I guess Obama is buying the super-delegates.

Even more of a reason to deride super-delegates as irrelevant and undemocratic. Their votes can literally be bought.

Or, from a completely different perspective, Obama is showing his party building chops.

Pick your poison.

Hah. Hillary is the one who claims these people should just vote however they feel. If she wants to play that way, go ahead. I don't think Obama would contest too hard if Hillary does end up getting more pledged delegates. Hillary and her scorched earth tactics don't help anyone.

What is wrong with contributing to the campaigns of fellow Democrats. Are the required to sign an agreement to vote at the convention for the candidate that donated to their campaign. It seems like normal political practice to me.

Senator Obama, before he had even won his senate seat, was in big demand to appear in support of candidates in 2004, all over the country.

Looks like Greg has decided to try and convince us that the Clintons are born again political Virgins and that they have not tried calling in every political favor they have ever racked up.

It seems to me, that Senator Obama is trying to build up candidates in all fifty states, and Hillary is content to grab the support of core blue states only. Not a very smart way to go about trying to obtain a national mandate to govern by.

I loathe the concept of superdelegates. Simply loathe it. It's completely undemocratic, and talk about "impressionable elites"??

Us noisy bumptious regular voters can't be trusted to understand the implications of our votes, so we need to leave it up to village elders. Excuse me while I go hurl.

I'm an Obama supporter, so what I'm about to say won't be all that surprising, but I hope (no irony intended) that he pulls out a blow-out victory on March 4, and we don't have to sorry about the superdelegates.

Okay . . . I didn't realize this was how the game was played.

Next time we revisit the primary process, the netroots really need to get out and push to get rid of the superdelegates. This is a process that belongs in 18th-century England, not in the Democratic Party.

Wait; I thought TPM was busy excoriating Dems in safe seats or who didn't have anything to defend who weren't going all out in the '06 cycle to enrich an at-risk or insurgent Dem campaign.

I thought Obama, along with Kerry et al were specifically praised here because they pitched in from their then-overstuffed coffers.

When I read the following

"It seems difficult to square these donations with either the notion that the supers should follow the will of the people"

I thought of Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack handing the ref some cash and saying, "Keep it fair. Keep it fair."

Perhaps Rodney Dangerfield and Obama both realized they were playing on someone else's course and needed a little extra something to better assure a fair outcome.

Hey, if this includes any donations since before the 2006 election, I don't really care. Unless there is some evidence that there is indeed some kind of quid pro quo going on, this is bullshit. I'm sure Obama contributed to a lot of members of Congress from Illinois, and I'm sure people from Illinois support him for the most part, that doesn't make it an issue.

I think there needs to be a disclaimer on this because it is pretty misleading.

You are right. This is the system they have to play with...but as an Obama supporter I find it slimy. I know, I know, 'everyone's doing it'. But still. For all his talk about this being about the people, I hate seeing this.

But I think it speaks more to the system than it does the individual. Still. I don't like seeing this at all. And even though he's up with money vs. Hillary, we all know the pull her name has behind the scenes and the favors she's given to others over the years. Just look at the story yesterday about the uber-cheap mailing list she loaned to her supporter.

This reaks of poor politics. Wonder if Obama or Hillary would pledge to urge the DNC to change this superdelegate policy?

I actually think I should have made it clearer the first time when the donations were -- they were from the 2006 and 2008 cycles. I've revised the post accordingly.

What irresponsible reporting, Greg. Why only report part of the story? Those donations have come over the last three years. THREE YEARS. Think that detail should've been included?

He hasn't been running for president since 2005, guy. You're so quick to add your take at the end of each post that you forget to tell the whole story first.

Lastly, I agree with pkoso - I wish this wasn't as much a part of politics as it is. That said, it is donating to fellow Democrats; not the worst thing in the world. Let's not let this distract us from the real issues at hand.

Greg, you knew the numbers were old and you still wrote, "eye-opening look at the behind-the-scenes battle underway"??

dang

Although a lot of this donating took place before the presidential race even started - and thus cannot be said to have always been geared towards buying support in the elections, super-delegates aren't democratic (in principle) to begin with. Obama is right. Let the people's vote decide.

Are you kidding me Greg? Have you read the book, "Lying with Numbers"? This is borderline irresponsible journalism. Give it up. Your girl Hill is headed for a big fall.

Here is a bit of information, not all super-delegates ran for office in 2006. This article seems to smell of the politics of old. When exactly can we expect to see these changes take place?

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I love the reference to Rodney Dangerfield in explaining Obama's donations, really valid. Bottom line, he has given more money, for whatever reason. Maybe you should start giving Hillary a break here.

Hey, I think the headline on the front page may need to be adjusted then too, so it also reflects this was giving done before their presidential bids.

