Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Et Tu, Carville?
- The Math
- The Goldberg Variation
- House Republican Leaders Twist Obama Statement on Israel
- Super-Scooping Super-Ds
- Coates: "The Myth of the Black Racist Voter"
- Pro-Clinton Unions Continue Full-Steam Ahead
- McCain Campaign v Newsweek
- Huckabee on Novak's Column: "It's Total and Absolute Nonsense"
- Hillary's New Internet Video
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Michelle Obama on Diversity, Comfort Zones, and America | Main | Poll Dance »
Clinton Fat Cats Hiss at Pelosi
March 26, 2008 10:10 PM
Were a bunch of Clinton donors threatening to withhold contributions to the Democratic House campaign committee if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., doesn't change her position on superdelegates?
Not directly, no.
But a brouhaha has erupted over recent comments made by Pelosi on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", when Pelosi, who will chair the Democratic National Convention, seemed to give a boost to the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."
Taking umbrage, a list of big Democratic donors who support the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have written a letter to Pelosi (subsequently released to the press) pointing out that "Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes" and arguing "None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.
"During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984…"
Then the donors -- Marc Aronchick, Clarence Avant, Susie Tompkins Buell, Sim Farar, Robert L. Johnson, Chris Korge, Marc and Cathy Lasry, Hassan Nemazee, Alan and Susan Patricof, JB Pritzker, Amy Rao, Lynn de Rothschild, Haim Saban, Bernard Schwartz, Stanley S. Shuman, Jay Snyder, Maureen White and Steven Rattner -- reminded Pelosi that they have given generously to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which helps fund Democratic House races.
"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC." they wrote. "We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters."
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly in a statement said, "Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August. That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes."
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, noting the donors' reminder to Pelosi of their largesse, said, "This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives."
-- jpt
March 26, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (233)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/27498494
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Fat Cats Hiss at Pelosi:
Go Hillary!
I hope those of you that are anti Hillary lose your jobs to a less qualified smooth talking person in your lives. It seems that's the only way you will truly understand what's going on in this election.
We were all brought up to always pick the most qualified person for a job. Affirmative action should not apply for the presidency. Period.
Posted by: SO | Mar 27, 2008 10:37:33 PM
Chabuka,
Al Gore won the 2000 election.
Besides, are you saying that Hillary should not have run because Al Gore was running for presidet?
How crazy is that comment?
Posted by: Sammy | Mar 27, 2008 10:29:09 PM
The truth is;
Pelosi has not shown any leadership in this election.
1. She seems in favor of not having FL and MI have a revote
2. Her public comments have shown that she is behind Obama and not just that, but she is anti Clinton
3. Not once has she called on the candidates to cool down their rhetoric
It seems to me that Pelosi wants to remain the only powerful woman in Washington.
The true leaders are the ones that really remain neutral in the race.
Posted by: Sam | Mar 27, 2008 10:19:26 PM
At It Again! According to ABCNews, in a January 2008 speech at the University of South Carolina, Michelle Obama made more anti-American remarks which are making the rounds on the Internet today. Talking about her experience at Princeton where she hung with a largely African-American crowd, she said, "We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables - you all living in different dorms. I was there. You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community."
Michelle Obama went on to say "Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America! So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?" I'm sure we all know what she's talking about when she reflects on the comfort many of us feel with those of our specific cultural or ethnic groups. Listen our future First Lady calling American people ignorant. Listen:
She wants to be the First Lady?
Posted by: Disenfranchised_FL_Voter | Mar 27, 2008 4:42:34 PM
At It Again! According to ABCNews, in a January 2008 speech at the University of South Carolina, Michelle Obama made more anti-American remarks which are making the rounds on the Internet today. Talking about her experience at Princeton where she hung with a largely African-American crowd, she said, "We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables - you all living in different dorms. I was there. You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community."
Michelle Obama went on to say "Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America! So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?" I'm sure we all know what she's talking about when she reflects on the comfort many of us feel with those of our specific cultural or ethnic groups. Listen our future First Lady calling American people ignorant. Listen:
She wants to be the First Lady?
Posted by: Disenfranchised_FL_Voter | Mar 27, 2008 4:36:50 PM
If Pelosi were truly neutral as she has claimed she would have kept her mouth shut. I am glad she is being called on her blatant support of Obama. She is supposed to support the party not a particular candidate. And for all the people whining about how Hillary is attacking Obama and ruining his chances, the vast majority of the heat has been coming from the right wing and they are just getting warmed up. They are showing Obama for the weak candidate that he is. I hope the super's are paying attention.
Posted by: Firefighter | Mar 27, 2008 4:33:20 PM
Yeah, Pelosi, the useless Dem leader. Why don't you focus on your own short comings and figure out what you need to do in Congress before we vote you OUT!
Posted by: Priscilla | Mar 27, 2008 3:56:53 PM
If Obama gets nominated, I'll vote for McCain, period. I won't vote for Ralph Nader as a protesting vote. I'll vote for whoever having chance to beat this liar Obama. And the bigger margin, the better. I'd love to see these morons humiliated for giving away the easy victory by supporting this unelectable candidate.
4 or 8 years of Republicans in White House? Fine, let this country go to hell before we clean up these power hungry Democratic politicians: Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy. Let them suffer with us. Let those no-brain Obama supporters suffer financially for years to come.
Then we can find another person to fix this country after Obama "fixes our soul" as his wife promised.
Posted by: Carl | Mar 27, 2008 3:32:57 PM
Pretty funny..considering Hillary took so much money from the DNC to "win" her seat as a New York Senator....there was hardly any thing left for Al Gore to run his Presidential campaign on...another scorched earth policy...her ambition..a stepping stone (by stepping on) to a Presidential bid...and to hell with anybody else, or the "party"..
Posted by: chabuka | Mar 27, 2008 3:11:25 PM
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. McCaine is the next prez; a pick that neither party can be happy with.
Posted by: jalapenopecker | Mar 27, 2008 2:52:08 PM
John McCain, like Hillary Clinton aught to be vetted and combed to see who they really are. This has been done to Barack Obama and there is no there there. So much so that they have used his kindergarten history to make a case against him. Since the K records exposé was seen as trite they moved on to his admitted drug use, even tried tarnishing him as a drug dealer. That didn't stick, so they had an issue with his name, Rush Limbaugh used the music to "Puff the Magic Dragon" substituting "Barack the Magic Negro". Then came the revelation that he was a Muslim, raised in Indonesia and taught radical Islam in a madrassa. Then the photo was circulated of him in local Kenyan garb, thus proving that he was a terrorist Muslim. Since the slime hunters could not dredge up anything meaningful to use against him they then turned their attention to people he had any associations with. This Jeremiah Wright issue is just the latest smear that the right have magnified in their echo chamber in their vain attempt to derail Obama. Then they moved on to hist passport record to see where in the world he could have visited that could be used against him. Seems like the only thing they can nail him on is his race and they, the right wing lunatics, will go hell for leather to associate Barack with every negative racial stereotype in order to diminish his standing with the American people, to the point where he becomes unelectable.
Posted by: Simon | Mar 27, 2008 2:11:12 PM
John McCain is a straight talking con man; just check the records of his involvement with the Keating Five. Right now he's sitting on a mountain of documents, pertaining to the Abramoff scandal, which would end the careers of a lot of powerful people. Perhaps sitting on the lid of this potential cauldron is what has enabled him to win the nomination of his party.
Posted by: William | Mar 27, 2008 1:45:06 PM
The Clinton's arrogance has crossed the proper boundary and the Democratic party should ask these two leave the party quietly.
Posted by: PleaseNo,NotHer! | Mar 27, 2008 12:57:05 PM
Haven't you seen the interview of college students where Hillary held her
initial campaign speeches and qa sessions?
Students told news reporters that Hillary's campaign staff gave
pre-printed questions to ask Hillary during the q/a session, and the
unsuspecting students fell for it. I am not making this up.
Now Hillary "sniper-fire" Clinton might be trying to change the subject
from her Bosnia lies. She is trying to get the sympathy votes.
Hillary and her camp is trying to divert attention from her sniper-fire
Bosnian trip.
She is a liar.
No liars for president.
No crooks for president.
No more pity votes.
No more sympathy votes.
Release your tax return.
Let us see your land dealings.
Let us see your sources of income.
Let us see whom you paid to murder Vince Forster.
Posted by: Dave | Mar 27, 2008 12:55:49 PM
Frank,
The contract went to airbus because they were responsive to the airforce whereas boeing expected the contract and was non-responsive to the air forces requests. Also if you read the article about it airbus has doled out the jobs to different cities in the US, so they will be creating jobs here as well, and deliver the taxpayers a better product for less or would you prefer a no bid contract given to boeing because they are an American company. As far as John McCain being an opportunistic liar and a fraud, he is a politician and they are all that especially hillary and oboma. It is what they lie about that matters and for his tenure there is a lot less dirt on him than shillary or barack in a lot less service to this country. This man does not vote the party line he votes for what he thinks is best for the country and that is what we need. The problem with this country (besides ignorance) is the far left liberals and the far right conservatives that are battling for the upperhand in government which is destroying everything in between and if you do not believe that then you are obviously in favor of one of those groups (my guess is liberal). Meaning I am just wasting my time trying to inform you because you won't believe it anyway because it does not fit in your program.
Posted by: Matt | Mar 27, 2008 12:46:45 PM
Geezz Mattohio: wake-up!! that's nothing!!
are you one of the Fat cats?
I don't think so!!
so just google "clintons" then you know realy about the clintons.
After seven years of Bush/Cheney violations of treaties and international law, of trashing the Constitution, of defying Congressional subpoenas, and of nullifying acts of Congress with signing statements, it is not likely that the American public will have much stomach for another President that regards ,Hillary, herself as unbound by rules or, by implication, by laws.
Bill Clinton lied before a grand jury.
Hlliary Clinton lied in front of hundreds of supporters and journalists on the campaign trail. She lied not once, twice….
Hillary's attitude is "it must be me, or nobody!"
Hillary and Bill Clinton are for the wholesale market of manipulation and swindling.
After "35 years of experience" Hillary has learned:
Audience manipulation, her twisting of events, the tale's swindling core.
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? No, NO, NO.
Bush and Clinton ear are done in 2008!!!
Go Nancy!! don't back down!!
Posted by: womenpa | Mar 27, 2008 12:33:29 PM
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday evening strongly indicates that the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton is losing much of whatever steam it's been managing to previously hold onto. Conversely, Sen. Barack Obama, in the wake of the Rev Jeremiah Wright and Bosnia controversies, has managed to gain appreciable momentum. HillaBamaDramaRama continues.
The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday, and compares the results from March 12th. Below are the poll's key findings.
-Negatives: Clinton has jumped to 48% from 43%. Her negative rating is now bigger than her positive (37%). By contrast, Obama's negative rating sits at 32% against his 49% positive. He was previously at 51% positive/28% negative
-Obama vs McCain: Obama up 44%-42%, from 47%-44%.
-Clinton vs McCain: McCain has pulled ahead 46%-44%. Clinton previously had held a 47%-45% over the Arizona Senator.
-Obama vs Clinton: 45%-45%. This is significant, since Obama has come even for the first time. Clinton had held a 47%-43% lead.
Posted by: hlc | Mar 27, 2008 12:09:14 PM
If McCain is presidential material why is it that he appears to be on the wrong side of every issue. Or could it be that he's just another turtured soul in search of redemption, and being president will automatically pull everything together for him. Back in 2000, Rove cast him as a man on the edge, driven there by torture in Vietnam. The Bush team also push-polled him in the Carolinas as the father of a black child. He himself cast the religious right as "agents of intolerance" during the primaries of 2000. Yet this make believe straight shooter demeaned himself by seeking out the approval of his political enemies, this time around, on his way to the party's nomination.
This guy is an opportunistic liar and a fraud.
Remember the Keating five? He's one of the five, engaged in the swindle of the savings and loans scanddal of the 80's.
Just recently he has been praised by the French for effectively handing over a lucrative $40 Billion contract to Airbus Industries to build tanker planes for our military, rather than to keep these jobs here at home with a contract with Boeing.
Posted by: Frank | Mar 27, 2008 12:03:37 PM
I have never even heard of these people who threatened Pelosi.
Marc Aronchick, Clarence Avant, Susie Tompkins Buell, Sim Farar, Robert L. Johnson, Chris Korge, Marc and Cathy Lasry, Hassan Nemazee, Alan and Susan Patricof, JB Pritzker, Amy Rao, Lynn de Rothschild, Haim Saban, Bernard Schwartz, Stanley S. Shuman, Jay Snyder, Maureen White and Steven Rattner.
Posted by: Joey Bee | Mar 27, 2008 12:00:37 PM
What so many people ignore is that caucus voters are not equivalent to primary voters. Primary voters are not equivalent to November voters, but are much closer to them - in states that voted, rather than caucused, Hillary has won, and she has won the states that are the bellweather states for Dems to win in November.
It's suicide to deny superdelegates the right to be a rudder - that's what they were designed to do!
Posted by: Stanley | Mar 27, 2008 11:53:47 AM
All the more reason to vote for Mccain. The dems will get more done in congress with him as the president.
Posted by: Matt | Mar 27, 2008 11:46:22 AM
Obama Zombies?
Why you snarky Hillarious Hairy blighter.
They must have a minnion of you, paid or otherwise, name-callers lined up to swamp the Internet with your hilarious blather.
Posted by: William | Mar 27, 2008 11:40:10 AM
Does America really want someone prone to hallucinations in the WH? Reviewing Hillary's methodical playing of the "Race card", and "The Perpetual Victim" against Obama; her inability to control her own campaign finances; and, her recent commentary on: Iraq; Pakistan; Energy Policy; her stated intention to confiscate the profits of American energy companies; the need for her to control the 14 Trillion $ American Economy from her White House Politburo, since she has declared the free-market to be a failure (this from a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as "Madam" and Bimbo Containment Chief for Bill's White House Brothel); her Marxist statement in San Francisco: "We're going to have to take more from you, and give it to others for the common good."; Illegal Immigration; Taxes; Infanticide; Massive new Government spending; Multi million $ Senate earmarks for supporters of Hillary's Presidential campaign; Garnishing of your wages to fund her coveted Socialized medicine program; a fanatical advocate of confiscating all civilian handguns; and, the Clinton's history of emasculating the military, verifies that this grievously flawed woman would be the female version of the Jimmy Carter debacle that gave us the Ayatollah Khomeini who ushered in rampant Islamic radicalism; block-long lines at our gasoline stations; a severely hollow military; and, a record Misery Index. Only much worse. Considering all of Hillary's recent gaffes, e.g. "I voted FOR IT (referring to the Bankruptcy Bill); but, I was glad to see that it didn't pass."; her hallucinations over "Landing under intense sniper fire in Bosnia."; misrepresentations on NAFTA; or, her fantasized role in the Irish Peace Process; and, her increasingly frequent crying jags, one has to wonder if excessive use of Botox has affected her mental stability. It's no wonder that her campaign staff is shielding her from reporter and audience unscripted questions. The prospect of Madam Hillary as President; in a word: TERRIFYING. Greg N
Posted by: Greg Neubeck | Mar 27, 2008 11:35:04 AM
May we see what's in the Clinton Tax Returns?
Pray tell us where the source of the$5,000,000 campaign!
How about opening the books for the American people to see who donated to the Clinton "Fort Knox" Library in Arkansas.
Why is our once esteemed ex-president taking graft from the oil-rich Muslims?
Pray tell us why is it so important for Hillary to become the Democratic nominee when by all indications are that the Republicans will mop the floors with her come the general election.
Seems like they just love being on the inside with the rich and powerful.
Posted by: Nigel | Mar 27, 2008 11:28:09 AM
I'm the last person to defend Nancy Pelosi after we gave the Democrats the message to do something about the BCF, only to be deflated by her "off the table" remark. However, in this primary battle between two hopefuls, she's indicating what everyone already figured out, that the party leaders just could not afford to overturn the rules without serious consequences to the party.
So Hillary can contort and transfigure her mind in her conniptions on how she can possibly get a favorable outcome to something that is already over, all she likes, provided it does no permanent harm to the Democratic party. But we have reached a point in this character assasination of Barack Obama that may render him impotent, come the general election. The leaders of this party will be viewed as weak, at minimum, and in league with the forces of fascism, at worst, if they allow Hillary and Bill Clinton to divide and destroy the Democratic party as they descend into a death spiral that will destroy the Clinton brand.
Posted by: William | Mar 27, 2008 11:14:51 AM
Mrs. Polosi`s remarks should remind everyone of the socialist/communist tendencies of entire Deomocrat Party
Posted by: Dave | Mar 27, 2008 10:56:18 AM
Tax Returns?
None of your business, after all I'm the commander-in-chief and I can do whatever I want to, I am the law.
Chelsea gave a questioner a similar retort when asked an impertinent question.
Seems like the chip not flying far from the block.
Chelsea might yet best her mother, by actually running for and winning the Republican nomination not too far down the road.
Posted by: Granville | Mar 27, 2008 10:53:54 AM
Pelosi NEVER said the super-delegates cannot vote as they wish; she knows the rules. She simply said if they go against the will of the voting public it will harm the Democratic party.
She is right; if they go against the will of the voting public (whether it's Clinton or Obama), it will harm the Democratic party.
Posted by: nandssmith | Mar 27, 2008 10:53:31 AM
How about some truth Hillary!
How about laying off the emotinal roller coaster ride you're giving us Democrats?
How about returning the cash you've collected from the pre-selling of the White House influence you and hubby had hoped to peddle?
How about them tax return apples??
Let's be relevant and stop yakking about Obama's sins of association, let's see what you're covering up by releasing the unredated papers of the White House years. Let's see what's in the Arkansas history whilst you were in Little Rock.
Posted by: Joe | Mar 27, 2008 10:43:12 AM
Mercy mercy me. What is wrong with Pelosi, Dean and Reid? Are they trying to give our country away? I'm just full of questions today. Are all of you so afraid that Hillary can run the country in a manner to restore prosperity and safety that you will hold your resentment for her and sell our nation short? Did she lick the red off your candy at some point and time? If so, ask yourself how mature am I. Do you think you can contol Obama easier? What if, just what if he is part of Louis Farakan, Tony R., Jeremiah Wright and whoever else clan. Little scarrie for me. Don't forget Kerrie and Kennedy. The only thing amusing about all of this is they will have to cast their vote for Hillary. Oh my!!
Posted by: C Good | Mar 27, 2008 10:35:43 AM
Pelosi needs to be very careful on how she uses her power when she speaks. Its likely that she will need to raise money for her future campaigns and be needing the so called "fat cats" to donate to her campaign. Plus if she is not careful, the republicans will take back control of the house and she will lose her prestigious position as Speaker of the House. She and Dean need to figure out what to do about the FL and MI voters as well as ensuring that we have fair contests even though she is already biased.
Posted by: terry | Mar 27, 2008 10:19:33 AM
Callin all Clintonites, Clintonians, and Clintonistas, for heaven's sake stop with the divisive crap already. If in your heart-of-heart you are a Democrat then please plead with your candidate to cease these vicious attacks against the party's front-runner. This protracted effort to destroy Barack Obama's standing in the eyes of the American people is back-firing on Hillary, in particular, and the Clinton legacy overall. Why would a Democrat praise a Republican rival over a fellow Democrat? My simplistic answer would be that the praiser is a poser, and a Republican shill.
Posted by: Nigel | Mar 27, 2008 10:13:50 AM
massense - go whizz somewhere else.
Like paid assasins they persue their victim.
Karma will have its day.
You sow the wind and inherit a whirlwind.
Posted by: John | Mar 27, 2008 10:05:25 AM
Obama's hands are not clean either -- Obama Camp Tries to Sway Hillary’s Pledged Delagates
----------
If the superdelegates are supposed to vote the will of the people then Gov. Richardson, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy, etc.. will have to change their support for Hillary Clinton.
It just seems that Nancy and Obama want to state the rules when it suits them but not actually have to follow them in all cases. what good are the DNC rules if the superdelegates ignore them anyway? Superdelegates are already overriding the will of the voters--that's the big issue. Obama is encouraging it just as much as Clinton is doing. In fact, Obama may be doing more of it given the link to the article above. it explains how he is converting pledged delegates over to him...wonder what the rules say about that?
Posted by: terry | Mar 27, 2008 9:58:51 AM
More Clinton poor loser tactics...does not matter, Obama will be the nominee and win in Nov.
Posted by: leslie | Mar 27, 2008 9:48:42 AM
"You suggested [in a recent television interview] superdelegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd, whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2," the Clinton backers wrote. "This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party''s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984."
I think Nancy has got this right, for a change, after all isn''t each delegate a superdelegate? What the Clinton campaign has been trying to do all along is to shut his race down & play the race card whenever it is convenient for Hillary - The Great White Hope Myth - that they''ve been playing all along.So sad!
Jusst who are Hillary't major campaign donators. Just where is Hillary's income tax filings for 2007.
It doesn't sing & dance - but MONEY TALKS. So Sad!
Posted by: Great White Myth | Mar 27, 2008 9:44:00 AM
I just donated more money to Barack Obama. If there's one thing that talks loud in this country, it's cash, and guess who raises more of it? The door is closing on Hillary's campaign. If anyone out there truly thinks she still has a chance, I feel sorry for you.
Posted by: josh | Mar 27, 2008 9:39:57 AM
I don't believe Kerry and Kennedy will support Hillary due to the fact that Kerry is bitter over the fact that he lost the election to Bush. Kennedy doesn't want Hillary to become president because he knows he can get his bills passed thru Obama. Richardson wants to be a VP that's why he endorsed Obama but I think Obama is going to pick Patrick because he is black. Obama is not fooling me, he is racial like his pastor but does a good job of hiding it from the white people. I cannot understand why the whites would not vote for their own race as the blacks vote for theirs. Do we want a president in the white house whose pastor is a racist against this country. I don't think so. Obama and Michelle love this country? Give me a break. Michelle is as racial as he is.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Mar 27, 2008 9:29:38 AM
Surely this thing would be over were the Clintons and Obama positions reversed. Yet the corporate media persist in the lie that somehow the race is neck-and-neck. The Clintons have pre-sold their influence on the presumption that the walk into the White House was going to be a "cake-walk." Now that little "fairy tale" has turned into a "3 am" nightmare. Their donors expect something for the millions thay've anted-up, and Hillary's refusal to acknowledge that the gig is up provides some measure of return on the investment.
Posted by: Emilio | Mar 27, 2008 9:23:39 AM
What gallup poll are you looking at???
The gallup poll has Obama up by 2 (tie). Last week Hillary was up by 7. SHE HAS LOST THAT LEAD.
Hillary now has a positive rating of 37, down 8 points from 2 weeks ago.
Obama went down 2. 49 from 51 two weeks ago (Rev. Wright controversy didn't hurt him much).
I was reading the New York Post and SDs are really questioning Hillary because of her Bosnia story.
She also has Military people speaking against her.
Seems to me, Hillary has REALLY shot herself in the leg this time.
Posted by: Yes Yes Yes | Mar 27, 2008 9:23:15 AM
Hillary is fighting her last fight,i assure you she will lose and there will be no more chance for her in the party till 'thy kingdom come'.politically she is over.
Posted by: ben ohio | Mar 27, 2008 9:20:23 AM
The donors have the right to spend their donation money, and use whatever influence that derives from that money, as they see fit. And there's nothing Whether it was wise to send an open letter to Pelosi pointing out that fact is another question. As far as "donor and sponsor politics," please dont be so naive as to think it it is only the Clinton campaign that cajoles and twists arms to advance its political gains. We've already heard about the Obama campaign's heavy-handed pressure tactics to swing superdelegates to their side. Fair game, and both sides are playing it.
Posted by: shellray | Mar 27, 2008 9:18:13 AM
Obama is presidential indeed,his linage can be traced back to six former presidents.
Posted by: jef | Mar 27, 2008 9:13:57 AM
Willaim**** I'm a teacher from Louisiana. NO ONE pays me to speak the TRUTH about Obama.
In your suggestion that only paid people (on the internet) support CLinton--I just wanted to clarify that!!!!
Posted by: Bonny | Mar 27, 2008 9:06:54 AM
Wow, the Audacity of being the Clintons. If Clinton was ahead, do you Clinton supporters honestly think she would be taking this position? Insanity. Clinton is a power-hungry liar. She's exposed herself and is basically implicitly saying that her and her husband will tear their own party apart if they can't be top dogs. If the superdelegates don't respect the will of the people, why did we even vote? Just let the superdelegates exercise their independent judgement and leave Democrat voters out of it, no? Anybody supporting Clinton at this point needs to take a real deep breath, a step back, and look at yourself, at Clinton, at what you're really becoming. I know you're disappointed but Jesus. Clinton and her supporters are getting scary. Don't do this to yourselves. It's a loser's mentality.
Posted by: brad | Mar 27, 2008 9:04:47 AM
The clintons are comfirmed liars,no way for them this time no matter the option,incuding tanya harding option.
Posted by: sam | Mar 27, 2008 9:03:39 AM
let hillary get out of the way , presidency is never her right,as she believes, Can somebody tell her please !!
Posted by: ed | Mar 27, 2008 8:58:17 AM
James Danley (8:30 am post), I've never heard it put so well. Your observations are very well-made. If more would look at the situation as objectively as you have, we'd all be better off.
Posted by: Laves sus Manos | Mar 27, 2008 8:57:16 AM
Regarding the Democratic party and the infighting going on in the primary campaign: What the Dems don't seem to realize is that they're straying far from the party lines. That being the case, I personally don't care if the party self-destructs. It is not acting in the interests of true Democrats. Take it all the way to the end, Hillary. At worst, we'll wind up with a reformed party. Obama should go home with the chickens to roost.
Posted by: MGPGH | Mar 27, 2008 8:52:54 AM
Blackmailing Pelosi is just one of the 'hardings' options,may God help us.
Posted by: adams | Mar 27, 2008 8:52:52 AM
Remember when Obama famously declared that he could get Clinton's voters but she could not get his? Time to rethink that proposition. The Gallup Poll has Obama losing 28% of Clinton supporters against McCain (19% of Obama supporters defect to McCain if Clinton is the nominee.)
Posted by: Disenfranchised_FL_Voter | Mar 27, 2008 8:52:21 AM
I think Obama's Achilles heel has been exposed and it's not clear to me that he'd do the ticket more good than harm. I used to agree that a unity ticket would be overwhelming, but now I think she might be better off on her own. With him in the lead slot, with or without her, he's sunk.
Posted by: Disenfranchised_FL_Voter | Mar 27, 2008 8:49:59 AM
jkan: Nancy Pelosi doesn't want Hillary as president because she would have a higher position than Nancy. Hillary is much smarter than Dean, Reid and Pelosi
and they wouldn't be able to fool her like they would Obama. The superdelegates should count when they are added to the delegates. I hope those 20 superdelegates that wrote that letter hold up the nomination of Obama and stick it to Dean, Nancy and Reid. Dean endorsed Obama months ago and was not supposed to state that decision as chairman. He doesn't want the MI and FL delegates to be seated because Hillary would catch up to Obama.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Mar 27, 2008 8:49:57 AM
Polls conducted nationally by Gallup, Quinnipiac University, and AOL show Hillary Clinton leading by an average margin of 15 points nationally. According to Gallup, this marks the sixth consecutive day of Gallup Poll Daily tracking showing Clinton with a statistically significant lead over Obama, something she had not accomplished since Feb. 7-9 polling. Clinton’s recent momentum has coincided with the controversy created by Obama’s association with the anti-US and racially charge sermons conducted by his long-time advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. See the latest Gallup, Quinnipiac University and AOL poll results. Read about the nationwide Momentum Shift.
Posted by: Disenfranchised_FL_Voter | Mar 27, 2008 8:47:56 AM
***Brenna & Grow-up***
The beautiful thing about American is: I CAN VOTE FOR WHOM EVER I WANT TO!!!
Yes, I Can!
Go Hillary!!
Posted by: Bonny | Mar 27, 2008 8:44:12 AM
Obama lied on an issue that effects many
His own words was Wright sets his moral Compass.
Read chapter 15 of Dreams of my father.
Obama knew this man was an issue for years... I voted for him but I will no longer .
PelosI needs to listen and Read his book!!!!
If this man is his moral compass that is what Obama called him in the Chicaho paper Interview you can read it yourself, just like the book!!! Now a Clinton supporter
Posted by: kolasea | Mar 27, 2008 8:43:43 AM
It is obvious that most of Clinton's staunchest supporters are in fact REPUBLICANS -- same as they are! The only reason she's running as a Democrat is pure expediency. We should recognize a wolf in sheep clothing, but some of our Democratic brethren have been achored to the ides that the Clintons are Democrats. They are Clintons first and foremost, and their thirst for power is insatiable. They would rather wreck the Democrats chances of regaining power by prolonging their own death spiral, than to step-aside for the unity of the party and the necessary healing of hurt feelings.
Posted by: sicnarfe | Mar 27, 2008 8:40:03 AM
Believe or not, when someone called from the DCCC to ask for my donation, I said basically the same thing. I'm closing my wallet to DCCC as long as Pelosi is showing such blatant bias against Hillary's campaign. It is unnecessary for her to say such stupid things, including her comments about no dream ticket. This women should keep her mouth shut and let the people decide.
I live in FL and will withdraw my support as a Democrat.
McCain ... You have a new voter! Me.
Posted by: Disenfranchised_FL_Voter | Mar 27, 2008 8:39:54 AM
Things are going to get a whole lot worse.
Posted by: smearjay | Mar 27, 2008 8:37:10 AM
To Grow Up - I totally, totally agree with you. Voting for McCain if your candidate doesn't win is like a child sticking out his/her tongue and saying "I'm not gonna be your friend anymore." Really silly stuff. Revenge voting will only hurt you people in the end. This voting process is serious stuff and the future of our country depends on who winds up in the White House. Either democrat will be infinitely better than McCain. If your candidate doesn't get the nomination swallow your pride and disappointment (and anger) and be a grownup about this. This goes for both Obama supporters and Hillary supporters. WE NEED TO GET A DEMOCRAT, EITHER ONE, ELECTED.
Posted by: Brenna | Mar 27, 2008 8:37:07 AM
My reaction as an independent is to write a check for $ 100 to Clinton’s campaign (Saturday morning) and plan on another if she is nominated. Obama and his elite will get nothing, including my vote.
Its been three weeks in which several polls show that Clinton has a lead on McCain in the general election and Obama loses by a large margin. While that would only be the starting base for the general election campaign, the Obama advocates should really stop showing their uninformed bias by claiming he is the only one that could beat McCain. Shouting among yourselves does nothing to make it true.
His involvement with the lunetic racist Rev. Wright is enough to make most American throw up!
Posted by: Robin_MI | Mar 27, 2008 8:35:06 AM
Thinking: What have you been drinking? Obama is running for president just to make history. He wouldn't know what to do on day one. He is as helpless and a two year old. For graduating college he is as dumb as they come. The only thing he is smart at is using other's speeches and hiding the fact that he is racial like his racist crazy pastor. And it is the white people of today that are sucker enough to vote him in office. But I hope those 20 millionaires that are superdelegates put a stop on it so he cannot get the nomination.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Mar 27, 2008 8:35:03 AM
Grow Up, you are among the many who just don't get it. So many of you keep arguing time and price (both monetary and casualty) limits on the Battle of Iraq. Our American Revolution took 8 years (1775-1783) before the British surrendered. It took another four years (1787) before the U. S. Constitution was adopted; another year (1788) for the ratification of the U. S. Constitution; and another 9 months (Mar 4, 1789) before the First Congress convened. That is FOURTEEN years! But sadly the Indian Wars lasted another 101 years, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of casualties on both sides.
The overthrowing of Saddam Hussein, the elections forming the Iraqi government, the adoption and ratification of the Iraqi Constitution, and the seating of the Iraqi Parliament, and the continued insurgency have so far taken 5 years.
But even more importantly, the Battle of Iraq has long since become al Qaeda's primary battlefield in their jihad against Western Civilization. We have only two options in this jihad: Either we die or the terrorists and their ideology die. You can't place a price tag or time limit on the fight for the survival of Western Civilization. That would be like saying it costs too much (monetarily and in casualites) to prosecute crime in America. So we should just give up and let the criminals run rampant -- everyone just fend for yourself. Defeating the terrorists and their ideology must be the first priority. Yes, even over domestic issues. For with the defeat of Western Civilization there won't be any of us left to even have domestic issues.
A President Clinton or a President Obama will place the Battle of Iraq, and as such the War on Terror, down the list of priorities. Either will likely bring our troops home prematurely and hand al Qaeda it's long sought military victory over the mighty U. S. military. And that will become the first step in the last days of Western Civilization.
You will say this is just more fear-mongering. But you are wrong! This is just telling it like is is...the real truth that many of you just want to deny or ignore!
Posted by: James Danley | Mar 27, 2008 8:30:51 AM
Jay: You are so right. I will be glad when Nancy Pelosi gets herself out of being house speaker. Howard Dean should never have been voted chairman. I never liked him or Nancy. I am aware of the fact they are supporting Obama that's why Dean does not want to seat the MI and FL delegates because Hillary would catch up to Obama. If the superdelegates for Hillary are smart they would hold up the nomination until Michigan and Florida delegates are seated. New Hampshire changed their primary date and was not penalized. That was because Dean thought Obama was going to win that state, but he lost. There has been a lot of trouble in this election ever since Obama ran for the presidency. He has copied all his speeches from MLK, JFK and used the word hope from RFK because I read RFK's speech on the internat. This last speech he made was created by a woman who helped him and that was also on the internet. He cannot do anything for himself without the help of others. How then could he ever run this country. And it has not come out yet but I understand that Bill Richardson also had an affair with another woman. And Bill Richardson is looking for a VP job that's why he endorsed Obama. But he may get fooled, Hillary could still win that nomination.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Mar 27, 2008 8:28:35 AM
I believe that this has already damaged the party. I believe that most Clinton supporters will never vote for Obama and the same with Obama supporters. ( I will never vote for Obama)
**My question is: Will Kennedy and Kerry pledge their support to Clinton, since that is who won in their state???
Posted by: Bonny | Mar 27, 2008 8:22:44 AM
Bunny, a long and bloody battle will not help democrats in November to win the White House. There is a clear choice here to make. Superdelegates will make a decision and select the nominee and give him/her the opportunity to fight against McCain. Or the fighht will go on until the convention and a weak nominee will come out but will face a strong McCain and lose. The choise is between a democrat in the WH or a 3rd term WBush. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.
Posted by: BKMC | Mar 27, 2008 8:07:55 AM
I am "one of the small supporters" who will withhold my donation to the party if Obama gets the nod. I am a hard line democrat who believes that this needs to play out to the end. The party is already spintered. This election season has already done so much damage to the democratic party. So--lets see how this thing goes. They NEED to come up with a way to seat Florida and Michigan.
Posted by: Bonny | Mar 27, 2008 7:58:13 AM
yes, yes, yes - The truly sad thing about your comment is that once the democratic insiders choose their pre-annointed and media pushed choice (Obama), the democrats will then proceed to lose a general election that should have been a no-brainer. Sad, Sad, Sad.
Posted by: mhhunt | Mar 27, 2008 7:47:31 AM
It's clear the Democratic top leaders (Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid) support Obama. That's why I'm positive Obama will get this nomination if it goes to the convention.
After Obama gets the nomination, they will then place the Florida and Michigan delegates on the floor.
Everyone should view the new nbc poll.
Posted by: Yes Yes Yes | Mar 27, 2008 7:28:55 AM
Americans,
If you elect John McCain for president, please spare the rest of the world your whining when the body bags continue to come home from Iraq, the number of foreclosures continues to rise, and joblessness and homelessness continue to grow. John McCain has already made it clear that the war in Iraq will be his priority. Bush made it clear the war in Iraq would be his priority, yet you re-elected him. Now you are whining about his lack of attention to domestic issues. Fools!
Posted by: Grow Up | Mar 27, 2008 6:21:24 AM
From Sen. Obama’s radical stance on abortion to his prominence in the corruption scandals that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media, Barack Obama is not fit to be Senator -- not to mention the next President of the United States.
THE FACT IS THAT MR. OBAMA BETRAYED THE TRUST OF EARLY VOTERS BY PROMISING AUDACITY OF HOPE AND CHANGE. WELL, AMERICA KNOWS BETTER NOW THAT OBAMA'S TRUE COLOR IS OUT OF THE CLOSET. OVER 20 YEARS OF ATTENDING TO A CHURCH WHICH PREACHES HATRED; UNPATRIOTISM; BIGOTISM; RACISM AND DAMNATION OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY AND STATING THAT AMERICA DESERVED 9/11 WILL NEVER BE FORGIVEN AND ALWAYS BE REMEMBERED. WHAT OBAMA AND MR. WRIGHT HAVE AGREED UPON DURING THOSE SERMONS SHOULD BE BRANDED AS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Posted by: JR; Independent, NC | Mar 27, 2008 5:20:20 AM
I'd say this is pretty simple.
1. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore - democrats always considered him an illegitimate president.
2. Republicans got a bit too smug after a long period in power, and lost big time in the 2006 elections.
If the superdelegates decide to overrule voters - we will be back to square one - an illegitimate candidate, and a majority party that has gotten a bit too smug a bit too quickly.
If Hillary wants the nomination, she be