home

Obama Briefly Forgets Hillary at Unity Event

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:00:55 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
At Barack Obama's Unity Fundraiser in New York last night, filled with Hillary supporters who were being asked to contribute to his campaign, Obama finished his speech but forgot one thing: to ask them to contribute to retiring her debt. He stopped the music and returned to the stage to do his part.

Video here.

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | The Winning Hillary T-Shirt >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Briefly Forgets Hillary at Unity Event | 119 comments (119 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Unity is for suckers (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:12:48 AM EST
    I think Hillary is being player for sucker here.

    She must vigorously campaign for him, bring her supporters, raise funds for him, bring her fundraisers on board, in fact hand him her rolodex.

    And he should... Uhh... Uhh... Uhh... Nothing.

    Come on, he's The Awesome One.

    Read the NYTimes article (2.66 / 3) (#8)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:17:57 AM EST
    1. Earlier in the day, he made an impassioned plea at a seperate fundraiser to retire her debt

    2. He realized his mistake and made sure that no one left the second one without hearing why he thought his supporters should help retire her debt

    3. He has pushed his big backers to send her money

    4. At every fundraising event that I've read about since the end of the race, he's included remarks asking people to help retire her debt

    5. There is a very prominent link on his homepage that goes to a page with very nice comments about Clinton and also a ask for funds to help retire her debt.

    What will it take you to be convinced that he's serious? Apparently all it takes to convince you the other way is some ridiculous post by Jeralyn that he's not.

    Parent
    I'll be convinced when his supporters (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:22:20 AM EST
    start following his lead and actually send in some money and stop posting the Clinton bashing comments on blog threads...

    Parent
    see comment (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    by kdog below to see what I'm talking about....

    Obama may not be able to stop supporters from making these kind of statements.  But, he could make a PUBLIC statement himself condemning the actions of these blog commenters.  Of course he could have done that during te primaries as well but didn't do it then either.....

    Parent

    fwiw.... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    I'm not an Obama supporter....you're nuts if you send either crook your hard-earned dough, imo.

    Parent
    Ruh Roh Kdog...... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    ...you used the word "nuts."

    Parent
    You know me.... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    born to lose, born to offend:)

    Parent
    I'll be convinced he's serious (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:26:20 AM EST
    when his efforts yield some results.  The last I heard, his people had come up with a total of $100,000.

    Parent
    It's been really meager (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    Yup.

    And that's mostly pledges. Apparently, the Clinton guys have raise 1 mio so far for Obama.

    Parent

    $100.000 is pathetic n/t (none / 0) (#106)
    by bridget on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:36:59 PM EST


    Parent
    I Find It Highly Inappropriate (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Jane in CA on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 01:26:35 AM EST
    that you come to someone's "home" and insult them like this:

    Apparently all it takes to convince you the other way is some ridiculous post by Jeralyn that he's not.

    Jeralyn has consistently moderated what I believe has been the the most civilized political blog on the internet during this very heated election year.

    Gratuitous insults such as yours simply corrupt the dialogue -- your point that Obama did speak very highly of Clinton prior to his "senior" moment is a reasonable response to Jeralyn's post.  Flinging immoderate accusations is not, particularly when Jeralyn never said or implied that Obama was not serious about his support of Clinton, as you contend. Like or not, Andrew, this is news, get it?  And it's not just news on the NYT website, it is news everywhere --click on any AOL, Yahoo, MSM browser and you're going to find this story.  

    Given, that this story has gone viral in a very short period of time, would you have preferred that Jeralyn simply ignore it because you don't like the way it portrays Senator Obama? So he praised Senator Clinton.  Great.  That's not the story.  The story is that he briefly forgot the stated purpose of the fundraiser. It is relevant. That is why it is posted here.

    Parent

    Heh. That's funny. I excuse the error. (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    It happens.

    But, for God's sake, could he please stop playing "Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I'm Yours".  

    Seriously bad song choice (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    especially at fundraisers with her donors.

    Parent
    Arrgh ..... yes .... stop that music!!! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by bridget on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    I first thought it was a joke cause its so terribly annoying.

    Parent
    Or... maybe he's sending (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:52:17 PM EST
    a coded message to the Telecom companies.

    Parent
    Has there ever been more concern... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    expressed over the debt of a millionaire in the history of mankind?

    I mean are they threatening to foreclose in Chappaqua or something?  Debt collection services calling every night?

    Most of the country is in debt for christ's sake...what makes the Clintons special?

    LOL Kdog..... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM EST
    I agree with you in theory. The big deal isn't the money. At least for me it isn't. It's just one more thing that seems to be promised but not delivered.

    Parent
    no one's asking anyone (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:37:31 PM EST
    to donate money they don't have.

    Parent
    This is traditional campaign stuff. Nothing new (none / 0) (#13)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:21:33 AM EST
    or special about it.

    Parent
    Not surprising. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST


    Oops! (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    Foot in mouth.  Obama just can't help but feed the PUMAs.

    It's not like they need any help (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:25:14 AM EST
    Confirmation biases that allows them to see only what they want to see will keep them going indefinitely regardless of what Sen. Obama does on the campaign trail.

    Parent
    Ironic. (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:29:34 AM EST


    Parent
    Indeed. (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    What do you know about me wrt to my "confirmation biases" about Obama and Clinton? I don't knee jerk look to bash Obama counts as confirmation bias now?

    Parent
    Rather like the (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    so-called Left blogs reaction to every single thing Clinton did or didn't do during the primary.  Poor, poor Obama, having to live with the repercussions of his and his supporters actions.  My heart bleeds.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    if he were to stop giving them new ammunition, I guess we'd find out whether you're right.


    Parent
    To them (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    ammunition = any time he opens his mouth.

    Apparently going around the country asking for people to give to her campaign in numerous fundraising dinners, sending out multiple email fundraising asks, linking to her debt retirement prominently on his website, privately urging his big donors, and personally and publicly max donating to her are completely counteracted by one slip of the memory that he fixed in a couple of minutes.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:39:59 AM EST
    And to you this incident means nothing at all.  

    See how it works?

    Parent

    Uh, what's the preponderance of evidence in this (none / 0) (#53)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    case? You're not making any sense.

    At the event:


    [Obama] Supporters found pledge forms under their seats asking for donations for Clinton's "Debt Retirement". The form had a "Hillary for President" logo on it. The maximum contribution is $2,300/individual and $4,600/couple.


    Parent
    I dunno (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    what's the preponderance of evidence on Hillary's record as a good liberal?

    what's the preponderance of evidence on Bill and Hillary's record on race relations and civil rights?

    You tell me, friend.

    Parent

    Nice try (2.00 / 0) (#58)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    1. Good. Somewhat conservative for my tastes on foreign policy issues, but balanced by a solid domestic policy record

    2. Very good.

    Nice redirection of the question by creating an equivalency fallacy though. Apparently since some Obama supporters have a confirmation bias, it's okay for PUMAs to do the same thing.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    That's exactly why the PUMAs are the last people whose "confirmation bias" I worry about.

    In fact, I suspect the vast majority of the PUMAs are bitter precisely BECAUSE of the unfair way that Hillary was slimed during this primary.

    Do I think the PUMAs are over the top when they go on about stuff like the finger, "likeable enough," this latest incident of forgetfulness?  Sure I do.  But I also understand that when you've just watched your candidate, a good person and Democrat, widely slimed as an unprincipled racist warmongering b*tch, you're really not inclined to be all that fair yourself.

    How many posts did you make during the primary complaining about the "confirmation bias" of your fellow Obama supporters, the one that led them to make all these vicious accusations?  Just so.

    Parent

    Just so (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    In fact, I think being fair to people who have been manifestly unfair serves as encouragment to behave that way in the future.  And the same with people who weren't themselves unfair but stood by silently.  Commission, omission, it's all the same to me.  To he11 with them all.  I don't forgive, I don't forget, and I can't imagine why I should.

    Parent
    I spent a lot of time online (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    and Dkos.  Not because I wanted Hillary to win, but because it obviously hurts all of us when she's demonized that way.  I want Obama supporters to focus on the issues.  I do the same for McSame when posters spout ageism.  Fact is, the more people focus on his age, the less they're putting the blame for the war, wrecked economy and destruction of our country right where it belongs:  The GOP.

    PUMAs should either choose another third party candidate, force Hillary onto the ticket as VP, demand a high level position for Hillary in the Senate (Reid's job is what I'd be gaming for) or just let it go of the resentment and move on.  We have an election to win.

    Parent

    *You* (5.00 / 8) (#77)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    have an election to win.  I'm going to lose either way.  And frankly, I neither need nor appreciate your "advice" as to what I should do about that.

    Parent
    Thanks for your input. (4.66 / 6) (#74)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:38 PM EST
    PUMAs should either choose another third party candidate, force Hillary onto the ticket as VP, demand a high level position for Hillary in the Senate (Reid's job is what I'd be gaming for) or just let it go of the resentment and move on.  We have an election to win.

    Now. I think it's time for you to move on and allow people to do what they need to do.


    Parent

    The heart of the isssue (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:19:24 PM EST
    On this blog, plenty. On the other forum I post to, I called out the egregious nonsense against Clinton when I had the chance to as well. I don't go to forums that routinely call Clinton a b*tch or any other sexist or derogatory imagery; nor, would I like to associate with those kind of people (hopefully one could say likewise with Clinton supporters and No Quarter).

    The thing is, most of the anger is not at Obama, it's at Obama's supporters for things said anonymously on the internet (there was, of course, media bias, but if the worst thing that happened to Clinton was Tweety, there'd be no PUMA). I'm not very sympathetic to people that cannot get some balance about what happened on the internet, which goes both ways for both supporters.

    And likewise, it gets tiresome to read through threads that have real and thoughtful critiques of Obama's positions to read post after post about "the finger" or whatever nonsense du jour is being dredged unfairly out of the news about him.

