--- 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. > > 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.
Obama isn't attempting to retire CLinton's loans to herself. Lawson
