Reply #292: I must have missed the "factually incorrect" statement.

[Laelth]

I didn't see that you were correcting any "factually incorrect" statement when you called this a "bullshit" thread and characterized my concerns as "fan-boy hero worship." And suggesting that I am naive because I can't see, as you can, that both candidates are "part of the establishment," doesn't sound like correction of a "factually incorrect statement" to me. Thus, my snark in response.

My point, here, is that Obama may no longer be as beholden to his big-money donors as they would like. As I explained to knight-of-the-star, below, I was initially a John Edwards supporter. In part, that was because I was concerned, as you rightly point out, that both BO and HRC looked to me like "establishment candidates," beholden to special interests. I was seriously worried about the amount of special-interest money that both BO and HRC had collected. I was concerned that they had already been "bought off."

The theory that I advance in this thread is that these same special interests have come to realize what I have. Now that Obama has a million donors (and that figure is growing), he is no longer beholden to these interests. They thought they had effectively bought him. Now they realize that they were wrong. Perhaps he doesn't need their support any longer.

That, I think, is why he is a threat, and that is why these same interests want him destroyed. Hillary's continued refusal to accept that she can not win and that, even if she did win, she would split the party, is what has me confused. I can't see why she would do that if she really values the ideals of the Democratic party. The MJ article suggests that HRC works for a "higher power" than the Democratic party, and that explains why she might be willing to throw the whole party under the bus.

This has me very concerned.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--spelling.