-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/02/john-lewis-flips-to-obama/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
All they have to do is take a couple of screen shots from CNN or MSNBC with Jones screaming at Tucker Carlson.
Charlie Rangel hedged his bets by getting his wife to endorse Obama a few weeks back.
What next, Andrew Young has a change of heart. Now he's a bastard. John Lewis is feeble and Young is a bastard!
The CBC members who are waiting to make sure there is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no way for Clinton to win before they do the right thing and those who have publicly stated they won't put their SuperDelegate vote behind Senator Obama under any circumstance (Yes, I'm looking at you Stephanie [S]nubb-Jones and Shelia Jackson [on bended]Knee), deserve to feel our swift boots of reckoning kicking them out of the representative seats they enjoy as a result of the legacy that Dr.King, Malcom X and Harriet Tubman built and the blind, unquestioning faith that we had previously voted upon them. They must go at the first opportunity to replace them.
We have a new breed of Black leaders like Donna Edwards (buh-bye Al Wynn of Maryland, you're the first to get served your pink slip on 2/12/08) and Corey Booker who can replace the old guard who are more interested in their own political ambitions than they are in progressing our community farther towards fulfillment of Dr. King's dream; their arrogance should not be forgotten and should not go unrewarded come their various re-election dates. Let's fire the lot of them and replace them with new leadership akin to Barack and Michelle Obama!
Go back to massah!
One black supporter of Clinton, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, said he remains committed to her. "There's nothing going on right now that would cause me to" change, he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_superdelegates_5
However, considering what I believe I read here about the low-turnout of the black vote in California, Maxine Waters seat may be safe even if she stays on the sinking ship.
Where/Who are the rest of our new generation black politicians that can join the Cory Bookers and Adrian Fentys and Barack Obamas. Where are the women - Donna Edwards is the first new name I've heard in a while. I did hear about a black woman (Nicki? Nicole?) running for Harold Ford's old seat in Congress in Tennessee against the white guy who beat her last time. But she worries me a little because she is aligned with Harold Ford (who is shady as all get out).
I wonder if the Clintons and/or Obamas are invited to his wedding in April?
My understanding-and I admit to not being well versed;the Republicans don't have this issue-is that the super delegates are supposed to be above the fray, and not beholden to their districts, states, etc. They're supposed to vote based on THEIR opinions.
I'm guessing this system has been in place since long before the 08 election...but now that it threatens the ascendency of YOUR candidate, it's a problem.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the system should exist as is-and the super delegates should be lobbied like everyone else-or get rid of it.
Either way, to cry "foul" just because it may negatively impact your candidate is wrong.
You're also begging. This isn't about taking names and settling scores. It is, for the first time, about Democrats and ex-Democrats deciding to no longer be loyal to a party that only values their most loyal constituency come election time. Yes, we're going to remember those politicians who exploited our loyalty. Yes, we're going to remember them come election time. No, we won't be taken for granted any more. And I guess it can be rather scary seeing people realize how politically powerful they actual are ... isn't it d?
As to your superdelegate double-standard allegation ... nobody is suggesting that the system be scrapped. Rather, that those superdelegates look at how their states and their constituencies have already voted; and then vote accordingly. We're saying that their job is not to thwart the will of voters. But you already knew that.
Again, it must be kinda frightening seeing the Black electorate get hip to the system.
One thing that's always concerned me about the Obama campaign is the need for his supporters to "keep names" to "settle scores." Doesn't that sort of blacklisting have a tinge of communist behavior on it?
d,
I honestly believe it was BillaryLand putting it out that they fully intend to STEAL it - no holds barred:
As I posted down below:
Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.
The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in “pledged” delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.
But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton’s communications director, Howard Wolfson.
When she puts out there that she fully intends to STEAL IT.
IF it goes down like that, what Black person is going to want to be in BillaryLand?
They might as well become Republicans.
Folks don't want to admit it, but there's Black Code. And, IF she steals this, with Superdelegates? Any Black person caught on the wrong side of this is DONE.
DONE.
You might not think it's fair, but it is what it is.
I'm sure there's some who will still back the Clintons regardless. It almost seems like certain segments of the black populace are going to use the Obama campaign/presidency (yeah, I'm admitting it may well happen) to push a "for or against" stance within that populace. If the point is to unite the country, how does this sort of infighting amongst ourselves accomplish it?
Ronnie,
It doesn't scare me. We realize our political power in spurts; I don't think this one won't last too terribly long. That's a foul statement, and I'm sure I'll catch hell for it....
Back to the superdelegates...they're not pledged to vot for anyone. They CAN vote according to their constituencies if they so choose, but they don't necessarily have to (not insulting intelligence; just want to make sure my research is right).
So if they choose-for whatever reason-to support Clinton over Obama, or vice versa, it's THEIR choice. Essentially, to try and force their hand becomes a freedom of speech/expression issue.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/14/update-lewis-switches-vote-from-clinton-to-obama/
Respectfully, I've got to agree with anonymous here.
Yes, the superdelegates are well within their rights to give Clinton 796 super delegates despite the will of the people (even the Clinton campaign acknowledges that they won't likely catch up in PLEDGED delegates). I have no problem being consistent here.
It's their right. But they'll catch hell for it. And the Clintons will go down in history for having forever fractured the Democratic Party for personal glory. They will suppress the Democratic vote in November and hand deliver the Presidency to McCain.
This is political suicide for the Democratic Party.
The day the DNC steals this nomination by 1.) going back on its word to seat MI and FL; and/or 2.) ignoring the will of the people by reversing the PLEDGED delegate count through super delegates - that's the day at least half of the Democratic Party splinters off and gives birth to a viable Third Party.
And I'm not talking about some Ralph Nader ish. I'm talking about a real third party. I see a coalition/critical mass of disenchanted Democrats, blacks, greens, anti-war voters and Independents that could easily defeat the Democrats in 4-8 years if we get our act together.
Personally, I think we've got two candidates in particular, Obama and Al Gore, who'd be more than willing to take on an incumbent President McCain or Clinton in 2012.
At this point, Obama has more votes, delegates and states. Yet we still have Clinton walking around like she's entitled to the White House, but we're just too stupid to realize it.
http://reachblack.blogspot.com/
Fortunately, for us this scenario did not play out, and as what happened to Al Wynn, the corporate-whore, hopefully Blacks in other cities will wake up and see what these people have been doing in their names.
Many of them are running scared now, hence, John Lewis' change of heart, after he emphatically implied time after time that he was a Hillary backer. What changed his mind--Black Folks Voting.
"This just seems like a really trivial issue to me. Here we are with radical islam and extremism threating our way of life....and we sit around keeping lists of who to unelect because they don't support the candidate of choice"
----------------------------------
It's not trivial to the constituents of these sell-out politicians.
These so-called politicians are greedy and self-absorbed. They have voted for years against the interest of the people who elected them, instead serving their corporate masters and anyone who would give them a "donation."
Hopefully, Black folks will begin looking at the voting records of this scoundrels and realize that Al Wynn is just the tip of the iceberg and that many of them need to go.
Then you should cast your vote for that Democrat when you next get an opportunity, if you can find your way out of the republican abyss, that is. This blog is interesting enough without any fake posts or posts designed to only stir ish up. Those kind of hijinks are not cute.
Thanks for the compliment (mabye?). Though you got me and Elisabeth confused on our comments....
Maybe this works better:
Here we-America-are with radical islam and extremism threating our way of life....and we-black people- sit around keeping lists of who to unelect because they don't support the candidate of choice.
I was making a point about our-black people's-tend toward self-centeredness.
I've said on this particular issue that all it does for me is make the Republicans look civil. I guess if I were to take a side on the democratic ticket, I would choose Clinton, but ONLY BECAUSE I know McCain would trounce her in the general election.
Peg,
Apparently, this superdelegate procedure has been in place since 1980...why is it a problem NOW? Is it really a question of right/wrong and who sold out to who, or is it only about getting your candidate to win?
Or posed differently: if the choices were only Clinton and Edwards, would anyone really care about who the superdelegates vote for?
Maybe I'm the resident alternative viewpoint (for both of your records, I'm an independent. I registered as a Republican in DC to vote in the primary, and I'm in the process of switching back to independent).
Personally, I enjoy this forum, and the discussions it brings. Of course we're not all going to agree all the time (wouldn't be as interesting if we did!), but it's good to see us (African Americans!) come together and discuss these issues in a respectful way. Our methods are obviously different, but I think the end goal that we want-a peaceful, secure, strong America-is the same.
In addition, they interviewed Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, another member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton. The story talked a bit about the threats that Congressional Black Caucus Hillary-supporters have received back in their home districts.
I'm really trying to understand the contradiction here: Obama's campaign talks about "one America" but some of his supporters are basically calling African-American, Hillary-supporters "Uncle Toms." I think that Obama supporters who pressure Congressmen, or even threaten them, because they are not voting for someone of their same "race" (even though Obama was raised by White folk) only hurts Obama by undercutting his supposed message.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096400
Also. That NPR article describes his discussions with Jessie Jackson Jr. as being light-hearted, not as some strong-arming technique (as some have tried to describe it). Those "threats" appear to be from unidentified constituents not tied to the Obama campaign.
Both sides are trying to get an inch anywhere they can. For crying out loud, the Clintons are even calling the women on "The View."
But I agree. No need to copy the tactics carried out by the "National Organization for Women."