This is quite a development; even Lincoln Chafee jumped on The O Train yesterday. But as an ardent Obama supporter myself I will take nothing for granted until the primaries have spoken.

Sent by George de Man, Rome GA | 9:55 AM ET | 02-15-2008

Ya know, this Billarack super-drama reportage thing between Bill and Hillary and Barack is getting to resemble Orson Welles radio broadcast of 'War of the Worlds,' back when Welles convinced a certain segment of the radio listening populace that the planet earth was truly being invaded by martians.

You've got your talk about Barack Obama being likened to Martin Luther King and the Kennedy brothers and what not. While the truth is that Barack is a junior senator who isn't even the first black to run for president.

Then you get all this talk about Hillary and the superdelegates likely to create a protest more raucous than anything seen during the Vietnam War period.

What it comes down to is that the media is desperately hungry to create news. Pretty soon we won't be able to distinguish the hyperbole of reality television Survivor series from the muckracking sensationalism of journalism.

Not that any of these tactics are new to journalism. William Randolph Hearst excelled at creating overblown sensationalism. Except now we have expanded radio and cable coverage coupled with the virtual reality of the internet.

I can see near future radio broadcasts where there will be a handful of shouting and clamoring acting extras standing in the background, trying to make enough noise to sound like ten thousand protestors, while the radio announcer reads a daily news script about the Democratic National Convention in progress.

And the really interesting part of all this special effects is that there will be a sizeable portion of the radio listening audience who will fall for this ruse.

Pretty much the way the panicking rubes fell for Orson Welles reading 'War of the Worlds.'

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:37 AM ET | 02-15-2008

I think the overwhelming surge of support for Obama shows us for what we really are???a TV/Media society addicted to a PR-manufactured reality. While I don't think Senator Clinton has presented herself as well as she should have in her campaign, she is clearly an example of substance losing out to sensationalism. Other qualified candidates, such as Romney and Edwards, have also fallen victim to the media's obsession with ratings. If the news media would give equal coverage to all candidates this country would have a better chance of electing the best candidate, and not just the one that is the most publicized.

Sent by Karen Williams | 11:39 AM ET | 02-15-2008

It was refreshing to read Karen's comments. I was beginning to wonder if people lost the ability to think. Why isn't the media demanding more from Sen. Obama. Every development in Senator Clinton's campaign is reported with sarcasm. Isn't it the sensible thing to adapt one's campaign strategy as one goes along, if something is not working?
The media does not seem one bit interested in finding out what Sen. Obama really stands for. He may have a well oiled campaign machine and he may be able to speak well, and he may have been lucky making a statement or two against the Iraq war that worked out in his favor, but that doesn't mean he can deliver when he is really responsible. What really do we know about him, other than that he can speak well? He can't face up to a debate challenge with one from what he calls the establishment, how on earth is he going to face many more of these establishment people when he takes office?
It would be good to be able to make informed decisions when it comes time to vote instead of getting carried away by this 'Rock-star-like' sensationalism.
At this point if it comes to choosing between Obama and McCain, my choice would be McCain - at least I know what he stands for.

Sent by manjula | 4:18 PM ET | 02-15-2008

I would like to ask Congressman two questions:
1. Were you voted into office by Hillary Clinton or the people of your district?
2. Do you represent Hillary Clinton or the people of Georgia?
Thank You

Sent by Dave Barowich | 6:49 PM ET | 02-15-2008

After reading everyone's postings I can't help but wonder what happened to the Democratic party. Great Leaders are proved by great adversity, in times of darkness there have always been those indivduals who rise to the lead called not by personal interest or the pursuit of history and whose beacon of hope pushes us forward. How many times have we heard the phrase "politics of fear"? In case we have failed to notice emotions of fear, apprehension, and regret have guided this country. It is fitting that the Bush era should end with the gentleman in the back of the room who has forced his voice to the fore and commanded us not to look backwards, not to look above us, but rather to look inside of us all. If it were not for hope what would this country be?

