillary supporter.
- chubbybubba, on 02/15/2008, -3/+12Silly! Of course it's okay if everyone else is doing it! ;(
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -7/+16They created the "superdelegate" concept to keep their far-left base from nominating another far-left candidate after McGovern pulled 1 state in the general election. They don't trust their constituency, so they created this ***** mechanism so the DNC elite can pick their nomination. The DNC pretty much gets to give the middle finger to the rank and file democrats every 4 years.
- Charlotte_Web, on 02/15/2008, -12/+21This is also the party that pulled Joe Lieberman's superdelegate status because they didn't approve of who he planned to vote for.
- AlexYC, on 02/15/2008, -4/+12It might be a good idea to consider that these Obama and Hillary are not the only ones to have :"Leadership PACs" that donate to other political campaigns. Further, both of these PACs have spent money on house rep and senate campaigns since at least 2006, it didn't start this year. Also, check the dates of the donations and whether or not they actually ended up endorsing the candidate anyways. The primary purpose of these is to help fund the campaigns of people you like getting elected, its primary intent isn't to buy endorsements, but it should be considered. Frankly, superdelegates almost never matter and this should be among the least of your concerns in PAC campaign contributions and if you think republicans don't do this or worse you are seriously kidding yourself, Take a look at the Export-Import Bank for starters. I don't have any proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if they funded this (which would be effectively a proxy campaign to the republican nominee.)
- dunderballer, on 02/15/2008, -5/+13All superdeligates who have received campaign contributions should be stripped of their votes. I would rather my favored candidate lose than have campaign donations taint the vote.
- rolf, on 02/15/2008, -0/+8It doesn't have to be binary - one or the other. Both Republicans and Democrats do. That's why the whole process always needs to be transparent, from the top to bottom. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy.
- nmcvicke, on 02/15/2008, -5/+12This article is a little ridiculous. Why would they use the study all the way back to 2005, a couple years before these people even declared they were running. Just because the democratic party is supporting each other in the past does mean they are trying to buy votes (which is what the article is obviously trying to imply). The claims made by this article are ludicrous.
- drizzlelicious, on 02/15/2008, -0/+7If only Hilary was doing this your opinion wouldn't be nearly as popular
- mbraynard, on 02/15/2008, -2/+9Because in 1988 there was concern that an uprising of the peasants might cause the nomination of an unelectable nominee, so the SDs were created to prevent that from happening. Plus it's a nice perk to be a delegate.
However, the title here is misleading. The money isn't GIVEN to the SDs, it is given to their campaigns. It's not as if someone is re-tiling their pool deck in exchange for pledging to support Hillary or Obama. And every politician who is anyone has a leadership PAC that is devoted to helping get people elected with similar views by giving them campaign contributions to buy TV, radio, signs, mail, etc. - inactive, on 02/15/2008, -2/+9Where in the statement "Dem nomination up for sale. Surprise!" did I say "Good thing the Republicans aren't like this"?
- frontporsche, on 02/15/2008, -9/+16Isn't it strange that the "Democrat" party, whose name looks a lot like the word "democracy", only uses democracy for 80% of the decision process for the presidential nomination, leaving the other 20% to superdelegates?
- ryptide, on 02/15/2008, -1/+8This is not vote-buying. This is fundraising for other politicial candidates. Note that Hillary Clinton received $4,200 from Obama for her 2006 Senate re-election campaign. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode island received money from both of them, and has endorsed Clinton.
This is all simply a way to drag the both of them through some made-up mud. Of COURSE superdelegates have received money from them. Superdelegates = other party members, usually elected officials... Politicians fundraise for eachother. This is no slimy, underhanded thing. - mbraynard, on 02/15/2008, -0/+7Yeah, I heard John Lewis ditched Hillary because Chelsea did a ***** job on the grout in his master bath.
- blacklist, on 02/15/2008, -3/+9Just saw this on drudge:
White men hold superdelegate power balance
In an ironic twist to the historic Democratic nominating contest between an African American and a woman, the balance of power may be held by a more familiar face: the white male.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8535.htm ...
Change......... - CrackyJSquirrel, on 02/15/2008, -1/+7GASP!!! STOP MAKING SENSE DAMN YOU!!!!
- 1337Einstein, on 02/15/2008, -2/+8I agree, it doesn't make what the democratic candidates are doing any better, but saying "typical Democrats" is sort of calling the kettle black.
- Fafnir43, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6He didn't know when he did it that he /was/ buying them - he hadn't even started his bid in 2005! Show me major payments being made to 2008 and I'll start to worry. Right now, not so much.
- RuffRidr, on 02/15/2008, -21/+27If this is the kind of "change" Obama stands for, then you can keep the "change".
