I agree that paying vendors is a very worthy cause and helps the reputation of the Democratic party. But do we know where contributions will go? Do we have assurances that she won't retire her personal debt and her debt to Mark Penn first and leave the vendors for last? (This is a real question... I genuinely don't know the answer and there could very well be some prominent thing on her website that I'm not aware of.)
This might sound like a bit of a slur on Clinton's honor but it's not intended to be... I'd be asking these kinds of questions if I was loaning money to a friend, too.
I don't dislike Clinton, although I favored Obama. But even if the situation was reversed, I can't imagine how giving money to a multimillionaire could possibly be the best use of my money.
Clinton's assets far outweigh her debts. If she was actually going to suffer financial hardship because of these debts then I could definitely see why you'd want to be making donations. But this isn't the case, she's got many tens of millions in personal wealth still.
I really honestly believe that Obama has the best chance to win.
Clinton began this race with all the advantages--huge name recognition, an enormous pile of money, residual goodwill among the Democratic electorate, and the backing of most of the establishment. And Obama beat her. To be blunt, this shows he's a better campaigner.
Against McCain, Obama is going in at worst even. And Clinton's advantages in that matchup aren't really very big--it doesn't take much of a shift in public opinion to make that electoral vote map look completely different. People have noted that Kerry was winning by comparable margins at this point in the cycle. And Clinton hasn't really been attacked hard this cycle in the way a Republican would attack her--you can be sure the Clintons would be blamed for insufficient vigilence before 9/11, the last minute-pardons would be unearthed and gone over in minute detail, Bill Clinton's business dealings the last few years would be scrutinized, all things that for whatever reason Obama has declined to do.
I'd add that most of the difference between Obama and Clinton's performance comes from the fact that Clinton voters are less likely to say they'll vote for Obama than the reverse. But if Obama were losing, his supporters would seem more resistant to hypothetically voting for Clinton. It's only natural that Obama supporters, who are emphasizing the importance of party unity, claim they'd support Clinton. If Clinton were winning we'd hear lots of talk about party unity from pro-Clinton folks and then they'd convince themselves that of course they'd vote for Obama. Cognitive dissonance is powerful.
OK seriously, the lawyers have made a claim you disagree with. But it's their job to interpret those legal documents. Legal documents are hard to read and understand correctly unless you have the relevant training. There's a reason for the three years of law school and the bar exam, after all.
Yes, it's possible that the lawyers are pro-Obama and letting that bias overcome their professional integrity, but absent some actual evidence for this claim, it's really more likely that you're just not understanding the documents correctly.
Also, Puerto Rico's population isn't even 4 million and certainly not all of those are eligible, registered voters (though I have no idea of the actual fraction). A turnout of 2 million seems fairly ludicrous.
This doesn't mean he's wrong. Seriously... you spend hours digging through polls and writing up a decently argued post, and the first comment asks you if it's a joke? I'd be way, way more annoyed by that than I would be by getting a 1 on a comment.
Personally, I interpret as concern trolls those people who frankly seem to despise Obama, but then talk about his electability as a reason not to support him.
People who, say, freaked out over Obama scratching his face with his middle finger, or called him "our version of Bush" for making jokes with reporters, then turned around and sorrowfully posted about how we shouldn't nominate him because he can't win Ohio, qualify as concern trolls in my mind, because even if he was up by 40 points in Ohio they wouldn't give a damn since they just hate the guy.
Basically there are some anti-Obama positions one can take that tell me they are primarily an anti-Obama advocate and they are not seriously and dispassionately weighing the electability of the various candidates.
Whereas someone who has shown no evidence of derangement hasn't abandoned reason and their opinions about electability are not concern trolling--so if you'd, hypothetically, made passionate posts about why Clinton's health care plan was superior to Obama's and that's why she should be president, I would not then interpret arguments from you about electability as concern trolling.