Re: [Dems2008] Re:Wednesday debate helped Obama

Well it certainly can't be said (or oh yeah it can and has been, but not truthfully, or can just be inferred by twisting and linking) that Obama takes more pac donations than Clinton.

I agree that money is needed, but the sources of it do matter. They're talking small potatoes.

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

and the attached for a little intro to any not familiar . . . .


Carol Roberts <carolroberts1@verizon.net> wrote:

Soooo? Sorry, Cat, I don't mean to be flippant (maybe I do), but money
is the lifeblood of politics. Nobody can get elected to anything
without spending a bunch of money. What the difference between Obama's
contributions to other politicians campaign funds and Hillary's
contributions to the same tells me is that Obama raises more money than
Hillary does, so he can give more of it away than she can. If we're
expected to get upset about money in politics, please count me out.
That's not an argument that can go anywhere. Its just politics as
usual....Carol

catpurdy@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> She's talking about this:*
> Obama's Big Money to SuperDelegates
> <http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336>*
>
>
> Obama: $694,000 (40% of his superdelegates)
> Clinton: $194,000 (12% of her superdelegates)
>

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___