Those top Clinton donors meeting with McCain...some guesses who they may be.

My guess would be they are partially the same ones who withheld funds from the DNC during the primary...threatened and got refunds in a very loud and public way. They not only threatenend Howard Dean over seating Florida's delegates...they at one time threatened Nancy Pelosi. Those are just the ones we know about.

This is really not surprising to me. I have no proof it is the same folks, but then I have no proof it isn't them either.

They are big money, big power, and they want things their way. I am not sure how much of an effect this will have on the Obama fundraising in the long run, but I do know it hurt the DNC fundraising during the primaries when they exerted their power over FL and MI delegates.

Big money talks, the rest of us are along for the ride.

Examples:

From TPM:

Top Hillary Donor Directly Pressures Dean: "Exercise Some Leadership" On Florida And Michigan

Here are details on Patricof, but other large Florida donors are threatening Dean with funds being withheld.



Here is another example, with more names included. Are they meeting with McCain? I don't know. But they sure caused problems during the primary.



Many of these are the ones who threatened Nancy Pelosi over her stance on superdelegates. She had said they should not overturn the will of the voters or it would hurt the party.

Top Clinton Backers Threaten Pelosi

There are some of the same names on both lists...those threatening Dean over Florida, and those threatening Pelosi. One of the ones that really surprises me is Maureen White, the former finance director of the DNC..I think she resigned last year.

Clinton Fat Cats Hiss at Pelosi



Maureen White was DNC finance chair, even there for a while when Dean was there. One of her comments was frustrating to me. It was a donor meeting of both campaigns with Howard Dean, and there were some problems.



There would be no problem about the money if the real dream about small donors had come true. One of the most frequently quoted comments by Dean was that one million donors giving 20 dollars a month could totally fund the party. It never came true. Instead, corporate donors still hold enough sway to compromise the party.

The article from the National Journal called Dr. Rorschach, made this point rather sadly.



I am not surprised to read about the pressure from big donors to get their way.

then I am glad she lost. The rest puzzle me. What kind of Americans are they?

Who have to have it all "their" way, or nothing. It has to be "their" candidate or nobody! They are the kind of Americans that have been running this country into the ground, and making millions if not billions in the process. They are the kind of Americans we can do with out if we really want to take this country back from the corporations and the super rich who could care less about the people of this country! Just my two cents worth!

top donors pulling shit like this if Obama had come in second.

this article emphasizes that the best way to get their attention, per Alan Patricof....is to pay off Hillary's debt.

From the NYT July 9

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/politics/09debt.html?adxnnlx=1216404586-/uarnr0B%20W4gXpvYTjRPjg&pagewanted=all



So Alan Patricof is setting terms for his support. He was mentioned in the OP. More at the link.

if they're such fans and so keen on having it paid?

while reading this was the same thing that kept popping up
in my mind, if they really care for Senator Clinton, why don't
they pay for her debts instead of pressuring Obama to asked his
supporters.

to me why they can't just pay off the debt (or at least the lion's share of it) themselves, out of their own considerable fortune?

Why is that something not worth considering? :shrug:

The Clintons, even if they contributed 20 million or so of their money to pay off campaign debt (which they needlessly ran up by insisting on prolonging a race whose conclusion was forgone after Wisconsin), will be fabulously wealthy and worth far more than my family will ever be.

Why would I feel any compunction to contribute a penny to their cause if they, who are the cause of the debt, haven't dug much, much deeper into their own pockets?

so many "top donors" yanked their support because of their so-called complaints concerning our Chairman Dean.

the money the loser spent trashing his reputation and giving the enemy clips they can play on TV from now until November.

Future President Obama has been more than gracious. Any more would make him look like a sap.

to another filthy rich person who's combined worth was over 109 million before the primary. Give me a break. I wouldn't give Hillary the poop from my parrots cage.

that the Obama campaign won't pay off my bar tab.

besides, we'll never know now, will we?!

who think that because they have the most money, they get to call all the shots. You know the way it's been for the last 8 years. They don't want a different kind of governing, they just want to control the power themselves. They are neo-cons in democratic clothing.

...in the minds of a few boneheads who just cannot get beyond it. Hatred has become a permenant comfort zone, sadly, for certain people. Fortunately 99% of the DU has moved on to greener pastures. Don't like it? Take it up with Skinner, he agrees with me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6443683#6444032">"Yes, there are some jerks who refuse to get beyond the primary. But they are a small minority." - Skinner

because she is still plotting and still trying to stab people in the back. Even in the face of defeat she works to change the rules.

