Pelosi: Overturning Will Of Voters "Would Do Great Harm" To Party
This is a bit late, but here's the response from a Pelosi spokesperson to the letter from Clinton fundraisers demanding that she back off her position that the super-dels should support the winner if the pledged del count:
“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August. That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”
This is close to Obama's position, but not identical to it. On the one hand, she's agreeing with Obama's assertion that going against the voters would damage the party.
But at the same time, she is also allowing for super-dels to base their choice on "many considerations," which is a departure from the Obama position that ultimately the only thing guiding their choice should be the pledged del count. In short, this reflects what appear to be Pelosi's efforts to appear neutral while tacitly supporting the Obama position.
In Obama's favor, also note that she's basically calling for the race to end before the convention.
Comments (143)
I don't think this is a departure from what she said on ThisWeek. I thought what she had said there was about the same as this, but I could be misremembering. Afterall, I am sleep deprived.
Whoa! Was that a bullet?!?!
March 27, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 3rd is the magic day.
It will be very hard for the candidate who is behind after all the Primaries are over to continue.
March 27, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The delegates will do what is necessary to protect the party. Pelosi is giving herself enough room here to continue her support for Obama now, but to dump him later once it becomes abundantly clear that he cannot win.
The challenge at the moment is simply to get enough Democrats to (1) focus on the primaries and candidates enough or (2) to get their head out of the sand long enough to see the failure they are setting up with Obama should he become the nominee. Clinton might have some baggage and negatives going into the general election but she'd go toe-to-toe with McCain. Obama, on the otherhand, is offering McCain the election on a silver platter.
The Obama hits keep coming... Spoonfed Illinois senate record, 20-years with slumlord and corrupt Rezko, corrupt home purchase with Rezko's wife, racist and hate-America ties for 20 years with Rev. Wright and Trinity, now same ties with even worse language from Rev. Meeks, lies and flip-flops on NAFTA, overstated role in U.S. Senate activities, failure to hold committee hearings, and so much more. So much it is tiring to keep listing it. The simple fact is that more comes out each day to undermine any credibility and hope that Obama can be a successful candidate for president.
March 27, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I assume this comment was also posted under sniper fire.
Of course, allowing the opposition a platform is a good thing. However, those "issues" you mentioned for Obama do not describe to me whether or not "Obama would hand the election to McCain on a silver platter."
Mr. Weaver- Should Sen. Obama win the nomination, as is very likely, would you vote for him or McCain in the GE? All's I have to say is I am a Democrat, always have been, and always plan to be.
You see, commenting on the web these days is ALL ABOUT credibility. As it should be.
March 27, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have oft stated that I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. He is an empty suit based on lies, good teleprompter speeches, and a cadre of supporters and media that want him regardless of his shortcomings. More specifically, I cannot vote for a candidate with 20-year history of racism and hate, especially as he continues his association and uses terms like 'typical White person'. I, like you served in the military, and have serious problems, even while I share criticism of the Bush's war in Iraq and torture, with someone saying 'God Damn America' and worse. For Obama to lie, then acknowledge these, but still go to the church with his daughters says more about his lack of character than anything else I can point to. Now, consider his association with Rev. Meeks, who is even worse in his comments. But issues of racism and hating America are not the only things. Like I said, there are also his corrupt ties, his lies and flip-flops, and his lack of experience. I do not have time to go to it all now but you get the idea.
March 27, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many people disagree with you. Many understand the Wright remarks and Obama's relationship to them (and him) in a wider context. But your opinion is shared by many. Democracy at work.
March 27, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rev. Wright and State Sen. Meeks (also Rezko funded) are not Obama's only dubious spiritual advisors. In an April 5, 2004 interview with the Chicago Sun’s Cathleen Falsani,Obama said that
the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn- Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that [moral] compass set.
But in an article in which links to the CBS local TV report Corsi of WorldNetDaily wrote:
"Pfleger's open support of Farrakhan also is documented easily."
1. According to a CBS local Chicago television report dated on May 25, 2007, Farrakhan returned to St. Sabina following serious surgery for cancer, to give an hour-long fiery speech to a packed congregation.
"The 73-year-old Farrakhan's return to the church he visited many times before, seemingly as animated and energetic as ever, fulfilled a promise he'd made to its pastor, Father Michael Pfleger," according to the story written by CBS reporter Jay Levine.
