Obama Calls for Clinton to Push Forward

Senator Barack Obama distanced himself from surrogates such as Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and Conn. Sen. Chris Dodd today, by supporting Senator Clinton’s decision to remain in the race. Recently Clinton has been under attack for her decision to continue campaigning even though her chances of winning the pledged delegate count are slim to none.

en. Hillary Clinton should remain in the Democratic presidential race “as long as she wants,” rival candidate Barack Obama said Saturday despite two of his high profile supporters urging the former first lady to give up.

“She is a fierce and formidable competitor, and she obviously believes that she would make the best nominee and the best president,” the Illinois senator told reporters while campaigning in Pennsylvania. “I think that she should be able to compete, and her supporters should be able to support her for as long as they are willing or able.”

Obama made these remarks in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, a day after picking up a key endorsement from Penn. Senator Bob Casey. In many ways Obama is playing it safe, which is a shrewd move as the Democratic emotions continue to run hot.

  • Raymond

    WOW. Barack Obama said something that I actually agree with! My respect for the man has gone up from putrid slime bucket, to vile human being. At least I view him as human now!

    Here are the facts: Both candidates will NOT reach the magic number of pledged delegates needed to formally secure the nomination. As a result, BOTH candidates WILL NEED superdelegates because this race has been so tight and Senator Clinton has done extremely well and continues to do well.

    Also, Senator Clinton is not very far behind Barack Obama in terms of pledged delegates or the popular vote. People in the mainstream press ( who are OBSESSED with Obama ) are making Senator Clinton seem dead in the water. Clinton still draws enormous crowds, receives millions of votes and is matching Obama daily with online contributions.

    The hypocrisy here is, that throughout the republican race, John McCain was hundreds and hundreds of delegates ahead of Romney and Huckabee. Yet it wasn’t until the March 5th Primaries that the mainstream Press said, “It’s nice to finally get some clarity on the side of the republican race.” When the media said that, McCain had already been 600 plus delegates ahead of his opponents, yet the media was making it out to be an uncertain thing.

    Now, in the case of the Democratic race where each candidate is seperated by a mere 100+ delegates and a small popular vote that can be easily overcome, the media is calling Clinton a goner. Go figure.

    This points to the case that I have been making on this website for weeks now- The media is OBSESSED with Obama and will spin the facts of this CLOSE contest in his favor. If that means vilifying Senator Clinton who has proven herself as a worthy and loyal democrat, than so be it.

    At the end of the day, I commend Obama for saying what he did. It’s wonderful to see that he is rising above the pack and realizing that this race is NOT over. By doing so he is respecting our democratic process and his opponent as well. For once the man has actually said something meaningful that I can respect.

    I love this site! 🙂

  • Dreadsen


    Is it all media that is obsessed with Obama in your opinion? Because the way the Fox network (nicknamed the Jeremiah Wright network) is STILL playing sound bites of pastor wright and has played them probably more then any other network even after the other networks seem to have dropped it. Their obsession with obama would be a NEGATIVE one.

    My next question for you is this. Both Candidates need the super delegates correct? Right now Obama is ahead by how many pledged delegates now 120 -143 and popular vote of 700 thousand?
    What would it take for Hilary in the remaining primary contests to be ahead of pledged delegates AND popular vote?

  • MileleObama

    For once? This is what Obama has been doing all the time.Has Billary ever risen to this level like Barack? What is wrong with peope. THis woman wants to win at all costs. Always taking cheap shots at Obama. When she was asked about Obamas’s pastor she could have taken the high road like Mcain did. But always looking for stupid opportunities to attack Obama. People should never forget the “shame on you” the “change you can xerox” or was she under sniper attack when saying those demeaning words? huh! WThe clintons legacy is gone forever. There is little they can do to salvage it. ANd for sure there is no way she can become the next presidenct. This is not a dynasty to be rotated around families…come on!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Raymond

    Please don’t try to paint the media’s golden boy Obama as a victim of unfair press coverage. If the only thing he has to worry about is Fox News attacking him, then he is the same boat as every other liberal democrat.

