From the Huffington Post:

Superdelegates Turned Down $1 Million Offer From Clinton Donor

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization’s two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.

Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization’s other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

Contacted about the report, Saban, initially very friendly, became curt. “Not true,” he said, “it’s simply not true.” He declined to elaborate. Did he talk to the YDA superdelegate? “I talk to many, many superdelegates. Some I don’t even remember their names.” Did he propose any financial transaction? “I have never offered them or anybody any money” in exchange for support or a vote, he said. The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.

How typical … she can’t win the nomination naturally, with the support of a majority of the voting public, so now she’s attempting to buy the nomination.

Good job, Hillary … thanks again for showing us just how low your campaign is willing to stoop to steal the nomination (and then lose the election with you continued divisiveness).

Heard on NPR this afternoon:

Group with Clinton Ties Behind Dubious Robocalls : NPR

All Things Considered, May 1, 2008 · Thousands of North Carolina residents answered their telephones last week to hear this message, delivered in a deep, soothing voice:

“Hello. This is Lamont Williams. In the next few days, you will receive a voter registration packet in the mail. All you need to do is fill it out, sign it, date and return the application. Then you will be able to vote and make your voice heard. Please return your registration form when it arrives. Thank you.”

In fact, the deadline to register for the May 6 Democratic presidential primary had already passed. The robocall went to many registered voters who were expecting to vote that day. The call and follow-up mailings left many wondering whether they were registered for the primary or not.

This sounds like a classic example of voter suppression — sowing confusion in order to drive down turn-out. The calls seemed to be aimed at African-American communities, places where Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is expected to run well ahead of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

But the group behind the calls isn’t partisan Republican or ideologically conservative. It’s Women’s Voices Women Vote, a 501(c)(3) charity that states its mission as registering single women to vote. The robocalls seem completely at odds with the group’s usual, upbeat message. In one of the group’s public service announcements, the actress Julia Louis Dreyfus strolls thru a replica of the Oval Office and fantasizes about women electing a woman president.

Women’s Voices, Women Vote did not make anyone available for comment on Wednesday or Thursday.

Just a week ago, the group’s founder, Page Gardner, contacted the North Carolina Board of Elections to let them know about the mailing. She noted that the Women’s Voices packet, which she said was intended to boost registration in general, would arrive in mailboxes just before the primary. Gardner wrote: “We hope this unfortunate coincidence in timing does not lead to any confusion or aggravation for either your state’s voters or registrars.”

Group’s Ties to the Democratic Candidates

Will Evans of the Center for Investigative Reporting , who collaborated in reporting this story, found some Obama backers among the Women’s Voices leadership, but the group mostly has ties to Clinton and her campaign. Gardner worked on former President Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. Board member John Podesta was President Clinton’s chief-of-staff. Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, used to be on the Women’s Voices leadership team and did consulting work for the group.

Chris Kromm, director of the Institute for Southern Studies, in Durham, N.C., says there’s no hard evidence that the robocalls were meant to suppress the pro-Obama vote. “We can’t show that there’s any formal or direct connection,” he says.

But … what do you expect from the Hillary contingent?

Other interesting news about Women’s Voices, Women Votes:

In 2006, the organization paid Integral Resources Inc. nearly $800,000 for phone services. That company’s CEO and founder is Ron Rosenblith, who is married to Women’s Voices president, Page Gardner. The contract represents 16 percent of the nonprofit’s budget. The group is funded mostly through foundations and individual donations.

“I think it’s a really big concern,” said Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy in Chicago. “It does give an appearance of a conflict of interest.”

The question, he and other charity experts say, would be whether Integral Resources profited from its inside connections. Women’s Voices did not make anyone available to comment.

The organization also paid several million dollars more on contracts with companies run by five additional members of the nonprofit’s leadership team.

Is it any wonder that in a recent poll of Democratic voters by the Pew Institute were asked to rate the New York senator’s character traits, only 57 percent found her honest, compared with 75 percent for Barack Obama? What’s more, in the same poll, 35 percent of Democratic voters said she was a “phony,” while only 19 percent said the same thing about Barack Obama.

C’mon Hillary … do you really think people’s views of you are going to IMPROVE between now and November, especially if you continue to use Republican tactics in order to take out the competition? Do you really think that after being as especially divisive as you have been over the past couple of months (not to mention the past 16 years), that you’ll be able to bring people together?

Get real! And get out of the race before you blow the election for the Democrats!

I’m sorry, but my dislike of Hillary is visceral. Oh … I’d vote for her come November if she is the candidate, but I’d rather have a less-experienced President whom is actually inspiring.

After the last 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush politics, the last thing this country needs is another President who is as divisive as Hillary would be.

I think that Barack Obama could actually bring the country back together, which to my mind is far more important than anything else; and if he chooses his Vice President and Cabinet wisely, he could be an incredible President on top, which would be a bonus!

Hopefully, this doesn’t make me a “Yes We Can” drone.

At least one of my friends disagrees, stating:

I would rather have experience rather than the empty shell of inspiration. Inspiration can’t lead a country. Divisive or not — the woman is intelligent and knows whose buttons to push and when. All of politics has to do with divisiveness.

I certainly respect that opinion, but I disagree … not about Hillary’s intelligence, because she is definitely an extremely smart woman; but in my mind, good politicians know how to navigate the divisiveness to build something approaching a consensus. They know how to compromise.

That’s the difference between people like GWB and Ronald Reagan … I was never a Reagan supporter — I am a good little Democrat, after all — but he had a way of appealing and reaching across the aisle … and that helped him accomplish his agenda.

Bill Clinton had this ability as well, which is how he managed to balance the budget and build a budget surplus, even with (for 6 of his 8 years) a hostile Republican majority Congress; a budget surplus which was completely squandered (and then some), by the current Republican administration (and the Republican majority Congress for the first 6 years of GWB’s presidency).

I don’t think Hillary would be able to accomplish the same thing, even with a friendly Democrat majority Congress.

But we’ll see. The best part about this year’s electoral process is that it is encouraging people to think and to get involved. People are excited about participating again … and that bodes well, no matter who is the candidate on either side, and no matter who is ultimately elected.

My opinion, anyway.