Thats classice hard-left economics… tax and spend, borrow against an uncertain future!!!

OMG! She isn’t even in office and is deficit spending. I have to wonder why it should be a loan? Who pays her back? When others spend thier own cash there is no loan only personal sacrifce with no expectation of refunding the personal coffer.

Who cares, it’s her candidacy. If she wants to spend her money on her candidacy, then let her.

I’m amazed that this is being painted as if she is already out of the race when she had $18 million, she just loaned an additional $5 million due to Obama’s larger fundraising. He has spent outrageously for Super Tuesday, it is naive to expect Clinton not to loan her campaign money to try to keep up.

Isn’t that trying to buy the election? Your competion raises the monies needed to win, Clinton doesn’t so kicks in her own funds. I mean those that are raising monies from the people are those that the voters support. So Clinton isn’t getting as much support and therefore invests her own monies. Sounds like she is paying herself to get elected, not letting the people speak for them shelfs and donate to the person they see as the best choice for president. So if you can’t raise enough monies from your supporters just buy the election.

kevin, spending any money at all is trying to buy the election. The only difference is who foots the bill. Let’s not pretend that money from strangers is OK, but money from yourself is somehow evil. Money is money, and as long as there’s no ethical problem such as conflicts of interest, there’s no problem with financing your own campaign.

Check out http://www.hillarydivides.com/Site/Hillary_Divides/Hillary_Divides.html for lots of laughs.

HOW ARROGANT. She ran out of money because last night was suppose to be the beginning of the general election campaign. Obama was not suppose to compete; people weren’t suppose to believe in his message; people weren’t suppose to support him; people weren’t suppose to send in donations $25 - $100 at a time. The dirt slinging and double teaming was suppose to knock him out and have people running to the Clintons. OBAMA’S STAMINA IS EVIDENCE OF HIS MESSAGE… PEOPLE ARE HUNGRY FOR A CHANGE; AND WANT THE FUTURE NOT THE PAST AND ALL IT’S DIRTY TRICKS AND EMBARRASSING SCANDALS.

Elizabeth, she didn’t run out of money. Obama simply had more than her, so she pumped some funds into her account to try to match his bloated account.

Don’t worry about Hillary. She will just write off the whole 5 million, on next years taxes. She invested it and then ‘the corporation’ went bankrupt. Therefore, she will be unable to receive any dividends, and it will be one heck of a write off. (BTW, I betcha she does this even if she wins)

Also, by Fox News’ delegate count, Clinton has broken the 1,000 delegate mark. Almost every major press outlet says that Clinton will top 1,000 delegates, halfway to the nomination.

That’s history, just as it’ll be history when Obama breaks 1,000. Democrats have every reason to be proud, no matter who you support. I just hope that Obama’s supporters can tone down the really harsh words, it’s tearing down and dirtying a historic campaign.

Also, what everyone is overlooking in Obama’s numbers, is that his fundraising reflects the addition of John Kerry/John Edwards’ 2004 massive phone book. These funds are not just Obama’s supporters, but the supporters of four men — Barack Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Ted Kennedy.

Jay;
Having read your post in the other blog site, it sounds as though you may be feeling that Hillary may not win. Stating that you hope that McCain swift boats him back to Illinois sounds kind of like you are conceding to Obama.
Didn’t Hillary have a lot of big names or big guns as you referred to as well? I think you as well as a lot of others thought that this campaign was shoe in and that it would be decided by yesterday. Wanted you agree that if that was Hillary’s belief as well that would be poor judgment on her part?

Let us remember that Clinton far exceeds Obama in total campaign contributions, by nearly 80 million dollars. I will gladly send money to Clinton . She , unlike Obama at least has the decency to elaborate on what she states as “change” whereas Obama dodges and ducks, disenchanting the youth and the uninformed on so called “dreams for this country”. Above all else i respect a candidate who is unafraid in explaining where he or she stands on an issue rather than trying to fill my own and similar voters minds with talk of change that has no substance and lack a certain touch of reality.

