Former DNC Chair Switches From Clinton to Obama

posted by John Nichols on 05/01/2008 @ 09:19am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Newsvine
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (86)

Subscribe Now

Barack Obama is supposed be having a rough week – and, no doubt, Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly are doing everything in their power to make it one.

But Obama keeps pulling super-delegate backing.

Today the senator from Illinois will get an endorsement that sends a powerful signal that even Clinton's closest allies are coming to conclusion that the senator from New York needs to quit running a race that is harming not just Obama but the Democratic party.

Joe Andrew, the Indiana politico who served as Bill Clinton's chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1999 to 2001, has throughout this year's campaign been a Hillary Clinton loyalist.

Andrew endorsed the former First Lady on the day she announced her candidate for the presidential nomination and he has always been counted at the top of her list of reliable super delegates to this summer's convention in Denver. After Clinton suffered a series of primary and caucus setbacks in February, Andrew told an Indiana newspaper that his support for Clinton remained "profound."

That was before the primary process turned ugly, and destructive.

At a planned press conference in his hometown of Indianapolis, Andrew will urge Indiana Democratic primary voters to cast their ballots on Tuesday for Obama.

The good of the party depends on it, says the former DNC chair, who will argue that "the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party."

This is a very hard hit for the Clinton camp.

Not only will Andrews move Obama – who yesterday got super-delegate endorsements from House members Baron Hill, D-Indiana, Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, and Lois Capps, D-California – to within 285 votes of the total he'll need to be nominated, the veteran Clinton operative outlines a powerful case for why Hillary Clinton needs to quit the contest.

The way to send that message to Clinton, says Andrew, is to vote for Obama next Tuesday.

"[A] vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain," write Andrew in a letter he will circulate today. "While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us... John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives."

And what of the pastoral challenges Obama has faced in recent days? They don't trouble Andrew. In fact, he's encouraged.

"[Obama] has shown such mettle under fire," writes the former chair of the New Democrat Network. " The Jeremiah Wright controversy just reconfirmed for me, just as the gas tax controversy confirmed for me, that he is the right candidate for our party." Indeed, Andrew is so convinced of the need to make the switch that the man who knows just about all of the prime players within the Democratic party is urging "fellow superdelegates across the nation to heal the rift in our party and unite behind Barack Obama."

***

Here is the entire statement from Andrew:

I have been inspired.

Today I am announcing my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I am changing my support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, and calling for my fellow Democrats across my home State of Indiana, and my fellow super delegates across the nation, to heal the rift in our Party and unite behind Barack Obama.

The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.

Here is my message, explained in this lengthy letter that I hope is perceived as a thoughtful analysis of how to save America from four more years of the misguided polices of the past: you can be for someone without being against someone else. You can unite behind a candidate and a vision for America without rejecting another candidate and their vision, because in real life, opposed to party politics, we Democrats are on the same side. The battle should not be amongst ourselves. Rather, we should focus our efforts on those who are truly on the opposite side: those who want to continue the failed policies of the last eight years, rather than bring real change to Washington. Let us come together right now behind an inspiring leader who not only has the audacity to challenge the old divisive politics, but the audacity to make us all hope for a better America.

Unite the Party Now

I believe that Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of our nation's great Presidents, and Senator Clinton as one of our nation's great public servants. But as much as I respect and admire them both, it is clear that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain.

I ask Hoosiers to come together and vote for Barack Obama to be our next President. In an accident of timing, Indiana has been given the opportunity to truly make a difference. Hoosiers should grab that power and do what in their heart they know is right. They should reject the old negative politics and vote for true change. Don't settle for the tried and true and the simplistic slogans, but listen to your heart and dare to be inspired. Only a cynic would be critical of Barack Obama inspiring millions. Only the uninformed could forget that the candidate that wins in November is always the candidate that inspires millions.

I ask the leaders of our Party to come together after this Tuesday's primary to heal wounds and unite us around a single nominee. While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our Party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us. John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives.

We need to be talking about fixing the economy, not whose acquaintances once said what to whom. We need to be talking about stopping the attacks in Iraq, not stopping the attacks in Indiana. We need to be talking about policy, not politics.

Barack Obama is the Right Candidate for Right Now

While I am a longtime critic of our Party's rules that created so-called super delegates, we have the rules we have and we must live with them. I am humbled and honored to be a super delegate, and I understand the seriousness of the duty it entails. I recognize that this is a difficult decision for super delegates like me, who owe so much to President Bill Clinton. It is right to be loyal, to be grateful and to be consistent. But it is also right to acknowledge the inevitability of change, right to dare to dream for a better world, and right to know what in your heart is the right thing for the future even if your friends and family disagree. Good things, just like good people, can disagree. But as Democrats, we must disagree with dignity, debate with admiration of each other, and in the end, go forward with mutual respect.

President Clinton and Vice President Gore gave me the opportunity to serve as the Chair of the Democratic Party. I pledged my loyalty to them, and I will never forget Al Gore putting ego aside, gently demurring, and simply asking me to put our country ahead of politics. It is a lesson I will remember forever, and it is what guides me now in this decision. What is best for our Party and our country is not blind loyalty, but passionate support for the candidate who can best correct the misguided policies of the last eight years.