    I do not regard Fox News as the mainstream press as they are quite upfront about injecting their views into politics. Unfair treatment of democratic candidates by the Fox News Network has gone on for years. The Clintons have battled it as well.

    What I am talking about is more mainstream networks. CNN, MSNBC, and ABC have all been shown to have statistically favored Obama over Clinton in terms of press coverage. A few of those networks have even ADMITTED giving Obama better coverage. If I were to provide you examples of how Clinton has been assaulted by the media in relation to what Obama has gotten away with, we would be here ALL day. Independent polling centers have even concluded that Clinton’s positive press coverage was 51% as opposed to Obama’s 88%. After this information was released, the mainstream media did nothing to adjust their coverage and have continued to spin their coverage of Clinton in the most negative possible. I know this because I read it EVERY DAY.

    As far as “what it would take” for Senator Hillary Clinton to surpass Obama in either delegates or the popular vote, I will say this: Let us not forget what happened in New Hampshire. Not only did Senator Clinton win New Hampshire, but she was foreshadowed to lose by almost 10 points. She did very well on Super Tuesday, and let us not forget Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island on March 4th.

    Senator Clinton has shown amazing resilliance in the face of growing doubts about her campaign. If she is only 100 or so delegates behind Obama, than that means she is in great shape with 10 states remaining. Now if she was 300 delegates behind that would be a different story. With Michigan and Florida still seeking resolutions for their votes, and 10 contests still remaining, it is MORE THAN POSSIBLE for Senator Clinton to do what she has done many times before in this Primary battle- and that is come up from behind and win big. Expect big things out of this woman, she’s done them before.

    Also, her husband was in a similar position back in 1992. Bill Clinton didn’t wrap up the democratic nomination until June. But that doesn’t sit well with you or the media, because you people want everything wrapped up in a neat little package so you can “analyze” it to death and let the pundits tell you what to think.

    If you want a system where your favored candidate has a smooth and unchallenged path to power, move to a country where there is a strong dictatorship in place. Otherwise, please let our democtatic process and the MILLIONS of Clinton supporters and donors have their chance to take their course.

  • jhaywardness

    I agree with Raymond. The media is completely obsessed with Obama. His entire campaign is based on what he represents, and not simply on being the best candidate for the job of president. The U.S. Presidency is the only job in which your resume doesn’t count for anything, and you can get the position SOLEY on BS. Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate, who unfortunately doesn’t wear the facade of a nice young man with big dreams of changing the world like Barack Obama does. Now, Fox news is in a world all of it’s own, because they are a conservative news station. The right wing media (bill o’riley, rush limbaugh etc) has been against Obama from the start. He comes across to them as a bigger threat than Hillary does, and the Jeremiah Wright controversy (having been brushed aside now by the mainstream media who LOVES Obama) is to them a MAJOR piece of evidence against him and they do not want people to forget it.

  • MileleObama

    Stop day dreaming Raymond. It is next door after impossible for clinton to catch up with Obama. She knows this and because she is such a vengeful woman-which is a better term to describe her than a fighter-(what does she fight for any way? And all situations need to have any fights)she justs wants to spoil it for Obama. Have people ever wondered how she has gotten where she is.It is not because she is any capable. It is because of her husband.That is why she “won” FLorida even though there was no campaigning there-name recognition. Now, people know her well enough-that is why her negatives are soaring-So raymond keep dreaming on!!

  • MileleObama

    And may I point out that any respect and good-will is two-way and not one-way. Hillary wants to fight everything,everywhere, everybody and everytime. Now, why do you only have to blame the media?Just look at some of the things this woman has said or done to her opponents and to the media too.Bill herself once told the media “shame on you.” On the other hand just look at how well Obama handles criticism and relates to the media. You would want to be nice to such a person naturally. The media of course comprises of human beings. A case in point is when Hillary told him “shame on you.” That was absurd. Obama has earned whatever treatment he gets from the media and Hillay too deserves whatever treatment she gets. Stop blaming only the media-Look at how sleazy ur candidate is!!So think guys…think! Dont use ur emotions here……..

  • Don

    I hate it when people try to play the victim role and keep whining. If you are so strong, keep your chin up and fight. Both of them have had negative news coverage. Maybe one has had more negative press coverage than the other, but that will always be the case with two different persons contesting.

    Obama is right. Hillary should keep on fighting. She has the right to keep on going. I’m for Obama but I respect the supporters of Hillary and their voice should be heard as well since this contest is still relatively close.

    And my humble opinion is that Obama also knows certain things about comebacks.

    I also fail to understand that being behind by 100+ delegates means you’re in a great shape, looking at the close contests we’ve had so far.

    The talk about being the right person for the job is also being exaggerated I think. Leading a country is not done by one person. And as I look at the plans of both Hillary and Barack, I don’t see that many differences.

    Anyway, I hope they both stop negative attacks and get back to the issues that matter most.

  • Raymond

    Clinton wants to “spoil it for Obama”? “Vengeful-woman”? She wouldn’t be anywhere “without her husband”?

    Sounds like a page out of the anti-Clinton script to me. Not a very original set of arguments or even attacks. For someone who was bashing Fox News earlier, you certainly sound like one of their naive pundits when referring to Senator Clinton.

    Let us take a moment to go over all of Senator Clinton’s accomplishments that she has achieved INDEPENDENTLY of her husband, starting from her time at Yale Law School.

    -Hillary graduated #1 in her class at Yale Law School. ( her husband graduated second )
    -Hillary chose to turn down offers from big city Law Firms and stay in New England a year after graduation to help produce a state by state guideline to help children affected by abuse and how they are treated in the court system. As a result, the work that Hillary has done has changed the way our system deals with abused children.
    -Hillary was one of only two women to serve on the House Judiciary Committee’s prosecution team considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
    -Hillary was TWICE named one of the most influential lawyers in America before she had reached the age of 30.
    -At the age of 29 Hillary headed the American Women’s Bar Association and was responsible for drafting national guidelines for sexual harassment and equal pay.
    -At the age of 30 President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the Head of the National Legal Services Committee.

    Now after all of those stellar accomplishments Hillary was very practactive as first lady of Arkansas, opening up several Legal Aid clinics for the poor and was openly thanked for bringing the public school systems of that state up to par. Hillary has been regarded as the one responsible for leading the effort on transforming the Arkansas school system and making it one of the most progressive models in the country at the time.

    Her time in the United States Senate has also yielded positive results for people. Because of Hillary, our National Guardsmen now have the same Health insurance coverage that our full time military now have after serving in the war. When Hillary learned that the National Guard was not being taken care of by the Tri-Care system she challenged the Pentagon and yielded Legislation to get them covered. She is also responsible for the Children’s Health insurance Plan, which now covers TENS of MILLIONS of children for free in the United States.

    Say what you want about Senator Clinton: You may say that she is not likable, or even that she is power hungry; but she is a well accomplished, hard working person who has made public service her life’s work, and has a record of making change independent of her husband’s.

    I present you with the facts, and you present me with poorly written and convoluted essays that are rooted in personal attacks. When you are ready to take your position to a better educated level, I would be happy to have a serious debate with you.

  • Dreadsen


    I’m going to ask again. What will it take for Hilary to surpass Obama in popular votes and delegates?

    They both have been getting negative news coverage. There’s a whole lot more dirt that Hilary has done which the media doesn’t touch. Look at McCain. There’s a lot of things they could be harping on him about which they have also been neglecting. Yes Fox may be hostile towards all democrats but right now they aren’t spreading the hate evenly. Now i thought media was media. I didn’t think that Fox was excluded because they don’t fit into your argument. Now if you think that Hilary is getting hammered by the media while Obama is getting free pass. Maybe this is because you are so bias to this mentality that you only see the data which fits this way of thinking and automatically forget or ignore the things which contradict this.

