Is the torch being passed to a new generation?

When looking at the Democratic Party’s informal leadership, there are a handful of powerhouses whose endorsements every presidential candidate would love to have: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Howard Dean come to mind. Clinton, of course, is clearly spoken for, and Dean, as chairman of the DNC, is committed to staying neutral. Gore, meanwhile, has been shying away from partisan politics, while Kerry, the 2004 nominee, has cast his lot with Barack Obama.

And what of Ted Kennedy? The connection between Obama and JFK has been considered in detail for a while now, and many note the similarities between the young senators who helped inspire young voters. Theodore Sorensen, the legendary JFK speechwriter, has himself promoted the similarities heavily, and it’s not at all unusual to hear voters sympathetic to Obama make the same link.

Today, in an NYT op-ed, Caroline Kennedy endorsed Obama, saying, “I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me my father inspired them. And for the first time, I believe that I have found that man.” Asked this morning about Ted Kennedy’s possible support, Obama told George Stephanopoulos, “I’ll let Ted Kennedy speak for himself. And nobody does it better…. I will let him make his announcement and his decision when he decides it’s appropriate.”

Apparently, there was a reason for Obama’s evasiveness.

ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., will endorse Barack Obama’s presidential bid on Monday in Washington, a source close to Kennedy tells ABC News.

The endorsement gives Obama a boost in the eyes of the Washington establishment, and comes after some prominent Democrats criticized Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former president Bill Clinton for their campaign tactics before Obama’s landslide victory in South Carolina.

This afternoon, CNN ran a similar report, suggesting that it’s probably true.

So, will Kennedy’s support matter? I’m generally skeptical about the value of endorsements, even from high-profile figures. That said, Kennedy remains a hero to a lot of Democrats, and gaining the support of the Senate’s “Liberal Lion” may have at least some influence on Obama’s ability to connect with the party’s progressive base.

Also, it’s probably worth noting that Kennedy remains a dominant figure in Massachusetts politics, and the Bay State is among the more than 20 contests on Feb. 5

The Boston Globe adds:

The coveted endorsement is a huge blow to New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is both a senatorial colleague and a friend of the Kennedy family. In a campaign where Clinton has trumpeted her experience over Obama’s call for hope and change, the endorsement by one of the most experienced and respected Democrats in the Senate is a particularly dramatic coup for Obama.

What’s more, Ben Smith noted a few days ago that the Clinton campaign was “worried” about Ted Kennedy backing Obama: “Two sources say she’s directed a flood of calls the senator’s way, with everyone from union leaders to his Massachusetts constituents scrambling to stop what Clinton’s camp is worried could be an endorsement of Obama.”

We’ll see if this has a significant effect; given Kennedy’s standing, it certainly won’t hurt. In the big picture, I suspect the real benefit here for Obama is one of stature. Ted Kennedy is a legend in the party, and helps represent the Democratic establishment, most of which has backed Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

It also points to a possible trend. Since the New Hampshire primary, seven Democratic senators (if we include Kennedy) have announced presidential endorsements — and six of the seven have backed Obama. (For the record, the six are Tim Johnson, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, and Kennedy. Clinton’s came from Florida’s Bill Nelson.)

There may have been an impression among some that Obama was the choice of young people and some movie stars. Slowly but surely, it appears the party establishment is suddenly up for grabs, as well.

Stay tuned.

What’s more, Ben Smith noted a few days ago that the Clinton campaign was “worried” about Ted Kennedy backing Obama: “Two sources say she’s directed a flood of calls the senator’s way, with everyone from union leaders to his Massachusetts constituents scrambling to stop what Clinton’s camp is worried could be an endorsement of Obama.”

Barack Obama admitted on This Week today that he had been pretty actively seeking this endorsement himself. It’s obviously a pretty nice “get” for them.

  • It will help but certainly not be the deciding factor. Each major endorsement takes away from Clinton’s main advantage of being perceived as the inevitable winner. Support from people like Kennedy and Kerry also help negate the issue of whether Obama is too inexperienced for the job.

    This is also quite a blow to the Clinton image. Bill Clinton has often referred to his meeting with JFK and tries to portray himself as following as his successor. Now we have Caroline and Ted Kennedy basically telling Bill Clinton that he is no Jack Kennedy.

  • I’m thrilled the Kennedys are coming out in support of OBAMA. They realize that he is truly what this country needs.

  • I don’t believe endorsements matter. This one could a little bit. As a Hillary supporter, all I can say is they can only blame themselves. I hope we can win without the kind of language of the past week. Can someone lock Bill up. He is hurting Hillary…again. Too bad she took the gamble.

  • While I think endorsements are overrated, I think this one matters more than most in that it is the wizened old owl, someone who at this point in his career virtually defines “establishment,” conferring a credibility on Obama that moves him beyond “upstart.” This likely opens a floodgate for beltway insiders and party elders who had been reluctant to rush to the shiny new thing to declare for Obama.

