Obama Purges 900 CA Delegates, Then Reinstates Many of Them

Update: Initial AP report here. The AP now reports that after complaints, Obama is reinstating hundreds of them.

Susie Madrak has the story and quotes Marcy Winograd at Daily Kos who says the anti-war activist and other liberal delegates have been replaced mainly with bundlers and their girlfriends.

Who was left standing, still in the running for the Sunday delegate caucuses? The bundlers and their girlfriends, the men and women who skirt campaign finance laws by bundling cash, a bundle of $2,000 here and a bundle of $2,000 there -- and some, though certainly not all, of the Obama precinct captains, loyalists from day one.

If CA is any example, progressive leaders in Penn better watch their back.

Wingrad ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Jane Harman in 2006. She had a lot of progressive support.

More on the purging at Huffington Post: "Obama's 'Big Tent' Campaign Cuts Out The Little People In California"

< Obama's Wealthy Donors and Bundlers | Obama's Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestinian Positions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The one comfort I have ... (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:54:10 PM EST
    ...when reading the rantings of Obamacons (no, this is NOT all Obama supporters, but a very, very vocal and astonishingly annoying plurality) is that if Obama by some miracle wins the general election, then within months of his being sworn in these people will be rabid about how he is not living up to his progressive ideals. I will then gleefully point out that Obama never sold himself as a progressive - he has said he was going to reach out to Republicans all along. You don't do that by pushing progressive goals. Of course, Obama has not explicitly discussed his politics much, anyway. He is "all things to all people", which is a great way to get elected, but not so easy to maintain once you are in office.

    when... (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:14:18 AM EST
    • you have a health care platform that doesn't have universal coverage...
    • you have advisors who are clearly free traders
    • you are talking about 'saving' social security
    • you are talking about returning to the foreign policy ideals of Reagan
    • you abstain from the vote denouncing MoveOn.org's advertising campaign attacking General Petreus

    it is only the fool who would consider his politics 'progressive'

    When you purge your potential delegate rolls of most progressives in favor of bundlers, there's little doubt where your politics are located.


    The excuse? (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:00:10 AM EST
    Hillary made them do it cause she threatened to steal delegates so they had to choose the strongest.  Honest, comments at MYDD.  Man, I wish I had a chorus that made excuses for everything I did.  

    I'm not working right now (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    How much would you pay?

    And, now.,. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Oje on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    The whole affair is just one more indication of Obama's virtues:

    The Obama Campaign Is Listening

    Uhh, yes. First he listened to the demands of his bundlers. Then he listened to the outcry of his supporters. A purely political calculation all along, reflecting an unprincipled and indecisive politician. "This is how elected (and would be elected) officials are supposed to act..." Todd Beeton opines.


    Yep. WaPo story today on Obama bundlers (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    who have donated more than half of his millions -- and California has more bundlers than any state.  The same state that had to purge the minions to make room for the millionaires.

    The (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by sas on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:00:12 AM EST
    first of many disillusionments I bet.....

    .....hurts to see that the one in whom you have put so much faith to be different, to inspire hope, is just another pol.

    Based on the comments I read (none / 0) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    in the Winograd diary, pretty much no one is disappointed.  They just say the story can't be true; that it is okay because Clinton purged 40; and that Obama could NOT have personally made the decision.

    I guess those are the options to disappointment - just pretend like it didn't happen or it isn't what it is.


    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:02:05 AM EST
    According to the San Francisco Daily:

    The campaigns for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are purging potential California delegates in a bid to ensure that onl their loyalists travel to the national convention in August.

    Locked in a race with an uncertain outcome, representatives for both both camps directed the California Democratic Party this week to delte a raft of names of some 2,400 potential delegates who will be elected Sunday in party caucuses.

    Most of the cutting was done by the Illinois senator - about 900 potential Obama delegates were dropped by his campaign, with about 50 excluded on Clinton's side.

    Okay fair enough they both culled their lists. But check out the magnitude of the cull 900 to 50. He purged 21 for every one she did. Someone must not be sleeping well at night.

    Apparently the Obama purged more women than men and those who hadn't made substantial contributions (not quite sure what the cutoff was). The Obama campaign even called neighbors to ascertain if the potential delegate had ever said any negative about Obama. Talk about paranoia.

    The purges start (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:05:43 AM EST
    cause there are true believers and false ones.  I was not wrong about us getting sent to camps.  

    I saw an update that said (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:09:13 AM EST
    Obama has now reinstated most of them.

    I guess the publicity wasn't helpful.

    Yup (none / 0) (#9)
    by muffie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:27:20 AM EST
    here's the update, from the same diarist.  And here's a related DKos diary, with the text of email from the Obama campaign.

    so, um............................ (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:21:25 AM EST
    i guess not all of us are who we've been waiting for, only the select among us.

    And their bank accounts (none / 0) (#66)
    by bodhcatha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    Yes I think (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:34:31 AM EST
    he reinstated them tonight after complaints.

    I love the comments on the Huff Obama: it's Clinton fault that he had to do this because she has been saying that the pledged delegates are free to vote for whom they choose and so Barack is only being extra careful.

    I am amazed by sheer devotion of these people.

    Kool-Aid (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:16:12 AM EST
    That's what drinking the Kool-Aid does. Twist any betrayal into a "he had no choice ... because of some evil outside pressure"

    God, it's Jim Jones all over again and is typical of his following.


    This... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    ...kind of comment would never be tolerated if it was directed at Senator Clinton.  And that, I think, is telling.  Because lost in all of this is the fact that she did the same to fifty of her own delegates.  If you are going to compare Senator Obama's supporters to suicidal cultists (and you did) I should think that an objective editor would delete your post, because that is clearly inflammatory.

    Okay, maybe not SUICIDE cultists (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:16:26 AM EST
    But they sure are ready to dump the US in the toilet, aren't they? [snark]

    Honestly, though; it's getting harder and harder to deny the fact that many of Obama's supporters are deliberately cutting ties with reality (when it suits their purposes, natch). We've seen it time and again; it's becoming less a matter of opinion because opinions are usually about interpretation of events, not THE EVENTS THEMSELVES.

    Alec, I DO feel for you; nobody likes to be called names or lumped in with a bunch of people who don't necessarily act or believe in the way they do (go to an A.N.S.W.E.R. rally and feel it bigtime). But I have to say that I've lost a few very intelligent friends (they ran away, not me) who insisted that Hillary was TEH EVIL, despite her civil rights record, her liberal voting records, and her similar stance on the war wrt Obama. Nothing would convince them otherwise, and they got very angry and left. This was AFTER I said I could understand their support for Obama.

    No, it hasn't been long enough since Bush's influence on the population and media that we've forgotten what it looks like. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably isn't a chicken. If you have problems with people labeling Obama fanatics as cultists, maybe you should try convincing the fanatics to stop acting like cultists.


    Most of us... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:42:09 PM EST
    ...are not saying that Senator Clinton is evil.  Personally, I like her, even though I think she overcompensates for her liberalism at points.

     "Many of Obama's supporters" is too loose.  I am responding to someone who called my support of Senator Obama equivalent to drinking poison for the purpose of suicide.  It is simply not the same. I have stated, time and again on this site, that I will support whoever wins the nomination.

     I am not surrounded by people who believe Senator Obama is the second coming, so I do not have an opportunity or reason to persuade them that he is not.  Senator Obama, like both of his opponents, is a politician.  I have never described Senator Clinton's supporters as suicidal cultists because I believe that is inflammatory.  Similarly, I try to refer to them by their political designations (Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator McCain) because I feel that shows the most respect.      


    And those who protest the culling (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:48:39 AM EST
    are whiners, trolls, and Hillary agents - not "true" Obama supporters.  

    They're eating their own now.


    I labelled one commenter at dkos (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:42:28 AM EST
    as a Twenty Nine Percenter.  The exact same mindset: "My Beloved can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise will FEEL. MY. WRATH!".

    Usually people have some restraint, but this one reminded me of point-and-shriekers from the Invasion  Of The Bodysnatchers.


    My favorite comments (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:33:03 AM EST
    Were those that said, "sure he has to play the game and reward party activists and local elected officials, but when he's in office he'll really be with the grassroots" (paraphrasing)

    ummmm..... sure.


    L.O.L. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:51:57 AM EST
    There is absolutely no factual evidence for anyone to believe Obama is more progressive than HRC. Her voting record is better and has been amassed over a longer period of time. Her policy proposals are better. She has now promised that she will begin withdrawing troops in Iraq after 60 days, PERIOD. Of course his "within 16 months" promise turns out to be a "best case scenario."

    The Obama faithful are holding on to their "he's a progressive!!!111!!!" beliefs by a very thin reed - the fact that Obama didn't vote for the AUMF. It would be pathetic if it weren't making McCain's Presidency more possible.


    Pithy Statement from Past (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by cdalygo on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:40:50 AM EST
    Wonder how soon before these folks realize that they are nothing more than "useful idiots" for Obama.

    I bet the bloom is off before the GE.

    O! And I thought he was perfect and would (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jpete on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:02:48 AM EST
    vanquish the evil others.  Maybe he is still perfect and its just that we don't understand.  That's probably it.

    And I feel so much better.

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:02:59 AM EST
    I afraid that because I am not an Obama supporter I am one of the "evil others".

    message to those and other Obama delegates (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:08:51 AM EST
    We over in the Hillary camp will welcome you with open arms. Having doubts? Tired of seeing HIllary come out with a plan or opinion or argument only to hear Obama say me too. Wouldn't you like to be part of the team that can actually win in November? Join us now. You'll be glad that you did.

    I've posted similar comments (none / 0) (#33)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:20:13 AM EST
    but yours is so much better.

    What the heck? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:59:16 AM EST
    From Plouffe's email to the reinstated delegates:

    There has been an extraordinary outpouring of grassroots support for Senator Obama among Democrats and Independents in all 53 California Congressional districts.

    In recognition of this tremendous enthusiasm, our campaign has asked the California Democratic Party to allow all persons who have filed to be a district delegate candidate for Senator Obama at the Democratic National Convention to participate in the caucuses this Sunday, April 13, 2008.

    He makes it sound like it was the CA Dems that kicked the delegates, rather than the campaign itself.

    They may have had a deadline? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:43:11 AM EST
    They need time to prepare the lists before Sunday, right? So they may have had to get things flipped with them? The delegates that were purged all seemed to know it came from the campaign from what I saw. They've blamed it on low level staffers, Clinton delegates that were going under cover, Clinton trying to steal delegates, etc. lol!~

    But overall, the email was WEAK. No explanation, etc. Just totally weak BS. For some reason, Plouffe makes my skin crawl.


    Obama is running afowl of local traditions in PA. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:32:51 AM EST
    from the LA times:

    Flush with payments from well-funded campaigns, the ward leaders and Democratic Party bosses typically spread out the cash in the days before the election, handing $10, $20 and $50 bills to the foot soldiers and loyalists who make up the party's workforce.

    It is all legal -- but Obama's people are telling the local bosses he won't pay.

    That sets up a culture clash, pitting a candidate who promises to transform American politics against the realities of a local political system important to his presidential hopes. Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.
    Hillary is going to do it, all candidates do it, part of the cost of doing business, but Obama with the millions he boasts to raise that are coming from the little people, appears to want to buck PA tradition.

    a little skirmish here a little scuffle there, seems like Mr. Unity is finding it tough on his way to nomination.

    Really bad idea. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Susie from Philly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:09:03 AM EST
    This will really cut into the buffer he needs from Philadelphia. Those street workers will be PISSED.

    no doubt he will cough up (none / 0) (#36)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:16:21 AM EST
    now that the newspapers have picked up his meme of not practicing politics as usual, mission accomplished, wallet open

    I didn't understand (none / 0) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:10:21 AM EST
    this one.  The campaign has hired 'volunteers' in every area they have gone to.  A California ad was on the net, they were paying $12.50 per hour.  I wonder why they would refuse to pay cash.  It isn't as if they aren't going to get a receipt.

    OT drivel. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:06:51 AM EST

    Well with all due respect to (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:12:15 AM EST
    Dr.Spector, if she is that frail of a supporter then she should probably stay away from politics entirely. POLITICIANS LIE. They always have, they always will.

    Supporting Senator Obama, who has been given a free media ride on most of his lies is disingenuous and a sad reflection of the ability of an apparently intelligent woman to reach reasonable conclusions.

    Maybe that's why I'm more content over here in my low-income/low-information corner of the world. Not being able to afford a domicile in a nice, shiny Ivory Tower, I have to contend with the world as it is, not as I would wish it to be. (That's sorta Rumsfeldian isn't it? ewww!)

    are we to assume Ms. Spector (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:32:35 AM EST
    sees nothing wrong with Obama going around the country lying about the Kennedys bringing his father to America?
    Oh wait - that Obama lie exposed by WaPo has never made it to the MSM.
    And most likely the public will never see the videoS of Obama lying about his own father to obtain a key endorsement.

    That great democratic party supporter... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:19:17 AM EST
    Ann Rosen Spector

    Can we be any more off-topic, irrelevant

    What on earth does this have to do with Obama purging delegate rolls in CA?