Jay M Davis;
Your comment only confirms my last statement that if she exceeds him in contributions as you stated and that now she is in need of money to just stay afloat would suggest poor judgment as well as poor judgment in spending?

Methinks Jay has an employment disclosure to make.

Jay,
You would never want full disclosure of where all the Clinton’s campaign contributions have come from. Here’s a hint… there is a lot of Arab money in there.

Here ya go Jay:

http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Article/Arab-money-in-the-US-and-a-vibrant-5th-column/456

Make you feel comfortable that the Arab influence on our politicians is backed by the wealthiest people in the world, all with an anti-Israel agenda???

Probably explains why Bill Clinton helped facilitate giving 1/3 of the Nobel Peace Prize to a known terrorist, Yasser Arafat, rather than serve him with a standing indictment for ordering the murder of two American diplomats by the terrorist group Black September.

Good Grief Folks!!!!

I can’t even beleive that you all squabble over the issue of who gave what to thier effort! Are you all so uninformed that you can’t see that the “SPLENDIDLY CRAFTED SUPER DELEGATE” system put in place by the democrats so that you nor I have a real say in the matter is all that really remains in order for the call to be made?
My goodness; you nor I have no real say in the matter at this point. It will be “THE PARTY SUPER DELEGATES” who now decide who will be the nominee. Well, guess who has the most already obligated SUPER DELEGATES: That’s correct!!! The clinton machine, the K street clintons; bought and paid for by anyone with large cash!
The thing that I am most sickened by is that the American Public is so deceived by this SUPER DELEGATE SYSTEM and the Democratic CRONYISM that now will make the call for you and me! Do any of you even know any SUPER DELEGATES? The term is even sickening! Jay; I understand your comments concerning Obama’s idealism and the man simply trying to bring at least a chance for a START at significant change to people in this nation. But what do you want? More of the same old clinton approach; unfortunately it appears that it will be business as usual once again: HAIL TO PRESIDENT “K” STREET AND THE CLINTONS ONCE AGAIN. Has everone forgotten the disgrace and pain that that duo caused our nation. You think it was just bill?? Has the nation forgotten Hillary’s statement when bill was president: and I quote: “WE ARE THE PRESIDENT” and bill is to be out nation’s FIRST HUSBAND!!!! Stan Cape

Carl, being Arab is not a bad thing.

Stan, if you’re crowing about big money, Obama has the money right now. So are you saying that he’s bought the super-delegates? Interesting.

It show who the big wig giving there money too….. Kenndy and company….. So who really in the DC crowd? Let see you have a guy that was rank number 1 being most Liberal Senator in DC…. YOu have guys like Kerry and Kenndy endorsing Obama make you wonder who really for CHANGE?…… Hillary struggling to fight the money and media bais but some how still lable as the same ole politicians in DC….. Sorry I dont like the party going that far left, if Democratic move that left I see me and allot of Clinton voters moving right in NOV….. Tired of the extreme Liberal pushing the middle man around…..

If you think Hillary tax is bad, you haven’t seen nothing once Obama get in there…. IL have one of the highest taxes in the country….By a guy that was voted #1 as the most liberal arround….

Becareful who you think will bring change to America? Last person that said to bring change and hope we ended up with BUSH JR twice….

Jay,
Never said being Arab was a bad thing, and I resent the insinuation. Obviously, you are ok with having the Chinese, Arabs, and other foreign lobbies supporting our presidential selection process? If you don’t think that’s bad, what is your threshold? Check it out Jay, there are real laws against that, and for good reason. Apparently the Clintons are above all that. You were probably ok with Al Gore going over there and telling the Saudi’s that George Bush was a terrorist too.

Regarding Obama, he is well-monied right now for one big reason, large-scale grassroots support. And that has both Hillary and the Republicans worried.

Carl.

Obama have the large-scale grassroot support? Come on now, Obama won states that had barely had 2 thousands voters, and most of them are RED STATE that why Romney took them so easily being conservative…. In Nov those state Obama won last night are going be RED, espically GA and SC….,

Obama being so far left going to have a hard time carry those states espically if the Clinton voters goes back to there root like Arkansas, MO, Ok and even TX back to the Rep side again…. It funny how people for get that most of the Clintons voter are in the middle.. Right now McCain more in the middle than Obama… Plus don’t forget Latino and woman and older Americans are killing Obama right now, and that one of McCain strength!!!! I believe McCain will eventually keep those Conservative in NOV plus the new Clintons voters switching parties with Latinos and women….

Plus can you tell what big DEM state that Obama have won? I give him IL but he lost every single big state he ran in……and all the states he won in the south on African voters that are strong hold of the Rep Parties it wont be there in NOV….. and the NorthWest well that Cheney country, believe me it will stay that way in NOV too…..

Carl, he’s “well monied” for one reason: John Kerry’s 2004 address book. He’s hit Kerry’s old rich friends up for money. There’s a reason his coffers only soared AFTER Kerry and Kennedy endorsed him.

However, Clinton has much more money that she’s pledged for the general election. I’m not sure if she can tap into that, but if she can…it won’t be long before she does. It’s become painfully clear that this race has become who has the most money, and that is all thanks to Barack Obama’s huge spending. She has to keep up to win, and Obama is throwing large amounts of money around like candy.

Both Hillary and Romney think they’re at an auction bidding for the U.S. Presidency . . . GO HUCKABEE!

Jay, Obama is not spending his own money.

loveusa, he’s spending someone else’s money. It’s easy to spend a stranger’s money, it’s harder to put your own money where your mouth is.

The race is not about who has the most money. If that were true, Romney would be winning it hads down. Obama was practically unknown, compared to Clinton and McCain, or Edwards. Much of his money came from small contributions. Now more is coming in after the wins. Clinton was widely reported to have a “war chest” when this campaign began and she was considered to be a shoe-in for the nomination. All that money was misspent (prior to Iowa). McCain went through the same cycle but he revamped his campaign. Huckabee had little money before his Iowa win.

So, don’t tell this race is all about money. It is about who voters are willing to support and send their money to show their support.

Jay, are you maxed out on your campaign contributions? If not, send some more so your candidate so (s)he can spend it. We all know pthe candidates are ALL spending somebody else’s money, except Romney, maybe.

loveusa, stop. Obama was not unknown. He was well known after the DNC speech in 2004. Most of Obama’s contributions and large numbers came AFTER John Kerry’s endorsement and turning over his donate contacts from 2004. These are facts.

And with all due respect, Clinton supports support her too. Many of them cannot give money, myself included, because we do not make enough for it to be feasible. I still support Clinton just as much as you support Obama.

Finally, then don’t pretend that Clinton is magically spending her money and trying to “buy” the election. Her giving her money is just as valid as you giving yours, or me giving mine. I’m just about fed up with the crap she gets from people on a constant basis — not because I support her, but because no one deserves the vitriol and venom that you people spew on a daily basis. No one.

This is to all Hillary supporters, we need to come together and raise money for Hillary. As many of you might have already seen all over the news, is that there are Hillary staffers going without pay for the month because she is low in funds for her campaign. We need to come together and contribute towards her campaign. Go to http://www.HillaryClinton.com to contribute. You could donate as little as $25.00.

It’s really sad because the news media that are giving a lot of support for Obama are making fun of this. They are saying that the Obama voters are at Starbucks while Hillary supporters are shopping at Walmart. This really makes me mad because the majority of the country are in middle to lower class. We need to come together and prove to everyone that the Hillary supporters will come together to support the best candidate.

It is really upsetting how the news supports Obama. They even report themselfs that Obama had 81% favorable news coverage while Hillary only had 51%. True Hillary supporter have said and I also have come to believe that the only reason the news wants Obama to win is because they know he will be torn apart by the republicans for the little experience he has. I believe they will tear him apart. We need to take the candidate that will not let anything bring her down and that is Hillary.

Hillary supporters, lets come together and prove that we will help Hillary win the nomination.