  • From the Boston Globe:

    “Kennedy plans to campaign actively for Obama, an aide said, and will focus particularly among Hispanics and labor union members, who are important voting blocks in several Feb. 5 states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona and New Mexico.”

    While I usually think endorsements are often meaningless, I wouldn’t underestimate the significance to this one. Obama’s biggest problem thus far has been with older core Democrats and with the support of Caroline and now Ted, he has a chance to peel away some of those voters from Hillary and into his camp. We’ll see what happens.

  • Hasn’t Obama’s spiel been to unite both parties the whole time? It’s much easier to go through the establishment leadership than it is trying to do it one senator or representative at a time.

  • seven Democratic senators … have announced presidential endorsements — and six of the seven have backed Obama.

    So it comes down to – how difficult is Clinton to work with that her co-workers are standing in line to stab her in the back? It’s probably for the best that they lay it all out on the table like this – if Obama wins it’ll be harder for them to do to him what they did to Clinton back in ’92 after he won and they started obstructing his plans. And if Clinton ends up with the nod she’ll go in with her eyes wide open as to exactly where her obstacles in the Democratic Congress are going to lie.

    Or are these guys playing the “electability” game again? Like when they threw their support behind Kerry because they were SURE he could win?

    Also – does this mean that we can stop referring to Clinton as the “establishment” candidate? I mean, when you can’t get Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy’s endorsements, how much of an establishment candidate can you be?

  • Since there is nothing either Obama or Clinton can do for Ted Kennedy at this stage of his life except advance the agenda he’s worked for, we must conclude that he has decided Obama would do a better job of it. The bitterness shown by backers of one or the other of the two when things don’t go their candidate’s way on this site and many others is really irritating. Don’t say anything you can’t walk back once the contest is over.

  • “For someone who despises the status quo so much, Obama sure is interested in support from the old establishment. — Brooks @ 8”

    “Change” may be what’s on the bumper-sticker (awfully empty for my tastes, since it means both nothing and whatever you want it to) but I think part of the change Obama is promoting is broader engagement, and these endorsements do help with that. Personally, i wish Ted Kennedy would have retired a long time ago — the guy makes me cringe — but I doubt he’ll cost Obama any votes in the primary, and may allay fears (such as we sometimes read here) that Obama is to the right of HRC.

  • I do think the Kennedy endorsement matters, at least to my generation (62). I think Ted Kennedy has been a great senator, who has fought for progressive issues for over 40 years.His preference for Obama reassures me about Obama’s progressive credentials. Obama, thus far, has failed to win the support of the people most likely to be influenced by Ted Kennedy,

  • I do think the Kennedy endorsement matters, at least to my generation (62). I think Ted Kennedy has been a great senator, who has fought for progressive issues for over 40 years.His preference for Obama reassures me about Obama’s progressive credentials. Obama, thus far, has failed to win the support of the people most likely to be influenced by Ted Kennedy,

  • I still really don’t have a clue who Obama is, except he’s apparently promising everybody a pony.

    Seriously.

  • I would put forward two reasons for why Obama’s getting these endorsements:

    1) It’s the Billary factor, and although Bill has a lot of love from democrats throughout the nation, the party establishment is perhaps more aware of his personal and political failings. There have been a lot of persuasive arguments being put forward about just how many ethical questions will be raised about Bill and Hillary since they left office. Who wants to spend a general election trying to bury the proverbial dead bodies (once again)?

    2) When Obama’s winning, he’s winning by getting young people to vote. I heard Donna Brazille on ABC describe it as the most astonishing sight she’s seen in her entire career as a political organizer. You don’t want to be on the wrong side of a social movement if you’re a Democrat.

    And this may not be a major factor, but if you think about all of the problems we face right now: 1) looming recession due to negligent regulation of the financial sector, 2) a social security bubble that looks increasingly likely to send our government into a fiscal tailspin, 3) a failing primary and secondary educational system, 4) the rampant rise in the costs of medical care (fueled by prescription drug costs), and 5) global warming.
    You begin to realize that the Clintons knew all these problems were on the horizon in the 1990s, but they were unable to find solutions (even though they tried). Why give them another bite at the apple? They weren’t very farsighted back then, so why would Congressional Democrats expect Hillary to have the leadership to solve these problems now?

  • Well mouse (18), that’s kind of a problem. But whose fault is that? Have you tried looking up his web site? Have you watched any of the debates? Have you seen he has two books out? Do you have access to a TV or newspapers?

  • I still really don’t have a clue who Obama is, except he’s apparently promising everybody a pony.

    When Obamania first started last year I was a bit skeptical. Then I read his book and paid attention to what he was saying, and saw that he was for real.

    Anyone who doesn’t have a clue to who he is simply isn’t trying to find out. True, if you only follow the horse race obsessed news media you might not get enough information, but it isn’t difficult to find out more.