The CBS story included a video clip of Farrakhan's speech to the church in which Pfleger can be seen accompanying Farrakhan into the church and seated behind Farrakhan as he gave his speech from the pulpit.
Read the rest of the article here
March 27, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I cannot vote for a candidate with 20-year history of racism and hate"
You can't possibly believe that. Even if you do believe that Rev. Wright is racist and hateful, that does not mean that Obama has a 20 year history of racism and hate. It means he attended a church where, in 20 years, his Rev. said three or four things that are racist and hateful. I won't even argue about the fact that Wright is a former Marine, and has done so much more good than ill in his community according to religious leaders all over the country, including Hillary Clinton's pastor. I will say that it's absolute nonsense to call Obama a hateful racist of twenty years. I think a fairer way to judge Obama might be on, oh I dunno, everything he has said and done himself over the course of his career. This man is no racist. His mother is white for god's sake, and you really think he hates white people? Get a grip, partisan.
March 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
are you kidding when you say wright said 3 or 4 things of hate in his 20 years? oh my how gullible we have become.
March 27, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show us the money then...
March 27, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then it appears to me that you are handing McCain the nomination on a silver platter, not Obama.
March 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama ran his campaign knowing that this time bomb was out there. Even if you believe his initial denials which may have been technically correct -- I wasn't in the pews for this or that speech -- Obama knew enough by the time of his inauguration to retract an invitation to Rev. Wright to give the invocation. Obama then swept the matter under the rug.
So the question is not only what did Obama know and when did he know it but also when he did know what -- if anything - did he do about the hate speech and when did he do it?
So far as I can tell he did nothing until caught.
The latest TUCC offense is publshing a Hamas tract alleging that Israel is creating an ethnic bomb which only harms blacks and Arabs.
Obama has attempted to portray every criticism of himself as racist. He has twisted totaly none racist statements to that end. This is in itself racists -- it is like pouring gasoline on the smoldering fires of racism in this country. Then he poses in his speech as the noble fireman dousing the flames.
I'm not capable of that level of suspension of disbelief.
March 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Matthew. You released me from a tremendous burden. Because frankly I'd feel uncomfortable voting for the same person that you may be voting for- honestly;
March 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously though, isn't this whole thing being way over-thought? Pick any person on the planet and kit yourself out with some moral-highground reflexes and before you know it they're Satan in a suit.
Obama is a hell of a skilled orator & it seems to me that he can think on his feet. Just these two qualities alone are bank to the US given its current world image. He's clearly bright and not part of the dynasty. Man alive he's just what America needs in this - I fervently hope - her darkest year.
March 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is going to be another credibility hit for OBAMA
Revealed: Obama's dad polygamist, alcoholic
Parent not hero portrayed in 'Dreams from My Father'
In his autobiographical book "Dreams from My Father," Barack Obama paints a heroic picture of his father as having emerged from a poor Kenyan village, where he was nothing more than a simple goat herder, to become a Harvard-educated economist, destined to return to Africa to fulfill his promise.
Unfortunately, the reality is much bleaker than the tale Obama tells in his book.
In truth, Barack Obama senior, Obama's father, was a polygamist who had already abandoned one wife and child in Africa when he met Obama's mother in Hawaii.
As the Daily Mail concluded, "for all Mr. Obama's reputation for straight talking and the compelling narrative of his recollections, they are largely myth."
"We have discovered that his father was not just a flawed individual, but an abusive bigamist and an egomaniac, whose life was ruined not by racism or corruption, but by his own weakness,” the Daily Mail wrote. "And, devastatingly, the testimony has come from Mr. Obama's own relatives and family friends."
The Daily Mail suggests Obama chose to present his father in a favorable light as an electoral tactic.
"Indeed, by offering up a conveniently plotted account of his personal history in this way," Churcher wrote, "he [Obama] might even have made a pre-emptive strike on those sure to pose the awkward questions that inevitably face a serious contender for the White House."
Regardless of the motives, in "Dreams from my Father" Obama never states precisely how many wives his father had, or how many half-brothers and -sisters he has from different mothers, whether married to his father or not.
Obama blames racism for breaking up his parents' marriage, not his father's polygamist ways which began when he first left Africa, before he ever met Obama's mother in Hawaii.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59850
March 27, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey look...I can buy a Reagan Revolution T-Shirt from that website.
If we're going to link to Right-wing websites, can I start believing everything they say about Hillary too?
Paging Dick Morris...
March 27, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my, World Net Daily? It must be true then.
March 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alcoholism is a disease. Anyone in your family ever had a disease?
We have an alcoholic President in the WH. Ann Reynolds, beloved former gov. of Texas was an alcoholic.
So why is this a big deal?
Polygamy - is legal under Islamic law, and many world cultures practice polygamy and/or polygyny.
Western cultures practice "serial monogamy".
You, madame are ethnocentric.
March 27, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ann Richards even. And don't forget Bob Bullock if you want to ditch some dirt on Texas.
March 27, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you just link to a World Net Daily article that quotes the Daily Mail?
Never cross the streams.
March 27, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He is an empty suit based on lies"
You have to love how a person who was president of the Harvard Law Review, and who taught international politics and constitutional Law is considered "an empty suit".
"good teleprompter speeches"
This is the weakest of all complaints, but I digress.
"and a cadre of supporters and media that want him regardless of his shortcomings."
How about the cadre of Hillary supporters who want her as our next president despite all of her shortcomings, high negativity rating, her ability to energize the republican base - her penchant for lying about sniper fire.
"More specifically, I cannot vote for a candidate with 20-year history of racism and hate"
That's good, because I'm not voting for Rev Wright either - we agree there.
"especially as he continues his association and uses terms like 'typical White person'."
The only people upset with the "typical white person" remark, are people with comprehension difficulties who read it out of context and Hillary supporters.
"with someone saying 'God Damn America' and worse. "
Again, lets both be glad that Jeremiah Wright isn't running.
"For Obama to lie, then acknowledge these, but still go to the church with his daughters says more about his lack of character than anything else I can point to."
But your premise is a lie - he wasn't there during the clips that have been played ad nauseum on TV and he has completely denounced them. Also, he has said that he has been in church when Wright has said some controversial things - that in no way implies that he has ever been in church while Wright dissed America or said anything near as incendiary.
"Like I said, there are also his corrupt ties"
Lets not go into Hillary's associations.. http://prorev.com/2008/01/so-you-want-to-talk-about-obamas-pals.html
But listen, if you want to vote for McCain and send this country into the same downward spiral because of your incoherent petulance - then god help you.
March 27, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of these "If Hillary loses, I will vote for McCain" people are actually republican concern trolls?
It seems like a pretty effective strategy to me if you're a republican: repeat all the poorly grounded criticisms of Obama (I'm not even talking about wright; the "empty suit" and "cult-leader" claims are purely emotional and have really no evidence to back them up), and pretend like you're a democrat who's genuinely concerned about Obama's chances. Great way to psyche out the opposition ;-)
March 27, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine. Don't vote for him. Bye.
March 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have plenty of time.
March 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not know whether Mr Weaver will answer this or not, but the answer is McCain. He has said as much many, many times already on other threads. If he has since changed his mind, then I apologize for speaking out of turn and putting words in his mouth, but he has said as much many times over by now.
March 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, as you note I have been very transparent in that I will vote for McCain if Clinton does not win the nomination. Both are moderates and will be limited in what they can do by Congress. Both are experienced in the give-and-take of it all, something Obama has absolutely no experience with. While I do not agree with all positions of either Clinton or McCain, I trust and respect them.
March 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean, you don't agree with Clinton's positions? You know what they are? Are you talking this week, or today? I mean, when she's not busy dodging imaginary sniper fire, she's busy dodging other things. Like taking a position.
Matthew, I know you think you're making up your mind, but you really are being led by the nose. Your complete, self-imposed ignorance is their best weapon.
March 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're a republican now? Congrats. And McCain is not a moderate.
March 27, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, evidently between the time that I started to type this response and the time that I posted it, he already responded. As such, my own post is largely superfluous.
March 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of regard for the many pleasant exchanges we've had, I'm giving you a pass on this one, Greg. LOL.
March 27, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid that I do not follow what you are trying to say, but given that I am evidently being "given a pass" (whatever that means) I will not press the matter. I like being given a pass (at least I think that I do).