    Parent

    The anger is at the DNC. (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    Obama supporters who behave immaturely may be getting in the way of Obama and Clinton's appeal for unity, but they are in no way responsible for the rise of the PUMAs. The MSM media, like Chris Matthews are accountable for some of the sexism in the media, but once again are not responsible for the PUMAs. It is and always has been the DNC.

    Parent
    Maybe you should rest,, then.... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by katana on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    I'm not very sympathetic to people that cannot get some balance about what happened on the internet, which goes both ways for both supporters.

    Well, to paraphrase the Church Lady, aren't you special?

    Somehow, despite how tiresome it is to read our whiny, nonsensical, unbalanced posts, you manage to do that on a daily, if not hourly, basis and somehow are not so weary that you lack the energy to reprimand us daily, if not hourly, for our petty, juvenile, emotional ways.

    How do you manage it, I wonder?  Why do you bother?  We understand how superior you are--how could we not when you never stop demonstrating it, or should I say, displaying it...

    Ah, well, noblesse oblige is a beautiful thing, and I, for one, am in awe of it.

    Please accept my gratitude and the gratitude of everybody else here who knows you for what you are.  

    Parent

    Pretty good (1.00 / 3) (#80)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    With some disasters along the way: The AUMF vote;  dont ask, don't tell; welfare reform.  Don't pretend that Hillary and Bill are lefties, they're just not.  They've always been solid centrists, which is one of the reasons Bill was so successful.

    Parent
    Why are you obsessed with Hillary and Bill? (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:30:59 PM EST
    Sen Clinton suspended her campaign and fmr President Clinton has taken some downtime. Her political record and that of the fmr President Clinton administration should be off your list of Pestersome Whining.

    Obama's the Presumptive Dem Nominee. He still can't affirmatively prove himself worthy of the office, and his campaign and fans still can't say what he's all about except trashing better public servants, better politicians and IMO better human beings with strong characters.

    Obama's not ready for prime time. His "brilliant" campaign prematurely marketed him for the White House though he doesn't have the record, cred, or talent beyond raking in and needlessly burning up funds for the greedy NuDems

    The Obama Democratic Party will -- also in my informed opinion -- lose more than they gain (ie, downticket, party credibility, loss of Discarded Dems for the newbies that will never arrive as promised.)

    Obama and his Dem supporters said Sen Clinton's core voters weren't wanted, necessary, or needed to win.

    So why are you even here pestering people about what any Clinton said or did? Why are you bugging discarded voters? If you have information about something good Obama did, why don't you post it in an open thread with links?

    Gaaaah, the astro-trolling campaign strategery of using pesterbots really blows.

    Parent

    Quick question (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:47:23 AM EST
    Do we still have "chattering" rules around here?  Vis a vis posting the identical thing over and over in an effort to prove a point?

    Parent
    I don't see (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    that he's proving anything.

    Parent
    Was just thinking that Eleanor A (none / 0) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST


    Parent
    The deal (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    Is that Obama and the DNC want her donors! If she can deliver 100 million or so from her people to them, then that's a great deal for all concerned.

    If you agree to give me 100 million for my 20 million, I'd make that deal twice a week! In addition is shows her supporters that the Obama camp has put the primary behind them and is focusing on uniting the party.

    she's only asking for a PORTION of the 20+ mil (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    she only is trying to retire the debt to her vendors and NOT any of the 11 mil she loaned to herself.  This part tends to get missed quite often by her detractors.

    Parent
    Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    would not have had that lapse.  Obama is still in "It's all about me" mode.

    Like some other preznit with whom we're currently stuck.

    Is it a "mode"? (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:34:33 AM EST
    I think it's just him.

    Parent
    This is the first election I have seen (5.00 / 12) (#65)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:10:42 PM EST
    where the winners cry more than the losers.

    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    You can say that again.

    Parent
    But it is SO UNFAIR!!! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by angie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    All her supporters were supposed to blindly fall in line -- he shouldn't have to work for their votes and actually keep his promises on FISA, et al!!! He is the NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY!! /s

    Parent
    and this is on topic how? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by angie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    IM your free advice on "oh how terrible the posters on this site are" if you must, but please follow the site rules about posting.

    It's directly on topic because (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:30:34 PM EST
    the ongoing conflict between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters is reflected in how we view what happened last night at the fundraiser.

    I see the same thing happening to andrewwm that happened to me and other pro-Obama posters.  Your response to disagreeing with me is to make reference to my comment being off topic.  It's a technique that clamps down on commenters you disagree with.  

    I want to work out the disagreements.  If we can't do that here, the mistakes that happen in the campaign (like last night) become part of the urban legend reasons for not voting Dem, like the finger, the shoulder brush off, and the dog poop on the shoe.  We're better than that.

    Parent

    See, referring to all insensitive actions (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:15:29 PM EST
    and comments as "urban legend," when some were caught on camera and simply are unquestionable, does not further the cause.