    As for the pony, to a certain degree every politician is offering ponies of one type or another to the voters. However, of the three major Democratic candidates I see Obama’s campaign as least being characterized as offering a pony.

  • Braden’s reasons above are correct. Clinton started out with a big lead among super delegates from the party establishment as she was seen as the inevitable candidate.

    Now that Obama has shown that he can beat Clinton (and he has won or tied for delegates in every state where they have competed) Clinton no longer has this advantage. Democratic leaders will increasingly see that Obama is the party’s future. Clinton has a ceiling of around 51% of the vote. She might be able to win a general election with the current anti-Republican sentiment but she cannot expand the party the way Obama can.

    I suspect that adding Kennedy’s endorsement to the endorsements Obama has already received will lead to a considerable shift of the Democratic establishment towards Obama.

  • Extraordinarily profound timing…

    The problem with newness is that it is new.
    Ted Kennedy’s support puts a granite column under Barack…
    While Caroline Kennedy’s clears his wings for liftoff…

    The old guard and the new guard have spoken:
    The Clintons are a dead end.

    I couldn’t agree more.

  • President John F. Kennedy himself once said:

    “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.”

    Thanks to Carolyn and Ted Kennedy for helping us to look towards the future in their endorsements for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States.

  • Oh, please Ron. Unless someone can explain to me how Barack Obama has inspired majorities in every state except South Carolina so far to turn out to vote against him — either that, or until I see him win a convincing majority in a state where he has no natural advantages and/or without peevishly touching off a race riot in the wake of a disappointing loss (or two) — I’m going to have to stick with my original assessment that George W. Bush and his ilk are still the primary factor fueling the expansion of the Democratic party.

    Well, them and the fact that this realignment we’re undergoing is about 4 years overdue by my reckoning. If 9/11 hadn’t intervened, I don’t think every trick in Karl Rove’s book could have stopped the proverbial pendulum (the one they told us about in HS government class) from starting to swing back leftward circa 2002-2004. We likely would have seen a more gradual transition in that case, instead of things finally letting go with a jerk of pent-up energy, as seems to be happening now.

    As for Kennedy’s endorsement, the practical effect remains to be seen but one thing it unquestionably will do is set expectations pretty high for Obama in MA. If the both of the Commonwealth’s senators, one a bona fide institution in his own right and a scion of the one of the most sainted family names in Democratic politics, the other a previous presidential nominee can’t deliver the state for Barack Obama, I kind of doubt it will play very well for him.

  • Anne,

    I didn’t know that. Should make for some interesting dinner conversation at the next family reunion.

  • I see this endorsement as blowing a hole in Hillary’s “experience” theme. No Democrat has more experience in DC than Teddy, and compared to Ted, Hillary is a newbie. So, if he says it’s safe to vote for Obama, then that whole idea that Obama doesn’t have enough experience seems silly.

    My sappy idealist side is being won over by Obama’s speeches, but my cynical political side is being won over by the idea of a nominee who could get votes from the likes of Andrew Sullivan , instead of sending them to the barricades against us. I’m also thinking about the power of a generation of new voters thinking Democrats were their party. Caroline’s op-ed was pretty important.

  • The Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy endorsements are important. However, the really big “get” will be Al Gore. In the September 9, 2007 Washington Post, he pronounced he will likely endorse one of the Democratic candidates for president before the primary season is over. Knowing the enmity between the Clinton’s and Gore, one can only assume he will raise his hand in support of Obama. That would be a really big one.

  • The interesting thing about Congressional endorsements is that these people, especially the old timers, have the instincts to know what the political winds are doing. Looking at these endorsements it’s easy to draw the conclusion these endorsers are seeing change coming. Looking at the mass exodus of Republicans from both houses, Congressional Dems have to have a sense of how Congress’ character is changing and why.

    Folks like Kennedy and Kerry witnessed firsthand what it feels like when a new politcal tide comes in, whether that be from the Viet Nam War, post-Watergate, the Reagan era, the Clinton years or the Bush – 9/11 clusterf*ck. Another wave of change is washing over us and I get the impression these endorsers know it’s heading in Obama’s direction.

  • Although given how spectacularly poorly the Congressional Dems have performed lately one could question whether to run screaming away from whomever any of them endorse. . .

    is it too late for Dean to jump in? 🙂

  • Last week, Gore made a pretty big announcement that he is wholly in support of gay marriage – something I have not heard from any of the three Democratic contenders.

    I wondered about that announcement, coming as it did in advance of a Gore endorsement. Was he looking to see what the negative backlash would be, was he looking for one of the Democratic candidates to come out in support, was he trying to decide if his endorsement would help or hurt?

    I have no freakin’ clue – but unless I missed something, Gore’s announcement seemed to fall silently upon the three campaigns.

    Gay marriage is a pretty big lightning rod, so what is the effect of a Gore endorsement, especially for someone like Obama, who is reaching out to Republicans and independents? Does it become a tool in the hands of the GOP and put the brakes on a lot of cross-over?

    I’d be curious to know what you all think about that.

  • ***Mouse #18***exactly. Damp*** #20…Yes I have and that’s exactly the point.
    Ted Kennedy is no Jack Kennedy…or Bobby Kennedy though he’s gotten better over the years and to the naive…any figure giving an endorsement at that level is getting something out of it. NOT comparing Hitler to Obama but having the ability to inspire audiences doesn’t exactly translate automatically into achieving good policies. I’m behind the democratic nominee whoever that becomes but Obama and Clinton either one are nearly as progressive as I would want. The question is how to get them there? How do we get “Not For Profit” single payer health care. How do we cut the defense budget in Half and increase SCHIP? How do we get rid of the Military Commissions Act, bring back habeas corpus, ban torture, stop illegal wire tapping, bring accountability back to the executive branch, and revolutionize campaign financing.

    Obama keeps saying ” we have the most…, the greatest… now it’s time for change and blahblahblah without ever a word on what he will do or how he plans to do it. Candidate worship has overcome substance. This site has backed Obama all the way under the guise of being uncommitted but it’s always how great Obama is and how screwed Clinton is with hardly ever a mention of Edwards… and this is my favorite site.
    But here’s some interesting reading for those who want an economic policy change:

    OBAMA and economic plans from “the nation”…
    Obama’s disappointing foreclosure plan stems from the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisers and his campaign’s ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulation. David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman are both Harvard economists who served in the Clinton Administration, and they work on market-oriented solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler advocates improving healthcare through financial incentives; Liebman, the partial privatization of Social Security.
    Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago who calls himself a “centrist market economist,” has been most directly involved with crafting Obama’s subprime agenda. In a column last March in the New York Times, Goolsbee disputed whether “subprime lending was the leading cause of foreclosure problems,” touted its benefits for credit-poor minority borrowers and warned that “regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening [the mortgage market] too much.” In October, no less a conservative luminary than George Will devoted a whole column in the Washington Post to saluting Goolsbee’s “nuanced understanding” of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality and concluded that he “seems to be the sort of fellow–amiable, empirical, and reasonable–you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be.”
    Robert Pollin, an economist at the University of Massachussets, believes “these three advisers generally reflect Obama’s very moderate economic program, similar to Clintonism.” Wall Street apparently has come to a similar conclusion. Obama had received nearly $10 million in contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector through October, and he’s second among presidential candidates of either party in money raised from commercial banks, trailing only Clinton. Goldman Sachs, which made $6 billion from devalued mortgage securities in the first nine months of 2007, is Obama’s top contributor. When asked if Obama would hold these financial institutions accountable for losses incurred by homeowners and investors, his campaign refused to comment.”

    Boston Globe:”…Hillary has trumpeted her experience over Obama’s call for hope and change…” You see how it’s framed? Clinton was also calling for hope and change but mentions the necessity of change and necessity is the mother of…involvement.
    There is always a danger with rabble rousing…er I mean inspiring the audience through emotional pleading. I mean didn’t Bush do the same thing? I will support the dem nominee but I am not blind to those who are unwilling to stand against the money party and will support efforts to stop making the rich richer and the poor poorer while destroying the environment. Chanting Obama Obama Obama reminds me of when Iraqis chanted Sadam. It makes the messenger greater than the message. That’s my resentment with Obama…all I ever hear is how inspiring etc but his Healthcare plan sucks compared to what could be. Same with Clinton’s HCplan. Will he listen to anyone telling him how to improve or change his plan?…Besides his advisors who came up with the plan? The message…the message over the messenger.

  • If nothing else, Ted Kennedy is a delegate vote toward the 2025 Obama will need to win the nomination.

  • He’ll get the Latino vote for Obama. Critical to whoever is nominated. Hillary can hang it up now. The fat lady has sung.

  • Hillary can hang it up now. The fat lady has sung.

    Yep, now that her delegate lead is reduced to only 230 to 152, with slightly more than 10% of the delegates awarded, she’s cooked.

    Um, or is it maybe a *tiny* bit premature to call the nomination decided?

  • Ted Kennedy is a highly respected senior senator and I’m sure his endorsement of Obama will send a positive signal to many undecided voters. In fact, I had forgotten that Hillary Clinton is a friend of the Kennedy family and that makes it all the more significant!

    For Caroline Kennedy who is notoriously private, to go to the extent of writing an op-ed piece in the NYT in support of Obama’s candidacy and to actually compare his inspirational abilities with her father JFK is nothing short of remarkable.

    Not only is JFK still a much loved president in the US, he is still much admired internationally.

    (P.S. If Obama is offering everyone a pony, perhaps its name is Macaroni. I’m only 41 but even I know that!)

  • I sure hope Hillary can hang it up now. Nothing personal, just she is not electable against McCain and he will probably be the R choice.

    Her disapproval ratings have been between 45 and 48 for a year. that means the only way shhe can win is if her opponnent is also unpopular–otherwise there just isn’t a big wnough pool of persuadable voters to make her chances realistic. McCain will kill her. His disapproval rate is only 24 and his approval rate is 74. He has the potential to get undecideds, independents, annd even (although not likely) some Deomcrats. He has lots of room to grow his support . She can’t expect to win over more than another 2%.

    With the media still hating her and withh thhe successful fiftenn year smear campaign agasinst her still in operation he chances of winning over enough to beat McCain really aren’t worth discussing.

    I’m for having a Deomcrat in office next year. That’s why I’m pro-Obama annd anti-Hillary.

  • withh thhe successful fiftenn year smear campaign agasinst her still in operation

    And if our commitment to justice means anything, we should vigorously fight the long, coordinated and baseless campaign, not give into their intended effect, rewarding the Republicans and media for their tactic.

  • TPM/APClinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as “the black candidate,” a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

    How astute of the the Clinton campaign to point this out.

    The GOP’s Southern Strategy rides again. However, this time it’s coming from the Clintons, and they’re adopting it as their Western Strategy to convince Hispanic voters not to vote for “the black candidate” in California.

  • I’ve read Obama’s proposals for the country. They seem remarkably similar to Clinton’s. Both are strong candidates.

    But is being compared to JFK a good thing? Besides the Peace Corps, what did he actually accomplish? He did great speeches which the press adored. What I remember are the Bay of Pigs, the missile show down in Cuba, and the escalations in VietNam. It was LBJ who accomplished things. And made VietNam into a quagmire.

    I do hope Obama is more than exquisite rhetoric and great goals. Inspiration, as my grandmother used to say, is very nice but it doesn’t fill the pot with food.

  • Bjobotts @ 34: Your insinuation that, like mouse, you don’t know anything about Obama, is belied by the rest of your comments. I would also agree that anyone who expects Obama to be a magic elixir will be disappointed. We do, after all, have a democracy, and that means more resistance than impetus. What I hope for is someone who can break through the MSM to convince America that current policies are bringing us closer to a being a third world nation than the great nation we have to potential to be. If he only does that much, better public discussions, better ideas and policies will follow.

    As for the comment about this being a pro-Obama site, I won’t strongly disagree. But it does a good job at evoking discussion. I’m guessing that’s why we both like this site.

  • Inspiration, as my grandmother used to say, is very nice but it doesn’t fill the pot with food.

    I suspect that it’s attitudes lke this that inspired Senator Obama to name his latest book “The Audacity of Hope”.

  • 28 years(give or take) of class warfare, right wing radio, sell out MSM, corporate welfare, unpunished white collar and governmental crime, right wing groupthink tanks, electorally decisive irrational devotees of economic/religious cults, and BjoBotts is worried about Obama’s lack of a specific, appealing message and the impact of non-cerebral voters on the left. Who was the last president to live up to his message? Who was the last presidential candidate to have a specific explicit elaborate agenda who wasnt at best a third string benchwarmer? Who was the last president to get elected without the ‘rabble’?

    Whenever the Clintonites pull a stunt, we are are told, ‘Hey, this isn’t civics class, grow up’, but when Obama tries an approach which couldn’t possibly succeed for HRC, but just might for him, he is accused of playing fast and loose by not providing a sufficiently tempting bullseye.

  • I have read his website. Vague as all the others. He’s not particularly good at debates so far. Hit or miss. He does seem to like a lot of University of Chicago acolytes, especially Austan Goolsbee, who is his econ guru, according to George Will. George Will is quite impressed with him, too, so unless BHO is going to rein in his neo-liberal economic policy team, I fear not much change is in store from Reagan style fiscal policies. Anyone this admired (Goolsbee) by the likes of the late Milton Friedman and the conservative Hoover Institute makes this liberal highly skeptical of BHO’s progressive economic agenda.

  • I have read his website. Vague as all the others.

    Uh-huh. And I have read mouse’s posts. No comment.

  • JK’s great response:

    I suspect that it’s attitudes lke this that inspired Senator Obama to name his latest book “The Audacity of Hope”.

    lol.
    This is starting to remind me of a Kevin Drum thread from circa 2005.
    You know, where the liberal locals used to totally skewer weak republican talking points.

    More. Better. Hillary. Talking. Points. Please.

  • And if our commitment to justice means anything, we should vigorously fight the long, coordinated and baseless campaign, not give into their intended effect, rewarding the Republicans and media for their tactic.

    I’m with you on how frustrating it would be to give up on a good candidate just because the Republican machine is so single-minded about destroying her.

