Kennedy helped by both Clinton, Obama
An interesting follow-up to the report released Thursday about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton showering campaign cash on superdelegates who could determine which one gets the Democratic nomination.
It turns out that both Obama and Clinton gave to Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, according to the recipient list compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Clinton's political action committee contributed $10,000 to Kennedy, while Obama's handed out $4,200. Kennedy, however, gave his high-profile endorsement to Obama.
The only other of the 26 Massachusetts superdelegates to receive money was US Representative Nike Tsongas, who received $5,000 from Obama's political action committee. As of earlier this week, she had not committed to either contender.
About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.
In all, Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
So, Obama says he takes money from no special interest groups. But does not admit that his own political action committee doles-out hundreds of thousands of dollars to super delegates to cast their vote for him! From who else has he bought his endorsements? I'm blown-away by these numbers! According to today's Boston Globe, 34 people out of 81 of Massachusetts' super delegates have received donations from Obama's political action committee totaling $228,000. Who else will he try to buy off?
Observe ... both democratic candidates have contributed monies to a few of the superdelegates. Moreover, the republicans have done the same. So the question purported in the above comment should read, " Who else will THEY ( the Dems. and the Repubs.) try to buy off ? In this fashion , we cannot limit the above question to a one-way street but open the above question to an avenue that has traffic coming and going in many directions.
Give me a break...is this common practice or is this common practice?
If anything - this shows that Obama doesn't truly have to pay anyone off as even those he didn't pay are on his side or soon to switch to his side. Maybe all those months ago he felt he should follow the way it has been done prior to now - but at the moment, he doesn't have to pay anyone anything!
I am troubled to find out that this is indeed common practice nonetheless.
How can we justify this practice? Why is it legal to give money to people in government for their support?
This is unbelievable...you have to play the game but we as Americans need to take a closer look at the rules.
It's gut wrenching....
I was under the impression that the term "special interest" related to groups that would use contributions to persuade in their favor. This article relates to contributions to super delegates that are, for the most part, elected officials or appointed party loyalists. When I read some of these posts I am sometimes dismayed at the amount of nit picking that folks engage in. Barack represents a refreshing departure from the stagnant ways of today's approach to politics. He will bring back the "can do" spirit that I see as the American Spirit. He'll be better accepted by our international associates (used to be allies until G.W. Bush), and he'll strive to bridge the partisan divides that we've suffered for so long. If frustration with HRC's current standing results in the nit picking I'm seeing, your better off jumping on the Obama Express!
I am probably predisposed to Obama, particularly because he has a good track record on the money he RECEIVES, but I think I have a number of good questions to bring to challenge the perception of this practice:
Why is this done?
Are the contributions given before or after the delegates commit to a candidate?
Will the delegates who have not received money receive money AFTER they vote?
If this is such a useful strategy, why is the percentage of recipients who have received money so low when the total amount of contributions is meager compared to the campaign chests of both Obama and Clinton?
I would reserve judgment on this until these questions can be answered.
Unless you give out the names, numbers and times of these transactions this is nothing more than rehashed Fox-noise guilt-by-association and mudslinging.
Could it be that Obama was trying to help these people get elected?
I believe everybody here seem to misunderstand the meaning of political contribution from the presidential candidates from their PAC money. It is a way of supporting his own party candidates against Republicans in this case. It should be seen as a gesture of their selfless goodwill for the sake of party success.
Ok, so this is common place.
But I think its a little slimey to run a campaign about "changing the Washington does business" and then doing MORE of that "business" than your opponent who you accuse of being "old politics".
Barack Hussien Obama is a professional liar and words smother.
He can talk Satan in hell in giving hin water. I wouldn't be surprised because I have never heard him reference or reverence God, Jesus, place his hand over his heart, pledge allegiance to the flag or even say God Bless America.
He takes money from Rezko in Chicago who owns him and pays for superdelegates.
Give me break.
America wake up before you drink the same Kool Aid Jim Jones poured for you in Guyuna.
Obama is the media's candidate and American is asleep and following him based on hope?
Hope has never paid my bills.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com