Obama: $694,000 (40% of his superdelegates)
Clinton: $194,000 (12% of her superdelegates)
Don't agonize, organize ... that's my mantra. Change won't happen unless you work to make it happen! But sometimes even your best efforts don't provide the results you were looking for. Or sometimes a situation is just so completely outrageous that all you can do is say ... YIKES!
5 comments:
It's all about the money, when it comes to politics.
Obama just has had better organizing skills particularly among the grassroots and individual donors of the internet, successfully using Howard Dean's strategy of 2004 for his own advantage.
Hillary believe that the Clinton name and a few big money donors = nomination. Wrong.
Actually, if you follow the links to the PAC expense reports you can see that the site is using Obama's total expenditures - completely misleading any of your and its readers. Obama spent $299,000 on Democratic candidates' campaigns. Hillary Clinton spent $297,000, 93% on Democratic candidates, and 7% on others - INCLUDING $10,000 for Lieberman's campaign.
I also don't expect that he is requiring their vote to get political donations. He has after all, requested that Eleanor Holmes Norton vote for whoever has the most earned delegates.
I'm sorry Obama seems better able to support the Democratic party more than Clinton...
Most expensive super delegate EVAH?
I'm sorry you're being snarky, John. Haven't I trained you better than that?
Don't worry. I'll spank him later.
Jaelithe - John is being snarky because he knows in his heart that his guy is just a little bit slimy and it's making him crazy.
John - it's well known that in states Obama has won he is saying that superdelegates should follow the will of the people, but in states where Hillary won the SD should follow their conscience.
A hypocrite by any other name is still a hypocrite.
BAC
Post a Comment