Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton, Obama and Edwards - They ALL PAY to PLAY!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 01:54 AM
Original message
Clinton, Obama and Edwards - They ALL PAY to PLAY!

2/16/07
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/02/sweet_column_in...

Read the Obama camp e-mails to woo hired hand. In South Carolina, Clinton, Obama, Edwards bid for same consultant.

WASHINGTON -- South Carolina is a key primary state, and Democratic White House front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton competed to hire the same influential African-American consultant -- a state senator who is pastor of a 10,000-member megachurch.

Clinton's campaign made a deal, worth at least $10,000 a month, with state Sen. Darrell Jackson's firm, Sunrise Enterprises. The contract surfaced when Jackson earlier this week endorsed Clinton for president without mentioning his company would be working for her.

But e-mail exchanges obtained by this column show how the Obama campaign tried to woo Jackson, who was also negotiating with former Sen. John Edwards.

E-mail exchanges between Obama campaign adviser Steve Hildebrand and Jackson's sister Andrea McCoy, who handles his correspondence, provide a rare inside look at how these kinds of deals are cut.

7:40 a.m. Feb. 6. Hildebrand sent an e-mail to McCoy: "Senator, I spoke with David Ploufe, Barack's campaign manager about your contract and we agree to start it on March 15. I'm looking forward to working with you. I'm very glad you are on our team."

6:39 p.m. Feb. 6. Hildebrand gets an e-mail from McCoy, asking for 48 hours before making a "definite commitment" to Obama. "He has received information of which I am not at liberty to discuss and is taking it into consideration."

9:47 a.m. Feb. 7. Hildebrand e-mails McCoy, "I know that Senator Jackson and Barack spoke last night. Barack is very concerned about this and wants to ensure that he has Senator Jackson on his team. If Darrell has a concern about the contract we proposed, we need to make sure we work out these concerns."

8:21 p.m. Feb. 7 Hildebrand writes, "I hope this is not problematic. I did leave the Senator a message a couple of hours ago. If there are questions he has, I hope that he will bring them to us. Barack needs his help and we take his possible support very seriously."


Obama came in with $5,000 per month was almost accepted until Hillary came in with $10,000 per month....and won.

Edwards came in after the fact and doubled Hillary's offer, but was turned down, although he had paid and received the endorsement in 2004.

"The aide wrote that Jackson had not decided about which contract offer to accept. And the aide hinted to Hildebrand that Sunrise had received another offer for a consulting contract.

In 2003, Sunrise was hired by Axelrod and Associates to advise on media buys and consult on strategy for Sen. John Edwards's campaign. David Axelrod, now an Obama adviser, was Edwards's media consultant in 2004. Sen. Jackson endorsed Edwards, who won the primary.

Jackson said his personal ties to the Clinton family go back to 1992, when his firm worked for Clinton's presidential campaign".

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02...


SC Wireless Election Connection 2/3/04
http://scprimary.textamerica.com/?r=362546

Senator Darrell Jackson, D-Richland, who is also the pastor of Bible Way Church of Atlas Road, says that he "followed his heart" by advising his congregation he was voting for John Edwards. He said many Atlas Road members were searching for a candidate to vote for. Jackson says his intent was to let them know how he voted, not tell them to vote. "It would have been easier to go with (John) Kerry," Jackson told reporters, but Edwards stressed unifying America across economic lines to bring rich and poor together. "This is my guy, win or lose," says Jackson, who talked to Edwards by phone Tuesday morning. Whether he wins or loses in South Carolina, Edwards promises to come back to visit the Atlas Road congregation, Jackson says.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. In 6 months, the 'important' people will change. Forget about it.
Who knows? I think anyone who waits longer might do well, but it might drive their devotees(?) crazy! :hi: I really hope the General runs. We need someone with some military background.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. This is scary to me.....that money buys votes in this really transparent way!
Guess that's why the General can't get any airtime.....he ain't got the money to play! :(

I'm telling you, this is not the democracy I learned about in school.... :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. Be real.....
This is how politics is played out...

You need to feed the machine...

Unfortunatly, many of these so-called machines are nothing more than one high profile figurehead who claims to be able to deliver a group or bloc of voters...

It often turns out to be nothing more than shelling out precious campaign funds for votes that would already be yours to begin with...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. I understand that this is the program....how it works.....
I really just didn't realize how deep it goes, and the fact that money exchanges hands openly and such.

But yes, you are right....I'll get over it...I'm sure! I'll accept that this is how politics is played out. I will feed the machine.....I will accept the realities of politics......



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. That's pretty much par for the course. And wait till you see the GOP dough.
It makes our scratch look like chickenfeed.

Money and politics are like horse and carriage. You're not going anywhere without a lot of dough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Wow.....and then faking like someone's endorsing you cause they like you.....
but really its because you paid more money?

Guess I've been naive! :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Money always talks. The guy wasn't choosing between a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Whig and a
Republican, though. He was choosing between three Democrats who have much more in common, issue for issue, than they have differences. And he's gotta eat. And she has the best warchest, and he won't have to wait for his money. He's probably also calculating who will be able to pay the bill the longest, hang in the longest, and if she doesn't make it all the way, will be helpful in handing her machine over to the nominee because it never hurts to curry influence. That's how the game is played.