    Problems have to be acknowledged, and specific apologies have to be given, for progress to be made at all.  It's just a basic rule of life, not limited to politics.

    Parent

    That's not the definition of "on topic" (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by angie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    "on topic" for this thread is discussion of Obama's effort to help Hillary retire her debt and/or whether his forgetting to mention retiring her debt is a big deal (or not). "On topic" is not taking the opportunity to gratuitously slam poster's whose opinions you do no like in the guise of "helping out" andrewwm.
    But thanks for playing!  

    Parent
    Speaking for myself only (4.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    Maybe you really do want to work out the "disagreements" - and maybe you don't even think "working it out" is equivalent to crushing your opponents under your bootheels.  Maybe.

    But why should I believe that?  That's not a rhetorical question, BTW.  Why should I believe that of any Obama supporter?

    The sort of working it out you're talking about requires mutual trust, a mutual willingness to change, a mutual granting of the benefit of the doubt, and a mutually agreed upon goal.

    As for me, I don't trust you, I can't imagine why I should trust you, and I can't think of a single goal we're likely to share in common regarding this election.  I left the Democratic Party after 30 years over this.  What is there left to talk about?

    I'm really not trying to insult you personally.  I don't know you; you may be a fine person.  But to me, you're only Obama-flavored pixels on a screen.  And nothing about that encourages me to make myself vulnerable to you.  Once burned, twice shy, as they say.  Ten thousand times burned, well, to he11 with it.

    Parent

    This is a fair and respectful site with a variety (none / 0) (#92)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    of opinions.  But I'll bet that my insight about pro-Obama posts gets deleted, while the comments that reiterate all perceived slights during the primary are allowed to stay even though they've been repeated over and over (chattering).  (BTW, links just go to this thread's repeats and suggestions for me to go away and for my comments to be deleted).

    "Anyone who voted for me has so much in common with those who voted for Barack and it is critical that we join forces, because the Democratic Party is a family, sometimes a dysfunctional family, but it is a family and we care about what's going to happen to the economy and health care and education and what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan."

    Are we going to solve the dysfunctional family problems or just squash dissent?

    One of the more interesting arguments I've heard for big donors not helping pay off Hillary's debt is that if they're giving to the Obama campaign with expectations of future political favors (political positions, policy decisions, etc.), they want to keep Clinton big bundlers from currying favor in competition with them.

    (Sorry to put this all in one message, but as you can see I'm now one of the commenters who is limited to 10 posts.  I hope my issue about the competition between Hillary & Obama's bundlers and large donors is the part of this comment that draws responses because I'm curious if you guys think it's valid.)


    Parent

    are you still going on about this? (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by angie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    We get it -- all those who were offended by Obama's actions in the primary and his flipping on his primary promises are delusional (they are only "perceived" slights, after all, not real ones as per your own words). Nonetheless, this subject is not on topic for this the thread. Change the record, dude.  

    Parent
    Save it for therapy (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by katana on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:20:28 PM EST
    Are we going to solve the dysfunctional family problems or just squash dissent?

    Did I miss something on the way in?

    The Democratic Party is not a family, dysfunctional or otherwise.  It's a political organization that appeals (or tries to appeal) to different groups (and individuals) who share (or try to share) certain values.  Sometimes the values of one group (within the party) conflict with the values of another, and we fight.  Often we fight about which person we want to represent us.  (Which is why we have primaries.)  

    If we are dysfunctional, we are dysfunctional as a political organization--i.e., we don't beat the Republicans as often or as hard as we should.  Just because hurried journalists keep invoking the metaphor of the warring family doesn't mean it's apt.  Keep in mind that journalistic metaphors are always simple-minded and usually pointless.  They are the shorthand of idiots.

    This weak-kneed resort to the language of afternoon talk shows and stupid reporters is not merely lazy, but ludicrous.  The Democratic Party does not need healing, or therapy, or group hugs.  Just because the candidates are shameless enough to appear on Oprah or Ellen doesn't mean that's actually where politics happens.  

    If Senator Obama figures out how to win back disaffected Clinton voters, and runs a shrewd campaign, he will beat Senator McCain.  If he doesn't, he won't.  He's not the first presidential candidate who needs to sell himself to the people who voted for a rival.  

    The job is his, not ours.  I am not dysfunctional, and, so far as I can tell, neither are most of the Democrats I know.  If you are, get help.  Don't lecture me.

    Parent

    Wow. I think I want (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:52:07 PM EST
    to print this comment on a card to just hand to people.  On hundreds of cards.  Nicely done.

    Parent
    That was Hillary's description, not mine. (none / 0) (#120)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:02:03 AM EST
    The Democratic Party is not a family, dysfunctional or otherwise.
    This weak-kneed resort to the language of afternoon talk shows and stupid reporters is not merely lazy, but ludicrous.  
    The Democratic Party does not need healing, or therapy, or group hugs.
    If you are, get help.  Don't lecture me.
    Save it for therapy

    Maybe you should have directed your angry response to Hillary Clinton, who originated the analogy that I quoted:

    "...because the Democratic Party is a family, sometimes a dysfunctional family..."



