John Lewis Switches Support to Obama

After several starts and stops, Civil rights leader and long-time Hillary Clinton supporter has switched positions and will vote for Barack Obama.

Why? It's the movement. "He's transformational." The country has been swept away.

Nothing about whether or why he would make a good President. As to Hillary he says:

....the decision to switch his support was a difficult one, a choice between a longtime friend and a little-known black man.

"I did it because I felt I had to support Mrs. Clinton because of our friendship," Lewis said. "But also I thought she was ready to lead.

Update: As a commenter points out, could this have something to do with Lewis's support of Hillary earning him a new primary challenger?

< Key States for Democrats in November | Boston's 'Safe Homes' Initiative Isn't About Safety >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Lame reasons and quite (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    disappointing.  Subtext:  I hear you, Jesse Jackson Jr.

    If his supporters don't know what his (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    campaign is doing now in a primary I can't imagine how ignorant they'll be of his tactics in the White House.

    He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

    "I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

    Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.



    facts (none / 0) (#120)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    don't seem to matter anymore.  It's all about truthiness.

    I wish this was a joke.


    facts? (none / 0) (#140)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:11:02 PM EST
    Speaking of facts... I am still trying to figure out how any of the above "facts" have anything to do with John Lewis.

    I know... facts just get in the way, don't they?


    John Lewis (none / 0) (#155)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:47:08 PM EST
    was under the same kind of pressure Cleaver is, so yeah, there's facts in that.

    The whole thing is a mess. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    I understand what was intended when the superdelegate component was added to the process, but if this is supposed to be a vote driven by the conscience of the SD, who is supposed to cast his or her vote for the good of the party and the country, I think it ought to be a secret ballot kind of thing; otherwise, as we have seen, it can be used to influence the remaining races, as a bargaining chip for those who want to be rewarded for their vote, and as a weapon against those who aren't falling into line as the candidate wishes.

    I just wish I knew where the fairness and objectivity were - when one side can be painted as racist over nothing, and the other is allowed carte blanche to wield the brush while the media holds the can.  Not only does it stink, but we're going to pay a steep price for it.


    Only if "subtext" is shorthand for (1.00 / 2) (#35)
    by JJE on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    "stuff oculus just made up"

    I gather you didn't read about or (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    hear the statements of Jesse Jackson, Jr., co-chair of the Obama campaign?

    I did (none / 0) (#129)
    by JJE on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    but there's no evidence of a connection between that and Lewis's decision.  Some are inferring that but there's no indication that Lewis changed his mind because of JJjr.

    wow. (none / 0) (#176)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:29:26 PM EST
    this is "hopeful" denial if i've ever seen it.

    again, (none / 0) (#177)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    "hopeful" denial.  rationalize all you want, but just remember:  rationalize = rational lies.

    Obama "Transformational"? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Chimster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:35:51 PM EST
    Transformational: to change in form, appearance, nature, or character.

    Is Obama transformational, or is it his ability to bring about changes to the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free?


    Sounds like he was under a lot of (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:47:04 PM EST
    pressure, to me.
    He's basically saying Hillary is better, but Obama's got mojo.

    Has he lately concluded (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    HRC isn't ready to lead?

    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    I think Hillary should use (none / 0) (#6)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    Lewis's endorsement words herself, lol.

    Huh? Where did he say that? (none / 0) (#9)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:52:14 PM EST
    Obama said that Hillary would make a good president, too.

    Actually, he's saying that (none / 0) (#10)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    the dynamic created by Obama is trumping his personal loyalty to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Of Course (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:02:42 PM EST
    I think that's fair.

    Loyalty isn't a bad thing, either.   Sometimes I think people think it is.  In and of itself.  

    LOL.  If you don't point out people were too loyal to Bush, I won't point out Bush was more dynamic than McCain in 1999.


    is that a bad thing? (none / 0) (#26)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    personal loyalty should take a back seat to loyalty to the country, don't you think?

    (All of Bush and Cheney's sycophants taught us that!!)

    ((No, I'm not, and I would never ever compare any Clinton to any Bush -- I was speaking only to the issue of the importance of personal loyalty))


    Personal loyalty is a bad thing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    in national politics.  It lead a bunch of people to endorse Lieberman in 2006.

    I would say (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    The track record of Loyalty and the track record of Dynamic movements are about the same.

    There's no guarantee that either one will lead to a progress.

    One has to look towards other things.


    I have to say.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:29:36 PM EST
    I guess I don't know what you mean by "Dynamic Movements".

    Certainly, many Movements have been successful, no?


    I would say (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    Many have not been.

    Movements are about getting power, and their track record of knowing what to do with it once they get it is mixed.


    or . . . . (none / 0) (#131)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    maybe movements are about getting things done.

    The Civil Rights movement got a whole lotta things done (to pick the most obvious example).


    Lewis' loyalty (none / 0) (#125)
    by cmugirl on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    Which totally defeats the purpose of being a superdelegate.  You can argue the merits of superdelegates for 2012, but they are with us here and now in this election.  The whole point of superdelegates was not to necessarily follow the voters in your district, but to independently vote for the person who was best for the party and, ultimately, best for the country.

    Again (none / 0) (#65)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    a very disturbing aspect of Obama's camp.  I see the Dems falling in line behind him the same way the Repugs fell in line behind Bush--party pressure, which in that case came from Rove.  Now, it's some black leader intimidating the Dems.  So, no difference in the parties, no democracy for the people.

    No doubt, Obama will be the nominee and the country will once again be robbed of highly qualified, competent leader.


    "highly qualified, competent leader" (none / 0) (#70)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    There are many many of us who think that both Obama and Clinton are highly qualified, competent leaders.  

    (Indeed, it seemed that both candidates seemed to say so last night).


    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#78)
    by po on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:38:10 PM EST
    why let what the candidates actually say get in the way of a good rant by the side that likely will not see their nominee at the top of the ticket, if on the ticket at all.