Sent by Na'im McKee | 7:51 PM ET | 02-15-2008

Oh please Manjula. at this point in the campaign, anyone that doesn't know the candidates positions about everything is just plain lazy. If one can read and operate a computer well enough to post ridiculous assertions, one surely can go to each candidates websites and read their positions on the issues.

Sent by divaliscious11 | 10:00 PM ET | 02-15-2008

I saw another report with Jesse Jackson Jr strong-arming other black super delegates with losing their seats if they vote for Clinton. Jesse Jackson Jr has done a masterful job of playing the race card for the Obama campaign allowing Obama to keep his hand clean of the blood. I hope there is a big place for him in the Obama administration because playing the race card for Obama after Iowa and NH and now threatening Super Delegates has been tough work.

Add me to the list of Democrats who have been disgusted with the way the Obama campaign has sent out surrogates like Jesse Jackson Jr to play the divisive, racially motivated politics that Obama says he doesn't represent. I'm through with the Democratic party and will be voting McCain in the general election.

Sent by UsedToBeALoyalDem | 12:35 AM ET | 02-16-2008

I'm totally with Karen and manjula. People need to step back and THINK.

Sent by Pam M | 8:33 AM ET | 02-16-2008

HONESTLY I WASN'T GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ON THIS BLOG BUT YOU KEEP PULLING ME BACK IN. WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS SUBSTANCE THAT EVERYON KEEPS TALKING ABOUT FROM SENATOR CLINTON? IS IT BECAUSE SHE WAS MARRIED TO A GOOD PRESIDENT WHO EVIDENTLY DIDN'T THINK TO MUCH OF HER BACK THEN LEWINSKY. BUT I THOUGHT SHE WANTED TO RUN ON HER OWN MERRITS, IS ONE FAILED HEATHCARE INITIATIVE REALLY THAT MUCH MORE IMPOERTANT TO PEOPLE THE THE BRAOD ISPIRATION OF A GENERATION THAT WAS THOUGHT TO BE DISILLUSIONED TO GET INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. I MEAN REALLY SHE HAS WHAT IS IT 2 OR 4 YEARS ON HIM IN THE SENATE AND HOW MANY PROPOSALS DID SHE PUSH THROUGH DURING THAT TIME? WHERE IS THE ACTION THAT SHE IS SO ADAMENT ABOUT. THE ONE THE SENATE SEAT BASED ON SO MANY PEOPLE'S FONDNESS OF HER HUSBAND, NOT REALLY BECAUSE OF ANYTHING SHE HAD DONE. EVEN NOW THE BULD OF THE PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT HER ARE THE PEOPLE THAT MOST BENNEFITED FROM THE FIRST CLINTON PRESIDENCY AND A TON OF WOMEN WHO REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS UNHEARD OF FOR US TO EVEN CONSIDER A FEMALE FOR PRESIDENT. NOTHING ABOUT HER OWN MERRIT IN THERE. UNLESS YOU COUNT BEING BORN A WOMAN SOME HUGE ACOMPLISHMENT.

AND I AM REALLY TIRED OF ALL OF THE TALK ABOUT TALK AND SPEECHES. THAT IS THERE JOB. TO TALK AND MAKE SPEECHES. WHY WOULD ANYBODY GIVE THIS GUY TROUBLE FOR BEING ABLE TO ISPIRE PEOPLE WHEN THAT IS KINDA THE WHOLE POINT OF HIS JOB. SURE SOME HARD DESCISIONS HAVE TO BE MADE BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO CONVINCE A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE THAT YOU R IDEA IS A GOOD ONE. JUST LIKE GEOGE W. COULD NOT HAVE GONE INTO IRAQ WITHOUT DOING A LOT OF GOOD TALK ABOUT WMD'S AND CONVINCING A LOT OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS INCLUDING SENATOR CLINTON THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. THAT IS THE POWER OF SPEACH AND SPEECHES.

Sent by J.A. WILSON | 11:25 AM ET | 02-16-2008

Everybody supporting Hillary Clinton should come to their senses. As an independent, I would like to see the general election be between the best candidates from each party. Hillary Clinton should not be one of those candidates.

