Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Backers Urge Pelosi to Stand Firm

By Matthew Mosk
Online activists at, a liberal group that has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, responded today to a letter top donors to Sen. Hillary Clinton sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday.

The group of 21 Hillary Clinton supporters had upbraided Pelosi for suggesting that Democratic superdelegates should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates, and urged her to "clarify your position ... and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August."'s political action team sent its own open letter to Pelosi yesterday saying "if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back."

"This is pretty outrageous: a group of Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination," the MoveOn letter said. "It's the worst kind of insider politics -- billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters."

At the same time, NBC reports that another major Democratic donor, Leslie Walker Burlock of San Francisco, wrote to Pelosi pledging the maximum of $28,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Burlock, an Obama supporter, told NBC the donation came with advice to Pelosi to stand her ground.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 27, 2008; 5:11 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Big Democrat Donors Among Pelosi Critics
Next: McCain, Under Pressure, Revisits Economic Questions


"Obama: Let the Contest Continue Into June"..........except in Florida or Michigan.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 30, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Of course Obama supporters want to end it while he is ahead. But is this the current will of the people. Obama would not have won the delegates he has if the news about his mentor Rev. Wright had been out there in the mass media from the onset. It raised serious issues but only recently, when his cult status was established. I am certain if it were all redone today, Hillary would be squarely ahead. Certainly Florida and Missoiri's voters should count - is Obama trying to rig the outcome by not supporting this for his own benefit? All the votes should be counted and let's see how the rest of it goes. I hope the superdelegates have the courage to understand that Obama's background came out too late, and they have to show good judgement as to his candidacy. NOW Obama says he would quit the church, when for 20 years he supported, and made Rev. Wright his mentor and personal 'family'. You can't tell a book by it's cover, and surely Obama is good looking, charming, and glib. But when you look beneath the cover at his actions, his friends and associations, it is obvious that he is not a man of character or good judgement. If anyone was associated closely with Hitler - for 20 years-in his inner circle and heard his tirades against the Jewish people, and considered him a close mentor and friend - and then said well I do object to some of what he said - but I can't disown him etc. I know this is a dramatic analogy but when you think about it, it's the same. Rev Wright preaches hate against whites, and hails people like Farakhan, a vile bigot and hate monger himself. Of course Obama knew all this and more but did nothing. Why didn't he speak up in protest then - over so many years - it speaks volumes about this man. I would surely vote for a Black American to be President of the United States - but not this one. The oh so obvious bias of the press, CNN, NBC etc. is discusting, and it is one instance "I" am ashamed of what is going on in our country. I know truth is powerful and I hope Obama is eliminated as a candidate.

Posted by: hlesterazcardinals | March 29, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's Rich Supporters/Backers letter to Nancy Pelosi is Pure "Blackmail" and no Politician should allow bully's to affect decisions like this.

Everything about Hillary Clinton is now Tainted be it Lies or the Dirty Personal Attacks on Barack Obama as well as now how Over Zealous her Supporters have become.

Hillary would be well advised to stop before she loses any small respect she still hold onto and her future time in politics.

Posted by: jaybs1 | March 28, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

The super delegates are under a lot of pressure right now to come out for one candidate or the other. Our the citizens need to be heard by the super delegates, so that the will of the voter, not be be tossed aside but counted and recognized.

Posted by: knowledgeeverflowing | March 28, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

silly bamas!

"How much worse can he be than the so-called experts we've had for the last 8 years. Doesn't someone different deserve a chance?"

Just give the job to whoever wants it? Change? Different? What exactly do you have in mind? A mindless drive to escape your problems?

"Hillary's Hags"--meaning me? Thanks so much, this kind of cheap derision and all the name-calling and character smearing in which Obama's supporters wallow gives the lie to their stated intent of uniting the nation. Right, sure! Personally, I reserve the right to describe you all accurately when you mess up; playing "Mr. Nice Guy" and then having your troops act like thugs doesn't appeal to me.

Wright. 20 years. Nation of Islam...supported by the Saudis and preaching hate. Don't forget how they dealt with Malcom X. Good grief, how blind can you be? I looked into this church after the first story about his support for Farakhan came up and then waited for over a month before anyone in the media bothered to look into it. Our "hard-hitting" journalists are sleepy pillow punchers, it seems.
At best, remaining in this church was a self-serving political device which has come back to reveal bama's poor judgment. At worst, well...I'd not like to find that out. Christian? mmm...more political. Damn? Where's the love? This isn't about "style," it's about "content."

As for Hillary's "gaffe" regarding the take is that the information she was being given by the military and her advisors and security detail enroute created this mental picture. She wasn't walking a red carpet on a groomed runway. When she said she made an error, it very probably was in projecting the vision that had been cultivated of the situation into which she was going. It was descriptive of the frame of mind she'd been told to maintain. Had she said that they were "supposedly" going into sniper fire, etc., the comment would have been accurate and not one which the pack would be chewing over.

Hmm...and I find the idea of a third party most interesting. Women, eh? I'm a democrat, just rejoined to vote for HRC in the primary, after having been an independent since McGovern's run. I've certainly not been happy with the way things have been going. Hey, it worked for Teddy Roosevelt!

Pelosi needs to think this through. I hope she doesn't think that MoveOn's support is 100%. Their backing of Obama was slipped through with 24 hours notice to their members of a vote on Obama or Clinton. About 500,000 out of 3.5 million had a chance to vote. All they proved to me was that I'd been hornswoggled by a group I thought I could trust.

Why shouldn't delegates be free to support another candidate? One of my earliest memories on 50's tv was of a political convention doing exactly that after an inconclusive first vote.

What I don't like is the caucus system. I've seen it manipulated.

The Electoral College is quaint too.

Actually, I'd be thrilled to see Gore in her cabinet, working on the environment, energy alternatives, and the necessary greening of America. Edwards as VP? I think he needs to be in the administration as his concern for the peoples' welfare is sincere, but then he would also be valuable in the cabinet. I like them both.I didn't like Kerry, but voted for him anyway as being "better than Bush." Frankly, bama reminds me of w in his way of appealing to emotion and "causes" rather than to rationality and "real ideas."

Michigan and Florida already voted. Count it and don't extend the screw up into FUBAR. More poor judgment on bama's part in removing his name from the ballot in Michigan...he did not do that in Florida, remember...must have realized the error of his ways a little late in the game. Oops. He did break the rules there actually by advertising in Florida. He actually campaigned. Hillary did not. Reality. Truth. Wake up.

Posted by: marya | March 28, 2008 4:48 AM | Report abuse

First of all, let's get something straight about Pelosi - her credibility is gone. She has been biased from the start but more importantly she has been completely ineffectual as House Speaker. The current Congress, under her leadership, has a disapproval rating in March of between 67 - 72% depending on the poll you look at. Thanks Nancy! SO you stand firm on whatever you want, I wouldn't listen to a word you have to say, for that matter if you said zig, I would zag. As far as's quote that as long as "she keeps standing up for regular Americans" thousands of them will have her back. Well I happen to be a regular American and she hasn't stood up for me yet, and if they are deluded enough to believe that she has their backs, then they need to check their facts.

I am in complete agreement with those that will not give money to the DNC until they allow Michigan and Florida to vote. In a race this close you CANNOT disenfranchise millions of people. And yes I've heard the argument that everyone agreed to keep them out at the beginning but nobody knew then that this race could end up being determined by 1 or 2 states.

For all of you Obama supporters out there ask yourselves this question....why is Obama so afraid to allow these states to vote? The only reason I can think of is because he knows he will lose. If he is so sure he will be the nominee, than he has absolutely nothing to worry about, does he? When you don't play fair and allow all votes to be counted, you risk being known as the one who stole the election, like Bush.

I don't get what all of Obama's supporters see in him. He has no experience, is a bit of an opportunist with a Messiah complex, hasn't voted a majority of times when in the Illinois Senate and lied about his relationship with Tony Rezko and the amount he donated to his campaign. As for his speech against the war, he later admitted that since he wasn't in the Senate at the time and not privy to all the information, he's not sure how he would have voted. And then there is the Reverend Wright issue. The Republicans will have a field day with this one. How can anyone spend 20 years with someone as their Spiritual Advisor and not be influenced in some way by them. I'm not saying Obama is unpatriotic but... you hear enough things over 20 years and they become a part of you. I no longer trust this man at all. I'm not sure what is in his subconscious and I sure as heck don't want to find out after he becomes President. He has been a financial supporter of this church; this Reverend married him, baptized his kids and has had an incredible amount of influence in his family life. He should have never had this Reverend on his campaign staff. When the story first hit, he lied and said he didn't know about any controversial statements. Then he admitted that he did know when he first began his campaign. Why would someone running for President of the United States, have someone that's made statements against America, Israel, Italians and G-d knows what else, as part of his campaign staff? He is running on WORDS AND JUDGMENT. This shows absolutely terrible judgment on his part. Do we want a man like this in the White House making these types of errors in judgment?

The more we learn about Obama the less I like him. How can anyone want him as our President? This country cannot afford to be taken again. A lot of people voted for Bush, I still haven't figured out why, but his folksy ways or some such thing took them in. For all of you that have gotten taken in this time, please come to your senses before you screw our country over again.

As Joel Stein, reporter for the LA Times said, when interviewed about Obama by David Wright for "Nightline":

"We know we're being fooled but we kind of like it. I can't get off the ride, it's too good."

People, please get off the ride, you are being fooled!

Posted by: chorusline7 | March 28, 2008 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Bullied the DNC
Bullied Richardson
Bullied Pelosi

Now the Clinton Camp can only bully the voters... sad.

Posted by: eljefejesus | March 28, 2008 2:19 AM | Report abuse

DickeyFuller: So Obama's campaign bused in people from Illinois to Iowa and that is how he won the caucuses there eh?

Well that seems pretty darn far fetched to me and it also doesn't explain why - in subsequent head to head general election polls - Obama wins Iowa over McCain, while McCain wins Iowa over Clinton.

Did they leave the people on the buses behind? Must have been a lot of buses eh?

Pull the other one.

Posted by: JayKay2 | March 28, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

Don't make Hillary "sniper-fire" Clinton quit the election until we get to see her tax returns.

I want to see where she got those millions.
I want to see how many of her senate votes were bought.
I want to see how many murders she paid.
I want to see how many of those who Bill pardoned paid Clintons.
I want to see who they paid to kill Vince Foster.

Posted by: Dave27 | March 28, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

onama was fresh and new in the beginning but the more we get to know him the more he smells like a rat - dangerous.

Posted by: zmat | March 28, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

what does wright want ??? if you don't have the three-strike law they will commit even more crimes!!!! with all the hatred they are fed at church they go out to the streets and take revenge. car jacking, shooting on highways.... they shoukd change it to two-strike law.

Posted by: zmat | March 28, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

I hope Sen Clinton is lieing when she talks about dodging bullets in Bosnia. The alternative is far more terrifying.

Posted by: gdmutch | March 28, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

This is an excerpt from Mother Jones Sept 1, 2007 issue. If you can stomach this article about Hilary's religion and continue to bash Obama, then you are sicker even more dispicable than she is. Hilary is a monster who will destroy anything and anyone to get what she wants.

"When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

Clinton declined our requests for an interview about her faith, but in Living History, she describes her first encounter with Fellowship leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars, the Fellowship's majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, "is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Coe's friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Under Coe's guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of Congress created by Tom DeLay. The corresponding Senate Values Action Team is guided by another Coe protégé, Brownback, who also claims to have recruited King Abdullah of Jordan into a regular study of Jesus' teachings.

The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God--leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit." According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular visitor to Coe's Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance."

Posted by: ecohawk | March 28, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Is Snags85 accusing Hillary supporters of being mindless drones. Last I checked simply voting straight ticket Democrat of Republican without thought or consideration wasn't a virtue. Furthermore if Hillary wishes to split the Democratic Party upon her defeat, and attempt the foundation of a new party, then more power to her. That she could conceivably turn the US into a three party nation, well, that seems a bit fanciful. But I personally would welcome an alternative to the two party system we have now.

Posted by: apesca | March 28, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Is Snags85 accusing Hillary supporters of being mindless drones. Last I checked simply voting straight ticket Democrat of Republican without thought or consideration wasn't a virtue. Furthermore if Hillary wishes to split the Democratic Party upon her defeat, and attempt the foundation of a new party, then more power to her. That she could conceivably turn the US into a three party nation, well, that seems a bit fanciful. But I personally would welcome an alternative to the two party system we have now.

Posted by: apesca | March 28, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

What happened to, "We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and serve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." We the people is not Clinton and her rich friends.

Posted by: xmassan | March 28, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic party will lose a lot more then 24 mill from the big donors if they mess with this race! I know there will be a much larger percent then 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters who even now are not giving a penny to the DNC until those Florida & Michigan delegates are seated. They end this campaign early and they will have a mass exit by over half of there party! We just might become a 3 party nation over this! It is that serious! Hillary Clinton was to be this election year party nominee and everyone knew it. If this is not run in a way in which every single Democrat who wants a voice & vote and a delegate at the convention to choose this years nominee you will see most Florida and Michigan and Hillary supporters not be there with either money or votes! How many Obama supporters are only Obama supporters and not other Democratic interest supporters? How many Hillary Clinton supporters also support all other Democratic Party interest? Her supporter show up at the voting booth and vote straight Democratic tickets year in and year out. Can you say that about Obama's supporters? The Democratic Party also need Mayors, State leaders, US Senate, US House of Representatives not just the White House. Hey DNC are you sure you can afford the cost of a Obama nomination?

Posted by: snags85 | March 27, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

I find it very depressing How Hillary Clinton's supporter's keep trying to find fault with Mr. Obama,through his pastor Rev. Wright.
Hillary Clinton's own pastor has said that what the media has done to and said about Rev. Wright is very wrong. That his is not the man that he(Hillary's Pastor) has known for 20 plus years.
Even when Hillary Clinton shows us herself that she is and has been a LIAR about the issues such as NAFTA,she lied,North Ireland,she lied, NAFTA in regards to Canada,she lied,experience,she lied.
She has LIED so much that she is now causing her own DAUGHTER to lie as well.
Chelsea Clinton when asked if her memory of the day in question,was the same as her mothers was forced to reply in a manner loyal to her mother, "it is as she said it was" she said in a very unconvincing way,before saying how proud she was to have been there which drew applause from the audience.
How a responsible and loving and caring parent can subject their own kid to this is beyond any justifiable reason I can think of.
I dont think anyone would ever forget being SHOT AT(and with my child at my side),that memory would forever be and stay ingrained in my mind,every detail.
And now poor Chelsea,who is younger and whose memory should be much better than her moms,is reduced to lying to protect her mother,and now she has caused Chelsea's CREDIBILITY to be questioned also.
How much more DAMAGE will she be allowed to cause???

Posted by: rlinc2u | March 27, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Those 21 donors just want their own 'entitlement program' and 'affirmative action' help. They sound more like New Republicans than Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi, stand your ground!

Posted by: TomJx | March 27, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

...and one more thing. We were all thrilled when Bill and Hillary took the White House in 1992. But it took only two years for them to lose both houses of Congress to the Republicans!!

Now Hillary, who knows she has lost, is using the Tonya Harding strategy - if she can't win, injure Obama so he doesn't win. Then she can run in 2012. Never mind wrecking the Democratic party - do or say anything to win, even if you have to wait four more years.

She knows that if Barack wins and serves two terms, she'll be 68 when she could run again in 2016. And his VP will be set up to run in 2016. No, this was her chance, she expected to win, and when she didn't she's out to burn down the barn.

The superdelegates can prevent this. Back Obama - the PEOPLE'S CHOICE - and put him over the top.

Posted by: mauialoha | March 27, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

NOBODY was bussed in to our caucus in Hawaii!!! No, not shipped or flown in, either! In 2004, 4,000 people caucused in the whole state of Hawaii. Last Feb. 19 almost 38,000 showed up to caucus in Hawaii!! Bussed in??? Everyone I know was there, even some Republicans and the state voted 76% for Obama! He beat Hillary by 52%!! Not 10%, like she won Ohio - 52%!! Almost 38,000 people caucused and more than 3/4 voted for Obama!! Bussed in?? Gimme a break!

Posted by: mauialoha | March 27, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

no lie MRI ( will be out in July or August. Already way beyond polygraph accuracy, we can only expect technological advances will soon require total honesty or taking the 5th for everyone in one nation, indivis1ble, under consciousness, with liberty and justice for all.

Posted by: brublr | March 27, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

People who claim to support Hillary because of the Wright-thing should consider this:
- Hillary and Bill have personally made specific statements and actions (cigars) that shafted the American people
- The best that Hillary's people can dig up on Obama is a video of associate who's not a politician and not running for office

Posted by: quatzecoutl | March 27, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi bent over for Bush at least 100 times this year. She's lost almost all credibilty. Not much left so who cares what she thinks or does.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 27, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

after seeing what happened to the democratic party no wonder there are so many 'new' repubilicans supporting McCain instead of obama

Posted by: clinsupor | March 27, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

With the recent information about Obama he should step down. My family and friends keep asking...How can a Prospective President get away with being a member and a financial donor to a Church that is radical, racist, preaches hate towards others, and is anti-America...We are finding this is Hypocritical. It's a double standard.
This is wrong to the core of What America is about.

Posted by: clinsupor | March 27, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Kings, Queens, leaders and politicians have always shared thoughts and ideas with religious figures. Its nothing new. Consulting god before you bomb and invade a poor nation is no exception. History is witness to who the players have been. A political preacher inspiring Americas first potential African American president is here and now. A consequence of smallpox champions on Native America, slave trade, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, holy agent orange, blood for oil etc. All of which happened with god on our side. 4 years of a freshman Senator Barack Obama would be better than 4 years of the best Clinton or McCain. I'll take my chances with Obama knowing that the fangs of Bush will be in Crawford biting on beef jerky instead of the world.

Posted by: oneworld67352 | March 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

I just donated to the DCCC. Stand your ground Speaker Pelosi! We support you.

Posted by: mooremoneypower | March 27, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

"on July 22nd, the "Pastor's Page" carried a pro-Palestine article by Hamas leader Mousa Aba Marzook excerpted from the Los Angeles Times. "

here we ago again more proof that Obama and wright are anti white anti jews and anti italians/ hating every one but blacks.


Posted by: clinsupor | March 27, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama's speech today on the economy was brilliant. He gave a clear and easily understood lesson on the US market in its historical context, then set out PRINCIPLES for a 21st century US economy. Hillary has no principles. That is, she is un-principled, and all her many so-called "concrete" measures are merely fuzzy bullet points which we all know will be lost when she negotiates with her special interest lobbyists and multibillionaire supporters who are now threatening Pelosi unless Pelosi throws the race to their pal, Hillary. As the Queen of Mean, the only means Hillary understands are lying, kneecapping, and throwing the kitchen sink at honorable Americans. Her campaign has run on unpatriotic and unAmerican scorched-earth, drive-by shooting, gender and race gaming, divide-and-rule politics of personal destruction.

Posted by: shirleylim | March 27, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton Machine is so desperate, that it has tried to buy an election in Michigan, with two east coast governors with blood money in pockets! Now, 20 rich cats are threatening the Democratic Congress with a blackmail proposal. Next, Clinton's camp will kidnap Al Gore, using the nomination as ransom. Stay tuned...

Posted by: wanakeeh | March 27, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton machine is so desperate to claim the entitled presidency that Hillary thought she would waltz into, that they try to buy the votes in Michigan and now, they are trying to bully and blackmail Congress. What next? Holding Al Gore hostage with the nomination as ransom?

Posted by: wanakeeh | March 27, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I think Nancy Pelosi might have better responded to those self-important jerks with more money than brains by endorsing Obama. That would have been a terrific "in your face" move. I really wish she'd done that & (hopefully) created the avalanche of Obama endorsements from superdelegates that's inevitable now anyway. I think it's extremely important that money-politics like this be repudiated & I think there's no better way than making an example of these individuals, with the unmistakable message that if you try playing this game, you will only hurt yourselves.

It would have been the perfect way to watch ol' Hillary go up in flames.

Oops, I forgot!!! Evil can't be consumed by fire.

Posted by: aaron.cohn | March 27, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

I will never understand why some here get so "Fanatical" about a candidate. They are both politicians. By the nature of what they are they tell groups of people what they want to hear to bolster their position and use that support as a means to an end. In this case the presidency. You have but to watch their speaches and look at the demographics of the crowd in front of them to see this. In front of whites they talk about white issues, in front of poor they talk about poor issues, in front of blacks they talk about black issues. In Obama's case he even sounds like a preacher in a black church doing it. I am not making a racist remark watch his youtube speaches in south carolina and misissippi. They tell each group what they want to hear even though it conflicts as the move from group, they both do it. There are no "SAVIORS" here. They will go to washington when and if elected and simply play the same game they have been playing from a different position. You are naive to think otherwise. Pick the one that can get the most done in the system we have, because at the end of the day no matter what Clinton or Obama tell you the game will never change. Change you can believe in is a nice sentiment but you are not going to get it this time around.

Posted by: jkd301 | March 27, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse


I'm sure that Jeffery Dahlmer had a "softer" side too . . .

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse


if you followed his tax return, his church is just one of the places he donated to. And the money goes for church's activities.

Wright has been a nutcase in the videos shown on tv. But there is also a softer side to him , which is not shown in any channel. check out the full sermons on youtube

Posted by: catchsandy | March 27, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

lets face it.. McCain is an extension of bush and his policies..when you go to the middle east..and try to tie Iran to bin bush did..with Iraq to bin are an extension of bush ..when you go to the middle east..with sen.joe Israeli citizen..and visit Iraq and Israel..and don't visit..Lebanon..Palestine..Syria or better believe you are an extension of bush. And you better believe we will be in a war with Iran and Syria..with it ..a war with Russia and most likely china also..if McCain wins in November..

Posted by: thailandjames1 | March 27, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

just seen Clinton on msnbc..talking on fox.this morning..Clinton said she will go to the credential committee in Denver and try to have them overturn the delegates and have superdelegates vote for her..i can not see how anyone could not see through her..even women..who make up most of clintons votes...must see this as less then presidential..and i am putting it mildly..i can not vote for Clinton..and it has nothing to do with her being a women..i feel we will be replacing one liar and thief (bush) with another liar and thief.(clinton)

Posted by: thailandjames1 | March 27, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

just seen Clinton on msnbc..talking on fox.this morning..Clinton said she will go to the credential committee in Denver and try to have them overturn the delegates and have superdelegates vote for her..i can not see how anyone could not see through her..even women..who make up most of clintons votes...must see this as less then presidential..and i am putting it mildly..i can not vote for Clinton..and it has nothing to do with her being a women..i feel we will be replacing one liar and thief (bush) with another liar and thief.(clinton)

Posted by: thailandjames1 | March 27, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

"He's it. We lose this chance, we're back in the bush-clinton-bush-clinton pattern that has held for the last few decades."

If Obama wins, we'll justend up returning to the "same old, same old" progression we saw with Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. For those of you Obama backers whose memories don't stretch back that far, that was when we went from having one of the two most corrupt Presidents in modern U.S. history, who escalated the Viet Nam war (which he pledged to end during his Presidential campaign) into Cambodia and Laos, basically rigged his re-election by sabotaging the Democratic primary process and then was impeached and forced to resign in disgrace, to a deeply spiritual "Washington outsider" who was going to restore 'honesty and integrity' to Washington. Instead, we got ABSCAM, a stagnant economy and lousy job market, 18% a year inflation, the Iranian Hostage crisis, re-inflammation of the Cold War and foreign policies which proved to be unmitigated disasters. It was also thanks to Mr. Carter that we first started supporting and arming the Taliban - whom he called "freedom fighters" - basically in an effort to use Afghanistan as a chess pawn against the Soviets. So, we have Mr. Carter to thank for much of our troubles in the Middle East and, indirectly at least, even for the forces that ultimately carried out the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Mr. Obama's appeal is drearily reminiscent of Mr. Carter's. Mr. Obama has even tapped Zbigniew Brzezinski - Mr. Carter's National Security Adviser - for much of his foreign policy advice; only, Mr. Carter at least had prior executive experience as Governor of Georgia and a track record. Mr. Obama, by contrast, has no prior executive experience, virtually no Congressional voting record (if you don't believe me, go to the Congressional Record's website and see for yourselves - you'll find that Mr. Obama is listed as "not voting" some 70-80% of the time) and refuses to take a consistent stand on much of anything; in fact, ALL he knows how to do is give a good speech - WHICH HE PAYS OTHER PEOPLE TO WRITE FOR HIM. No wonder he gets so testy every time he's called on by the press to hold a conference or answer questions - without his "script," he's nothing!

The naiveté of you Obama supporters is mind-boggling; WAKE UP - MR. OBAMA HAS PULLED THE SNOW JOB OF THE CENTURY ON YOU!

Posted by: dbodenstein | March 27, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

If anyone who knows the truth, this battle is about Hedge Funds. Obama threatened Hedge Funds some time back by saying he is going to raise the taxes from 15% to 35%. This has a lot of Hedge Fund Manager's scared so many of those who went to Nancy are the ones from various Hedge Fund Companies.

Posted by: shadeofgood | March 27, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

That's exactly the point now isn't it.
You state, "How much worse can he be than the so-called experts we've had for the last 8 years". Well, if the people who've had some experience can make such a mess of it what do you think putting someone with NO experience such as OBAMA will do?
Any better? I think NOT. Common sense says that having NO BACKGROUND EXPERIENCE will NOT HELP someone in their job.
As for your statement, "Doesn't someone different deserve a chance? Right now, thanks to the powers that be, the U.S.A. is the laughing stock of the world..."
The answer is we CAN'T afford to give someone a "chance" to learn as he goes.
We need someone who knows from the second she is elected what the heck they are doing and that person is HILLARY CLINTON.

You say, "And you think it could be worse!"
Yeah it can be IF we elect Obama.
You say, "And then, we have John McCain, who admittedly knows nothing about our biggest problem, except for the war -- the economy! ANSWER: Then he can be no worse than Obama can he?

You say, "Already McCain sees the point in bailing out Bear Stearns, but not the strapped citizens!" Answer: If you WERE LISTENING, you'd have heard him say we should NOT, REPEAT, NOT BE BAILING OUT THOSE WHO GOT US INTO THIS MORTGAGE MESS! Get your facts straight.

What we can do without is people like you talking about things you obviously know so very little about!

Posted by: c_reid21 | March 27, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Disappointed in the Washington Post trying to down play the Obama incident..This is Big and it's unacceptable.

NO prospective President can be part of such an outrageous and divisive organization. It's just unacceptable. Doesn't matter what party you belong to.

His speech was beautiful...But he side stepped the issue...But the FACT remains. You cannot bring people together when you choose to be a member/financial donor to an organization that preaches hate and has an anti-America agenda. Most Americans are not buying this. He is supporting an organization that creates division and perpetuates HATE. This is a disgrace to AMERICA.
He has had 20 years of his ears being filled with this Reverends, HIS SPIRITUAL ADVISER. HATE!!!

HIS decision to stay with this type of Church speaks loud and clear to all Americans, I am above all ethics. You can't be President and support this type of Church.

I felt he was saying since I am black it's OK that I affiliate with this Reverend and Church that preach this hate and anti-America agenda!!! I venomously disagree!!

This is HYPOCRITICAL, it's a Double standard, and wrong to the core of what America is ABOUT.

I don't think it is any clearer on WHO NOT to VOTE for.

Our "Golden boy" isn't a golden as he wants us to think...He is bamboolzed most of you.

Posted by: savalif | March 27, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse


I would be very surprised if that was all from Newsweek. 1) The "redactions" were in white (not the heavy mark of a black pen), and 2) the ARCHIVES, not Hillary Clinton, made the redactions. As for the one "odd" example given, I suppose the decision was made that Chung was a private citizen, whereas the astronaut was not.

I mean, look, I would not vote for her in a million years, but your post was nothing more than a hit piece.

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse is another fox's too bad.. I'm a Dem and very disappointed in them

With the recent information about Obama he should step down. My family and friends keep asking...How can a Prospective President get away with being a member and a financial donor to a Church that is radical, racist, preaches hate towards others, and is anti-America...We are finding this is Hypocritical. It's a double standard.
This is wrong to the core of What America is about.

His 30 minute speech on racism was beautiful, but how can he unite people when he financially supports a racist Church...He says one thing but his actions say another. .. One word Hypocritical... This divison is dispicable. Too many Democates are being blind and death to the facts and truth.

We cannot and will not vote for him. A vote for him is setting a standard; it's OK for a President to be a member/financial supporter of a Church that is racist, preaches hate, and is anti-American.

Us Dems and Independants aren't buying it

Posted by: savalif | March 27, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: btehrani | March 27, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

yeah sure as if Nancy Pelosi has any credibility anyway, her Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush, AMAZING. Pelosi is a loser.

Posted by: Hillary08 | March 27, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

allen.zigman -- Obama has BS'd the media and the voters? I guess you're unaccustomed to this! Have you admitted yet that you were BS'd by GWB and his cronies into voting for a "compassionate conservative" and voting for the invasion of Iraq. But then, that kind of subterfuge is okay, right? You felt okay being suckered into the current state of affairs -- economically and militarily. Re Obama's BSing everybody, you speak with the kind of authority that has no merit. Just say you think he's BSing everybody. It's something you can't know until he has become President of the United States!

Posted by: SierraBW | March 27, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

From Newsweek:

"The more than 10,000 pages, released by the National Archives in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, purport to be the New York senator's daily schedules for her entire eight-year tenure as First Lady--the first major "document dump" from the Clinton Library in Little Rock. But the documents include only Hillary Clinton's public schedules, not her private calendar. And even those appear to be heavily redacted to exclude almost anything that might be of interest to historians and the inevitable posse of "oppo" researchers...

The schedule is considerably less revealing when it comes to more awkward episodes of the Clinton presidency. Consider the afternoon of March 9, 1995, when Johnny Chung, a businessman and soon-to-be-notorious Democratic Party fund-raiser, made a fateful trip to the White House carrying a campaign check for $50,000. For many critics, Chung later became a symbol of the campaign-finance abuses of the Clinton presidency, a mysterious Chinese businessman who managed to be cleared into the White House on 49 occasions. (He also later pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations and testified that a sizeable chunk of his illegal campaign cash came from a Chinese military-intelligence operative.) Hillary Clinton made a special trip to the Map Room that day so she could have her picture taken with Chung. "We handshake, and then she [Hillary Clinton] said, 'Welcome to the White House, my good friend'," Chung later testified, describing the encounter with Hillary Clinton. Right after that, Chung hand-delivered his $50,000 to Maggie Williams, who was the First Lady's chief of staff at the time and now manages her presidential campaign...

But Hillary Clinton's newly released calendar for that day shows no reference to Johnny Chung at all. There is listed, just as Chung testified, an "official photo" session in the Map Room. But the name of the person Hillary Clinton was having her picture taken with has been deleted on the grounds that it would be "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," according to the Archives' released record. This may seem odd, given that Chung had spoken openly, many times, about his photo op with Hillary. It may seem even odder given that just a few minutes later the First Lady had another photo session--but this time, the documents identify the person whose picture was taken. It was Eileen Collins, the astronaut...

Equally unrevealing are Hillary Clinton's schedules for August 1998--a fateful month, during which Bill Clinton was forced to deal with the audacious attacks by Al Qaeda on two U.S. Embassies in Africa even as the Monica Lewinsky scandal was reaching its climax. (The same month, after Bill Clinton gave testimony in Ken Starr's inquiry and finally confessed his relationship with a former White House intern, the Clintons flew off to a vacation in Martha's Vineyard during which Hillary supposedly chastised him for the Monica Lewinsky affair).

Little of this is evident in the schedules released Wednesday. On the contrary, the newly released documents show no public events at the White House--and no public events at an unspecified private residence on Martha's Vineyard. The HRC schedule for Aug. 17, 1998--the day of Bill's grand-jury testimony at the White House--only shows that the Clintons were scheduled to travel to Martha's Vineyard at an undetermined hour that day.

The sad, lifelong impulse of Clinton to elude and hide--as perceptively characterized in Carl Bernstein's balanced, well-researched and first-rate biography of Clinton, is evident here, as it has been in the past.

The actual facts are sanitized to fit--or at least not to contradict--the later arguments--that Clinton was intimately involved in policy decisions, that she, like Obama, is an agent of reform and change. The ironies of such redactions as compared to her early, enthusiastic work on the Watergate committee are painful in their recognition of what her "experience" has led her to now regard as necessary in a political campaign.

She could embrace what she regards as positive in her past and in her husband's administration openly, and equally openly reject what has been negative--those actions that she disagrees with, and how she would act differently in her own Presidency.

Instead, with the heavy mark of a black pen, she hides the past, asking us to then believe in its fragmentary reconstruction.

Such a pattern will likely be prospective in its framing of future events--drawing a black line through those outcomes and events that her Administration fears will be regarded with disfavor.

We have seen this before, in the prior Administration. She should bring her considerable talents and skills to a stance of greater openness and honesty regarding the actions that she has taken and will take. This will provide a solid foundation for what she actually believes in, rather than the hidden fissures that can cause a frantic and self-defeating fall.

Posted by: Luke2 | March 27, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is flip flopping on pledged delegates and superdelegates by encouraging party elite to vote against the will of the people - "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president." - Hillary Clinton in 2000 - (this kind of leadership found support in the notion of "false consciousness" that originated in the philosophical writings of Marx and Engels).

Posted by: oneworld67352 | March 27, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

wwwjjj -- the sad thing about the GOP is nobody wanted McCain (many still don't). And you think he'll be able to mail in the presidency? Truly, you're wedded to your party because of tradition, not because McCain is worthy of the nomination. (Who wants to hear his irritating, boring voice giving the State of the Union address for 4 years, let alone 7.) If we're going to go on the fact that McCain is a genuine war hero, then so was John Kerry, but thanks to the low-down GOP, Karl Rovian brand of smearing the opposition (they smeared McCain, too), John Kerry was made out to be the coward, and George W. Bush, who couldn't even serve out his time in the National Guard state-side, was able to dodge the issue.

Posted by: SierraBW | March 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Obama only wants to play by the rules when it potentially benefits him. Just more Obama dishonesty. It will be interesting what tune Obama starts singing when Hillary surpasses him in either popular vote or delegates. And today Obama says that he would like to have a "dialogue" about seating Michigan and Florida delegates. Yeah, right, let the clock run out so that a revote can't happen and then pretend to care about their votes.

Posted by: mo897 | March 27, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

With so many "accidents" happening to the friends, supporters, officials, etc... surrounding the Clintons in the 90's,would Obama really risk choosing Hillary as his vice president?

Posted by: johninfresno | March 27, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Wow Dickey, you're taking gutter politics to a whole new level- actionable libel, would be the legal term. Good thing you don't have to sign your name here.

Posted by: seano1 | March 27, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Right "Dickey" and they all landed in black helicopters, and ran to the caucuses under sniper fire. Face it, Dickey, even the lying, cheating, stealing, Clintons aren't going to be pulling this one out of their bag of dirty tricks. Even Hillary's Hags are abandoning her. It's OVER and the Clintons state of denial will destroy the party for generations and guarantee victory for John McLame.

Posted by: swanman | March 27, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Obama has his faults and we know what they are because he's open and honest about them. He's faced every attack with an honest discussion.

Clinton on the other hand is now recognized as a conintual compulsive liar to such a degree that no one knows what the hell she stands for or means anymore. She contradicts herself within minutes, makes up experience and just outright lies all the time. Obama is far from perfect but Clinton is not the "tested" candidate she's just a fiction who we know nothing about since every time we think we know her she turns out to have been lying again.

Posted by: chunkylimey | March 27, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

all of you Obama supporters who posted above have your heads where the moon doesn't shine-the guy is all hot air and "no meat on the bones"-he has BS'ed the voters and the media!!

Posted by: allen.zigman | March 27, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Love all the comments. Go B. Hussain, go Mrs. Bill. By the time you guys are through with each other McCain will be able to mail it in.

Posted by: wwwjjj | March 27, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"It is common knowledge that his campaign bussed Illinois residents into Iowa to vote in those caucuses."

As a participant in the Iowa Caucus, I'm more than a little offended by this absolute tabloid style claim.

The reason he ran away with the Iowa caucus is because of people like my entire family, all save me indifferent to politics, not just caucusing but enthusiastically getting out and talking about politics.

The Iowa caucus was absolutely inspiring, and I'm as far left as you go. I had given vanilla representative democracy the kiss off, but the stage full of us at the caucus, people from my neighborhood I'd barely talked to, now talking.

Over half were first time caucusers, my republican fiance switched parties to support obama.

He's it. We lose this chance, we're back in the bush-clinton-bush-clinton pattern that has held for the last few decades.

Democracy should be allergic to dynasty.


Posted by: gew004 | March 27, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can help her country most by dropping out. She lost fair and square.

Posted by: celticman245 | March 27, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

DickeyFuller -- Don't make Obama Commander-In-Chief, you say? How much worse can he be than the so-called experts we've had for the last 8 years. Doesn't someone different deserve a chance? Right now, thanks to the powers that be, the U.S.A. is the laughing stock of the world -- thanks to the experts Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush, Wolfowitz, Gates, Tenet, etc. And you think it could be worse! And then, we have John McCain, who admittedly knows nothing about our biggest problem, except for the war -- the economy! Already McCain sees the point in bailing out Bear Stearns, but not the strapped citizens! What we can do without is more COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM, which, means NO COMPASSION AT ALL!

Posted by: SierraBW | March 27, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse


How can you think that caucus' do not exclude a majority of voters. They are preferential to people who don't work at that time or can take off for the caucus. It excludes shift workers, military on active duty, people who have kids and no sitter, old people who can't come to the caucus site.

Obama's supporters are mainly upper middle class, professionals and young people who haven't been out in the world. When was the last time most college students paid their own bills. Believe me if the caucus states were primaries, today would be different.

Posted by: Ar_Dingbat | March 27, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

DickyFuller, I attended my caucus in Seattle a month or so ago. I recognized all of my neighbors, people I see everyday in the grocery store or on the bus. When I went to write down "Barack Obama" on the sheet I was floored to see 95% of my fellow Seattlites in the 36th district agreed with me. Nobody was "brought in" to create this landslide of support. It was our united decision. I think many around the country would have similar stories. Do we not matter?

Posted by: ballardgirl | March 27, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Jerks like Dickey Fuller (4th post from top)is the reason Hillary lost this race. She's an irrational moron and so are her supporters

Posted by: leonardwatts2 | March 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

You know this letter from Pro-Clinton wealthy donors looks really bad when JakeD's only comments are repeating Pelosi's stand.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I do believe Obama's campaign raised more than double that in February alone. Lots of little voices matter more in this campaign than 20 big ones.

And her campaign promises change?? Kinda looks like "same ol' same ol' to me.

Posted by: DaniRockfordIllinois | March 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse


Pelosi should do the research on how Obama came up with all those delegates.

It is common knowledge that his campaign bussed Illinois residents into Iowa to vote in those caucuses.

It is also well known that moveon and Howard Dean's DNC put people of unknown residency into other caucus states to swarm those caucuses.

There is ample evidence of ballot stuffing in plenty of those caucuses.

He is just like any other politician.

Except that he is not qualified to do anything except make speeches about race.

Great. Let's make him healer-in-chief.

But for god's sake, NOT commander-in-chief.


Posted by: DickeyFuller | March 27, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

They're called Pioneers, by the Republicans. If you need something in the WH, just call. Wasn't "heckuva job" Brownie a Pioneer?

Millions of small donors/voters raise more than that in a month. It's over Hillary, pack it up before you leave a mess in your own nest.

Posted by: thebobbob | March 27, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, House Speaker Nancy PATRICIA Pelosi (D-Calif.) has reaffirmed her position that superdelegates should not "overturn the will of the voters" in the face of criticism from top donors to Sen. Hillary DIANE Clinton (D-N.Y.):

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Did the "political action team" at donated more than $23 million since 1999?

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company