Are you making the claim the un-named persons posited above are acting at Sen. Clinton's express direction today in meeting with McCain?

If your answer is yes, actual evidence of this ought top be provided....

...particularly upset with these developments that is somewhat disturbing.

Right or wrong, we hold our elected officials to higher standards of behavior than to require direct evidence of ill-will.

Edited to capitalize "Sir".

It seems you are saying that because of some 'higher standard' regarding public officials, it is proper to accuse one of malicious conduct without direct evidence of his or her having actually engaged in it....

Sen. Clinton has endorsed the Party's nominee in ringing tones. She has made joint campaign appearances with him. She has explicitly called on her supporters to follow her and join her in this course.

Neither do I endorse the comments to which you originally responded in this thread.

I believe that a number of us expect to see more public expressions of disassociation between her and those former supporters who are not supporting our candidate.

This expectation, unrealistic as it may be, might be at the root of the dissatisfaction we see expressed here and elsewhere.

I am neither surprised nor disappointed by Senator Clinton's actions or lack thereof; not whatsoever.

Her behaviors are supportive of the candidate, these are measured but adequate, in my humble opinion.

Is that she and her advisors consider that full-bore denunciation of this on her part would only give it greater heft, and exaggerate its impact.

On, then, to Denver as a united Democratic Party.

Best regards,

NYC_SKP

:thumbsup:

if that is what helps you sleep at night. The SHE I speak of is Clinton, the one they are speaking for...

Please do not come here and act like her hands are clean... she moved the goal post so far it ended up in another stadium.

You make an old Witch-Finder General brandishing his well-thumbed copy of the Malleus Maleficarum seem a conscientious jurist by compare....

It is not the supporters of Senator Clinton on this board who are having trouble moving on! At least once every hour there is a new Hillary Bashfest going on!

What a waste of time! Grow up and get over it!

Hillary is supporting Senator Obama. She is not " still trying to stab people in the back" or working "to change the rules".

Move past your hatred and GET OVER IT!!!!!!!

But this situation is hurting our party. It needs for the right people to pay attention. Most of them are not aware of it.

The poster to whom I was responding claims "she" is still "plotting" and trying to "change the rules", etc. Another post by him/her clearly indicates a hatred for Senator Clinton. It is time to get past it.

If Senator Clinton responds to the idiots referred to in the OP, she will simply lend them a legitimacy they do not deserve.

She has urged all of her supporters to get behind Senator Obama. She has stated that she herself is behind him. President Clinton has stated his support. She cannot, and should not spend all her time responding to these nuts in a forceful way.

Senator Obama's campaign will deal with it in the proper was. Of that I have no doubt. His campaign has been very well run so far. I see no reason to think it will not respond properly to this. Senator Clinton will do as she is asked to do by Senator Obama.

They are in many cases not on board. That hurts all of us.

I don't think the Clintons are encouraging it now...but her donors started this during the primary to hurt Dean's fundraising if he did not seat FL delegates. No one spoke up then either.

It is a serious issue. It started back then with FL and MI and the anger it engendered. And it continues.

The saddest thing about many posters on DU has been their hatred for Hillary and many would use rightwing talking points to attack her. It still hasn't stopped, and they continue to hurt rather than help their campaign by doing it.

I think the main problem for me is that the media is giving these folks so much free air time. I think our party leaders are underestimating the influence.

For example in this article...an example. Susie Tompkins Buell, mentioned in the OP says she won't support McCain. Trouble is...she may not support Obama either.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/clinton-donors-press

These are powerful people with good media access.

The media does its share, but that is only a small part of it.

More addressing of this issue needs to be done. Look how ugly they got to Dean when he debunked their issues.

It is just my opinion, but it really is going on....and it needs to be addressed.

What, specifically, would you have the Party do about it?

Clinton Donors Press for Veep Slot

Jill Iscol was giddy. She was scrunched up in a chair in an office of the apartment she and her husband -- the telecom giant Ken Iscol -- own on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and had just finished watching herself from earlier that day when she appeared on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell. It was the afternoon of July 14 and Iscol, the longtime friend of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- who had worked as a "bundler" during the junior New York senator's presidential campaign -- was feeling better than she had just the day prior.

Only a day before, on "Meet the Press," Mitchell had brought up an interview Iscol had given to The Los Angeles Times about a conversation she had with Sen. Barack Obama, the substance of which she thought Mitchell had mangled. Iscol had asked to clarify her remarks, and she now was enjoying a small degree of satisfaction. At issue? The word "baggage."

(Matt Mahurin) "I was upset about the spin because the conversation had nothing to do with baggage," Iscol said. "I said to , 'I know as you're vetting candidates there's going to be baggage and he said, 'No, that has nothing to do with that. It has to do with him being a former president.'"

Iscol should expect to find herself in such delicate situations from now on. Before this campaign, Iscol was a private person who could raise a lot of money, who became friends with the first family in the 1990s, after her son Zach and Chelsea Clinton became friends. She was the woman who brought the Clinton family a casserole for dinner after they had moved into their home in suburban New York.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/clinton-donors-press

This is going to make it very hard for me to eat dinner, even hours after reading of the ghastly business....

you act like an ass sometimes under the disguise of a nice guy.

There was a jeweler's shop not far from one of my childhood residences that had windows recessed into the wall, and the recesses were lined with mirrors on either side, probably to amplify the daylight onto the displays. To stick one's head in and look to one side or the other was fascinating and revelatory....

Do you think that is the solution?

In my mind this is a problem, period, bottom line.

It started with the FL and MI problems and escalated.

I think it is serious.

The good Magistrate provides an example in which seeking to solve a perceived, or real, problem could create a problem where none exists, or could make an existing one more profound.

It seems appropriate to share a parable that I recently found, you may be familiar with it:

Two Wolves:

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life.

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves.

One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego."

He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.

The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."


Have a terrific weekend, all!

:thumbsup:

but I gather that to mean that if we ignore them they will all come home wagging their tails behind them.

While we feed our inner goodness.

Does the world work that way?

A career changer, I left architecture and industrial design to work with at-risk kids, the last four years with long-term juvenile hall students. I loved them. I now train teachers and administrators in energy conservation and renewable energy, but still work with kids from time to time.

I honor you for the work and dedication that I know it takes to enter and remain in that field. :thumbsup:

I think the magistrate's point is that making noise might only encourage them, and give them more press.

I have to agree that it's at least a good argument.

My little parable, the Two Wolves, could be applied to suggest that directing energy toward them might make them stronger, heaven forbid.

To use an example from education: Like the misbehaving student, ignoring the undesirable behavior is sometimes the best way to end it.

I hope that makes sense.

I'll tell you this, I abhor these people and would just as soon have them all contract syphilis, become horribly ill, and not recover until at least January 30, 2011, of not later.

They clearly don't have the countries best interest at heart.

Love your posts!

:hi:

Bravo!

or that it lends your arguments weight?

Prehaps, like the Dormouse, you could be supressed.

I speak of Ms Susie Tompkins Buell....why should she care what happens to regular women? Bet she's got health insurance for life and pretty designer clothes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susie_Tompkins_Buell

in debt - and they threatened why?

The party is moving on from the time when we needed large donors with lots of non-progressive demands to needing small donors who do not insist on the party does things that contradict their principles.

The reason the small donors have not materialized is that not many trust the Democrats yet. They will vote for them, but they do not trust them...look at the Congressional approval rating. People are afraid that if they give the money to the DNC, it will end up in the coffers of Ben Nelson or Steny Hoyer, so they give to DFA, or Obama directly, or MoveOn....people they can trust (not that Dean isn't trustworthy) Dean is doing a marvelous job with the money he has, and the Democratic party may regain popularity with the little people once this election is over and the Dems get a DLC/Blue Dog proof majority or at least get within sight of it.

Electronic fund-raising does offer a way out from the dominance of large donors over the process, that is most welcome. It is still in its infancy, but promises to grow sturdy and strong. The situation seems to me a bit analogous to the early days of aviation, with Gov. Dean in '04 standing as the Wright brothers and other early pioneers, and Sen. Obama at the state of that art during the Great War, still marked by infancy but already capable of exerting great influence on the course of conventional struggle. It is clear that we are moving into a future where it may be possible to cast off ties entirely to the networks of large donors, and live off the land of retail donations entirely. Not that large sums need be rejected, or are not welcome, but that they will be made in an environment where their influence need not be a major factor, for which signifigant favor can be extracted, where that would run counter to the bones and meat of retail operation, which will dwarf them in volumn.

If they are holding Hillary's debt over Obama's head, then simply walk away and let them do what they want. The next time they want something from the party, the answer can be no. If this is their MO, then we simply don't need them.

They want to be so close to the action there's a behind closed doors symbiosis.

Here's the problem that I doubt will go away if I just pretend it is not there. It is the result of a primary that was not like any other, and that continues to have many unresolved problems. It is not like I am attacking or making stuff up...it is happening and it is real.