    I Will Let (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    Other things besides perfunctory remarks at a debate determine my conclusion about the topic being discussed here.

    Why does it have to be "perfunctory" (none / 0) (#103)
    by po on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    Perhaps they mean it . . . they're both Democrats you know and both, allegedly, have the party in mind.  But, I'm guessing that you don't actually think both BO and HRC are able and ready to lead the nation to where it needs to be?  Interesting.  What you gonna do if HRC doesn't get the nomination?  

    I've Gone Back and Forth (4.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:03:55 PM EST
    Right now I still think Obama hasn't earned my vote.  I've lived through the Carter years, just cause someone has crossover appeal and a movement does not guarantee a successful administration.  There has to be more to it than that, and when it has come to pressing Obama on his understanding of what it is to be a president, I think he has come up short, and the issue remains unresolved.

    This opinion is subject to revision.  Nothing is written in stone.

    I will never vote for a Republican.  Actually that is written in stone.


    "allegedly" is the operative word. (none / 0) (#178)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:35:24 PM EST
    you're right, i don't think BO is able and ready to lead the nation to where it needs to be.  i hope very much that i'm wrong.

    STOP! (none / 0) (#105)
    by po on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:00:20 PM EST
    This just like Rove / Bush / Fox stuff from those supporting HRC and blasting away at BO has GOT TO STOP.  It's ridiculous.  Do you honestly believe what you're saying?  Really?  

    Reply to Po re Obama/Rove (none / 0) (#116)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    po, the truth is only starting to come out, and (none / 0) (#179)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:37:31 PM EST
    denying it will not make it go away.  the sh*t is hitting the fan, so to speak.

    Really (none / 0) (#106)
    by obscure on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:00:31 PM EST
    It's not like internal party pressure is a previously unknown phenomenon in the Democratic party. It's the heart of party politics. If the tables were turned, you better believe that there would be immense party pressure on Obama supporters to rally around the apparent winner. Even if there is still a possibility of an upset. Is it great? No, but it's at play in all our social endevors from kindergarden to the grave.

    oh well mccain is not in good health. (none / 0) (#147)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:26:24 PM EST
    4 years at most!

    Jeralyn, spare a shout-out for a newbie here? (none / 0) (#113)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    I keep wondering if my comments are disappearing into the ether. Maybe I'm constantly off topic. Wahhh...kidding...sort of.

    Think it has anything to do with (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by liminal on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    seriously doubt it (none / 0) (#15)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:01:34 PM EST
    John Lewis is not vulnerable to any challange in his home district. He is a god.

    Tano (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:04:59 PM EST
    you are wrong.  I live in Lewis's district.

    who has ever challanged him (none / 0) (#62)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:26:24 PM EST
    in either party, and how well have they done?

    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    Lewis had a serious challenger years ago, but has not been challenged since because the entire community has been behind him.

    But, the past does not matter in this case.  The point is that JJ Jr and the aa elites are lining up behind Hutchins and using their financial prowess as well as political spin to cut Lewis off at the knees.

    Max Cleland was considered safe as houses until Rove decided to take him out.  Hutchins is hugely popular in the aa community right now because of an extremely volatile case he glommed onto that involved a questionable no-knock warrant.  He's got all the local rap stars (who are internationally known) lining up to campaign for him--why do you think he mentions "hip hop" in that statement--and he's got the local machine gearing up for him. This would have NEVER happened if Lewis hadn't supported Clinton so vocally, then refused (initially, at least) to be intimidated.   This is nothing but a systematic destruction of a great man's career just to show other aa's what will happen if they do not fall in line behind the Chosen One and it stinks.  It absolutely stinks.


    Sound like (none / 0) (#85)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:43:55 PM EST

    Or thug tactics (none / 0) (#87)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:45:53 PM EST
    I guess its a matter of semantics.

    It's the means (none / 0) (#88)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:47:37 PM EST
    of making representatives responsive to the electorate.

    Thuggish (none / 0) (#96)
    by JJE on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    no, you must be kidding me (none / 0) (#98)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:56:26 PM EST
    Max Cleland ran a state-wide campaign in a red state. So yeah, obviously he had an underlying vulnerability that was exploited.

    John Lewis is running in his own very blue district. As you say, the entire community is behind him.

    Your notion that JJjr or anyone else from outside the district can come in and challange his is laughable - you must understand nothing about politics.


    I worked on the last four elections (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    Lewis went through.  I live in his district.  I worked on several of Cleland's campaigns.

    But, I bow to your superior knowledge.


    Now, you just keep insulting (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:02:55 PM EST
    Kathy, in an earlier thread or two, too, saying that she doesn't understand Georgia politics, Lewis' district, etc. I know I read her tell you before that she has been active in Georgia politics for a long time, actually lives in Lewis' district, has worked for his re-elections, etc. So why do you keep repeating what you have been told is not true? Who is that for?

    huh? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:15:22 PM EST
    Whats true is that Kathy lives in Lewis's district and is engaged activly in politics. I did not deny that.

    When she states that a Chicago politician can come into Lewis's district and help to mount an effective challange to him - that is an opinion.

    I disagree with that opinion. You are perfectly free to judge that her opinion should count for more than mine because she has more intimate knowledge of the situation. But surely you could recount any number of examples where people who have intimate knowledge of a situation can be wrong. Add into the mix the fact that Kathy seems motivated to say nasty things about Obama's campaign, and the probablility that she might be wrong on this increases.

    There is nothing wrong with me judging Kathy's opinion to be mistaken. And there is nothing wrong with me for saying so. It has nothing to do with denying "true statements".


    Her opinion is worth a lot more than yours (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:47:50 PM EST
    since she has personal knowledge of the local situation and you don't.  Is that hard to get your head around?

    maybe you didnt notice (none / 0) (#164)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM EST
    but I said that I recognized just that point.