What I find very revealing and a complete lack of integrity, is that Hillary loaned her campaign these $5,000,000 in late January and chooses to disclose it on Wednesday, the day after Super Tuesday. How honest is that? If she wants to rely on her track record, why doesn’t she explain that to the American people. That reaks of dishonesty in my perspective. GO OBAMA! YES, YOU and WE CAN!!!

Jay, what makes you think I support Obama? The fact is I don’t support either Clinton or Obama and am keeping on open mind. As far asking me stop, I will when you do.

Clinton was far far better known than Obama was when this campaign began. It is his wins that have now got him the high profile endorsements and he now appears to be an “establishment” guy. If so, he has earned it and is not riding on anyone coattails.

One thing I like about you, Jay, is you have been honest here about who you support and how can support. Just avoid the name calling. I have never shown any venom or vitriol towards your candidate, Clinton, in any of my posts. In fact I have said, I have come to admire her, and even more so now after Super Tuesday (compared to what Obama has done). It is unfortunate her negatives are high but it is entirely her own making (and her husband’s making and all his disgraceful activities which led to the impeachment.) Most average people are not saints and don’t blame them if there are many who don’t like (or actively hate) the Clintons after what the America public knows about their personal lives.

Jay, John:
I think the two of you should hire on to the Clinton’s as their new campaign managers.

By the way, the groundswell of grassroots support for Obama is a nationwide, across-the-board phenomenon. Understand that. And it is coming largely from the populace, not John Kerry’s or Ted Kennedy’s ties.

Beyond all that, Hillary loaning her campaign 5 million dollars is just a campaign ploy to get an infusion of more contributions. It is a bad idea, and clearly paints her campaign as weakening, while Obama is gaining strength.

Face facts, Obama has the momentum. She leads in delegates, but on Super Tuesday Obama took more states AND more delegates. Additionally, he is showing himself to be far more electable.

Carl, I never said it wasn’t nation wide. However, no one can deny the fact that Obama’s money did not swell until John Kerry endorsed him. It has continued, but so has Clinton’s fund raising. She raised $3 million in 1 day, and I should remind you that she hasn’t done a lot of fund raising. Obama has continuously raised funds. Let’s think about it a second — how Clinton would do if she also did as much fund raising as Obama.

Keep in mind, she has $100 million in the bank for the general cycle, and she’s only NOW hit a money issue after half the country voted. If the Clintons start to raise funds, like they did yesterday, they will get them. They managed $3 million in 24 hours after asking in 1 e-mail. Take second to think about if she asked in e-mail after e-mail like Obama has.

Also, the delegate counts are still out, so you don’t know who is leading. I don’t either. What IS known is that neither candidate will be able to call the Super Tuesday a win. Obama won states, Clinton won popular. Clinton won big states with lots of delegates, Obama claimed lots of states with caucuses. Both will virtually tie in pledged delegates, but Clinton is ahead with super-delegates — and need I remind you, Obama has often said this is a delegate race.

The electability question is your opinion, and everyone has one of those.

Loaning $5 million, once again, was not because she was broke. It was to match Obama’s large fundraising so she could stay able to spend on the same massive scale as Obama has come to spend. It is also not a ploy, because everyone’s now saying she’s weak. Of course, because she’s Clinton, she cannot win. So we’ll say she’s weak, but strong because she’s lying about the loan!

Just stop, Carl. Stop doing all you can to constantly divide the Democratic party. We have two excellent candidates, and neither should constantly be downgraded. It’s should be disturbing when a Clinton supporter is the one telling an Obama supporter to stop dividing everyone.

LOOK WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES HAD TO SAY ABOUT MIKE THIS MORNING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Operating on a shoestring budget, Mr. Huckabee has spent far less lining up his 156 delegates than any other candidate, Democratic or Republican, when measured by cost per delegate.

The calculation is based on end-of-year figures and does not take into account fund-raising in 2008 or the spending since the nominating process began in Iowa on Jan. 3.

By those figures, Mr. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, ran the most frugal campaign, spending $$45,000 a delegate, according to The New York Times delegate count. That was far less than the $654,000 a delegate spent by Mitt Romney.

“It’s clear that Mr. Romney’s money can’t buy him love,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that collects and analyzes campaign finance data. “He’s spent so much more than Huckabee, yet Huckabee got a lot more bang for his buck.”

Federal records show that Mr. Romney, a Harvard Business School graduate who has made his business skills a campaign centerpiece, spent $87 million in 2007 and ended Feb. 5 with 133 delegates. By comparison, Senator John McCain of Arizona, leading in delegates with 683, spent $39 million, or $57,000 a delegate.

Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee’s campaigns defy the conventional wisdom that says it takes money — a lot of it — for a candidate to get out his message. While the presidential hopefuls are on track to raise $1 billion — and spend it — Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee made the most of “free media,” taking virtually every opportunity to participate in televised debates, appear on late-night talk shows and turn up regularly on cable news programs.

“They say that the most dangerous place to be is between Huckabee and a cable news show,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. “He went on every free outlet to get his message out. He was living off cable television. And he did exceptionally well in each of the 15 Republican debates.”

Mr. McCain, who was down to his last $1 million in late 2007 and took out a $3 million bank loan, ended up spending $8.5 million to date on television commercials. Mr. Huckabee spent $3 million on television commercials, according to CMAG, a firm that tracks political spending.

By contrast, Mr. Romney spent $30 million on a nationwide television blitz, representing half the spending by all Republican candidates combined. To help support this spending, Mr. Romney also lent his campaign $35 million, or $263,000 a delegate.

Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, also spent heavily, with little return, $20 million with an estimated five delegates, or $4 million a delegate.

Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, who spent $48 million, did not line up a single delegate.

On the Democratic side, the neck-and-neck race between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama continues in the financial arena. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has spent nearly $90,000 for each of the 892 delegates she has lined up. Mr. Obama, of Illinois, spent $119,000 for each of his 716 .

At the end of 2007, Mrs. Clinton had $37 million in cash, with $18.5 million for the primary and the remaining $19 million earmarked for the general election. Mr. Obama had $18.6 million on hand, of which $13.5 million could be used for the primary race and the remaining $5 million for the general election.

More Articles in National »

GO BARACK

I know Jay, only your opinion, based almost completely on conjecture, should matter. I should stand down immediately.

And for the record, I am a republican, voted for Romney, will now throw my support behind McCain.
Not trying to divide the democratic party… heck, Hillary and Bill did a perfect job of that all by themselves.

ELIZEBETH YOUR RIGHT. JAY IS THE LOCAL DUMB ASS… HILLARY SUCKS SO SHE HAD TO PAY HERSELF.. NOBODY WANT’S HER AS PRESIDENT. WE ALL KNOW THE ONLY PEOPLE VOTEING FOR HER ARE THE UNEDUCATED, WELFARE STATE OF MIND GENERATION, LIKE JAY FOR EXP. SO GO BARACK GO

See this videos:

http://www.seferm.com/news/us/governementelection/elections.asp

Obama is very rude, corrupt, shameless person. He is a divider rather than uniter .

He has been playing race card(Now he got he wanted, almost all African-Americans vote for him in every state), and playing games of JFK, MLK, Regan, now Ted Kennedy..

What next? Bush? YES.

Indeed He is another inexperienced, divisive BUSH, we American should block the his way to White House!

BLACKREPUBLICAN~ You give new meaning to the word “brain-dead”. Look that up in the dictionary and you will see a picture of yourself sitting on a donkey!! lol

Carl, See the above posting to BLACKREPUBLICAN and you will see yourself sitting right next to him! lol…

Go Ahead and vote in Billary
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in “Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: “By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.”

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one gove

Clinton pulled another tale of hard times to pump up her people to give more. Nothing but a little white lie. So what is the big deal? Oh, do you think she would lie to the American Public about other things? Naw, nothing but truth comes out that mouth!

psst… I do believe someone just broke wind.