I've noticed a lot of sites have been flinging out the headlines pretty fast and loose as the campaign heats up. I'm sure much of the obfuscation is accidental; but some probably isn't.

And I echo the other commenters--the headline is a bit misleading.

Its good to see both candidates trying to build the Democratic Party.

I wish Senator Clinton would have given more of her excess 2006 New York Senate campaign funds to help elect other Democrats.

Hillary blew an astonishing $40 million on her Senate campaign, when her seat was as safe as can be.

She was supposed to transfer most of the $50 million she raised to her Presidential campaign, but in the end, she only had $10 million left.

More fiscal responsibility from Hillaryland.

Barack Obama gave more because he believes in building his party.

He was also the #1 requested speaker during the 2006 congressional races. He's good on the stump and he's willing to help.

Sorry, but this post was a sorry piece of "reporting."

Since ALL elected Democrats to congress and governorships are super delegates, any contribution to ANY winning democratic campaign can be spun as a contribution to a super delegate. This is silly.

Greg,

You are aware that some of these super delegates are party officials and past elected politicians, aren't you? I doubt very much that these folks are receiving money from either Obama or Clinton.

--cube

This is misleading because of what federal election laws allow. You can donate contributions to campaigns, donate it to charity or keep it for the next campaign run in a war chest.

This is very misleading in it's intention of misinforming the public about campaign contributions. It's actually a smear piece.

Besides the limit for those types of contributions stated a 4,000 limit.

I doubt that's enough to sway a vote.

It is pretty clear from the comments that very few have clicked through the links to take a look at the information.

The money donated by Obama's Hope Fund has gone to democratic house and senate candidates, $299,000 during the 2008 election cycle, $576,769 in 2006 and $0 in 2004.

Clinton's HillPac gave $0 in the 2008 cycle, $277,000 in 2006 and $312,000 in 2004.

Remember that a bit over half of the automatic delegates are DNC members, another 30 or so are governors, and another 20 are "distinguished party leaders.

The money donated by the Obama and Clinton PACs is SOP amongst members of congress.

It seems to me that this is really a non-story. Greg's headline, by the way, is accurate.

Ok, leave gregg alone.

By the way, totally off topic, check out this story. This is a brilliant idea. I wonder why no one thought of it before. Now this is worthy of federal investment as opposed to drilling more oil wells.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_sc/gulf_stream_energy

I think you're doing an awesome job, Greg. :)

I agree that the time frame puts a different spin on it, but the Obama supporters, as usual, are way too quick to rush to their guy's defense, while of course insulting anyone who doesn't see Obama in all his holiness. I've seen plenty of references to Hillary planning to run for President in 2000, or earlier. Yet the Obam supporters say "he wasn't even running in 2006." How do you know? People start running long before they declare. And one of the things they do is start building bridges with Dems around the country. Obama had a coming out party at the 2004 convention, and suddenly became a shining star in the party. He's a super ambitious guy (that's not a slur; you don't run for President without being super ambitious.) 700 grand is a lot of money for a freshman Senator to be forking over to other candidates. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was planning to help his candidacy. That's not a scandal, but people who say "He was just trying to build the party" sound hopelssly naive.

And why isn't this a legitimiate story? Once again, Obama's supporters find one spin (he wasn't running for President) and use that to dismiss the entire story. Since we're all so focused on the superdelegates right now, why is it not a legitimate item that they have received a lot of cash from Clinton, and a relatively huge amount of cash from Obama? Even if you don't believe that he was buying delegate votes, don't you think that has some relevance when the supers are deciding who to support?

Like it or not, Onbama is a politician. He has a team, headed by the former Senate majority leader, dedicated to wooing Supers. He's calling them himslef. He's doing a lot of the standard things that politicians do. You folks want to decry every little political move Hillary makes (She only wants more debates because it HELPS HER") but shrug off any politicking Obama does, because he's "different." You're setting your guy up for a fall. I supported, and still support, Deval Patrick in Massachusetts. But because he was elected as an outside the mainstream candidate, the press and public were ready to nitpick every move he made, from the drapes he put in his office to the car they leased for him. You guys are building up such a holy image for him, the next step, especially from the press, will be "You're not who we thought you were."

And by the way, for all those of you who keep crying about Hillary "stealing" Obama's themes, Patrick's slogan was "Together We Can." Sound familiar?

This is the second time that Hillary's surrogates have brought up the issue of Obama's Hopefund being a slush fund.