    Parent
    I believe this is a fair and (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:25 PM EST
    respectful place to reflect your opinions and comments. Most bloggers here I have found to be knowledgable, informed, clever, intelligent and respectful of the fact that opinions are just that. From what I've heard, there aren't many places like this one. There is nothing wrong, imo, about disagreeing and discussing why, as long as it's civil. We don't have to agree, we can question where one thinks it's warranted as this still is America (in some fashion, anyway!)

    Not a big deal. (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by davnee on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    Just an unfortunate place for a little slip-up.  But what does surprise me about the guy is how decidedly un-smooth he is without a script or a teleprompter.  Is it just poor preparation or is it really possible that someone could be such a great rehearsed speaker and yet have such miserable extemporaneous speaking skills?  I mean when he is off script he gives Bush a run for his money.

    No prepared speech or teleprompter on these (none / 0) (#127)
    by andrys on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 07:48:21 AM EST
     1.  From Virginia June 5
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8

     2.  Also that day, but not as extended
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc

    You can see why that first one, especially, wouldn't be shown much.  I've never seen it off the Net.

    Parent

    After the FISA vote Obama will see nothing (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    from me and I don't care if Hillary asks me to fund him.  Dumping on the Constitution is much bigger than who I SHOULD support and send money to.  As for retiring Hillary's debt, I'm glad to do what I can because she voted NO on the FISA bill yesterday!  She voted for me yesterday so please Hill, have some payback.  Obama voted against me yesterday so please Barack, have some payback.

    Honestly I feel (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Amiss on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    that Obama's campaign is using her debt as "leverage" for not having a roll call vote at the convention.

    my thoughts exactly (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ccpup on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM EST
    and she's playing hardball by being maddeningly mum about making that deal or dragging her feet in relinquishing her delegates to him.

    He's not going to give an inch to her when it comes to excising -- via removing her name off the ballot -- the threat she still is to him and she's certainly not going to give him a hand in doing so because she sees what an absolutely abysmal candidate he is.  And she knows the SDs are seeing it, too.

    Her campaign debt is just the tennis ball that keeps getting lobbed over the court as she runs out the clock to August.

    Parent

    Yes... Exactly. This is why (none / 0) (#126)
    by weltec2 on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 05:08:09 AM EST
    I continue to hope. This is what I am waiting for. She and Bill... I can just hear them burning up the phones in the background. Do you seeeee what we've been telling you all along? And stiiill he as no position on anything. Now who are you going to vote for?

    STILL WAITING and STILL HOPING

    Parent

    on topics comments only here (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:28:04 PM EST
    I don't have time to clean the thread which was attempted to be hijacked by andrewwm but as another commenter pointed out in response to him, the subject here is Obama's promise to ask his supporters to help Hillary retire her $10 million vendor debt and his forgetting to do so last night.

    Bloggers are not part of this topic.

    I read that the DNC deadline (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:54:54 PM EST
    for Clinton to pay off the debt was moved up to tomorrow.

    Now, I don't get this at all, and perhaps others here know:  since when does the DNC set a deadline at all?  and if that is usual (I really doubt it!), why was it moved up?  

    Heidi Li has the info at her site (none / 0) (#123)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:21:54 AM EST
    Heidi Li's Potpourri.

    Hillary and the DNC are negotiating her 'role' in the convention, starting the beginning of next week (I think).  Heidi lays it out pretty well.  There isn't a lot of hard info (and will never be, I'm sure) but the DNC is supposedly using her debt as a bargaining chip in the negotiations so she has to go along with whatever they decide with regard to a roll call vote, putting her name into nomination, releasing her delegates etc etc.

    The DNC also allegedly feels that Clinton really has to get her debt paid off because once that happens all her supporters will magically switch over to giving money to them and Obama.  The DNC is pretty hurting moneywise.

    So Hillary's big money people AND all the unmentionable coalition groups (but: roar) are working their butts off to retire as much of her debt as possble before negotiations begin.  And to kick a bit of sand in the DNC's face, because face it, if Hillary can raise more money in a couple of weekends after she's out of the race than they can in a month, well, it sends a message.


    Parent

    Just asking (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by lynnebrad on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 04:16:54 AM EST
    Look, BO is running for President. He has a gazillion places to be doing a gazillion different things. There is nothing intended by his forgetting to ask for help from the crowd. Why would he do that? There just is no logical reason. If he meant to do that, then why would he go back and stop the music and ask for the help?

    IMO, this is just a non-issue.

     

    Hah (4.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:06:30 AM EST
    As soon as I saw that bit in the NYTimes I knew it would be up here.

    Which, of course, completely ignores the rest of the article about how Obama was effusive in praise for Mrs. Clinton, spoke about how biases against women cropped up in the campaign and how much more work there is to overcome them, and how he'd spoke at an earlier even that day emphasizing how important it was to retire her debt.

    But, instead, his moment of forgetfulness is the only thing you'll read about at TalkLeft. Typical.

    Talk about a confirmation bias...

    I think it's very cute how people now talk (5.00 / 16) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:09:45 AM EST
    about biases against women after those biases worked so well for them. Obama's a real sweetie.

    Parent
    Which is obviously relevant to this thread (2.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM EST
    how?

    If the way the campaign played out in the gender biases is a dealbreaker for you, then fine.

    But acting like this slip of his is indicative of anything other than the fact that he's human is pretty clearly people seeing only what they want to see.

    The totality of the evidence is that he's serious about getting his people to donate to her campaign, and that he's seriously praising her.

    Parent

    In your own first post you wrote about (5.00 / 17) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    Obama speaking out on biases against women. I responded to that. If it isn't relative to this thread, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

    Parent
    Well if he is serious..... (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:17:13 AM EST
    ...then he is not being very effective if he can only get his people to pony up 100,000.

    Parent
    Who are "his people"? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:25:38 AM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter, insofar as that means anything (sadly, on this site it means there's an implicit assumption that I hate Clinton, but that's a different problem).

    I gave Clinton $50 on her website a week or two ago.  No one tracked that as coming "from Obama".  How many other contributions are in the same category?


    Parent

    They are only tracking (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:36:37 AM EST
    the so called "big money" donors.  I don't know how much you had to give or bundle to be considered in that league, but no one has looked to see whether people who gave in small amounts to Obama have given anything post-primaries to Clinton.  

    What I have noticed is that the big money donors have been acting like the biggest babies (both Clinton's and Obama's).  Obama's big money donors don't see (or don't care about) how donating to help retire her debt helps their candidate more than holding out on "principle" does.

    Parent

    big money donors (none / 0) (#102)
    by diogenes on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    It will help more if big money donors donate to Democratic congressional candidates and let Hillary use her one hundred million dollar fortune to retire her own debt.

    Parent
    I'd like to see a little bit more verification (2.00 / 0) (#12)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:21:17 AM EST
    before blindly accepting the$100,000 number.

    Parent
    I guess you missed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:24:27 AM EST
    Hardball last night.  Tweety was snarky about Obama's fabled fundraising prowess when he discussed it.

    Parent
    lol. (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    Tweety was snarky

    You could have just written that and not said anything else.

    Couldn't you have found a better source?

    Parent

    That's a pretty bigmouthed source (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:45:13 AM EST
    right there.

    I couldn't care less how much has been raised.  He's having enough trouble raising money now himself.

    You don't believe Tweety?  Take it up with him.

    Parent

    So Chris Matthews (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    is now an unimpeachable source? All the evidence that I've seen so far was an unidentified source in one article.

    Parent
    Hilarious. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:27:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Why don't you ask the Obama campaign then? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:28:17 AM EST
    I'm not the one collecting the money and furthermore, this figure has been reported by the MSM so if it is untrue then why doesn't the Obama campaign set the record straight. But of course if you don't bother to find out the answer to this then you can continue to blindly not accept it.

    Parent
    Obama (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:34:09 AM EST
    doesn't have access to Clinton's bank account numbers, so it would have to be Sen Clinton who releases the numbers.

    And furthermore, there isn't any real way to tell how much effect he's had, as it's not like money donated at her site or sent to her via check is tagged with an "Obama supporter" flag.

    Parent

    So therefore you will not ask the Obama camp (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:37:57 AM EST
    ...how much money they know that they have raised from their donors?

    Parent
    Here's more from last night: (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:49:07 AM EST
    Things went a bit more smoothly a few blocks down Park Avenue, where Clinton introduced Obama at a smaller fundraiser that netted about $4.1 million for the joint Obama/Democratic National Committee Victory Fund.

    "Whatever brings us here tonight I hope is understood to be not only unifying but transcendent," Clinton told the 125 major donors.

    Obama, in turn, echoed Clinton's call for unity.

    "With just half a wing this bird can't fly," he said.

    The two flew together to New York from Washingtonfor the fundraising swing and were to appear together at a breakfast Thursday morning. An event to help Clinton with her campaign debt was canceled because of Senate votes in Washington.

    Link.

    Looks like Hillary's doing her part.

    Parent

    And obama will never do his part in its (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    entirety.  It is quite odd that there is always a glitch or "gee I forgot" moment when obama is supposed to help out Clinton.  Frankly, I am irked with any Hillraiser who donated a dime to his campaign.

    Parent
    I'm saying (2.00 / 1) (#55)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    that if they know, and Sen. Clinton wants them to release it, they should.

    But...