Money talks. Everything else walks. It's always been that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Got it!
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 02:32 AM by FrenchieCat
He's got to eat at the tune of $10,000 per month....
and influence his 10,000 megachurch members' votes via his endorsement!

"Check" :patriot:
is in the mail!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. I don't know anyone who admits to endorsing the practice. They all sigh and call it a necessary
evil, the way things have always worked, and oh, what a shame. But even though the numbers seem huge, and they are in terms of total dollars, money in politics isn't new. Hell, in the old days it was in some ways worse--it was all in envelopes, in bunches of ten grand or so. No accounting, no disclosures. You sent your staffers to act as bag men to pick up the goods--or dole them out, depending. At least now we have an idea who is buying influence, though with that "bundling" crap you can still conceal a lot of influence.

Here is a nice overview of the history--the quote at the top is especially apropos: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/history/history2.html

There are two things that are important in politics.
The first is money and I can't remember what the second one is.
-- Ohio political boss and U.S. Senator Mark Hanna, 1895

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
61. but if he is a state senator, and he is selling his endorsement to the highest
bidder, shouldn't he be fired from his senate position?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #61
99. Problem for the this is evil crowd is that he is not selling his vote to highest offer - AP says
there were 5 offers on the table with Hillary's not the highest.

His endorsement was made before the offers were signed.

He is known as a leader and his endorsement is sought by all.

She PR firm is known as a quality shop and is likewise sought by all.

His integrity is known as solid - so we are left with "it looks bad"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
25. Hi Frenchie!
I"ve been kind of shocked at this news.

I guess like you, I've been pretty naive too.

I always knew how much money was needed to run a successful campaign, & the more money you have, the better the chances.

But silly me, I never knew they pay people who are able to swing huge numbers of voters.

I also knew the fundies told their congregations who to vote for, but I've never seen a case this blatant.

It's very sad, & I'm more cynical because of this story than I was before. And I was pretty cynical!

:grr:

I think we should blow up the system & start all over.

Another thing, all this frontloading of primaries is nuts. The people with the most money & highest name recognition will have a huge advantage. The whole thing stinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malikstein Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
27. The two greatest obstacles to democracy:
1) The poor are under the delusion that they already have one.

2) The rich are terrified that the poor will get one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
5. I just read that Hillary hired H. Reid's son as Harry is neutral and won't endorse her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. He won't endorse ANYONE. Politicians who have senior leadership roles are well advised to
stay the hell away from the early stages. It's how you keep your friends, and it also prevents you from being tainted with the miscalculation stink if you're favorite goes off the rails.

The son probably got hired because Harry LIKES her as a candidate, but can't say so publicly. His job, like Howard Dean's, is to support the process and support the eventual nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Maybe Reid's son like his father likes all of the candidates.....
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 02:31 AM by FrenchieCat
but perhaps some pay better than others?

Afterall, as you said.....Folks have got to eat...right? :thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. That's exactly right. And I'll bet it's a respectable salary, too. The average schmo doesn't have
connections and access to the state network that kid has, simply because of who his father is.

But it wouldn't surprise me if Harry's furtive pick is Hillary. The Senate is a VERY collegial place, and Hillary works and plays very well with others. Edwards has been gone for awhile, and Obama is new. You go with who you know, often as not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
10. God I wish Hillary would go away.
It sounds like she's literally buying all the primary states. Apparently she needs to spend millions to convince people she isn't an empty pant suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
45. Hillary should not get all the heat on this
Obama was in the middle of doing the exact same thing. Edwards did the exact same thing in 2004 and was negotiating again for 2008, apparently. Both buying primaries just as Hillary was. (Richardson and Biden were in there somewhere, but it's not as clear from the reports what they were doing.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
11. OK, I'm just thinking now.....since it appears that there is a lot more
backroom dealing than I ever possibly realized! :wow:

In reference to Warner and Bayh bowing out of the race, after each had set up exploratory committees.

Could they have been promised something? And if so, by whom and what?

Cause now, I'm getting suspicious!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Hillary/Bayh ticket has wide appeal
Indiana comes in play!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
49. ROFL!
No, it wouldn't, any more than North Carolina did because Kerry choose Edwards.

HRC will not win any red states - and may even lose us a couple of blue ones (Michigan and Pennsylvania come to mind because of the large hunting population).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
69. No Dem is going to win any state that was once run by the KKK
so Indiana is a no go.

Presidential candidates usually get a 10% boost from their homestate, VPs get about 5%. A Dem VP from these 2004 red states would likely win them:
Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia.

A Dem Presidential candidate from those states would easily win them. A Dem Presidential candidate from these states would likely win them:
Flordia, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Arizona.

All other states are probably too red to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Either they got a little money and are sitting on it, or they got almost nothing and their prospects
to raise money looked grim.

The big trick to a successful campaign is to lock down your contributors. I don't think Bayh did that, thought about it, planned sufficiently for it. Others, and not just Senator Clinton, beat him to the punch.