Hillary Clinton???s poor judgment has been obvious in her votes on Iraq, Iran, the bankruptcy bill, ethics reform, Senate resolution 106 criticizing Turkey. Her decisions are most often based upon how she can gain the most politically, not what is best for the American people.

Hillary Clinton???s poor judgment is also readily apparent in her fund raising activities with Norman Hsu, Peter Paul, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, Mochtar Riady.

Hillary Clinton also showed poor judgment in her futures trading with James Blair; payments to Hillary plus her brothers, Hugh and Tony, by people who subsequently succeeded getting pardons they sought from President Clinton; and, of course, her personal and professional role in the Whitewater and Castle Grande land speculation schemes, and the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan collapse and subsequent $60 million government bailout.

Hillary Clinton has shown a willingness to mislead people and prevent people from knowing or finding out the truth. Why won???t the Clinton presidential library disclose identities of its donors? Investigative reporters from the New York Times and Washington Post have found an overlap between library donors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration (much as fugitive financier Marc Rich???s wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last Clinton administration). They have also found a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. ???The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse??? per California Democrat Henry Waxman. Why are some of Hillary Clinton???s Democratic Senate colleagues blocking release of 120 pages of the Barrett Report? Why, as Newsweek???s Michael Isikoff reported, are over 3 million health care documents not being released by the Clinton library? Why are all communications between Bill Clinton and his wife still being withheld? Why were Hillary Clinton???s Rose Law Firm billing records hidden in the First Lady???s White House sitting room for two years, when they were the subject of a federal subpoena? Why did Hillary Clinton tell the American people that a ???vast right wing conspiracy??? was behind infidelity charges against her husband, and that the accusations ???will slowly dissipate over time under the weight of their own insubstantiality????

Hillary Clinton talks about her 35 years experience. If one will take time to look at our experience with Hillary Clinton, it will be clear she is not a good choice for President.

Sent by Donald Crocker | 11:32 AM ET | 02-16-2008

I am a Barack Obama supporter. But I wish that John Lewis would switch his endorsement not because he sees a "movement" building behind Barack--inspiring though this development is--but because he truly believes in Obama's proposed policies and his ability to be a good President.

This is how we should all judge the Senator. Just because he hasn't yet lived in the White House doesn't mean we can discount the signs that he will be an effective leader.

Sent by Louisa Rigali | 12:12 PM ET | 02-16-2008

Barack Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carter.

Yes, I know Jimmy Carter is white and had a redneck brother Billy who was so much a hoot and a half that Billy Beer got made in Billy Carter's honor.

That's not what I am talking about, comparing Barack to Jimmy Carter.

Let's say Barack wins the White House, just for argument. It's been more than once that during the Bush years I suggested that the Republicans would give up the White House in '08, so that a Democrat would be in office in a time of economic calamity. That way the Democrats get the blame for a massive national recession. Then the Republicans come storming back in 2012.

Pretty much the way Ronald Reagan came in as a savior on a White Horse to replace Jimmy Carter.

So, if Barack were to win the White House, his would be a one term presidency. Much like Jimmy Carter's disasterous four years. Followed by Jeb Bush's return as the next economic savior on a White Horse.

Guess what I'm saying is that if Barack (or even Hillary) wins the White House, that's an indication that America is in for four rough years of economic recession and downturn.

Which is kind of why I'm hoping for McCain. If McCain wins, that would indict that Wall Street forsees an economic upturn.

Hey, maybe both sides will give up the race to let Ron Paul be president. That should be a prophecy that the planet is going to be destroyed by a ten mile wide comet.

There are more than a few scary portents about this election. That's for sure.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 1:51 PM ET | 02-16-2008

We don't live in a true democracy, we live in a republic. Elected officials are trusted servants, not errand boys. Congressmen are elected by constituents to be the peoples representative in government. So, we elect people we trust to make the right decisions on our behalf. Congressmen have far more knowledge of the issues, in this case the candidates, then the general populous. The superdelagates should vote for who they believe is best. Popular opinion can all to easily lose sight of the truth.

Sent by Theodore | 10:52 PM ET | 02-16-2008

Sent by Theodore: The superdelagates should vote for who they believe is best. Popular opinion can all to easily lose sight of the truth.