We need a candidate who will re-invigorate the economy and keep good jobs here in America. We need a candidate who will end the war in Iraq. We need a candidate who will provide health coverage for our 45 million uninsured neighbors. We need a candidate who will end our addiction to high-priced foreign oil by investing in renewable energy here at home.

That candidate is Barack Obama.

What was best for America sixteen years ago was electing Bill Clinton. What would have been best for America eight years ago was not only electing Al Gore, which we did, but allowing him to serve as President of the United States. Imagine how the world would be different if Al Gore and not George Bush, would have been President of the United States. Let's seize the opportunity and vote for someone who like Al Gore, was against the war from the beginning, and who brings a new energy, a new excitement, and a new politics to our country.

Let's put things right.

Time to Act

Many will ask, why now? Why, with several primaries still remaining, with Senator Clinton just winning Pennsylvania, with my friend Evan Bayh working hard to make sure Senator Clinton wins Indiana, why switch now? Why call for super delegates to come together now to constructively pick a president?

The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late. The time to act is now.

I write this letter from my mom's dining room table in Indianapolis, Indiana. Four generations of my family have argued and laughed around this table. But what I humbly believe today is that we, as Democrats and as Americans, face what Dr. King characterized and what Senator Obama reminds us is the fierce urgency of now. As a nation, we are at a critical moment and we need leaders with the character and vision to see us through the challenges at hand and those to come. I can't guess what will happen tomorrow, so I can't tell you what kind of experience our next President will need to have to deal with those challenges. But I can tell you what kind of character and vision they will need to have -- and that is what inspires me about Barack Obama.

As Democrats, however, we risk letting this moment slip through our fingers. We risk ceding the field to the Republicans and allowing the morally bankrupt Bush Agenda to continue unabated if we do not unite behind a single candidate. Should this race continue after Indiana and North Carolina, it will inevitably become more negative. The polls already show the supporters for both candidates becoming more strident in their positions and more locked into their support. Continuing on this path would be a catastrophe, as we would inadvertently end up doing Republicans work for them. Already, instead of the audacity of hope, we suffer the audacity of one Democrat comparing John McCain favorably to another Democrat. When that happens, you know it is time for all of us to stop, take a deep breath and unite to change America.

We must act and we must act now.

The Problems of the Process: 2000 and 2008

When Al Gore got a half million more votes than George Bush in 2000, yet the Electoral College elected George Bush President, we saw the absurdity of any system that does not elect the person who gets the most votes. That is why the Democratic Party's nomination process is flawed. I will continue to fight for a 2012 process where there are only primaries, and which ever Democrat gets the most votes becomes our nominee. Delegates should decide the party platform -- voters should decide who our nominee is.

But we are struck with this absurd system for 2008, and, flawed though it may be, we must work within it without betraying the voice of the people. No amount of spin or sleight of hand can deny the fact that where there has been competition, Senator Obama has won more votes, more States and more delegates than any other candidate. Only the super delegates can award the nomination to Senator Clinton, but to do so risks doing to our Party in 2008 what Republicans did to our country in 2000. Let us be intellectually consistent and unite behind Barack Obama.

A New Era of Politics

My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign. If the campaign's surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton's cabinet, a "Judas" for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton.

When they use the same attacks made on me when I was defending them, they prove the callow hypocrisy of the old politics first perfected by Republicans. I am an expert on this because these were the exact tools that I mastered as a campaign volunteer, a campaign manager, a State Party Chair and the National Chair of our Party. I learned the lessons of the tough, right-wing Republicans all too well. I can speak with authority on how to spar with everyone from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove. I understand that, while wrong and pernicious, shallow victory can be achieved through division by semantics and obfuscation. Like many, I succumbed to the addiction of old politics because they are so easy.

Innuendo is easy. The truth is hard.

Sound bites are easy. Solutions are hard.

Spin is simple and easy. Struggling with facts is complicated and hard.

I have learned the hard way that you can love the candidate and hate the campaign. My stomach churns when I think how my old friends in the Clinton campaign will just pick up the old silly Republican play book and call in the same old artificial attacks and bombardments we have all heard before.

Yet, despite the simple and overwhelming pressure to do anything and everything to win, Barack Obama has risen above it all and demanded a new brand of politics. People flock to Senator Obama because they are rejecting the hyperbole of the old politics. The past eight years of George Bush have witnessed a retreat from substance, science, and reason in favor spin, cronyism and ideology. Barack Obama has dared not only to criticize it, as all Democrats do, but to actually reject playing the same old game. And in doing so, he has shown us a new path to victory.

Uniting for Victory

The simple fact is that Democrats need to be united in November to win, and Clinton supporters, in particular, will be vital to victory. We will not convince Clinton supporters to join the Obama campaign, however, by personally criticizing them. We must welcome everyone and avoid doing Republican work for them. It is therefore incumbent on all of us who once supported Senator Clinton to welcome the thousands who should now switch their support to Senator Obama. Similarly, a necessary part of the healing process for our Party is for those who supported Senator Obama early to have the grace and good sense to broaden the tent and welcome newcomers into the fold.

The old players of the old political game will claim that I am betraying my old friend Senator Evan Bayh by switching my support to Senator Obama. I believe that Evan Bayh would be a great President, and therefore a great Vice President. I will continue to argue that he would be a great choice to be on the ticket with Barack Obama. Evan Bayh is uniquely positioned as a successful governor with executive experience who is now a U.S. Senator with foreign policy experience and who is young enough to not undercut the message of vitality and hard work that Barack Obama represents. Part of healing the Party may be to have a Clinton supporter on the ticket, let alone someone who would help with Indiana, Ohio and the moderate Midwest in the general election.

Being for Evan Bayh, however, does not mean that you have to be for Hillary Clinton. The important message to Hoosiers, and to super delegates, is that being for someone does not mean that you agree 100 percent of the time. Regardless of whether Evan Bayh and I support different candidates, I will support Evan Bayh.

We must reject the notion that we have to beat the Republicans at their own game -- or even that the game has to be played at all. It is so easy for all of us involved -- candidates, campaigns and the media -- to focus on the process and the horse race that we forget why we got into it in the first place. Barack Obama has had the courage to talk about real issues, real problems and real people. Let's pause for a second in the midst of the cacophony of the campaign circus and listen.

In 1992, I was inspired by Bill Clinton because he promised, and delivered, a framework for addressing America's problems. President Clinton ended a long-running left-right debate in our Party, and inspired millions. He drew giant crowds and spoke passionately for a generation of Americans who often disenfranchised and rarely participated in governing. Today, Barack Obama does the same thing. Winners redefine the game. Winners connect with the American people and not only feel their pain, but inspire them to take action to heal the underlying cause. Barack Obama is that kind of candidate and that kind of leader, which is why he will win in November.

Welcoming Everyone into the Party

We face significant challenges as a nation and as a Party, but time and again, Americans have shown the resilience and determination necessary to overcome even the highest obstacle. We have a difficult road ahead, but I have complete confidence that Barack Obama is the candidate who can lead our Party to victory and the President who can guide us to even greater heights.

Many Democrats know me for one short speech I gave over and over again in the 2000 Presidential campaign. That speech was about welcoming people into our Party and welcoming undecided voters to our campaign to elect Al Gore. Today, we need to welcome Clinton supporters, undecided voters, and all Americans to join Barack Obama's cause to fight for a better America. My speech ended with these words, which are even more relevant today:

The difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is that you are always welcome in the Democratic Party.

Because Democrats don't care if you are black or white or brown or a nice shade of green, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.

We don't care if you pray in a church or a synagogue or a temple or a mosque, or just before math tests, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.

We don't care if you are young or old, or just don't want to tell your age, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.

We don't care what gender you are, or what gender you want to hold hands with; as long as you want to hold hands, you are welcome in the Democratic Party.

We don't care about the size of your bank account, just the size of your heart; and we don't care where you are today, just where you dream you want to be tomorrow.

That is your Democratic Party.

That is Barack Obama's Democratic Party.

That is the Party that will win in November.

Sincerely,

Joe Andrew

Comments (86)

Hillary really needs to pay attention to what the Supers who are supporting Obama are saying. Almost all of them are condeming her negative campaign.

Posted by FritztheCat at 05/01/2008 @ 09:26am
BTW, this website is totally screwed up. When I posted the above comment, I was taken to a completely different article.

Posted by FritztheCat at 05/01/2008 @ 09:27am
They (HRC and the GOP) dropped the "Jeremiah Wright" A-Bomb and ...Obama's still picking up endorsements from Super Delegates??!?!

Not even an "undecided", but a "Day One Hillary supporter"?!?!?!

Bodes ill for the Hillary Cultists, no?

Posted by Mask at 05/01/2008 @ 09:39am
In every activity, poepole are always driven by a desire of profit and fame. It is that simple...

http://www.thefaithdebate.com http://www.thefaithdebate.com http://www.thefaithdebate.com

Posted by live_life at 05/01/2008 @ 10:06am
Who was it from China who said "you may kill ten to our one, but you will tire of the war before we do"?

Posted by Benchrest at 05/01/2008 @ 10:46am
I don 't think there is any choice. We have a pathological liar, a confused old war hero and an intelligent man, who has a pastor who thinks he is as good or equal to us white people. I'm going with intelligent.

Posted by julien38 at 05/01/2008 @ 10:58am
Anyone thinking we should attack Iran or China needs to have their friggin heads examined.

Haven't you learned a damn thing from the Iraq fiasco?!

You can bank on the fact that neither country is going to roll over the way the Iraqi army did. Keep in mind that we can't maintain control in Iraq now so if you think stomping into much more powerful countries with nothing but stupidity and arrogance will defeat them, you are sadly mistaken.

McIdiot and the warhawks need to get their heads out of their asses and see that we can't bomb our way into prosperity and in fact, every bomb we drop, we are wasting our prosperity along with gaining multitudes of enemies. If making the entire world an enemy of the U.S. is your goal, we're well on are way there. Unfortunately, the rest of the world would destroy the U.S. Is that what you want?!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/01/2008 @ 11:35am
are way there....meant to say well on our way there.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/01/2008 @ 11:37am
hey, maybe the chinese will fund the war against china.

Thursday, May 1, 2008 11:48:04 AM

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/01/2008 @ 11:43am
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll http://www.votenic.com New Poll Started, Latest Results Just Posted! Enter to win a Votenic t-shirt!

Posted by votenic at 05/01/2008 @ 11:46am
Please check out "The Truth vs Barack Obama"

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317

I saw this today, and HAD to share it with everyone. It is just a brilliantly researched and written list of inconsistencies with several of Obama's stories. I think it should be done for ALL three candidates, but I guess this is a good way to start at finally looking at the candidates with some honesty.

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317

Posted by elsylee at 05/01/2008 @ 11:49am
Posted by Euler at 05/1/2008

Why does "the most electable candidate"...keep losing her supporters?!?!??

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/01/2008 @ 12:03pm
I belive the words politician and liar synonymous?

McCain, the man who claims he's not like Bush, but basically echoing W's policies to round up the conservative vote has proven himself at best to be a hypocrit and at worst a liar. There's no way he can gloss over the Iraq mess and make it look rosy, especially for 100 years.

Then, we have Hillary who claimed she was ducking bullets in Bosnia...nothing further needs to be mentioned.

Finally, we have Mr Obama who claims that he didn't really know where his family friend and reverend stood on issues after sitting in on numerous sermons.

All three candidates are playing us Americans for stupid chumps. In some cases they may be right, but the bottom line is that all three candidates add up to placing a used car salesman or salewoman in the White House much like the present inhabitant of the White House.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/01/2008 @ 12:08pm
Corrections....politician and liar are synonymous?

Damn, I hate this new web interface!!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/01/2008 @ 12:11pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/1/2008

Actually, Wolfie, the US would have no problem taking down nations like China or Iran. China may have the largest "army" but they are poorly trained and lack the financial resources to do so. (And in spite of what you libs think, China can't take the US down economically either. Japan tried that remember? They are much more superior to China economically) Also, you can't argue that our troops are spread too thin. The media likes to spin the idea that the whole military is on the verge of collapse, but it's not. We have the second largest military in the world with a little over 1M active troops and about 900K reservists. Right now the reservists are fighting in Iraq, not the active duty. I should know, my son is thinking about going to Iraq because active duty troops get paid more.

Lastly, Iran is all talk and nothing else.

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by Mask at 05/1/2008

Mask, I wouldn't laugh too hard. I idea of a black man in the White House scares a lot of white folks.

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 12:16pm
"Barack Obama is supposed be having a rough week – and, no doubt, Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly are doing everything in their power to make it one."

This is the kind of garbage the left is putting. During this campaign season, it has become clear the left is no from the right wing swift-boaters when it comes to good character assassination. The next time it wants to critcize corporate media for its biased coverage, it the left should look inward in shame and then shut-up

Posted by kevin99999 at 05/01/2008 @ 12:29pm
"the US would have no problem taking down nations like China"

Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

CHINA, my dear ACook, is a TOTALLY different beast than Iran or Iraq.

If you want to scare the hell out of the Joint Chiefs, you talk about war with China. They are NOT poorly trained, they are fighters made from nightmares. They are not hajitowelheads who fight like cowards. THOSE sonsofbitches will fight to the death. The numbers of our dead and wounded would be massive and then some.

Their military technology is very good, and did I forget to mention that they have a well fuctioning nuclear arsenal with very capable delivery vehicles?

We would definitely have problems trying to "take them down" and could, with a few bad turns, get our asses kicked.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/01/2008 @ 12:35pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

I agree, the US could perform mightily against any foe on the planet. We could declare "Mission Accomplished" in short order. In fact, I am sure you're aware this is the 5th anniversary of the Iraq Mission Accomplished carrier shining moment.

Posted by winyahn at 05/01/2008 @ 12:35pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

I think a lot more are scared of a "third Bush term" with "McSame"!

Posted by Mask at 05/01/2008 @ 12:39pm
Yo, Nation staff, fix yr website. Too much info crammed into too little space. Reader response area similarly afflicted ,... but perhaps that's the intention.

Posted by sloper at 05/01/2008 @ 12:40pm
Why the hell has she been given the consideration of continuing her campaign when she can't win--or she does it by foul means sabotaging her own party with the assistance of the Right. Does anyone think that the Right isn't going to come down to her level--their natural habitat, after all, and rip her throat out? She helps them now only to potentially set herself up for the kill. Just because Obama may be advocating a different politics, and as my mother thinks, is a gentleman and a decent person, don't kid yourself that the Right is smacking their lips in anticipation of roasting a Clinton on a spit. And don't expect a broad base of support for the flailing tough, testicular fighter. She kneecapped Obama for her own entitlement--she weakened the party--on message, unity, identity, values at a time when the Right, after running the country into a ditch, is weak and demoralized. But Hillary rallies their troops--and should they put her head on a pike, it couldn't happen to a more deserving candidate.

