To Hillary supporters (nice, respectful question)

I'm aware that Hillary and her supporters aren't pushing this; I'm not accusing you or her of doing so. I'm just asking for perspective from y'all because y'all are donors just like me.

If roles were reversed and Obama's campaign were in debt, would you guys/gals - as financial supporters of Clinton's - support any potential decision by her to help Obama's campaign out with cash? I'm asking not to start an argument but because I've got to be honest and say that as an Obama donor I resent the idea that the money I donated would be (as decided by him) diverted to her campaign. I know, the theory is that the diversion would be done with the intent being to get her out of the race and thus win, but I don't think I'm being an idiot when I say that I'd prefer that money go to now defeating McCain.

Just please imagine if roles were reversed and tell me how you'd feel. Am I right or wrong?

I think it would be a fine gesture. But it probably should be in line with some understanding of how the donors might react.

Well we're two peas in a pod, then. I don't have any animosity towards Hillary, just like you don't have any towards Barack. Glad we can communicate in nice, friendly terms!

Thanks for answering my question. I agree with what you said about "in line" with the donors' reactions. That's really my point. Let me be a little more clear so that no one thinks I was implying something that I didn't intend to: I'm not suggesting that Obama shouldn't help Hillary because "she's evil" or anything even remotely close to that. My contention is purely this: The funds I donated to him should, in my view, go towards defeating his opposition. That "opposition" was Hillary, now it's McCain. And in truth, I can't fuc*#*$% stand John McCain ... that's where I want my damn money going, to defeat HIM!!!

From wanting to get more of my fellow Marines killed by way of his 100 year plan to wanting to continue the robber baron era Part Deux (and the list goes on seemingly forever), this guy's literally a nightmare. It's just my view that my money should go towards defeating him, not helping anyone else out (even though I have respect for Hillary and wish her no ill will). I hope you know what I'm trying to argue; sometimes I can't manage to put my strong emotions into words correctly.

And there should be no question about how the donors intended it to be spent.

Are you saying Hillary is extorting Obama? Or are you saying that because I'm encouraging he not use my donations for a certain purpose that I'm extorting him?

As a Hilllary supporter, I would have no problem with it

Her loans were due to bad management of campaign & payroll decisions.

And if Hillary (like Obama does now) had all the cash and more than she really needed and Obama were in debt, I would trust her to have a very good reason to use the money in that way. I would have donated the money trusting that it would be used in ways the campaign saw as useful.

Is this rumour true, though? Where did it come from?

If true then the benefits could be many.

It's a generous gesture and as a Hillary supporter certainly makes me think better of him. So in essence he's buying a good opinion of voters he will need in the fall.

It certainly proves a "forgive and forget" attitude on his part which will go far in healing the party divide. Proves he is the bigger man.

If the divide is healed, pehaps Hillary supporters will begin donating to his campaign and the money will be recovered. He will certainly have no problem raising more than enough to cover what he may give to Hillary.

If it's being done, perhaps it includes the proviso that no more kitchen sinks get thrown at him and that reconciliation must be a part of her message from now on.

It comes down to this: You have trusted Obama enough through this campaign to fight fiercly for him. Why not continue that trust and accept that if he does this he has exceptionally good reasons for doing it?

That argument sounds an awful lot like the Britney Spears argument that we should always trust an American president and not question what they say.

I'm loyal to Obama, but not blindly so. I've never, not once, maintained that he's perfect, and as such I reserve the right to question things I think are wrong. Additionally, I'm effectively an investor. No investor would simply "trust and accept" that the company they invested in is using it wisely.

I understand about good will and such, but when it's my dollars that are in question I certainly think I've got every right to expect they be used in certain ways. Hillary is a millionaire many times over; it's hardly as if we're talking about some poor sap with no money. If she got her campaign into this much debt then it's her responsibility to get it out - something she's done by loaning the campaign money. If she believed so strongly in her campaign and its rightfulness, then she should have no problem paying its bills.

You can't buy good will. We tried doing that with Cameroon to get them to go along with our Iraq War plans only to have it argued (correctly) that we had to pay people off to get them on our side. If you think that won't be used against Obama in the general (McCain: "He had to pay off Clinton's blue collar supporters just to get them to stomach him" or something like that), think again.

That's really the difference in my mind. They are both good Liberal Dems.