- ph1sh55, on 02/15/2008, -3/+9I think the hope is that the average american digs deeper into these "stories" that are ready-made for skimming consumption. As we see from your knee jerk reaction gobbling it up this is not going to be the case.. They generally want to be inflammatory as that's how they grab headlines and get readership.
2006 was an election cycle for democrats...every competing democrat recieved contributions from the big fund raisers to help with their campaigns to oust republicans. This is dishonest reporting at it's finest. They knowingly do not mention the dates, circumstances, and historical regularilty of this practice that frames this as what it was- helping underfunded campaigns. To frame this as some underhanded look into the future super delegate conspiracy is just bad journalism. Now, if you find some of the 'super delegates' who were not even up for an election then that seems relevant if they recieved funds.
By the same token if you see a blurb about "McCain votes for torture" make sure and look at the actual measure he was voting on and what he said he disagreed on...maybe it will change your perspective.
Who am I kidding though, they write these pieces because they work and people pass them off as gospel. - unclemeat, on 02/15/2008, -3/+8Regardless of Ron Paul's morality and character, he won't get the nomination. His politics aren't mainstream enough.
- Wargalas, on 02/15/2008, -5/+10Because they are hypocrites?
- Cyrus042, on 02/15/2008, -1/+6The Republican party does this too. John McCain has helped tons of other individuals campaign which is one reason why he has so many endorsements. He's been consistent in helping other within the party when they needed help. Of course, there's nothing really wrong with this. Parties are organization to help support each other through finances and campaign support.
I think you're right on the superdelegate remark. A few days ago I said in one of the other articles that superdelegates decisions will be heavily influenced to allegiance for those who helped them campaign and get into office. (Which likely explains Hillary's strong support) In many cases, I think many of them believe she is the right candidate anyways, but the inability of the Democrats to be able to insulate these individuals just makes the whole thing very sketchy when controversy arises. - BlakeEM, on 02/15/2008, -1/+6Can't it be typical for both republicans and democrats?
- MrErr, on 02/15/2008, -1/+6But the importance of super delegates has popped up only a few weeks ago. Usually it is the primaries and caucases that decide who the nominee will be. This time it is different.
- holygram, on 02/15/2008, -9/+14Also, if you want a president who will drive america into the ground, you can vote for Ron Paul.
- robertml1, on 02/15/2008, -9/+13It's different when Obama does it because....err...because he's...he's ummm...different and unlike other...uhhh
- N3tw0rk, on 02/15/2008, -8/+12This is a non-issue and a little misleading. This goes back to 2005 way before Obama even announced a run. Politicians donate to each other's campaigns all the time because they are the best fundraisers. Obama has raised a lot of money for his fellow democrats, he even donated to Hillary's Senate campaign, and she donated to his senate campaign. This shows Obama's strength in helping other colleagues and helping his party.
- Egoist, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Ron Paul has stated specifically how he plans to put all of his policies into effect. Obama has talked about hope and change.
One appeals to those who favor logic. The other, emotion. - JavanSClark, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4The article didn't mention what the money was for. In fact it only insinuates that he money was for purchasing the vote. In fact, it could very well have been contributions to help them campaign for elecion, of for re-election. The article is sensationalist at best, only printing a subtext of the original article, hoping to engender this kind of response. Shame on you for falling for it.
- Wargalas, on 02/15/2008, -5/+9Oooh It's nice to see digg users get a taste of their own medicine. Everytime I bring up a Republican point of view and point out flaws, they give me the same old "But But Clinton" lines.
How does it taste Democrats? - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -0/+4The only key defining feature of being a member of a party is supporting candidates of that party. That's like complaining when Microsoft fires a VP because he publicly states he won't use Microsoft Office and does all his stuff on Linux in OpenOffice instead.
Besides, as many people have pointed out, Lieberman was never eligible to be a superdelegate anyway, since he was not a member of the party.
Both major political parties are undemocratic for a number of reasons, but this ain't one of them. - thebellmaster1x, on 02/15/2008, -4/+8Good eye, sir.
- ryptide, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4That's simply not true. Nothing is being "rigged" here. Clinton and Obama have been fundraising for other party candidates. If you had read the supporting article this editorial piece was referring to, you would see that. But hey... Just read whatever small slice you want and jump to your own conclusions.
- MaximusD, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5This is a lot misleading. It's still a good reason why superdelegates shouldn't be around, but this is not evidence of a massive campaign by either Clinton or Obama to get superdelegate support. In 2005, Hillary didn't think she'd need the superdelegate votes, and Obama didn't even know he was running for president. They were doing what they could in the mid-term election to gather more power for themselves -- in both a Democratic majority and allies in the party.
- alk509, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5It's hard out here for a superdelegate...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 318 discussions