March 27, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hits keep coming and his stock keeps rising and he keeps winning states and his fundraising is pouring in money.
Unlike Clinton where the lies keep coming, the media scrutiny is finally vetting her, the tax records aint coming, and she's run her campaign finances dry into the ground.
March 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an idea...
If you're tired of listing it...
don't list it.
Just a thought...
March 27, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again Mr. NEEDSAHAIRCUT- take a look at the newest polling out of Cali.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/ca_ct_polls_obama_runs_strong.html
Hillary is BARELY beating McCain- repeat- Hillary is Barely beating McCain!!!! IN CALI!!! Read it and weep.....
it's over kimosabi.....
March 27, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt - You are delusional. Polling data gathered after the Wright debacle was at its peak shows over and over again that Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in state after state -- with almost no exceptions. And her numbers have dropped precipitously in the last 24 hours, because snipergate is turning out to be the tip of an iceberg full of little dishonesties about her vaunted experience.
With Clinton, the core argument for her election has become her superior experience, and her capacity to handle a 2:00 a.m. call. Now we know that Mrs. Clinton is either dishonest, or delusional, when it comes to describing her involvement in world events. It's not just Snipergate (Tuzla), it's also bringing peace to Northern Ireland, Family Medical Leave, SCHIP and more. All either false or exaggerated beyond recognition. Hell, how about her BS story after 9-11 about how Chelsea was jogging near the WTC on 9/11 and ducked into a coffee shop just before the first plane hit, but that Chelsea actually heard the plane smack into the towers -- Hillary insisted that that was what happened -- only it turns out not to be true, despite her repeating it to interviewers in great detail. Sound familiar.
Like Al Gore's invention of the internet (only more so, because Al's actual statement was factually accurate), it has become a bad joke that will only get more painful and damaging as it continues, and as examples of her exaggerations continue to surface, as they now inevitably will. That's not good for a presidential candidate who has 50%+ negatives to begin with. The GOP and right wing pundit community is already going crazy over it, and as an Obama supporter, I can assure you that I will use it to argue against her nomination, and my wife, who is as enthusiastic and committed a Clinton supporter as you will find, was very disturbed and troubled by it when she saaw it on the news the other night. If she is reacting in that way, Hillary is in big trouble.
On the other hand, the two republican Obama supporters I know (both lifetime GOP, and have never voted for a democrat ever) are as or more supportive of Obama than they were before the Wright matter surfaced. They know all about Wright, they know all about Rezco (they and I think Rezco is a whole lotta nothing, and is an ember compared to the bonfire of financial influence problems that Senators Clinton and Senator McCain have) and they know exactly how liberal Obama is. They have said that they are 100% committed to vote for Obama, they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances, and will likely vote for McCain if Hillary is the candidate, though not happily.
That is reality. Watch what happens next. Snipergate and her attack on Obama's decision to stay with the Church (delivered in an interview with Richard Mellon Scaife) -- hypocritical as it is -- will cause her unfavorable ratings to skyrocket, and her short term numbers to plunge in PA.
March 27, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
2 am call ? When did that happen ? I thought it was always about 3 am calls ? Was she sleep-deprived again ?
Psst.. I finally figured out why she is obssessed with 3 am calls. It seems Bill was always out in the nights with inte ....oh, you know those stories already ? Well, bye then.
March 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary helped Al invent the Internet...didn't she?
March 27, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Weaver, I almost missed your lying, Hillary talking point spewing, out of touch with reality ass. I almost forgot how ridiculous you were.
A few problems though:
It has been abundantly clear for quite some time that Hillary is the one who doesn't have a chance of winning against McCain, and the polls have consistently backed that up. Of course it is awfully hard to see polls with your head so far up Hillary's colon now isn't it?
