Obama picks up support from Bloomberg-ites

Ordinarily, presidential endorsements from two former red-state senators, neither of whom are especially high-profile right now, wouldn’t be especially newsworthy, but I think today’s announcement that Sam Nunn and David Boren are backing Barack Obama is a little more interesting than most.

The Obama campaign sent out a press release, noting the endorsement, and adding that both Nunn and Boren have accepted Obama’s invitation to serve as advisers to his National Security Foreign Policy Team. With Nunn having been a chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Boren’s record as the longest-serving chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in history, these guys carry some institutional heft.

There are a couple of different angles to this, but Josh Marshall emphasizes the fact that Nunn is from Georgia, and Boren is from Oklahoma.

This continues to be one of the most striking features of this campaign — the tendency of politicians who do or did make their careers on the votes of people from small towns and rural areas to come out for Obama.

It’s been going on for three months.

I’ve always been highly skeptical of Hillary Clinton’s argument that she’s a stronger candidate in rural areas and red states. But the pols who know these areas best seem to be even more confident she’s wrong than I do.

Quite right. I haven’t seen a comprehensive analysis in a while, but it seems Obama has enjoyed an advantage among red-state Dems, despite the perception that he’s likely to Clinton’s left, ideologically.

But the angle that stood out for me is that both Nunn and Boren were major players in the drive to launch a Michael Bloomberg presidential campaign.

The NYT reported in December:

On Sunday, [Bloomberg] will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.

Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”

In fact, both Boren and Nunn, conservative Dems while in Congress, have been so active in the “post-partisan” approach to politics that Nunn even flirted with the idea of being Unity08’s presidential candidate. Last August, Nunn told the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “My own thinking is, it may be a time for the country to say, ‘Timeout. The two-party system has served us well, historically, but it’s not serving us now.'”

And now, with some enthusiasm, he and Bloomberg’s other biggest backer are rallying behind Obama.

This a) points to a possible edge for Obama in wooing independents; b) will renew speculation about who Bloomberg might support; and c) should help Obama with the party’s conservative flank, such as it is.

Update and Post Script: As some emailers have noted, I neglected to mention that Nunn and Boren are also wildly popular with the David Broders of the world, so today’s news might have an effect on him.

As for the conservative wing of the party, I probably should have noted that it mainly consists of Nunn and Boren.

should help Obama with the party’s conservative flank. Do you mean the DNC, or LIEberman?

  • should help Obama with the party’s conservative flank, such as it is.

    Conservative Democrats are definitely found in the “flank” area. I’ll take the votes wherever they come from though.

    TR probably knew this but the Jay-Z video that Obama was probably copying with the dusting off the shoulder move after the debate was Dirt Off Your Shoulders.

    http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?artist=1269&vid=29160

  • Nunn? The original Congressional force behind DADT? That Sam Nunn? I’m frankly stunned.

    In 1980 (my sabbatical year) my wife and I spent six weeks in Washington DC. Among other things, I submitted testimony to a Senate budget committee on funding for Social Science research (which had been threatened with severe, nearly total, cuts). We were also visiting our Senator “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA), who gave us passes to the White House and Senate Dining Room. When we got out in the hallway, which was empty at lunchtime, we couldn’t find the elevators. A man was just unlocking his office door, so we asked him where the elevator was. He put down his brief case and thought for a while, rejecting several unexpressed hunches (private elevators?), then personally led us to one (as if we were too dumb to follow instructions). As we left I realized he was Sam Nunn. I was impressed. Doesn’t mean I excuse him for DADT, but it did show another side. So does today’s support for Obama.

  • , but it seems Obama has enjoyed an advantage among red-state Dems, despite the perception that he’s likely to Clinton’s left, ideologically.

    I, too, would like to see an in depth analysis, but I think the exit poll statistic that would be most telling would be education rather than left/right ideology.

  • You quote Josh: I’ve always been highly skeptical of Hillary Clinton’s argument that she’s a stronger candidate in rural areas and red states. But the pols who know these areas best seem to be even more confident she’s wrong than I do.
    And you add: Quite right.