Posted by Lil at 05/01/2008 @ 12:44pm
Who the hell is Obama to have had the temerity to challenge Clinton in the first place. ----Posted by Euler at 05/1/2008

He DARES challenge the Rightful Queen!?!!?!?

Posted by Mask at 05/01/2008 @ 12:49pm
Posted by Euler at 05/1/2008

Yes, becaause saying someone should not have "the temerity to challenge" your candidate....

doesn't ring of cultism at all, does it?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/01/2008 @ 12:51pm
Posted by Benchrest at 05/1/2008

Ben, hate to disapoint you, but short of stealing any technology they can, China does not have the military capabilities to tangle with the US. Especially, since they lack any sufficient navy, air force or armored divisions. The bulk of their military is mostly infantry. The US has the upper hand. Also, their "nuclear" arsenal, it's a drop in the bucket compared to ours. 30K vs. about 300, you do the math.

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 1:08pm
I think a lot more are scared of a "third Bush term" with "McSame"!

Posted by Mask at 05/1/2008

Doesn't matter, they will take their chances with another white face before they say "hail to the chief" to a black one.

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 1:10pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

But you only need 5 if you want to take out the US. It's called strategy. When you are dealing with nukes you don't need a lot you just need to hit the right places. Washington, New York, California(specifically Long Beach). Those three alone being hit cripple the US. Long Beacg is Responsible for 60% of US imports. New York houses most of our economic center. Washington is the center of government. That's only 3 down. 30k nukes are only useful if you want to destroy the world. I am not afraid of the person with 30k I am afraid of the person with only 3 because they are going to be strategic with them.

Also don't discount military numbers. If we go to war they will draft a massive army. And if you throw enough rocks at a tank you will bury it sooner or later.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 1:40pm
Who the hell is Obama to have had the temerity to challenge Clinton in the first place. An empty CV and an affirmative action Senator (this coming from a supporter of Affirmative Action), Obama is not qualifed for the job. Back to social work!

Posted by Euler at 05/1/2008

I can only hope that we're reaching a Jim Jones moment in the life of the cult. The Obama cult, Mask.

Posted by Euler at 05/1/200

You prove over and over again that Hillary is the one running the cult. "How can he challenge the inevitable Goddess that is Hillary!"

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 1:42pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

God I am so sick of this argument because it has yet to actually fly. Hillary is another white face and she is losing. So I think you should rethink how you are approaching that.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by Euler at 05/1/2008

You say he is nothing but an empty suit. But most Democrats seem to disagree with you. Including many of the super delegates. Who have to be politically savvy to get to their position. So you may want to rethink your argument.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 1:44pm
Given that this President Bush allowed some of our missile technology to be outsourced to a Chinese company, China may be in a better position than one might think (President Herbert W. Bush vetoed a similar attempt at outsourcing parts of our defense system).

And, considering that we are borrowing $1,ooo,ooo,ooo a day from China, our position isn't very good on that front, either.

Posted by ron cypert at 05/01/2008 @ 2:14pm
Hopefully this letter and switch by Mr. Andrews is the beginning of the end of the Clinton campaign. If she remains in the race and is voted to be the nominee by the superdelegates, the Dems will lose. It's sad, but my father told me this past Monday, that if Clinton wins he won't vote in the general election for president. He said he will cast a vote for the state and local elections. My mother said she would cross-over and vote for McCain. From listening to the radio(with millions of black listeners), I'm hearing this kind of talk alot lately. I hope it doesn't hold true. Clinton is well on her way to deeply fracturing the Dem party.

Posted by k330k at 05/01/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

The premise of your argument is flawed and you do not know of what you speak.

WHERE do you propose to fight this war? THEY will not come here, we would have to go THERE, and in order to take and hold ground, you have to have infantry IN NUMBERS, on that ground, and unless you can form a perimeter about three miles long lined completely with 7.62 miniguns then they would swarm over us like fireants, and we don't have enough cluster munitions in our entire arsenal to defend our troops during a ground invasion of China.

You do not have to match the militaty technology of the US in order to tangle with us when you have infantry numbers that exceed our ability to kill in a CONVENTIONAL war.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/01/2008 @ 2:28pm
"He DARES challenge the Rightful Queen!?!!?!?" <Posted by Mask at 05/1/2008 >

We must never forget that HRC's main qualification for office is that she "is SO ready to be President!"

What need we more than that? Give her the bloody crown, already.

Posted by goyadad at 05/01/2008 @ 2:31pm
Addressed to Mr. Andrews:

Phone: 202-408-5210

Email: jandrew@sonnenschein.com or joeandrews2008@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Andrews:

In good conscious, how can you change your vote to Obama? Are you satisfied with everything you have heard from his or about him?

Are you satisfied that he considers the self-proclaimed Pentagon terrorist, William C. Ayers a friend?

Are you satisfied that he spent 20 years listening to anti-American hate speech by his pastor?