You have made several very prominent points, Theodore.

The popular vote does not work because we would have three hundred million different opinions. Rather than a more orderly progression of electing a federal official to oversee the states rights of fifty different governments.

Our forefathers foresaw the wisdom in creating an orderly, strong plan for governing this country.

Another reason the electoral college system works is that chaos of opinions creates weak, chaotic leadership.

The sad truth of the American voting system is that many people do not participate in their local and state elections. They wait for the national elections to get involved. Consequently, they know little or nothing about their local and state representatives. Hence, when it comes to the national elections, many voters are lost because they don't understand the process set forth by the Constitution.

That makes it easier to complain about something they know little about.

Alas, the Constitution provides that even the clueless can complain to the high heavens.

With luck and fortitude, the orderly system will continue to prevail.

fred camorra call

"The biggest argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the voters." Winston Churchill

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:18 AM ET | 02-17-2008

I myself am sick of all this talk of making this election a race issue among black voters are the 80 or more percent of blacks voting for Obama because he is the best choice or is it because he is black. I am sick of the double standard. voting for someone based on race is racially motivated no matter the color of the skin. the black population of the country can't have it both ways. the election would be a landslide victory for Clinton it all whites voted with there race. It appears to me that the white population in this country is the example of racial equality here.

Sent by jd hall | 11:21 AM ET | 02-17-2008

The "loyalty" analysis by Emanual Cleaver as the rationale for continuing to support Hillary is nothing more than another brand of "backroom politics". The Clintons are legendary for their ability to collect "friends" and "use" them when it suits them. Mr. Cleaver's "loyalty" is to use good given talents, presumably those talents for which his constituents voted him into office, to look at the issues and vote accordingly.
This is the kind of "new politics" that all people that are making small donations of $200 or less to the Obama campaign are hoping for.

Sent by Laura Berger | 9:44 PM ET | 02-17-2008

Bravo!!! Donald Crocker, Bravo!!!

Sent by Roger | 10:51 AM ET | 02-18-2008

Past events have hyped up by the media. Many comparisons have been made in the past to MLK, but this is real. There is a genuine excitement in the air when I watch Obama. Words are powerful, momentum is undeniable. Being a member of the Black Communnity born in 65, I feel like I am part of something that can really make a change. With the recent comments by Lewis with regard to supporting Obama, there is a sense of unity that I have never felt amongst black communities.

Sent by Michael Heaven | 4:47 PM ET | 02-20-2008

I believe Congressman Cleaver is sidestepping the real issue, which is whether to vote for Obama based on his constituents' votes or to vote for his friend. In my opinion, his only loyalty and obligation lies with the people who voted him into office. The split however narrow was closer to 43-57 than 50-50, in favor of Senator Obama. In this case, where there is a majority however small, subjectivism is irrelevant and any argument over loyalty to race or to friendship becomes completely irrelevant.

Sent by Demosthenes | 7:25 PM ET | 02-20-2008

To "jd hall":

Do not assume that just because journalists on both the left and the right attempt to sensationalize Obama's race that there is a "black community" that votes as a single bloc for Obama just because he is black. This is tremendously insulting. As a half-black American who has never fit into most stereotypes, I'm sick of this accusation. Just as you are angered by the double standard of political correctness that ruled in the 90s, so I am angered by your automatic assumption that all blacks are hypocrites and all the "white race" fair (no bad pun intended). This is a perfect example of the increasingly popular practice of protesting racism against whites by exercising even more racism. Why not just protest racism? We are not all the same person-- any more than "you" are.

Moreover, as a dark-skinned biracial person who grew up in predominantly white neighborhoods, I can attest to the subtle, surprising and confusing brand of post-Civil Rights era racism toward blacks sometimes exercised by individuals-- some of whom are black themselves--who don't know any better because they don't want to. These experiences are foisted on me and I have to make sense of them whether I wish to or not. That doesn't make my American experience more legitimate than yours. But it sure as heck doesn't make it less, either.

Sent by Adia | 4:40 PM ET | 02-24-2008