I can't stand jr. Obama should send him to bora bora with mr. bill. He definitely does not reflect well on obama and has made a host of idiotic comments.

Isn't this the same guy who attacked Hillary over the tears?

LOL! And Hillary is the one using coercion and and her campaign is the one playing the race card? LOL!

Isn't this the same guy who attacked Hillary over the tears?

--------

are you a journalist or what? Google it. don't ask rhetorical questions to bring up a previous event that casts a negative light on an Obama supporter.

i'm dying to see how all the obamaloons will turn this around and accuse clinton campaign of playing race card over these comments!
i know it seems impossible! but i've seen so much spin by obama supporters in the media, nothing will surprise me!

To paraphrase the Dude: "You're not wrong Jesse. You're just an #&$hole."

Actually Greg, the information is from the JJJ quote. I don't really see how Rep. Cleaver is the one shedding light on the issue here. You make it sound like it's all secret-secret, hush-hush stuff when JJJ is perfectly open about it. And it's quite honest too, these guys could very well see themselves in primaries from young Obama supporters in 2 years if they make the difference by casting their superdelegate votes for the Clintons.

there's no coercion.

the point isn't "Obama will make you sorry when he's president"

the point is that voting differently than most of your district could be made into issue by someone who wants to take your seat.

depending on how pro-Obama Cleaver's district was, JJJ has a point-- one that's been repeated by news sources everywhere.

That's it. Stoke the race-baiting meme again, Greg. Is that all that (you Hillary supporters) got?

It has been very interesting for me to watch the way it seems perfectly acceptable to openly discuss supporting Obama because, in part, he is black, and who wants to stand in the way of electing the first black president? But the discussion of Hillary as a woman seems taboo. All those women who have written op-eds about how their support of Obama is a feminist position is infuriating. If black people wrote op-eds about supporting Hillary because of her civil rights (which she was very engaged in as a young woman), they would summarily be dismissed.

Obama can run as a black man (without actually saying it), can appeal to black voters, can have Oprah assure them that "he is the one," but any suggestion that this is the time for women to vote for Hillary is dismissed as playing the gender card.

When I heard HRC speak a few weeks ago in Washington, she talked about how her health care plan would be holisitic in covering not only doctors, but also nurses, dentists, chiropractors, and MIDWIVES. I have never heard a man running for office mention the word midwives; I don't think the process of childbirth is something men generally think about. Having a woman in the Oval Office would certainly change the conversation; unfortunately, that fact has been all but ignored with the dismissal that she is somehow more of the same of the current administration.

It's a shame that the majority opinion seems to be that only Obama is the historical candidate.

Too many black americans only see color when voting, and JJJr is one of them. It is a disgrace that black like JJJr, Al Sharpton still exists and get media coverage or hold such celebrity position in this country.

People are fawning all over Sen. Barack Obama, especially since Super Tuesday. But do people really know his record in the US Senate and shouldn't people know it before voting for him? After all, you wouldn't buy a car without researching it first. Here are
some facts about Sen. Obama's voting record, pursuant to www.senate.gov: He voted for an additional $36Million for Guantanamo Bay (SenRollCate 93 in 2005); He voted to move interstate, class action lawsuits from state to federal courts, thus making it harder for consumers to sue [SenRollCall 9 in 2005). He failed to vote at all on S.Amdt 3164 in 2007 to safely redeploy troops from Iraq. One final note. He did not even vote to bring Bin Laden to justice (SAmdt2135 in 2007).
Enough said.

To deny that racial politics play a large part in Obama's campaign is as silly as to argue that gender plays no part in HRC's campaign.
Of course they do.
No one is saying they are the prime movers but please, we have to get past denying simple truths for the sake of PC or else Obama will get eaten alive in the GE.
Which he will anyway, so go to it!

If 80% of their district voted for Obama, these superdelegates are going to feel the pressure naturally. I don't know why Jackson Jr. feels the need to spell it out like that. It's just overkill and reflects badly on Obama.

I don't know why either side is leaning so hard on the superdelegates at this stage. They can change their minds at any time. At the end of the day, there's little chance the supers will go against the candidate who has the most earned delegates (which presumably will reflect the popular vote - although how do they account for caucuses).

Why would either candidate want to win the nomination any other way? I know that's what Clinton is saying now, but I don't think she'll do it. She needs to indicate that she's not giving up and maybe the momentum will swing back her way. I support Obama but if Hillary comes out on top in the coming months, she deserves the nomination.

i'm dying to see how all the obamaloons will turn this around and accuse clinton campaign of playing race card over these comments! i know it seems impossible! but i've seen so much spin by obama supporters in the media, nothing will surprise me!

Hmmm, looks to me like all the "obamaloons" are saying Obama needs to sit JJJ down at the bar and pour him a stein of STFU.

One big difference between the campaigns bears noting, however: The people saying the most stupid counterproductive things obstensibly on behalf of Obama are unpaid supporters. The people saying the most stupid counterproductive things obstensibly on behalf of Hillary are her top campaign aides and, indeed, the one doing the most damage on a daily basis has been paid 4.7 million samoleons thus far for his brilliant efforts.

Yep, outstanding displays of executive competence like that give me unlimited confidence in the brilliant 1990s-like (except better!) future we'll have once she unleashes her Strength and Experience (35 Years of it!) and starts implementing all those 21st Century Solutions Starting on Day One.

JJJ is the thorn supporter on the Obama side. But he just may have a reason for his stance.

What about the polar opposite on the Hillary side. The Sheriff of Jefferson Parish LA for instance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20commence.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Milestones%3A+Hillary+Clinton&st=nyt&oref=slogin
or what he did to those poor hurrican refugees
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSsgwajStCo&feature=related
or how this could happen in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY05V5MAZDw

Now go back and read the NY times link again. Puts the whole radical support thing into context doesnt it?

I just want to start by saying we do all need to work to stay calm. Repetitious, I know.

The notion of pro-Clinton bias at this site is silly.

The post, as it stands now seems just fine to me. Reasonable and balanced.

That said, the link on the homepage needs to be reworded (if it hasn't been already). I thought the "headline" was needlessly inflammatory. The use of the words "better watch out" certainly caught my eye, which is I suppose part of the intention. But I think they are too much.

They have not only played up race, but they have cashed in on her gender. Obama has done a good job of running away from his roots, but he trots people like JJjr out when he gets desperate. Remember, it was JJjr who first screamed disrespect when Mrs. Clinton compared the contributions of MLK and LBJ. The question is, why is Obama desperate now? What does he know that his supporters here don't know?

"Wouldn't there be a riot that Hillary was injecting gender into the race in such a manner?
Posted by Richmond"

Let's be fair and avoid selective retention because we favor one candidate over the other. The Clinton campaign is really pushing the HRC is getting a raw deal from the press because she's a woman but Obama is not because he's black. Bill Clinton made this claim explicitly.

This has been Bill's pattern of late - trying to pit one group against another. Rich, caucus voters (who don't really need a president) vs. "real" voters who have to work; black voters motivated by pride/emotion vs. the rest (who, in Bill's analogy, are presumably making rational decisions); and now blacks vs. women (or specifically non-black women). I used to think otherwise, but Hillary would do better without Bill imo.

Science, Mage

We could trade videos all day, and here is one you might want to explain.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Barack.Obama.Kenya.2.331658.html

But this is about JJJ's comments on behalf of the Obama campaign as its National Co-Chair. As such, the comments are newsworthy.

Fill disclosure: I am undecided, but am leaning toward Obama.

Both HC and BO camps seem to be acting needlessly disingenuous and it is seriously preventing any real discourse from taking place. HC is definitely politically shrewd, but I feel like BO people are demonizing her a little bit more than necessary. Similarly, BO seems to be preaching a message of hope, and it appears(to me) that he is attempting to advocate a type of politics that transcends the paolitics of subterfuge that we have seen in the past. . . but he's still a politician.

I hope that as we all get frustrated and self-righteously (which in my opinion is almost always bad) indignant, we remember that some of the indictments we spew are more indicative of our own personal perspectives than the truth.

I offer that last statement, bc I do think JJJr's conversation was a little more racially motivated than i would have liked, but it was no less ugly than NOW's statement, and to call him a "thug" because of a PRIVATE CIVIL CONVERSATION he had with another adult is more than a little odious.

I ask the honest question, if he had been white and had been discussing labor unions instead of black people would anyone still habe described him as a "thug"?

Wow! And there's a poll that actually shows Obama winning Texas! The must have tilted the sample toward College Station.

OMG.

It turns out Obama is black. After all this time, who knew?

I think we all better FREAK OUT!!!