Are you satisfied by his saying that small-town America is ...?

Are you satisfied by his saying that he does not take money from the big oil companies, but he does?

Are you satisfied with his wife's anti-American sentiments?

Are you satisfied with his corrupt relationship with Tony Rezko?

Are you an American?

Now, I realize that Hillary is no mother Theresa! However, she has worked for 20 years protecting our children. Here take a good look:

http://votersusa.blogspot.com

Hillary would be 1000 times better on her bad day than Hussein Obama!

Good bless America!

How could you stab Hillary in the back?

Posted by Iraq_Vet at 05/01/2008 @ 2:49pm
Posted by Iraq_Vet at 05/1/2008

Who's children was she protecting? 'Cause there are alot of mothers in Chicago who can say the same thing. Also he didn't move to Illinois just to secure the black vote. he actually met his wife, his wife's family, and started his own family. So I'm supposed to be impressed by a calculated move to Harlem and her marriage to Bill. Sorry, it may have worked in '92 but it's not gonna work now. "Now, I realize that Hillary is no mother Theresa!" Hah! Understatement of the year.

Posted by k330k at 05/01/2008 @ 3:11pm
Posted by Iraq_Vet at 05/1/2008

Are you kidding me. The only things you quoted are BS non issues that have been over inflated by the media. Are you ok with Hillary not only accepting money from oil companies but defense contractors as well? How about Hillary repeatedly lying to the American people? How about Hillary commiting a federal offense when running for the Senate?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 3:18pm
Posted by LibsWarnedU at 05/1/2008 | ignore this person

what a coincidence that our puppet gov't in Iraq is also Iran's puppet. of course no one could have anticipated that. the puppets only lived in Iranian exile for twenty years.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/01/2008 @ 3:55pm
I live in NY State..I am disgusted with how HRC moved here and campaigned for Senate, then she deserted us; we experienced repeated massive flooding and no HRC....even now, you cannot contact her ofc...other senators, assemblyman, reps. give at least a semblance of a personal letter, Sen. Clinton's ofc. has always just some form letter....I really believe she is a very cold, calculating person...I do not like McCain, but he at least tells it straight: "I know nothing about he economy" and doesn't lie compulsively, scared of a black man or white woman, be VERY AFRAID of third Bush term and escalating third front of "war on (resources)terror"!!!!!

Posted by jrs112 at 05/01/2008 @ 4:03pm
Posted by emile duBois at 05/1/2008

Where ya been?

Posted by Benchrest at 05/01/2008 @ 4:04pm
Are you an American?----Posted by Iraq_Vet at 05/1/2008

FRANK's son??? Anyway, I can't wait until more of the Hillary cultists starting to question people's patriotism for not supporting her!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/01/2008 @ 4:17pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

ACOOK,

With all due respect, China is an enemy the pentagon, president and anyone else damn well better think twice about screwing with. Have you been to China recently?

Last time I was there, the cities I saw were booming. I also saw their regular army guys out training in the streets. These guys were practicing martial arts on each other. So, we have a million soldiers? China could field 300 to 500 million. One more thing is that the average Chinese person is relatively poor which means they are used to surviving on little to nothing. Add combat training to that and a little attitude and you've got yourself a nasty army.

I'm not knocking our soldiers, but never ever under estimate the capabilities of your opponent unless you really want to get your ass whipped royally.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/01/2008 @ 4:19pm
if you throw enough rocks at a tank you will bury it sooner or later.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/1/2008

That's classic!!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/01/2008 @ 4:23pm
I'm not knocking our soldiers, but never ever under estimate the capabilities of your opponent unless you really want to get your ass whipped royally.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/1/2008

Exactly the mistake the Japanese made with us in WWII. We should have learned from their mistake. They thought they would be able to bomb our Pacific fleet and that it would take years to rebuild it. They underestimated us and for their mistake they got invaded and 2 big boys dropped on their cities. WE underestimated Iraq both times we went in. Bush I said it would only take days, Bush II said it would only take a month, come 1 unfinished invasion and 3 years into attempt 5 years into attempt 2 and you start to see our underestimation. Don't underestimate your enemy. ESPECIALLY China. China has a knack for survival with the biggest odds stacked against them. They have a very resourceful and enduring people. Before you go to war with an enemy you should learn to respect that enemy. Without respect of the person you are fighting you will never win because you will continue to underestimate them and you will continually lose.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 4:39pm
Posted by Iraq_Vet at 05/1/2008

Un-American? Is this Hillary's latest attack FROM THE RIGHT?

20 years working to protect children? How about ONE year (actually 9 months) at the Children's Defense Fund and then 15 YEARS at the "elitist" the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas representing socially irresponsible corporations and union busters like Tyson Foods and Walmart!

Let's see, 9 months as a children's advocate and 15 years as an advocate for bad corporations...what does that make her?

Posted by Metteyya at 05/01/2008 @ 5:07pm
Where ya been?

Posted by Benchrest at 05/1/2008 | ignore this person

the new format is not as post friendly.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/01/2008 @ 5:30pm
Agreed.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/01/2008 @ 5:39pm
I'm here too but the new format skeers me.

I actually burst out loud laughing at the Hillary folks insisting that Obama has no right to run against her. What gives him the right? Being 35 years old and a natural-born citizen. That's it. All other qualifications are artificial and tied to politics. So stop beating the upstart because he de-throned your girl. Unless you're on the Frank side of things and are simply looking for four more years of Republican disaster rather than give it to the darkie.

Posted by yutsano at 05/01/2008 @ 5:49pm
Hey, worst case scenario, brokered convention, both Billary and Barack are weaken to the point of no return, Al Gore steps in. McCave caves.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2008 @ 6:33pm
"Hey, worst case scenario, brokered convention, both Billary and Barack are weaken to the point of no return, Al Gore steps in. McCave caves." <Posted by hsuBfools at 05/1/2008 >

This is not credible analysis. No way the "brokers" give the nod to Gore. He had his shot and did a crappy job with it. The Dems can't give this f____up job to just anyone.

No, the scenario remains the same. The Supers make some noises about "honoring the vote," there's a big bustle before the convention over "electability," most of the Supers end up going where the pork is served up steaming hot, and they cast their votes with HRC.

HRC gets creamed by Johnny "FOXtrot" McCain. Four more years of Bush.

It's been a fun ride with "audacity," flag pins, Pentabombers, and Wright Reverends with a dash of "Bitters," but all good things must end. You gotta admit, it's a lot of entertainment the pols can buy with ¾ billion dollars worth of campaign cash.

Posted by goyadad at 05/01/2008 @ 6:50pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/1/2008

C3, you need to read a little more history. China is in no position to fight with anyone. With 2 wars apiece with Russia and India and serious defeats (along with occupation) by the British and the Japanese, it's wonder they've even made it this far.

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 6:50pm
Posted by goyadad at 05/1/2008

A lot more people, including superdels, feel the scenario I posted is not only viable, but also a necessary option; whether or not you can understand it.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/01/2008 @ 7:00pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

But it has. I know my history and they are a people who despite numerous attempts of invasion they are still around. You have no respect for the enemy you are calling for war against but there is a reason people are calling for war against them. They are well on their way to being the next super power. You must not know your history or you would respect them a little more, I mean that with no hostility.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 7:01pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/1/2008

It's not going to happen dude. After the events of Bush you think they are going to pull that? Gore would lose because all the people who want Barack and Hillary would hate him for stealing the election when he wasn't even on the ballot.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 7:02pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/1/2008

Wolfie, the Chinese don't have a comparable navy or airforce. Our bombers alone would criple them. And they don't have much of a SAMS capbilility to take down a long range bomber at 30k feet.

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 7:12pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/1/2008

C3, you are way off base. I never said China was an enemy. I said they don't have the military capability of taking down the US. Don't let your liberal fog cloud your judgement.

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 7:48pm
"God I am so sick of this argument because it has yet to actually fly. Hillary is another white face and she is losing. So I think you should rethink how you are approaching that."

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/1/2008

C3, get ready to pack your bags and head to Canada because neither one will step in that oval office.

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 8:06pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

Who said they were an enemy? Someone said we need to invade China. I never claimed China could take down the US I am simply saying we could not beat China. It would come to a stale mate.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 8:11pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

I wouldn't go to Canada though. Repubs are counting their chickens wayyyy to early. McCain hasn't even been started on yet. I guarantee you will see your candidate get tarred and feathered when they turn their guns on him.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 8:17pm
Posted by goyadad at 05/1/2008 |

Goya, you got to understand HSUB.

He's been dreaming of the "rightful return to the throne of Al Gore" for years now, and will keep up his "brokered convention giving it to Al" right upto Obama (or Hillary) making their acceptance speech....facts or logic aside.

(and then when called on it, he'll claim he was just kidding around!)

Posted by Mask at 05/01/2008 @ 8:21pm
I guarantee you will see your candidate get tarred and feathered when they turn their guns on him.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/1/2008

What guns!?

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 8:36pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/2008

I think you have seen the Demo swift boaters this time around.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 8:42pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/1/2008

Haven't seen it.

Posted by ACook at 05/01/2008 @ 8:47pm
Posted by ACook at 05/1/200

Must not be paying much attention then.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2008 @ 8:57pm
The general election is over. John McCain has won, elected by deranged, vindictive suicide bomber Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Zero at 05/01/2008 @ 9:08pm
Zero

keep on hopin'........

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/01/2008 @ 10:14pm
The ONLY positive right now is No more fill-in-the-blank 'gates' for Obata for hopefully the duration. This non-doing is something when you stop and reflect on the poison of the last few months: first he's Osama-Muslim ubAmerican, exotic-odd whisper campaign stuff, shallow, inexperienced, hopemonger, then Wright1- racist, then bittergate / elite, out of touch, then Wright2 angry darkie, poor judgement...

AND you don't hear Bill Clinton go after McCain, or McCain go after Clinton - it's all pile on Obama.

Posted by winyahn at 05/02/2008 @ 01:02am
Please fix the box for Firefox users! AND the whitespace strabgeness.

Posted by winyahn at 05/02/2008 @ 01:09am
Man, I've never seen a samrt guy in politics. Sp smart that Bubba should call him a master: he would turn everything negative about him into a vote. This is about politics not morale. Obama, you drive American politics into a whole new meaning and level.

----------

Obama's Wright response wins him superdelegates By Sam Youngman Posted: 05/01/08 07:33 PM [ET] Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) sharp denunciation of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright this week has superdelegates moving in his direction.

While the reverend's controversial remarks and his widely panned appearance at the National Press Club caused many pundits to wonder if superdelegates would be frozen into indecision, those who moved into Obama's column this week cited the Illinois senator's reaction as one of their reasons for backing him.

Posted by HelenDAO at 05/02/2008 @ 03:23am
Al Gore steps in. McCave caves.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/1/2008 | ignore this person

this will never happen. Gore is not stepping into anything. the convention will not be brokered. Obama will be the next pres.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/02/2008 @ 08:37am
Posted by Iraq_Vet at 05/1/2008 | ignore this person

this is all guilt by association. it means NOTHING. Hill is toast. don't come back with this meaningless tripe, soldierboy.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/02/2008 @ 08:41am
if you throw enough rocks at a tank you will bury it sooner or later.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/1/2008

it's nonsense. tanks don't usually stand still long enough.

in the early days of tank warfare they used tanks as if they were just a big gun on wheels and emplaced them as such. a british military historian invented the modern tank warfare we know as Blitzkrieg. the British paid him no mind, but the Germans thought otherwise. the rest is, you know, history.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/02/2008 @ 08:47am
Posted by emile duBois at 05/2/2008

Wow, JOHANNESROLF not giving credit to Germans for one of the main things they're known for?!?!?!

(of course, it was a bad thing...so maybe he's trying to blame the British for it!...heheh)

Posted by Mask at 05/02/2008 @ 09:18am
Do we have Hillary's "Reverand Wright" moment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN_nQOHj__s

Posted by Mask at 05/02/2008 @ 12:27pm
Posted by emile duBois at 05/2/2008

It is a figure of speech emile, once again you make a useless point to prove the size of your brain pan.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/2/2008

Emile, formerly self-promoting 'Professor' JOHANNESROLF has always been the one trying to prove what a pipestem-chomping, arm patched-sweater intellectual he is by taking everybody to task with his superior wit and keen brain....

and most figure out that he's like a bad SNL character, "Professor Noetall".

Posted by Mask at 05/02/2008 @ 1:37pm
More Herd Hell - Hillary's gained 4 points since the last ARG with the latest coming in at Clinton/Obama, 53/44. Last week it was 50/45...

Under-educated whites tipping the scales for World Wrestling Federation's Comeback Queen, the Anna Nicole of Politics rising from the dead, the Monster Truck Monsteress - once again!

Posted by winyahn at 05/02/2008 @ 2:15pm
Gosh will Edwards actually accept her offer?

Naaa, she'll go right and military probably. General Clark, you're looking great.

Posted by winyahn at 05/02/2008 @ 2:18pm
I think we'll know who the Dem nominee is in....

exactly 32 days (June 3rd). No later.

Posted by Mask at 05/02/2008 @ 2:46pm
If it doesn't end up being Al Gore...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/02/2008 @ 3:28pm
HSUB, He can't lose weight, how can we expect him to trim the budget?

Posted by winyahn at 05/02/2008 @ 3:34pm
Posted by winyahn at 05/2/2008

Again, you got to know where HSUB is coming from....he truly thinks there's a shot at Gore "winning a brokered Convention"...but, if challenged on that, he'll laugh and say "I was just kidding!"

But, look for these future HSUB posts-

1. Obama (or Hillary) wins the nomination..."They might need Gore as Veep to save the Party and keep everybody happy...and he'd be gracious enough to accept it!"

2. McCain wins the Presidency..."Gore comes back in 2012!"

3. Obama (or Hillary) wins the Presidency...."Gore could pose a primary challenge to them in 2012, if they don't toe the line on progressive issues that only Al Gore has led the way on!"

and finally, hopefully many, many years from now....Gore dies...and HSUB says "You know with cloning technology we COULD bring Al back from the dead and he could run in 2048!"

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/02/2008 @ 3:50pm
c'mon now, this nonsense?

Posted by emile duBois at 05/02/2008 @ 4:43pm
Er, when have I said I was kidding?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/02/2008 @ 5:32pm
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/05/convention_chaos_theory_ 1/

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/mar/24/mark-tomasik-dont-discount-gore-l ed-ticket/

http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/al-gore-at-brokered-convention. html

http://tinyurl.com/3z9k2s

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/28/114630/606/119/504315

http://tinyurl.com/yvtgtt

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/5/125249/6560

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/algore2008/signatories.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/02/2008 @ 5:47pm
fools, it's not going to happen. we dems have two candidates. these are the people the country has voted for over and over again. Gore is not running and there will be no deus ex machina. get over it. you have more to offer than this wild goose chase.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/02/2008 @ 7:34pm