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/search/label/Electability
Let's see, his Illinois senate record is quite impressive, and in no way "spoonfed", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, which is more than I can say for Hillary's ridiculous Senate record, which is nothing but hype and pathetic attempts to introduce legislation with no intension of working to make it pass just so she can take credit for introducing it:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/02/mythbusting-hillary-comparing.html
That hyped up Rezko crap has been debunked over and over again and you know it, the Chicago Tribune, which spearheaded investigating (vetting) this almost a year ago now has acknowledged that there is nothing here, and the seller of the home has come out and said that Obama didn't get any sort of deal with his home. But hey, keep dreaming. And while you are throwing stones from glass houses, should we start talking about sketchy financial dealings because last time I checked Hillary was the one refusing to disclose her financial records, and her and Bill are the ones getting money from shady business deals, and Bill is the one who traded hundreds of thousands of dollars for presidential pardons to felons, and Hillary got a hell of a lot more money from Norman Hsu than Obama ever did from Rezko, and Hsu was an on the run felon, while Rezko has yet to be convicted of any wrongdoing (and again, there was no wrongdoing involving Obama in anyway whatsoever):
And now you repeat bullshit conservative fearmongering from Fox News on here to support Hillary, even though we all know Rev. Wright is not racist, and does not hate America, and that his words were taken completely out of context and completely overlooking the fact that Wright and his church have actually done a lot of good for the community, and have white pastors there as well.
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/in-defense-of-rev-wright.html
This is especially ridiculous given Hillary's own ties to a cult-like church full of conservative fundamentalist Christians:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/hillarys-own-church-problem-plot.html
On, and lies and flip-flops on NAFTA? Come now Matthew, you know damn well as everyone here does that the NAFTA-gate smear was total bullshit, and has since been debunked, and that Hillary herself was implicated in the very same statements from the Canadian government. Oh yeah, oops:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/hillpocrisy-attacks-nafta-gate-edition.html
Gosh Matthew, facts are really inconvenient for you aren't they? Oh, lets talk about Hillary's lies about NAFTA, and how her First Lady records show she lied about supporting NAFTA (as do statements from everyone involved in the process of getting NAFTA passed). Now you want to talk about lies on NAFTA? What a hypocrite:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-hillarys-nafta-lie.html
You want to go after Obama for possibly overstating his role on immigration? (overlooking the fact that he barely mentions his role on immigration, and actually Ted Kennedy who lead immigration reform praised Obama for his help, and overlooking the fact that there is no evidence that Obama overstated his role on immigration reform) Really? Even though Hillary has lied time and time again on her role in passing FMLA and SCHIP? Somehow I think those are even bigger lies, considering they have been proven to be lies, and she has brought them up time and time again throughout her campaign:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-experience-fmla.html
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-experience-schip.html
Oh, or what about all of her foreign policy claims that have been debunked, you don't think her being a pathological liar about the very foundation of her "experience" claim is going to undermine her electability at all? Give me a break:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-experience-peace-in.html
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-experience-full.html
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-experience-sinbad.html
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-experience-african.html
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-experience-bosnia.html
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-lies-on-top-of-lies.html
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/tailspin-of-lies-and-hillpocrisy.html
And lastly, his not holding committee hearings, totally overlooking the fact that he wasn't assigned as chair until after the campaign started, and the fact that Hillary hasn't gone to her committees sine then either. Also overlooking the fact that there is no reason to hold hearing in that SUBcommittee because it deals with issues handled by the main committee, and those don't even matter all that much because those committees don't determine the actually policies anyway.
Awww, poor Matthew Weaver hates to talk facts now doesn't he? Well I'm sorry, but I'm sick of your bullshit lies and your baldfaced hypocrisy. Listen, if you want to bury your head up Hillary's ass and get all of your information straight from her, go ahead, but please spare us this pathetic regurgitation of ignorance, we don't need it here.
"The simple fact is that more comes out each day to undermine any credibility and hope that [Hillary] can be a successful candidate for president."
March 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify, each of those mythbusting links are separate examples of Hillary lying, even though they are cut off so you can see the subjects. They aren't just the same link repeated, the first parts of the links are just similar.
March 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now thats what I call a smack down!
March 27, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Racist" and "Hate America"
When was the last time you didn't use those three words in your comments?
I have news for you- your kind are facing the serious threat of extinction.
Read this story posted earlier by pstalmer on a different page:
Favorite campaign story so far: On an NPR talk show a couple of days ago, a nursing-home chaplain called to report her political conversation with an elderly white gentleman. He asked, "Who's that n----- that's running?"
The chaplain said on the air, "Well, we're chaplains; we're not supposed to correct our people." So she said to the man, "That's Barack Obama, the black man who's running for president."