  • Raymond

    Again- there have been several independent studies that have concluded that Obama’s favorable coverage was 20 points higher than Senator Clinton’s and has been for the majority of this Primary season. MSNBC has also admitted to being harder on Hillary and several CNN writers have done the same.

    Fox News is the minority when it comes to Obama bashing. End of story.

    As far as what it will take for Hillary to surpass Obama in pledged delegates and popular votes the answer is simple: WINNING. She obviously has to do exceptionally well in order to surpass Obama in delegates and the popuar vote. Let us not forget that on the eve of March 4th, people were calling Clinton a goner. They said that Texas was going to be carried by Obama and look what happened. She won three of four states that night two of which are HUGE battleground states for any general election.

    Senator Clinton has to do three things in order to best Obama or at least match him: WIN WIN WIN! Why is Senator Clinton winning the majority of the remaining contests so impossible to you? She has demonstrated time and time again an ability to rally support and shatter expectations.

    There are MILLIONS of Clinton supporters in this country. I have attended her rallies and they are packed with energy and the loyalty of her supporters is inspiring. She is raising a record amount of money, still drawing huge crowds and the last thing I heard, she is ahead in Penn by 20 points.

    WIN WIN WIN. She can do it and she has done it before.

  • MileleObama

    Stellar accomplishments? huh! She has tried all means to win: crying, kitchen sink, name it! She is still behind. I am sure she feels like she has woken up from a very bad dream! And that is the truth that will dawn on her supporters in the not too far future. She, and her blue-collar suppporters, better throw in the towel before it is too late and do this for the sake of the party.

  • MicheleObama,
    first of all you are speaking a lot of nonsense. I can tell from your posts that your emotions are getting the best of you. When your asked to debate on facts, state facts, don’t put down others in the process. Do you think Obama himself would like the things that are coming out of your mouth? you certainly don’t sound like the hope and change you should be promoting for America…
    chill out.

    In the past posts here I seemed anti obama but I do not believe this tight race is hurting the party. In the end democrats, regardless of who is in the end, need to stand by one another in support. I still suport HC but if BO wins the nomination, I will gladly turn and support him.

  • Dreadsen

    So Raymond

    All Clinton has to do is win, win, win. So if she wins all of the remaining contests she will be ahead of Obama in Delegates and Popular vote? What kind of Margin in each state will she have to win in order to do this? Or does she just have to “win”? Meaning the margin will not matter?

    oh and Raymond she won 2 out of the 4 states. Obama won Texas. But remember this. Even after that contest Obama’s Delegate lead was virtually still the same.

  • Dreadsen

    man i hate to get off of topic but one more thing

    “Again- there have been several independent studies that have concluded that Obama’s favorable coverage was 20 points higher than Senator Clinton’s and has been for the majority of this Primary season. MSNBC has also admitted to being harder on Hillary and several CNN writers have done the same”

    Off of topic. Just for my own education. Could you site some links supporting this so i can get up to date? Like some links to these several independent studies AND MSNBC, CNN admitting to this.

  • Whobody

    Both Democratic candidates should focus their attention on their real opponent – John McCain. Based on what they can do for our country and the Democratic Party in the general election, Americans should decide their vote.

    All this mud-slinging between American citizens who basically have very similar beliefs should be stopped. The name-calling and negative “spin” should be beneath you if you are truly as intelligent as you claim to be. If the candidate you support is truly worthy of that support, then you should be able to campaign for them in a more respectable fashion.

    Keep your head up and in the right direction. Respect yourself and others, and we can work together no matter how big or small our differences.

  • IndiMinded

    I’d prefer if the candidates, all three of them, focused on themselves instead of viewing each other as opponents, with this intense focus on how they can beat each other. After all, they may be political rivals at the moment, competing for a job, but at the end of the day I think every American wants what they believe is best for the country, and the candidate who’s best positioned to deliver the most. Let the best (wo)man I say, for the good of the country.

    I’d really like to believe the candidates themselves are patriotic enough to feel the same way – who wants a president so power hungry that they care more about garnering power for themselves than they do about what’s best for their own country? There are two parties, but we will all be united under one president, and our futures are all intertwined – so there’s only so much animosity one should really have for your rival.

    When all the nation’s top democratic and republican leaders get together in one room, I’d like some recognition that what we have is not a fight brewing, but our nations top leaders all together in one room.

    I despise this message “Democrats should stop slinging mud at each other so that they can start focusing on their real opponent”, which is veiled way of saying “Can’t we just start slinging mud back across party lines again, the way we usually do?”.

    I think McCain will be a real test for Obama’s integrity, in my mind. Because so far, McCain hasn’t taken any cheap shots at the man. But for all his talk about healing the partisan divide and working with your rivals – Obama’s taken a few cheap shots across McCain’s bow. “100 years in Iraq” comes to mind.

  • Michelle


    I don’t know, McCain hasn’t been all niceness with Obama. Sure, he didn’t hit on the Wright issue, but then again he’s got some controversial pastors of his own to deal with. I’ve heard McCain at least speak on Obama in terms that (not qouting directly) Obama isn’t fit to lead. I remember his saying that Obama’s vote against going into Iraq doesn’t matter because it’s in the past, but isn’t the past where all his experience he loves to tout comes from? I don’t really see McCain addressing the future too much either. He’s flipped as far as I can tell – after there was so much negative reaction to his “100 years” comment, he came out saying he detests war.

    And let me get this out of the way (becuase I know it’s coming): I KNOW we have occupyed ofther coutnries we warred with to this day, but there is NO CHANCE at peaceful occupation in Iraq. Iraqis do not want us there, and believe it of not they have what it takes to build up their society without Big Brother America’s help.

    Obama’s shots at McCain, to me, have never been cheap, he’s simply pointing out McCain’s misgivngs that he plainly offers when speaking publicly, and why not jump the gun? You know the Reps are gonna beat the dead horse liek crazy when Obama gets the nomination. I can see it know: Wright’s soundbyte, following by the picture of Obama and Wirght standing together, followed by some fear-striking comment like “Can you trust a man who condones hatred?”. Paid for by John McCain for President.

  • Raymond

    Obama did not win Texas.

    Senator Clinton will be the nominee. End of story.

    You can cite all of the math and statistical improbabilities that you want. At the end of the day the Clintons will win. They always do. Mark my words

  • David

    Notice that Mr. Obama said that “…support her for as long as they are willing or able.” For as long as they are able.

    Looking at how well Mrs. Clinton is managing the finances in her campaign, the “able to” part may be short lived.

    Looking at how well she and her staff handle money in her campaign…do you really think she is qualified to run our economy (brush aside that presidential powers do not include “running the economy”)? If she can’t handle $200 million of money voluntarily given to her by passionate supporters, what makes you think she can handle a couple trillion dollars?

    Don’t listen to what any of the contenders say, watch and observe what they do and the trail behind them. Oh yes…the trail of unpaid bills from the HRC campaign to those needy middle class Americans who worked for her campaign (stage crews, venues, food service, etc). She’s really passionate about people…but can’t seem to demonstrate and execute that passion when it comes to walking her talk. She’s negatively affecting the local economies by having people float her a loan off their hard labor and trust that they will be paid. She’s really a candidate for the people…NOT! If she can’t manage to pay her bills on time, manage the money given to her, she’s not even fit to run a small business.

    Mrs. Clinton can say what she wants about the economy, but her actions demonstrate that she has no clue about economics where it really matters…the people who vote.

  • Dreadsen


    How will she get the nomination? I have not cited any statistical improbabilities.
    You can type all those long winded posts but when asked how she can get the nomination you just say “she will be the nominee. End of story”.?

    That’s all you have to say? You can’t even go into details about how she can do this? When all you said she has to do is win, win , win. My challenge to that statement is that I don’t believe simply winning is all that is required at this point.

    So Raymond what will she have to do to win? With your last statment “the clintons will win they always do” are you alluding to some other method they will employ to win besides being clean and fair? I mean this is a strong statement here.
    Is it the “Tonya Harding” approach?

  • Dam1en

    I love how Raymond wants to get MieleObama for pulling stuff out the air, while he responds with blind rhetorics of your typical Hilary martyr. What MieleObama meant by getting by “without her husband” is how, for example, with states with large Latino, Hilary seems to win because of Bill’s past actions for the Latino community.

    What I mean by is: They don’t care she was a good lawyer, how she graduated #1 at Yale, they only care about how well Bill served them (Not disregarding her other acheivements) when evaluating her.

    Second, stop playing victim, and look how your candidate has reacted ever since she fell behind on delegates a couple months ago. Not only has she made cheap shots at Obama, and distracted from real issues, she has been known to be a political hack, and a horrible flip-flopper.

    I won’t get on her Iraq, because that was an honest mistake. But her claims when she’s straight up lied about her support with NAFTA (You do remember, right? When her husband was president she said it was a “victory” for him [Bill]).

    She’s also getting flak for stretching out the truth. Sorry, Raymond, your “experience” argument that Clinton been using ever since this race has started has been busted. Not only was never in the same area as her husband during emergencies, but she was off in different parts of the country doing completely different things. Her Bosnian story is a perfect example of this.

    Do I need to continue? Or are you going to just stomp your feet until you’re blue in the face, and make hyperboles of situations concerning your candidate?

  • Babs

    David, on the campaign spending, Obama has had the record on campaign fund collecting, but also holds the record for spending. You might not want to go there on Clinton. Obama has spent a record amount on his campaign, especially his internet campaign.

  • Whobody

    I despise this message “Democrats should stop slinging mud at each other so that they can start focusing on their real opponent”, which is veiled way of saying “Can’t we just start slinging mud back across party lines again, the way we usually do?”.

    Your first “quote” wasn’t even quoted accurately. A true quote is what someone actually said. You “despise” a message which you, yourself, wrote. It’s not a “veiled” message. Read what is actually there.

    No mud-slinging should be done, even across party lines, if you need that to be clear. Also, an “opponent” isn’t necessarily someone you insult or mud-sling. It’s someone who opposes your position. Obama and Hillary have similar political positions, which tends to be opposed by McCain’s.

    From Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

    Main Entry: 1op·po·nent
    Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpō-nənt\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Latin opponent-, opponens, present participle of opponere
    Date: 1560
    1 : one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict)
    2 : a muscle that opposes or counteracts and limits the action of another

  • Babs

    Whobody, IndiMinded did not say we should be mudslinging across party lines, you interpreted it that way – your option. And for someone who opposes mudslinging, you sure do a lot personal attacking. We’re here to debate the issues, not slam each other personally. That’s the very definite of mudslinging, look that one up in your Webster.

  • Whobody

    No. The first paragraph is what he wrote about my post. I copied and pasted one of IndiMinded’s paragraphs

    From the second paragraph on, I am commenting on that.

    So where is my personal attack? I feel he misrepresented my comments with an innaccurate quote.

  • Whobody


    Main Entry: mud·sling·er
    Pronunciation: \-ˌsliŋ-ər\
    Function: noun
    Date: circa 1890
    : one that uses offensive epithets and invective especially against a political opponent
    — mud·sling·ing \-ˌsliŋ-iŋ\ noun

  • IndiMinded

    Whobody, in retrospect I’m sorry that I put my phrase in quotations, because I can see how it seemed like I was misquoting you – that wasn’t how I intended it to come off. I certainly didn’t mean to insult you. My message was not aimed at your words, but inspired by them. There is a message I hear from many democrats – ‘lets stop flinging poo at each other, and start aiming at that mccain guy’.

    And honestly, what do you mean when you say they need to focus on their opponent? Only one person will win – but the voters decide that. And each candidate can get elected through two means – by convincing the voters that they are good candidates or by convincing the voters that their rivals are not good candidates.

    Which tactic does one take when focusing on another candidate?

  • Whobody

    Indi, I agreed with message of your post and liked what you were saying. I wasn’t so much insulted as I just didn’t want anyone thinking I was saying it was okay for Democrats to throw insults across party lines at Republicans.

