Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

N.J. superdelegate for Clinton now undecided, due to Bill's "fairy tale" comment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 03:32 PM
Original message
N.J. superdelegate for Clinton now undecided, due to Bill's "fairy tale" comment
AP NewsBreak: N.J. superdelegate for Clinton now undecided
By JEFFREY GOLD

Associated Press Writer

2:02 PM EST, February 8, 2008

NEWARK, N.J.

Recent remarks by Hillary Clinton and former President Clinton prompted one of New Jersey's superdelegates to reconsider her support of the former first lady and move to an undecided status.

Clinton still retains a commanding lead among the state's so-called Democratic superdelegates _ members of Congress and other party leaders who are not selected in primaries and caucuses and who are free to change their minds about whom they support.

Because they are not bound to a particular candidate, the 796 Democratic superdelegates could play a pivotal role in the party's nominating convention in August. Clinton and Barack Obama need 2,025 votes to capture the prize. Nationally, Clinton has 1,045 delegates to 960 for Obama, with nearly all Super Tuesday primaries tallied.

Clinton's victory in the New Jersey primary gave her 59 regular delegates, compared to 48 for Barack Obama, according to an Associated Press tally. Those delegates, who were awarded proportionally based on results in special primary districts and statewide totals, are pledged to support each candidate at the convention and typically honor those agreements.

<SNIP>

Democratic superdelegate Christine "Roz" Samuels of Montclair said she changed her preference for Clinton after remarks by the former president that cast Obama's candidacy as "a fairy tale."

"I'm disappointed in a few things that were said a few weeks ago by President Clinton," she said. "I'm going to have to revisit what I'm going to do between now and when we vote."

Samuels, a member of the Democratic National Committee and the executive committee of the state NAACP, also said she was troubled by Hillary Clinton's comments that Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And she questioned how Hillary Clinton's eyes welled up before last month's New Hampshire primary. "I am female, and I know we can cry at the drop of the hat," she said, "but that was a bit much."

"I just have to weigh this a little more closely," said Samuels, who works as a secretary to a school principal in Newark.

<SNIP>

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--delegates-nj0208feb08,0,5699486,print.story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Big Blue Marble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. And so the peeling away begins.
There will be more coming in the coming weeks as Obama's wins more states and delegates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "There will be more coming in the coming weeks...."
Yep.

This is just the start of a tsunami of switching SD's to Obama.

Shame she didnt change her mind before Clinton won NJ, but oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think Bill Clinton helped his wife at all
with his remarks during the SC primary. I came to this conclusion when a political thread started on a non-political board. The comments about his words were negative from the people there--and these included independents as well as Democrats. The one Republican that I know of who posts at that board didn't comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. This Fairytale thing.. IS a Fairytale_Since entering the senate, he has voted in favor $ 3 billion
Obama's False Hope: Why I will not Vote for Obama


by Remi Kanazi

Global Research, February 4, 2008



Email this article to a friend
Print this article


At what point does an individual stop supporting the lesser of two evils? The question became particularly important this primary race, as one man ascended to political stardom ostensibly breaking free from the evils of mainstream politics and creating a platform based on hope and change. This transcendent figure is presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

Searching for substantive policy, I began to chip away at Obama’s political posturing, and came to a daunting conclusion: there are a multitude of reasons one shouldn’t vote for Barack Obama, especially those within the Arab-American community.

Senator Obama is not anti-war, nor does he genuinely seek appropriate alternatives to militarism in the Middle East. Arab-Americans and putative leftists naively, and sometimes willfully, overlook the fact that he is an ardent supporter of the invasion, bombing, and ongoing occupation of Afghanistan. One also cannot dismiss that his views are consistent with the Democratic Party platform, which aspires to refocus on Afghanistan. Such views bode well with Obama’s plan to deploy additional troops and increase funding, but as with the case in Iraq, it will only intensify the struggles of the civilian population of Afghanistan. Obama fully supported the Lebanon war (even as the Israeli military killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians and leveled civilian infrastructure with tens of thousands of US-shipped cluster bombs), and played up his pro-Israel rhetoric nearly as much as his current democratic opponent, Hilary Clinton. As with nearly every other candidate, Obama fully supports Israel’s 40 year occupation of Palestinian land and dutifully endorsed the besiegement of Gaza. Surprisingly, this is a politician who once curried favor with prominent members of the Palestinian community, attending a community fundraiser in which Edward Said was the keynote speaker, dining with Rashid Khalidi in Chicago, and receiving praise from Ali Abuminah during his time as a state senator. Domestically, his shift to the right is glaringly apparent, reflecting weaker stances on undocumented residents, the patriot act, gay rights, and a host of other domestic issues.

Obama may have voiced opposition to the Iraq war five years ago, but his “courage” came at a time when it minimally affected his political aspirations. Since entering the senate, he has voted in favor of nearly 300 billion dollars in war appropriations and will continue to appropriate billions more if elected president. Obama is already playing up his ability to be hawkish on foreign policy (e.g. his illustrious declaration that he’d bomb Pakistan on “actionable intelligence”) and has tried to validate himself as a “tough when necessary” type of leader.

Post-911, inexperience with foreign affairs has been a sore point for all democrats. There is nothing more troubling than a field of candidates trying to prove themselves to their opposition. One only needs to look at the rise of Amir Peretz as Defense Minister in Israel. He was a well-known leftist against the Israeli occupation before coming into office. In an attempt to demonstrate his intestinal fortitude and establish himself among the Israeli public, he championed the destruction of Lebanon, and defended the decision as fervently as any right-wing activist. At best, Obama’s inexperience will limit his capacity to control the military occupation of Iraq, as it would every democrat and most republicans during the inaugural year. Additionally, expectation for his vaguely outlined phased withdrawal, which creeps well into midterm election campaigning, further denies the mechanics of mainstream American politics and Congressional trepidation. No democrat or republican can afford to lose seats in the house and senate; it’s precisely why little is achieved during election years. Potential voters may find it useful to recall the excitement engendered after the 2006 midterm elections when a pullout was “imminent;” assurances were given that mass hearings would take place on Capitol Hill, and accountability was declared to be the wave of the future. Predictably, campaigning supplanted accountability, while the people of Iraq were left hanging in the balance. Ultimately, no viable political candidate will be able to pull out of Iraq before the 2010 elections.



http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7999

Bomb PAKKKKKKKKK>>>>>>>>


Reality Check
All the Flip-Flops Fit to PrintBarack Obama
Archived Posts from this Category


August 8, 2007
Obama Backtracks on Bombing Pakistan
Posted by Alex under Barack Obama, Candidates, Debates, Election 2008, Flip Flop, Pakistan
<3> Comments
Factcheck.org wrote an intersting article today about yesterday’s Democratic AFL-CIO debate in which it discusses Senator Barack Obama’s backtracking of his

statement that he would consider invading Pakisan.

“Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda.

Obama: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf.




Scott Olson/Getty Images
That’s not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he

would “take out” al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act.


Obama (Aug. 1): I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who

murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting

in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.


That’s the only time Obama mentions Musharraf at all in the speech, as posted on his own campaign Web site.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. What A Friggin Idiot. It Amazes Me How Intellectually Void Some People Can Be.
All this time later, and she's still yammering about that completely benign fairytale comment? What a moran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC