Super Delegates and Cash

Score one for Barack Obama — he’s the candidate who has given the most cash to the Super Delegates:

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, “non-super” delegates, has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $228,000.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand “does not appear to have been as openhanded.”

Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

Heh. So much for Barack Obama not being about the politics of the “old.” Obama has been working the political game by attempting to build up (or buy) “chits“. Old style politics at it’s finest. Couple that the “bundlers” on his team who are registered lobbyists, add in his ties to PowerPAC,  and it appears that Barack Obama is simmering in Hypocrisy Stew.

And just to note, the Clinton campaign called Obama on his PAC “directing money to local Democratic groups and politicians in states holding early primaries and caucuses,” back in December.

The Washington Post first raised the issue of Obama’s PAC last week when it reported that Obama has contributed more than a third of his PAC’s money to groups and politicians in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Hypocrisy Stew.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Super Delegates and Cash

  1. bm says:

    Pamela: So this is what HOPE is all about!

    I am so glad that the Clinton camp called Obama on his PAC in relation to those early primaries and caucuses in December! I’m glad you’ve posted this information as well as the link to his HOPE FUND!

    I’m sure at next week’s debate, scheduled for Thursday at 8:00 pm on CNN, that Hillary will definitely bring this up! I love my Hill !


  2. This is the part of primary politics I don’t like, the tit for tat. I don’t fault it but it would be great to find a less self destructive way for Democrats to come up with a candidate.

  3. bjerryberg says:

    I agree with Darell’s sentiments above–but he is assuming that all players wearing the Dem label are honest.

    How shall I phrase this?

    Obama is UNELECTABLE.

    Sen. Barry Obama owes much of his prominence to an international organized crime figure-Tony Rezko–who goes on trial shortly–facing US Att’y Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago.

    The primary purpose of the massive media promotion of Sen Obama has been to make sure the Dems nominate a sure loser.

    Obama’s Rock-Star mystique and popularity will not last through November’s elections.

    A vote for the seriously compromised Obama actually is a vote for Mussolini Mike Bloomberg–the choice of right-wing Wall Streeters.

    Bloomberg/McCain is Wall Street’s ticket. Will Dems be conned?

  4. Unless this Rezko guy has been under indictment for a very long period of time, I’d give odds that the trial doesn’t actually start until some point in 2009, at the soonest.

  5. Virginia Cotts says:

    “Sen. Barry Obama owes much of his prominence to an international organized crime figure-Tony Rezko”

    From a Nov. 5,2006 Chicago Sun Times article:

    “U.S. Sen. Barack Obama expressed regret late Friday for his 2005 land purchase from now-indicted political fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko in a deal that enlarged the senator’s yard.”

    Yup, Tony is one hell of an international organized crime specimen.

    The article has a very good q&a on the whole deal.

    “Obama and Rezko have been friends since 1990, and Obama said the Wilmette businessman raised as much as $60,000 for him during his political career. After Rezko’s indictment, Obama donated $11,500 to charity–a total that represents what Rezko contributed to the senator’s federal campaign fund.”

    That’s a lot of nothing to owe Rezko. Hardly ‘much of his prominence’ by any stretch of the immagination.

    This is why Obama’s popularity and appeal will not fade if he wins the nomination. There is too little to throw at him and what little there is amounts to tiny tea cups.

    On donating to other candidates (who are also superdelegates) for their re-elections. How much did JK donate to the ’06 candidates?

  6. bjerryberg: You were right and I was wrong. After further research, I’m pretty sure that the trial will start as currently scheduled. The source I pulled up says that the Indictment in question was handed down in 2006. I don’t know about the rest of what you say, but the case seems like it should be ready to start making some progress. Sorry.

  7. Virginia Cotts says:


    What I am wondering is whether pushing this as some kind of black mark on Obama wioll create a backlash. We have developed a strong blog reaction to garbage that is generated by the right wingnuts and it is getting through to the MSM. The email that was circulated on Obama, claiming that he was sworn in to the senate on a Koran, that he is really a muslim with some kind of secret agenda, etc. continues to come up and get immediately squashed because the refutations are so well known.

    bjerryberg himself misrepresents Rezko’s indictment – in several posts here- and the actual involvement was really thin. Obama purchased a strip of adjoining property. Over his years in the Illinois legislature, Rezko donated less than 12000 and raised about 60K. Not exactly a huge influence or creating Obama’s prominence.

    Something I read about Axelrod, he originally heard about Obama from a friend who told him she thought the guy would be president one day.

  8. bjerryberg says:

    I am a Democrat who as a young man, backed George McGovern against the Nixon-Agnew onslaught, on principle.

    Barry Obama is being promoted by the MSM precisely because he is unelectable–and has shown precious little specific principle.

    The Rezko real estate shenanigans that bought Obama his dream house– is the least of Sen. Obama’s problems.

    U of Chicago Education prof William Ayers–an unrepentant bomb-throwing member of the Weather-Underground–America’s best known homegrown terrorist group –hosted a fundraising get-together for Obama in Barry’s first electoral race–and served with Obama on a peculiar Foundation’s grant-issuing board of directors–until 2002.

    The opposition research possibilities are endless.

    As a lifelong Dem–with some knowledge of the intelligence community–I am warning you.

    The nomination of Barry Obama is suicide for the Democratic Party.

  9. bjerryberg says:

    I wish to thank Darrell Prows for acknowledging his earlier error–and urge him to consider the frightening possibility that I am right because my method of analysis is better than the one has accepted from the MSM media.

  10. bjerryberg says:

    I am greatly amused that Virginia Cotts link above explaining away the Rezko scandal links to nowhere.

    Has the Obama campaign fired her yet?

  11. Jerry

    Virginia Cotts is a writer here, a very good friend and not connected to Obama’s campaign in any way shape or form.

  12. bjerryberg says:

    My apologies, I am glad to hear that–but Ms. Cotts does not understand what is going on and writes very much as an Obama operative would.

    On the facts of the Rezko matter, Ms. Cotts is mistaken. Rezko’s wife bought the strip of desired land–the same day that Sen Obama bought the main property. It is all borderline legal but just a tad too shady to pass muster in November.

    Obama is far too Chicago-compromised to carry the progressive banner into the next election.

  13. Hillary says:

    The money given… is it for personal use, or did these candidate contribute to local Democratic functions to hold these rallies? They way you make it sound is that candidates are just lining superdelegate’s pockets.