    What do I mean when I say they need to focus on their true opponent?
    While Obama and Clinton have differences, the major divergences in which way to steer our country come from a Clinton vs McCain or Obama vs McCain position. That is where we should decide if Clinton or Obama is better for the job. I believe the solutions to major issues that the two Democratic candidates have brought forward now need to be projected against the McCain solutions. From these arguements, I can begin to understand how they rival the Republican candidate, and how they will handle the opposition in the general election.

    Which tactic does one take when focusing on another candidate?
    Pointing out the short-comings of one candidate or another is necessary in all political arenas. However what inspired my post in the first place was not the candidates themselves but the tunnel-visioned supporters.

    When I mentioned mud-slinging in my first post, I was referring to the American citizens who actually have very similar philosopies and shouldn’t require us to dip down to trivial arguments, like who is getting better media coverage. If you don’t think someone is getting fair treatment, you can turn off your TV and still get informed information. If we are buying into what the media says or does it just fuels the fire. Are we to believe what Britany or Paris do should even be on the same program or channel that informs us of our presidential candidates? Then why should we argue over a percentage of positive/negative stories about one candidate or the other, when we can skip over the media’s bias approach(if that is what you believe) and let the candidates speak for themselves. That is how we, as citizens, can control the media and this election, by tuning the B.S. out and tuning into the more important issue of which candidate can do the most for America.

    We have two amazing people running for the Democratic nomination, and I wish that the citizens who support each candidate could stop the personal bashing of each other and focus on achieving a better government than we have had for the past eight years.

  • David

    The point of my comment was that HRC and her campaign seem to have an issue in managing their money. I said nothing about how much they raise and spend it. The key point was about the amount of debt being carried (remember economics 101) and the latency of when those debts are being paid (accounting 101 – accounts payable beyond 60 days).

    I’m not sure what your response about raising and spending has to do with “managing” the money. We all can earn and spend money, but if we don’t pay our bills on time, that’s a revealing character quality with personal consequences from our lenders. Should candidate be immune from consequential actions that they ask us to adhere to and “tighten up” for the sake of others?

    Should anyone trust their bank account with someone who withdrawals their money, spends it, and then takes 3 or 4 months to think about paying it back? Should we feel great and wonderful for floating them a loan while we don’t have the spending power any longer, and we’re losing interest at the same time? How about our sense of worth when the person to whom we gave that money doesn’t seem to respect us enough to give back what was ours in the first (and last) place? If it is a loan or a gift, then their campaign would not have been billed, nor would the campaign have agreed to the price.

    Unless you think that someone is “better” than you and you should be subservient to someone else, why would anyone not be a bit miffed about such behavior and why would they expect any different for the next person(s)? Carrying overdue debt clearly demonstrates lack of priority for people, lack of ability to manage money, and lack of character and not walking the talk about “economy” and “sacrifices”.

    Thanks for your reply.

  • Babs

    David, I agree with what you say. Maybe I should have reworded my comment for a better understanding, spending money goes directly to managing money, agreed? Spending it wisely is good money management, spending it wildly is not, not paying your debt is not, and as you say, that’s Economics 101. While Obama is not in the debt Clinton is in, his management skills have also been questioned in the astronomical amounts he has spent on payroll and media advertising. Here’s the summary for Obama since 1stQ 2007 to Feb. 29, 2008.

    Total Receipts: $193,600,733
    Total Spent: $154,767,643
    Cash on Hand: $38,833,089
    Debts: $625,058
    Date of last report: February 29, 2008

    His 4thQ spending exceeded his receipts by almost $20 million, luckily he had surplus from the 2ndQ after a breakeven 3rdQ. You can view all the candidates receipts and expenditures, as they are filed monthly, here:

    If you’d like also to take a peek at what each of them have “donated” to the Super Delegates they are squabbling over, here:

    I’ve read that 80-85% of the time historically, superdelegates endorse the candidate that gives them the most money. If that’s the case, I can see why Obama feels he has the superdelegates wrapped up.

    Thanks for your reply as well. =)