So, how much would you pay for Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's autographs?
We have to say, we like the (admittedly fanciful) image. Barack Obama sits down at a small table, whips his checkbook out of his jacket pocket, fills out a check for $4,600 (with Michelle Obama smiling and nodding somewhere nearby) then hands it off to Hillary Clinton, who endorses it and passes it off to an aide for deposit.
But it got us wondering. Could that campaign contribution be worth more than the $4,600 Obama presumably scrawled out on the "amount" line? We doubt that Clinton personally endorsed the donation check Obama gave the campaign Thursday -- in fact, we doubt she even saw it 
-- but if she had, what would such an historic document be worth to collectors? A check signed by the nation's first bi-racial major party candidate endorsed by a woman who came within a hair of her own historic nomination?
We asked George Houle, of Los Angeles' Houle Rare Books and Autographs, who appraises and deals in historic documents and signatures. He said the value to collectors would be determined by whatever happens in November. "
Autographs of politicians are not in much demand, until they get to the White House." Harry Truman checks, he said, can be had for $250 to $500. An Abraham Lincoln check "brings $7,500 and up. A check to his wife Mary and endorsed by her could bring double that amount."
Right now, Houle said, the canceled Obama contribution check would be worth $300 to $500 though "having her ... endorse it for deposit would add considerably to its value. But, should he get elected, the value could triple or quadruple."
Supply and demand comes into play too: "Ultimate value would depend on how many autographs of his come to the market," Houle said.
-- Scott Martelle
As a woman, a Democrat and a firm supporter of Democracy, this has been the worst media coverage of a primary election ever. Also, I am totally embarrassed of Senator Obama for his morals, his associates and his views of the United States.
I have never seen such poor and biased reporting by media in my entire life.. 20 million Clinton supporters have had it with the media and injustice of this whole nominating system. This was not reporting, it was “Clinton” bashing. I felt like I was hearing headlines from the “Enquirer” . Slews of media networks followed each other down a lane of inaccurate reporting and vicious attacks against the entire Clinton family. The coverage swayed the public and government superdelegates into their “Obama Mania” corner.
For the first in my life, I am completely embarrassed of our country and it’s reporting tactics. The pundits were cruel towards our First Lady and the entire world watched.
I also cannot understand how Obama could not be embarrassed.
How dare he ask the American people to stand with him and defend his ugly beliefs from his church (Trinity United Church of Christ), his radical and anti Semitic friends and his far left views of life.
How dare Senator Obama not apologize to Senator Clinton for the cruel remarks screamed in pews of his church about whites, Senator Clinton and President Cllinton.
Instead of apologizing to the entire Clinton family, Senator Obama had regrets about having to distance himself from his church and his radical anti American buddies and mentors, Reverend Wright and Father Pflaeger.
Obama has deceived the American people and has used crooked tactics since the beginning of the primary season.
Obama kept Michigan and Florida delegates in his pocket the whole time to sway voters and superdelgates, to give himself bragging rights. "I have the most delegates. I am the winner! We have to follow the rules. Florida and Michigan will vote for me.”
Over 300 delegate and over 2 million people. He only won this primary because the fourth largest state has never been heard properly. The popular vote was ignored and the delegates were never added in full. The media displayed inaccurate maps with incorrect numbers to give Obama a free push.
For Senator Obama to accept this decision about not seating Florida and Michigan is especially troubling. How can a leader whose message is one of “unity” agree to support a decision that strips Senator Clinton of delegates and Florida voters of their voices?
I wonder whether the price the Democratic party will pay in the general election was worth Obama's very poor decision to ignore Michigan and Florida voters. Millions don’t think so.
There are also blocs of voters that Democrats need to win that Senator Obama is having a major problem with:
White Male Voters
White Women Voters
Catholic
Rust Belt Voters
Latino Voters
Cuban Voters
Swing State Voters
Jewish Voters
Big states
Women
Lunch Bucket Voters
Older voters
Catholic Voters
Evangelicals
Florida and Michiga
He couldn’t close the deal on the Democratic base: Ohio, Michigan, Florida, California, NY, NJ, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Texas and Kentucky
Barak Hussein Obama has African Americans and elitists in his pocket. Doesn't sound like a winning ticket to me.
This is the first time in my life, along with my entire community, that I will be voting for a Republican or as an Independent.
Senator Clinton does not need Obama. Obama needs Clinton. I pray that she will not accept a VP role if he offered the position.
Obama is a complete embarrassment to this country as a potential candidate for the President of the United States.
Posted by: Alecki | June 27, 2008 at 08:19 AM
The reason Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama is because they are embarrassed of him, his life, his unfair tactics and his beliefs. And they still don't know all about him.
They don't want a candidate that has been in a twenty year relationship with Reverend Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ.
They don’t’ want a candidate that has a twenty year relationship with Father Pflaeger as his compass in life
They don’t want a candidate that went to a church that supports Louis Farrakhan, an anti Semitic racist.
They don't want to defend Black Liberation theology.
They don’t want a candidate that lies about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the Syrian Criminal that sold his property to Obama and supported his campaign.
They don't want a candidate that could work with a domestic terrorist, William Ayers.
They don’t want a candidate that Hamas supports.
They don’t want a candidate that Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam support
They don’t want a candidate that has a wife that has just now realized she was proud of our country.
They don’t want a candidate that denies Florida and Michigan their voices
They don’t want a candidate that mentions 57 states in his speeches. 50 states in the USA and 57 states in the Nation of Islam (IOC website)
They don’t want a candidate that fights unfair and steals Michigan delegate votes from his opponent.
They don’t want a candidate that feels sorry to leave a church that is anti American and that preaches hatred and racial views that are cruel and nasty.
They don't want a candidate that is inexperienced.
They don’t want a candidate that considers it a loss to not to be able to attend his anti American, racist Church.
They don’t want a candidate that has a “non practicing” Muslim father, but avoids the entire discussion of his father.
They don’t’ want a candidate that won’t debate
They don’t’ want a candidate that misleads the youth with an ‘Obama girl and her behind in their face”
They don’t want a candidate that says he’s an African American and missed the MLK Remembrance Day and the Louisiana Black Caucus meeting
They don’t want a candidate that has done nothing for humanity except talk about it.
They don’t’ want a candidate that has poor judgment.
They don’t' want a candidate named; Barack Hussein Obama
He scares them to death.
He is embarrassing.
He is unelectable.
Posted by: Alecki | June 27, 2008 at 08:20 AM
Picasso always paid his bills by cheque and most people
kept the cheques . Insiders say Obama is doing the same
and saving thousands. The only 2 readable letters in his
signature are BO,wich is not very inspiring . Specialists
say his penmanship reveals a split personality with high
risks of sinking into dementia at an early age. This could
eventualy lead to impeachment proceedings should the
electorate be so naive as to elect him to the presidency.
Posted by: Wham Obam,thank you mam ! | June 27, 2008 at 08:29 AM
Hey Alecki,
So I take it that you don't like Obama? LOL!!
get over it sweetie ! LOL!!
Posted by: Dee | June 27, 2008 at 08:50 AM
Hillary is worth nothing so I would contribute $0.00.
Posted by: William Culhane | June 27, 2008 at 08:59 AM
Alecki's comments have nothing to do with the article, but they're also about the lowest common denominator of debate. There's almost no substance in that long list of complaints. She's complaining about his name, blaming him for rules he didn't create, attributing the views of others to him, and generally just lowering the level of the dialog. I hope this is not an example of how we will be debating and deciding who will serve in the most important leadership position in this country.
I'll also add that I've followed Obama closely and have been very impressed by him. I think he's one of the most dynamic and inspiring presidential candidates in some time. It was a long primary process so people can take some time to get over it but in November I hope people look at issues and substance and leave the breathless ranting for something less important.
Posted by: Dan | June 27, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Ahhhhh, comments are too long. Please don't copy and paste. that not right
Posted by: DinhLe | June 27, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Alecki,
I thought that you should read this article. It is written to you.
