I hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms. I'll have to give that some thought.
I will say, that I have a tendency to feel indebted to someone even when they extend to me a small courtesy. When I see her off script I feel better about her. When she was interviewed by Anderson Cooper a week or so ago, there was a relaxed spontaneity that I liked. A different side from what I see in campaign speeches, or debates. ---In [email protected], <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : She does come across as experienced, articulate, and capable. But, does she represent any real change? I thought Sanders' comments about Kissinger, for example, were spot on. At least here is a candidate who is not trying to play both sides. He is making his position crystal clear. In contrast, I cannot discount the millions the financial sector has poured into Clinton's campaign. I agree with your point, to paraphrase, that no one can accept 10, 20 or 100 million, without feeling karmically *locked in* with the contributor. ---In [email protected], <steve.sundur@...> wrote: Well, taken at face value, the implication is, "I am not influenced by big money pouring into my campaign, but the same can't be said for my opponents" In other words, a rather elitist proclamation. Actually, I think everyone, (speaking of commentators, and those watching them) had a grand time discussing the debate points and replaying the comments of those two old timers slugging it out, making references to people and events 50, 60 years ago! I believe the consensus was, that Hillary carried the day. ---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote : I imagine she'd expect you to answer that for yourself (if you even really needed to ask the question): She's not the only one receiving big money. ---In [email protected], <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Hillary says we've got to get the big money out of politics. But then says, the big money that contributes to her political campaign have no influence. So, why go after the big money in politics? Hillary?