As for Warner, he could pay for his own campaign, and he was a powerhouse fundraiser--he had a bundle lined up quick from the tech sector. But I did hear a rumor that he had some personal vulnerability, and that's why he backed out. No confirmation though--just a big ol' rumor. Others see it differently, that he thought about it and didn't want the job...this whole article is good, FWIW. One perspective here:


One night in New Hampshire, after a few drinks at a pool hall in a college town, the conversation turned to the political troubles of another potential '08 contender. I told a story that had been making the rounds about how this politician once spit on his wife. Warner's huge jaw dropped and his face blanched. The table fell silent. "I guess that's not that funny to you, is it?" I muttered. He shook his head.

After his announcement, I asked Warner if he had been worried about the vetting process. "Not really," he insisted. "You know, politics is a body contact sport. I've run for elective office twice. ... I sat with my family and said, 'If we go through with this, there will be people--who knows what kind of attacks people will make.' But, you know, I think my family and I were ready to take that on."

Margolis says he spent the day Warner dropped out on the phone with reporters explaining that there was no scandal that sidelined Warner. "There was nothing that anyone was concerned about," he told me. "In fact, I sent an e-mail on Thursday afternoon to Mark and others saying I've now told like 20 reporters that there is absolutely no truth that he is gay, that he has a health problem, that he is about to have a sex-change operation, or that the oppo research was really bad."

Another staffer offered the more interesting theory that part of Warner's decision may have been about whether he actually wants to be president at this moment. "Who really wants this job?" the adviser asked. "Do you want to be the one to extricate America out of Iraq, decide whether to strike Iran? It's big-boy time. I believe Mark Warner is up to it, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the ingredients in the soup. This isn't going to be fun." Warner once hinted at this same idea in an interview. We were talking about his foreign policy experience, and I noted that, compared with some other Democrats in the field, he wasn't really that inexperienced. He said that wasn't the important question. "If you do this," he told me, "having the notion that you might be able to do it better than Person X doesn't get you through the night. You've gotta feel it in your own gut." .... when I listened to that same August interview with Warner again, I realized Warner was already hinting at the decision he would make. In between campaign stops in New Hampshire, he brooded over what being president would do to his three daughters, ages 16, 15, and 12. "At some point, being the governor's daughter, that fades," he told me, sounding in hindsight like a guy who had already made up his mind. "You can move out of the state, you can move somewhere else and redefine who you are. If you are ever a child of a president, that's who you are for the rest of your life."

Every governor or senator thinks about running for president. Most do so because they are ambitious and see the presidency as the next rung on America's political ladder. The big question they often ask is strategic. How can I make it through the process and get elected? In the end, that's not the question Warner asked. His advisers swear that the nuances of the primaries and the details of how to topple Hillary Clinton never came up in his final deliberations. Warner asked not whether he could be president, but whether he should be president. The irony of Warner's answer is that the kind of person who dwells on that question is the kind of person you want to be president. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061030&s=lizza103006




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Interesting....thanks!
Guess we'll never know unless they write a book or something.

Well, I hope Warner will run for Warner's seat or run again for Governor in after Kaine serves his term.

I was surprised about Bayh.....

Guess you may be right that by the time he got to where he was going, Hillary and some others may have already been there, done that.

Clinton/Bayh sounds kind of weak ....but safe though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:07 AM
Response to Original message
12. It's interesting that Edwards was turned down
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 03:08 AM by Clarkie1
even after he doubled the offer (and was endorsed in 04').

So I guess money can't buy everything...at least not for Edwards.

Still, this sort of dealing is disturbing...what exactly does a "consultant" do? Tell everyone in the congregation that the candidate who has them on the payroll is the better choice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. Yes....but move along........ nothing to see here.....
as quid pro quo is par for the course...You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours....etc., etc., etc....

We must accept the reality of this; for our own good as this has been done for many years. It's simply part of our democratic process. It's politics as usual....get over it! :sarcasm:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Well, here's the sad fact. Not enough Americans give a shit. That's the real deal.
That's why there haven't been any changes to the system that REALLY matter.

Even Mister Campaign Finance Reform is backing away from his own ideas and legislation. He wants to raise some serious money, he doesn't want to be at a disadvantage.

If you really are upset about this reality (and you certainly seem angry at those of us who are well aware of it and simply report the facts of the matter to you--as though we've created the system), and it does seem, from your remarks, as though it's news to you, perhaps you might want to start writing letters to your representatives and urge others to do the same.

I'll tell you, though, it'll likely be awhile before this issue hits the radar screens of the populace. They're too focused on the war. CFR is a bit arcane, and something that people prefer to tackle in peaceful times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. I am not angry...I am surprised and shocked how easily this is all
accepted.

And yes, I didn't know that it was set up quite like this, and that it was this matter-of-fact.

I thought campaign finance reform dealt with PACs and such....Didn't realize that ministers were for sale too. I understood that a favor might beget a favor later on down the line as a thank you or something. That I knew about. I just didn't know that folks actually bid on those that could endorse and that a bidding war could break out.....etc...

So yes, I may be naive....and I won't try and deny it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. This is old, but it describes 'bundling' very well. That's the ticket, you see
You throw a party for twenty five or thirty of your closest friends, and you get them to write a check for two grand. Then you, without giving a dime yourself, hand over the checks, and you're a hero! Do it a few times, and you're an ambassador!!!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bundling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Frenchie, this is just getting tiresome. Now you're shocked there's gambling in Casablanca.
Oh, yeah - and it's another great opportunity to draw negative - and probably false - conclusions about John Edwards. And another opportunity to blame the media/somebody/any body for Clark's NOT BEING IN THE GAME.