    How many ways (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:48:26 AM EST
    Does Obama have to say 'I'm not a progressive' before progressives start believing him?

    It's the Hillary Hate. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:56:17 AM EST
    See, if you believe that Hillary is the Devil and Obama is Jeebus, then everything she does is de facto evil, and everything he says is de facto good.

    It's unfathomable to me.


    which is exactly as you see in the (none / 0) (#58)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    Marcy rant.  

    Obama is so, so, so disappointing---he chose a fat cat over the grassroots (the grassroots being Marcy, who happens to be so grassroots she sits on the board of the CA Dem party, like Obama--grassroots means establishment type).

    But after stressing over the mighty Obama appearing weak she makes it clear that her anger is only skin deep because the other possibility is "Hillary 'Caesar' Clinton".

    Clinton hate trumps all.


    They jumped on her (none / 0) (#61)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:38:56 AM EST
    even after she gave them that bone to gnaw on. NO DISSONANCE FOR HIS HIGHNESS.

    Marcy Winograd made that post ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    assuming that people at Kos would be her friends, and now she must know that they are not. Even though she posted an "everything's now cool and I still back Obama" pseudo-retraction, she's still being attacked.

    That's been consistent with what I've seen from the Obama supporters over there since at least mid last year - rude, arrogant, name calling, refusing to listen.


    Don't hold your breath! (none / 0) (#53)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:41:48 AM EST
    You'll be dead and gone to dust before that happens.

    Winning is all that matters (none / 0) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:18:52 AM EST
    now.  They have invested too much in his campaign.  They no longer care about progressive values (I doubt some of them ever did.)  I keep hanging in just for health care and social security but I no longer 'believe' we will see 'change' on my 'hope' for the future of these issues.

    What will go next? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    First it was the contempt of "High Broderism" - now compromise and post-partisanship is cool.

    Then it was progressive issue mainstays - Social Security and health care.  Now, Social Security needs to be reformed and universal health care is a pipedream we shouldn't even try for (and should demonize a la Harry and Louise).  

    Then it was gay rights (let's have a "conversation" with McClurkin and his ilk!), then women (gender based attacks are totally deserved!) and the working class democrats (racists all).

    Now it's the grassroots itself for not being sufficiently on-board.

    What's left?


    Even if it were true (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Lena on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:54:39 AM EST
    the "Hillary made him do it", i.e. purge 900 delegates, this brings up an interesting point for progressives:

    when push comes to shove, and Obama's back is up against the wall, he picks his bundlers (and their significant others) over the loyal party activists and progressives.

    I haven't seen any of these Wolcott statements (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:00:50 AM EST

    They were really common until about a month ago.  Every day I'd see some long boring explanation of why this previously open-minded (or even HRC supporting) voter I had never heard of before had finally concluded that they could never, ever vote for that evil, calculating, cold, you-know-what Hillary.  

    They were posted in comments in pretty much every blog I read.  I never recognized the poster, and never saw them post again.  

    Usually they mentioned some recent allegation against Hillary as the "final straw."

    "You finally lost me at Bosnia."  Yep, that's the standard script.

    James Wolcott wrote a column about them and they suddenly stopped.

    I'm guessing these "posters" are "imposters."

    They struck me as a bit shallow. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:25:49 AM EST
    I'm an issues person.  Climate Change is my big issue.  Someone was airing the usual "Gore let us down because he didn't run." gripe.  I replied that the man is not what is important, it's the message.  If McCain suddenly decided that Climate Change was Issue One, I'd vote for him.  (I think it's more likely that Dennis Kucinich would be elected President.)

    Anyone who confuses a person with a purpose is in trouble.  It's the oldest marketing gimmick:

    If you like me, then you'll trust me.
    If you trust me, then you'll buy something from me.

    Never confuse the product with the salesperson.  Know exactly what you want before you go shopping and you'll probably get it.  If you don't really know what you want, the salesperson will convince you that their product is exactly what you want.

    It should be:

    I want to buy this product, exactly this product and only this product.  
    If you can't provide this, I'll find someone who will.

    Remember, as a voter, you have something every candidate wants.  Don't sell it cheap.  Get as much for it as you possibly can.


    Bundlers and their Girlfriends (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:09:21 AM EST
    Guess that author assumes women are never bundlers (or all female bundlers are gay).

    In a nutshell though, even with fresh faced "we need change" politicians, when you get right down to it...It's All About The Benjamins.

    Sigh....I can't believe that any Obama (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:23:19 AM EST
    supporter is shocked by this, but alas it seems we all suffer from galloping TB in some form.  Obama is not a messiah and he never was one but many wanted to see him as such.  I was always more interested in his past record than his flowery promises and by viewing his past I saw a candidate who would likely do something like this in an attempt to shore up loyalty in his delegates.  He has always had some problems when it came to being a "progressive" and at convention his more progressive California delegates could flip.  He's disenfranchising Democrats and now delegates all over the place in an attempt to win at all costs.  Will this help his supporters to finally grasp that the man doesn't care about their party or its base and he never has?  We have seen what Bush has done to his party by blowing his base off, must the Democrats insist upon blowing their own party up when they could build something of use instead?  Seeking the perfection of a messiah has always been proven to be dangerous.

    Ah, the agony --- and irony -- of it all (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    I just read a California Obaman's comment that the "purge" was wrong because it "disenfranchised" potential delegates there in determining which will go to the national convention.

    The guy didn't care about Michigan and Florida not getting ANY delegates to the national convention.

    Whaddabout the DNC/Dean/Brazile purge, Obamans?

    to be fair (none / 0) (#8)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:27:16 AM EST
    he has to cut a lot more still and I'm sure any way he did it, or Hillary will do it...some feelings are going to be hurt.

    One thing it shows is that Obama is trying to make sure he doesn't lose delegates at the convention...which means he is afraid that he might.

    Maybe Mr. Unity is hearing of some dissension in his own ranks.

    Change you can believe in.... (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:41:54 AM EST
    and if you question it for a moment they will not be kind to you:

    I wonder what Marcy Winograd will say now that she has gone public and displayed what a weak supporter she truly is. She could have done what you did and trust the Obama campaign to make things right.  Instead she posted all over the Internet, here and on HuuffingtonPost about her disgruntled experience.


    If I were voting for delegates I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Princess Marcy now.

    Ugh. Gotta watch your back at all times in Obama Unity world.


    It means (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by honora on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:54:52 AM EST
    that he thinks it will go to the convention!!  I wonder what happened to all those buses of SD he had lined up

    Wonder if the names end up (none / 0) (#10)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:32:11 AM EST
    being about the same for those delegates who make it out of the legislative district caucuses to go up to the next level.   Would be sheer coincidence?

    please... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:27:15 AM EST
    I was not happy when I heard about this, but the most obvious reason to do this is to avoid a floor fight.  I submitted my name for CA district level delegates, btw.  I have no hopes or plans of winning, but I thought it might be fun.  I was never purged to my knowledge.  I certainly didn't give him thousands (nor nearly as much as people on this site gave Senator Clinton).  Whatever.  Everyone was reinstated on Obama's end.

    You can't give thousands (none / 0) (#18)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:40:54 AM EST
    all campaigns operate under the same donor dollar limits.  ;)

    we can give 4 thousand (none / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:57:57 AM EST
    and expect 2 thousand returned if our candidate isn't the nominee.
    ($2300, Primary + $2300, General)

    True, but it doesn't count in the (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:35:39 AM EST
    primary numbers, and the ones I saw posted earlier about this, didn't exceed the 2300, iirc.

    But I was mostly just teasing him. Remember, us Hillary supporters are low info and poor  ;)


    Even two thousand... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Alec82 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:41:33 AM EST
    ...is not thousands? Compared to what the (coveted) donor gives? ;-)

     Yeah, I get your point.  My point, equally salient, is that I have given less than one hundred to the Obama campaign.  Take from that what you will.


    I think of 2 thousand as a couple (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:53:38 AM EST
    a few thousand would make me feel like I had more than I did  ;)

    I've been doing what I can, when I can. Or if someone does something that's a slap on women  ;) I do keep a budget on what I donate monthly (not to do with politics) and that's what I draw from. Not a lot, but it helps.


    So Obama's lies are ok? (none / 0) (#38)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:27:19 AM EST
    The media ignore them, so you will base your entire vote on this stupid Bosnia non-story on which there has been a media feeding frenzy. It is sad how easiy some are taken in by this media bias.

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    Looking at your comments, it does seem like you just material from other sources, not original material.

    Delete this OT (none / 0) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    It's true..... 3 dump and runs.  One of his paid bloggers perhaps?

    Well that's it.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by bodhcatha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:44:49 PM EST
    Hillary just lost my vote.  Unless she gets a new pantsuit I really love, that is.