    Unlike you, Josh does not allow comments on his posts. I commend you and wonder what his problem is, although comments like this from Josh could explain it. Josh makes the assumption that these two senators’ de facto mean that they believe Obama is stronger than Clinton in rural areas. How does he come to that conclusion? Because they are from predominantly rural states? That may be true, but there is nothing in Josh’s post, to support that was a factor in their decision to endorse. In fact, in the Obama campaign’s release, there is nothing close to this mentioned. The focus is on their national security and foreign policy credentials.

    I was brought up to understand that wishing doesn’t make it so, but it seems that when it comes to Obama and Clinton, certain bloggers missed that lesson.

  • As long as Bloomberg people are going with Obama, I wonder if there will eventually be an Obama/Bloomberg ticket?

  • As you’ve noted, it will be very interesting to see how the MSM megabrains who were fluffing the idea of a Bloomberg third-party presidential run (because yeah, the Republicans have screwed the pooch, but you can’t *possibly* expect us to support a Democrat) will respond to this.

    Logic would suggest they’d have no option but to write comment pieces acknowledging that this makes Obama the genuine ‘bipartisan’ candidate capable of winning over Republican votes they’ve been insisting the Democratic Party can’t provide.

    MSM-logic, OTOH, would suggest that they’ll either ignore it, or write comment pieces suggesting that this is a good thing for McCain, because… uh… because it’s ‘symbolic’ of Obama’s failure to make plain what he really stands for, and the American voter doesn’t like that.

    I know which option my money would be on.

  • #6, I highly doubt it. Bloomberg is a Wall Street guy. That’s not how you appeal to Main Street. New York will go for Obama anyway. I don’t see what else Bloomberg could bring. Furthermore, as much as I wish it were not the case, a black/Jewish ticket might be a little too much “change” for this country all at once. I should note that I am a Jewish woman myself, and am perpetually pained to see this country held back by lingering attitudes of “otherness” toward any group. But reality is reality; the VP will be a white Christian male.

  • I haven’t seen a comprehensive analysis in a while, but it seems Obama has enjoyed an advantage among red-state Dems, despite the perception that he’s likely to Clinton’s left, ideologically.

    Haven’t you seen the primary results?

    Obama is perceived to be less liberal than Clinton among conservatives though. It’s probably the baggage that the Clinton name invokes.

  • “otherness”

    Obama and his wife are the most liberal & black liberation citizens this country has ever been even in this election for an executive..

    sheesh..why am i commenting on this site..i just found..

    ..this site…according to alexa.com has only been on the net since 2003..

    and the related websites are like one like Chimpnews (think i am wrong?.. go to alex.com)

    SHEESH

  • Robert Reich– Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and a long time friend of the Clintons–
    is on CNN right now talking to Wolf Blitzer about why he now supports Obama…

    To summarize, Reich said that last weekend Clinton’s campaign reached a tipping point for him, that Clinton is just too negative, that the times are too serious for “old politics” and “politics as usual” and that we need a new approach. He said that Obama is actually giving him “new hope” after years of feeling cynical.

    Sweet! I wonder what James Carville is going to call Reich? Traitor?

  • Sam Nunn lives! He’s the guy who’s primarily responsible for foisting that excretable “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” gays-in-the-military policy upon us. I can hardly wait to see what sort of change we can expect from a candidate who’s supported by the likes of him, David Boren, John Kerry, and Tom Daschle.

  • When it comes to who Obama picks for 2008, don’t bother with anyone who you have to ask “What large state would he/she help Obama carry that he couldn’t get on his own.

    This rules out Biden/Clinton/Bloomberg.

    I don’t know who Obama will pick. I think Richardson would be a gutsy and effective choice, but I’m usually surprised at who gets the nod.

    Richardson provides serious credentials, Latino and Native American support and Southwest geographic assistance. Heckuva lot to offer.

  • It’s very interesting to me that the candidate that is supposed to be more to the left than Hillary is the one who is the most able to attract supporters from across the isle. Could it be that the more “liberal” you are, the more you believe in consensus decision-making and, hence, the better able you are to achieve win-win compromises with even those who are much more “conservative” than you. At some point, I believe, we ought to really just re-think our whole labeling system that puts things in terms of ‘left’, ‘right’, ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, because it is really just far too simplistic. Maybe, instead of a bi-polar model of political affiliation, a circumplex model would be more appropriate. But then again, what would the media do if they couldn’t kick up such a fuss any more because politicians were actually trying to find things that they could agree on instead of trying to lop each other’s heads off, so to speak. Rob.

  • Comments are closed.