--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
Actually I did provide support, from four recent published articles: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money14- 2008may14,0,1137125.story http://tinyurl.com/6rwqkp http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080605/pl_bloomberg/apktsglzmhzm http://tinyurl.com/5hk4pt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/08/obama-camp-faces-major- ob_n_100928.html http://tinyurl.com/5x5vvw http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-14- campaign-debt_N.htm http://tinyurl.com/5u59qp That's from post #179401 if you want to check. > That simply isn't true, as Sunshine Sal pointed out to you. Sal is simply incorrect, as are you. See my response to her in post #179429. They don't *always* do it, but they *frequently* do. It isn't something Hillary dreamed up all on her own. > 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. Actually she says she'll absorb the loan she made to her campaign herself, so it's about half that. If it's "foolish" to help her, then Obama's foolish, because he's offered to do so. He very badly needs at least to *appear* to be on good terms with her. He can't win without a very substantial portion of the votes of her 18 million primary supporters. That's also why she's unlikely to complain, at least publicly, if he doesn't live up to his promise, because, again, she wants to see a Democrat in the White House. (Note that he won't be giving her any of his campaign funds; that would be illegal. Rather, he's asking his maxed-out donors to give money to her.)