You really need to face reality and MOVE ON.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
50. And you need to face the reality that Edwards is a consumate
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 12:28 PM by Clark2008
politician and may not (is not) the best thing for this country.

Why do you accept this shit so easily?

This has NOTHING to do with Wes Clark and everything to do with major problems with our democracy. Does that not bother you or are you too busy dissing Clark to worry about the fundamentals of electioneering?

Edited to add: And the reality is that if Edwards is the nominee, I won't be voting for the Democrat in the general election. I dislike him for his own merits, not whether Clark is or isn't in the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Why do you sling this shit so easily?
And if Edwards is the nonimee - I'm sure the Rethugs will welcome you with open arms. You've done so much hard work for them already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Defend Edwards if that is your goal
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 01:11 PM by Pithy Cherub
rather than slinging shit. Edwards has a record filled with horrific examples of poor judgment and incompetence. If you think or wish to opine that his positives outweigh them, state them.

However; Edwards would be the first to tell you that Amendment I in the Bill of Rights is: Congresss shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No one is the arbiter of another's free speech and since this is America understand your obligation under the law that people may freely express themselves even though it may give you a wedgie. Either respond on the merits or refute the opinion, but to accuse some one for exercising their right to free speech of being republican in nature is crass and beneath the priniciples of this nation. Think before spouting off, just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. I will defend ALL Democrats against the smears and assaults being hurled
here by a few very intent posters. I was accused of "easily falling for shit", by someone who spends a great deal of energy slinging it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #60
84. Actually, I rarely sling shit at all.
I never say a cross word against HRC or Obama (I don't think they can win, but that's another story, entirely).

I don't like Edwards. I think he's a phony. I have legitimate beefs - very real policy beefs - against him and that's that. Why do you insist that I MUST vote for someone whom I don't trust?

I don't get that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #54
82. You know - there are other people to vote for besides Dems
and Republicans.

I won't be voting for a Republican and, seeing as how there's no way in hell Edwards can take my state, my one vote for a third-party candidate or a write-in won't make one damn difference to Edwards' "campaign."

Now - go tell someone else who to vote for - that's so VERY Democratic. Not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. It depends on the state, and the circumstances, but you might expect them to do these sorts of
things: they organize precinct walkers, they GOTV, they get lists together, of volunteers and contributors and fundraisers and people willing to hold block parties and so forth, they advise on what sorts of media buys are worthwhile, what appeals locally, and of course, you can't get up in the pulpit and order the flock to vote a given way, but you can tell them how YOU intend to vote. We see the Fallwell types do it all the time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
26. Nice Try FC
But there was no correlation proven about any of them.

I'm glad you love smearing fellow Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. This is a non-story...unless you want be 'shocked, shocked I tell you'
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 08:13 AM by venable
let me get this straight: a campaign sets up a state organnization. they hire people: staffers, consultants, etc out of the pool of politically experienced people in the state, from all across the state. Nothing wrong with that, right? Of course not.

So, you're a politically experienced and connected person in SC. You will do some work for one of the campaigns. If you are powerful and really connected you will even be wooed by differenct campaigns. You choose the one you believe in (and that you think will win) and you sign up.

THIS IS A NON STORY.

And Clarkie 1, who hasn't seen an Edwards mention that he doesn't like to slime, there is nothing so remarkable about Edwards being turned down: According to the story, if it's true at all, Sunrise had already committed, and they didn't de-commit. To say nothing of the fact that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Edwards campaign tried to double Hillary's salary. Edwards does NOT have the money to be doubling what HRC does. This is completely bogus.

I think this shock and dismay is not well spent.

The media is really lousy in this country, but THEY ARE NOT THE ONES CHOOSING WHO THE FRONTRUNNERS ARE: IT IS THE STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVISTS. WARNER AND BAYH WERE NOT GETTING A LOT OF TRACTION WITH STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVISTS.

Gore would. I think some activists are holding off to see if he jumps in. But I don't think he will, or if he does it won't be until the last minure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
46. Edwards should demand a retraction
If this is completely bogus. If he didn't have both a contract with and endorsement from Darryl Jackson in 2004 and was not negotiating a new deal for 2008 when Hillary took the ball, as reported.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #46
100. LOL - As the AP noted - 5 candidates were trying to both hire Jackson & get endorsement n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Yes and it's disgusting
However, I was responding to a poster concerned with Edwards. See?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. true - my error in reading a different tone than what was meant - sorry. n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. No prob
:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jen4clark Donating Member (812 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #28
95. I think it IS the media choosing
who the frontrunners are. From ms in la:

A Clinton- Corpress love affair

Who's the Number One recipient of media contributions in 2006 cycle?:
_________________________________________________
Media donations in general
Hillary Clinton

Media donations to all Senators
Hillary Clinton

Books/ magazines/ newspapers
Hillary Clinton (receiving 3 times the #2 recipient)

Cable TV
Hillary Clinton (receiving over 2 times the #2 recipient)

TV/ Movies/ Music
Hillary Clinton

TV / Radio stations
Hillary Clinton (the other 4 of the top 5 are all Republicans)

Communications/ Electronics
Hillary Clinton

TV Production
Hillary Clinton

And in the year 2000-- she was NUMBER 2 in Media Donations to ALL recipients following
#1: Al Gore.


All data from opensecrets.org

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=B0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. It is ok for some Dems, right?
Seems pay to play in Illinois was enough reason to vote GOP for some. What is the last post in this thread all about?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. sorry, maybe I'm a little dense this morning, but I don't understand
the relevance of the post you linked and referenced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. Read what the poster writes here.
Then read what he wrote there. If you can't see a difference, I can't help you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. why the nasty tone, brother
when I ask a civil question?

If you are saying that the poster is doing what he complains about (smearing a candidate), I don't agree. I think they are two different kinds of critiques. This thread is without a solid foundation, though it MAY point to a possible abuse. It is very possible that there is nothing untoward about this endorsement, and certainly no proof that Edwards, at least, was in on the bidding (bidding, theoretically at least, for work not votes, by the way).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. What's nasty?
Apparently we disagree. This thread has a very solid foundation. Once again if you choose to be blind and ignore the overall story, I can't help you. The OP is about political prostitution. As in the oldest trade, who is responsible, the john or the hooker? Many feel prostitution is not a crime, both sides get what they bargain for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. 'blind', 'can't help you', this is nasty
and if I were you I'd say if you can't see that this is nasty you are blind and beyond help, even my sage aid can't help you. (see, that's nastier than need be)

What we do agree on is that political prostitution is wrong.

What we don't agree on is whether this case is political prostitution, and whether Edwards had anything to do with anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. The linked article clearly states Edwards' involvement.
And maybe I'm less sensitive than you. On the other hand, if you think calling the Democratic Governor of Illinois,"Count" is not a smear, I don't know how to help your understanding of what a smear is. I find it interesting that Edwards' supporters,so far, seem to be the only ones on the defensive about this post. This is why it is called retail politics, and if you are a player, you either ante up or are relegated to the also ran category. Witness Kucinich. I did not see this as a condemnation of any individual, but an expose of the system. I find it interesting that by citing a published article, Frenchie Cat is immediately accused of poisoning the well. It seems clear the poison is here, and I would like to see measures taken and stands taken to change this. Other posters feel pay to play is a sign of strength.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. I don't think pay to play is a strength
but I don't know that this is buying an endorsement.

If it is, it stinks.

And the system does allow the possibility that an endorsement can be bought, which would be a serious perversion of democracy.

What I don't see is proof, in this artice, that it is a bought endorsement.

I don't think Frenchie Cat poisoned the well, except to the extent that her or anyone's interpretation of the article is that a purchase has been proven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #31
41. I'm game
The governor is stealing from my pension to pay for pork in Chicago. I voted Green Party last time because of his actions. First he says he's for unions, then he's not. He won't even live in the house that we in Illinois pay for him to live in. I think the only time he was in Springfield this year was a send off for Barack Obama's presidential campaign kick-off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. When was your pension cut?
The "pork for Chicago" is the oldest GOP meme, used to divide the people, since that is how they use bigotry to advance their power. All politicians are for unions until they conflict with their particular program. He's done good for my union. Where he lives is totally irrelevant. The taxpayers pay for the Governors mansion irregardless. If he goes home, it's to a home he pays for. The term "Count" is not a fact, it is a SMEAR of a DEMOCRAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benny05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. I hear what you are saying
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 12:14 PM by benny05
My pension has not been cut at this point, but he proposed taking money of it to prop up the budget, and that's what is happening. As you saw in my post, I had to take an extra plan out because when I retire, I'm not certain the state will deliver what it promised because money is being taken out right now. That was a bad idea. When your state budget is broke, which the Republican gov previously left the state in bad shape, you have to make choices. Giving Chicago Sinfonia $200K to pay for the Joffrey Ballet is not a good use of money. Private funds could be used for that. Not releasing money for a long time that the legislature authorized to pay for crumbling infrastructure at universities is not good either in order to pay for the pork.

http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/news/news200506.html
http://www.jobscoalition.org/news/contentview.asp?c=160...

I'm a downstater, and when I worked at the Dem booth at the county market on Saturdays, seldom did anyone pick up a yard sign or sticker to support the governor. Moreover, when the Labor Day picnic was being held in the Quad Cities area, the governor was a no-show. Great support for Labor, who voted for him in 2002. He had almost no endorsements from Labor last year.

But I will throw two compliments in his direction: (1) raising the minimium wage twice, and (2) health care for all children. I don't mind my taxes paying for those because they invest directly into our people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
29. I'm an orignal Clarkie on DU, too, FC. But I have the honesty to admit..
...that Clark only gets a pass on many things because he isn't a player.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. There's something to that, I agree
But this sort of thing could also be a reason he may not ever want to be a player again. He's said several times that, last time, he ran into things that go on in the campaign process that turned his stomach and have to be changed. A half dozen of our Democratic presidential candidates hondling with this megapreacher state senator who takes contracts and gives endorsements could be something like what he's talked about. Even if he doesn't run, I hope he takes the elections system on as a battle. Because it stinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #33
39. you may be right about that
... but I don't really think it is fair to compare Clark to senators and governors because he has never had to make the decisions. He's never had constituents to please - people who could fire him next time they go to the polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #33
42. totally agree
that the system gives many opportunities for serious abuse.