    But given a choice of either living up to our commitment to justice and seeing President McCain, or of deciding that the country’s needs are more important than fighting this battle, I am sorely tempted to come down on the side of the good of the country.

  • Jen Flowers:

    But is being compared to JFK a good thing?

    Crickey.

    Lookie:

    Hillary is winning in the polls for Super Tuesday.
    Chances are good she will be your nominee.
    No reason to get desperate and start typing drivel.

  • Face the Nation: Today on Face the Nation, Senator Clinton said, “I, of course, was very honored to win in Michigan.

    Those of us who follow this stuff know why Clinton won in Michigan, where no other Democratic candidate was on the ballot there–specifically to show support for the national Democratic Party’s decision to punish the state parties of both Florida and Michigan for moving their primaries up before super Tuesday. Unlike both the GOP and Hillary Clinton, the national Democratic party and all the other Democratic presidential candidates, this year, wanted states with diverse populations (compared to Iowa and NH) to have a bigger role in which candidate ultimately gets nominated. Hence, the elections in Nevada and South Carolina.

    Now, breaking her agreement, Hillary Clinton is taking credit for winning a primary where nobody campaigned and where she was the only name on the ballot, and she plans to exactly do the same when the Florida non-delegate primaries are over. If she tries to get a bounce from these two primaries, then she should be rewarded with another thumpin’ on Super Tuesday.

    I can’t overstate how disgusted I am with the Clintons these days.

  • Not only were the other candidates off the ballot, write in votes for candidates who were not on the ballot weren’t even counted.

    I hope that the super delegates take this disregard for the party’s rules into account when deciding who to back. This one just might be close enough that the party leaders who are super delegates could wind up making the decision.

  • Mouse, you will not receive a pony. You will receive a great big bag of processed pony poo. From China. With ample quantities of antifreeze, lead paint, and tiny plastic parts designated as “official HRC choke hazards” included.

    It is odd, given the amount of effort expended by Fortress Clinton to garner TK’s endorsement, that it’s suddenly “meaningless” to so many who identify themselves as ardent Clinton supporters. I’ll wager that the endorsement would have been held in much greater esteem by those particular individuals, had it been given to HRC instead of Obama.

    One can only wonder at the angst coming from the Clinton camp right now. Everyone keeps peddling the line of “let’s just get on to 2/5.” Could it be that February 5th isn’t coming fast enough for some people—and that there might be some concern that those nine long days might be enough to allow for a wholesale erosion of Clinton support?

    It should also be noted that Clinton’s delegate lead is wholly based upon “superdelegates”—and those particular delegates are not committed in any way, shape, or form. If it comes down to HRC garnering the nomination via those superdelegates, when Obama holds the majority of committed delegates obtained through the decision of those who voted in the primaries, then Clinton will go into a general election with the tag of having stolen the nomination—and it is an absolute certainty that the GOP will make that a prime election issue. We tagged Bu$h with that label in both 2000 and 2004; to send up a nominee in 2008 who can be called “a nomination thief” could well force vast numbers of centrist-leaning Dems and Indies into the GOP camp.

    That is the nightmare scenario—and I imagine the GOPers are licking their chops at the prospect….

  • Newsflash for non political junkies – endorsements by overweight politicians, rock stars, statisticians and high school students do not matter.

    Now back to your regular political junkie blogging.

  • ***laura***get a grip. No republican will win the WH this election… period. After the horrors of Bush and the republican obstructionism and policy disasters. Don’t buy into that RW cadence. McCain is still a republican with no healthcare plan, no economic plan, worthless Iraq plans, immigration disaster, permanent tax cuts for the rich, I mean really, you’re being paranoid and spreading it. It’s just another way to keep one from nominating Hillary planned years before hand. This is what Operation Mockingbird is all about. Hillary would wipe the floor with McCain or any other republican candidate and I’m not a Hillary supporter but I know no matter who we nominate they will be the next president. The overwhelming number of democratic voters and those voting democratic turning out are evidence of the necessity to rid the WH of republicans.

    Mouse…glad you took the time to read who Obama’s economic advisers are and what ideas they are pushing. If more Obama supporters would do that then maybe we could influence the Obama campaign to pull in more progressive economic advisers. You can’t get Obama supporters to listen to anything they perceive as possibly being negative toward their candidate. Strong possibility we will be voting for him for president so hopefully we can get him to rethink his economic policies before that happens.

  • ROTFL –

    I always find it interesting when the attacks go personal when they don’t need to.

    This country idolizes JFK and I don’t understand why he is considered great and Woodrow Wilson isn’t. They both promoted great ideas and failed to enact change. Jimmy Carter fits in that category too, although he wasn’t on their level of aspiration. I genuinely hope Obama is more. But I do have reservations. I’m old enough to have seen the bright lights of idealism hit the mud of compromise several times. And mud prevails. I wish it didn’t, but inspiration isn’t enough. I don’t know enough about Obama either. I know his rhetoric, I know his positions, but without the baggage of making decisions under fire, I don’t have a measure of him. I only know what he projects. All politicians are salesmen. Caveat emptor.

    We all so desperately want this country back on track. I just hope that the electorate isn’t projecting hope to the detriment of good judgment.

    If you want to ridicule me for trying to find the best solution, be my guest.

  • Newsflash for political junkies: Anybody who tells you that Ted Kennedy’s endorsement doesn’t matter is a non political junkie–

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7405.html

    The senator reeled in Iowans for John Kerry in 2004, drawing crowds that only Howard Dean could muster. Democratic activist Bonnie Campbell, who was backing Dean, recalls walking into her Des Moines precinct on caucus night, spotting Kennedy in the doorway, and hearing her husband say: “We are screwed.”

    Now back to your regular Hillary talking points nonsense.

  • We don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered.” (i.e. the audacity of hope)

    Hillary Clinton…the N.H. debate (I still have it on Tivo).

  • Jen, you are being intellectually dishonest.

    I’ve read your stuff. I know your bias.
    If Hillary had gotten Ted’s nod you would have been thrilled.
    If Hillary was being compared to JFK you would be thrilled.

    But because Barack got the first, and because Caroline said the second…

    You dare to ask: But is being compared to JFK a good thing?
    And then make some specious argument about JFK’s actual accomplishments.

    Being compared to JFK is 1000 light years away from all that drivel… er, nonsense.
    Did you read Caroline’s op-ed?
    Do you remember Bill Clinton’s handshake with JFK?
    It is about inspiring people from all walks of life.
    But especially, about inspiring the youth of America.
    Let me spell that out:
    I-N-S-P-I-R-A-T-I-O-N.

    The most endearing moment of Obama’s speech last night was afterwards when he walked through the crowd. I remember seeing a young African American boy being help up to him.
    The look on that child’s face meant the world to me.
    I saw hope.
    I saw a young life forever changed.

    I-N-S-P-I-R-A-T-I-O-N

  • (#12) NonyNony said:

    So it comes down to – how difficult is Clinton to work with that her co-workers are standing in line to stab her in the back?

    Not sure why endorsing Obama equates to “stabbing” Clinton in the back. They are his co-workers too…

  • As a 22 year-old African-American I cannot wait until my Caucasian & Latino friends get to vote on Feb. 5th. It’s no secret that people like to support people who look like them but this is ridiculous. This man has no experience–would you let a 3rd-year med student do open-heart surgery on you…NO. This means political war and I have distanced myself from some of my family who blindly support Obama because he is black. My city (Memphis) does the same thing—I guess some people love mayors that do nothing as a city declines, but my Mom & Dad got a clue and moved to the county, outside of city limits. I am currently in grad school and I want all you Obama supporters to email me at bhubbar@yahoo.com after Feb. 5 so I can gloat.

  • bjobotts @ 57

    No republican will win the WH this election… period.

    Sounds like bjobotts is going to be one brokenhearted person in November…

  • I watched the returns last night with my visiting sisters from Chicago, ages 62 and 61, and the daughter of one of them and her husband. My niece and her husband are mid-30s.

    One sister was already for Obama, as is my nephew-in-law. My other sister and her daughter were undecided. After last night’s speech, both my sister and niece announced they were firmly for Obama.

    In the car, driving to the airport in Albuquerque from here in Santa Fe this morning, we all decided that Obama’s “face” is what we want the world to see. That after seven years plus of Bush and the steady decline of our status in the world due to his mal-administration, we want the world to see that the United States is ready to embrace a different world view from the white man’s face and principles.

    It’s a little hard to explain here, but we feel the world is looking at the US in this election to see in which direction we will turn. To the future or to the past.

    Oh, and IF Hillary gets the nomination, we will all vote for her. But, we’d REALLY like to see the torch passed!

  • The question is whether the torch is being passed to the younger generation and to Obama. It appears he may have to pry it from Bill Clinton’s cold dead fingers…. Personally, I hope the torch does get passed. I am about to expire of Clinton fatigue. Let’s please MOVE ON!

  • It’s amazing how the posts here reflect the brilliance of Obama’s strategy. If you’re a Hillary supporter you either have to pretend that Hillary actually represents change in a way that Obama does not, or you have to argue that Obama’s rhetoric is empty.

    Hillary seems to going for the “I’m actually change” line, with a little bit of the “false hope” thrown in for good measure. Most posters in the blogocracy appear to be going solely for the”false hope” route.

    I hate to break it to her supporters on this blog, but the “false hope” line is a dead end. That speech in South Carolina dug its grave. Now, “false hope” sounds like you’re telling young black kids in this country to get to the back of the line and wait for a “more experienced” candidate. It seems like you’re telling the young voters in this party to get IN line and support the great partisan fight against the evil conservatives until the end of time.

