Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Waiting to Hear From Lewis

By Peter Slevin
MILWAUKEE - Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is delighted by the thought that Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), former civil rights leader and current Congressional Black Caucus notable, might switch allegiances and support the Illinois Democrat.

But Obama himself said he was unable to reach Lewis this morning to confirm a New York Times report that Lewis would turn away from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and cast his superdelegate vote at the Democratic National Convention for Obama.

"I have not spoken to Congressman Lewis," Obama told reporters before a rally in Milwaukee. "I put in a call to him after the report to find out what he was thinking. But I have not received word from him yet."

As the Democratic rivals scramble to lock up superdelegates who could swing the nomination if the race remains tight, the Obama camp would like nothing better than to peel away politicians and party loyalists who endorsed Clinton early, long before Obama's White House bid gathered steam.

Obama's forces are also pointing to his string of eight straight victories as they try to convince fence-sitters that an endorsement of Clinton might not be the most prescient political move.

The superdelegates, Obama told reporters today, should not trump a victory by the candidate who wins the most delegates in the nation's primaries and caucuses.

"Whoever has the most pledged delegates at the end of this contest," Obama said, "should be the nominee."

For the record, Obama is currently leading Clinton among pledged delegates, while she is ahead among superdelegates, who can switch sides at any time. The next contests are Tuesday in Wisconsin and Hawaii.

By Washington Post editors  |  February 15, 2008; 1:08 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Elder Bush to Endorse McCain
Next: Obama's Texas Test

Comments

lcqpefw wohpsr rvyjbmouq kytgbqaox avmhtzlyk zkyx hilgcpts [URL]http://www.bdeypkx.aqcgfp.com[/URL] yisf csrpqxbyu

Posted by: wule nosdvj | April 16, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

exhfw szakcjor ntwjhrmu thxvniabm skhabyvdm ycerpql cwar [URL=http://www.joanlecwx.dcbjv.com]nirpvqf bpcd[/URL]

Posted by: ojukmvx tipmcsz | April 16, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

exhfw szakcjor ntwjhrmu thxvniabm skhabyvdm ycerpql cwar [URL=http://www.joanlecwx.dcbjv.com]nirpvqf bpcd[/URL]

Posted by: ojukmvx tipmcsz | April 16, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

exhfw szakcjor ntwjhrmu thxvniabm skhabyvdm ycerpql cwar [URL=http://www.joanlecwx.dcbjv.com]nirpvqf bpcd[/URL]

Posted by: ojukmvx tipmcsz | April 16, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

zpufcj mxpdhfze bwalu kzuayxhg btpflr dpxnlrts cvhmxeu zrqknjm ahompdqn

Posted by: jpny wdxrj | April 16, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

koer qhan simx yuwicsk oxmq bqvhzp ehtygxklf http://www.wbmonc.mgalwe.com

Posted by: ftawncbxg cknzypoja | April 16, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

koer qhan simx yuwicsk oxmq bqvhzp ehtygxklf http://www.wbmonc.mgalwe.com

Posted by: ftawncbxg cknzypoja | April 16, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

koer qhan simx yuwicsk oxmq bqvhzp ehtygxklf http://www.wbmonc.mgalwe.com

Posted by: ftawncbxg cknzypoja | April 16, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

tibmy leoj akftlg fqonr ahiwgfrje snuoftv jamfz

Posted by: egvsq atmg | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

And I still wonder how many commenting are regular people and how many are just political shills.

Posted by: Valjean1 | February 16, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

orange2299--Your analogy does not wash. The team down 2 TD's can and often does come back. Hillary CANNOT make up those delegates unless she runs the table winning at least 60% in every state. Math does not lie. For generations now the Democratic party has taken the Black vote for granted, now the shoe is on the other foot! When it's Obama .vs. McCain, where are you Hillary types going to go? How does it feel?

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

If John Lewis reneges on his promise to vote for Hillary, me as an African male will have no more respect for him, because your word is suppose to be your bond, it would have been better for him to have been for Obama from the start, then to up and switch campaigns in mainstream like this just for political reasons to save his job, what ever happened to sticking to your beliefs and principals, this man have even campaigned for Hillary, and he up and do this, if he does do this for sure, I would view him as a flip floper like John Kerry. people tend to go with the flow, or what's popular or faddish at the moment, that's a real shame, that's not always good to get on another bandwagon just because everyone-else is doing it, because that wagon you mistakenly leaped may possibly lead you in the wrong direction and cause you many heart aces and troubles further down the road.

Another thing I don't understand about Obama, why is he accepting the endorsements of people who have been in Congress for thirty or forty years,like Kerry, Kennedy, and Lewis for examples? and says on the otherhand, he's tired of politics as usual when he's accepting endorsements from those same people who to him represent's politics as usual, this is so deciteful, and hypercritical of him. Obama is not being truthful with hisself and his supporters, He's a politican just like his colleauges in Congress, the only differnce is, Obama is a good Orator who is able to inspire and motivate to buy into his misleading message on the campaign stump.

I believe if Obama truly wanted to change Washington; he would have sought to and accepted endorsement from only younger members of Congress like himself. If Obama becomes President, he will be their puppets,like Bush was to Cheney, due to his lack of experience. Obama would owe these older Congress members something for their endorsements, they will bend and stretch him so much like a rubberband that he would not know which way to turn or go.
In my opion, Obama will be brought and paid for by these same politics as usual crowd that he will become politics as usual guy himself, something he say's he's currently not. Go Hillary!!

Posted by: Lilly111 | February 15, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Hey Obama folks: Yes, your candidate is ahead, and quite likely the nominee. But it's a little condescending to tell us Clinton folks to join with you right now. We're committed to our candidate, and the race isn't over. You don't declare victory just because you're two touchdowns ahead late in the third quarter.

As for 51% vs 65%: seriously? Obama is under 50% against McCain in polls. Where is this magical 65% going to come from?

Posted by: orange2299 | February 15, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Why do I keep wondering how many posts are from ordinary citizens sitting at their computer at home and how many are shills sitting at a computer in the office of the one they are posting in support of. eBay and carnivals aren't the only places they reside. Listen to the candidates themselves and think. Posts that are "We all good, they all bad" are meaningless and should be looked on as entertainment just as Red or Blue media are. Nothing more than sales pitches.

Posted by: Valjean1 | February 15, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of Hog Wash! There hasn't been one solid word or reason given by these Obama followers that tells us WHY and WHAT THE ADVANTAGES ARE FOR VOTING FOR THIS PERSSON OF NO CONSEQUENCE. Aside from a lot of Hot Air coming from Obama, there is nothing that he says to back up his Bravado. He really hasen't the slightest idea how he is going to make this so-called CHANGE IN AMERICA. Have you noticed, he does not mention change anymore. He just talks a good talk. Now he has to walk a good walk back to his roots, which is not America.

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | February 15, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

lonelydoc4love

love to see you post this crap. the more this stuff is published, the more desparate and sad it seems.

Posted by: linsweet | February 15, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

In God we trust! I ask christians to please pray for Obama and Clinton for God's wisdom. As you know the task is enormous and full of challenges that you and me writing these blogs can ever manage or handle. They both need the wisdom from above and I believe it is our responsibility to seek on their behalf

Posted by: refreds | February 15, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Those ignorant people who criticize Barrak do not know that he is a Ghulam-e-Mustafa. After many years of Bush, people are flocking to see him because he brings the message of Allah, through his Prophet(pbuh).

Barrack is great for America. He will teach America Islam and begin your conversion to the true religion of Islam. The Prophet(pbuh) has foreshadowed this. The mercy of Allah is upon America. Barrack will bring you out of your darkness and into the light of Islam.

Inshallah Barrak will be President

Posted by: lonelydoc4love | February 15, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

And now I see diksagev comments. Interesting.

Posted by: jsrandolph | February 15, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The more I hear about Obama the more I get nervous about this guy. It's amazing that the media doesn't want to cover more detail about him. I suppose we are too apathetic to care. We just want a entertaining actor in chief like Obama. The ambiguity with which Obama addresses issues reminds me a lot of Bush. Then again, that may be what we want.

"Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."

On another note, I wonder what affect it would have on our society if President Obama decides to revert to Islam, the faith of his father, one day. How would that affect us? Would it affect us? I don't think that question has ever been posed. Both of his fathers were Muslim and so is his brother. He is said to have had deep admiration for his brother when he formally started practicing Islam. I think these are questions most Americans care about but we've never really had to confront before now.

Posted by: bhatttt | February 15, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Seems there are strong feelings among Obama and HRC supporters against the other contender. I agree with maq1 above that democrats need to coelesce behind the candidate most likely to defeat McCain this fall. I believe that candidate to be Obama and support him wholeheartedly.

However, as a close-to-center democrat, I personally am one who would vote for McCain in a general election vs Hillary(obomanation!). The country needs leadership that can be respected here and abroad. McCain at heart is not so far to the right that he can't make common sense decisions with a democrat-majority congress. To me, HRC is mostly a calculating, political statistician who seems to court this demographic or that based on who can help Billary get back to the White House. Black vote less important to her now, latino more so. I don't hear Obama discuss specific demographics; from him I hear a call for unity. As a leader, Hill does not have Bill's charisma... and certainly not Obama's.

Posted by: jsrandolph | February 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

An Authentic Leader in the White House?
Posted February 15, 2008 | 03:18 PM (EST)


The resounding victories of Barack Obama and John McCain in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. -- Obama by an average of 34 percentage points and McCain by 28 -- confirm a growing desire of the American public to elect an authentic leader as its next president.


At every talk I have given this past year on True North and authentic leadership, one of the first questions is, "Is it possible to have an authentic leader in the White House?" At first, I begged off these questions, saying my research on leaders was based entirely on business and non-profit leaders. Privately, I had my doubts that our political process, which has become so negative and vicious in recent years, would permit an authentic leader to prevail.

As this extended primary campaign moves on, it is becoming increasingly clear that the American public is not only open to an authentic leader as President, but demanding one. The two leading candidates at present, John McCain and Barack Obama, are on the rise precisely because they are authentic.

The media seems to think this election is about gender and race. I think it is about authenticity. Most people under 40 are so cynical about politicians who promise one thing and do another, or who are unwilling to admit their mistakes and shortcomings, that they will only get engaged for a leader that they are convinced is authentic. No wonder that both Obama and McCain have such a following among independents and the younger generations.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney may have been the best qualified candidate in either party, but he failed because he lacked authenticity and seemed to say whatever people wanted to hear. His positions on key issues changed so dramatically since his years as governor of Massachusetts that no one knew what he stood for. The same could be said for the precipitous fall of Rudy Giuliani, once the Republican front-runner.

McCain, on the other hand, who was left for dead last summer as his campaign was falling apart, came back on the strength of his authenticity. McCain, who experienced his crucible as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam, tells it like it is. He is not afraid to go against popular positions or the Republican hierarchy, including the current president. As he has assumed front-runner status for the nomination, the hard-liners in the Republican Party have tried to bring him in line, but he has steadfastly refused.

On the Democratic side, Hilary Clinton is fully qualified to be president, but people don't seem to know who she really is. She is extremely skilled at playing the polls and figuring out the right appeals to voter subgroups, but this has only led to unusually high negatives in the eyes of many people who are politically aligned with her positions. The one time she showed a little emotion in New Hampshire voters responded by giving her a surprise victory over Obama. Then she returned to the negative side in South Carolina, and her support has been slipping ever since.

Obama's authenticity is precisely what makes him so appealing to such a wide range of voters. He seems "good in his skin," and is able to rise above the negative attacks. His message of hope and change, backed up by specific programs that seem logical to most people, is inspiring a lot of Americans to get engaged in the political process. For all the talk that he would wither under the pressure, he seems to get stronger and more confident as he goes.

Obama talks openly about his crucible -- coming from a mixed race family, watching his parents divorce while he was very young, moving to Hawaii, and being confused in high school about which direction to go -- until he found himself in his early twenties. His opponents say that he lacks experience, which is not really true. At 43 years of age, Obama has had an abundance of life's experiences, which enable him to understand the lives of ordinary Americans and to empathize with their challenges.

He is confident enough to sit down with a wide variety of world leaders, even those with whom the United States currently has hostile relationships, and try to work out solutions. He uses the same approach to health care, offering to bring all the interested parties around a big table and seek solutions, something his opponent steadfastly refused to do in the early-1990s and is currently belittling him for today.

In a topsy-turvy election year, there's no assurance that either McCain or Obama will be elected president, but that doesn't take away from voters' desires for an authentic leader in the White House.

This just might be the year. Wouldn't that be a change?

Bill George is the author of the best-selling books, True North and Authentic Leadership, and the former chairman and CEO of Medtronic. His web site is www.truenorthleaders.com.

Posted by: diksagev | February 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

As a young idealogue, Hillary Rodham worked tirelessly to get rid of Nixon. Now she has questions planted. She fakes crying to appeal for sympathy just before votes. She conducts focus groups to determine her every move. Most damning, however, she goes all out to destroy the enemies she sees lurking everywhere. JUST LIKE NIXON. We have to take our party back before we can take our country back!

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the nomination, I eagerly wait to see what the Republicans will throw at him, but much more importantly, how Obama will respond. I think he has coasted thus far and will continue to do so all the way to election day. As a result, I don't believe his mettle has been truly tested.

This is what seriously concerns me about him and this is precisely why I will not consider voting for him.

A person needs much more than feel-good speeches to lead a country and actually get some things done. It is precisely because so many people have caught Obama-fever (why? I don't know) that I am cynical.

With all this hope stirred up, I believe many many people are going to be let down.

Posted by: coking | February 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The reality is, that the Democrat's primary/caucus system is an odd one. We have a hodgepodge of rules that differ by state. Most have some method of awarding delegates based on the popular vote within a district, thus effectively splitting the vote, at times, in a way that contradicts the overall popular vote within the state.

Given this state of affairs, we now move to the superdelegates from each state, who are, based on party rules, free to vote for whomever they so choose. Now, when deciding for whom to cast their vote, it would make sense for them to consider how their vote will affect the parties ability to rally the troops and most strongly move into the general election.

Given this, and given our current state of affairs, it seems reasonable that a superdelegate may choose to support the candidate that either won the popular vote of their state OR won the greatest number of delegates in their state. I think it would be difficult to argue strongly against either of these decisions and would minimize the potential melt down of the Democratic Party if another method is used.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Can you smell what Barack is cookin'?

Razorback and Elephant.

Did anyone read about Obama's face-to-face words to cousin Cheney? Classic! The Clintons wish they were that good. Come on out. The fresh air feels great!

From today's LA Times:

Standing not far from Dick Cheney -- who had accidentally shot a lawyer friend on a hunting trip -- Obama told the vice president, "I know you came here expecting to be a target, which, it turns out, may prove easier for you than shooting at one."

Then he thanked the Democratic nemesis, saying: "For years we Democrats have succeeded in doing little more than shooting ourselves in the foot. You taught us a valuable lesson: Aim higher."

Posted by: frank | February 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Not to belabor the point, kemurph, but I meant you said the sort of thing Clinton surrogates would say in the (purely hypothetical) situation you described: "Imagine if Hillary were turning down debates. 'She won't even agree to talk one on one about the issues, what a shedevil!'"

Posted by: wahooah98-wp | February 15, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm not saying that that IS the standard, but I am saying that it is the way MOST people think delegates super or not should vote.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

kemurph-

Come on. When Obama's PAC donated money to Claire McCaskill, who was in an extremely close race in the swing state of Missouri in 2006, do you really think it was because he was thinking, "hmm, when I run for President, she'll be a super delegate, so if I donate money to her campaign, she'll be sure to support me at the Convention"???

You don't think maybe it's because Missouri is a crucial state, and having a Democratic Senator from Missouri would help the party as a whole, by moving it that much closer to the majority? Give me a break.

Fine. But as to the other part of your argument, yes, I'm sure Obama, as well as Clinton, knew that super delegates compose 20% of the voting system. But when was the last time there was any question of a nomination process being decided by super delegates? Historically, the nomination is all but decided after just a couple of primaries/caucuses. If you're trying to tell me you think Obama planned this whole thing (the protracted nomination fight, the super delegates and everything else) and started buying support back in 2005, I think you are smoking the wacky tabacky.

And it's MoCo, not MooCoo. And we voted for Obama.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 15, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't recall making any suggestion for how Clinton surrogates should act.

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

One funny thing,
Hitler's slogan: "Alles muss anders sein!" ("Everything must be different!")
Don't tell me you never heard of Hitler, Political Idiots.

Posted by: hgogo | February 15, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Blather is not leadership.
Obama is 99% blather.
The same o blather is getting old already.

Posted by: hhkeller | February 15, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

james, why is that the standard? a purist would say "let the winner of the national popular vote be the nominee". However, Obama says superdelegates should somehow be bound by their constituencies. Very clever. I don't see him coming out and saying that "all the superdelegates should vote with the overall popular vote of the country", because then he has to address FL and MI, which don't benefit him. there's a reasonable chance that he would lose that given FL and MI. Even if you don't count FL and MI, there's a decent chance that Obama will end up less than 56 pledged delegates ahead (Hillary's net FL+MI with uncommitted from MI counted as Obama supporters), and lose the popular vote.

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

kemurph, you're probably right that Obama supporters would criticize Clinton if she were the one resisting more debates (although after having been through 18 of them and with two more scheduled it would be as weak an argument coming from Obama as it is coming from Clinton).

I have even less doubt that some of Clinton's surrogates would do as you suggest and attempt to portray any criticism launched at Senator Clinton as latent woman-hating. I mean, come on.

Posted by: wahooah98-wp | February 15, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

ASinMooCoo - you must be kidding... you seriously think that Obama didn't know that superdelegates made up 20% of the vote system in 2006 when he was clearly already on a path to be a candidate?

As a Hillary supporter, I freely admit that I look past some negative things about her... I just wish Obama supporters as a whole were more perceptive of the fact that their candidate is a politician, with all that entails (Rezko's fence, picking a position based on how it suits political chances, etc.)
Think about debates... if you're truly democratic debates are a good thing... but more debates help Hillary, not him, so he's against them. Imagine if Hillary were turning down debates. "She won't even agree to talk one on one about the issues, what a shedevil!"

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The issue is about superdelegates and the popular vote within the state they represent, NOT the popular vote of the nation.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

thanks, kemurph - good to know. i think that total is important to watch as this new argument about superdelegates plays out.

Posted by: matthewmaverick | February 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is a fine gentleman with great motivational speeches. I saw him as capable VP to Hillary who can rally the base very well but unfortunately, the press gave him a free ride much to the detriment of Hillary. I only wish Americans will think and not follow their emotions just as we did during Gore and Bush. On the issues, he does not match up to Hillary at all. The truth is that politics is not a fun and clean game but a dirty one. Wait till the other side start attacking him before the general election. Be that as it may, if Obama wins the nomination, we will all rally behind him and hope Hillary will be chosen as his VP.

Posted by: fodeks | February 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

james - i would appreciate it if you took the time to spell my name correctly.

turning away from the "distortion of truth" should include not claiming to have passed legislation that was never voted upon and recognizing that it was too weakened to mean anything anyway - something senator obama failed to do.

my point is not that senator clinton has never done this, but rather that they BOTH are politicians trying to win a race and BOTH engage in the same type of behavior. only the rhetoric is different, and at the end of the day words are just words.

i have grown weary of the claims that the tone will be different, when the reality is that it has not changed.

Posted by: matthewmaverick | February 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing this "experience" thing vis-a-vis Clinton vs. Obama. Buy into this myth that HRC is more experienced if you want to but the facts speak for themselves. HRC has never actually run anything except for a flawed and universally condemned process for a health-care overhaul during Bill's administration. She has not authored a single bill since becoming a senator, where as Obama has authored about 190. He was also a state senator in Illinois whereas HRC had no state experience beside being first lady of Arkansas, which entail no duties. Their records are easy to check and compare. Besides, to me personally, there is a whiff of dishonesty which linger over the Clintons. Then they claim the press is against them but, to quote Michael Gerson: "Well, it is true that the Clintons have been endlessly vetted -- but mainly because their shared career has been an endless string of scandals. Stuart Taylor of the National Journal recently took a depressing stroll back through the derelict funfair of the Clinton years: the deceptions about Gennifer and Monica, the Travelgate firings, the prosperous trade in cattle futures, the questionable transactions of Castle Grande, the strange case of the misplaced billing records. In the midst of these colorful controversies, Taylor observes, Clinton has developed "a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity."

Posted by: sboyd18 | February 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Martha, are you saying that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are not being democratic?

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

jen you missed my point... the rules changed a long time ago, and now Obama wants to change them midstream...after contributing a ton of money to the superdelegates and apparently not winning over enough of them
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336


Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 02:32 PM


Kemurph, I read this article, too, and I agree that at first glance, it does sound unseemly. But when you read carefully what the article says, Obama's PAC donated money to a number of those individuals for the 2006 election cycle, which is before he announced his candidacy for President, and WAY before anybody knew that the super delegates were going to become such an issue. I know there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, but let's not forget that in 2006, the Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress, and the Democrats were in overdrive trying to win it back. There were a lot of battlegrounds in that race, and I'm sure the funds coming from both Obama's and Hillary's PACs was very helpful in those tough races.

Unless I see a long list of super delegates who have pledged support to Obama after receiving donations from his PAC for the 2008 election cycle, I don't think this is a quid pro quo deal of any kind.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 15, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Since joining the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq has been identical to Hillary's. Both have continuously funded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

matthew good question... I did try to do the math. On cnn's site the candidate pages show the vote totals. Right now it's about 9 million to 9 million, with Obama in the lead by like 40k votes (50.1%-49.9% in votes for the two). BUT, that's only primary states... the entire slew of caucus states only has numbers that are derived from the caucus vote but don't even represent individual people... and the caucus system's ability to be representative is highly questionable.

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I truly wish the Americans would get behind Obama. Display your democracy instead of monarchy. After all these years if the Bush regime, I would think that you would be better able to see through the Clinton machine. Futhermore, it's very hard to see anything democratic in Mr. Lewis not supporting his own voters decision. Their vote for Obama was overwhelming! Please America, enough of the same old. Be brave and take that leap. The rest of the world is watching, waiting and praying.

Posted by: marthadavidson | February 15, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

has anyone done the math? considering the size of the states won by clinton, compared with the size of states won by obama - and remembering that several highly populated states have yet to vote - would obama actually lead clinton in the number of people who voted for him? the proportional distribution of delegates makes me wonder. so, in the end, who is to say the superdelegates would actually be "going against" the popular vote or weakening anyone's position?

Posted by: matthewmaverick | February 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

TO ALL OBAMA SUPPORTERS:

I'm asking you to please cool it with writing negative posts about Hillary. I'm a strong Obama supporter (contributed, volunteered, made calls, etc.) and as you know he has been all about reaching out and bringing people together.

I know that there is some resentment coming from Hillary's side but we cannot give in to their taunts. After all of this is said and done, we'll have to come together no matter who the nominee is and we'll need Hillary's supporters as much they'll need us if we want to win the White House.

We can agree to disagree and keep a level of civility that should be expected of us, no matter how negative the other side tries to be.

If you want to do something positive with all that energy, instead of the back and forth bickering that solves/proves absolutely nothing, go to Obama's web site, volunteer, and help him get elected.

Ovwong-I wanted to re-post your comment, because I completely agree with it. I've been trying to get some of the extra-zealous Obama supporters to chill with the Hillary attacks, but to no avail so far. I'm 100% behind Obama, but these attacks on Hillary from Obama supporters and attacks on Obama from Hillary supporters do nothing but hurt the Democratic party.

So, do as Ovwong said, folks, and keep it civil. Policy positions are fair game for criticism, but let's cool it with personal attacks and innuendos. Gracias.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Why do you say that Clinton is "changing the rules" on MI/FL? Can someone explain where the rules were written?

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Mathew,

Arguing that a distortion of the truth is "hitting the right tone" is simply more of the same tactics that an increasing number of Democrats are turning from. It's just a losing strategy.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Changing the rules after the fact is just the type of behavior we would expect from Clinton and her campaign. Why does Bush/Gore keep coming to mind?

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Ovwong's point is well taken and I couldn't agree more that Democrats should put aside their differences and come together to beat McCain this Fall. But how a candidate wins the nomination is as important as whom we nominate, and Senator Clinton would start the general election campaign in a weakened position if she wins the nomination by means most people consider illegitimate, and Obama supporters need to speak up about it.

Proportional allocation means that in a race this tight neither candidate can win the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Unless Obama's lead exceeds 20 percent of the total number of convention delegates (i.e., 700+ delegates), the superdelegates will determine the nominee.

The Clinton campaign has done the math and realizes she can win only if superdelegates nullify Obama's pledged-delegate lead; they further realize their best chance of closing the gap is to have MI and FL seated.

That they are vigorously pursuing both options raises questions both about Clinton's electability and her suitability to lead. Democrats need to consider those questions carefully even if they'd rather remain positive and up-beat.

Posted by: wahooah98-wp | February 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

the vicious nature of the attacks on senator clinton from obama supporters posted on blogs here and at other sites like the NYT make it so difficult to be open to obama the candidate. i want to see a democrat in the white house, but at what cost? the clinton campaign has struggled, but they have finally hit the right message - he offers promises, not solutions. and they are promises he cannot deliver.

already the campaign is failing to deliver on the promise of a change in the tone of how the campaign is run - the obama campaign goes "negative," goes on "the attack" just as much as any other campaign, but the media refuses to call them on it. more importantly, most obama supporters seem unable to point to any substance in their support of him - other than their dislike, even hatred, for a woman who has worked her whole life in support of children and families.

finally, i struggle with this "momentum" argument ... a few thousand voters COMBINED in kansas, idaho and maine are supposed to carry more significance than MILLIONS of voters in california, new york, michigan and florida? seems like "new math" to me.

Posted by: matthewmaverick | February 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Where would former Enron employees be if the Clinton administration had properly regulated the energy industry?

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

jen you missed my point... the rules changed a long time ago, and now Obama wants to change them midstream...after contributing a ton of money to the superdelegates and apparently not winning over enough of them
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Dear Obama supporters;

Mr Lewis denied the comment Secondly have you seen the economic news. The price of imports is up 1.7% Hmm Mr. Obama has been running around saying that NAFTA was a bad Idea. Where do you think prices would be for manufactured goods if there was no overseas compitition to the US manufactuers. The answer is about 5%. Obama doesn;t understand economics and would be a disaster for the country. The story is below. Also, Mr. only have been a Senator for THREE YEARS isn;'t qualified to tackle these issues. Also HRC is ahead in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania and we are counting Florida and Michigan. The last I checked they are US citezens and will be voting in the general election. Finally Mr. Obam will not win a general election because he only wins Red States which he won't win against the Republicans.

The price of imports rose 1.7 percent in January and was up 13.7 year over year, the highest annual rate since the Labor Department records began in 1983. Fuel costs led the rise, ballooning by 5.5 percent last month. Imported food and beverages also cost more in January, and the price of Chinese goods ticked up by 0.8 percent. Export prices rose 1.2 percent, and American companies are also charging more for food, industrial supplies, and agricultural products.

Posted by: politicalobserver1 | February 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

#3 which was the system that was tinkered in the 1984. That system was more representational than the current superdelegate system.

Posted by: jemformw | February 15, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Hold your horses there ovwong. She's not down yet. Don't turn your back and walk away. Watch the claws come out. Lies about the backroom deals with the nuclear industry and racial division being seeded in PA. Check it! I'm not going to play nice yet. We have to point out how different she is from Obama; how low she can actually go. I do not feel sorry for her. She needs to take her licks.

Governor says some Pennsylvanians likely to vote against a black man
A Clinton supporter, Edward G. Rendell cites his huge win over Republican challenger and former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann in 2006. A spokesman says he meant no offense.
From the Associated Press
February 13, 2008

HARRISBURG, PA. -- Gov. Edward G. Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said that some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival, Barack Obama, because he is black.

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.

To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 reelection campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of 20 percentage points.

Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and previously Philadelphia's mayor, endorsed Clinton on Jan. 23.

Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.

Later Tuesday, Rendell's spokesman said the governor did not mean to offend anyone.

Posted by: frank | February 15, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

It is shocking to find out how ignorant people are. Obama's chances aren't any better in the general. In all of the states they poll the same. What's the difference well 52% of those that vote at the general are women. And Obama is the MOST LIBERAL SENATOR-NAT Journal. Remember the Republican dirty tricks team does not have limits and if you don't think the Republicans will run racist attacks against Obama just like they would sexist attacks against Clinton you are really naive.
You have to thing of key voters and stances like IDs for illegals doesn't equal a huge win.

Posted by: btwsadlbcom | February 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

@ovwong.

I have been avidly following boards and blogs, and I do not see what you see. I do not see nearly as much negative attack mode coming from Obama supporters as you suggest. I admit I often post and try to respond to points which have been frequently raised against Obama, and to set the record straigt regarding Clinton. I am curious about this attack claim. Wait until the republicans come out against Obama or Clinton. Then you will see full frontal attack.

Posted by: jemformw | February 15, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

jenformw - what "original rules", you mean (1) like in the 1800's when it was only a convention of insiders
(2) early 1900's when it was only a caucus system of insiders
(3) from mid 60's-1980 when it was a mix of primaries and caucus with smaller number of superdelegates than today
(4) the current system since 1984 that they put in place due to party dissatisfaction with the choices of primary voters (McGovern, Carter)

#3 is the "original" system?

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

You guys, I agree with ovwong. I actually support HC but let's try to see through both of these candidates.. they're cut from the same cloth politically and they're both making up the rules as they go along... check this out, if Obama wasn't in support of the superdelegate system, why did he contribute $700k from his PAC to the reelections of current superdelegates?

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Talk about changing the rules... I thought the rules were that 80% of the delegates were pledged and 20% were unpledged? Obama now proposes that that 20% has to follow the lead of the 80%? Convenient for him, but if those were the rules, the pledged delegates would be 100%, wouldn't they?

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 01:55 PM

The original rules did not include superdelegates. Obama and a lot of other people would like to see the original rules restored. This superdelegate thing is eerily like a communist country, where the party elite can decide eletions. All Delegates should represent the will of their constituents. That the DNC saw fit some years ago to trash this principle is no reason to blindly allow their bad judgment to subvert this election. Superdelegates were a bad idea and it's time to revamp that idea, to insure democracy. We have seen our constitutional rights assailed relentlessly by the Bush Administration, and to a lesser degree by the Clinton Administration before that. This is the United States of America, not the United States of Russia, nor a tin pot dictatorship.

Posted by: jemformw | February 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

TO ALL OBAMA SUPPORTERS:

I'm asking you to please cool it with writing negative posts about Hillary. I'm a strong Obama supporter (contributed, volunteered, made calls, etc.) and as you know he has been all about reaching out and bringing people together.

I know that there is some resentment coming from Hillary's side but we cannot give in to their taunts. After all of this is said and done, we'll have to come together no matter who the nominee is and we'll need Hillary's supporters as much they'll need us if we want to win the White House.

We can agree to disagree and keep a level of civility that should be expected of us, no matter how negative the other side tries to be.

If you want to do something positive with all that energy, instead of the back and forth bickering that solves/proves absolutely nothing, go to Obama's web site, volunteer, and help him get elected.

Posted by: ovwong | February 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary says Obama isn't a "doer." Wishful thinking on her part. He has done something no one would have predicted a year ago: he has built a tremendously successful campaign from the ground up (not leftovers from a spouse's team). That required smart, savvy, disciplined work and is strong evidence for Obama's ability to achieve the seemingly impossible: he is ahead of the "inevitable" candidate. He has done so without the help of lobbyists and has brought more ordinary people into the process than ever before. That's leadership, and shows plainly that he is, for sure, a "doer."

Posted by: grammieann | February 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama speaks in platitudes - and we thank God for his wisdom. He knows that there is a time and a place for everything - and he know when to use rhetoric to unite - rather than to divide with specifics on issues. ....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/15/lincoln-less-gettysburg/

Posted by: glclark4750 | February 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Unless Hillary Clinton can turn things around in a dramatic fashion, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

The Clinton campaign realizes the New York Senator will not be able to close Obama's sizable lead in pledged delegates by winning primaries. As Congressman Lewis's endorsement makes clear, Clinton is unlikely to maintain the support of superdelegates who previously endorsed her, and she stands little chance of expanding her current lead among those party leaders.

That leaves Florida and Michigan, and the Clinton campaign seems bent on doing everything in its power to have the contested delegations seated at the convention, even at the expense of a nasty intraparty feud that would leave large segments of the Democrtaic electorate dispirited going into the November election. This is no way to rally the support of Democrats who still believe George W. Bush stole the 2000 election.

It is my great hope that this strategy backfires and uncommitted Democrats--primary voters and superdelegates alike--see it for what it is: a desperate attempt on the part of Senator Clinton to change the rules of a game she can't otherwise win. Clinton's win-at-any-cost style of politics illustrates the key difference between her and Senator Obama, the "speeches vs. substance" mantra notwithstanding.

Posted by: wahooah98-wp | February 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

gmundenat & jwhawk-

You kids sound dumber than Bush.
Is this your first campaign?

-Try not to conduct yourselves like republican youth...
IF Senator Clinton IS the nominee you will look even worse...

My choice is OBAMA- But I'll be busting my ass for Ms C. if it's her.

McCain is the enemy you goobers!

Posted by: kase | February 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

If Lewis and other superdelegates don't make this kind of decision, it will tear the Democratic Party to shreds. The superdelegate system we have in the Democratic party is perhaps the most undemocratic process in all of American politics.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Talk about changing the rules... I thought the rules were that 80% of the delegates were pledged and 20% were unpledged? Obama now proposes that that 20% has to follow the lead of the 80%? Convenient for him, but if those were the rules, the pledged delegates would be 100%, wouldn't they?

Posted by: kemurph | February 15, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

If HRC's "firewall" of Ohio and Texas doesn't hold, expect Lewis to be joined by lots of "Super" company.

Posted by: Odquest | February 15, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Its too late. The press has already killed her campaign.

I wish the press had focused on the issues.

She would have been a great President.

We could have finally had universal health care for all Americans.

Not its not going to happen.

Every person who suffers and goes without health care will be a monument to the shallowness of the American press and the American public that loves "a good story".

We're facing life and death issues in this election.

Yet again, we're going to elect an overgrown "teen-ager" rather than a competent adult who actually knows what they're doing.

No wonder the world is passing us by.

Posted by: svreader | February 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

This is one of the best comments I've seen on washpost.com. Ever.

Maq1, nice job. Not much else to add to the post.

Dear Clinton Supporters

Please join up with the Obama camp. This isn't about ego - its about the future of the party. Obama is growing the party leaps and bounds over anything we've seen since before Reagan. We are on the brink of a Democratic consensus for the first time in a long long time. Obama is the one to lead it. Hillary is an accomplished person due respect, but she can't build the consensus as he can. Please join up and help us get out of the 51% era of partisan warfare and lead us into the 65% era of consensus politics.

Obama is person for the job. Please give your support to Obama.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 01:39 PM

Posted by: ewexler1 | February 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Barack is certainly looking strong vs. Hillary. Check out these web numbers:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

Posted by: davidmwe | February 15, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

It's nice to see some of the super delegates care more about the will of the democratic majority than the grinding, negative, slimy Clinton Machine. I anticipate many more supers coming Obama's way in the near future.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 15, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I have NO DOUBT that we win against Old Blood 'n Guts with either Senator Clinton OR Senator Obama.

But, with Senator Obama we win BIG.

I want to win BIG.

Posted by: kase | February 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA! YES WE CAN - YES WE WILL. Billary is history!

Posted by: jwhawk | February 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

And please ignore the "Na na na" comment somebody wrote earlier. Most of us aren't like that.

Posted by: ally | February 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Dear Clinton Supporters

Please join up with the Obama camp. This isn't about ego - its about the future of the party. Obama is growing the party leaps and bounds over anything we've seen since before Reagan. We are on the brink of a Democratic consensus for the first time in a long long time. Obama is the one to lead it. Hillary is an accomplished person due respect, but she can't build the consensus as he can. Please join up and help us get out of the 51% era of partisan warfare and lead us into the 65% era of consensus politics.

Obama is person for the job. Please give your support to Obama.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Na, na, na, na

Na, na, na, na

Hillary--It's been real, it's been nice, but it has not been real nice. Don't let the door hit ya.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company