And Clark, as a candidate last time around, would have been in a position to see it up close, and be revolted.

I do want to make clear though that the possibility of abuse does not indicate a certainty of abuse taking place.

Public financing of campaigns is the first step. But there are many other steps after that.

(an educated and discerning and engaged public is also a requisite for a fully functioning democracy. we are a long way from that, too)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
51. You mean he isn't a money whore.
Because, he's certainly a "player" when it comes to what the correct policy should be for national, single-payer health care, on Iraq and on Iran and on national security.

I'm sorry, but none of the front-runners know what the hell they're talking about half the time on those issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #51
64. No, I mean he isn't a player.
He's NEVER had to vote on ANY policy. EVER. It is easy to to say what you are for. It's a whole different thing to be in Congress and have to weight options before casting a vote.

That is the difference between politics and hero worship.

Money whore? Interesting choice of terms. Wes Clark raised $29,586,662 for his presidential bid. I guess a little elf left it under his pillow.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. I don't believe in elves
The kind of high octane campaign he ran on last time means what it means. There's no other way obviously to run for president in this country and hope to win. Isn't that the tragic part? Just because it's Wes Clark doesn't make me like it any better and it doesn't make me proud. He learned a lot of lessons and if he can figure out a way to do it differently, I hope he runs again. If he's got to bribe corrupt public officials for endorsements, fuck it, let him stay out and try to change the world some other way. Maybe continue advising all those people on policy so maybe they know what they're voting on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #67
75. Apparently Clark2008 does. How else to explain that large sum of money...
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 06:28 PM by wyldwolf
...if Clark wasn't drawing from the same sources the "money whores" are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. Heh
You got your "2008s" mixed up there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. oops!
Same "Indie band" approach to politics, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #75
87. No - you just missed my point.
My point is that Clark never paid for someone to endorse him.

I'm not talking about where he raised money, but whom he paid. And, as far as I know, he only paid for things like staff and technical support and travel and ads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #64
85. I meant he didn't pay people to endorse him.
And, you don't think being the head of state is being a player? Because being the NATO Allied Supreme Commander makes one an automatic "player" in my book.

Why do some people feel you have to have been in politics forever to run for president? I, personally, would rather have someone with real leadership abilities than someone who's spent most of their lives pandering to various sullied characters to win a bloc of votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. and you know this how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. I worked for his campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. WOW! So did I...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
30. What's funny about this
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 08:29 AM by JNelson6563
is is Clark were in the race and doing these things we'd be hearing much different stuff from you on the issue.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #30
52. Not necessarily.
Frenchie LIKES Obama, FWIW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
36. presumably these emails were provided by Obama
and I wonder if any of Jackson's congregation will see these emails, and wonder about their pastor's endorsements...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Or given by Jackson to the Clinton campaign
To show Obama was doing the same thing - in order to divert criticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #36
72. Good for whoever leaked
I'm sick of this shit. It's time people know how this nasty business really works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
37. "enough to make a Negro turn black"
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/262138,CST-NWS-mi...

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- When Sen. Barack Obama arrived here Friday night for a rally at the Metropolitan Convention Center -- his first trip to South Carolina as a presidential candidate -- things were in an uproar. The day before, he'd been rebuffed by state Sen. Darrell Jackson, one of the most prominent and politically influential black men in the state, in a deal that, as the late Lu Palmer used to say, "is enough to make a Negro turn black."

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
47. Stay tuned... the denouement continues as this
is just the beginning of the people seeing a smidget of what goes on behind the curtain. Follow the money...

The use of walking around money, most recently from the sleazy Lieberman, is a microcosm of what happens. Past use of mega church pastors like T.D. Jakes by the Bushes is a known commodity. The Indian gaming money is a known thing. There is also money for the media that has been exposed to a small degree - pay for pundit services. It is sad, but many more people are about to see even more agressive and eggregious tactics that are embedded in the political process.

Strategically, the endorsement derby is part and parcel of machine politics. Clinton(s) had a machine and losing the ability to dispense DNC money to a certain pipeline of consultants (why are certain ones on TV :freak: that represent a POV consistent with theirs most often) was a reward mechanism. Edwards needs cash to play and watch his contracts go up as the South Carolinian primary is important to his nascent hopes and that hinges on AA's. The doubling offer by Edwards was an indicator of how badly he needs those endorsements. Obama on the low end is indicative that he is willing to play using the system - but he has other sources/assets to offset these types of endorsements. Clinton needs them the most as she is running a general election campaign in the midst of a presidential primary which is akin to a all or nothing strategy which is never smart. Watch Nevada where the courting of influential Latinos and Labor is ongoing.

Here is what is about to upset the political ca$hcart even more, us Californians are now "must haves" in a state that has 36,000,000 people and the number 6 economy in the world while we double as the economic driver of politics with donations. The money system is embedded in how money is bundled - which is why the big donors owned candidates AND policy for so long. To name a mere two, Tammany Hall and the Daley machine are no accidents.