"Right," said the old guy. "That's who I'm voting for."
Now he sounds way cooler than you do due B>
March 27, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice story, but since when are Chaplains not supposed to correct people? Isn't that one of their core responsibilities?!?
March 27, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just conjecture and personal opinion. Every candidate has skeletons that mean some won't vote for her - Hillary herself has more than her share.
Obviously you think politics is a serious business and that all those criticism are unassailable but the reality is that they don't really matter unless they come to define the candidate. That the problem with Hillary - the skeletons are what define her for too many people and she doesn't have the force or warmth of personality to overcome that handicap.
The US electorate values style over substance, and Obama has style in spades. How else do we explain 8 years of Bush presidency? Stolen elections, whatever, if the electorate cared a jot about substance it would've been Gore in a landslide, making any election stealing impossible. Bush won on the beer-drinking test (the electorate obviously didn't stick around long enough to see him choke on a pretzel and hit his head on the coffee table as he passed out). Maybe in this cycle Obama will pass the "not a crazy old misanthrope" test.
I suggest you never forget that at it's core, an election is a popularity contest - just like the ones we suffered through in high school but on a national scale. In fact, Worrying too much about substance is the surest way to lose - just ask the substantive yet stylistically challenged candidates who lost the last two cycles.
March 27, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew, your clueless naivete is vaguely charming in a pathetic sort of way. The latest poll results show that Hillary's negatives have hit an all-time career high. Obama, on the other hand, is doing just fine--even after the Wright controversy.
You really should get a clue. Obama IS the nominee. And he is going to be your next president. And no amount of whining or recycling Republican talking points is going to change that.
March 27, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Matt,
Your facts are a tad twisted. It turns out that there was nothing crooked with Obama's home purchase. In fact the previous owners came out and said that the Obama's made the highest offer they received from anyone. Obama, at the time didnt worry about the perception because the deal was on the up and up.
Also, saying the person with the most votes should win is not a Obama or Hillary issue. It's a fairness issue. Its democracy. I cant understand why the person with the most votes should lose.
March 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's that Kool-Aid taste?
March 27, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Last Week's Results Just Posted!
New Video "America The Beautiful" Piano.
Vote Weekly!!!
March 27, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used to think Weaver was a paid shill for the Hillary campaign, but his rants have gotten so incoherent that now I'm thinking he's simply mentally ill. I feel genuinely sorry for him and I hope he gets the help he needs soon.
March 27, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt is as cuckoo and crazy as his candidate (HRC or the Bomb Bomb Iran guy, doesn't matter)
March 27, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who are Nixon, Hulshof and Steelman and why are they running for President in Missouri?!
Typo!
March 27, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typo indeed. That said, I am glad (although not surprised) to see that Atty Gen Nixon is way ahead of both Steelman and Hulshof in our race for governor. Nixon will be an excellent governor, and a welcome change from the Blunt trauma we Missourians have been suffering the last four years.
March 27, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many other things like states won, popular vote, and delegate count.
Hillary is finished.
March 27, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton won California and Pelosi should do the right thing and back Clinton.
"All articles from 1996 can be found via LexisNexis. It is obvious that the area was dangerous. Senator Clinton was protected by sharpshooters. Moreover, we know that it was the first independent trip by a First Lady into a military zone since
Eleanor Roosevelt. "
So far, Wright the kook attacked Whites, Jews, Italians and today we learn he supports Hamas.
Obama should have walked away from this divisive kook but shows his unity is bs.
A sure loser in the general and nothing will change.
March 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Why does this make Obama a sure loser? Why is Hillary not a sure loser?
That is what kills me about Hillary AND her supporters. They only give me reasons why I shouldn't vote for Obama. I'm looking for reasons why I SHOULD vote for someone.
March 27, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're both sure losers in Nov as it stands now. The only chance they have of winning is for both to be on the ticket and that may not even work at this point.
March 27, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi represents a Congressional District in California . . . NOT the entire state. And her district went overwhelmingly for Obama. Jackass.
March 27, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I remember correctly, Obama won CA-8 (San Francisco, Pelosi's district) by roughly the same margin Clinton won statewide (~51 to 39 or something). Exactly how many Clinton supporters do people think exist in San Francisco? This is a place where the GREEN or other elsewhere marginal third parties routinely pull 10% or more in some elections.
March 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does Hillary win the GE? How does she get Obama's supporters to back her? What makes her more electable?
March 27, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"All articles from 1996 can be found via LexisNexis. It is obvious that the area was dangerous. Senator Clinton was protected by sharpshooters. Moreover, we know that it was the first independent trip by a First Lady into a military zone since
Eleanor Roosevelt."
The "area" might have been dangerous, but Clinton is taking heat for repeatedly saying the greeting ceremony was canceled and they had to run to their motorcade with their heads down, video evidence to the contrary. And Pat Nixon's trip to Vietnam counts as a visit to a combat zone by a First Lady, doesn't it?
March 27, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I thought Hillary said superdelegates should use their own judgement??? Besides, her district went to Obama. Unless you now want to change the rules - yet again - to make states be winner-take-all for the superdelegates. Which would still ensure Obama winning.
Why don't you just say what you mean? You think the only candidate who should be allowed to get any votes is Hillary. There, that wasn't so hard to admit, was it?
In fact, maybe all the states should have only allowed Hillary's name on the ballot. And why just once? Why not have her name 3, 4, maybe 5 times. Then nobody could complain about unfairness - we'd still have a choice.
March 27, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife, surely you're not arguing Supers should follow the will of the people?
That would spell DOOM for Hillary.
(BTW, I thought that Pelosi's home district DID vote for Obama. Can anyone confirm?)
March 27, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, good for Speaker Pelosi. Good to see that one of the most powerful government leaders on earth is not easily intimidated by a few fat-cats whose day is past.
March 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Obama hits keep coming..."
Here we go, more rambling that makes you come across like a retarded stroke victim.
"20-years with slumlord and corrupt Rezko"
..by all accounts, Obama is accused of no wrongdoing here.
"corrupt home purchase with Rezko's wife"
..problem with that, is the people selling the house claim that the purchase was on the up and up. Next.
"racist and hate-America ties for 20 years with Rev. Wright and Trinity"
The polls show that most people, outside of wishful thinking Hillary supporters and Republican pundits - feel as if the feelings of Rev Wright don't coincide with Obama's true feelings. Ouch.
"now same ties with even worse language from Rev. Meeks"
Guilt-by-association didn't work last time, it will fail even more miserably this time. I mean, why don't you just cite Larry Sinclair as as example since you seem so embarrassingly desperate.
"lies and flip-flops on NAFTA"
..this is rich coming from a Hillary supporter.
"overstated role in U.S. Senate activities"
..as opposed to Hillary lying her ass off on Bosnia and being called on it - like I told a man with a prosthetic leg who wanted to fight me in a bar last week, you barely have a leg to stand on.
"failure to hold committee hearings"
..haven't we already been over "Sub"-comittees? Lame.
"and so much more."
There isn't any more, just baseless smears you pulled from the recesses of a hidden orifice - thats all.
March 27, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi to Hillary's Money Goons:
Get bent; Strong letter to follow!!!!
March 27, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It continues to amaze me how Hillary claims voters will be disenfranchised if Florida and Michigan don't get to seat their delegates.
Out of this same mouth we hear that elected delegates AND Super Delegates Can, Will and Have overridden the Will of the people (voters).
March 27, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the voters that she's worried about disenfranchising, it's the super delegates.
March 27, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
People continuing to trash Wright on the basis of the Fox News snippets are both ignorant and, yes, racist. (Do you numbnuts even know, for example, that the "chickens coming home to roost" lifted out of context fro his post-9/11 sermon was a QUOTE from a former REAGAN ADMINISTRATION counter-terorrorism official?)
Here's what eminent religion scholar Martin Marty (who was one of his divinty professors at U of C)thinks about the "divisive kook":
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i30/30b00101.htm
You may gotalife, but you gotnobrain and gotnoshame.
March 27, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It occurs to me that the most Racist aspect of this campaign season is the fact that African American voters are voting for Obama simply because he is 1/2 African American. I do not understand why nothing is said about this.
Gee who the heck really cares what Pelosi thinks,
she has not done much to lead since we got teh majority.
March 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is very imbecilic and racist is to proclaim that you know the reasons why Black people vote for Obama. Black people were quite ready to back Clinton2, just as they backed Clinton1.
Were they doing so because the Clintons are White? Racist, indeed!
Black people started backing Obama, after the campaign started and they had a chance to know him better.
They refrained from backing Clinton2 when they had a chance know her better as well.
You can think that you are more entitled to vote freely than Black people are and that your vote is better informed than that of Black people.
However, that falacy is not true, not even for a second.
March 27, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
voters voting however they choose offends you?
I haven't seen a single post from an Obama supporter whining about how many older white women are voting for Hillary. Not one.
Obama's also overwhelming winning the youth vote by something like 4 to 1 margin. Why didn't you mention this in your post? Is it because it didn't fit your race-baiting narrative?
March 27, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What evidence can you cite that they're voting for him only because he's African American? Please put some statistics behind that hyperbole or STFU.
March 27, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
d-imbecilic: yeah, yer right. and they voted 90% for Al Gore because he's 1/17th black. And they voted 85% for John Kerry because he's, um, something like 1/87th black.
Boy, if African-American racists would just don't for white folks the same way they vote for black folks...
March 27, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that it has been found out, dembillc might want to change its name...
March 27, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, "black" American voters, a large group of them, were pro-Hillary. I say were - because when Bill showed his assets (or a lack of them) on the campaign trail, they woke up from delusional thinking and realized they'd been hoodwinked by the man dubbed "Black President".
Let me disabuse you of something. The only African- American around is Barack Obama. Father born Africa. Mother born US. "Black" American's have a high degree of European ancestry. Only our silly hypodescent system in the US keeps folks stuck in a socially constructed racial category. But that classification system has done its job well - keeping a huge group of American's - who've been here since before most European immigrants - at the bottom of the barrel.
Suggest you look at the history of voting rights in Mississippi to get a better understanding of why black American's there came out to vote for Barack Obama. It's a miracle that the Democratic Party has shifted and is no longer the party of Dixicrats, and the Klan.
Who do you want them to vote for? McCain. Give me a break.
No one raised a hue and cry when blacks in America - loyal Democrats, voted for Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter, or JFK. But now that they've recognized qualities they like, and an approach to issues that resonates in their communties in Barack Obama - you want to attack it.
The racist arguement here is yours. Go join the Repugs.
March 27, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a great post. Sadly, however, I am afraid that it is an offense against the Lord's instructions in Mt 7:6.
March 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
dembillc,
As a 52 year old white guy, I have to admit that I decided several years ago (long before Obama) that most Black voters are just plain smarter than most white voters. I realized this when I heard (maybe it was after Katrina, maybe before) that George W. Bush had something like a 4% approval rating among Black voters, while he had approval rating that was over ten times higher among white voters (at least the majority of white voters had also wised up at that point).
I don't think it's racism. Just intelligence and perceptiveness.
March 28, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must admit that I am grateful whenever I see a post from Matthew Weaver. His criticisms of Obama fail to demonstrate the slightest bit of objectivity, insight or intellectual honesty, and consequently, they are very reassuring.
As a lawyer, I learned long ago that you never really know how strong (or how weak) an opponent's argument is until you hear it in full. In this case, Mr. Weaver saves me the trouble of going to "hillaryis44."
March 27, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he describes himself as an Independent. I think that he really is just one of those Skin Head type Morons who think that their skin color, which they had no say in creating" makes them superior. You can see his ilk most any day lined up to get into the Springer Show.
March 27, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew - One other thing. mentioning Reverand Meeks shows that you are nothing more than a tool of the Drudge/Fox sector of the political community. Meeks, who ran for, and was elected by the voters of Chicago as, a pledged delegate for Obama, is not somebody with whom Obama has ever had a close relationship. He is a pledged delegate for Obama because his community elected him to serve in that capacity. Obama has renounced Meeks' remarks supportin the use of the N word within the African American community, and even the articles that have tried to link the two together acknowledge that there really is no link.
If I wanted to make a list of all of the sleazy, farked up characters -- including felons and other criminal types -- that the Clintons have not only associated with, but taken large sums of money from, the list would contain at least 20 or 30 names, at a minimum. For the life of me, I don't know what snapped in your