Your Whiteness is Showing:
An Open Letter to Certain White Women
Who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November
By Tim Wise
June 5, 2008
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.
I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified.
That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.
First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.
If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?
And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...
Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?
See, I told you your whiteness was showing.
And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?
See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?
Your whiteness is showing.
Look, I couldn't care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a security risk, and that I wouldn't be able to get clearance to be in some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important, the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b) demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been long ingrained in us as white folks--so that we believe we have the right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have done just that.
But that day is done, whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you've done so as a radical political act.
Posted by: Ben | June 27, 2008 at 09:11 AM
Clinton supporters who didn't get their way this election won't mean squat in November...Read my finger tips! They can scream and moan and shout "UNFAIR" all they want, but bite your noses to spite your face, and allow a third Bush Jr. term with McCain, and Clinton will pay either in the Senate, or in another bid to run for the presidency. People aren't as stupid as they were this last go around. Too much information is out there. Clinton played just as dirty as any Republican could ever dream of playing, and we don't even want to go into guilt by association. Now don't get me wrong, I love Hillary...But we need to beat McCain, and I support the Democratic party. Anyone that would sit this one out, or not vote because their Democratic candidate didn't win, is either crazy, a sado-masochist, or a closet Republican from the start...either way, who needs you!
Posted by: Wallace | June 27, 2008 at 09:12 AM
You'd think there would be more news in an election year, even though it's the summer doldrums, but I guess not. Maybe this would be a good time for BHO to take a couple of days off.
Posted by: nazcalito | June 27, 2008 at 09:13 AM
How bitter a pill for Billary fanatics to swallow but try as they may to demean Sen. Obama they will only reap more bitterness and frustration because whom God blesses, no man can curse. Sorry Billary fans, have some cheeze with your whine but your girl won't be getting anywhere near the white house again.
Posted by: chris c | June 27, 2008 at 09:16 AM
After I read most of the scathing comments above, I'm left to wonder.
Are these the views of disenfranchised Democrats, or another example of the Republican Dirt Machine. The views in these comments don't seem like the legitimate views of a Democrat as much as they seem to be someone desperate to propagate as many lies as they can in one place.
I was a Hillary supporter, but I don't want 4 more years of conservative politics in America.
Posted by: BillB | June 27, 2008 at 09:19 AM
To Alecki -
Most biased reporting ever?
I agree 100% that's it's been very biased for Obama - but as a conservative all I can say is "HOW'S IT FEEL???" and "WELCOME TO THE CLUB!!!"
Conservatives have been dealing with this kind of biase for decades now!
I LOVE that some democrats can finally get a little taste of it for a change! We have to take it ALL the time, not just during a primary!
I hope that MAYBE just MAYBE this will open the eyes of more than a few democrats out there to the fact that the news they just assume is unbiased and complete is ANYTHING BUT. ALL the major news organizations are nothing but propaganda machines.
We've been saying it for years, but nobody cares - at least until it hits them. And it sounds like it's hit you this time. I hope it'll open your eyes and make you more suspicious in the future. The press only prefers barak over hillary - but they HATE republicans. So what you call bias is really NOTHING compare to the constant attack on republicans.
There's one news outlet for conservatives (fox) and the rest are for liberals - CNN MSNBC ABC New York Times, Washington Post, etc etc etc.
Be careful though, you may find yourself becoming a conservative if you keep looking for the truth! Most americans are conservative by nature - but trained by the media to be liberal. Once you break out of the herd and start seeing the truth you'll become one of us, the "enemy"!!!
Posted by: Spleen | June 27, 2008 at 09:23 AM
Politics is all about the money. (I am finally getting it)
Paying off Hilary for her support is the most blatant bribe/extortion I have ever seen. They are doing right in front of everyone. They don't even try to hide it.
This is crazy.
When I invest some money, and time into something and it loses. NO one repays me.
Suck it up Hillary and don't cave Barrack.
Posted by: g-man | June 27, 2008 at 09:24 AM
Your whiteness is showing...no more need be said
Posted by: chris | June 27, 2008 at 09:24 AM
someone here sounds like Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, neo-conservative supporter..not Hillary supporter. Hillary supporter has better class as a democrat, not as a racist! How sad!
Posted by: KP | June 27, 2008 at 09:25 AM
Alecki mentioned the quality of the media coverage in her first sentence then goes on to site all the points covered by the media that have made the coverage of this election so poor.
Thanks for pointing out all the things that have no bearing on the election and should be put to rest.
Posted by: Pruce | June 27, 2008 at 09:26 AM
Alecki, all the anti-Obama things you list are things that the same media you rightly say misled the public about Hillary Clinton took out of context and used (are using) to midlead the public about Obama. (For a Democratic woman, you sure know the Republican talking points well.) And if you are truly a Democrat, take your lead from your heroine, Hillary, and vote for Obama. Anything else is a vote for a third Bush term.
Posted by: Kat | June 27, 2008 at 09:29 AM
BillB
Four MORE years of conservative politics?
We haven't had ONE yet.
Bush is NOT a conservative. Being republican does NOT make you conservative.
It's annoying when people make that mistake, so I figured I'd correct you.
And don't worry - McCain is not a conservative either.
Romney was our best bet at getting a conservative in, but he was pushed out by McCain lies.
Posted by: Spleen | June 27, 2008 at 09:30 AM
Alecki
Either be upset with Obama for the things that happened at his Christian church or claim he is Muslim, but you cant do both.
Posted by: noname | June 27, 2008 at 09:37 AM
As a proud father of a fine young daughter who just got accepted to go to UC Berkeley I am all for women rights. That is why I am totally preplexed by the claims of some of these Hillary supporters who claim that Barack Obama is a sexist. I have watched the entire Democratic primaries with careful attention and I can only say that Barack Obama has conducted himself through out the process in a manner that has made me a proud supporter of him. It seems to me that some of these women are projecting their own personal disappointments and rejections in life as somehow related to Hillary Clinton's defeat and see her as the victim. And thereby, by association, the victor Obama has to be the perpetrator of all of these injustices. I believe these women should take a step back and try to separate out their emotions and look at this objectively. And in case you are wondering, my daughter agrees with me. And so does my wife!
Posted by: JoeB | June 27, 2008 at 09:45 AM
Alecki , you are NO democrat or a liberal. You are a confused republican. Please, vote the way your gut tells you. But do not try and insult the intelligence of the progressive movement in America.
Who do you think contributed millions of dollars to Obama's campaign?
College kids? Maybe.
But my guess is that ...
These were upper through lower middle class white men and women. These were their brown, and black brothers and sisters.
These were working class men and women, these were people trying to make ends meet donating $5, $10.
We all look different.
We all believe that we can, and We will.
Posted by: Nikita | June 27, 2008 at 09:57 AM
To All RE: Aleki aka AL
This person has posted this same essay on more than 1 website. Distracting the conversation from the article posted into chaos
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/all-aboard-the-trip-to-unity/index.html?hp)
Sorry for ignoring the golden rule of feeding the trolls but I'm kind of tired of these tangential rants in comments sections that keep us from discussing the article and it's subject in a more clear and respectable manner
Posted by: Phil | June 27, 2008 at 09:58 AM
To Alecki -
Do you realize that it is because of you our country is in the fiix it is.
Do you realize people like you cause a lot of others to suffer unnecessarily because you got mad. You picked on your toys and went home like a spoiled brat.
You don't love your country. It is all about you....
How selfish!!!
And yes, I voted for Hillary in the early primaries before finding out how close of a republican she really is.
She played dirty. But I guess its politics.
Look in the mirror and you see me.
Its right, I look like you. I'm just not a spoiled brat...
Posted by: sty | June 27, 2008 at 10:06 AM
On Alecki,
The letter written by Alecki seems very familiar. I have seen many similar letters, and that is what they are cut and pasted, on comment boards almost everyday. They rarely have anything to do with the article that they are commenting on. They are poser republican mud slingers that are too afraid to write a comment as themselves.
The people have awakened.
Vote for Change .
Posted by: Tim | June 27, 2008 at 01:12 PM