Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Charlie's Interview with President Bush
- Oh, That Joe! (No. 45 in a Series): The Loquacious Blue Hen is Gracious to the Spunky Maverick
- Louis Caldera to be Director of White House Military Office
- Obama Sits Down with State Guvs to Stem Economic Slowdown
- The Spectre of a Senator Chris Matthews (D-Penn.)
- Clinton On the Case
- The Unit
- Obama's National Security Team
- The Handmaid's Employer's Tale
- 'I, Barack Hussein Obama, Do Solemnly Swear...'
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Carter: After June 3 "It Will Be Time For Her to Give It Up"
May 25, 2008 8:15 AM
In an interview with Sky News in London, former President Jimmy Carter said that after the final primaries on June 3 in South Dakota and Montana, he expects the remaining 210 or so uncommitted superdelegates will announce who they're backing in the Democratic contest, after which Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, will have to exit the race.
"I'm a superdelegate," Carter said. "I think a lot of the superdelegates will make a decision quite, announced quite rapidly, after the final primary on June 3...I have not yet announced publicly, but I think at that point it will be time for her to give it up."
Carter was asked if Clinton was achieving anything by continuing in the race.
"I think not," he said. "But of course she has the perfect right to do so."
Carter was hinting that he was a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as far back as April. The semi-endorsement came with strings attached, as that month Carter engaged in a public effort to engage with Hamas, which the U.S. government officially classifies as a terrorist organization. When asked by ABC News' David Wright, Obama said he wouldn't meet with Hamas and he said he disagreed with Carter's decision to meet with the group -- he called it a "bad idea" that gave Hamas "a legitimacy that was unnecessary" -- but he stopped short of condemning the former president for doing so.
- jpt
May 25, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (472)
I really cant stand all this Clinton supporters for McCain and PUMA
CNN put the number of Clinton supporters for McCain and PUMA members at 200 000 in September/October down from its high of almost 5 Million.
CNN's poll found the reason for the change:
Sarah Palin
John McCain's handling of the economic crissis.
So enough of this PUMA stuff!
Posted by: Mike NC | Oct 15, 2008 10:00:39 AM
Newt G
Im sure most of them are fake Clinton supporters!
Clinton supports Obama thats all matters!
Posted by: Mike NC | Oct 15, 2008 9:58:14 AM
Let's turn all those arguments around that the Hillary camp insists on even making an argument. First, Obama is leading in all areas, period. But, regardless:
Any argument that this is a conspiracy against women running for or becoming president is ludicrous! Quoting the ludicrous argument from above:
"A vote for Obama is a vote against the rights of women. A vote for Obama is telling the world that we approve of the malicious way the media has treated Hillary. A vote for Obama tells every woman to go home and stop "stirring up trouble". A vote for Obama questions the "audacity" of a woman who thinks she has the right to be the President of the United States. A vote for Obama tells our daughters they shouldn't reach for the stars."
Let's turn that around:
"A vote for Hillary is a vote against the rights of all minorities. A vote for Hillary is telling the world that we approve of the malicious way the media has treated race and Obama. A vote for Hillary tells every minority to go home and stop "stirring up trouble". A vote for Hillary questions the "audacity" of a minority who thinks s/he has the right to be the President of the United States. A vote for Hillary tells minority American citizens they shouldn't reach for the stars."
So, get off the soapbox. Obama has it won and it is NO conspiracy or 'cover up'. If you choose to vote for McBush, it is your right. If you do so because you are vindictive, then it will be on your conscious and I wish you peace of mind and compassion, as it seems you are an angry person(s).
Posted by: JR | May 28, 2008 9:38:32 AM
People be aware , probably half or more of these completely asinine comments in support of Clinton or against Obama are not Democrats but low life Republicans , MCinsane /Republicans . They want Clinton to win , do not want to face Obama in the Presidential election and also want to drive a wedge between Democrats , the Obama and Clinton supporters . That is a fact .So don't be fooled , as we have seen over the last seven or eight years these people have no class and no ethics , none .
Posted by: Newt G | May 28, 2008 1:04:43 AM
It is hard to believe that some people are simply ignoring Obama's lead of 162 in pledge delegates as if she is the one who has the lead of 162 pledge delegates, not him.
162 is a huge lead, Mrs. Clinton would have wished to have.
She would have definitely announced her victory by now with that kind of lead, if she really had one.
It is hard to believe that she is claiming to be victorious, though she is far behind in pledge delegates & popular votes.
She is behind by almost half million in popular votes besides being behind by 162 in pledged delegates.
What if she was really ahead like Obama is today, she would have been making fun of him, had he been asking to give him all the delegates from MI & FL.
It was a unanimous decision and agreed upon by all, including many of them who have left the race and, are now endorsing Obama like, Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dodd and more.
I think it is time to call it quits for her with grace.
Posted by: perflead | May 27, 2008 8:51:04 PM
Carter what a joke him and Billy Boy the worst ever. Who and What does he think he is doing out there anyway He couldn't do any thing worth while when he was in office What does he think he is doing now he needs to shut up and grow peanuts!!!!
Posted by: ONE OHIOIAN | May 27, 2008 5:54:23 PM
Rae-
Exactly!!! If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, then it is McCain for those of us that feel it is time to let Obama/Media/DNC know that we won't stand quietly by and let this happen. Congress will be controlled by the Dems anyway so any fear mongering about Roe v Wade is a moot point.
Posted by: unstoppable 08 | May 27, 2008 4:45:27 PM
Rae, very dramatic rhetoric, but that works for the black argument, too: A vote for Hillary is a vote against rights for blacks / endorsement of the media's treatment of Obama / sign that minorities should go home, stop meddling or otherwise "making trouble".
In the end, those types of statements don't hold water .. they're just for effect. We owe it to ourselves to dispense with the over-generalized scare tactics.
Women will be cast into darkness if Hillary doesn't win? Hardly.
Posted by: LaOtraVoz | May 27, 2008 1:53:13 PM
Rae, you seem to think that a vote for Obama is a vote against women?! Have you ever thought that people aren't voting for Hillary because she has the personality of a snake, the temper of a bulldog, and is as self serving as a fat cat? A vote against Clinton is NOT a vote against women but a vote for not having a self-serving, self-caring PERSON in the white house. If Clinton was put in the white house then she would ruin it for all other women because would do such a bad job, and no one would ever vote for a women again.
Posted by: terri | May 27, 2008 1:23:01 PM
Just reading some of these comments makes me think I'm in a Faux News forum. How can so many people be blinded by the media and their personal bias? Hillary supporters are bitter that she didn't get "what she deserved" (the nomination) and Obama supporters (which I will admit I am for Obama) are like starry eyed little girls meeting the newest teen fad. And McCain supporters, well, they're just delusional. Thank God that the Libertarians will erase any chance they Psycho McFlipFlop has of winning. Here's a suggestion: Read what your candidate supports and stands for and then decide if they are the one for you. And if you fancy yourself a "party supporter" (i.e. lemming) support the candidate that the party picks. I mean, if you support the party it really shouldn't matter who gets the nod, right? Just chill and don't bite on the MSM's hooks.
Posted by: Eric Heroux | May 27, 2008 1:08:01 PM
For those Clinton supporters that intend to vote for McCain if Obama steals the nomination by intimidating superdelegates, please vote Democratic for your congressional elections so that the DNC will learn not to force a presidential candidate down our throats again. And it puts the Kennedys (if he lives), Kerrys and Pelosis in the position of finally having to do something about the mess in this country. They were given a mandate in the last election but they have squandered their voter directive. It also prevents McCain from having the power that Bush enjoyed to continue the war and appoint conservative justices.
Posted by: geteven | May 27, 2008 12:47:40 PM
Samir where is your support (reliable stories, printed versions of speeches, etc) for these allegations?
(1) A vote for Obama is a vote against the rights of women.
(2) A vote for Obama is telling the world that we approve of the malicious way the media has treated Hillary.
(3) A vote for Obama tells every woman to go home and stop "stirring up trouble".
(4) A vote for Obama questions the "audacity" of a woman who thinks she has the right to be the President of the United States.
(5) A vote for Obama tells our daughters they shouldn't reach for the stars.
Posted by: Rae | May 27, 2008 12:46:28 PM
When you hear some public figure or politician, regardless of who he or she is, trying to stoke anger or stir up public anger against the winner, it should be sufficient for you to understand the nature of that person.
The bottom line is Obama did not make the rules.
The rules were given to all and, all agreed & signed to it.
Now the loser wants to change the agreed & singed rules,stoking public anger to win, because now the loser has realized the rules did not suit her.
I think it is important not to create a precedence like this.
Those who left the race, lost it under the same rules.
Those who voted in every states voted under the same rule.
Rules & principles cannot change because it suits the loser who earlier agreed with the rules, thinking she was insurmountable.
Rules can be change but cannot be applied retroactively because it favors only one party & not all.
Posted by: Perflead | May 27, 2008 12:16:19 PM
Hillary is a symbol of the
past. She is old politics.
The way she has run her
campaign and the huge debt
she has accumulated also
show that she is thoroughly
incompetent.
Posted by: anon | May 27, 2008 12:01:07 PM
It is a simple matter of observing the rules & principles agreed upon by all parties ahead of the primaries, PERIOD.
It is not a matter of dismissing women or taking away somebody's rights.
Posted by: Perflead | May 27, 2008 11:52:20 AM
How is a votefor Obama a vote against women? Obama has never disrepected women rights in no way. Can Obama control the media, Rev. Wright, or anybody else? Sounds like hate to me.
Posted by: Lawrence | May 27, 2008 10:13:48 AM
Clinto agreed to disfranchise Florida and Michican becaue she thought she can win regardless.Now that she is losing, she wants Michican and Florida to be counted.. what a hypocracy!
Posted by: Samir | May 27, 2008 9:23:49 AM
A vote for Obama is a vote against the rights of women. A vote for Obama is telling the world that we approve of the malicious way the media has treated Hillary. A vote for Obama tells every woman to go home and stop "stirring up trouble". A vote for Obama questions the "audacity" of a woman who thinks she has the right to be the President of the United States. A vote for Obama tells our daughters they shouldn't reach for the stars.
Posted by: reaqlity 80 | May 27, 2008 7:18:13 AM
I hope Hillary takes this all the way to the convention. The money was raised to revote in Michigan and Florida but Obama said no way. He knew he'd lose big in those 2 states so those 2 states voters mean nothing to him until the general election. He speaks of change and hope but isn't any different than the rest of the big headed politicians.
Posted by: Dee-GA | May 27, 2008 7:05:22 AM
Jenna NY, you are so right in the remark you just made. Obama is useless on his own merit. He needs Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy to hold him up by the ropes, or he'll fall. It is the likes of such superdelegates who want to have power in America through the stupid, self opinionated Obama,and whose aim is to use him as the young inexperienced SCAPEGOAT, only to act as a mouthpiece or puppet for their own self seeking interests. The Obamas come up with STUPID and PRIMITIVE remarks like:
For the first time in my life I'm proud to be an American AND small town Americans turn to guns because they are bitter. Carter is just as much of an idiot, holding dangerous talks with a criminal, savage hooligan gang like HAMAS which would have Adold Hitler laughing in Hell.
Posted by: Magdalen | May 27, 2008 6:34:19 AM
Senator Clinton won a victorious and triumphant LANDSLIDE victory in Florida.
The people who so desperately voted for her there will never tolerate their precious votes going to waste.
It is so obvious; the overwhealming tide of sexism has created a mountainous wave in the ocean of DEMOCRACY. Hillary, if you continue to fight for your justifiable right to claim Florida, which you won triumphantly with your effortless charm and courage, aplomb and character on the back of sheer hard work and love of your country, you will achieve what you strove so hard for. You will make America proud in the face of adversity.
Posted by: Magdalen | May 27, 2008 6:16:26 AM
Jimmy Carter was the worst president in my lifetime, and I've been around since Eisenhower. He should shut up and go build houses. Hillary would make a fine President, but there is a game afoot to install Obama into the White House by DNC liberals and the media. I would never put such a novice into the White House - too dangerous.
Posted by: Jenna NY | May 27, 2008 6:12:09 AM
As a resident of the state of NY where Hillary is a Senator, I wouldn't vote for her if I were paid to do so.
There is not enough money in the world to get me to vote that woman into the White House.
Posted by: Wouldnt Vote HC if Paid | May 27, 2008 3:16:13 AM
Go away, Carter! No one wants to hear you and see you! You tried to steer the media and voters. I, my husband and my other family members will all vote for Mcgain if Hillary lose, just to let you and other superdelegates regret that you did this.
Posted by: lynn | May 27, 2008 12:10:39 AM
McCain is currently right of center, but could be a centrist if he knew for certain he did have to pander to evangelicals to get elected. I say we take McCain, and tell him where he needs to bend. At the end of the day, this too is a business. If John knows this is unwinnable unless he makes a stand for the environment and the economy and stands up to those who wanted war (even for 5 more years), I think he'll make a good President. Please do not elect Obama. He will be as weak as Jimmy Carter was. Lest you forget, here we were, the great America -- held hostage by some idiots who got hold of planes. It didn't happen again until George W, which ought to tell everyone something. You have to have a steel set to run that office. That's why I love Hillary.
Posted by: LonghornMama | May 27, 2008 12:10:34 AM
I checked on the CNN website and it appeared that Romney won MI, not McCain. I remembered that McCain won all the big states. I guess I remembered wrong.
Posted by: anthony | May 26, 2008 11:42:44 PM
Kris,
Winning states in the primary is not the same as winning them in the general election. John McCain won all the states that you mentioned in the Republican primary. Michael Dukakis won most of the state that you mentioned (except MI), in fact he won 30 states. The polls had him way ahead of George HW Bush after the Democratic convention. Of course, Bush started campaigning against him, and Dukakis made some mistakes and were an uninspiring candidate. The rest was history.
Posted by: anthony | May 26, 2008 11:33:42 PM
Hillary isn't going to quit ever--that's something that a quitting loser like Jimmy Carter doesn't comprehend. She is tougher than the rest of the DNC put together. Tell Jimmy to go sell us out to N Korea or to Hamas some more. The pathetic chapter of American history that was the Jimmy Carter Presidency is now just a frightening, and nauseating memory. If anyone can talk this geriatric loser into being quiet, the USA would owe you a debt of gratitude.
Posted by: M Hayward | May 26, 2008 11:32:33 PM
I sure hope President Carter is right very soon HC will give up - give up the Dem party to run as independent.
Posted by: esvida | May 26, 2008 10:13:25 PM
AND P.S. PRESIDENT CARTER DESERVES OUR RESPECT....
Posted by: Della | May 26, 2008 9:57:05 PM
With so much racism and hatred on Senator Obama, Senator Clinton who in their RIGHT MIND would want to be President of the Divided States of America......I give us about 10 more years when we have sold America to foreign country and THEN EVERY ONE WILL BE HAPPY WHEN WE ARE A DICTATORSHIP NATION.....LAST LAUGH ON US AMERICANS..
Posted by: Della | May 26, 2008 9:55:52 PM
Can you imagine anyone saying about Edwards, "it will be time for him to give it up". Maybe I have been listening to Bill Clinton for too long, but the way Carter phrased this comment seems sexist.
The MSM is blatantly unfair to Hillary. Obama is the most liberal candidate from the Senate. The democrats know how to loose a general election.
Hillary '08!
Posted by: keval | May 26, 2008 9:47:31 PM
What a crusty old man. After she "gives it up" should she resort to talking with terrorists and making a spectacle of her self with those who wish us and our allies grave harm? Oh I am sorry thats what retired presidents who fail to get the release of hostages and come up with a lasting energy policy do. My bad!
Posted by: Robert John Kellogg | May 26, 2008 8:34:29 PM
JIMMY CARTER WAS A VERY WEAK PRESIDENT, THAT'S WHY HE COULDN'T EVEN GET RE-ELECTED FOR A SECOND TERM. CARTER WAS WEAK ON TERRORIST COUNTRIES AND NO WONDER IRAN MILITANT TOOK AMERICAN HOSTAGES AND HELD THEM FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS.....CARTER IS LIKE OBAMA...THEY ARE BOTH WEAK PACIFIST THAT OUR ENEMIES KNOW ARE SOFT....NO WONDER CARTER WANTS OBAMA AS PRESIDENT.....BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER.
Posted by: John Pen | May 26, 2008 8:08:06 PM
Obama had his name removed from the Michigan ballot. He requested
that his name be removed in
Florida as well. Apparently, the
Republican-controlled state
legislature prevailed in keeping
his name on the ballot there. The
state would not remove it.
The Obama campaign has
scrupulously tried to comply
with the DNC rulings.
Posted by: anon | May 26, 2008 7:44:49 PM
In 2007, Michigan and Florida, in direct violation of party rules, scheduled their votes with the full knowledge that the Democratic Party would not recognize their results. In the context of most nominating contests, which are decided after only a handful of states vote, Michigan and Florida figured that it was better to stage an early "beauty contest" than to hold an election once the race was all but decided. The Democratic candidates did not campaign in either state, and only Clinton was on the Michigan ballot, which makes it all the more unconscionable for her campaign to be calling for the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated.
Posted by: Kate | May 26, 2008 6:55:58 PM
Of the two Democratic presidents today, there is no comparison. Bill Clinton is by far more credible.
Carter - habitually meets with fringe and thugs. Clinton - a moderate who (in keeping with Presidential tradition) does not defy the current Administration.
Carter - associated to 9/11 conspiracy theorists (see Dershowitz article). Clinton - confronts these nuts, as such, when they heckle him.
Carter sure sets the bar low, but the Clintons are a class act, regardless.
Posted by: Mark | May 26, 2008 6:53:07 PM
McCain is no centrist. Derides
direct diplomacy. He wants war
with Iran. Then its extension:
WW3.
He seems to have no taste for
dealing with major domestic
issues such as energy
dependence and the sagging
economy.
Like Bush he seems to be
preoccupied 24/7 with
mickey-mouse countries like
Iran, North Korea and
Venezuela.
Posted by: anon | May 26, 2008 6:44:01 PM
Kris,
YOU WROTE:
"DNC simply cannot disfranchise millions of voters in these two states."
I agree 100% to disinfranchise the millions of voters from that state but that includes thouse who did partipate because they were told the votes that was held wouldnt count! Told that by every one including Hillary.
I was a Hilary supporter but how she has acted has both sadenned and agered me. She has made it like she cares about FL and Michigan and it Obama fault the votes dont count when she is equaly responsiable for the stituation. Its also shows a hudge lack of leadership by Howard Dean..It shold never have been allowed to get to this.
I actually agree with you that if they can they should hold new votes once the other contests are over and the should just do like the republicans did and give both state half a vote.. So other states know FL and Michigan are not being rewarded for breaking the rules.
Posted by: Kate | May 26, 2008 6:20:23 PM
You forget the knock on McCain when he first one the nomination is that he's too moderate for the Republicans. I know conservatives today who still don't want him. If McCain chooses the right VP, if he makes a more progressive stance towards green jobs and saving the environment, moves to end this war and thereby save the economy...he becomes a centrist. That's all the majority of people want this time around is a centrist. Hillary is a centrist. McCain who is standing slightly right of center has the ability to be completely centrist if he didn't think he would have to appease the evangelicals to get elected. How bizarre that Democrats could likely find the President they wanted, not in Obama, but in McCain. It's truly within John's grasp if he recognizes how to move to center.
Posted by: LonghornMama | May 26, 2008 5:32:26 PM
She's a nuisance - public nuisance,
private nuisance, common nuisance,
mixed nuisance, unabatable nuisance,
every kind of nuisance there is.
She's neither remediable nor
redeemable.
Give her the hook. Get her off
the stage.
Posted by: anon | May 26, 2008 12:31:06 PM
____________________________
PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE IT EASY FOR ME TO HELP OBAMA LOSE BIG!!!
KEEP HI-FIFING YOURSELF IDIOT.
Posted by: TJ | May 26, 2008 5:19:18 PM
Florida and MI proposed solutions from Politico. Rather interesting read and is truly accurate in its respresenation of what has occured and what could occur:
Posted by: Bill | May 26, 2008 4:57:13 PM
Look at some of McCain's
policies.
Iraq war:
will go on, if you want
to see the end of it
stick around a hundred
years
Economy:
doesn't understand it
Veterans' benefits:
they are already getting
too much
Taxes:
more cuts for the wealthy,
make them permanent
Illegal immigration:
let's have more of it
Health care:
what about it?
Energy policy:
no gas tax for 3 months
Sane people will not elect
this man as their town
dogcatcher.
Posted by: anon | May 26, 2008 4:35:34 PM
I received a letter the other day saying that I had paid more into my candidate than the law allows. The letter urged me to allow Hillary to pass my excess money on to the DNC, on to the General Election. For Barack Obama? I attached a nice note back. Hillary, for once, I disagree with you. If your name is somewhere on that ticket, the Dems can have my money and my vote. If Clinton isn't on the ballot somewhere, I want a refund. I don't know of any Clinton supporter who is passing assets along to the DNC.
Posted by: LonghornMama | May 26, 2008 4:14:23 PM
Carter = one-termer, muff said. About RoeVWade being overturned, THE UNBORN HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!! GO MCCAIN 2008
Posted by: mary | May 26, 2008 4:08:23 PM
The Superdelegates should be hearing the voters in the party that prefer Hillary instead of the rant of the news media like CNN & MSNBC who are promoting the chosen one. These Superdelegates like MR PEANUT that run after Obama may get a suprise in this election.
Posted by: Anders Scooper | May 26, 2008 4:07:07 PM
She's a legend in her own
mind and a minor footnote
in this year's election
story.
After June 3, she'll be
Hillary Who?
Posted by: anon | May 26, 2008 3:57:15 PM
carter WHO????? Oh you mean that idiot that took our interest to over 20%, sent soldiers to iran to die, lost in a windfall to Reagan & spoke to terrorists a couple of weeks ago that Carter????? WHAT A JOKE WHY WOULD A WINNER LIKE HILLARY LISTEN TO THAT DRIVEL!!!!!!!
Posted by: politicgirl | May 26, 2008 3:56:03 PM
You know what else I find curious, President Carter? Teddy Kennedy wouldn't concede the race to you in 1980 and he was behind 700 delegates. He stayed in because he felt he was going to win the popular vote. That's the same reason that Hillary is in it, because she likely will win it -- votes that is. The thing that used to matter before Dems got all cutesy with the proportional delegates. You can in retrospect say that maybe Hillary's staying in will have the same effect that Teddy staying in had on you. Or maybe you'll have to face the fact that you were no match for Ronald Reagan. In fact, the only mistake Hillary made this weekend was in invoking the wrong Kennedy. She could have mentioned Teddy Kennedy staying in all the way to the convention -- even though the polls showed he was so liberal that only 30% of the country wanted him. Who has been pushing the most to get Hillary out of the race -- Hillary who depending on the week still bests both Obama and McCain in polls -- it's people like you, President Carter and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Howard Dean. How dare you suggest that this woman out to get out and not be allowed to do what all the men were allowed to do? Which is basically...run the damn race.
Posted by: LonghornMama | May 26, 2008 3:51:06 PM
Hillary should be No. One on the ticket. Obama should practice as a chaplain for a short time before becoming vice president for a legend.
Posted by: Anders Scooper | May 26, 2008 3:47:35 PM
Jimmy Carter is a fine one to talk. He couldn't even recapture the Presidency. Okay, so Clinton supporters, an ex-President is telling you it's time to leave this party. A party made up of a bunch of old, white guys. As long as old-white guys are the thing, vote for McCain. Or tell McCain to put General Powell on his ticket and the Republicans can win in a LANDSLIDE. Democrats are the world's biggest losers. Ask me, I was one until NOW.
Posted by: LonghornMama | May 26, 2008 3:45:19 PM
Well, there you have it!! If Jimmy Carter says 'it is time', then don't you know that Bill and Hillary will immediately fold their tent and head back to Arkansas?? (Only in his dreams -- and ours!!)
Posted by: jack | May 26, 2008 3:36:56 PM
Peanuts to Jimmy Carter. Hillary is not hurting the party because the voters make up the party and Hillary will probably win in popular vote. Obama will not have enough delegates to win the nomination so he has not won anything. Hillary should go all the way to the convention because many of her supporters will not vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. Mr. Peanut and Jelly Bean Dean should not be trying to run the party. They are party poopers for sure.
Posted by: Anders Scooper | May 26, 2008 3:36:11 PM
Dear Mr. Carter,
I am completely amazed and profoundly disappointed in your recent call for Senator Clinton to pull out of the democratic race for president! I have been a staunch supporter and admirer of you for many years, indeed, defending you and your policies with people and friends who think you were one of the worst presidents to rule the U.S. in recent history. Why in the world would you do this in a campaign that is so close (actually Senator Clinton does have the popular vote, as the caucus system (that good ole boy, strong arm way of getting your "man" in) should be eliminated next time around and ignored this time around; you know this, I know.
And, I cannot believe you would support the DNC and it's refusal to count the delegates in Michigan and Florida. Do you really think the voters should lose their rights because the DNC, who has blatantly supported Obama from the beginning, did not follow the rules? This if far too parental and punishing the people for decisions they did not make or agree too is preposterous!!! What are we, in kindergarten? In your break-neck attempt to shove Obama down our throats, you are ignoring millions of people's right to vote! What gives you the right to do this????? Nader had it right when he said both parties are the same! The Republicans did this to us in 2000 and now OUR OWN PARTY is attempting to do it to us now!
Your attempts to bring this race to an early end is just hurting Obama this fall. Just keep this in mind: you dig in your heals and so will we. If you and your "good ole boy" buddies succeed in forcing Senator Clinton out of the race (and after such despicable favoritism for Obama from the beginning!), you will succeed in tearing the Democratic party apart (this from a man who claims he will unite the country?). I plan on helping to organize a "DON'T WRITE HER OFF; WRITE HER IN" campaign immediately. This is not an idle threat, it is a promise. I will also be working on organizing a mass rally at the Democratic Convention in August!
Jeanie Lockamy
mjlockamy@yahoo.com
Posted by: jeanie lockamy | May 26, 2008 3:17:24 PM
Senator Clinton: Good advice for you from Shakespeare (Macbeth): "Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at once."
Posted by: Tom in California | May 26, 2008 3:16:44 PM
I said it once and I will say it again.
If hillary Clinton loss the nominee Barack Obama will loss the presidential on November. Why? Because I am voting for McCain. Simple as that. I urge all Hillary supporter to switch to John McCain and forget about having more problems from Obama....Simple as that.
Posted by: pete | May 26, 2008 3:08:16 PM
If Obama can win the race, he would not have all his fanatics and party pundits to push Hillary out of the race. That is his strategy: he can't win the race so he wants to be the only one to cross the finish line. on tracks, it is a foul. In baseball, we call it a steal. In tennis, it is a rain-out.
For democrates, it is a shame. The party are working like an animal farm of the Carter brand.
Posted by: John_Lai | May 26, 2008 3:08:03 PM
Kate:
It does not matter who made the rules and also I do not care even if both Hillary and Obama want to ignore FL and MI, the DNC simply cannot disfranchise millions of voters in these two states. The DNC may have to hold primaries again in these states. As a matter of fact Obama may be more agreeable to new primaries in these states since he thinks he has the momentum and the big money.
Bottomline is the DNC has to seat the delegates from FL and MI if needed after holding new primaries. We cannot call ourselves a true Democracy if these states are not represented at the national convention.
The DNC would be harming Obama's prospects in the National Elections if it were to stubbornly cling to its rules and have no reps from these states at the convention. The Republicans would be very happy.
In the mean time, I hope Obama support groups are working how to challenge McCain's victory on the grounds that he was not born on U.S. soil. It will be interesting to see how McCain's supporters react to this challenge.
Thanks.
Posted by: Kris | May 26, 2008 3:03:00 PM
Will someone PLEASE tell Jimmy Carter, that he is not obligated to support Hillary. Just go ahead and support Obama if that is what you want to do in the first place.
I really WISH that a political cartoonist could do a drawing on this article. It shows that he has a bad conscience since its taking him so long to make a public decision.
Actually, he does not need to let us know anything. Can someone let Jimmy know the rules of this Super delegate process?
Posted by: politicalwatcher | May 26, 2008 2:52:53 PM
"I'm a superdelegate."
Question: Which three words from Jimmy Carter do not bode well for the future of the Republic?
Posted by: proof | May 26, 2008 2:04:25 PM
rhbate - and they loved the caucus voting, and moveon and anyone who didn't think it was a crime for the CIC to lie to a grand jury.
Posted by: fivepin | May 26, 2008 2:01:25 PM
a good history you can deny all you want as most of the black people have done. which is a shame.
where has obama been?
Posted by: worldcitizen | May 25, 2008 10:06:26 AM
_________________
You think so: HILLARY LOVED IT WHEN OVER 90% OF THE BLACKS VOTED FOR BILL FOR PRESIDENT IN 1992 AND 1996.
Posted by: rhbate | May 26, 2008 1:56:23 PM
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS - TAKE NOTICE
-----------ROE v. WADE-----------
Two of the current justices of the United States Supreme Court will probably retire within the next four years. One is 75 and the other is 84. This will give the new president the ability to nominate two new justices. If McCain is elected you can be sure the new justices will be just like Roberts, Scalia and Thomas: willing to overturn ROE v. WADE. So think when you vote!!!
Posted by: rhbate | May 26, 2008 1:51:40 PM
Go back to Plains, Jimmy Carter. You were a big mistake that got elected and Obama is a bigger one. I THOUGHT you were a patriot, and I know Obama isn't, but one thing I thought before your election that the American people had gotten this wrong, & I wasn't wrong.
Posted by: virginia | May 26, 2008 1:49:55 PM
Thirty five years of nothing,
piddling, worthless experience.
More than 20 million dollars
amassed in campaign debt.
Hundreds of unpaid bills to
small vendors and small
businesses. Some three hundred
fifty thousand dollars owed
to health insurance companies
covering her staff - and she
wants to make health insurance mandatory even if you can't
pay the premiums.
Just go home, babe.
Posted by: anon | May 26, 2008 1:12:20 PM
Could anyone that is not totally brain dead tell why it's important for us to know what jimmy carter thinks on any subject. This man is a fool and should be put in a home. How sad it must be for his family to see him like this but to hear him OMG. Do the world a favor stop printing what this poor old stupid loser thinks.
Posted by: a citizen | May 26, 2008 1:10:13 PM
I HAVE TO AGREE WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON ON THIS ONE. THE MEDIA HAS TREATED BARACK OBAMA LIKE HE'S RUNNING FOR PROM KING AND ALL THE WHILE DOING EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO DEMEAN ANY OF HILLARY'S VICTORIES. EVEN WHEN SHE KICKED HIS BUTT IN TEXAS, RHODE ISLAND AND OHIO THAT NIGHT, WE RECIEVED VERY SHORT-LIVED MEDIA COVERAGE........
I'M AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN SUPPORTER OF HILLARY CLINTON AND I MUST SAY THAT NOW I'M NOT SURE WHOM I'LL VOTE FOR IN NOVEMBER. I FEEL THAT THE MEDIA AS WELL AS SOME SUPERIOR DEMOCRATS REALIZE THAT OBAMA WILL NOT WIN IN NOVEMBER, BUT HAVE CREATED SUCH A HUGE PEDESTAL FOR OBAMA TO STAND ON THAT IF THEY PULL THEIR SUPPORT NOW THEY WILL BE VIEWED AS RACISTS. THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN HAS STRATEGICALLY AND CAUTIOUSLY PLAYED THE RACE CARD THROUGH OUT THE CAMPAIGN. HERE WE HAVE A CANDIDATE THAT IS WINNING IN THE POPULAR VOTE IN STATES THAT MATTER IN A GENERAL ELECTION AND THE MEDIA IS SELLING US A CANDIDATE WHO MAKES GOOD SPEECHES AND HAS NO EXPERIENCE...... GO FIGURE!
Posted by: Eric | May 26, 2008 12:49:26 PM
She's not a fighter, she's not
a strong woman, she doesn't
stand for anything good - she's
a mean-spirited, chronic
malcontent.
Posted by: anon | May 26, 2008 12:45:25 PM
Go Hillary you can do this,show the people you are a strong woman.
Posted by: Lecreata | May 26, 2008 12:36:33 PM
Let's role reverse. If we were to switch characters, the dnc would be screaming for obama to stay in the race, that he is closing in on her, and that obama has the electoral edge. the dnc would be clammoring for the supers to disregard the pledged delegate count and go for obama, and they would claim that he has all the momentum based on the landslide victories in ky and west virg. that is the truth.
this hillary supporter will write in the name clinton if obama is the nominee. take that to the bank and cash it.
Posted by: fred | May 26, 2008 12:31:14 PM
She's a nuisance - public nuisance,
private nuisance, common nuisance,
mixed nuisance, unabatable nuisance,
every kind of nuisance there is.
She's neither remediable nor
redeemable.
Give her the hook. Get her off
the stage.
Posted by: anon | May 26, 2008 12:31:06 PM
Kate, you are right. This election is not about Obama, HRC or McSame. It is about the dumb war in Iraq and to avoid the next dumb war in Iran. This war is economically dumb, politically stupid and morally wrong. It achieves nothing but only help our enemy to be stronger politically and the Saudi and Kuwait to get rich on us at our own expense. Obama's team has the vision and the right strategy to get the troop home and reinvest the money in our next generation. For those who are worry about US security due to this pullout, look, first, our security was not threaten after we pulled out of Viet Nam, but in fact, getting stronger after the political situation corrected itself. Second, we can't be more secure when we are politically and morally wrong. Obama team's strategy is a different and smarter ballgame serving the interests of the country, not the oilers or warmongers. HRC failed because her team did not offer a clear vision on this war, only election-year tactics.
Posted by: Pete | May 26, 2008 12:30:30 PM
I am seeing that democratic party is anxious to push Hillary Clinton out of the race. Why is this party afraid of letting the process complete ? I have helped this party in the past. I would not do it again unless some key people like Howard Dean are replaced with more reasonable people. Ruling regarding Michigan and Florida was bad and it will haunt the party when they lose at least one of the two states in November.
Posted by: Ramesh Dave | May 26, 2008 12:06:58 PM
Who cares what Jimmy Carter thinks? He was a terrible president and has come close to committing treason by intervening in U.S. foreign policy. It is time for Carter to retire to peanut farming, his real area of expertise.
Posted by: Graniteman | May 26, 2008 12:04:07 PM
Anthony,
It appears your definition of the strongest candidate is the one who loses big states such as, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, W. Virginia, and Texas and wins states that have caucuses. May be the change that you, Obama supporters want is Presidential elections by caucuses.
By the by I am really wondering if some of the writers on this blog are paid bloggers.
Posted by: Kris | May 26, 2008 11:54:14 AM
Kris,
Everyone was told FL in Michigan dont count! You cant change the rules after the game! Clinton said it herself "the michigan and fl elections dont count for anything"
Rules are rules eveyone was told they dont count!
Posted by: Kate | May 26, 2008 11:00:46 AM
Carter wasn't the worst President ever, that distinction belonged to Warren G Harding, until GWB. When Carter took office, inflation was already a problem, and had been since the "guns and butter" policies of Johnson. Nixon and Ford had given lip service to addressing the problem, but Carter did something: he appointed a Fed chief with a harsh plan on hos to solve the problem. Paul Volker systematically pushed interest rates up while controlling the monetary supply. Reagan is given the credit for the recovery, but it was the stable base created by Volkers plan that made it happen.
Posted by: Javalation | May 26, 2008 10:57:32 AM
Comments like Carter's reveal the treachery and hypocrisy of the DNC toward Clinton.
Voters won't forget. Maybe Obama can go build houses with Carter when this is all over.
Posted by: bromfield22 | May 26, 2008 10:53:24 AM