Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, all seven elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama--and all committed to Clinton.

In addition to Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, at least two other governors who have endorsed Clinton have also received contributions from her in the past. Ohio's Gov. Ted Strickland received $10,000 and Oregon's Gov. Ted Kulongoski received $5,000. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped out of the presidential race in January, has not endorsed a candidate but received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle.

I guess it's all politics and is legal.  But it still doesn't look good as this is another way that money is influencing our elections or the will of the people.  

There is another article in Haper's with some history on Obama's PAC:

As of this summer, Obama had raised nearly $16 million for his original Senate run and for his 2010 reelection war chest. He has taken in an additional $3.8 million for the Hopefund, his leadership PAC. Such PACs are subject to fewer restrictions on raising and spending money than general campaign funds. Over a six-year term, a senator can raise a maximum of $4,200 per individual donor; the same donor can give as much as $30,000 to the senator's leadership PAC during that same period. Traditionally, leadership PACs were established by veteran members of Congress, but now they are set up by anyone who hopes to work his or her way up through party ranks. Last year, the Hopefund took in more than any other leadership PAC except for those of Bill Frist, John McCain, and John Kerry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In several primaries, Obama's PAC has given to candidates that have been carefully culled and selected by the Democratic establishment on the basis of their marketability as palatable "moderates"--even when they are facing more progressive and equally viable challengers. Most conspicuously, Obama backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, his Democratic primary opponent in Connecticut, endorsing him publicly in March and contributing $4,200 to his campaign. The Hopefund also gave $10,000 to Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot in the National Guard who lost both legs in Iraq and who is running for the seat of retiring G.O.P. Congressman Henry Hyde in Chicago's western suburbs. Despite her support from the party establishment, an enormous fund-raising advantage, and sympathy she had due to her war record, Duckworth won the primary by just 1,100 votes over a vocal war opponent named Christine Cegelis. (When asked about her stand on the Iraq war by a reporter, Duckworth had replied, "There is good and bad in everything.")

Thank you.

The media tried hard to get him to do it. Now, looking back, that race was mild compared to this one and race didn't divide this southern state. This race is dividing us. If Obama had come out from the start and not allowed his campaign to play up the "they're using the race card against my campaign", we'd be less divided now.

Also, my Representative, Lacy Clay, is black and there is no way I would vote for anyone else no matter who they pick. A white candidate - no way. A woman candidate - no way. Lacy Clay has earned my support with each and every vote he has casted against the occupation and the destruction of the Constitution.

They are chock full of stuff.  (One might say, they are positively "Clintonian" <g>).

But, seriously, they both have plans, they both talk about it.  Hillary comes off a bit more as a wonk, but that doesn't mean Obama is without a lot of substance.  

Look, in my mind, on a scale of one to ten, Clinton rates a 10 in terms of describing her proposed programs, Obama ranks a 9, and McCain ranks about a 1 or 2.  OK, fine, Clinton has more than Obama, but that doesn't mean Obama's plans are empty.

This "trashing of the other" (particularly when they are 90% the same) really bums me out . . .

I'll say it again: their main potential difference might be the ability to actually get all the things that need doing done.  As Jeralyn noted up top, that's where Hillary should be focusing.  But, alas, no, instead she, and too many here, feel compelled to describe Obama as all oratory and empty suit.  

Do you want to know why we constitute the majority of this population but we continually are cut off at the knees every time we try to get ahead?  Because of women like Arianna Huffington, Dowd eviscerate anyone who gets in their way.  

Did you know that during the Reagan years, 1 in 10 rapes was successfully prosecuted.  Now, 1 in 20 are.  England has lightened sentences for convicted rapists because it was seen as "harsh" to punish men and take them away from their families.  Young girls still have their genitals mutilated in Eqypt.  Women are set on fire if they do not give their husbands male children.  Our "allies" in Saudi Arabia tried to lash a woman who was a victim of rape.  The number one cause of death among pregnant women in the United States of America?  HOMICIDE.

I ask you again: why is it that we make up more of the population yet we are continually discarded like second class citizens?  Exactly because of crap like this.

Will women fall in line behind the first woman who could be president?  Of course not.  It's unseemly for Clinton to want to lead.  It's unladylike for her to seek the highest office in the land.  Her ankles are too thick.  She laughs too loud.  She doesn't laugh enough.  She shows her cleavage.  She's too masculine.  She pimps her daughter.  She dares to make history.

I respect Obama backers who truly believe he would be the best president -- not the first black president.  So I think it is entirely possible for people to think the former, as you suggest.  But Lewis and the Black Caucus are saying the latter.