Stay tuned there's more to come and its going to be just as shocking.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k_jerome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
53. its a cuththroat game and they have the courage to play...unlike some. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
57. For cryin' out loud. You'd think Wes Clark was the 2nd coming.
Clinton wasn't in the field in 2004, and neither was Obama. This is a non-story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Wrong. Donors provide the money and how each candidate
spends it needs to become more transparent. Too bad it makes the whoring visible, but only the prudes will avert their eyes from the truth, no matter how ugly. Clark has nothing to do with this but Hillary's face is definitely at the money trough and she is sharing and we should all know it how much that mud facial was worth no matter the candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #57
76. You said this about Clark, I didn't.
Edwards and Kerry were in the field in 2004.....Edwards won, and now it appears that direct pay to play may have had something to do with it...although I am sure that Edwards would have won S. Carolina anyways.

I also realize that for you no story is a story if it involves Edwards and doesn't have him shining. What else is new? :shrug:

Clark's not even an issue here.....cause I'm starting to pray that he doesn't run anyway. It all stinks far as I'm concerned. Glad you don't give a shit though.....that type of attitude will be very helpful to any campaign you might hook up with.

Thanks for the pronouncement as to whats a story and what isn't. Don't know what I'd do without your defensive and unbiased input. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. ROFLMAO. Me, unbiased? Meow, Frenchie Cat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
62. Well, I 'm learning more and more everyday....and now understand
why so many people as cynical.

So, apart from, "It's the Free Publicity, Stupid!"....

It is also, "It's the money, Stupid".....

And so, yes, I'm stupid.

Wonder how long it will take those fired up young people to realize this shit is broke.

We really no longer operate in a democracy. :shrug:

PS. The more I'm called out by candidate supporters for having the audacity to bring up issues about politicians that they don't appreciate, the more folks begin to understand that those attacking me for somehow "smearing" politicians simply have no comeback that would address the issue that I bring forth, and so I am attacked instead. Unfortunately, I am a poor substitution for what ails our political system. But sadder is that not only are we to accept this, but as far as these posters are concerned I shouldn't even bring this shit up......

In otherwords, I'm the bad guy! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Martyrdom not a good look for you
Like I said up thread, if Clark were in the race and doing this we wouldn't be hearing you complain about it, except if another campaign wooed a "consultant" away with a larger offer. I can imagine the varied excuses you could come up with in the case of Clark.

Funny to see you launch yet another Faux News style attack at Dems and then whip out a cross to drag about the board because the Democratic Party supporting board is taking issue with your crap.

What a drag on the team you are.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Julie - what you said! nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. Ditto for you......attack me by jumping on to someone elses silly post denounce me... why don't you!
Oh yeah...I forgot....any topic that I bring up that doesn't make your candidate shine like glass is a "smear".

and It's like I singled out John Edwards with this op.

Yeah, right.....didn't think so. :eyes:

Weak tactic, I say.

oh....and as I was saying, before being rudely interrupted by those who want to justify everything about what politicians do no matter what by using the absurd approach of personally attacking and now putting words in my mouth about what I would do (like they fucking know anything about me :eyes: ).......in reference to those, who like me, didn't realize the Quid Pro Quo was this direct......I really don't like this, but I guess that it is part of the game. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. Hypotheticals on how I would respond is a silly way of justifying
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 05:52 PM by FrenchieCat
anything....

But I am not surprised that this is what you'd lower yourself to......like you know me. Thank goodness I don't do this to you and your tired one liners that do nothing but point a finger in the lame attempt of shutting somebody on these boards up.

So go ahead, attack me the poster, why don't you? I'm finding that this is what you do...and it ain't "Hypothetical" either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #65
74. How is this a Faux News style attack?
Only some of the Democratic Party supporters are taking issue. It is interesting to see which ones find political prostitution acceptable and which ones don't. I would even bet that some who pay to play don't really like the system either. At least that is what they claim, and some are even trying to reform the system. Why do so many find the same behavior by the GOP so offensive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #65
80. Supercilious sanctimony is not a good look for you.
Funny to see you launch yet another Faux News style attack at Dems and then whip out a cross to drag about the board because the Democratic Party supporting board is taking issue with your crap.

What a drag on the team you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. LOL. I love seeing folks call her out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. Which is all that you can do, is love that.....meanwhile John Edwards and the others are the
politicians, not I.

That's what makes you sorry. How what you love has nothing to do with what is happening in this country.

Some folks talk about "fans"....yeah, I know, that's reserved to Clarkies.

IT is becoming more apparent day after day that Edwards supporters like to "trash" anyone that says anything about their guy that they don't like (even if it is a documented fact via published news sources deemed reliable).....but of course, they are justified cause they guy needs protecting and insulting DU members as much as possible to attempt to diminish their credibility is the perfect defense......NOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #65
90. You conveniently didn't read what I said to you, either..
I happen to know that Frenchie Cat LIKES Obama - and he was included in her OP.

Now... what that has to do with Wes Clark is beyond me, because there's not a WORD about him in this article.

And, WHY can't we question the motives of all our Democrats in the primaries? That's what they're FOR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #90
97. You've forgotten one of the cardinal rules at DU again
Clarkies are not allowed to express opinions about what other candidates do. If we do, non-Clarkies earn the opportunity to attack Clark, whether he has anything to do with the subject of the opinion or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
68. It's really a damn shame that the SCOTUS ruled spending caps unconstitutional
That would solve most campaign finance loopholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
71. SC will be a huge battle: Obama, Hillary, and Edwards are all seemingly popular there.
Hillary's money and invincible pant suit probably give her an edge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
79. This is a corrupt practice more suitable for a whore house than the White House
and even if it is legal, it is further proof and justification for why a clear majority of Americans are turned off by the political system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #79
94. A sensible statement
Thank you. Yes, it is a whore house. And it is a whore house because of the whores who prostitute themselves. But it also a corrupt and corrupting system because of people who call others fools for wanting our democracy to work rather than be an object to be sold to the highest bidder. According to what I'm reading on this thread the issues, and the qualifications of a person mean nothing. Those concepts are better left behind. It's all about the money.

If anyone wonders why America fails to live up to her ideals, and yet has the audacity to write with an air of know-it-all superciliousness that all of us who find the selling of endorsements without consideration for a candidate's true worth just fools, then go look in the nearest mirror. It is everyone here who finds this system the best bet for our country who is also selling each and every American out in every way.

So who are the fools? I would think that the real fools are those are unable to connect this election prostitution to abysmal state of our nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Earth_First Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
89. The ugly and very influential side of politics...
I too, wish that all of this would go away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
93. I have a feeling this endorsement declined in value
with this much national media attention being paid to the exchange of money, I'm guessing the state and local media are in a frenzy.

This situation definitely exposes the sick underbelly of politics, but unfortunately, it's a game that any viable candidate is forced to play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. Sounds like it according to this article.....
The State 2/16/07
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/1670...
Jackson defends his endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Jackson said his endorsement, and his company, were courted by almost all the Democratic candidates, including U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, an S.C. native whom Jackson backed and worked for in 2004.

He said some candidates offered more money than Clinton, others less, for his firms services.

Ultimately, he said, he decided to throw his personal support behind Clinton, a decision he said was independent of Sunrises relationship with the candidate.

If there was no contract, Id still endorse Clinton, Jackson said. This was having thought about the process, who is best able to lead and, quite honestly, which Democrat I think will be strongest come November. Its not about the contract.
snip
Jackson also is pastor of Bible Way Church of Atlas Road, one of the states largest black congregations, boasting 9,000 members last year.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #96
98. I wonder if Jackson was among those Black pastors opposed to marriage rights for LGBTs
His corruption is now well established. The next question is what Democratic constituencies have been sold down the river to get this man's endorsement.

It doesn't matter that he endorsed Hillary Clinton. What matters is that he sold himself to the highest bidder.

We might as well have politicians offer their endorsements on E-Bay, at least that's out in the open for all to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #98
104. I'm curious as to jackson's position on gay marriage - but record shows strong gay support in past
Darrell Jackson (D-Richland) was first to propose legislation that increases penalties when the crime is intentionally targeted at a person because of "race, color, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-19-07 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
105. Frenchie...I have a hard time thinking a "General" will solve our
Edited on Mon Feb-19-07 10:07 PM by KoKo01
problem when we have Facists in the White House and the Think Tanks. Maybe it's because I have too much memories of WWII embedded in my brain. I think Wes Clark is a nice guy...and could serve well in a Dem Administration...but this DU'er isn't voting for a Military Man to be President when we are already in a falling Empire like the last days of Rome. Chalmers Johnson warned about a Julius Caesar Populist and I'm not looking to live under one...no matter how charming he is... :-(

Military Industrial Complex has already gone TOO FAR...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
106. I think the bulk of everyone's anger and scorn should be directed towards Darrell Jackson & his ilk.
I'm not knocking the man for having a business or providing a consulting service. There's nothing wrong with being a businessman or businesswoman. However, there's something tacky and tasteless about preaching God's word on one hand and endorsing a presidential candidate that later hires your company for consulting services.

Yes, it's pay for play -- and just like in the radio industry, it's a disdainful practice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. More than enough scorn-worthy players here
We might as well bring back Tammany Hall as a national Dem org and be done with it. If Jackson is worthy of scorn, and he is, then presidential candidates paying their donors' good money into a known sinkhole are at least equally worthy. The endorsements don't come before the contract, but with the contract. For example, Obama's staff emailing Jackson's staff about the contract, while Obama talks directly with Jackson about the endorsement; Hillary's staff arranging the contract, while Bill and Hillary talk with Jackson about the endorsement. Political payola, indeed. What I want to know is where else in the country is this happening? They tell us they need ads to beat up Republicans, well, okay. It's projected to cost $150 million to run in this presidential race. Why does it cost $150 million?! If you multiply $200,000 or $400,000 contracts to corrupt politicians around the country, God only knows what kind of obscene amount of money we're talking about here when there are so many going in need. If this is how it is, I'd rather contribute to some Katrina building project directly than have faith in this rotten system and turn my money over to politicians so they can pay each other off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 21st 2019, 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC