By Jennifer Parker

Feb 15, 2008 12:39pm

Obama Can’t Confirm John Lewis Backing

ABC News’ Sunlen Miller, David Wright and Ursula Fahy Report: At a press conference in Milwaukee today Sen. Barack Obama commented on a New York Times report that said Democratic Congressman and civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis plans to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Obama instead of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

Lewis had endorsed Clinton in the Fall. Obama did not confirm the report, telling reporters his call to Lewis yesterday has not been returned.

“I have not spoken to Congressman Lewis, I haven’t spoken to him prior to this report. 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,” Obama said.

"I think the broader point is that there are going to be a lot of super delegates who are examining this race as it moves forward. I think increasingly the super delegates that I talked to are uncomfortable with the notion that they will override decisions made by voters," he said.

"Our position has always been clear which is voters should make these decisions; whoever has the most pledged delegates at the end of this contest should be the nominee and that super delegates should ratify that decision by the voters. I know that Senator Clinton feels differently, we’ll see how the argument plays itself out."

Obama was pressed on whether he will ask superdelegates who have endorsed him, like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, to vote instead for Clinton. The New York Senator won more pledged delegates in both Arizona and Massachusetts.

Obama said his position is that all of the superdelegates should vote the way their state voted.

"You know essentially our belief is that the superdelegates should look at the original function of what their role was and that whoever ends up being that person with the most delegates earned through primaries and caucuses, that person should receive the support of the superdelegates, so that is our position and it’s one born out by the intentions of the original rules setting up super delegates," he said. "I mean there are all kinds of ways of slicing and dicing it. The general point though is that  I think we should look at who the vote goes to and whoever the vote goes to that’s where the superdelegates should go.”

Reporters asked: what about looking at the popular vote?

“Well I’m happy to look at where the popular vote as well , obviously we feel pretty good about where our popular vote is right now,” Obama said.

User Comments

When pressed for a hard answer or a realistic comment about the Arizona and Mass Super delegates. Typical Obama, typical politician.
What he is saying is he wants it both ways. He wants all the super delegates to vote the way their states voted, but he still wants John Kerry’s and Teddy’s support. Amazing!!

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.
This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity – salvation – for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival.
“We are the hope of the future,” sayeth Obama. We can “remake this world as it should be.” Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country – nay, we can become “a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest.”
.

Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm

If Obama has the popular vote then why should the delegates not go ahead and make him the Dem nominee.

Posted by: Medi Marah | February 15, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm

That’s a good point Medi, but would you say the same thing if Senator Clinton got more of the popular vote. We still have 18 states to go before the voting totals are in. With the number of huge states coming up, it is conceivable the Mrs. Clinton will lead the popular vote when all is counted.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm

Apparently Obama wants a coronation rather than a contest. Does he really think the Dem superdelegates are stupid enough to give up their votes and accede to his ridiculous demand and thereby destroy the Dem nominatitng process by requiring superdelegates to vote in lock-step with caucus and primary results? This guy is sounding like Bush, another professed Wash outsider and unifier.

Posted by: luke | February 15, 2008, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm

OH PLEASE ….OBAMA ALSO SAID HE WANTS TO HELP EVERY POOR DEVELOPING NATION IN EVERY CORNER OF THE WORLD SO OUR ENEMY CAN SEE US THE LEADER OF HOPE AND CHANGE…PEOPLE GET READY TO PAY HIGHER TAXES…

Posted by: MARINE4EVER | February 15, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm

Jordan, I think you as well as I know Lewis is doing. Its a message meant for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Paul | February 15, 2008, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm

I’m having reservations about Obama now big time. He comes across as a slick talker that has learned what not to say just like all other politicians. Now if he really wants the delegates to vote according to how their states voted, then he would want for Kennedy and Gov Napolitano to support Hillary Clinton. Just goes to show that Obama is not concerned with the Democracy of the votes, he’s concerned with the title of President.

Posted by: Justin | February 15, 2008, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm

Whatever anybody can say about Democratic campaign, everybody is feeling that something is happening in Usa: Change is coming to America. Let believe in!

Posted by: Bob | February 15, 2008, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm

“We are the change we seek…”
“We must do whatever it takes to eradicate gun violence” but i believe in teh right to bear arms..”
Look at this drivel! Come on America, Obama is an empty suit. He speaks volumes but says nothing of substance…I am ashamed that this callow lightweight may win the democratic nomination.

Posted by: NMH | February 15, 2008, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm

Obama is relatively new and young, if he can be given more time, he can get more money from lobbyists and sent more money to superdelegates for wining, Yes he can

Posted by: Yes he can | February 15, 2008, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm

This story seems to be a non-story. The earth shattering news seems to be that Obama is waiting for a call back from Lewis. Isn’t this just another ploy for Big Media to get the name of their crown choice in front of the public again.

Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | February 15, 2008, 1:30 pm 1:30 pm

I love it when people accuse black people of voting for Obama because he’s black. Doesn’t anyone remember what everyone was saying just two months ago? All I heard was blacks won’t vote for Obama and no one understood why they weren’t backing him. They supported Obama after the white people in Iowa did. They had to believe he was electable first. He had to EARN their trust and support.

Posted by: jenny | February 15, 2008, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm

“Empty Can makes loud sound” which mean that a person talk a lot and promise a lot when in fact he has nothing to offer or has no clue of how to fullfil his promise. Obama is this type of person. He always say change is coming but did not say how. If anyone hope and believe in his promise to bring change without experience, then it is just like they hope to win a lottery. They complaint about racist but in fact most black people voted for Obama just only because he is black not because he can lead. If Obama get the Nomination, I will vote for McCane.

Posted by: Jane | February 15, 2008, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm

Sorry guys but unfortunately race has become an ugly factor in this debate. The truth is noone expected a black man to get this far. Now that he has, all the black people want to vote for him for his color. Maxine Waters from California is too smart to back Obama. She knows he would lose the general election. All you black people who want to vote Obama just for his color….what if John Mcain has Condelezza Rice or Colin Powell has his running mate? Then will you vote for the most qualified or will you still vote for a JUNIOR senator who can’t seem to give answers unless they are prepared for him or on a teleprompter. GET SMART!! If you want change with real answers to our very real problems vote for Hillary. Of course you won’t because she’s not black and because all of you who have never even wanted to vote before think it’s cool to vote for Obama. Well he’s not gonna be so cool once John McCain gets through with him.

Posted by: Laura | February 15, 2008, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm

thats the real issue, Obama doesn’t say ANYTHING at all that makes sense. He has also demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of basic economics, proposing programs that cost $1 trillion over four yeasr and he is going to pay for it by ending the Iraq war and taxing ‘the rich’ well guess what America, we saw who is considered ‘Rich’ by the democrats in teh stimulus package. make over $75k as a single, you are rich so get ready for some massive tax increases.
we will get the leader we deserve, but not all of us deserve this empty gas bag with no record of substance.

Posted by: nmh | February 15, 2008, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm

Super Delegates that represent a Congressional Districts like John Lewis and Jim Clyburn are faced with the reality of a political backlash when confronted by voters in their district who are overwhelming for Senator Obama. The rhetoric by Jim Clyburn that the Clinton campaign racially tinged the campaign in South Carolina is nothing more than politics as usual.
Both Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and media operatives have all used wedge politics of race, gender and generational differences to their advantage during this campaign. Rarely do politicians keep their word or commitments, no matter if it is Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, or Congressman Clyburn. Only a fools believe and vote on political face value.

Posted by: threeriverscrossing | February 15, 2008, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm

I used to support Obama but now I just see him for the idiot that he is. My god his followers are sheep. This is actually becoming scary. If it weren’t for MSNBC and the media, he would’ve been gone a long time ago. America I hope you’re happy that the media is trying to choose your president for you!! Stand up and vote for Hillary and show them you all have a mind or your own. STUPID SHEEP END UP GOING OVER THE CLIFF!!

Posted by: formerobamabacker | February 15, 2008, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm

Laura, I’ve voted since I was 18 years old. I’m not voting for Obama because it’s the COOL thing to do, I’m voting for him because it’s the RIGHT thing to do.
So many of you are commenting on him lacking substance, well that’s coming straight from the Clinton campaign. Do you not ever watch his speeches, such as at the Google summit, or his economic summits, or his recent speech at GM?
He had his policy papers out, some of them 1 month before Clinton. The Green Corps was HIS idea, and you are trying to tell me that he’s an empty suit with just rhetorical speeches.
I’m sorry, but that’s how Clinton has portrayed him since he gave his first speech. She’s scared that she’s going to lose so she’ll try to win at all costs and in the process turn away MILLIONS of democrats.
I’ve read his policy papers, I’ve studied his plans for America and he is the REAL DEAL, sorry if you are too shallow to read them yourself. I’m sorry if many on here are too self serving to step outside the realm and read for themselves, but I’ve taken the time, and I’ve read everything I could on both candidates, and even on the Republicans, and Barack Obama is the BEST candidate with the MOST PROGRESSIVE agenda to help the middle class that needs it the most.

Posted by: Erin | February 15, 2008, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm

Uma, mpls…………..I’m an African-American for Hillary and I’m appauled at what is taking place. Obama has tried to run his campaign for a year now avoiding the race issue. Now it’s okay to invoke race by voting for someone because of their skin color. I pray Hillary gets the nomination.

Posted by: Justin | February 15, 2008, 1:54 pm 1:54 pm

HILLARY and CONDI. Now that’s adream ticket.

Posted by: JJ | February 15, 2008, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm

In reality Justin, what is starting to happen since the race is so even at this point, the Obama surrogates are putting pressure on the black super delegates to wrestle the now and the future Clinton supporters away, with the excuse that if you don’t vote for Obama, your constituents will not vote for you. Threats, and back alley Chicago politics, all brought to you by Mr. Obama, who will use every dirty trick including the race card, at his disposal.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 1:58 pm 1:58 pm

to me it’s clear Obama is saying that superdelegates should follow their state vote. How can you not see that’s what he’s saying? Another thing Obama can’t control how all African-Americans think. Sure there are some just voting on race, just like some whites will not vote for Obama just because of race. That’s the nature of this America that spent over 400 years + enslaving and undermining a group of people. You can’t do that to people and then expect that group not to consult its history in such an important nomination. Sorry if you don’t like it.

Posted by: changing times | February 15, 2008, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm

But if Clinton wins the threee biggest states left, which looks likely, she will have the most popular votes. She would also have the most super delegates if they voted with their states. The only reason why she wouldn’t have a dedicated delegate majority is because Michigan and Florida have been disenfranchised, but Obama doesnt want super delegates to consider that in their preference. Esentially, its ok if they vote for him against the 9 biggest states in the country, against their states, and against, Florida and Michigan’s inclusion as long as they vote for him. If they so dare as to vote for Florida and Michigan’s choice or their state’s choice or the popular vote winner well then they’ll all be racists or Washington insiders.
Pathetic, double standard doesn’t even begin to describe this.

Posted by: s.b. | February 15, 2008, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm

Oh Please, So you are telling me that Hillary isn’t using every nasty trick available to her. Come on, do you think she hasn’t changed her strategy 3 times, and fired her campaign manager for nothing. The Clinton machine can be one of the nastiest around and Obama is staying above that level of politics.
Touche and let’s give change a try.

Posted by: TC | February 15, 2008, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm

TC: Obama only talks about change. If he by some miracle becomes President it will be business and politics as usual. Nothing will change.
One poster here said it best. With his liberal tax and spend agenda, the only change left will be the change in our pockets from our paychecks.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm

Aw, come on, Jordan. A little over-dramatic. You know its not Obama pulling these strings, though not for lack of trying.
And let’s talk back alley politics… Remember, I’m from Virginia, where Howard Wolfson came calling a couple years ago, in a power play that may well be as much responsible for her losing the nomination as anything else.

Posted by: Paul | February 15, 2008, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm

Yeah Jordan and it’s so sad. Man you wouldn’t believe the stares and remarks I received from some African-Americans a few weeks ago when I campaigned for Hillary here in Atlanta, Ga. I was called a sellout. I was told I should be ashamed of myself for voting for Hillary and not Obama. I was out right asked how can I be supporting Hillary when I’m black? I thought about all the struggles we as African-Americans have been through, and here we are in 07 and I’m receiving reverse racism because I’m black and voting for a woman who happens to be white. I think it’s all pretty igonorant. Hillary is the best candidate running. Obama is showing more and more each day he is not ready for the position.

Posted by: Justin | February 15, 2008, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm

Justin – if that’s true, I agree with you about it also being a form of racism. I certainly can understand blacks taking a little pride in there being a viable black candidate, just as I can women taking a little pride in there being a viable female candidate. But to expect someone’s support for such reasons isn’t right. Good job sticking to your convictions – and that’s coming from an Obama supporter.

Posted by: Paul | February 15, 2008, 2:37 pm 2:37 pm

I have very important news about a large error in the popular vote. 9 of the Caucuses that Obama won by large margins are currently not being represented by their popular vote, simple because an exact figure is NOT KNOWN. Since I am not allowed to post links to prove this, you only need to look at the CNN site that shows the results for each state. The 9 states of IA, CO, ID, WA, MN, ME, ND, NE and KS show only the STATE Delegate total, which is much less than the popular vote. RCP is using those Delegate values in their Popular Vote tally which undercuts Obama by anywhere from 300,000-700,000 votes in total.
Although it is not possible to get an exact count, one could estimate by knowing the Total number of votes casted in each state. The errors would average out among the 9 states. At present no News Media Organization has publicly acknowledged this MAJOR ERROR. Polling is supposed to be an exact science, but it is much better to use an “Approximate” Estimate than propagate this underrepresentation of the Obama vote. The importance is that if it is corrected, Obama probably would never lose the popular vote to Hillary, even if she included the illegal contests in Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: Jerry from PA | February 15, 2008, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm

Jordan – I’ve heard too many stories not to suspect there’s some if not a lot of truth about Chicago politics. But the guilt by association thing with Obama isn’t right. It would be like you visiting a foreign country on vacation, and locals diving out of your way, waiting for the handguns to start blasting, just because you’re American.

Posted by: Paul | February 15, 2008, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm

Remember that the Clintons had the African-American vote before they started playing down Martin Luther King and playing up Johnson, or reaching back twenty years to imply that African-Americans in South Carolina voted for any black candidate, ignoring the facts that they largely ignored Al Sharpton, that they had until recently enjoyed that community’s support, and that Obama won far more African-American votes than Jackson ever did, just as he won far more white votes and Hispanic votes.
Also, remember that Obama’s position all along has been that Superdelegates should ratify the voter’s decisions, and that the will of the majority should be respected. He said that when he was down, and he said that when he was up. Contrast that to Clinton’s ever shifting positions on this and other issues (Michigan, Florida) and you see that Obama is standing on his beliefs.
This doesn’t mean that superdelegates shouldn’t speak out for their candidates, just that they shouldn’t abuse their position in June to send the weaker candidate (in terms of popular support) to defeat in November.

Posted by: arbite | February 15, 2008, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm

Since I heard Obama speak at the DNC four years ago I have been impressed with his message of unity; an end to the bickering across the aisle. I had no idea who he was then but have since enlightened myself. That message is applicable to the racial divide recklessly expanding; if these posts are any indication. I agree with Erin, if more folks would take the time to do more reading and less of the “sharing” of unfounded opinions based on superficial sound bites and applause lines the clear choice in 2008 is Obama. It has nothing to do with color, gender, or religion. It’s the promise of unity backed by his concrete proposals for action. He makes sense to America right now. This decision is too important to take the word of the media spin masters, you have to want to commit to doing your homework.
“But now, Ms. Jacoby said, something different is happening: anti-intellectualism (the attitude that “too much learning can be a dangerous thing”) and anti-rationalism (“the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion”) have fused in a particularly insidious way. Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don’t think it matters.” Comments by Susan Jacoby, author of “The Age of American Unreason.” NY times 2/14 “Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?” by Patricia Cohen

Posted by: Blake | February 15, 2008, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm

Erin, I have looked over all the candidtes policies and websites. Obama is still by far the most liberal and dare I say dangerous to the democratic party. He is not a uniter. His policies are shallow and would never hold up against the republicans attacks. The truth is he does have a good idea or two but wait, he actually stole those good ideas from Hillary Clinton. Im not calling him an empty suit as you suggest, Im calling him an idiot in suit.

Posted by: Laura | February 15, 2008, 2:48 pm 2:48 pm

Erin:
Thanks for your informative words knowledge and wisdom……
it’s amazing how envious some of these folks are on this site concerning senator Obama…

Posted by: tony | February 15, 2008, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm

He did not say he would ask Senators Kerry, Kennedy and Gov. Napolitano to change their support. He danced and sidestepped the question like he aways does. He gives a non-answer, or a non-committal answer. Isn’t that obvious to even the Obama supporters by now?
His exact quote:
” he said. “I mean there are all kinds of ways of slicing and dicing it. The general point though is that I think we should look at who the vote goes to and whoever the vote goes to that’s where the superdelegates should go.”
That only means to me, is he wants it both ways. He wants the super delegates to vote how their states votes, but he is not willing to give up his support by Kennedy, Kerry etc..
Slicing and dicing…lol

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm

Paul: If you mean guilty by association with Rezko, I would say yes.
He said in a debate that he worked on the guys cases for about 5 hours. He flat out lied. He didn’t mention they had a 17 years relationship, were close friends, Rezko supported him and donated almost a million dollars to him in his political career, and got him a $300K discount on his house and sold him a lot for a discount. That my friend, is Chicago politics, and yes, Mr. Obama is guilty by association, especially when he knew Rezko was crooked.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm

Jordan he said that because they continued to press him. Before he said that he said this:
Obama said his position is that all of the superdelegates should vote the way their state voted.
Good gracious!

Posted by: changing times | February 15, 2008, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm

Why can’t Kennedy and Kerry endorse Obama now and vote for Clinton at the convention?
I think they should vote with their state, but doesn’t mean they have to go stump for Hillary.

Posted by: Andy | February 15, 2008, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm

Say what you want but my words describe Barack Obama for who he really is. If all of you want to follow him like sheep go ahead. I will always vote for the most qualified candidate and that is either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. And besides any person Obama chooses as his running mate will actually have more experience than he does. Have you thought of that? It will be Bush/Cheney all over again. We went that route already. Obama is running for president not for you but for himself. I can’t believe how blind you all are to his arrogance. See Ya!

Posted by: Laura | February 15, 2008, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm

C’mon Andy, that will never happen and Obama know it. Looks like Slick Willy has a new equal. “Slippery Obama”..lol

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm

Thanks Paul…Your response means more than you know. I just think that the campaigning process should be fun and exciting, not vicious. I’ve never campaigned for a candidate in my life and I’m 41. I was really excited about getting involved until I started getting the negative feedback. thanks again man, and may the best candidate win!

Posted by: Justin | February 15, 2008, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm

Jordan, not a lie at all. Clinton made a reference to representing Rezko, when they made the famous Wal-Mart/Rezko traded barbs. Obama’s legal representation of Rezko included just those five hours billed, from what I know.
He separately has acknowledged knowing the guy and even considering him a friend. But in the debate, he was answering Clinton’s charge of basically being Rezko’s lawyer.

Posted by: Paul | February 15, 2008, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm

Unity is not a governing philosophy. HOw in the hell are we going to resolve the major issues this country faces where there will be disagreements on substance without conflict? This guy is more a preacher than a politician.
his policy papers are vapid, his economic plan reminiscent of LBJ’s…there are no new ideas…just a bunch of empty rhetoric. and those who think he has substance are delusional.
This guy is a female OPRAH…all feelings and no substance…its all too bad…why can’t we get along…
He wants to talk to the iranian president who wants to nuke israel. where will that get us other than to empower iran further? he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of geopolitical issues and economics. His naivety is shocking and the people who are voting for him are recklessly endangering the rest of us.
“we are the change we seek”
that quote makes me want to puke and everyone who claps and cheers that kind of BS is a moron

Posted by: nmh | February 15, 2008, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm

Nice spin Paul, but withholding the truth or the full story is still considered dishonest.
There is a lot more to this story, and I was told by a friend at the Chicago Tribune, Rezko is going to “sing” and throw Obama to the wolves. Let’s see how this one plays out.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm

Why couldn’t it happen Jordan? If Obama asked them to they would. I agree he wouldn’t ask them to unless he didn’t need their support.
NMH – What’s wrong with talking to Iran? How well has NOT talking to them worked for us? How well has it worked out in Cuba? We need a new approach to foreign policy and I’m disappointed Hillary has modeled her ideas after the Death Eaters.

Posted by: Andy | February 15, 2008, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm

America does not exist in a vacumn nmh. If we ignore the “bad guys” what they go away? That philosophy sure worked well in the past. Our Middle Eastern policies have been virtually unsuccessful for the past 30 years. You seem to beleive by talking with the bad guys you somehow demonstrated a weakness. Non-violent protests work but you have to believe. Its not faith based belief but its an acknowledgement coexisting is a necessary fact of life as it applies to your neighbors, your community, your country and the world. The politics of divide and conquer is not the way. From Vietnam to Iraq what have we learned as a nation of combatants? “How’s that working for ya?”

Posted by: blake | February 15, 2008, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm

Jordan, that won’t be nothing compared to all the creepy crawlies that will come out against Hillary. I listened to conservative talk radio today. Conservatives were actually calling in to say they were voting for Hillary in the primary to get her on the ticket so she can lose the genereal election.
1. Her support of NAFT, PNTR that destroyed Ohio and other states with jobs being shipped over seas.
2. Just the fact that she’s a Clinton
3. The pending FBI case-hiding campaign contributions from Peter Paul/Stan Lee company
4. 1996: 120 people flee the country due to suspicious campaign contributions to Bill and the same finance folks are over Hillary’s campaign financing. Now there’s a warrant for Norman Hsu’s arrest who’s contributed over $100,000 to Hillary.
This is a problem!

Posted by: changing times | February 15, 2008, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm

Hey Andy, ever read any books on the Middle east and the tribal mindset that exists there? Have you ever read any books about the 6 day war? Bottom line is, much revolves around honor and perception of power. When pelosi goes to syria and dons a headscarf, how do you think the islamist militants and press portray that? not as “look, a kind and understanding woman is here” rather “Look how powerful we are…a westerner is conforming to our ideals because we are powerful and they are weak and we are winning the war with the west.” we continually make the same mistakes over and over in teh middle east because we forget the past. who cares if they like us, what they need to do is fear us adn the retribution that will be wrought if we are attacked; that’s what keeps israel safe and that is why the war in lebanon was so devastating to israel, the outcome punctured the myth of invincibilty.
its hard to negotiate with people who want to wipe you off the face of the earth or justify kiling women and children and who would like to cut your head off…that’s a fact my friend but you are welcome to try yourself and we would probably see you on a video on the web
i have hostility because electing a moron like Obama will endanger us all. we already have one lightweight runnign the country…do we really need another ?

Posted by: NMH | February 15, 2008, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm

Jordan: “Nice spin Paul, but withholding the truth or the full story is still considered dishonest.”
You might have a point, if not for the fact that Obama had talked about his relationship with Rezko long before that debate. Sorry, not agreeing its spin, and not agreeing Obama was dishonest here.

Posted by: Paul | February 15, 2008, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm

I live in Congressman Lewis’ district and I really doubt that this is an attempt on his part to “avoid political backlash”. He has run unapposed for years and I feel that there is no chance of this changing in the near future, regardless of the outcome of this election. I really do believe that he is trying to reconcile his previous support of Senator Clinton with his district’s overwhelming support of Senator Obama and make a decision based upon all of the information available to him.

Posted by: Josh | February 15, 2008, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm

I’ve always voted in the general, never in a caucus or primary. For the most part in the general I’ve always felt it came down to voting for “the lesser of two evils” and have always wondered how we come up with such awful/weak candidates. So this year I paid attention, watched all the debates, the news shows, went to see the candidates, caucused, etc. It’s been a real learning experience. Guess what, this year I’ll be voting for “the lesser of two evils.” Anyone else wish we could go back to the beginning and have everyone pay attention to ALL the candidates??? The demes had some excellent “second tier” candidates that the media didn’t want noticed – wouldn’t have been as much fun that way would it have? Now we are down to two candidates who are doing their best to divide the dem party (and succeeding) and one repub that frankly, is this the best they could come up with??
I’m very frightened for our country right now. This is the time where we needed STRONG leadership and that’s not what we are going to get.

Posted by: JKH | February 15, 2008, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm

again you guys aren’t reading! The article clarifies at the end that this is $$ that was given before they announced running for Pres. and that both Hillary and Obama has given money to these campaigns. read below:
that “superdelegates” have received at least $890,000 in political contributions from Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — going back to 2005 — with Obama sending a larger share of cash to the influential party insiders.
This is a common political process. Nothing shady here. Learn your politics.
Jeesh!

Posted by: changing times | February 15, 2008, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm

Obama is an empty suit. A slick Willy. He is preaching to the un-informed and has snake oil to sell.
Look at his false promises of billions of $$ in unfunded mandates,entitlements and handouts.
He will bankcrupt the nation in a hurry.
Wake up guys.

Posted by: brea2020 | February 15, 2008, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm

Sorry Tony, that will never happen. I had the most prosperous and best 8 years of my life under President Clinton, and I believe his wife is smarter, stronger and would make a better president. I have read every word on Mr. Obama’s site for your information. He is just another politician who will say anything to get elected. He is a fraud in my book. I have seen characters like him come and go in Chicago. He might make a great leader in 8 years, but right now he is out of his league, and if he is elected President, and mark my words, in a few short years , his supporters will be the same people crying for his impeachment.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm

There are many differences between Clinton and Obama, the main one being Obama can win in November, while Clinton will lose. The last two presidential elections, the Democratic candidates could not win by a big enough majority to overcome the Republican dirty tricks. Gore and Kerry are terrific people, but they didn’t have that broad appeal that brings in a big majority to decisively win. Now I ask you, does Hillary Clinton have that broad appeal? We all know that she doesn’t. Also she comes with Pres. Clinton, who in himself alone is someone whom Republicans and many Independents dislike intensely. In contrast, we see that Obama does have that natural leadership that will sweep a Democratic victory next November. Obama is smart on top of it all. We all want a change in the direction of our country. Doesn’t it tell you something when McCain and other Republicans want Hillary as the nominee? It’s because they know McCain can win over her in November!

Posted by: sally | February 15, 2008, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm

Jordan, I can appreciate that you were prosperous under Bill Clinton. However, these are different times and Hillary Clinton cannot bring back those times. Things have changed. It time to move ahead and carve out a new future, there’s been too much controversy surrounding the Clintons. It’s still surrounding them today. Look at Hillary’s campaign team, it’s falling apart, she’s changed slogans and strategies 3 or 4 differnt times, it’s run out of money and she’s gotten rid of her top aides. One top most aides is a lobbyist. Will she also mismanage the country like this? Sorry but you’re defending a losing cause. If she doesn’t lose against Barack then she will lose against McCain; read the polls

Posted by: changing times | February 15, 2008, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm

Changing times: I have never had much faith in the polls. What makes you think Mr. Obama is the answer and is the hope of the future, especially since he is so untested and a large unknown. I am willing to trust my future to Hillary Clinton due to her record of her works and deeds in the past. You are accepting Mr. Obama on blind faith and hoping he can change things. For the sake of argument, what if he can’t? What then? I am not willing to take that risk with my children and my grandchildren’s future.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm

NO Risk, No Champagne. We have to make a change from the status quo, if not now when, 2012, 2016 ??

Posted by: TC | February 15, 2008, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm

TC: Obama is the status quo. He is just lying about it and hiding it until he gets elected.
Mr. Obama with all due respect, has not had an original thought in his head. He has borrowed all of his policy from Mrs. Clinton. He is more status quo with less imagination. Without Mr. Kennedy’s speech writer and a teleprompter, he is lucky he can string together a legible paragraph.
Way too risky for me, and I don’t drink champaign.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm

Jordan, that’s so cynical and history doesn’t bear it out. George Washington was untested, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, the Lewis & Clark Expedition, JFK. Furthermore Abigail Adams, Marian Anderson, Ida B. Wells, Mary Mcleod-Bethune, Susan B Anthony and so many more historic figures in this great country took untested risks to build a better future for our citizens. I hope to God you teach your children that we are a great country that was born upon risk taking and that we fought the good fight and they should be proud

Posted by: changing times | February 15, 2008, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm

here again is the lopsided power of the media.
The press could easily MOCK Kennedy and Kerry for their endorsment of Obama. They could go on and on about black voter and black leaders all switching to their black candidate.
They could go on and on about the united states never voting in a guy with such little national experience before in our entire history.
They conviently avoid anything NEGATIVE about Obama. Its all 24/7 negative Clinton.
We americans have never seen anything like this before.

Posted by: tom | February 15, 2008, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm

Jordan: You truly believe that Clinton is the high ground, and all that is good and right in this election? If she were to get elected,(which she doesnt stand much of a chance against the Rep. Machine.) All of DC will be cashing in favors and the lobbyists looking for their paybacks. You watch.

Posted by: TC | February 15, 2008, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm

Changing times: Very eloquent I give you that. I am a risk taker and I am also based in reality. I still think Obama is a fraud and until he proves to me he is the real deal (He hasn’t so far) I will keep my opinion the same of him, It has nothing to do with our great country.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm

TC: I can say the same thing about Mr. Obama. He will be cashing my paycheck and paying off his cronies and the superdelegates for years to come. Do you think Obama will not “owe” anyone any favors if he gets elected? He will have to donate all his future PAC money directly to the Republicans, since more of them have voted for him than his own party so far.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm

Obama, you can’t have it both ways!!! Why don’t you ask Kerry and Kennedy to cast their votes to Hillary? That’s what you’re telling the other superdelegates, right?
Obama supporters, WAKE UP !!!!
Hillary will win TX and OH with a big margin on popular votes….now that’s a consensus that Barrack can’t handle…HE CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

Posted by: Monterey Jack | February 15, 2008, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm

You are so right Tom, I too believe we have never seen anything like this before. I, along with millions of others, am flabbergasted at the media. I’m new at following politics this early, can anyone tell me if it has always been so one-sided like this? I’m honestly not a die-hard Clinton supportor or a die-hard Obama supporter. I’ve already caucused and it wasn’t for either of them. But I do have to say, it is so glaringly obvious that all the media outlets are favoring Obama and almost joyful in slamming/demeaning Clinton. Does this not scare anyone? Seems like the media also needs some “ethics reform.”

Posted by: JKH | February 15, 2008, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm

JKH: The Main Stream Media is owed by the wealthy republicans, who despise Bill and Hillary Clinton. It is in their best interests to destroy anything with the Clinton name brand. By putting Mr. Obama at the forefront and determining and influence peddling him as our next President, they set him up for a resounding loss with Mr. McCain.
The MSM is shameless, corrupt and has become more powerful than any of the nations political branches.They control this county, not Washington, or Congress, or the President.

Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 15, 2008, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm

MarianCa: seems to me you are divisive, how do you know “its just how it is”. What an unfounded and offensive remark. Black people are strong, smart and have endured the racial hatred and social injustice imposed upon them for years. Yet we still love and contribute in positive ways to our country. It’s ignorant statements like yours that set us back 100 years. That’s why we need change

Posted by: changing times | February 15, 2008, 5:15 pm 5:15 pm

I STRONGLY BELIEVE BARACK OBAMA WOULD BE GREAT FOR WHITE HOUSE….AM SAYING THIS BECAUSE I KNOW.

Posted by: ANTHONY RAMSAY | February 15, 2008, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm

Changing times: You are so right… it is about moving forward on this… I dont want a WOman or a Black man … I want the BEST man for the job, and I believe it is Barack.

Posted by: TC | February 15, 2008, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm

Giving money to 40% of your supporters is a BRIBE – plain and simple! That’s how Detroit operates and look at the mess their in.

Posted by: jas | February 15, 2008, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm

I agree with Obama the roll of superdelegate is not to bent the people choice. They can show their preferences before the state primary day but after that their votes must go with the state majority. In this way the winner will take all the superdelegates as a prize and for the pledge delegates will be distributed as now proportionally.
Regarding to popular vote it will be great but caucuses are smaller than primaries then you cannot mix apples with oranges.

Posted by: mpdlc | February 15, 2008, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm

JAS giving money to other campaigns that you support for whatever reason is not a bribe. However taking money from Peter Paul and hiding it from your campaign records is illegal and in fact causes an investigation from the FBI. being constantly caught up in finance scandals:the latest Norman Hsu, is not smart and mismanaging your own campaign finances is poor leadership. Not a great start for Ms Clinton I’m afraid.

Posted by: changing times | February 15, 2008, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm

What the check hasn’t cleared?

Posted by: Deni | February 15, 2008, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm

OMG! HILLARY JUST TOOK 423 NEW SUPER D’S!
Please repeat this outloud to yourself 3 times as reported by
CNN
MSNBC
CBS
and fox
O.K. now that you have seen it in print and you heard it if you followed instructions it MUST BE TRUE.

Posted by: Deni | February 15, 2008, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm

Obama is a liar. Lewis did not confirm he would vote for him. Lewis released a statement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution Newspaper this morning that he did not promise Obama a vote. So what else is Obama going to lie about in the future?

Posted by: Obama Assumes Too Much | February 15, 2008, 8:09 pm 8:09 pm

Erin, I said Obama was an empty speech man long before the Clinton Campaign caught on to what we knew. We are the ones having this guy rammed into our brains by the media daily. I had to research his speeches in the beginning because I wondered about whether he was worth going for. Once I read a full speech and heard one of his rallies, I immediately replied to several of the numerous, glowing reports and editorials on him saying; I Don’t Get It. He speaks beautifully, yet says NOTHING. No one at that time was saying that. Everyone was still at the honeymoon level. I didn’t buy it. In fact I was attacked for it on these blogs. It made me stick to my view, an educated one at that and spread the word. Fortunately I found many who agreed and the word snowballed. If Hillary’s campaign had mentioned this first, you know as well as we do that she would have been torn apart by the media. Face it; there are very well educated people out here who see him for what he is; a POLITICIAN and a very sneaky one at that.

Posted by: irma | February 15, 2008, 8:19 pm 8:19 pm

Jordan Clinton; Excellent point!

Posted by: irma | February 15, 2008, 8:22 pm 8:22 pm

The people followed Obama are like cult. They just blindly believe his rehteric like preaches. Just look at the vedio when he was interviewed for Rezko connection. His eye told you that he was not telling the truth.
He got so many independent votes from RED states is because the republicans and conservative know it is hard to beat Hillary. The state will remain RED anyway. He is not going to convert the red states to Blue and He can not win most of the blue states.
McCain already said he was the most LIBERAL senator. If he is the democrate nominee, he would be like Kerry and McGovern losing landslide. I would rather vote for moderate McCain than Obama. McCain would be be a viable candidate who can get moderate votes. Do not expect any conservatives vote for Obama. They did not like McCain, and they would never vote for either Obama or Clinton. The moderate will vote for Clinton.
I am moderate. I would rather stick with McCain than Obama if Clinton is out. I can not put our nation in danger.

Posted by: john j | February 15, 2008, 8:34 pm 8:34 pm

People; The Civil Rights Movement was about equality. It was about giving everyone the chance to be judged by the “Content of their character rather than the color of their skin.” Therefore, if Lewis is standing behind Clinton because he believes in her, especially since they have been friends for so long, he has every right as an American citizen and by the rules provided for Super Delegates, to choose whom he wants. To switch to Obama because he is black is simply defeating the purpose of the Civil Rights Movement. It then simply becomes; pushing a black agenda.

Posted by: irma | February 15, 2008, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm

Irma,
I went and saw Obama the end of August/first part of September. I was totally undecided at the time who to vote for, although, if I remember right I had ruled Hillary out by then. Anyway, my husband asked me on the way home what I thought. High-school pep rally is all I could think of. I came out of there knowing this was not the candidate for me. I could have gotten up there myself and given a “wish list” and “hope list,” knowing full well saying it out loud didn’t mean it was going to happen. Guess he inspired me to keep looking at the other candidates.

Posted by: JKH | February 15, 2008, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm

I just heard Barack said , the change he so easily potificates is really about the change in Alliances in washington , where a politician will not be able to use lobbyists for negotiation purposes. This change will not effect the young and old , the poor or the worker losing their jobs because of a broken economy.
Somebody said that Obama is a revolutionary movement….It is not. Obama is a false promise. A make belief, so sadly for African Americans.
But how is he going to change anything, when all the politicians that live that way, openly support his candidacy for the democratic nomination?
Did you as an Obama supporter , know this.?
Obama gave support to the worst warmonger in the Democratic party, Joe leiberman against an anti war candidate for his position in Congress.
I am telling people that Obama is just an Orator, a community activist, he is insufficiently capable to be our President.

Posted by: Andy | February 15, 2008, 8:46 pm 8:46 pm

Suggestion
Obama banner; Wish, Hope, Change and Believe.
Clinton banner; Help the people.
One is eye catching and inspiring the other is to the point.
P.S. JKH I know what you mean….

Posted by: irma | February 15, 2008, 8:57 pm 8:57 pm

Hillary and Bill have done some good things for the country, but their time is done. It’s time for something new.
Oh Andy, the worse warmonger in Washington is Gorge Bush and HRC gave him the authority to launch this War you dislike so much. Obama ’08!

Posted by: Ken | February 15, 2008, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm

Center of Responsive Politics
HOPE FUND
Obama has given over $698,000 to super delegates that will support him.
Lewis is waiting for his cut.
Don’t dis this is a fact. If it comes down to superdelegates being the deciding factor. Its because OBAMA BOUGHT THEIR VOTE

Posted by: Carol | February 15, 2008, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm

Reasoned and rational democrats will soon knock out the media-fueled pro-Barack fever overtaking the liberal left wing. The general election will be between Clinton and McCain.
As he admits himself, Obama’s not a detail oriented guy, that’s why he doesn’t want to debate Hillary. Did you see him in South Carolina? Totally out of his element when debating Clinton and Edwards. The reason? Obama can only spin pretty words. He’s so lacking in experience and judgment – he can NOT offer substance.
In addition, Obama doesn’t know what he’s voting for much of the time. In the Illinois senate he flubbed up SIX TIMES in casting votes by hitting the wrong button. When called on his mistakes later, Obama said “uh, I didn’t mean to vote that way.” Folks – wake up, maybe that’s a sign Obama needs to stay clear of the “Big Red Button!”
Obama also voted 128 times present in the Illinois Senate. Not no, not yes, but maybe. MAYBE Barack’s not up to the challenge of making the big decisions facing this country – like what to do about our failing economy, health care, a war no one wants and Iran wanting to blow up their neighbors.
As for November? If Obama – in some bizarre alternate universe – ends up the dem nominee, I know many Clinton supporters, myself included, who will say – “OOPs, I voted for McCain!”

Posted by: Catherine | February 15, 2008, 10:58 pm 10:58 pm

I Wish, Hope, Change and Believe that Obama will show his true colors, before we lose a real candidate. Don’t give up Hillary, the media may be biased, but we still believe in you.

Posted by: cin | February 16, 2008, 12:32 am 12:32 am

The head-to-head polls in OH, FL and PA show Hillary doing much better against McCain than Obama. This is the real indicator of the electability. Remember, Bush won two last elections because of Ohio and Florida. Battleground states are the only ones that matter.

Posted by: Bob | February 16, 2008, 2:37 am 2:37 am

Jordan, you hit the nail on the head! Obama has borrowed ALL of his policy from Mrs. Clinton, and it’s OBVIOUS he stole his so-called inspiration from a true visionary – MLK. It’s sad these Obama-maniacs can’t see through the smoke and mirrors and will follow this snake charmer off the side of a cliff.
TC, not to insult you personally, but you’re absolutely clueless when you say Hillary can’t withstand the republican attack machine. The right wing has lambasted her for over 20 years now, day in and day out. Yet, as you can see, Hillary’s STILL standing and getting stronger every day! Hillary is the most formidable opponent the right wingers have ever seen. They’re running scared! They hope and pray Obama is the nominee, because a republican beating him in November will be a piece of cake.
Lastly – folks DO (as one of the previous posts suggests) go back and look at Obama’s body language in the debate on the Rezko issue. You can see he is so OBVIOUSLY lying. Obama is a manipulator and lacks integrity. He does not take responsibility for his votes. For Obama to say “I only worked for this person for 5 hours” and imply absolutely no association, when the truth is Rezko helped pay for Obama’s $300,000 house, is downright deceitful and appalling. Comparing Obama to Martin Luther King is a travesty and the biggest INSULT to King’s wonderful legacy.

Posted by: Catherine | February 16, 2008, 6:18 am 6:18 am

Folks, this guy is a false Messiah that is using other candidates ideas that are not his. If you go back and look at Edwards and Clintons platform early on and compare it to what the Messiah is saying now, you will see he is using other people ideas. And the most convincing argument is how he has stolen political speeches from MLK and JFK to inject into his sermons. This is a false Messiah.

Posted by: vnvet68 | February 16, 2008, 8:25 am 8:25 am

hillary does not have 35 years of experience. she is only on her second elected term as senator from new york. riding bills coat tial is not experience. i am tired of hering about her supossed exerince. argue the fact please.

Posted by: nate | February 16, 2008, 9:29 am 9:29 am

I’m constantly hearing how we don’t need the Clintons again, because America is not a dynasty. Well where were all you “dynasty haters” 8 years ago when George W. Bush was running the first time. Doesn’t a second Bush in office represent the same thing?

Posted by: Justin | February 16, 2008, 9:40 am 9:40 am

Words are real–that carry the weight of a civilization, a great social scientist and physician once said. It is amazing that so many who think Seantor Obama is all hot air, passioned rhetoric, or praddling con-man are willing to express their ideas and opinions!! They believe theri words and ideas to be worthy of sharing in the public dialogue, they believe their say-so truly represents their beliefs–they want others to know how they feel–but they deny the same value and weight, same importance and purpose, to Obama.
They also deny the evidence of how inspiring his words are and how they map out a common ground for all Americans to put aside petty differences. Do you not agree that his youth service idea with money set aside for college is good idea? Do you not agree that dialogue is importance with international leaders with whom we disagree? (Big Mac, in the Prince, thought so!). Do you not agree that stnadards based, test assessed education hurts teaching, hurts our schools, hurts our youth? Do you not agree that health care should be affordable–but not mandated by the government?
Or are you too busy criticizing to find common ground?

Posted by: Walter Rhett, Charleston, SC | February 16, 2008, 10:41 am 10:41 am

This is Democracy in action. In Africa people are slaughtering each other over a questionable election. Pakistan is certainly in turmoil, but we can speak openly and freely about our views all of which I respect, even if I can only agree, to disagree.
As for the “Super Delegates” I believe those that are commited should recend their vote and remain “Neutral”. For that matter all of the Super Delegates, should remain neutral. Personally I support Barak Obama for several well establsihed reasons, but everyone’s vote is just as important to them, as mine is to me, and I respect that.
At any rate I would like to see ABC and several other credible media outlets publish a list of all the Super Delegates in the Democratic Party and how they voted. Obama, Clinton, or Neutral.

Posted by: Ken | February 16, 2008, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm

Did a person just say that Obama wanted a corronation by asking that the super delegates vote with the people! Cripe, what a laugh.
Hillary Clinton after the 2000 vote problems with Gore/Bush, said she would move to change the electoral college and go with the popular vote. She’s changed her tune now that she is behind.

Posted by: Vet_SK | February 16, 2008, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm

As a young boy growing up in a communist regime, I was taught by the elders that, ‘Don’t listen to what the communists say! Look at the things they’ve done!’ Obama’s hope and change message has been reminding me of this well taught lesson.

Posted by: Long | February 16, 2008, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm

If you count Florida, Hillary is leading in the popular vote. It is true that the delegates are not awarded, but what does it have to do with the votes? Obama won delegate count in Nevada, but lost the popular vote. Likewise, Hillary won zero delegates in Florida, but had a huge margine in the popular vote. When she wins Texas and Ohio, her overall popular vote lead will become even more substantial. Will Obama still demand that the superdelegate should go with the popular vote?

Posted by: Bob | February 16, 2008, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm

All the votes are not counted yet, obama does not have the popular vote yet. We got some major states to go. . . and finally I can be like Obama supporters. Will we back Hillary in Ohio. . .Yes we will, what about Texas, Yes we will, and finally in Penn . . .Yes we will, Will Hillary get the nomination. . .Yes she will.

Posted by: thekid | February 16, 2008, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm

Bob the short answer is YES–even if Clinton swept every state hereafter, Barack Obama would still maintain his position that superdelegates should vote with their electorate. This is because Obama is an individual of principle and stands by what he believes is right. Hillary Clinton has changed positions on lobbyists, special interest, energy, and too many other issues to name. Her politics are that of a weather vane, constantly blowing in the popular direction–the easy direction, while Obama’s position, politics, beliefs, and actions, are guided by a strong moral compass which always points right. “It is always the right time to do the right thing.” These are words Hillary Clinton could never embody, and that alone is why I will vote for Barack Obama over any politician every time. If you can’t trust your leaders to do the right thing, you can’t trust them to lead you down the right path.

Posted by: Mannewell Darby | February 16, 2008, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm

Mannewell: my question was, will Obama still insist on the superdelegates going with the popular vote if he loses the popular vote, but ends up with more pledged delegates? I doubt that. And this is the most likely scenario if Hillary carries Ohio and Texas.

Posted by: Bob | February 16, 2008, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm

shelgirl: I am a 44 year old white woman and I agree completely with you, as I am sure a lot of people do of all races. The hatred and lies on here are deplorable and that doesn’t say much for the supporters of some candidates. But it does say something about the fear they have that Obama just may win. I am voting for him because of his character and idealism. He does have the ability to inspire and create change, we have all witnessed that in the latest primaries and polls. He embraces people from all walks of life, regardless of race, religion, gender, or any other way our society has of defining us. I have never seen any other politician in my lifetime that I can respect as much as I can respect Barack Obama. To me it is more important to have someone of character in the White House than someone with supposed experience with Washington insiders. I’m not too sure that experience is that much of a plus, and the Clinton is a little shaky.

Posted by: SusaninIN | February 16, 2008, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm

Hillary is desparate and wants to win by hook or crook. Clintons will cry if their supporters dont make Hillary as the queen for America. I am sick of all these Clinton supporters whining and plotting to make Hillary the nominee when she is beaten to the pulp by the public. Remember most of the Americans hate her, in fact more than their hate for Bush.

Posted by: Mandy | February 16, 2008, 8:18 pm 8:18 pm

Whenever I look at Hillary, I see a woman who is greedy for power and who will say anything and do anything just to get elected. She has no concern for America, not even an inch. Its all herself and her stinking ambition to be the nominee of the party. She killed Foster and stood silently when her husband was caught with his pants down flirting and abusing an intern in the Whitehouse. They brought shame to the Presidency. She is a shame to the party and is bent upon dividing our democratic party.

Posted by: Mandy | February 16, 2008, 8:24 pm 8:24 pm

You are right Mandy. Hillary is a phony and wants to overturn the verdict of the people. She has this die-hard suckers who also join her to do anything just to break up the party and win the nomination. People in all the coming election states should soundly reject her. She stood for the war with Iraq. She has supported Bush in both Iraq and Iran. Don’t forget.

Posted by: Cortez | February 16, 2008, 8:32 pm 8:32 pm

No Hillary is not a fake. This country is headed for more disaster if Obama gets the nomination. We are going to have terrorists at our back door and we will wonder what the hell has happened.

Posted by: John | February 16, 2008, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm

Before everyone starts arguing about the importance of the super delegate and how they are changing candidates could I at least have my turn to vote? Thanks.

Posted by: Jim | February 16, 2008, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm

This is like the “silent verbal” college programs get from h.s recruits.

Posted by: Jack | February 16, 2008, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm

1./ Obama objects to superdelegates having free choice even though that is their right under the rules of the DNC.
2./ Obama objects to seating Florida and Michigan delegates because it is contrary to the rules set down by the DNC.
3./Obama agrees it is ok to have a special polling precinct as ratified by the DNC for shift workers whose union happened to endorse him in Nevada but not offerthe same opportunity for all the other shiftworkers in Nevada who coincidentally aren’t proven to favour him.
His liking of the rules truly depend how they favour him. Now an equal opposite case can be made in each example for the Hillary camp but this proves one thing. Obama is as hungry as any other politican to win at all costs and really not that different.

Posted by: Hey how about this? | February 17, 2008, 2:38 am 2:38 am

Let me see if I get this right. People are upset because Obama is saying that Kerry and Kennedy should vote the way their states voted yet he wants to maintain their support as far as campaigning is concerned. That is about as stupid a thing as I have ever heard. How is he double talking by saying they should vote the way their states are voting? They gave him their endoresment. The have already let people know they support him. He says they should follow their constituents and people still want to be upset because he doesn’t tell them to go and support hillary in her campaign. Why don’t you just say you want his house, money and clothes while you are at it? The man is running for the presidency of the US. He would be insane, if not stupid, to give up political support from strong political figures. For those of you who don’t understand the political world that we live in, the people we vote into office are supposed to represent our votes. If they don’t agree with us,which they don’t have to, they are to tell us what their idea is and if we don’t agree with them, they are to vote according to what we want. That is true democracy. That is true representation. Whether or not they agree with us, they are to represent our wishes. Obama knows that the people of Massachusetts voted for Hillary and has no problem with the delegates that support him voting in that way. But why would he tell them not to support him any longer on his campaign? That does not make any sense. And Laura, I believe you are lying when you say that you have gone to the Obama site and read what his policies are. If you had, then you would not be saying that he never mentions how the change is supposed to come because he says it clearly.

Posted by: Iceman | February 17, 2008, 7:46 am 7:46 am

If the superdelegates don’t follow their states pick, how are we a democracy? Surely the DEMOCRATIC party should be a shining example of democracy in action? Some expert on the subject said the original purpose of the superdelegates was to vote with their states unless there was an emergency type situation, such as a candidate fell ill, was arrested, etc. That makes sense they are a back-up IF something would prevent the lead candidate from running, the superdelegates can elect the second place person. But it is just plain undemocratic if they use their votes to undermine the will of the majority. Remember we are a democracy.

Posted by: Lydia | February 17, 2008, 8:47 am 8:47 am

The black superdelegates are in a real bind. They risk losing their elected office if they support Hillary Clinton. They have been threatened as such according to an NPR news last Friday, that any black elected official that supports Hillary will lose their job because their elections largely depend on the black vote.
So, if you are hearing stories about the black superdelegates wavering in their support, it is because of that threat. As an African American, I am very very disppointed that our black elected officials do not have the gumshun to stand up for what is right.
Hillary is more qualified to be president, pure and simple. Choosing Obama over her will set women back another 200 years for the presidency and they know it.
We all know that all the fireworks by the Republicans will be unleashed if Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party. Defeat is almost certain unless the media will do his fighting for him as they are doing against Hillary. I cannot bet the media will be in his corner in the general election. You see, the media is owned by the Republicans.

Posted by: SO | February 17, 2008, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm

There is an old saying: be careful when you wish for something. If you vote for Obama because you wish to change, then be very careful.

Posted by: American Dream | February 17, 2008, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm

Obama is using his race,color, poor people, minorities,and pumping up voters with false hopes and dreams, to win the sympathy of the Whites to attain votes with His words.
He comes across as a slick talker that has learned what not to say just like all other politicians. Now if he really wants the delegates to vote according to how their states voted, then he would want the Kennedys, Kerry and Gov Napolitano to support Hillary Clinton. Just goes to show that Obama is not concerned with the Democracy of the votes, he’s concerned with the title of PRESIDENT. He is in for himself at any cost. A flip floping.

Posted by: tigerjcs | February 17, 2008, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm

Obama wants to win no matter what the cost. If he can , he will change the Democratic Party to his choosing. The Kerry’s and Kennedy’s will be there right behind him helping. The media will not do a thing to talk badly about Obama in fear of being cast racist. Little by little Obama will tear apart the country by race, gender and lack of substance.

Posted by: jp,michigan | February 17, 2008, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm

All the ‘Clintonites’ who would prefer to ‘jump ship’if Clinton is not chosen, because you think that you’re so politically aware. PLEASE do so…you were probably idiotic undercover’Bushwackers’for the last eight years anyway. Go to McCain he needs more idiots to help in his ‘taxidermy’ of America. Mostly the rich ‘hillbillies’ will be there to give ‘heapin helpin of hospitality’.

Posted by: Bravo Encore.. | February 17, 2008, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm

Hillary is more qualified? Just when did being “First Lady” for a state and the US count as experience for the Presidency? She was not in elected office during that time. As for John Lewis’ vote, I agree that there will be consequences if he does not abide by the choice of a overwhelmingly majority of Democrats in Georgians whom he represents.

Posted by: Minister Zel | February 18, 2008, 1:49 am 1:49 am

Be careful what you wish for. Obama is asking superdelegates to vote the way their states voted. If Hillary wins Ohio, Texas and Pensilvania, then the formula “the winner takes all superdelegates of the state” will definitely make her the nominee.

Posted by: Bob | February 18, 2008, 1:53 am 1:53 am

I have read some of the comments made in reply to newsreports like this. It seems clearly as if Mrs. Clinton herself and her husband are actually writing them or inciting others to do so. they are very emotional and senseless, almost psychotic. the clintons may do something very drastic if they lose or even in the process of this campaign. I use to love the Clintons, but something is happening that is revealing their core here.

Posted by: FSOG | February 18, 2008, 4:18 am 4:18 am

Obama is positioning himself as one of our prominent leaders by using their words, images…such as JFK, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr….but the latters’ used actions to prove their words worthy.
As I watched the debates between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, I am more convinced that Hillary is the right candidate for president.

Posted by: Mary | February 19, 2008, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm

Now look what’s coming out about the great lefty God Barack Obama. He seems very nervous about his very close ties to Farrakhan and other relationships. He is showing to be about dirty campaign tricks, and we haven’t really touched of his crack dealing days yet. This is a disgrace to our country. President Really!

Posted by: National-Letter | February 27, 2008, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.