Black superdelegates: Rethinking Obama, Clinton

Rep. Clyburn is one of the most thoughtful, rational people in the Democratic Party. I hope and expect all the superdelegates listen to him.

My prediction: In future, all superdelegates will wait until the convention to announce how they intend to vote.

These African-American leaders have sold out. When history looks back and sees that at the tipping point, when we could have elected a black candidate, when they could have made a difference, they were absent. Now is when they could make a difference, with their help this could have been over.

They are like the House slaves who sold out their brethern because it won them favors and gave them a better life. But they lick the boots of the Clintons so they will be given a piece of the pie. While the rest of us struggle and try to earn what we get. These so called Civil rights leaders living off 40 year old dreams have been bought, what have they done lately that hasn't grandised themselves. They have given up on King's dreams and sold everyone out.

Note that Rep. Clyburn said everyone was expecting a "coronation" of Hillary as the Democratic party candidate. That inevitability was how the Clintons played the game early on. Hillary told her donors that with the superdelegates who had committed to line up behind her, she already had the primary won. This sense of entitlement came out of the Clinton dynasty calling in all the chips they had acquired over almost two decades of owning the party machine. Well, ordinary citizens like us don't want the Clinton co-presidency back with all their past sleaze, slime, and divisive paralysis that our nation endured with the Bush-Clinton-Bush regimes. We really do want change. We want intelligence, integrity, pragmatism and cooperation, less heat and more light. We don't want the race and gender cards played to further the power of entrenched multimillionaires who have gotten super-rich out of corporate and off-shore interests, a politician like Hillary pretending to be middle-class like us. And we do not want super-delegates overturning the will of the people. The Clintons do not care that their destructive gaming of the machine--getting Florida and Michigan into play AFTER Hillary had told New Hampshire voters she would not count those votes, their slurs of Obama--and their willingness to enrage an entire new generation of energized Democrats will destroy the party. Many of us have already sworn to walk away from the Democratic party if the Clintons succeed in using the machine to blatently destroy our democratic rights and our republic.

Frank, preach, bother!

And people, please remember their names -- Rangel, Lewis, Waters, Lee Jackson, Tubbs, Scott, the brotha from Missouri, all of those I missed. Please let your feelings be known at the voting booth when they're up for re-election! Vote these self-hating blacks out of office!!!!

Obama 2008!

MOORE AND MOORE PROOF THAT BLACKS ARE VOTING BASED ON SKIN COLOR!

Obama's surge is the fact that the press shows complete favoritism and is sickening. No voter wants a candidate shoved down their throat! Cable news pundits are irresponsible predicting Obamas win and MUST stop trying to control what our society thinks and how we vote and stick to reporting facts. It's sickening to hear all the endless chatter about speeches, momentum or charisma. WE NEED FACTS, SOLUTIONS AND ANSWERES all there geniuses in mainstream media, cable news, need to summon the courage to tell their audiences about important issues and facts before permitting a public coronation of Obama based on RACE, speeches, momentum or charisma, we need solutions, which seem to be absent from obama. God save us all, Our great but troubled United States needs strong, experienced and principled leadership to restore faith in our government and repair its credibility at home and abroad, and to end the destructive policies that have eroded rights for all americans, women's rights, minorities and civil liberties and increased injustice and inequality in our society. Clinton is just such a leader. She has a long history of support for women's empowerment, and her outstanding long public service record is a testimony to her leadership on issues important to women afroamericans, minorities and children around the globe. She has eloquently articulated the need for full economic, political and social equality for everyone in every institution of society, taking action throughout her career - as a lawyer, community leader, 2-term First Lady, Senator and candidate for the presidency - to advance the civil and human rights.HELP Hillary Clinton Make History

"Coronation" of HRC, the woman that threw out of the Clinton haywagon three highly esteemed African American women: Marian Wright Edelman, of the Children's Defense Fund, law professor Lani Guinier of Harvard University and Dr Joycelyn Elders Surgeon General under Wild-Bill?
Go to the internet and see for yourselves. This is absolutely crazy, the Clintons are deceitful, dishonest and think only of themselves!
See for yourself!

What Barack Obama's campaign is showing us is that our Big Tent can be a whole hell of lot bigger, that our coalition can be stronger, that our policies can have broader appeal, and that we can win more than ever before. But we can't do it with the old political style, we can't do it with the old candidates, and we can't do it with the old frames that had failed us for decades.

Barack Obama has been my choice to be our party's nominee since 2004. To me, it's shocking that the media still act like this is some kind of astonishing feat that he is pulling off, but I shouldn't be shocked given the media's contempt for the public in general and inability to deal with intelligence and talent. [Isn't it telling that as soon as a politician is good at what he does, he's labeled by the media as a "rock star?"]

Obama's landslide victories demonstrate that there is an electorate that wishes more than ever to come together around a candidate who can unite the country and who can speak with eloquence and ease about a positive vision for our nation. Obama's down-ticket effect as our nominee will be huge, and as long as we recruit and run good democrats in every district in the country (and I know we will), we'll see a wave that made 2006 look like a ripple.

I agree that there are challenges to going to a "Big Tent" model, but these are the challenges that inevitably come with being in the majority, and I believe that good leaders can manage them. As our party transforms and grows, we need to hold fast to our progressive ideals and become ever more willing embrace new leaders who can reflect those ideals while making our Big Tent even bigger--leaders like Barack Obama.

...and don't forget, the Repubs are running old man McCain, a guy who is about as inspiring and exciting as watching paint dry!!!!....BwaHahahaha!

Wong of Strength,

You answered your own question. You seem to be about 3 months old.

Here's hoping that you grow up!

I want to talk to you about two very simple stories today. I think they illustrate something key about the primary choice facing the Democratic party.

In August of 2006, thousands of people gathered in the village of Kisumu in Western Kenya to welcome Senator Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama to the nation where Senator Obama's father was born and died and where his grandmother still lives.

In addition to visiting relatives and spreading goodwill, the Obamas had come to Africa with something in mind. They had a mobile HIV testing lab brought with them to Kisumu and, there, before the assembled thousands, Barack and Michelle were tested for HIV.

700 people die of AIDS-related illnesses in Kenya every day. 1.2 million of Kenya's 32 million people are infected with HIV. In Kisumu that ratio is one in five.

That is real.

And on that August day in 2006 Michelle and Barack decided to show those gathered in Kisumu that being tested is the right thing to do. As Senator Obama said that day:

"If you know your status, you can prevent illness," Obama, the only African-American in the Senate, told the crowd. "You can avoid passing it to your children and your wives."

Obama and his wife did not make public the results of their instant tests, but the senator said "we probably wouldn't be smiling" if the results were positive. Obama said the country's government has done a better job than many others in Africa of acknowledging the problem and discussing solutions. But people's reluctance to be tested has slowed progress.
That is leadership. That simple gesture will save lives.

That tells us something about what we can expect from Senator Barack Obama and his wife Michelle if we elect him President of the United States.

::

I want to tell you one more story.

On May 1st, 2006 millions of Latino immigrants and their allies marched all over this nation in support of comprehensive immigration reform. 400,000 marched in Chicago alone. Only two sitting United States Senators stood with them that day. One was Senator Ted Kennedy. The other was Senator Barack Obama. He said later that week in a statement:

I think we need to recognize that if we are going to uphold the traditions of this country as a nation of immigrants, than we are going to have to deal with this issue in a way that reflects common sense and compassion.

The House of Representatives passed a bill that was extraordinarily punitive. It talked about border security and it made any undocumented worker in this country a felon; it also made people who potentially helped undocumented workers, for example, providing housing assistance or providing a domestic violence shelter potentially subject to a felony conviction.

It's that draconian measure that passed in the House that prompted these marches, but what started as a march of fear on the part of many undocumented workers, I think, has become a march for hope. People are hoping that they have an opportunity to legalize themselves in some fashion.

In the United States Senate there has been a bipartisan group, including myself, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, Lindsey Graham and a number of others who've been trying to negotiate a comprehensive package that would include stronger border security, making sure that employers actually verify employment status through a tamper-proof employee-verification card, and creation of a pathway to citizenship - earned citizenship - for the 11 to 12 million people that are already here. The idea would be that those people, over the course of eleven years could earn their way to citizenship by paying a fine, paying their back taxes (if they owe any), staying out of trouble, learning English and so on.
Senator Barack Obama has pledged to take up this reform in his first year as President. Senator Clinton has not. In fact, Senator Clinton, representing New York, did not participate in the events of May 1st, 2006.

::

I've tried to stay positive in the most egregious battles of the candidate wars because I have known that the more people learn about Barack Obama, as a man and a politician, about his policies, the more they respect his integrity (even where they disagree with him). And the more people know about Barack Obama the more they are willing not simply to vote for him, but, as I saw once again today, the more they are willing to go out and convince their neighbors to vote for him.

That is a powerful argument for Barack Obama in and of itself.

Today I met two couples with families (among dozens at an event) out canvassing their neighborhood with their children for Barack. (One of them is a kossack, copithorne, who wrote a diary about canvassing today.) Couples with children are busy people. Pushing strollers and leading four year olds is not the easiest thing to do when trying to Get Out the Vote.

But, given that, a couple with children knocking on your door to convince you to vote for Barack Obama is very persuasive.

Barack and Michelle Obama have a young family, too. Michelle and Barack speak eloquently about that. In fact, if we Democrats had won a small percentage more of the votes of families with children in 2004, John Kerry would be President today.

What I'd like to convey to you today is a very simple message.

Don't knock hope.

It's powerful. It's persuasive. It's pragmatic. It moves people to take action.

::

To be frank, I have been shocked by the deep cynicism of the campaign run by Senator Clinton. I don't want to belabor this point, but let me say this, I'm a student of political rhetoric. I am deeply invested in how we persuade people to take action...how we change hearts and minds.

I recognize in the rhetoric of Senator Clinton a skill, a succinct incisiveness that reflects a brilliant mind and years serving as a corporate lawyer reading and preparing briefs.

However, let me offer an example of what I consider to be cynicism on Senator Clinton's part. At the last debate a 38-year old online questioner submitted a question to Senator Clinton noting that for her entire voting life there had always been either a Clinton or a Bush on her Presidential ballot and serving in the White House.

That's true for me, too. I'm 39.

In 1988 we elected George H.W. Bush.
In 1992 we elected Bill Clinton
In 1996 we elected Bill Clinton
In 2000 we elected George W. Bush
In 2004 we elected George W. Bush
How is it a good thing for our nation that the same two immediate families should hold sway over our political lives and the office of the president for so many years? How does Senator Clinton answer that question in the minds of voters?

Clinton's answer was brilliant, pithy and the "take away line" of the debate:

Clinton absolutely nailed it with her quip that "it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it may take a Clinton to clean up after the second Bush."

-Chicago Sun Times
The only problem with that answer is that, like so many Clinton answers including those on the war in Iraq it's not really an answer at all. In fact, it exudes a cynicism that has emanated from the Clinton campaign from day one. It's a messy world, lower your expectations, don't expect your questions to get answered, don't look behind the curtain, don't buy anything from a guy 'selling hope', leave politics to the monied professionals, we know what we are doing.

If that's the rationale for your candidacy, if you think that's a sufficient answer to the complexities of the reservations we voters have about sending Bill and Hillary Clinton back to the White House, and what that would mean for those of us who want a fundamental change in our nation then you are not simply deeply cynical about the expectations Americans have of our leaders and our government but also unaware of the depths of our aspirations for a new day.

::

Listen to what Michelle Obama said today in Los Angeles. She talked about hope, yes, but she also talked about how we citizens must ourselves come together and do the hard work that comes with hope, work on policy and persuasion, work in our communities. She talked about how we choose to come together not because of some rhetorical trick but because Barack Obama is willing to take a stand that makes him worth standing up for.

Now, that stand could be a simple gesture like getting an HIV test in a nation riven with AIDS.

Or that stand could involve the political courage to stand with immigrants calling out for justice and forge a complex legislative solution across the aisle...and to pledge to do so sooner rather than later.

On these, and so many other issues that confront us as a nation and a world, Barack Obama invites us to stand for change.

It's about time.

::

Today I worked at the Obama offices downtown Oakland. I met so many great people.

You are needed.