Some background information on Hopefund, HillPAC and the Clinton Foundation:http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/02/fact_check_on_clintons_attack.php

57 Percent of Hopefund Donations in 2007 To States Other Than IA, SC, NV, and NH. Of the $476,000 given away by Hopefund in 2007, 57 percent of it was to states other than IA, NH, SC, NV. The majority of people who received donations either did not endorse a candidate or endorsed Hillary Clinton. [FEC review, 11/07]

Hopefund Donated $4,200 to Clinton. Hopefund made two separate donations of $2,100 each to Friends of Hillary in 2005. [FEC, accessed 12/2/07]

With all due respect, People will not read the content or the comments if the headline is, well, questionable.

Greg -- would be interesting to know when the donations took place. That is: what percentage of the total was in 2006 vs 2008;
also to whom -- for instance, if a big portion of Obama's or Hillary's money was targeted to candidates in very tight races so that most of the money was obviously for increasing the Democratic majority.

Right on ChrisO! He IS a politician, they ALL are!! Once you get past all the fluffy speeches...its down and dirty business as usual in the trenches. Great reporting Greg...it shines the light where it needs to be.

Beyond the misleading headline, here's my problem with this so-called "story": Super Delegates are also known as Democratic members of the House and the Senate, and Democratic Governors. So a headline "Obama leads in donations to Democratic Congressmen" sounds very different than "Obama gives more money to Super Delegates." Why shouldn't he give to their campaigns? Especially when we are talking about the 2006 election? We'd think he was a crummy Democrat if he DIDN'T give to their campaigns.

It seems to me that, to filter the story the way Greg has, it requires a very particular point of view.

obviously NM dosen't count it is a caucus state. according to the Hilary campaign. Plus Bill Richardson is friends of the clintons's everyone knows that.

This is another occasion where Obama is damed if he dose and damed if he dosen't. I'm suprise that this isn't be spun as Obama a politician that knows how to play the political game.

Sorry for the mistake in limits. Thanks Them and Chris.
He CONTRIBUTES on average 4,000 to House Democrats. 6,000 to Senate members.

I guess you didn't want the Dems to take back Congress in 2006.

Has Obama broken the law?

I'll point this out again on the contributions. All senate and congress people are required to make contributions to people running in contested districts or states. All, every single one of them. Especially senators not up for election in a cycle, like 2006 for obama. He would have been in deep sh*t if he didn't contribute donations to people running. They all do it and are supposed to raise money for the party as a whole. This is such a non-story its laughable.

What it does show is that clinton raised 60 million for a virtually uncontested election and pissed it all away on herself as opposed to trying to help dems win contested elections. Speaks volumes about her character and who she cares about.

I suppose now we shall hear how this demonstrates the nefarious character of the leading candidate-- dedicated to old style politics of corruption. Oh, wait a minute, this is Obama we are talking about. So all those who demonize Hillary Clinton for practicing politics as usual will have to pause.

I for one do not condemn Obama for this. I recognize that this is how politics works and if we want a winner we have to choose someone with the will to play the game to win. I only wish more Obama supporters would extend Senator Clinton the same courtesy, when she plays the game to win.

BluePuppy,

How is Obama supposed to tell the truth about something that never happened?

Late Update: I should have made it clear that these numbers refer to donations in the 2006 and 2008 cycles, so many of these could have been ordinary contributions to fellow Democrats before either was running for President. I've revised the above accordingly.

Then why post it? Have you examined which superdelegates ever got a favor from any Clinton over the years as well?
What a shill.

"""This is a huge positive for Obama. The superdelegates receiving donations are Democratic candidates for the House, the Senate or Governor.

Obama did all he could to help Democrats take back the Senate and the House in 2006, including tons of fundraising and more campaign appearances than any other Democrat.

Hillary selfishly raised and spent money mainly for herself on her own Senate race, despite the fact that she faced only token opposition. As a big fundraiser, she could have aided the Democratic party efforts to win back Congress with tens of millions of dollars. Instead, she used her funds to increase her margin of victory (pointless) and to build up a war chest to scare any other potential candidates for the presidency out of the race (a failed effort).

Posted by ohiomeister """

OMG ! THANK YOU FOR REMINDNG ME WHY I'M A LIBERAL BUT WILL NEVER EVER BE A DEMOCRAT! YOU ARE FOOLISH AND IGNORANT SHEEP AS BAD AS THE SHEEP WHO BOWED AT THE FEET OF BUSH.

OMG! THIS IS FRIGHTENING TO SEE THE IGNORANCE IN HOW PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY CHOOSE A PRESIDENT.

OBAMA-SVENGALI-NO SUBSTANCE AND EMPTY RHETORIC!

when you term it as "behind the scenes battle" it diminishes the well-intentioned qualifier at the bottom that these donations are not indicative of the pledging of super delegates themselves.

I posit that, 1. Obama was asked to campaign in a lot of purple and red states for other candidates and it is likely that Obama had supported them in the spirit of creating a broad based support for the democratic party. 2. It possible that consideration in 1. was partly in recognition that he would running against institutional candidates who have a strong support in the base. 3. It is possible that these same folks for whom he campaigned came around to supporting him as a show of appreciation. 4. I have heard too many delegates support Clinton because they know the Clintons for a long time. (note the plural).

If you figure that in, it would seem like money may not have bought the super deleates as what each candidate did to help these folks in their respective political careers.

I understand this may be a subtle narrative and sensationalism is a preferable route.

Hey Greg: Don't get upset over the fact you tried to point something out. Don't you realize yet that anything about Obama that doesn't paint him as an abolute saint is forbidden?

"There is far more that we do not know about Hillary, and how her and Bill became super wealthy in just the past seven years. They were broke when they left the White House."

Let's see, both Hillary and Bill Clinton signed book deals for autobiographies that earned them each well over $5 million dollars. Bill Clinton has taken to the lecture circuit and has earned approximately $40 millian dollars from speaking fees since leaving the whitehouse. All of this information has been in newspapers and is reported in financial disclosure forms United States senators are required to file. This is really a non-issue. and believe me, after Obama leaves office after serving as president he is going to earn obscene amounts of money on speaking fees and autobiographies also.

Looks like Mr Hope is actually Mr Money ... will Obama be the best candidate money can buy? I certainly hope not.

BAC

This is not as simple as it sounds. If you follow the link and actually read the study you'll find that Mr. Obama contributed $4,200 to Hillary Clinton in 2006. And of course you must consider that the figures presented in this study are not definitive as they include only contributions taken from campaign and PAC funds, not contributions taken from personal funds, and these of course could be substantial as well, especially considering that both husbands and wives can contribute maximum amounts -- not to mention that with a reported personal net worth of 50 million dollars, the Clintons could easily afford to throw a few million around: remember that the 5 million from the other week came out of totally liquid assets, and that's really impressive. These are awfully deep pockets here, but of course we can't find out a thing about personal Clinton campaign contributions because only Mr. Obama has made his tax returns public. The other hitch is that the superdelegates group is pretty much constitutive of every Democrat who holds public office, so what is the study suggesting? That, in order to be free and clear of any appearance of trying to buy delegates, potential presidential candidates who are flush should just never reach into the coffers and give anything to anybody? That seems to be where this leads.

and Greg Sargent wonders why we don't consider him a real journalist with integrity?

Obama raised money for fellow Democrats 2-3 years ago, during their campaigns to get elected. other Democrats laud his efforts and appreciate his help for the party.

years later in the completely unforeseeable future, it turns out that these same Democrats are part of an archaic voting system that may decide the Democratic nomination.

so either you believe that Obama was doing what all Democrats should do (help fellow Democrats get elected) and was just very effective at it, or that he was secretly planning his Presidential campaign 2 years ago and banking on the money he contributed and raised to these Democratic officeholders to swing that future nomination for him under this bizarre, hitherto-unimportant system.

i'll agree, if there was any evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever for the latter view, it would be news. but there isn't, so its not. yet Mr. Sargent considers it news, because if he phrases the situation JUST right it helps his transparently obvious choice of candidate.

THIS JUST IN!!! CLINTON-BAD!! OBAMA-GOOD!!!

Speaking of super delegates, how about JOHN LEWIS SWITCHING TO OBAMA! He must not feel compelled to go with a robot who will be ready on day one offering solutions not speeches.

Those of you who say it is the system, not Obama, need to remember that Obama is running as one "above the system." It is a nice line if you can get enough naive people to believe it. Actually, he strikes me as a "compassionate conservative."

You're going to be disappointed if TPTB let him get elected, because, at best, his government will be all about preserving his "charismatic" status. Another "Dear Leader"--just a little to the left of our Far Right last one. And if you think he is against the war in any meaningful way (like Ali was with Viet Nam or Randolph Bourne was with WWI), you are living in la-la land. The war is his ticket to geting elected. He needs the war more than Hillary (who, after all did not start the war, and is not principally repsonsible for it, whatever Obama may tell you). And after he is elected, the war will be his ticket to trying to gain more power--like Bush did and like his inpsriation, Lincoln, did in the Civil War. (I love Lincoln--that's not a Ron Paul crack.)

For my part, I fear Obama is a republican mole, like the man he used to call his "mentor," Joe Lieberman.

And most of the nice, well meaning folks at TPM are his enablers.

I have to give credit to Hillary and Obama. No, I have to give it to the voters, without this tight race, this Super Delegates mess would have remained under the radar. Change is on the way.

Or, alternately, Barack Obama has given his time to work as a fundraiser for other Democratic politicians, rather than hordeing every last bit of money he makes away to win his party's nomination.