    1. I don't think they know, for two reasons; one being that there is no way to tell what money comes from Obama supporters and what comes from Clinton supporters, the second being that Obama presumably doesn't have access to her bank account to find out how much money she has (nor, obviously, should he)

    2. We don't know if Sen. Clinton wants the number released or not in the first place.


    Parent
    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    that this particular incident (forgetting to plump for Clinton) is meaningless.  But unless you have a reason to disregard every single quote in this article

    Obama Donors Aren't Rushing to Aid Clinton

    you should be able to see that the paying off of Clinton's debt isn't going so well.  That Obama supporters aren't really helping to fill the coffers.  It is its own drama.  Members of the Clinton team are upset.  The Obama team is seen as not putting enough energy into the effort.  Concrete examples being the stubborness of big bundlers and Obama's refusal to send out a mass email.

    In this context, a little slip can and obviously will be interpreted in a less than flattering light for Obama.

    Parent

    Now that's funny (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by joc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    In your first posting on this thread, you were fine with the NYT as a news source when it said things about Obama that you liked, but as soon as someone brings up something you don't like from the NYT, you need "more verification before blindly accepting" what they say.

    Talk about a confirmation of bias.

    Parent

    There's a pretty big difference (2.00 / 0) (#41)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    in articles that directly quote people at a public event, which is repeated by many other news sources, and one article that references an unidentified source.


    Parent
    Unidentified? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by joc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    You say:

    "references an unidentified source."

    Did you expect the NYTs to list the names of each of the "Clinton campaign officials" they spoke to? Would that have made you feel better? Or any of the "[s]everal Obama donors" who said they balked at donating in interviews.

    Confirmation bias indeed!

    Parent

    Catch up on the past threads or use Google (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:00:04 PM EST
    If you haven't done at least that much, then you're just trolling.

    Parent
    Try "the Google" (none / 0) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:24:29 AM EST
    It's your friend.  The money number is coming from his people.

    Parent
    Sorry, but he's only interested (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:20:39 AM EST
    in pleasing himself. In praising "her" and helping with her debt, she will continue to campaign for him, thus, perhaps, getting more of her 18 million votes. If he's serious about getting people to donate to her campaign, why are his "bloggers" saying she purposely ran up her debt to further denegate him? Has he said anything about this, or tried to stop them?

    Parent
    Unlike the rest of you here (4.00 / 3) (#16)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    I don't believe that "the bloggers" are attached via marionette strings to Obama's hive mind campaign. People who support Obama sometimes think differently than him. Shocker.

    And where has Obama ever acted like he's seriously disliked Clinton? You may think he's sexist, but I've yet to see any evidence that he doesn't mean what he says when he is saying nice things about her.

    Parent

    I never said he disliked Clinton, (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    or that it was a "sexist" repose he took when he forgot to ask for donors.  Many are "attached with marionette strings" and Obama can do no wrong, nor make mistakes for them. Are you one? And, if not, please tell me why Obama is your guy?

    Parent
    Because (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    1. He's the democratic nominee

    2. I really disliked Clinton's foreign policy team, and I feel the president has more influence over foreign policy than domestic policy.

    Obama is not secretly telling bloggers to write nasty stuff about Clinton while telling the rest of the world he wants people to thank her, recognize her achievements, and donate.

    Bloggers on the web often don't listen to the candidate they support.

    Example #1: TalkLeft, which has taken a much more wary stance wrt Obama than Clinton has. Is Clinton at fault that BTD writes highly critical column after highly critical column about Obama?

    Parent

    I'm not saying he can control bloggers (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:36:57 AM EST
    and I'm not saying that he is directing the efforts of bloggers.

    But, he has never, to my knowledge, publically called for the Clinton bashing on blogs to STOP.

    In fact the blogs that participated most heavily in that type of behavior during the primaries such as HuffPo, DKos, AmericaBlog were all rewarded with blogging credentials for the convention.  Those were the sites where I saw the most hate-filled comments and Obama never condemend them.  He just benefitted from them and is now rewarding them for that behavior.

    Parent

    Has Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#97)
    by nr22 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:49:12 PM EST
    condemned the people over at No Quarter? Their comments are more hate-filled than anything at HuffPo or DKos.

    Parent
    So, write to her and ask or post a diary at dKos (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:08:13 PM EST
    Are you new on the web? Sen Clinton suspended her campaign and asked her supporters to consider supporting Obama. Obama showed a lack of character and integrity by fomenting sexism and CDS rather than affirmatively stopping it.

    Obama is still the Presumptive Dem Nominee for President, so every individual or blogger has the right -- and duty IMO -- to question his statements and actions.

    Parent

    compare (none / 0) (#111)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:23:36 PM EST
    the amount of traffic between the sites please.  the ones i cited are major sites

    Parent
    Please allow me to address (none / 0) (#43)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    you in order you wrote:

    1.Sometimes, for some, a "D" after one's name is not the only reason to vote for them, or not vote for them. People vote person, party or country. Some, this year, prefer country.

    2.Your opinion counts (on all fronts)and this is reasonable.

    You have no idea what Obama is saying to his "minions" within his campaign proper. It's like go out and multiply. He could have "plants" everywhere and my guess is, he does, they all do.

    When BTD writes his subject, you, and I, can respond as we see fit, as long as the rules are followed. You can agree or disagree with him, respectfully. I would call that fair.

    Parent

    When he turned his back on her after (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    she tried to shake his hand in the Senate months ago.

    Parent
    Scraping (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    her off his shoes like dogsh!t doesn't strike me as the sort of thing you do with people you like.  He's saying nice things now (to the extent that he is) because he wants something from her and her backers.  It's meaningless.

    Parent
    You cannot be serious. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    And where has Obama ever acted like he's seriously disliked Clinton?

    Everywhere he went for the past 18 months.

    Seriously - the string of insults is a mile long.

    Parent

    Obama's misogyny was much more pervasive (none / 0) (#100)
    by sassysenora on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM EST
    than a slip of the tongue. (although slips of the tongue are revealing. how would it sound if McCain called a black man a boy? calling an adult woman "sweetie" is the same thing.)

    here's a long comment i made about it: http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2008/07/08/comment-of-the-day-4/#comments

    here's another link to a recent example:
    http://www.bilerico.com/2008/06/lalgbtprideandpolitics.php

    if you can't see the pervasive misogyny in Obama's campaign, you are the one who's only seeing what you want to see.

    Parent

    You try to completely ignore (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    that there was, as reported in the link and widely elsewhere for weeks now, a deal made by Obama.  And he broke the deal -- so he had to fix it but fast.

    Why would the deal and how well it works not merit discussion here?  I detect bias in your comment.

    Parent

    well since you brought it up (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    don't you think the attacks on Hillary during the Clinton years were for the most part sexist attacks?

    Now do you remember what obama himself said about those attacks?

    I do.


    Parent

    Yup...that's all I read here... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    all the other stuff written by Jeralyn and BTD? I totally ignored it.

    Parent
    Who owns Clinton's debt (none / 0) (#104)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:21:20 PM EST
    I'm glad he is asking his donors and supporters to retire Hillary's debt. But I can completely understand if those supporters decide to not do so.

    Oops (none / 0) (#109)
    by pantsuit chic on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM EST


    Campaign Debt (none / 0) (#121)
    by The Rose on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 01:02:01 AM EST
    I discovered this blog a few weeks ago.  I am 62 years old--Eisenhower is the first president I remember.  I know there are a lot of Hillary supporters here.
    I voted for Bill twice, but I didn't want him back in the White House.  I chose Obama.  I respect Hillary for what she has done since she ended her campaign.  I didn't respect what she did while she was still in it.  As a life long progressive, there are places she went that I thought were wrong.  Don't praise the nominee of the opposing party against a fellow Democrat.
    I am having a really difficult time with this campaign debt stuff.  In all the years I have been following politics I have never seen anything like it.  What ever happened to personal responsibility--Bill Clinton's theme in 1992.  What helped him take the White House!
    I am disappointed in what I have heard from Hillary's die hard supporters.  Yes, there was discrimination in the primary.  Both sexism and racism.  I watched Obama closely--it wasn't coming from him.  I watched Hillary closely--it wasn't coming from her.  Bill--the alpha male--said some things that weren't cool.  The surrogates and talking heads were the culprits.  Having voted for Geraldine Ferraro I was VERY disappointed in her.
    Why is Obama responsible for Hillary's debt?  It is huge, and it was her decision to run it up.  Millions of people, especially women, voted for her.  Why aren't they paying it?  As an Obama supporter, I don't feel responsible for an opponent's campaign debt.  Did Clinton retire Jerry Brown or Paul Tsongas's debt?  Did Bush retire McCain's?  Did Gore retire Bradley's?
    The constant carping and stories on the cable channels are unseemly, and as I see it, make Hillary look bad.  That's not how she finished her campaign, so her supporters should help her out.
    If it can be worked out I would love to see Hillary as VP.  The likely elephant in the room is Bill.  He stepped on her campaign repeatedly.  Why is Carville spouting threats on CNN because Obama donors are balking at paying off someone else's debt?
    The future of the country and the planet is at stake.  I have a grandson.  We are leaving huge debt, a declining society, and a planet on the edge.  I can't believe what has happened to my beloved country in the last eight years.  It has been like living a nightmare.  I am disappointed in the petty carping.  I had hoped for a more elevated dialogue.
    Eyes on the Prize.  It's about the children.

    For someone watching politics (4.50 / 2) (#129)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:11:47 AM EST
    for so long, someone saying s/he has been following this blog for some time, you surely know that it is usual for candidates in this situation to help retire others' debts.

    Therefore, that alone is cause for . . . well, curiosity about this comment.  Much else in it also is not only ill-informed and wrong but suspect in its bias.  

    Parent

    Hillary's Debt May Not Be the responsibility (none / 0) (#128)
    by northeast73 on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 08:27:31 AM EST
    ...of Obama supporters.  Then, conversly, fundraising for Obama is not the responsibility of Hillary supporters.

    You're on your own.

    Parent

    Obama Briefly Forgets Hillary at Unity Event | 119 comments (119 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment