Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Lewis Switches Endorsement to Obama

Updated 5:14 p.m.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that civil rights movement veteran and Georgia Rep. John Lewis has formally switched his allegiance in the Democratic primary race from New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic front-runner and the first African American major-party front-runner:

Hoping to put an end to a month of confusion and dismay, Rep. John Lewis on Wednesday said he's switching his support from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Lewis cited the overwhelming preference for Obama in his district as a reason for his change of heart, but he also talked about Obama's campaign as transformational for the nation.

"Something's happening in America, something some of us did not see coming," Lewis said. "Barack Obama has tapped into something that is extraordinary."

The full story is available here.

Says Obama, in a statement released this afternoon, "John Lewis is an American hero and a giant of the Civil Rights Movement, and I am deeply honored to have his support."

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 27, 2008; 3:18 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Outspent in Texas and Ohio
Next: Clinton, Outside the Spotlight


ghldikme sniatqr ewyjlx enhs kmhlscazv kdzcam dkhstlvg

Posted by: fxsjnho oqdrwtl | April 16, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

This is another "play" on the American people, apparently people in politics undermine the intelligence that we posses. I refuse to believe that Lewis had a change of heart and jumped over into the obama campaign because he truly believed it was the right thing to do... THIS IS POLITICS MY FRIENDS! Unfortunaltely the American people are not taking the time to peel back the outer layer of propoganda that the media is presenting. It is a shame that in today's world, we are letting the media companies control and determine what information in important for us to see. I refuse to believe that this country is that corrupt... the only hope that I have left is in Hillary Clinton. She just might be the last patriotic American left in this country. If this were a job interview... I hope those obama supporters are ok with not getting the job of their dreams because of dirty politics... if this were the "real world", the person with the most experience and credibility would get the job based on merit. For those of you who are working... this should make perfect sense to you.. for those who dont see it this way... well when you dont get success in life you will feel the injustice.

obma is not who he says he is, nor does he have the merit to be given this position. There is alot of information that we are not seeing... doesnt that trouble you? For example, if someone were to tell a rumor about you and you were hurt by it, yet there was NO way for anyone to see the truth, wouldnt that be upsetting to you? Wouldnt that be injustice to you? Look at it that way... when we see the Hillary bashing continue... dont you stop and think that there is somthing sketchy about how THE MEDIA IS PORTRAYING OBAMA LIKE THE NEWEST CELEBRITY IN TOWN!". I love rap music... but I do not want a president who listens to Jay-Z "I got 99 problems but a bi*ch aint one" (he played this song when he came out for a speech). Do you want a president with his own sneaker out (he has a new air force one on the market).

Unfortunately, if Hillary Clinton is not the candidate for president I WILL NOT VOTE IN NOVEMBER... this does not make me less of a democrat (as if that matters... hello we live in a FREE country). I refuse to buy into the propoganda and dirty politics of the Republican party. See, they must be really nervous about the country's sentiment with the Republicans productivity with the Bush administration. What better to put all of their energy and money into obama... at the worst they would have either mc cain or another puppet in office.. obama. There is alot of sketchy business going on.. too bad the media wont play fair.

Posted by: mary_smairat | March 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

What can you expect? Not surprising. Politicians don't have morals or true friendships. It is all about "the game". Hillary should see the writing on the wall. She is done for.

Posted by: dmrunique | February 28, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but think John Lewis has fallen prey to the Obama rhetoric bandwagon. No black man in America wants to go on public record as saying they support Sen. Clinton, especially with Obama doing well. This has nothing to do with what is right for the country, but has everything to do with "keeping the faith".
Wake up people and really pay attention to what Obama is shoveling because if you don't, you will soon be knee-deep in it.

Posted by: grossehunde | February 28, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

To muldar:

How dare you sit there and accuse all Obama supporters to be misogynistic lemmings? I am a white, 26 yr old, FEMALE supporter of Barack Obama, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with race, sexism, or the media's bias. I did what any independent, free thinking, strong woman would do and researched the candidate. And for your information, I have NEVER been interested in politics before this election. What got me interested? A new face. A new message. A new hope that maybe, just maybe the backwards politics that we have always known could just possibly be changed. What in the world is so wrong with wanting a change? I have nothing against the Clinton's. I think Bill did a fine job in office. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will more than likely vote for her.

What I find simply amazing is the fact that SO MANY Hillary supporters are so vehemently against Obama, when if you really dug into it, you'd realize that policy-wise, they are extremely similar.

I was having a discussion with some friends (Clinton and Obama supporters alike) the other day and there was one thing that absolutely everyone agreed on:

You can find people who will easily say they hate Hillary for whatever reason (and no I'm not one of them), but please find me one person who absolutely HATES Obama. This man is bringing people together in a way that has never been seen before. He's inspiring millions to actually care about their country again and get involved. Even if you don't agree with his views, if you truly did your research on the man and didn't simply blame the media (since that's the easiest cop out thing for people who don't research to do), I don't see how you couldn't at least admire him for what he's achieved. Regardless of if he wins the nomination.

Bottom line, people: Grow up, stop name calling and start making your decisions with your big girl panties on.

Posted by: kristina.schulz | February 27, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Our country is beleagured, demoralised and in a recession. Does it really matter if Huseein is Obama's middle name, or if Hillary appeared to have a"sour grapes" complex. Let us put the pressing need of the people of America first. Restore it to its former glory. The candidates need to put their egos and personal agendas on the backburner and concentrate on pressing issues...stop bleeding money onto a war that serves no purpose except to line the pockets of the very rich. Wake up America, we are like the frog in the pot that does not know that it is being cooked. If black man or white woman is still the issue, then we are nothing more than a coutnry with 1st workd infrastructure, with a 5th world consciousness. At the end of the day vote with your hearts. The Democratic party must unite, and put the PEOPLE OF AMERICA FIRST. God Bless God Speed

Posted by: sophiacatha | February 27, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Representative Lewis did what is best for his party and the country. It is time for the Democrats to rally around Obama and prepare for the general election. Obama is the best the Democrats have to offer.

Hillary is the "incumbent" candidate. She has been running for a third term. She looks like what America used to be. Obama looks like what America can be.

Welcome Honorable Representative to the Obama movement!

Posted by: unteal | February 27, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully there are a lot more like Alvordton. George Bush has made this a much more dangerous world than the one that Bill Clinton left him. How we vote for someone because how eloquent they speak or how inspiring they are is beyond my simple comprehension. We are supposed to be electing the President of the most powerful country in the free world. What is the rational for electing a state senator from Illinois just three years ago who had been some sort of community activist in south chicago before that. That exactly what got JFK in trouble with the Soviet Union. They saw someone they didn't really know and just assumed after the "bay of pigs fiasco that he would be weak. He probably was but thank goodness his brother RFK wasn't. But why test fate. Sen Clinton is running for President because she wants to change people lives. Sen. Obama seems to be running because he believes it's his destiny - which is why JFK ran by the way.
Lastly I would like to say that while I think it is great that an African- American is running for President I think that it is just as bigoted for an African- American to vote for someone because they are African-American as it is for a white person voting for someone because they are white. Being able to vote for the best candidate is what freedom is all about.
So I hope there are lot more people like Alvordton who will go to the polls next Tuesday and help Florida get their votes counted finally.

Posted by: ninevah1 | February 27, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Lewis opens the gates.

Let's hope that this will lead to a nomination that is decided by the voice of the people, and not by a handful of superdelgates.

We all agree that this election should be about unity, progress, and change--something the nation has lacked for this past 7 years. We should carry this message of unity into the general election.

Obama is a man of substance and conviction. Merely the fact that we would nominate and elect such a man after the past 8 years cannot fail to have positive effects on a world made cynical and disillusioned by the choices and acts of the Administration during that period.

The enthusiasm we see at rallies is more than ephemeral excitement. For many, Obama represents the desire for a transformation towards a politics grounded in truth, genuine compassion, and substantive efforts to benefit the many, rather than the few.

If you haven't been to a rally, or have, and want to take it with you, you can get the entire Obama rally setlist--all the way from U2's "City of Blinding Lights", to which Obama takes the stage, to the Obama victory anthem "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" at ITunes, here:

Posted by: caraprado1 | February 27, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Hi ninevah1: The comments on "drinking the Kool-Aid" and "snake-oil" are merely ad hominem attacks, not arguments. And the first one, although common enough, is a really tasteless reference to the Jonestown massacre. Neither is original or thoughtful.

You shouldn't worry overmuch about "experience." Whether you trust Obama's judgment is another question, but he is right when he points out that mere experience is never sufficient. We all know experienced people who make the same mistake over and over.

Many Clinton and McCain supporters simply don't understand the nature of Obama's appeal. How likely is it that the majority of Democratic voters, including some very bright people, are merely deluded? Of course, it has been great for Obama that the Clinton campaign has so utterly misjudged him. You have to wonder when his repeated victories will begin to indicate to them that they've underestimated him. Clinton has been wasting her time preaching to the choir when she has used this line of attack herself. People hear her caricature, then they actually see and hear Obama, and the contrast is dramatic. "What, this guy 'inexperienced'? 'all style and no substance', a 'used car salesman'? No, I don't see it. He's actually very smart, knowledgeable, and conveys the sense that he genuinely understands what people are going through." It's no more a mystery than Bill Clinton's appeal.

Posted by: jchaney | February 27, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

This Ohio voter will not vote for Obama. Obama is still too much fill-in-the-blank candidate for America.

Posted by: Alvordton | February 27, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Just for you Obama supporters who are aghast that Clinton supporters may choose to protest this dirty election by voting for someone else or not voting at all, I refer you to the following Obama statement in the Feb. 24, 2008 Wash. Post article "Obama's Red-State Prospects Unclear".

...In response, Obama says he is likely to pick up most of her supporters in the fall, while many of those now favoring him -- independents, men, young voters and blacks -- may back Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or stay home if she is the nominee.

Now I would say that, that is a pretty arrogant and immature response from Obama, wouldn't you? At least many Clinton supporters are considering Ralph Nader.

To set the record straight, I have the utmost respect for John Lewis and his history; but his turn-coat behavior, however you want to spin it, is pretty disgusting in my book. Loyalty is loyalty, you stand by your word not what is politically expedient.

Posted by: muldar | February 27, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Shame on those self-professed 'Democrats' who say they will vote Nader or McCain if their preferred nominee loses the race. And as others have pointed out, this kind of selfish petulance is exactly what we've come to expect from Senator Hillary Clinton. It's this kind of toxic self-righteousness that Barack Obama has identified as the poison in American politics. With a little luck and the good judgement of voters in Texas and Ohio, it will be relegated to the trash heap of American political history in a few more days.

Posted by: alexandersharkey | February 27, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

As an Ohio voter, I am taking all of this information in before making a decision as to which of these two immensely qualified candidates to support. I plan to look carefully at the issues, which apparently several of you who have previously posted are ambivalent towards.

Nader is a fine man, who's candidacy certainly at least helped GWB win in 2000. His impact on the 2004 election was negligable (especially compared to Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who also served as the president of the Ohio "re-elect GWB" campaign).

Whether I chose HRC or BHO, I do so knowing that the stakes are far too high in this election to fail to support the eventual nominee in the general election.

I have no trouble believing that HRC is a strong proponent of Healthcare reform. For you strong HRC supporters, you should certainly check up on John McCain's Healthcare plan-see GWB's "Healthcare savings accounts").

As for you Obama supporters, you should be well versed on McCain's views on the core issue of the catastrophe that is our involvement in Iraq.

Obama voters should understand the need to secure the White House in Progressive hands, as should Clinton supporters. The diatribes villifying one or the other for racist/sexist strategies may be well founded, however the true enemy in this political season is the conservative/neoconservative agenda of status quo, pro-business/anti-worker, pro-business/anti-environment agenda.

Being tied to one candidate or the other based on personal preference is certainly your right, but it's like saying that you hate one doctor, and if they are the only one you can chose in your fight against cancer, you'd rather die than let them operate.

Whichever candidate gets through will enact significant changes with the help of a stronger Democratic majority in Congress. That is, of course, unless the party and its allies must expend all of their resources on a Presidential bid instead of spreading those resources across House and Senate races across the country.

If you are truly interested in the changes that both candidates are shouting about from the mountaintop, stop your petty bickering and unify after the nomination is secured by either candidate. There truly is strength in numbers. This is not a High School election for student body president. Or are you so blind to the stakes that you would endure another 4 years of what George W. Bush has done to this nation?

Posted by: scottyrizock | February 27, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Good for Lewis!

Now, we can expect Kennedy, Kerry and Deval to be switching to Clinton any day now. TRAITORS!

Posted by: Alvordton | February 27, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

It would seem that if you commit to support someone. That commitment is good until that someone gives it back or does something to lose it. Because so many people are drinking the Obama kool-aide and rubbing snake-oil on one another while they sing kumbaya is not a reason. The last time someone so inexperienced ran for office and won we almost got a mushroom cloud over the state of Fl. For those Obama voters to young to remember that would be Mr. Camelot Himself JFK. But since even the DNC wont count our votes I guess we don't count as part of the USA. I am not sure who I will vote for if Sen. Clinton isn't on the ballot - but I think voting for Obama would be irresponible.

Posted by: ninevah1 | February 27, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Dear steveboyington:

Oh yes, I see what you mean, and...

Today, Obama's going to accept another endorsement from a senator who voted for the Iraq resolution (Dorgan (D-ND), Yea).

For some reason, Hillary's vote bothers him, but he is not bothered by the "yea" votes of Kerry, Daschle, Dorgan, and Dodd--or a campaigning Kennedy (who voted "nay" in the Senate vote, but suggested in 2004 it OK for Kerry b/c Kerry was running for president). I can't figure that out.

For all of the voters that have been won over by Obama's "opposition" to war, I support that fully. I attended a peace rally too, but ...

From the Boston Globe, March 22, 2007:

"Obama has also said repeatedly that while he would have voted against the war in 2002 based on what he knew at the time, he could not be sure that classified intelligence reporters made available to senators wouldn't have changed his mind."

Posted by: Midwestreader1 | February 27, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

I just saw John Lewis on TV, he didn't want to do this, he was forced.

ANYHOW, I am confused didn't OBAMA say that he did NOT want the SUPERDELEGATES TO DECIDE THE PARTY'S NOMINATION?????????????????????????

Posted by: mjno | February 27, 2008 07:54 PM

Fine example of what I'm talking about vis a vis Clinton supporters. Obama supporters all have -- in their eyes -- some sort of moral weakness.

Let me tell you, John Lewis is as courageous as any man alive. No one could or would force him to do anything. He willingly submitted himself to the billyclubs of racist Alabama state troopers. He took a _terrible_ beating, he was nearly killed, and he _didn't have to go_. He did it anyway, because he felt it was the right thing to do. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves would tell you this. To quote a fave Clinton meme, "shame on you" for in any way impugning Rep. Lewis' integrity. His courage is one reason that a Barack Obama can run for President, and that I can live in this country as a black man without fear of my own government.

I guarantee you that when the Clinton's response is issued, it will be full of respect and kindness towards a man who has been their friend for over 30 years.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 27, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Saw Clinton on the News Hour tonight (PBS). She still clings to her assertion that her smarts and experience in foreign affairs is a strength, whereas Obama is like George Bush.

Funny, how much did her smarts and experience help her when she voted to invade Iraq? Or voted to open a window for Bush to attack Iran's Revolutionary Guards?

You have to wonder sometimes... does she think nobody knows her actual record in foreign policy?

Posted by: steveboyington | February 27, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse


Can you be any more melodramatic? It's politricks. Hey I have had to stomach the south end of a north bound mule all of my almost 60 years. But, hate and transference have never been a part of my personal lexicon. Yes, I do get angry, at times, at the seeming injustice of it all. But I learned a long time ago, that the delicate balance is to never become that which you so abhour. Hate of any kind diminishes the one who hates. I do, in a way feel your pain; but we as a society have just got to get beyond the hate. It is keeping us ALL chained to mediocracy. Together we can rise above all of that.

Peace! B

Posted by: bldlcc | February 27, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

ydennis: you're obviously a newbie. Obviously, a case can be made for HRC without slanders. Most HRC backers have chosen to go the low road, and Obama supporters have gleefully joined them. I believe HRC and her supporters are made for each other, but I've had a low regard for the Clintons ever since I saw them play the race card vis a vis J Jackson in the 92 primaries. YMMV. Nevertheless, I think a perusal of my posts limits my comments to Clinton campaign tactics. I rarely see a counterpart of reasoned debate on the Clinton side, though I do see posters like svreader, who will post the same post eight different times and lie. (I've proven same elsewhere, I won't bore people with the details again.)

I thought a Hillary who doesn't resort to attacks (which are invariably personal) is an impressive Hillary, and I posted previously that avoiding attacks made good tactical sense. Kind Hillary got good marks out of the TX debate, Mean Hillary got poor marks out of the OH debate. Mean Hillary only incites the Anybody-But-Hillary crowd, but the pro-Hillary base is inelastic: she consistently loses when turnout is high. And attacking the press, even if justified (which I think is not, and I posted extensively on the mathematical unlikelihood of same), only makes her look like Nixon.

There's one thing that is indisputable: for all the talk about GOP racism, there's no dispute _now_ that liberal Dems are every bit as capable of displaying racism when it suits them as anybody. You probably missed the J Fred Muggs reference earlier, just as well. I wonder if Rep. Lewis' endorsement of Obama in February is at all related to a discomfort with the Clintons that began in January with Hillary's comments that were received as a denigration of Martin Luther King. You can argue that they were factually accurate, you can argue that no offense was intended -- but I believe that the Clintons knew what the impact would be, just as they knew the impact of the "fairy tale" crack. The Clintons aren't stupid and they're seasoned pols. They know how statements get boiled down to sound bites, and they know what that sound bite will be.

Blacks are 20-25% of the Dem base. White liberals within the party sympathetic to equal rights are probably at least as numerous. Either take their sensitivities into consideration at every turn, or find another party. (Same deal with feminists; Dems are the wrong party to be pro-life in.) That's not a question of right, that's a matter of realpolitik. The Clintons somehow thought they could offend that base and still win the nomination, and they've been proven resoundingly wrong. They got little increase in their own base (though they did energize that base) but they alienated scores of their own black supporters.

One last point (and this is way longer than it should be). It's been repeatedly written that HRC expected to have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday. But what hasn't been noted is that HRC has always pointed to a general election, which implies that she always took winning the nomination for granted. So she tacked right, ever since she got in the Senate. She supported NAFTA, and she came out with the "legal, safe and rare" line for abortion, and she voted for Iraq so she'd look tough on national security. Besides, she's the Senator from New York, you can't come across as wishy-washy after 9-11 and she needed to be re-elected. She didn't _need_ to read the intel, because it was always a vote based on a political calculation. That whole approach has bitten her in the butt. There's a viable alternative for the nomination, one even more funded and organized than her, one with more native political skills, and the Dem base sees an opportunity to nominate a Dem "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." Can you _imagine_ Paul Wellstone endorsing HRC?

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 27, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I just saw John Lewis on TV, he didn't want to do this, he was forced.

ANYHOW, I am confused didn't OBAMA say that he did NOT want the SUPERDELEGATES TO DECIDE THE PARTY'S NOMINATION?????????????????????????

Posted by: mjno | February 27, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I have just sold my car and given all the money to the Obama. (its a 2001)

Posted by: mul | February 27, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

John Lewis is 'real' American Hero. He is not happy about this, that is clear, but wants to stay with his voters.

Some Obama voters should note the difference between Obama and Lewis. 'Eyes on the prize' will be on PBS for the first time in 20 years so some of Obambi generation can get some learning. Then see what happened in 68 and 72.

Posted by: mul | February 27, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Huge huge endorsement. I suspect tomorrow there will be several more former Hillary black "supers" switch to Barack. Also Bill Richardsen's endorsement will probably be tommorrow or Friday. Then the floodgates will open. Its over.

Posted by: zb95 | February 27, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse


you haven't answered the question:

voting Nader (i.e. throwing your toys, as you seem to want to) = voting in McCain

and then, where will we all be? (well, actually, where we have been, since voting Nader in 2000 = George W.)

and you call yourself liberal/progressive/a democrat...?

Posted by: s.may | February 27, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

First and foremost, I'm a supporter of Obama. Having said that, I disagree with this whole super delegate system. I think it should be done away with. Whoever ends up with the most "regular" delegates after all of the states, various territories, etc. have voted, should be declared the winner. Give the power to the people to choose their candidate. We don't need the decision made for us by a select few. Now I can step down off my unbiased soap box and endorse my choice. OBAMA 08!

Posted by: gotbass | February 27, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Omyobama: "Look, I am a staunch Obama supporter but I have to agree with the Clinton fans on this one -- dance with who brung ya'."

It was the voters in Lewis's district that "brung" him to his office, not Hillary or Obama. And it is to the voters that he owes his loyalty, NOT to a candidate which they rejected by a huge margin. I applaud John Lewis for once again standing up for what's right.

The whole notion of having superdelegates is obscenely anti-democratic anyway. No superdelegate should make it any worse by voting against the demonstrated preference of the electorate.

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 27, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Rep. Lewis, now Hillary get out and endorse Senator Obama. The writing is on the wall.

Posted by: GraceMN | February 27, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I think john lewis realized, that if he wouldn't have switched, there would have been a huge number of superdelegates, who have got support by the clintons in the past, not daring to back obama because of that. On one hand he had this lifelong friendship and on the other hand he had his lifelong duty to show his people the way.

Posted by: mazhess | February 27, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I have to laugh at most of your comments directed toward me. You people still don't get it; your responses were expected. For the woman who who fights racism and sexism by ignoring it, sticking your head in the sand accomplishes nothing. Just a side note, if you support equity for women, you are a feminist - just want to make that clear for those who don't seem to be in the know. Equity and respect for women took a giant step forward in the 1970s; sadly though and since then, half a step has been taken backward.

Victim-hood has nothing to do with what is happening now or how people choose to protest, reality is what it is. Women represent over half of this planet's population, with little representation. Most of the ugliness on this planet has been created by testosterone (facts are facts gentlemen), maybe many women (and some enlightened males) are just plain tired of living under the patriarchal heel. An experienced, strong, capable woman is here to lead this country and I am pleased and proud to support her in her campaign. For those of you who still question Sen. Clinton's body of work on behalf of this country I suggest you go to her website and read. Sen. Obama has nothing on her, I can assure you. You may want to also check out Obama's first book, paying particular attention to his period of confusion and need to belong (no victim-hood here), he was quite racist and a separatist. Hillary is not perfect, but she was never racist, quite the contrary John Lewis!

Posted by: muldar | February 27, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I think john lewis realized, that if he wouldn't have switched, there would have been a huge number of superdelegates, who have got support by the clintons in the past, not daring to back obama because of that. On one hand he had this lifelong friendship and on the other hand he had his lifelong duty to show his people the way.

Posted by: mazhess | February 27, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

and madserge, you are so full of it. If you gave a s*** about the principles held by moderate democrats (I don't give your "bio" much credence), there'd be no way you wouldn't vote for either of our candidates as the nominee. I sincerely hope to God that some day you do not have cause to reflect on how pathetic your mewling self-pity was as a reason to enable more Republican slashing and burning of our planet and its inhabitants. You can do what you want, but you might want to avoid admitting it in conversation with moral people.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | February 27, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

As a supporter of Senator Obama, I am pleased, Congressman Lewis, that you decided to support my candidate. However, I wonder just how much your word and your vote is worth.

Nominating a candidate for president is serious business requiring someone in your position to exercise serious judgement before committing yourself and your delegate vote. You don't just jump from candidate to candidate especially after you have publicly committed yourself to someone. What I find most disturbing is that you cannot even articulate why you were first with Clinton and then changed to Obama.

As the years march by us, our minds begin to fail us. You have a great past, but its time! Hopefully the voters of your Georgia district will have the common sense to consider electing someone to replace you. I'm sorry, but your time has come and gone Congressman Lewis.

Posted by: NewEra | February 27, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

ziggy1, this is a discussion that we Democrats and assorted persons of sanity need to have as we try to keep the ship of state afloat. If you think four years of more death and destruction, more secrecy, more betrayal of our values, more fiscal irresponsibility (insanity really; I'm a CPA) and more environmental negligience is a good thing so that you can sleep soundly, then bully for you, but I could care less what your opinion is of John Lewis, or of either of our candidates for that matter. Lewis is a person of tremendous integrity and courage, no matter who he endorses and why. We all could learn something from his life of public service.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | February 27, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

pps. does obama know that we don't say more sick, in fact, in the english that i've been taught, we say sicker, nor do we say, more big, we say bigger.

just an after thought, i know it is silly, but so is this whole game.

i am so sorry for you hillary. it is just that you are a woman, and we are not used to seeing a smart, capable, experienced woman at the job that you have so dutifully prepared yourself for. i will remain a fan, regardless.

Posted by: madserge | February 27, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

it is really sad. very sad. it is going to be my first time voting as an american citizen. and as a moderate democrat, i believe i should follow my heart, though, it will be very difficult.
so, after i order my venti, skim milk, no foam, vanila, extra hot cap, (well, i should leave that to the others who are in fact "dillusional") and head to the polling place, and once in the voting booth, i will make sure i vote "PRESENT". i will not be voting a republican, nor will i be voting for a democrate, but i will surely be PRESENT. it is a great trick i've learned from our current front runner, barack, hussein, obama.
ps. why does he never use his middle name?

Posted by: madserge | February 27, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Dear JCchaney1 survival is the strongest driving human trait. With all due respect to Mr. Lewis he chose to represent his district in lieu of standing by his friends. This is quite acceptable and I totally understand why he switched alliegance. Having said that, had he been an Obama supporter from the on set his action would have been condsiderably more creditable. He stance could have been that although he had a history with Clinton, he felt that Obamas message for the good of the country is stronger. To do a U turn on the basis of what the polls are saying is obviously a move of someone who wants to keep his job.

Posted by: ziggy1 | February 27, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters, you might want to adhere to the advice of your candidate - Get real! You all claim that Obama has a cult of personality, but then in the same breath you boldly state that Clinton is the "only one" for the presidency, and that you will hope the other candidate wins if Obama is nominated? How naive, hypocritical, and dangerous a notion is that? I think both Clinton and Obama have run fine campaigns so far, but the notion that a candidate will take her voters and go home if she loses is just un-American. To me, those on either side who say that if their candidate loses they just won't vote in the general election are as immature as that child who takes her ball and leaves a game in play because she's losing. It's short-sighted, and makes no sense.

Sure, if, once you've calmed down and thought about it, you decide that 100 more years of war in Iraq, an almost certain invasion of Iran, and an economy run by a guy who admits that he has very little understanding of economics is a good thing, by all means take your vote and go home. But think about what you say before you do that, all of you. I think your rationality will win out in the end.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 27, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

jchaney, you speak for me. All right thinking people need to come together and put paid to the sorry and unsustainable policies of the radical right-wing. That is job 1, and I would vote for Senator Clinton without qualm (albeit without huge enthusiasm) were she to be the Democratic nominee for President. Anything less is a disservice to the country. Anyone's sense of grievance about losing a primary battle is nothing compared to the grief of the families that will lose loved ones in our next imperial adventure, or the terror faced by poor, young women needing to terminate a pregnancy in the bible belt when Roe is overturned, or the despair felt by hundreds of millions as our environmental policies tip us into an era of permanent catastophe. I'm very fond of Obama, but I'm more fond of the Democratic Party and the nation. I would hope that most Clinton supporters feel the same way.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | February 27, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I think Obamas a cool guy and the question asked is who would you rather have a beer with. I guess Obama would be the man, especially if he's buying ( I actually would have a glass of Cabernet). Having said that, who would be the guy that I would go to bed and sleep more comfortable knowing that the man has been there, has the experience, may not be what we consider a cool dude, but will make the tough rational decisions to keep America strong, safe,secure, keep taxes low and lower, and live in the real world and not some fantasy land of hope,hope,hope. I sure as hell hope that McCain is the next guy in The White House.

Posted by: ziggy1 | February 27, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

ziggy1: There are rats out there, no doubt, just as there are rats here in this forum; but John Lewis is conscientious, and for him this was a difficult choice between staying with his friends the Clintons on the one hand and listening to the sovereign drum beat of history on the other. It's way too easy to take your cynical, despairing, dehumanizing view.

Posted by: jchaney | February 27, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

This is news?

This report was in my newspaper weeks ago, accompanied by a statement by Hillary praising Lewis's work. Oh, I see "hoping to put to end a month of confusion and delay," is what made this really official and newsworthy today?

I attended a protestant church recently and the minister was using the pulpit to tell the congregation that Obama was bring "hope" and "light" to the world (by beating Hillary).

This election is so crazy. I'm religious, but I'm not comfortable with a conflation of religion and politics.

"Uniter" is beginning to sound like just another word for "nothing left to lose."

All of those people who complain about a 2-party system, I understand your complaints--but how do you feel about a ONE-party system?

To all the people claiming to engage in "post-partisan, post-structural, post-post-whatever," do you really believe there's no difference between the parties?

"Divisive" or "divider" are beginning to sound to me like key words for a real, progressive, strategic Democrat.

Remember how Reagan would use certain words, especially down in the South during his campaign--allusions that are not pretty upon examination.

Will Obama reject a comparison of him to Reagan, published in the Post today?

Posted by: Midwestreader1 | February 27, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Look, I am a staunch Obama supporter but I have to agree with the Clinton fans on this one -- dance with who brung ya'. It's self-serving and low class to switch in the middle of the sinking of the Titanic; remember we all fondly think of the orchestra members who went down w/ the ship but pillory Bruce Ismael, the designer who jumped into a lifeboat ahead of the women & children, lol. Your endorsement means nothing now Rep. Lewis so why not go down w/ dignity? Same w/ the other superdelegates trying to get a leg up -- just remember nobody will forget your first positions. But having said that, I again say to all of you bruised Clinton supporters, please go look at John McCain's website; count the number of Supreme Court Justices over the age of 80; think of troops in Iraq for 100, or 10,000 years; consider his stances as a pro-lifer, pro-school choicer 8th most conservative member of the Senate. Time heals wounds -- but it doesn't replace Republican administrations once they're in place (thanks to all the Ralph Nader voters in Florida in 2000). No matter how hurt, I know Sen. Clinton would not want to sell the country down the river for her own self-interest. Yes We Can!

Posted by: Omyobama | February 27, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

All the rants here by HRC supporters threatening to sit out the election in November, or to vote for McCain or Nader, are mostly hot air. I can understand their frustration and disappointment; it's all part of politics. The vast majority of Clinton supporters, even ardent ones, are going to come home to Obama when the chips are down and the common cause has to be defended.

But if they really do carry through on such threats, in numbers sufficient to throw a close election to McCain, then let them have on their consciences responsibility for an endless war in Iraq, for new wars with Iran and maybe North Korea, and for a Supreme Court stuffed with two or three more Alitos, Scalias, and Clarence Thomases. And let them bear responsibility for Row v. Wade being struck down, and for God knows what kinds of other racist stuff and governmental secrecy being tolerated by the federal judiciary--things that will endure for a generation.

By the way, Rep. Lewis's action was courageous and principled. I'm sure that he did have longstanding ties of loyalty and friendship with the Clintons; I'm sure his was a painful decision. But he has also recognized that something extraordinary is happening. Congratulations, sir.

And to HRC's supporters, inclduing those blowing off steam in this blog: Cool it.

Posted by: jm917 | February 27, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

" you really dislike and fear women so much, that you refuse to see that truth?"

To Muldar... the stupidest thing about that comment is that a large portion of us ARE women... and half the women in America support Obama. I am one of those proud female supporters, and I honestly think that the most divisive people in this country are those who are excessively pro-feminist or excessively Black Power activists. It is these people who keep highlighting divisions in society and getting all riled up about them, leaving no chance to heal. I have worked in multiple all-male environments (I'm a minority as well), and I have found that the BEST way to overcome racism and sexism is to completely ignore the issue all together... if I act like I'm not different from everyone else, then people around me tend to follow suit. I'm not saying racism and sexism aren't problems in this country... they're HUGE problems... but suck it up and vote based on the issues, NOT on whether or not the candidate has a vagina. I find feminists to be some of the most sexist people.

It doesn't bother me that people want to throw their votes away on Nader because a.) Obama will change their minds and b.) I think there are enough independents and republicans who like Barack to overhaul McCain handily in the general election.

Posted by: abooxc | February 27, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

The slogan that the rats are deserting the ship has already been said. No one wants to be seen as backing a loser. In his heart, Lewis may still be a Clinton Supporter however in his head he realizes that assuming Obama is The nominee Lewis's political future would be somewhat dim. To the victor go the spoils.

Politicians are so hypocritical. On the one hand self righteous politicans preach against special interest groups when the real special interest is there own personal survival and agenda. Its a dirty business, but somebodys got to do it.

Posted by: ziggy1 | February 27, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

waldengreenwood and jfponeill: Your basic points are well-taken; but there isn't any need to be aggressive against Clinton supporters. For Obama supporters, all the success has come as a pleasant surprise. No matter what we thought of him, we knew he had a difficult road to the nomination. Clinton supporters began this process by feeling very excited about her chances. It can't be easy to watch that hope slipping away. And Clinton is a strong candidate in many ways. Her supporters don't have a good appreciation of what makes Obama so immensely appealing to Democratic voters; but it is always hard to see the appeal of your opponent, especially when the stylistic differences are so pronounced, and especially when the strengths of your own candidate are so apparent to you.

Posted by: jchaney | February 27, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Pee-Uuu ! Is Doprah Lifting her Leg and spraying her Territory Again ? LOLOLOL !!!

Posted by: jmj350 | February 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

A couple of these posts have been fascinatingly illuminating, most partucularly those of hazwalnut and of muldur (sic)!! I really did not realize how deep and how myopic blind hate could be; how sanctimoniously wrapped in the convenient cloak of victimhood (particularly when losing appears to be on the horizon, even if the race has not been decided).

Just hedging one's bets, I guess. "Those evil sexist voters - all untold thousands of them, both male and female - just behaved so awfully and never really listened to any of our candidate's issues. Surely if Sen Clinton were in fact to become the party's nominee, these same folks would be the first to trumpet the fairness of the process and the redemptive 'rightness' of the result.

Hey, in the game of 'politricks' , as in life, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. That's just the way it is. Or as folks say, " gotta' be willing to run with the big dogs, or stay under the porch." B

Posted by: bldlcc | February 27, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"By remaining on the sideline, John Edwards is running some risk of no longer being taken seriously."

Another way to look at it-

If the nominee loses in November, he goes on top of the list for 2012.

Posted by: malo8000 | February 27, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Lest we all forget how much experience and overall political moxy truly matter in a general election, a quick analogy (I had a longer post that I believe was removed):

Barak Obama 2008 is to John Edwards 2004; as
Hillary Clinton 2008 is to John Kerry 2004

I think we all remember how well that worked out for the Dems.

Posted by: lionforce5 | February 27, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

muldar: I've backed the losing side in many primary elections (not that Clinton has lost!), and I certainly know how it feels to see so many people voting for a candidate whose policies or personal qualities seem worthless next to what my great candidate had to offer. But in the end, I brushed myself off, saw clearly that the Democratic nominee (last time, Kerry instead of Dean) was a far better choice than the Republican, and I went on working for the fundamental principles that Democrats share. Clinton and Obama agree on many more issues than they disagree on. You can certainly bet that Clinton, if she loses, will do all she can to help get Obama elected, just as he would help her. The issues and values are bigger than the candidates.

John Lewis is a humble, thoughtful guy. He doesn't change his mind about something like this on a whim. Read his biography, "Walking with the Wind," a powerful moral testament.

Posted by: jchaney | February 27, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

To threaten to vote for Nader or McCain displays a shameful lack of class. Senator Clinton is simply not as compelling a candidate, nor are her grim whining and desperate metamorphoses very confidence-building. Get over it and help defeat McCain.

Posted by: jfponeill | February 27, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Hey Muldar,
Get a clue - the "shame on you" shtick didn't work so well for your candidate. The problem many of us have with Hillary isn't that she's a woman, it's that she is a corrupt and phony nepotist. Let's see her tax returns. Let's see the records of her "accomplishments" from when she was first lady. Was working at the Rose Law Firm public service? Was working on the board of Wal-Mart public service?

Posted by: waldengreenwood | February 27, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards, not John Lewis, is doing what every other influential member of the Democratic Party SHOULD be doing. Namely, NOT endorsing one candidate over the other. Why are these so-called "Super" Democrats creating division within the party ahead of the general election? They all say it's for the good of the party, but it only helps the Republican party in the end, creating splits that are fast becoming irrevocable. It makes no sense. I have no problem with a super delegate changing his or her vote, that is their right according to party rules. But why does it have to be a public spectacle? For the sake of party unity against the Republicans in the fall, please let's put these petty squabbles aside and let the people, and the party, make their choice in the voting booth, not the media.

Posted by: mamiller35Post | February 27, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sullivan,

I enjoyed your post. While we disagree with candidates at this point in time, I like that you're able to keep your sense of humor about things. Keep up the good work.

Go Democrats.

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 27, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

There is no hatred in this world like the hatred of racism, even sexism and misogyny don't come close. Much less trump it. Be honest with yourself, muldar would you rather be a white woman (which you obviously are) or a black man in this country?

Are you even aware that Clinton only leads Obama in female voters by a small percentage overall at this point? In Wisconsin, he won the woman vote 51-49% in a state that is less than 10% African American. He blew her away. Explain that.

Posted by: tronandlori | February 27, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporters according to CNN are the most uneducated people in the U.S. ....I dont care if you have a degree or three...if you think Hillary won the debate last need to work on your thinking....all of you! the only reason Obama is recieving all this over criticsm is because he's Oblack.....As an American first I am happy for all of Obamas support thats called bringing people together....A suggestion if Hillary lasts another debate...close your eyes and listen...the true candidate will appeal to you...Bring on McCain

Posted by: exhooper | February 27, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

seriously muldar, your intransigent gender essentialism is a worry. the 'African American bias', well, that's a new one! (and what of all that history of racism in the US - hello?!) and anyway, if hillary doesn't win the democratic nomination, as seems increasingly likely, as a rich, privileged white woman, she'll most likely continue to do ok (after all, 3 out of 4 aint bad)

Posted by: s.may | February 27, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I find Rep. John Lewis's actions reprehensible. I'm from Atlanta, I've met him, and he has always been one of my heroes. While he is undeniably still hero, I no longer have any respect for him.

I'm no superdelegate, but when I pledged my loyalty to Hillary, it was to stand by her until she either wins or quits. That's what people with character do. I've watched her go from front-runner to the very precarious position she now finds herself in and I've never once thought of leaving her to support Obama. For me, it is a matter of principle.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Yes, but you didn't think he was a rat until he jumped Hillary's ship...hypocracy will get you no where.

Funny that you throw the African American bias into the mix were all for it when they were behind Hilary. You just started to mind it when it swayed towards Obama.

Posted by: tronandlori | February 27, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

to "james.sullivan1", I was referring to the comment from muldar, 1st in this comment list that stated "I and many, many other Clinton voters will opt for Nader, or vote Clinton as a write-in where permitted, or not vote at all. These actions will be in protest against one of the ugliest elections I can remember..."

It seems that the democratic thing to do would be to support the democratic candidate, whomever he or she is in November. Apparently the Clinton's do or die mentality is rubbing off on a good number of their supporters to the greater detriment to the Democratic party. I doubt your heritage is in any way close to Obama's but if that is the only way you could find it in your heart to support your democratic candidate in an important election year against McCain, then thank you for finding some way to put your differences aside and do the right thing. It is more than alot of Clintonites are offering to do if Obama wins the support of the majority of the democratic party.

Posted by: tronandlori | February 27, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I can only assume most of the posters here have been and do live on Mars. To think that sexism and misogyny have not played in this election? Are you really in that much denial, do you really dislike and fear women so much, that you refuse to see that truth? Where does your TV reception come from, or better yet, who provides your internet service? Sexism and misogyny will always trump racism, look around the world you little Obama lemmings, and start right here in the US; in fact, start with yourselves. The civil rights and the feminist movements were great examples of people employing protest for social conciousness, if it means "throwing the race" then so be it. I'll not vote for some male neophyte who has been carried to the forefront by the male-dominated news media, the African American bias, or the many threatened white male voters. For all of you who think that Republicans are voting for Obama because he is the new "hope", you are deluded (that includes Obama). You all just don't get it. By the way, whether a rat is boarding a ship or jumping from a ship - a rat is a rat is a rat!

Posted by: muldar | February 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Well it seems pretty simple to me.

On the one hand you've got a Northeast candidate with a proven track record and years of experience in both domestic and foreign policy, who happens to be a solid debater.

On the other hand, you've got a junior senator in his first term, who may be a little green but has a strong message of change that seems to be resonating with middle america.

However, as is usually the case in these things, experience is ALWAYS the best policy...someone with a proven track record will always be able to pull that out to trump the competition. And that's why Democrats should clearly throw their hat behind the experience of John Kerry! We can't lose!

Posted by: lionforce5 | February 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Enough with the "bias" towards HRC. The voters are voicing their preference plain and simple. All of those GOP and independent voters out there that you claim are skewing it towards BHO - do you really think that if Hillary somehow is the nominee she can be elected without those independent and on the fence GOP votes?? If those are indeed a "protest" vote, how does that bode well for HRC going forward?? You give the media way too much credit here, it's a very simple fact - HRC has too many negatives to be a viable candidate.

Posted by: bendersx6 | February 27, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Enough with the "bias" towards HRC. The voters are voicing their preference plain and simple. All of those GOP and independent voters out there that you claim are skewing it towards BHO - do you really think that if Hillary somehow is the nominee she can be elected without those independent and on the fence GOP votes?? If those are indeed a "protest" vote, how does that bode well for HRC going forward?? You give the media way too much credit here, it's a very simple fact - HRC has too many negatives to be a viable candidate.

Posted by: bendersx6 | February 27, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Endorsements aren't crucial, but they are of some significance. John Lewis's carries weight because HE carries weight.

Bill Richardson, meanwhile, languishes without acting upon his eloquent prior insistence that this miserable war in Iraq be brought to an end. Moreover, Richardson arouses the suspicion that he is holding off from an endorsement of Obama, the remaining prime Democratic spokesman for bringing this war to an end, because Bill Clinton has somehow muzzled him from speaking out.

It's time to translate words into deeds, Governor Richardson.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 27, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Enough with the "bias" towards HRC. The voters are voicing their preference plain and simple. All of those GOP and independent voters out there that you claim are skewing it towards BHO - do you really think that if Hillary somehow is the nominee she can be elected without those independent and on the fence GOP votes?? If those are indeed a "protest" vote, how does that bode well for HRC going forward?? You give the media way too much credit here, it's a very simple fact - HRC has too many negatives to be a viable candidate.

Posted by: bendersx6 | February 27, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I just stumbled by chance upon this blog. Listen to most of you. Just listen. Everyone of you has a right to support your candidate and to oppose one, but to do so with such "hatred" is abominable. I'm not thin skinned, but I sense a disgusting attitude. You who are democrats must know that the Clintons have done right by the american people. They have supported civil rights, etc., etc., - I don't have time to delve into all issues but all of you can review Bill and Hillary's voting records. People talk as though they've never done anything good. We prospered during Bill's administration. And, seriously, what better backup to enlist in discussions about America's future but your husband who is ex president? I thought you guys were Americans - People have the right to make choices. She's chosen to stay in this race just as Huckabee has. For those of you who haven't heard: Clinton and Obama have very, very similar views on issues. In my opinion, Hillary just happens to be more experienced/qualified.
We have serious issues to resolve and in my opinion it takes someone of her caliber to get the job done. Now, see, I didn't have to resort to degradation.

Posted by: ydennis | February 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

seriously, i cannot believe how moronic and asinine the threat of a protest vote for Ralph Nader actually is. do you remember 2000? wake up and smell the coffee!! the problem with the Left has always been its ability to dismember itself over petty differences, while the Right marches on to victory as a result. this is what happened in 2000, when the vain-glorious Nader argued that there was no difference between Gore and Bush (and, indeed, with complete political naivety, that having Bush in for 4 years would show the world how 'bad' the Right actually was - well, 8 years later, here we all are). and to invoke the gender of the candidate as some kind of political panacea is wholly naive as well - think Margaret Thatcher for pete's sake. the problem here - apart from the childish churlishness of it all - is that the candidate has been tried and found wanting. experience of what - a failed health care plan, an inability to build alliances, a disastrous acquiescence on a key foreign policy decision, with ruinous consequences for the US and the rest of the world. that may be 'experience', but it's clearly not the kind of experience, increasingly, that many democratics (independents, and even some republicans) care for. so, get over it, suck it up and do the right thing, or it will be 2000 all over again (and another 8 years of republican hegemony).

Posted by: s.may | February 27, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, Mayor Daley [senior] used to carry the Chicago graveyards, so why can't Ann Richards support Hillary? Nobody else will do it!

Posted by: thrh | February 27, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

By remaining on the sideline, John Edwards is running some risk of no longer being taken seriously. Evidently this risk grows each day. And if he should now decide to endorse a loser, he is apt to find himself relegated to a spot in the long list of also-rans.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 27, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is going to need to pull a Doug Flutie (Last second hail-mary pass) to win this one. Obama is pulling ahead, big-time;

Barack vs Hillary Analysis
The Home Stretch:

BTW, I would not just yet put it past her.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 27, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"the sexism and misogyny have been heart breaking and illuminating!"

If HRC used "automatic" delegates to steal this election from the popular will of the Democratic (and other) voters who have undeniably chosen BHO thus far, would the racism involved in that move also be "heart breaking and illuminating"? Would that even be racist? I think the claim of sexism here is way off base and unfounded. Maybe its the candidate, not her gender.

Posted by: avalle | February 27, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Make no mistake about it....Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama. I will happily vote for Ralph Nader or even McCain to keep the press' anointed prodigy from winning the election. And since Senator Clinton got most of the Democratic votes, unlike Senator Obama who got independent and republican votes along with some temporary college voters, the republicans will clean up when their members start voting for real in the general election. The Democratic party elite did not support Senator Clinton...we will not support the Democratic party. And it's not just that they didn't support her...they trashed her. Revenge will be great in November.

Posted by: hazwalnut | February 27, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

It's straightforward, he (Lewis) is going with his district to keep his job, can't blame him. As a Hillary supporter, I want her to win fair and square.

Posted by: cheersdk | February 27, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

It's past time for the Clintons to put their egotistical self-interests aside and get behind the people's candidate. They'll be fine - they seem to have plenty of money and I'm sure you have good health insurance.

Posted by: donovanlc | February 27, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I voted for and continue to support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. 'tronandlori' apparently thinks we are a petty and spiteful bunch who waste our votes to throw the election. Not True!! I am fully committed to supporting a Democratic candidate for President of the U.S. in the November general election whether it be Hillary or Barack O'Bama. Even though Hillary is the obvious choice because she is superior to him in every way I will still consider voting for him because of my shared Irish Heritage. It is O'Bama right? That's Irish, right?

Posted by: james.sullivan1 | February 27, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Way to go Rep. Lewis! You made the right decision. While the Clintons have positively impacted the Democratic Party, they do not own a monopoly on the party. If they love the party so much, they should recognize the mood of the party and the country for that matter, and graciously step aside for the good of the party they love so much.

Posted by: donaldson.dawn | February 27, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

It's all about November...

Obama vs. McCain ? Obama, Dem's and America win...

Clinton vs. McCain? Clinton, Dem's and America lose...

The calculus is really that simple!

Posted by: sayliffe | February 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Come on, Hillary.

The Times-Bloomberg poll yesterday gave McCain his first lead over both Democrats.,0,5452138.story

The reason? The two of you beating up on each other is bringing to the forefront ever wart on both of your bodies. It's time to do some "vetting" of John McCain, which can only occur full-time once there is a Democratic nominee.

Call it quits, Senator Clinton. All you can do now is damage.

Posted by: DualAg | February 27, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

In regards to Mr. Lewis, "jumping ship". Perhaps he just realized that he got on the wrong boat to begin with? The one he should have been sailing was the one that included the majority of his constituents that he is sworn to represent. The problem with the superdelegates that pledge before their state's voters have a chance to voice their choice is that they are trying to align themselves early on with the candidate that they THINK will win to gain clout an political favor with that candidate. It is not a matter of rats jumping ship, it is a matter of rats getting on the boat they should have been sailing on in the first place. They should vote with the people, for the people, that should be the democratic way. Maybe this election will be a good lesson to all of them to not try to get on the political bandwagon for their own purposes and to wait until their constituents tells them what band to dance to?

Posted by: tronandlori | February 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Good for you Rep. Lewis!
And thank you!

Americans are so tired of politics as usual and, politics as usual is exactly what Hillary and Bill Clinton stand for.


Posted by: nitesky | February 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad John Lewis came to his senses. If he didn't, the people in his district would have surely voted him out.

Posted by: coolbob | February 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Those of you that claim to be democrats but threaten to vote for Nader are sellouts and indicitive of the selfish, selfcentered campaign that Hillary is turning into. The most important thing first and foremost to the democratic party in this country is to have a democratic president in office. To threaten to vote against Obama to spite him is typical of how the Clintons have run this campaign. The most underhanded political manuevering has been on the side of the Clintons, and they have proved that they can dish it out and can't take it. Maybe someone should have told them that you shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house? Please, I understand wanting your candidate to win, but to threaten to unsurp the democratic nomination is exactly what Hillary should be accused of next, because that is exactly what SHE is driving her supporters to think. The Clintons don't care about this country's unity or equality, they only care about their own agenda, winning at all costs. It only has shown them for the true character they possess and it is sad for their legacy.

Even sadder is the comment by so called democratic supporters that threaten to throw the election. You might think that having another 4 years of republican white house control is due punishment for the precious Clintons losing power, but the rest of us TRUE democrats who believe in unity and democracy in this country would like to see the democrats have a chance. So maybe Hillary could have some class and stop the party division and her supporters might learn a thing or two about being democrats.

Posted by: tronandlori | February 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I, as a white voter, was very disappointed in Lewis's defense of Bill Clinton before the SC primary. I am glad to see his current Obama support especially before the Mar 4 primaries, but his integrity was diminished a notch by that performance,

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Yep. Ann Richards died in 2006.

Posted by: crd203 | February 27, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

In other news Hillary gets a major endorsement from former governor Ann Richards.

""So many women around Texas and America are saying, `Wish Ann was here, for us and for Hillary,'" a female voiceover says on the video.
"Today Ann would be asking all of us to make a statement. She would be traveling to every small town and big city in Texas, urging us all to take a stand, be counted, to make a difference, to make history," it says while a picture of Richards and Clinton appears on the screen. "This one's for Texas. This one's for our country. This one's for Ann.""

Of course Ann Richards happens to be deceased... and two of her children are not happy about this.

Hopefully next Obama's endorsements by JFK and RFK, lol.

Shame on Hillary for this one!

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 27, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Shame on you John Lewis, what a cowardly act! You and the others jumping ship like rats. I hate to burst Obama's arrogant theory that he can get all of Sen. Clinton's voters if he gets the nod, see "Obama says GOP will have dirt on Clinton" (no bad-mouthing Hillary here Barack?!) by AP writer Nedra Pickler) ; I and many, many other Clinton voters will opt for Nader, or vote Clinton as a write-in where permitted, or not vote at all. These actions will be in protest against one of the ugliest elections I can remember, the sexism and misogyny have been heart breaking and illuminating!

Posted by: muldar | February 27, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

How many hints do you need, Hillary? Do the math and get a clue.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 27, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company