Many of Obama's big donors feel that she stayed in long after she could win, and spent millions attacking him. Another thing is the almost 10 million owed people like Mark Penn.

Too many Obama donors it would be offensive to pay off debt to such as Penn..

BUT these 25, at least, large donors of hers are having a HUGE influence over Obama. They are trying to force him to accept her as his VP by withholding funds until he does.

Now I don't care who is VP, but I think that is his right to choose.

This article explains it very clearly. I was pretty much right on about some of the names.

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-uscamp105758533jul10,0,2885661.story

Nemazee, Maureen White, hubby Steve Rattner, Alan Patricof.

"At a closed-door meeting with 50 fundraisers from both campaigns, Obama sought to soothe frayed feelings and urged his backers to chip in to pay off Clinton's estimated $21-million debt.

The meeting at the Grand Hyatt in Midtown was cordial and Obama greeted Clinton's top donors with handshakes, and jokes, spending five to 10 minutes with each of them. In attendance were top Obama fundraiser, Orin Kramer, Obama's national finance director, Julianna Smoot, and Caroline Kennedy.

Clinton heavyweights included Maureen White and husband Steve Rattner, and Alan Patricof."

Of course now that he's in line to be president there's going to be enormous financial pressure and this is just the beginning. This is the whole lobbyist problem in a nutshell, isn't it?

I got a little suspicious when Bill came on last week claiming he was concerned because the country was getting polarized. Geez, how many times can they ask us to lay down and die?

small insignificant percentage of Democratic voters. And who the Hell really cares if Paul Cejas wants to burn his 15 minutes of fame with some lame argument. He is not the Democratic party--ask John Kerry, ask Ted Kennedy, hell ask Bill Clinton. These PUMA types need to go quickly and do what they have been threatening to do--because they are now on the 13th minute and nobody is gonna care after two minutes more.

These are major donors to the party.

on significant or insignificant donations to the party. PUMA is based on the notion that they are not content with the status quo--selection of Obama. I understand that Cejas and others contributed significant amounts of money to the party but does this in itself make him different from someone who gave $5.00 to Hillary Clinton and that now threatens to vote for McCain. The end result is the same and thus Cejas and the other "major" donors are merely high class PUMA types.

and some young or old, are scared to death of the shift in power, to the small donor. :)

She and everybody that had at least one brain cell working knew her campaign was over at least several weeks before she treated herself to these lavish campaign loans.

Let her pay them off. Bill could always make a few speeches and gain that back. That's fcuked up. Everybody in the whole US told her she had lost and now she wants her campaign loans paid off?

The audacity is staggering.

Let her get some money back from that scab (Penn) before asking elsewhere.

$102 million in taxable income and she is begging?

Ha!!!

and should be no surprise to anyone that reads the news about housing, that a Fla. real estate man wants his money back. Maybe his real estate ventures have tanked, and he needs the money.It really scalds me that the Clinton's are crying "poor". They should both take a look at what is going on here in the USA. They should also tell those supposed big donors to get behind Obama or STFU. Why do some wealthy people think that what they want should take priority over the good of the party or the people in it. If they are talking to McSame, what did they want from the Dem. party, since it evidently was not just seeing justice done.

of these donors with the Democratic Party, rather than simple sore loser-hood, where is the validity of approaching McCain? And there certainly wasn't the handwringing among Republicans over the fate of MI and FL either.

and the rest of us have every right to ignore them when they hold their breath until they turn blue.

:hi:

Anyone that supports a Bush third term is a traitor to this country and to the Constitution.

except for when you use yourself as a source: that's dated in early April.

Yet you write as though this is a current issue.

Or am I overlooking something?

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/17/top-clinton-donors-meet-with-mccain-camp

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-uscamp105758533jul10,0,2885661.story

I made it clear I was guessing who.

n/t

They know they can't buy off Obama.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/17/top-clinton-donors-meet-with-mccain-camp

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-uscamp105758533jul10,0,2885661.story

I made it clear I was guessing who.

When I clicked the link I saw the old date on it of March 15th.

It's going to be up to the DNC and Obama to change these donors minds or replace them with new large donors that either did not used to donate or used to donate to the other side.

It will take a long time though. The privileged will not give up very easily.

we have to continue to support dr dean and the dnc. he is out there supporting obama and he is doing a southern tour to help down ticket dems in the south. guess what the head of the dlc is doing-making pitiful appearances on morning schmo. not supporting anyone but himself. let's cough up a couple of bucks for dr dean. hillary's big donors can ask mccain to retire her campaign debt.
sup mad. i enjoyed your op. obama better not ask me for money for hillary. hahaha