--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "R.G." <babajii_99@> wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be > > > > enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as > > > > leverage to insure cooperation. > > > > > > He doesn't need any leverage. She wants to see a > > > Democrat in the White House whether he helps pay > > > her debts or not. > > (snip) > > Why should anyone but Hillary be responsible for her debts. > > It's traditional that primary winners help the losers > retire their campaign debt. This isn't a new wrinkle.
You have posted this false argument before with no support, simply calling it traditional. That simply isn't true, as Sunshine Sal pointed out to you. There have been instances where candidates who were on good terms helped a failed campaign retire a small debt. <i.e. 10k> To help retire a debt that was recklessly and imprudently driven to, say, 22 million dollars is foolish. > > <snip> > > Obama is a better speaker, more intelligent, more universal > > leader for the United States and the World. > > I'll give him better speaker. > > > Hillary will do alright; > > I wouldn't worry about her finances too much. > > Why would you? > > Where exactly did I say I was worried about her > finances? >