If you are anywhere near a Tsunami Tuesday state, you are needed. Trust me. Whether it's putting stickers on door hangers, making calls, canvassing, doing visibility or taking up magic markers and, like a 5th grader, making home made signs, this campaign needs you until the last poll closes on Tuesday night. You will move votes and impact this election, guaranteed, and that's good for all of us, as Democrats.

When I looked at Obama's Technology positions and Health Care proposals, key innovative figures took center stage. In the case of technology, Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, and on Health Care, Harvard Economist David Cutler who stands at the center of a team of innovative and outside-the-box thinkers on domestic policy. When it comes to foreign policy that theme is expanded. As James Traub wrote, in his must-read, but mixed, review of Obama's foreign policy bona fides in his November 2007 piece in the New York Times magazine:

The great project of the foreign-policy world in the last few years has been to think through a "post-post-9/11 strategy," in the words of the Princeton Project on National Security, a study that brought together many of the foreign-policy thinkers of both parties. Such a strategy, the experts concluded, must, like "a Swiss Army knife," offer different tools for different situations, rather than only the sharp edge of a blade; must pay close attention to "how others may perceive us differently than we perceive ourselves, no matter how good our intentions"; must recognize that other nations may legitimately care more about their neighbors or their access to resources than about terrorism; and must be "grounded in hope, not fear." A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing "perception of unfairness" around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but "a world of liberty under law"; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations.

In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. "There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living," as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. "The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama." Hillary Clinton’s inner circle consists of the senior-most figures from her husband’s second term in office — the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, the former national security adviser Sandy Berger and the former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But drill down into one of Washington’s foreign-policy hives, whether the Carnegie Endowment or the Brookings Institution or Georgetown University, and you’re bound to hit Obama supporters. Most of them served in the Clinton administration, too, and thus might be expected to support Hillary Clinton. But many of these younger and generally more liberal figures have decamped to Obama. And they are ardent. As Ivo Daalder, a former National Security Council official under President Clinton who now heads up a team advising Obama on nonproliferation issues, puts it, "There’s a feeling that this is a guy who’s going to help us transform the way America deals with the world." Ex-Clintonites in Obama’s inner circle also include the president’s former lawyer, Greg Craig, and Richard Danzig, his Navy secretary.[Emphasis mine.]
-NYT

There's an ongoing theme here across the policy spectrum. Younger, more innovative, more cutting-edge policy analysts have flocked to the campaign of Senator Obama. That does not mean that his foreign policy team lacks gravitas. Heavyweights like Anthony Lake, Richard Clarke, Lawrence Korb, Gen. Tony McPeak and...Zbigniew Brzezinski can be counted among Senator Obama's advisors. But the operative name that writers have begun to pay attention to, is Senator Obama's work with foreign policy and human rights expert Samantha Power. (More articles: Berkeley Interview and this Commencement Address at Santa Clara University Law School) Samantha Power is, for those of us who've come of age in the era of Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush, one of us. She speaks with a moral clarity on human rights and foreign policy. Here's a sample from the commencement speech linked above:

In politics this refusal to face inconvenient truths carries life-and-death stakes. And yet only after 3,000 American lives were lost on 9/11 did it become evident that FBI agents had warned of the danger that terrorists would hijack American planes and fly them into tall buildings. Only after more than 800 Americans died in New Orleans and tens of thousands of lives were ruined did we go back and read the stellar reporting in the Times-Picayune and see that people had been yelling and screaming about the vulnerability of the levees for years. And only after gas prices hit $3 did George Bush begin talking about freeing the United States of its oil dependence and speeding up the production of hybrid cars. We have known about our energy crisis since the OPEC crunch of the 1970s. Why are we only now, suddenly, talking about rushing to mass-produce hybrid cars?

Samuel Johnson was most certainly right when he said, "Nothing focuses the mind quite like a hanging." But we can't afford to wait until we stand at the gallows to change the way we govern our country and live our lives. As individuals, as citizens, we have the power to focus our government's mind, to get resources allocated, to save lives. We have the power to concentrate the powers of the American imagination. This power comes through politics. It is the rare politician who thinks more about the collective good than he does his or her individual fortune. I believe that Senator Obama is one who does. But politics is too important to be left to the politicians. It is up to the rest of us to demand that our representatives are attentive to the human consequences of their decision-making. And that means making ourselves heard. It means, according to Lesson Number Three, not turning our noses up at politics. It means using politics to trigger the imagination and to face inconvenient truths before a crisis strikes.

That could be the summary of the mindset that those of us under fifty understand cold. It's our preference. We must focus on a new pro-active approach to the "human consequences of decision-making"...we must use "politics to trigger the imagination and face inconvenient truths before a crisis strikes." Power, pulitzer-prize winning author of A Problem from Hell: American and the Age of Genocide is not one to leave the discussion in vague generalities most suited to a commencement address. She knows what she's talking about first hand:

Let's take a look at two key topics that offer a politics of distinction for the Obama campaign: Cuba and foreign aid.

::

Cuba:

Barack Obama has taken a bold, fearless, innovative stance on Cuban policy. The United States should break down walls with Cuba and as a first step, we should ease travel to Cuba for Americans with relatives there and ease the transfer of funds between Americans and their Cuban relatives. (Herald Tribune.) This may seem like a minor policy difference, but it exemplifies Obama's ability to take a bold, new stance that actually makes whole lot of sense:

Now most Cubans in the U.S. can only visit the island once every three years and can only send quarterly remittances of up to $300 (€223) per household to immediate family members. Previously, they could visit once a year and send up to $3,000 (€2,226). The U.S. also tightened restrictions on travel for educational and religious groups. The Cuban-exile vote is considered key to winning Florida, and top presidential candidates have generally followed the recommendations of the community's most hard-line and vocal leaders, who support a full embargo against Fidel Castro's government. Castro, 80, is in poor health and turned over temporary power last year to his brother Raul.

But sentiment in the Cuban-American community is changing. Unlike the early waves of immigrants who brought their entire family, often by plane, to the U.S., most Cubans now flee by boat and are forced to leave relatives behind. Fewer of these immigrants were overt political opponents of the government, and they want to be able to visit loved ones and to send money home. Many Cuban exiles are also frustrated with the U.S. embargo, which has failed to yield fruit after nearly 45 years. And with the specter of an ailing Castro and a possible change in leadership, they are more open to changing U.S. policy.

Last week, the Miami-Dade Democratic Party came out against the restrictions. Obama will speak at a fundraiser for the chapter Saturday at the Miami-Dade Auditorium, the same Little Havana site where Ronald Reagan won over many in the Cuban-exile community more than two decades ago. Joe Garcia, the group's chairman, praised Obama's proposal.

-International Herald Tribune

Senator Clinton cannot take this bold stance. The very same "tried and true" approaches that her supporters claim she will bring to government and foreign policy happen to represent "tried and true" failures of conventional wisdom. Sure, there is a political risk in refusing to take a "hard line" Cuba stance that politicians on both sides of the aisle have taken for decades mainly out of consideration of their political fate in Florida. But, as Obama well knows, that stance hasn't worked. Obama is willing to say that. A new generation of Cuban-Americans are ready for something new. Barack Obama can give a fresh start to U.S. Cuba policy. Clinton can't and won't.

:

Foreign Aid

There was a telling moment in the last Democratic debate. Senator Clinton absolutely refused to support Senator Obama's commitment to raise U.S. foreign aid by $25 Billion per year by 2012 and pointedly questioned how he would pay for it. (Obama's proposal to double our foreign aid to $50 Billion per year dwarfs, as it should, all private efforts. Bill Clinton's foundation, to just name one contrast, has raised a grand total of $500 million, much of it tied to the Clinton's own politics.)

Putting aside the fact that Obama would pay for this increase in foreign aid out of the windfall gained by winding down the war in Iraq, the contrast couldn't be clearer. Obama is committed to proactive foreign policy solutions. He fights conservatism on the right fronts to fight. He spells this out:

"I know that many Americans are skeptical about the value of foreign aid," Mr. Obama said then. But he added, "A relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly, both in lives and treasure, down the road."

-NYT

This position has found wide-spread support both on the blogs and in policy circles. Why? Because, for those of us in Democratic politics tired of the "same old" answers based on the fear of conservative backlash, an increase in foreign aid is a sane investment that sends the right message about America. We are committed to an America that uses our resources and strength on the front end of problems. We are active in seeking to build the American reputation in the world day in and day out and not simply as a response to a crisis. We seek partners, not enemies.

This simple commitment, more than anything, represents a true Democratic "post 9/11" foreign policy: engagement, the projection of power through the building of allies. Not only will Seantor Clinton not commit to doing this, but she attacks Barack Obama on his foreign aid proposals through a GOP lens; she raises the specter of "profligate spending."

The money Senator Obama is talking about spending will go to make every American more safe. Those of us not blinded by the "old ways" of partisan politics know this to our bones. Compared to Iraq, $25 Billion additional per year on foreign aid is cheap. It's proactive. It's the right thing to do and sends the right message about America.

I can think of no greater contrast that spells a clearer difference between Clinton and Obama than this one.

::

Soft Power

Per the James Traub piece I linked above, "Joseph Nye, the Harvard professor who popularized the term "soft power" to describe the capacity to gain support through attraction rather than force" states:

A President Obama would do more for America’s soft power around the world than anything else we could do.

Nye, it should be noted (another member of the "fear of Iran" camp), does not support Barack Obama; but, in my mind, that's an even more powerful statement given that reality. Clinton, with Madame Albright and Sandy Berger and General Clark and Richard Holbrooke at her side will not send a new message to the world. Not even close. Isn't that something to think about?

What Nye is saying is that electing Barack Obama President and sending him around the world on Air Force One would fundamentally reconfigure the possibilities of American Foreign Policy. (For an example, look at what Barack Obama accomplished with this one gesture regarding HIV Testing in Kenya.) The question isn't even what Clinton could do if she chose. The stark question facing American voters is to realize all that Clinton simply won't do.

There's a reason that innovative, liberal foreign policy experts are flocking to Obama and would form, if Obama is elected, a new wave of policy experts in the manner of the administrations of Roosevelt or Kennedy: that is because Barack Obama represents the coincidence of the fresh possibilities (embodied in his identity and history and perspective) with fresh approaches (embodied in his willingness to push for innovation and pathbreaking ideas.)

Clinton simply can't and won't embrace bold approaches to anything. Clinton is a foreign policy hawk who cannot and will not embody a fresh approach to the use of American military or diplomatic power. There is nothing that embodies this more than her vote for the Lieberman/Kyl amendment.

::

the crux of the matter

At the crux then, are some core questions that imply a great deal about a broader and essential contrast in foreign policy philosophies of the two leading Democratic contenders.

Do you think America has more to fear from sticking with the same tired Cuba policy...or from embracing a new approach?

Do you think America has more to fear from Iran...or from the risks of investing too little in reaching out the rest of the world with foreign aid and the promise of a new relationship with the United States as a global partner?

When supporters talk of the "sure hand" of Clinton foreign policy they mean the exact same team that gave us American foreign policy in the 90s. (Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia) Think about that and then consider those no-bullshit, very focused words that Samantha Power had about Darfur and human rights in general.

Is 2008 a year of fear? Is now a time to go backwards in search of a sense of security from the 1990s that we discovered never existed?

Why is Hillary Clinton attacking Obama's proposal to spend more on foreign aid? Doesn't that get to the very core of a policy difference? And why are young, innovative thinkers going with Obama? The two things are, in my view, essentially linked.

Finally, why haven't all those folks talking and debating and rehashing the same old ideas during the Democratic primaries all over the blogosphere shown us more of the voice of this eminently sensible and persuasive woman?

A lot of people are saying, "Obama, I think he'd be a great president, but why does he have to be president now? He's a fine young man, he'll make a great president someday." And my point is we don't have...we cannot afford to lose, the Democrats cannot afford to lose in November 2008 and we cannot afford to wait eight years to deal with restoring America's reputation in the world, to deal with getting out of Iraq, to deal with 46 million uninsured, to deal with melting ice caps.

We need somebody to pull the country together to face these challenges. These challenges are monumental.

-Samantha Power, Charlie Rose Interview

You Obgama lovers are full of it. If the media and young people get to control who the president it will be a sad day. You can elect your idol but he will never get the congress to give him anything he wants. Wakeup folks, you assume that just cause Obama gets all of the great press that he will be able to change Washington. Ha, you will see continued gridlock if he is in office and thats a fact. So, for all those wonderful promise Obama and his supporters mention on here will go will never see the light of day.

What happened to the love-fest shown overwhelmingly for the Clintons by the African American community over the past 16 years? Please don't tell me that 80-90% of African Americans think Senator Obama would hands-down make a better president without explanation. This is the OJ Simpson trial all over again. Race and gender should be irrelevant in voter selection but I guess I am living in a fantasy.

What's good for one is good for the other. If super delegates should change their votes to reflect that of their constituencies, then those who have pledged support to Obama should change as well, including those in Arizona, New Jersey and Mass. And how about the popular vote. So we don't count the delegates in FL but perhaps the people who voted should have their votes counted in the popular vote.

What's good for one is good for the other. If super delegates should change their votes to reflect that of their constituencies, then those who have pledged support to Obama should change as well, including those in Arizona, New Jersey and Mass. And how about the popular vote. So we don't count the delegates in FL but perhaps the people who voted should have their votes counted in the popular vote.

I am amazed at how people try to kick the fact that Obama is black into everyone's face. They even accuse other blacks of blindly chosing him due to the color of his skin. I think that's a very distorted way of looking at things. First of all, Obama is as white as he is black. A white 61 year old lady reminded many people in my presence that from her point of view he was as white as he is black from his mother. Secondly, I have always been a Clinton fan - Bill, not Hillary. Unfortunately he is not the one standing for elections and more improtantly he has been committing completely strange acts in the name of promoting his wife. I am actually stunned and I am double checking everything he has said in the past. I feel it were not for his wife, Bill would be Obama's biggest promoter. But he is forced to do what he is doing. Anyway, I am disgusted by their behaviour. I liked the Clintons, but when I saw what Obama brought to the table, I was totally bowled over. So, initially it was not rejection of the Clintons, but accepting that we had such a good choice in Obama. But now, after watching Hillary behaving like her toy was taken away from her, I have completely switched my preference to Obama. I get the feeling that if superdelegates switched frm Clinton to Obama, and Clinton won, they will keep score of who to "take care" of later. But if some delegeates chose Clinton, and Obama wins, I get the strong feeling he is not going to be vengeful to their "betrayal". It is not betrayal, Mr & Mrs Clinton, it is simply democracy in action. If you win, you rally people together, even if they voted against you to make a difference going forward. If a quarter of the country voted against you would you mark them for revenge? I hope not. Finally, I believe Obama will bring this country together. Whether he wins or loses this nomination, I will always be watching Obama to see where his work leads him. And offer anything I can do for him to make his burden lighter.

Jackie,

What does Hillary has except for her
husband, where is her experience ? what did she do that makes her "the tested one".

Why don't you
flat out come and say " I want a woman president!"

you're so full of it! God Help you

What's to think about, Obamas not black he has a WHITE Mother.

EXCITING TIMES!! THE OBAMA REVOLUTION INFLUENCES BLACK DELEGATES?

WHAT OBAMA MEANS BY "CHANGE"-- Google this - Obama Liberation Theology

Then Vote

Obama's public statements, his speeches, even his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature leave one dangerously unsure of his true intentions.

Whatever Obama's concrete plans are, they ought to aligned with his political mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his spiritual mentor and liberation theology specialist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

In the absence of any genuine explanations from candidate Obama himself, the change of which he speaks reasonably may be inferred to be quite antithetical to anything even remotely resembling American patriotism.

And that is a legitimate concern for every American voter.

Watching the Democrats is amusing, sad, and scary.

It is amusing to listen to so many people double talk as to why and how Hillary Clinton went from the super candidate to a candidate that falls short against one that, so clearly, enters the race absent experience. I can only imagine if she were up against a Republican with the same credentials as Barack Obama.

It is sad to watch members of a major political party go at each other. Especially, the party that has proclaimed themselves the party that supports civil rights, minorities, and the underprivileged. To see them reacting from fear of being called racist is very sad. I wonder how long and how much they are going to be controlled by their own rhetoric.

It is scary when I hear remarks from party leaders such as, "If the superdelegates vote against the majority vote/delegate count, it is the same as what happened in 1968 at the Democratic convention in Chicago."

It is obvious this is pre finale warnings that if the Democratic candidate does not end up being Barack Obama, something sinister is in the water.

I have been trying to find information about superdelegates and the role they play. The only thing, so far, is they were established to help the party have the best candidate representing them. And, that is both sad and scary.

Sad because people have aligned themselves with a party and they don't even know how their vote counts.
A party that threw hissy fits about Florida in 2000 about voter disenfranchisement, true or not, to, 8 years later, not having a problem disenfranchising the whole state is sad.

If the superdelegates are only there to vote exactly like the other delegates, why would they be there? What would their value be? I have talked to many Democrats and, without exception, not one of them know how or why the party has these delegates.

But, more importantly, it is scary to know that, whatever happens, if Barack Obama is not the next Democrat candidate for President, we can expect race riots. That, at this point, there is no way Hillary Clinton can gain that spot without outcries of racism, injustice, cheating, etc.

We know this because the word fairy tale out of Bill Clinton's mouth became a racist statement somehow. The words that, even though, Martin Luther King was a great man with great visions, it took a President to get the Civil Rights Act passed also somehow became a racist statement.

It is scary that a woman, Hillary Clinton, who has spent the majority of her life in the political arena is now in a position that she has to stifle her political agenda to fit the political correctness of the day. Her hands are tied and anyone with a functional mind knows this. She is, without a doubt, in a no win situation.

What I find even more scary than the fact the Dems are frozen with, even the thought of racism, is that our next election might be also.

I think we all know Barack Obama will be on the Dems ticket in November. If not as President, which is the more likely, he will be vp.

My largest fear is that in the real election, the Republican candidate, most likely John McCain, will find himself in the grips of the threat of race wars.

I fear that, as Osama snuck up on us, our security being so lax, which ended in such a deadly attack, our security might not be prepared for the race riots our country will be facing between now and the final election.

My greatest fear is that the American public allows this fear to encourage their voting or that the
American public surrounds themselves with denial and then act surprised when the violence erupts.

One only needs to remember the passion expressed over the trial of O.J. Simpson, who by most opinions, was guilty, to foresee the outcome when and/or if Barack Obama somehow fails to secure the party nomination, and, then, wow,
the presidential one.

Amusing (only a little), Sad, (truly), Scary (oh yeah).

There aren't enough pandering liberals or blacks to get this weak on foriegn policy, no substance, rock star mentality, light weight elected. God help us. The terrorists are licking their lips in anticipation of a democrat commander-in-chief. Paticularly one of such shallow creditials. It is a pleasure to see the demo party imploding on the race, gender issue.

I don't think Obama is going to be President, we are dreaming even though he got talent. we must understand he is great, Tom Mac will be the president. The media do not want take chance with Hillary, (gender)also scare of Bill Clinton in the white house again. Stand behind obama now,drop him later.

Lynn, you have hit the target. I can only utter "Amen."

I'm persona non grata in the Democratic Party because I'm a white. But, Obama is inspirational and wants change and if I vote for him I'll feel really good about myself. Hmmmm...I might even get a big old invisible pat on the back to assuage some of my white guilt. Goodbye U.S. of A and Hello Zimbabwe...Who cares though...who cares about consequences for future generations and they poor when you're voting for a Rock Star.

Why has this country been in such a mess for 20 years? Look who elected our Presidents, Soccer moms elecetd Bill, security moms elected Bush, and now white trash moms and alzheimer moms are electing Hillary. Thanks a lot suffrage! All the great Presidents came before women started deciding elections.

Regarding this quote:

“REP. CLYBURN: I still remain studiously neutral. I think that the historical significance of so-called superdelegates, these are unpledged delegates – is very, very important for us to maintain. We are in place in order to either extend the wishes of the voters or to try to make corrections if they need to be made.”

In other words, “the American voters are not capable of choosing for themselves”. Obviously not if they chose him.

Who in the hell appointed these people as our gods? Why should they decide what “corrections” need to be made? That is the most arrogant statement I have read since anything Bush has tried to verbalize. All voters should rebel and eliminate these arrogant idiots who cannot even stand up to Bush’s egregious acts.

This attitude is absolutely anathema to a democracy