There is much chatter on the internet that Barack Obama’s campaign has been making overtures to Hillary Clinton’s campaign that if she backs out of the race they will retire the $11+ million she has loaned her campaign. Huh? If there is a scintilla of truth to this (and there is a lot of discussion on it so expect more details to come forward this week), who is the dingbat in the Obama campaign that put forth this idea? To pay off her debt to get her to back out of the race is a bribe.
I understand that campaign financing is a mess and there is an implied quid pro quo in most major donations, which is almost fundamental to our system of governance. Having a PAC or special interest group or union donate large sums to the campaign or party of a candidate with the expectation of favorable legislation is part of the system. Individual donors contribute to campaigns because they expect the candidates they support with their $200, $500, $2000 donations to create and enact legislation and govern in a manner with which they agree. Surely a pro-choice, federally employed lesbian would not donate to a hard line, pro-life conservative, campaigning on shrinking the government by laying off government workers and forcing a definition of marriage as husband and wife bill through Congress—the recipient of the donation must match the ideals, principals or at very least emotional connection of the donor. That is why they campaign; sure the votes are nice, but most important is the money to get the name in front of voters who spend little time with issues, but merely the PR generated.
What Obama’s campaign is apparently supporting is a whole different type of campaign financing—paying off a rival to drop out of the race and hand him the nomination. Raised in the political streets of Chicago and Illinois it should come as no surprise that this unseemly campaign tactic would come out of Obama’s campaign; bribes and unethical politics are deeply woven in the fabric of Windy City politics. He has campaigned on being “not like other politicians in Washington”; well, paying off opponents certainly would make that statement more meaningful.
Should this be true, and you donated your hard-earned money to Hillary’s campaign, supported her, and believed in her and her campaign, how would you feel if she takes the money and stops the run? If you are an Obama supporter and have supported him similarly with donations, time and effort, how would you feel seeing your money going to pay-off Hillary Clinton who has, with her husband, made over $110 million since leaving the White House in 2000?
Obama-ites preach the unity of his campaign, that he will bring everyone together, how? By paying us off? By taking money by the tens of millions and using that to bribe those who oppose him?
This story, if it has even a kernel of truth, will have legs beyond those of the Reverend Wright story and will do little to repair the rift in the Democratic Party that seems to keep getting wider and wider. Google “Obama payoff Hillary debt” and see how many hits you get, do it again the next day and see how it has grown exponentially. And so it goes until November.
Your thoughts welcome, click here to email me or on “Leave A Comment” below for public response.