--

Seriously though, I don't see why this is so surprising. If I voted for Obama along with most of the people in my congressional district and My congressman helped put Hillary over the top despite winning the overall primary, They could be damn sure I'd vote against them in a primary. I don't see why pointing that out is so horrible.

Wow. Is this the kind of leadership we can expect from Obama. Threats? Yes we can!

Labor unions are full of thugs. I thought you knew that.

JJJr is a thug because he makes no attempt to measure his words. He wants to project what a powerful big man he is. What he reveals is a pettiness that is beneath contempt. The people that vote for him are victims of machine politics that only guarantees them years more of oppression.

I'll ask you an honest question, if his name wasn't Jesse Jackson, would he have a place in public life today?

So let me reiterate in the kind and civil manner that will not offend any readers, JJJr is a thug and he is only in politics for the cheese. If you threaten his cheese, he will come after you.

Would someone tell me how we got on the subject of thugs in Labor unions? Of all the places to demean union members, under a post for JJJ. Real smart people.

Here we go--politics of race. I understand Jackson is doing his job trying to win over supers to Obama. He would have been wise to hope that word of this type of appeal did not get out. Unfortunately, I think, for his reputation, it did. As an Obama supporter I reject that type of thinking and would not want him to win based on that type of appeal. Just as I abhor women voting for Hillary at bottom because she is a woman and they feel that to vote against *that* tribe would be traitorous somehow. That is a different road to nowhere as far as I'm concerned, precisely one of the things we need to get past in this country.

In all due respect to you AmericanDreamer, we do not see the womens vote at 9 to 1 in favor of senator Clinton

Willyam wrote:

"I'm not crazy about the superdelegate rules myself, but those are the rules the party agreed to play by long before this election started. Next election cycle they could talk about amending the rules or putting less influence on the superdelegates. They should be tie-breakers if anything, not a massive 15% percent of the deciding votes."

Agreed. The Dems need to look at a number of primary reform issues after this campaign, most importantly: 1) encouraging caucuses over primaries; 2) closing primaries to registered Dems; and 3) the role of superdelegates.

From what I understand (although I have not researched the issue), the superdelegates were a compromise allowing party officials to still have some say if the electoral process chose a candidate that the party leaders found truly unacceptable. If that is the historic mission of superdelegates, I don't know why people think they should automatically follow the vote in their geographic areas. Doing that would nullify the whole reason for superdelegates.

OK. I hear you folks when you point out that Jesse Jackson Jr got as far as he has, because of his family name.

Granted.

Now then, you must also admit that Hillary gotten as far as she has because of her Husband's name.

edit: has gotten.

The argument that Jesse Jackson Jr. is making is perfectly sound ... if a vast majority of a Congressperson's constituents belong to one "interest group" (for lack of a better term) and they are all voting for someone who is, in their view, going to be a ground-breaking, major step ahead for that interest group, then the Congressperson should think long and hard before throwing his/her considerable (super) weight in the opposite direction. Plug in anything you want for "interest group" - race, gender, religious affiliation, geographic identity, whatever. Nothing wrong with the argument at all.

What sits poorly, I think, is that it's being made by a national co-chair of the Obama campaign and that, if Cleaver's account is accurate, the argument is based on race and nothing else. "Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a [well-qualified] black [who is honest, has integrity and skill, and is committed to the policies your district wants, etc.] from winning the White House?" would have been more palatable.

Placing it solely on race, in fact, is in direct contradiction to his candidates's position. Obama has acknowledged that there will probably be some voters who won't vote for him simply because he's black and some other who may vote fcr him simply because he is --- but that is not what he wants to happen. He wants the votes cast for him to be because the voter thinks he is the better candidate, would be the better president. (He said it better, but I'm sure we've all seen the video clip.)

What Jackson did is also uncomfortable because he is formally connected to the Obama campaign and making the argument not publicly as a general proposition but directly to specific individuals. No, he isn't saying (and perhaps doesn't mean) "and if you don't change your vote Obama's gonna remember it and you'll be sorry in the future" .... but there is that "feeling" about it nevertheless. That, too, goes directly against the approach that Obama has publicly taken regarding people who may disagree but with whom he is very willing to cooperate.

Frankly I think JJJ owes an apology to Obama (as well as Cleaver, et al.) -- and if not a bit of a public 'scold' from Obama might be appropriate. (I hear he scolds or lays down the law to staff quite well, but rarely in public.) Lots of considerations that go into that --- but I'm just a voter/supporter and I certainly 'scold' him.