    But the issue was not me objecting to people trusting her judgement over mine. THe issuse is that I am accused of denying reality because I disagree with her opinion.


    It was not about your opinion (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    of Lewis. It was about your opinion of another poster -- an ad hominem attack: "Your notion that JJjr or anyone else from outside the district can come in and challange his is laughable - you must understand nothing about politics." And again, you had engaged with her often enough here to know what she had to state again, that she had the bona fides to deserve better: that she been active in politics, in Lewis' district, for Lewis. Of course, if you had reason to think that what she stated about herself -- repeat, herself -- was not true, you could have said so. But now you say that you do accept it as true, and you had been told it before, so again: Who was that for?

    Thanks Cream (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:12:25 PM EST
    and all I will add to this discussion is that the notion that someone outside a district, or even state, for that matter, cannot come in and successfully orchestrate a challenge against a well-liked incumbent fails to remember two words: Ned Lamont

    so, you base your opinion (none / 0) (#167)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    on a sense that John Lewis's base of support amongst Democrats in your district is comparable to the level of support for Joe Lieberman amongst CT Democrats?

    Joe angered Dems over repeated support for a war, not just an endorsement. And it came on top of lots of long-term annoyance at sanctimonious moralizing and aligning with corporate interests.

    But please tell. What other factors, besides this endorsement, have angered Democrats in your district about Lewis?


    i'm starting to think that this is just a (1.00 / 1) (#182)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:49:54 PM EST
    preview of the repercussions to come from the recent letup of the obama rules:  denial, rationalizing, defensiveness, and possibly even hostility.  god help us survive the storm.

    stop playing games (none / 0) (#168)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:23:35 PM EST
    I have never said nor implied that I doubted what she said about herself. I disagree with her opinion about Lewis's vulnerability. It strikes me as the opinion of someone who does not understand political dynamics. There are plenty of people who are intimatly involved in politics who do not understand what is going on - just check the ranks of most losing campaigns.

    Ad hominems are not (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:45:20 PM EST
    games to me.

    the aftermath in (1.00 / 1) (#181)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:43:11 PM EST
    the wake of the obama rules:  the truth = "nasty things."  fabulous.

    there is nothing wrong with "my" judging (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    of someone. there is nothing wrong with my correction i assume.

    you severely overestimate (none / 0) (#180)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:40:44 PM EST
    the incumbency advantage.  severely.

    How much would you like to bet (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    that the primary challenger will back off now....

    Yes (none / 0) (#150)
    by Fredster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:34:28 PM EST
    Of course it does.

    Does Lewis get any benefit of the doubt? (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:01:48 PM EST
    A week or so ago, when the issue of Lewis' support first came up, a number of commentators here spoke of Lewis as a true hero, as somebody who risked his life marching from Selma to Birmingham, and how he didn't deserve to be treated the way he was being treated.

    May I suggest the same here?  If anyone has earned the benefit of the doubt, it is Lewis.  Suggestions that he wilted under the pressure are jaw-dropping to me.  Lewis knows real pressure when he sees it, and he has a long track record of standing up to it.

    Some here might think he's making the wrong decision.  That's fine.  But can we still accord him some respect?

    No, he's a bum now. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM EST
    Just like Georgia became an insignificant state.

    Geekesque (3.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:14:42 PM EST
    please leave for the day. I'm tired of your one line sarcasm and attacks. You are detracting from the discourse. No more from you today.

    Nobody (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:11:25 PM EST
    said "bum."

    Some have called Wesley Clark a "sell-out."


    nice! (none / 0) (#41)
    by myed2x on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    ahhh you've invoked the 'some people say' line!!!

    Your watching too much Faux News, heh.


    The person I responded to (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    knows who did and who didn't call Clark a "sell-out."

    You should have see what the Orange (none / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:50:31 PM EST
    Horde said about Lewis a few months ago.
    If they didn't call him a race traitor, they came damn close.

    I Have No Doubt (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    And I know what that group was saying about Obama back when Obama was writing diaries about Truth and Tone.

    But he's running against a Clinton now.  They make do with what they have.

    They're pragmatists really when it comes right down to it.


    They're pragmatists with thin cloth (none / 0) (#102)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:57:49 PM EST
    to work with.

    Clearly, he does here. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    Other than Geekesque, and I suspect that's snark. Can you point to comments that are disrespectful? Saying he was under pressure is simply factual.

    The broad suggestion in this thread (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    is that he 'caved' into pressure and is doing this not out of principle, but to save his own skin.

    Nope, see, those of us who long admired (2.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:45:12 PM EST
    John Lewis know that he would be thinking about saving his district, his constituents, for whom he would continue to be the best Congressman, by far. Unless you can explain why you support Hutchins as the better Congressman? You're in the district?

    Fact vs Opinion (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by myed2x on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:17:10 PM EST
    Can you please back up your assertion with said facts....I mean a quote, link, article...anything that factually states Lewis was feeling pressure?

    Maybe one of his aides or Wilson himself alluding to this?

    Otherwise it is your OPINION, not fact.


    Read up re challenger (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    Read other AA's comments about the pressure, etc. Sorry, I don't have time to catch you up on the previous threads, coverage, etc., on this. Search.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#82)
    by po on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:40:47 PM EST
    Seems Lewis believes his district supports Barak.  From the AJC article:

    "Lewis cited the overwhelming preference for Obama in his district as a reason for his change of heart, but he also talked about Obama's campaign as transformational for the nation."

    Of course, the transformational aspect will get all the press because that fits into the words v. action, the skies will open argument that everyone (left and right) appears to be pushing these days.

    Give Lewis a break.  Who he supports or does not support shouldn't make a wit of difference to anyone who can think for themselves.  Pick your own candidate and move on.


    uh, actually it makes a lot of difference (none / 0) (#183)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:54:11 PM EST
    to those of us who believe in defending people from the worst kind of intimidation and coercion.  your dismissiveness of such a serious issue dismays me.

    I don't blame Lewis one bit (none / 0) (#169)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:50:30 PM EST
    The shame isn't on Lewis for doing what he needs to do.  The shame is on those using Godfather like tacticts to pressure him.

    exactly. (none / 0) (#184)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:55:02 PM EST
    "delivering a sermon" (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    yes, I also thought it was weird . . . until he ended the sentence by explaining that he was in a church.

    Political candidates can give a "sermon" in a church, but not a political speech -- that would cause IRS problems, no?

    yes (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:13:23 PM EST
    the news today reports the confirms it is investigating the tax status of  Obama's church because he gave a speech there last year. The church says it wasn't a political speech.

    that's just wrong (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    the IRS has plenty of other churches to go after.  I am not a huge proponent of tax-exempt status for religious organizations who breech a certain threshold, but politicians give political speeches at churches.  It happens all the time.  It's a fine line, and subjective, but I don't agree with an investigation being opened.  I am sure Clinton has done the same thing.

    This makes me very uncomfortable.  Who turned the IRS onto this church?  Who launched the investigation?  What is it supposed to accomplish?


    I completely agree. It stinks. nt (none / 0) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:20:09 PM EST
    I wonder if Obama got a heads up (none / 0) (#67)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    to the charges against the church and that's why he called it a sermon.  Ahhh...explains the hesitation.  Good.  I'm glad he's responding to it.

    I agree... (none / 0) (#66)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    Kathy -- it's nice to be able to agree every once in a while.

    Indeed, it "stinks" -- that a speech he gave last June to a National Conference is only now being investigated.

    Newsweek has an article on this (written by Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, President of Chicago Theological Seminary, who was at the speech.  Or sermon <g>)


    No, it doesn't "stink;" you may forget (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    all the churches that were using their tax breaks to go against our candidate last time from pulpits, in church newsletters, and the like -- such as a Catholic church in Madison and others in the Midwest because of Kerry's stance on abortion. I am all for enforcing the separation of church and state on all churches. (And I go to a UCC church.)

    what I meant by "stink" (none / 0) (#130)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    Is that I am a bit wary of an IRS investigation that begins a full nine months after a national public event.  This wasn't some rinky dink church in some out of the way place with some minor pastor.  This was a very public national synod with a presidential candidate running.

    So, I am suspicious.  Why did it take that long?

    If the answer is that similar cases usually take this long, then I withdraw my comment.

    But, you'll have to excuse me, if I am suspicious of selective prosecution during the Bush Administration lately (anyone remember Don Seligman? the US Attorney scandal).


    Heavens, the IRS comes back (none / 0) (#198)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:48:15 PM EST
    at some of us years later, over piddly stuff. It takes a while to put together a case. And you have read, perhaps, that the IRS is 'way down in staff, like so many fed agencies. Except the ones involved in the war, we can presume.

    Tax-exempt Churches (none / 0) (#121)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    To the underlying issue: why do churches have tax-exempt status at all? Seems like tax dollar support of churches violates the separation of church and state. Maybe that's more of a Nader issue...

    the Supreme Court has considered this (none / 0) (#127)
    by JJE on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:47:04 PM EST
    and has drawn a distinction between a direct subsidy and a tax exemption, on the grounds that a tax exemption reduces the degree of entanglement between church and state.  Whether that distinction is persuasive I leave up to you.

    Just a note... (none / 0) (#72)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    The IRS is actually investigating Obama's church's denomination, not his actual church.

    I'm not sure about the law on that (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    but I've heard him call it a speech before.  He even seemed to hesitate after the word "sermon" as if he wondered whether he should call it that or not.

    Just found it curious--certainly, it's not an indictment against him.


    Could (none / 0) (#68)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    be seen as pandering to the fundies, whom he is trying to attract.

    Kerry did not cave (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by catfish on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:00:40 PM EST
    For this guy to
    1. Support Hillary
    2. Then get pressure to change
    3. Then say he's neutral
    4. Then get a primary challenger
    5. Then switch support to Obama

    Sorry, looks like caving to a lot of people. Maybe he didn't cave.

    Reflection (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by 1jane on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    John Lewis decides to respect his constituents and supports Obama. That's something most Democrats from all over America hope their super delegates will do whom ever their constituents favor.

    John Lewis is strongly against the Iraq War as is Obama. Case closed.

    As noted up thread (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    Then Clinton can count on Kerry's and Kennedy's superdelegate vote when the time comes.   That is if they decide to respect their constituents as we all hope they do.

    Fast Link: Race Man (New Republic Obama Story) (none / 0) (#144)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    To Reflections, the case is soooo not closed. There are journalists outside the bubble who aren't subject to the Obama Rules. Read this for starters; Jeralyn has a link to it in the main body of her post, but it's really slow - try this one:


    The New Republic
    Race Man by Sean Wilentz
    How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
    Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008


    journalist? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:35:05 PM EST
    Sean Wilentz is not a journalist. He is a longtime friend of the Clintons, and defender of Bill during impeachment. Don't be blind.

    Nobody strong arms John Lewis (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by 1jane on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:23:52 PM EST
    Perhaps John Lewis looked at the suitcases each candidate is carrying. Clinton's is a fat big ol' suitcase filled with Bill and the checkered record of his presidency. Obama's suitcase is a little beat up, his stance against the Iraq War safely tucked inside, his Ethics Bill passed, and his struggle to be a black boy raised by his white mother and grandmother stowed in his memory book.

    John Lewis, a Freedom Rider from the 60's may have looked at his battered ol' duffel bag and recalled the many times he was arrested working under threats of harm in the battle for civil rights.

    My daughter worked for Lewis on the Hill. Nobody strong arms John Lewis.

    Do not agree (none / 0) (#149)
    by Allin on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:29:49 PM EST
    He is yet another has been in a generational gap.

    Disagee? (none / 0) (#158)
    by 1jane on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    Congressman Lewis and Clinton are from the same generation. Did you really mean to imply Clinton is also a has been? Neither can be stong armed.

    read kathy's comment earlier (none / 0) (#194)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:27:48 PM EST
    about the bigger threat he faces, which is feeling alienated and ostracized by the aa community.  there are bigger forces at work here.

    I guess this means (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by vicsan on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:27:33 PM EST
    John Kerry and Ted Kennedy will switch their support to Hillary, right? Massachusetts' constituents  supported Hillary. I expect them to do the right thing and support her. That means Hillary picks up 2 more Super Delegates.

    This deeply saddens me as John Lewis has (3.66 / 3) (#19)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:02:16 PM EST
    been placed under incredible pressure by the AA community which wouldn't have come this far without his heroism during the civil rights struggles...They just threw away his incredible record of bravery....I, for one, won't forget it...

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Claw on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    "They just threw away his incredible record of bravery," because he endorsed a candidate you don't like.  Unbelievable.
    And, again, this idea that the AA community is pushing Lewis around is utter nonsense.  Anyone posting otherwise really does not understand the political power structure in Atlanta.  Lewis is considered a hero here (and rightly so) and was in no danger of losing his seat.  

    the ease with which you deny (none / 0) (#185)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:59:17 PM EST
    facts in front of our very eyes is astounding to me.

    don't you think (none / 0) (#28)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:07:06 PM EST
    after all Lewis has been through -- that he has a bit more spine than that?

    The Civil Rights movement (3.66 / 3) (#55)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    was also about blacks and whites banding together. As Rep. Tubbs said last night, Obama does not own MLK. Hillary is part of that legacy too. It's sad that Hillary has not had more African American support, but also, regrettably, understandable.

    I feel for Lewis. He was under tremendous pressure.  I wonder if he discussed it with the Clintons first. I doubt his primary challenger will back out. And if that is the reason Lewis switched (again?), then I doubt his change to Obama will sway voters who already want to vote for his challenger.

    If you're not on the Obama bus, and that bus arrives at the White House, then it is pretty clear you are going to get run over. His (very effective) campaign reminds me of Bush in that way.


    sancho (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    yes, "with us or against us."  This seems to be a rallying cry that Obama supporters certainly have taken up.

    I do not think that losing his seat was the only reason Lewis capitulated.  He is an aa man.  I would think that, rightly so, part of his sense of self is tied into that fact.  Guilt would have been a big part of the pressure.  In fact, that's what JJ Jr has been telling folks, "do you want to stand in the way of history?"  It's just like Tavis Smiley getting threats, his mother getting nasty phone calls.  At the end of the day, Lewis has to go home.  His life, his community, his being, is all tied into the aa community.  What life would he have if he and his family were no longer welcomed there?  To me, the threat of the seat is secondary to this larger threat.


    kathy (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    I agree--that's why I feel for Lewis. But it is sad that the Civil Rights movement still has so far to go--even for and especially for its heroes and champions. I want to think that were Obama to win the Presidency, it would help further heal those wounds. But I think that such a hope is naive--as naive as thinking that Lewis won't feel guilty about supporting Hillary over Obama.

    And then there is the matter of Obama's clear and blatant sexism. W/o it, I am not sure he would get the nomination. It was the sexism of his campaign that helped flip me to being a Hillary supporter (and admiring her intelligence and grit and stubborness).


    women supporting (none / 0) (#117)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    Obama has nothing to do with whether Obama's campaign is sexist or not. If you can't see it, you can't see it. I'm not the only one who thinks it is a sexist campaign. Alan Keyes or JC Watts run as Republicans but few will make the argument that the recent Repuublican party does much to advance the interests of African Americans.

    It may be that Obama's 'sexism' is a red herring--something he pretends to in order to get votes to win an election. He may not be a sexist. But as a Democrat I have trouble supporting a candidate who will exploit the prejudices of others to get elected.  That may be naive of me.

    I don't quite grasp your other remark about what I know or dont know about the Civil Rights movement. I think it may be an ad hominem attack, but perhaps I misunderstand you.


    couldn't agree with you more here: (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:05:51 PM EST
    "But as a Democrat I have trouble supporting a candidate who will exploit the prejudices of others to get elected."  at least for me, this is the biggest problem that i have with obama.  and it's a damn big problem.

    *ditto* (none / 0) (#200)
    by Rainsong on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:39:30 PM EST
    I too, have a big problem with it. I've tried to get over it. I've tried to see it as 'No Big Deal'. But its soooo extreme, that to me, it is a Big Deal. Sorry.

    If the trend continues, I'll be sitting it out in November, or maybe give Nader a nod, or check out the rest of the unheard of wannabes. Sorry. But don't worry - I'm probably a wildcard statistical outlier, so you can safely exclude me grin


    He or she is saying that because your (none / 0) (#123)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:31:14 PM EST
    screen name sounds Hispanic you don't know anything about Civil Rights. That's my interpretation since I've been hearing this a lot by Obama supporters lately.

    Well that's just racist. (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    Isn't it?  Who here is to say that hispanics don't know anything about civil rights?

    And I agree with Sancho on this point:  "I have trouble supporting a candidate who will exploit the prejudices of others to get elected."

    Obama did that in South Carolina with the whole McClurkin/Walker/Mary Mary thing, and I will not forgive that.


    comprendo. (none / 0) (#159)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    thanks for the interpretation.

    you'd have a point (none / 0) (#186)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:02:42 PM EST
    if women weren't just as capable, if not more so, of being misogynistic.  this is what i call cattiness on a national scale.

    It's about the past vs the future (none / 0) (#173)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:13:25 PM EST
    Lewis is the past.  Hutchins is the future.  I wonder if Hutchins will withdraw now.  Probably not judging from this quote.  A likely Obama endorsement would be very helpful to Lewis right about now.

    "Today's announcement by Representative Lewis was clearly prompted by political expediency," Hutchins said Wednesday. "It is time for a change. It is time to send somebody to Congress who is actually willing to represent the district."

    Expect to see more of this divisiveness as the past and the future fight for control of the party.


    jesus. i can only imagine (none / 0) (#188)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:10:04 PM EST
    the bitter irony of relenting to overwhelming pressure in order to assuage your harassers--only to have them throw you under the bus anyway.

    Constituents pressuring their representatives? (none / 0) (#46)
    by JJE on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:15:17 PM EST
    Heaven forfend!  Truly truly saddening.

    pressure that's unscrupulous (none / 0) (#189)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:12:50 PM EST
    and motivated by self-aggrandizement is not exactly the same as pressure to achieve worthy ends that are good for everyone.

    Beware Hutchins (3.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:03:55 PM EST
    he is divisive and racially inflammatory.  This crap he is spouting about Lewis is inexcusable.  Hutchins is an ambulance chaser who will do anything to get on the news and to say that Lewis is "old news" shows exactly the cut of his character.

    Jeralyn, you probably didn't know this, but the person Lewis gave this story to, the first reporter he's talked to on record since this whole debacle began, is Monica Pearson, an Atlanta news icon for (at least) thirty years and a very well-connected aa woman.  She is also incredibly close to our mayor, Shirley Franklin--she of the "this is not a fairy tale" remark aimed directly at Bill Clinton while they were both at Ebenezer Baptist over the MLK holiday.

    (speaking of, did anyone notice that during the debate last night, Obama called his speech to the Ebenezer congregation, "delivering a sermon"?)

    Maybe a chilling effect (none / 0) (#33)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    of this.

    What a disappointment (3.00 / 2) (#57)
    by sonya on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:24:18 PM EST
    He has served us well, but I'd rather see him retire than humiliate himself by going back on his word under pressure from the likes of the Obama campaign. What a shame.  


    On October 5, 1963, Zinn began an article called "The Battle-Scarred Youngsters" in The Nation in this way:

    Standing at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, John Lewis turned his wrath, not at the easy target, the Dixiecrats, but against the Administration.... To many, the March had been presented as a gigantic lobby for the Administration's Civil Rights Bill, but Lewis pointed quickly, unerringly, to the weaknesses in the bill. Furthermore, by sponsoring a new civil-rights bill, the Administration had skillfully turned attention to Congress, and deflected the erratic spotlight of the civil-rights movement from possibly focusing on inadequacies of the Executive. The straight, crass fact at which John Lewis was aiming is this: the national government, without any new legislation, has the power to protect Negro voters and demonstrators from policemen's clubs, hoses and jails--and it has not used that power.

    Lewis is, according to the Associated Press, "the first major House figure to suggest impeaching George W. Bush," arguing that the president "deliberately, systematically violated the law" in authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct wiretaps without a warrant. Lewis said, "He is not King, he is president."

    I suspect (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:04:19 PM EST
    this has everything to do with pressure from Jesse Jackson, Jr., and the endless threatening robo calls he has been getting. This is really unbelievable! Just what we need - Daley machine thug tactics that rival Rove tactics on the dem side. Exactly why I will never vote for someone who would do this to another dem, let alone someone who marched with MLK.

    He's flipping (none / 0) (#11)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:56:16 PM EST
    back to Obama. He supported him back in Jan 2007:

    Atlanta Congressman John Lewis, who was a key leader in the civil rights efforts of the 1960s, said he was an early supporter of Bill Clinton and admired his wife, but called Obama "refreshing" and said he would back him.

    30-year-old to challenge Lewis in primary (none / 0) (#12)
    by catfish on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    for being 'unhip'. Now Lewis caved to the charming young man. Sad.

    AJC previewed this happening a week ago: John Lewis no longer groovy? Hutchins to oppose him:

    The Rev. Markel Hutchins will announce today that he's going to oppose Rep. John Lewis of Atlanta in the Democratic primary this July, saying the civil rights icon who has represented the city in Congress for two decades is un-hip.

    Hutchins, who calls himself the "next generation civil rights activist," will make his announcement at 5:30 p.m. on the bridge near the Richard Russell Federal Building, 75 Spring Street SW.

    Hutchins, 30, is pitching his campaign as a generational changing of the guard and himself as the youthful face of the Hip-Hop generation, with which, he said, Lewis is out of touch. The race, he said, is a choice between "the generation that started the movement to the one poised to continue it."

    As evidence of a gap between Lewis and young, civic-minded activists, Hutchins points to Lewis' decision to back Sen. Hillary Clinton instead of Sen. Barack Obama in the presidential race even though Obama is the first truly viable African American to run for president and the overwhelming favorite in Georgia's Democratic primary this month.

    Hutchins characterized Lewis' choice of Clinton as a "decision to separate himself from his own electorate."


    Hooray for youthful exuberance... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    ...but I have to chuckle at how much we have come to  prolong our definition of "youth." In my day all the hip activists used to say don't trust anyone under 30. Luckily for Hutchins the times they are a changing, thus extending his expiration date.

    As a superdelegate and House member (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    representing the 5th District of GA, should he not vote for the candidate his district overwhelmingly voted for?

    Great point - Kerry, Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by catfish on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:14:19 PM EST
    should do the same. Excellent point.

    Does every congressional district have a superdelegate to represent them?


    Couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    Should Kerry and Kennedy? (nt) (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    Then you see no reason (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:50:31 PM EST
    for super-delegates, since they would be redundant.

    Worse than redundant (none / 0) (#99)
    by JJE on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:57:12 PM EST
    A superdelegate who follows the principle of voting with his/her district gives that district disproportionate representation.  Analogous to how the electoral college gives small states disproportionate weight.

    Indeed, imo they are redundant. (none / 0) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    Is this some kind of game? Is there some "gotcha" you have in mind for me?

    Nope, you raised just one super-d (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:06:39 PM EST
    and I wondered if you were consistent on that. If you had said so, I wouldn't have asked.

    Looks like he caved (none / 0) (#32)
    by catfish on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:09:27 PM EST
    Interesting sequence of events.

    Looks like he's voting for a candidate he (none / 0) (#39)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:13:46 PM EST

    you go on thinking that, (none / 0) (#190)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    geekesque.  you just go right on ahead thinking that.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#54)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    Why did you delent my comment that Lewis originally supported Obama, until pressured by Bill. It is true - I even provided a link.

    I can understand your wish to delete blatantly false comments from contaminating the discussion. But that was a true statement, as the link showed, and as was discussed extensivly around the web when Lewis was in the news a few weeks ago when the buzz about his reswitch started.

    The link included Lewis's (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM EST
    statement he was "on the cusp."  

    your link didn't support your claim (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    it was not a prior endorsement of Obama.

    Me too! (none / 0) (#59)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:25:26 PM EST
    Why? Because I think Obama can negate and put to rest the outlandish propaganda once and for all. I wasn't sure he could withstand the propaganda machine, but am sure now that he not only can, but can defeat it. Obama can not only survive, but can make liberalism a good word and good policy. HRC cannot do that. She's too "Third Way."

    Caved? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Claw on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    So the only reason one could support the Obama campaign is
    1. They're caving (strange charge to make against a fearless civil rights leader).
    2. They're AA.
    3. They're deluded.
    4. They drive a Prius and/or enjoy lattes (never really understood this one, either).

    Am I forgetting any other ways to explain away the idea that people might--just might--support Obama out of a reasoned comparison between the two candidates?

    nobody here said what you just said. (none / 0) (#191)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:17:50 PM EST
    jesus, this defensiveness is already getting tiresome and to think, it's only just begun.

    Ok then let's add (none / 0) (#109)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    1. don't pay attention to the story behind the campaign,
    2. probably haven't noticed that what is said in campaign events and actions don't match,
    3. don't realize that "electibility" argument is false,
    4. don't value experience and knowledge,
    5. have bought into the republican disinformation campaign.

    You know that the people who don't agree with your position MAY actually have a point, right?

    Ok how is the electiblity arguement false? (none / 0) (#122)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    As of today (none / 0) (#126)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    If you look at match up polls Obama does not do significantly better than Clinton (vs ones from one month ago). Also if you break it down to electoral college map votes he does not do better.

    From LATimes/Bllomberg poll today:

    Matchup: McCain 46% to Clinton 40%, McCain 44% to Obama 42%.

    On economy: McCain 42% to Obama 34%,  Clinton 43% to McCain 34%.

    And we all know economy is NOT a major issue...

    And all this BEFORE the republicans have even begun to tear him down and AFTER Hillary has been torn down as much as possible.

    Seriously, think about it.


    Depends on your poll (none / 0) (#133)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    Most polls Obama does significantly better than Clinton.  Try an average of polls.  The same applies to head to head polls in states.

    Actually (none / 0) (#136)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    This is one of three recently showing this. I am really not choosing the one that shows that. The whole idea of the "lead" was misleading to begin with.

    Also what about the point that Obama has not even begun to be attacked yet?


    123 comments posted (none / 0) (#124)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    only 103 still surviving...wow...

    Is this really necessary Jeralyn? Why not just let people hash it out? People are being quite civil.

    Deleting Comments (none / 0) (#134)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    The biggest piss-off about deleting commentary is that an inoffensive comment can be deleted because it was in the stream of reply to an offending comment.

    Am I wrong about that?

    I wrote a pretty extended, and in no way offensive, post earlier on this thread and it was deleted...disheartening...if you've put significant time and thought into what you've written.

    Can any of it be retrieved for one's own records at least?


    I saw your comment (none / 0) (#137)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    It contained a long quote from another source, which will get you deleted many places, not just here, for copyright reasons.

    If you want to keep a record of comments you think may be deleted, always reply or reload in a new tab/window to keep a backup.


    Alien Abductee: You're WRONG! (none / 0) (#152)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:43:10 PM EST

    There was NO QUOTE AT ALL from another source in my post today: I actually did a rather long piece of original writing - which you evidently concluded to be from another source.

    I'm not claiming it was Pulitzer material, but it was my own writing.

    Perhaps you're thinking about yesterday, when I did, in fact, include in my post the full text of  a memo from the 'Republicans for Obama' website (BTW that post wasn't deleted).

    Now that you've so kindly informed me of the policy against using long quotations, I'll keep it to a minimum. But in case you're still confused about yesderdays TEXAS GOP MEMO URGING REPUBLICANS TO VOTE FOR OBAMA - FOR A DAY - IN THE UPCOMING DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, here's the link:



    Well (none / 0) (#154)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    I thought you were quoting Wilentz. Maybe whoever deleted your comment thought so too. Take it as a compliment on your smooth writing style - mistaken for a TNR writer. :)

    Oh that is just so childish and churlish (none / 0) (#161)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    and inarticulate, to boot.

    why do you keep repost this? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    IT was pointed out to you three times that this group is supporting Obama in the primary AND IN NOVEMBER

    i try to have (none / 0) (#128)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:47:52 PM EST
    at least one dynamic movement every day. keeps me feeling fresh and ready for anything!

    with regards to the presidential campaign, john lewis' constituents are the entire population, not just his little slice of the pie. i'm very disappointed that he, of all people, seems willing to dump everyone else, merely to retain his seat in congress.

    speaking of bringing racism into the campaign:

    Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

    thanks JJ, jr. for injecting the fear of being accused of not being "black" enough into this campaign. good on ya! daddy is no doubt very proud of you.

    it would have been nice, if only for appearance sake, had lewis at least attempted to cite some substantive reason for switching his support. clearly it's within his prerogative to do so, but work with me here guy! try not to make it so obviously about your political skin next time, and not what's actually best for the country.

    I had a thought the other day (none / 0) (#139)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    And am beginning to wonder if this historicalness was all such a great idea.  I mean it's awesome in a way, but people, black people will internalize the statement above.

    And, what others don't realize yet, so will women.  For every Black Activist out there there has been a Gloria Steinem or a Billy Jean King who have had their own dreams put on the line here.  Even though they have been less vocal about it to varying degrees.

    In effect, here we have this situation.

    Clinton, if she were to have won, would have been the woman who prevented the first black person from winning the white house.


    Obama, when he wins, will have been the man who prevented the first woman from winning the White House.  (Pause.  Think about that.)

    What this means is that how the winner, presumably at this point, Obama, proceeds and handles the Winning aspect of this nomination can have very large consequences over the long term.

    I do think, based on some of the statements he has made that the dreams of people like Gloria Steinem and Billy Jean King are not something he knows how to address.

    All he understands at this point is the predicament he's in.  During Clinton's standing Ovation in the second to last debate Obama grimaced, cause I think he knows what it was for, and I think he knows that, despite the steamrolling effect of his movement that some challenges lay in wait for him.

    First is to re-unite the Democratic Party.  


    And then there's this: (none / 0) (#145)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:22:42 PM EST
    from two AAs, overheard on the internet:

    "Even my 10 yr old now believes that he can get to the top, irrespective of obstacles. That is reinforced each evening when we watch Obama in the news."

    "That says it all, my bruda. The kids all don' t need to be Michael Jordan, Snoop Doggy Dog, Asha, Beyoncee, 50¢. They can become president and beat a white person getting there. As long as they are qualified. And you get qualified by studying hard, doing your home work and keeping out of trouble, so that the racist cops don' t destroy your record."

    Even if Barack Obama doesn't win the Democratic nomination, even if he is defeated in the presidential election after he gets the nomination and he doesn't become the first black president of the United States, the weapon he has already put into the hands of black parents in America who are worried about their children's future, as illustrated by the exchange quoted above, will make his contribution to the history of the US - and the world - unchallengeable.

    Obama has shattered the stereotyped image of the African American male as an under-achieving, self-destructive victim of a white-controlled society that would sooner imprison him than enable him to enjoy a fruitful life.

    Re. Deleted Comments & Use of Quotations (1.00 / 1) (#166)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    To Alien Abductee: with respect to your earlier snide reply to a sincere question about comments being deleted: is your latest post an example of something that's likely to be deleted because it contains nothing but quotes from an external source.

    Does anyone ever mistake you for a writer? Hey, snide begets snide.

    Just looking for some insight here...and now, I'm done.


    The length of my quote is pushing it (none / 0) (#171)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:58:26 PM EST
    As for my comment to you, it wasn't meant to be snide. I'd read it as a quote. I was telling you how to keep a copy of your comment for yourself in case it gets deleted. Sorry you took my comment any other way.

    I assure you (none / 0) (#151)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    Somewhere two women are having the same kind of conversation about their daughters.

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#153)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    I just couldn't let this part of your comment pass without pausing, thinking and responding:

    Obama, when he wins, will have been the man who prevented the first woman from winning the White House.  (Pause.  Think about that.)

    As if HRC would not have a similar effect.

    It's a silly argument, given who the two of them are and what each of them represent.


    I think I just said that (none / 0) (#160)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    Wouldn't Clinton have a similiar effect?

    If you're saying the nominations of either won't have any impact, that it is, in it's entirety, a silly notion, then fine.

    I sensing some unrest.

    And from what I can tell, the unrest would have been just as real -- although maybe with a different group of voters -- if Clinton was about to be nominated.


    the weird thing is (none / 0) (#192)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:25:18 PM EST
    that i sense unrest, too, from both candidates' supporters--but for different reasons.  the unrest of hillary's supporters has been there for a while now, because of the tactics obama has employed.  the unrest of obama's supporters is only beginning because the truth is being revealed and they don't like it.

    pathetic (none / 0) (#141)
    by Allin on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    I bet MLK is just rolling in his grave.  As soon as a young black man has announced to run against him, and Lewis was strong armed--he does this.   This is not for the good of the country --this is just another example of how truly weak people like Lewis are.

    No I did not mean... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Allin on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:55:11 PM EST
    What I mean is that as men get older they are enthralled with a younger man--be it right or wrong and they forget what they stood for.  To be a superdelegate that switches for the reasons he is feigning is preposterous.  if that were the case he would of done it immediately. The results were in and the data was provided.  It is a cop out---there is no doubt he is being strong armed. If anyone thinks that he is not being strong armed, I believe they are naive'.
    It is very disappointing that they want to sell this as the will of the people--geez--Mi & Fl are also the will of the people and the likes of Obama wants to disenfranchise them--therefore so does Lewis with his transference.  Like I said earlier,  MLK would be flippin' in his grave. It is not my decision just an opinion.

    Good heavens, you're making it worse (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:18:35 PM EST
    Older men getting enthralled with younger men . . . surely not what you meant to say about John Lewis. Stick with your earlier phrasing. It may tick off a lot of us, but it's safer for you. And John Lewis.

    Hillary needs some defending (none / 0) (#172)
    by ShellyTL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:58:28 PM EST
    I'm not the world's biggest Hillary fan, and I haven't decided who I support for president yet, but I wish she was defended more online. I'm a feminist and it's hard to see how she is being treated.  I have a forum that is in support of my podcast (which is liberal but not Democratic) and if anyone wants to sign up there to give the Hillary Dislikers another perspective, i would welcome that. I'm all alone there sporidically defending her and it's very tough.  I don't understand the hatred towards her, the denial of her experience, etc.  It really bothers me.  Anyway, the address is http://www.civilianism.com/forum.  Please don't come there to bash here, there is enough of that already.