It's very unfortunate -- and, damnit, unnecessary! There isn't a Congressperson alive who isn't aware of the pressure to agree with/reflect their own district. So no one needs Jesse Jackson Jr. to be pounding that point ..... and the person who needs it least of all is Obama! Bad show....

(For the record, I'm a very strong Obama supporter.)

I am absolutely amazed by the comments on this thread. Anyone who tries to condone what Jesse Jackson, Jr. is doing, once again, has no idea what Senator Obama's campaign is all about. So instead of just excusing it, instead of just saying HRC is doing worse, why don't those of you who claim to be Obama supporters but who have the absolute audacity to go so far as to criticize Sargent for sticking this in TPM Election Central, has lost all sense of objectivity. Moreover, to condone what Jackson Jr. has done is to condone a blatant appeal to racism at the core.

I admit to being a supporter of HRC, but the foregoing stands on the merits hands friggin down. On the other hand, my bias is displayed when I criticize this blog for not having this story on the TPM front page. To this biased supporter of Clinton, the failure to cover this story and cover it big and cover it hard is the most blatant example of Obama media bias I have seen thus far.

So hats off to Senator Obama, who I am sure is not behind this, and hats off to his supporters above who still know the difference between right and wrong and who criticize Jesse Jackson Jr. Shame on the rest of you who say it's nt big deal or in anyway condone this. Shame shame indeed.

This HRC supporter will support Senator Obama with vigor if he should be the nominee, despite and not because of his supporters in the media and in these noxious threads. I owe it to my three voting age children who support Senator Obama but who have never said a nasty thing about HRC, and I owe it to my one-year old who deserves to have her first Democrat in the White House.

JJ Jr has already said and apparently done quite enough. Why hasn't he been dumped or muzzled? The Obama campaign needs to get hold of this guy and throttle him. (No, this is not a threat; but his reported statements certainly are.) The behavior is thuggish as, by the way, actions by the Clinton campaign and, yes, even by WJC. I don't like it; I don't think it's necessary; I think that there are negative consequences of this supposedly realistic approach to politics that are not appreciated.

The hypothetical regarding race as a deciding factor in extremis is not in itself inappropriate. It reminds me of Scalia's ticking bomb hypothetical on torture. But the idea that there will be consequences to a black politician for not going along is in appropriate. It's thuggish. It is that, and not the appeal to race solidarity, that disturbs me the most.

Here's my problem with it all...

If Obama was a white male, I wonder seriously how many African Americans would reject his lack of experience for Clinton's experience and years of service to the African American community. And let's not forget that H. Clinton had a big hand in getting him elected to the US Senate by campaigning for him in the first place. He didn't seem to mind her political pull back then, eh?

"years of service to the AA community" - you don't come out and say it but your post smacks of "they OWE us"-isms. And do you feel equally indignant about NOW saying that Sen. Kennedy had betrayed women...

I was about to write further, but i realize I am not giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your post doesn't make a point it just makes statements for us to make the "next logical step." rather than trying to lead us somewhere, you might be better served by making your point yourself. There is less likely to be any misunderstanding that way.

READ WHAT HE SAID!

"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."

JJ Jr wasnt talking about race, people. He was talking about if you go against the will of your constituents, its probably safe to assume someone will challenge you who WILL represent the will of those constituents.

Thats called democracy people.

To me that action is nothing more than extortion or intimidation. To excuse it as meaningless or bring up some Clinton misdeed rather than answer the action being discussed is nothing more than the republican spin we are all so fed up with. If Obama finds one of his major spokepeople for his campaign able to talk like this and try and intimidate blacks into switching to Obama simply because they are black and then threatening them with possible future repercussions to be acceptable behavior, then his mantra of change and a new way of politics is nothing more than a slogan of the times to get him purely to a position he might not have achieved otherwise. And superdelegates are "super" for a reason in that they are given the right to vote as they please. Unless you wish to further intimidate these people into voting the way you feel they should vote, then we can expect Kennedy and Kerry to switch their support to Clinton.

Considering the actual interview, this post could have just as easily read:

"Cleaver threatens black congressmen, Clinton will only appoint supporters."

Since that was what Cleaver said just before the JJJ anecdote. But of course Cleaver was joking then too.

I hope Greg is satisfied that he got so many of this posters angry and talking race, just what this site needs. Nothing like an incredibly out of context posting to keep the reader informed.