    Now, you tell me whether the “I’m actually change” strategy will work. It might just befuddle enough voters to keep Hillary’s majority in a few states until February, but Ted and Caroline’s endorsement just made it incredibly hard.

    And from the personal standpoint of a life-long cynic, I actually had tears in my eyes after Obama’s victory speech (and my unregistered and rather a-political wife quietly asked me how to register as a Democrat in New York).

  • This man [Obama] has no experience…

    Seven years as an Ilinois legislator. Three years as a U.S. Senator. Ten years total in elected office at both the state and national level plus his experience as an attorney and community activist.

    Compare to Hillary Clinton’s total of seven years of experience as an elected official plus her time as a lawyer and activist (part of it as an activist for Barry Goldwater). Others count her time as first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. as experience, but frankly, I do not (unless you want to include her health care debacle and her trip to Bosnia with Sinbad the comedian as experience).

    And if judgement matters (it does), Obama was against the war in Iraq while Clinton not only voted to authorize it, but cheered it on as Hans Blix was asking for more time to continue the inspections.

    George H.W. Bush had more experience than Bill Clinton when they ran against each other. Carter had more experience than Reagan. Nixon had more experience than Kennedy. Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden each had more experience in their little fingers than Hillary Clinton has.

    Despite the fact that Obama has more elective experience than Hillary Clinton, and a comparable amount of life experience, I’ll say that the experience argument is and always has been weak when the issues, integrity, judgement, and candor count so much more.

    Focusing almost entirely on experience is a lazy argument that the older politician uses when he or she is getting his or her butt kicked by the younger politician, and as we saw in 1992, it reasonably gets dismissed by the electorate when other more important characteristics are on display for consideration.

  • We don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered.” (i.e. the audacity of hope)

    a cartoon in the NY observer had HRC selling her book “The Audacity of Nope”

  • Katie,

    Plus also add his experience as a professor of Constitutional law. I think that experience is quite valuable in restoring the mess that Bush is leaving behind.

    Not long ago one of the newspapers surveyed all the candidates on issues regarding presidential power. Obama had a clear advantage in answering those questions. This also might add to his stress on separation of church and state while discussing religion.

  • Meet The Press addresses Clinton’s race-baiting:

    Today (27/01/08), an amazing thing happened; the MTP panel confronted the Clinton’s race-baiting strategy against Obama head on. Here’s the link. Watch it for yourself. The discussion begins at around 27 minutes (after the John McCain interview).

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22867810#22867810

    Will the rest of the MSM follow suit?

  • As a 22 year-old African-American I cannot wait until my Caucasian & Latino friends get to vote on Feb. 5th…This means political war and I have distanced myself from some of my family who blindly support Obama because he is black.

    This young man yearns for others to vote against a candidate because of race, and he “distances” himself from his loved ones because he doesn’t trust their judgement in the voting booth.

    Disturbing…to say the least.

  • It’s also a demonstration of who well-liked/respected Clinton is by her senatorial colleagues. Sounds to me like she’s still Senator “I Know Best” like she was when she screwed the pooch on health care reform 15 years ago.

    The Clintons have no one to blame but themselves for people seeing that the Same Old Same Old is back again. They’re the ones shooting themselves in the foot and reminding people why they don’t like these two bozos.

    For you Billary supporters, I strongly suggest you go listen to Obama’s victory speech Friday in South Carolina. Nearest I know is to go to TPM and click their front page link to the YouTube video.

  • Focusing almost entirely on experience is a lazy argument that the older politician uses when he or she is getting his or her butt kicked by the younger politician, and as we saw in 1992, it reasonably gets dismissed by the electorate when other more important characteristics are on display for consideration.

    Right on, Katie!

    Yes we can!

  • Jen Flowers (#58) asked: I don’t understand why he is considered great and Woodrow Wilson isn’t.

    Since you’re too young and uneducated on the history of which you try to speak to really know what you’re talking about, herewith a history lesson:

    JFK being considered great might have something to do with Wilson being a narrow-minded Southern white supremacist and racist who was responsible for bringing Jim Crow to the Federal givernment. JFK certainly wasn’t a supporter of such policies (which even FDR had acquiesced to), and in fact did as much as anyone to that date to undo Wilson’s baleful influence on race in America. JFK was in fact working to bring the power of the federal government to bear on breaking the Confederacy and its resistance to the civil rights movement, which no other President had done so decisively before him.

    As to Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis, I can tell you personally – as someone who expected to die flying an airplane into a Russian missile submarine cruising southeast of San Clemente Island on the night of October 24, 1962, had it surfaced to launch its missiles at Los Angeles – that this was the point we ever came the closest to a nuclear exchange with the USSR. Kennedy handled the crisis so well, and negotiated things with Kruschev to defuse the crisis so well, that it is still studied today for lessons to be learned.

    Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs: The Bay of Pigs was a failed Republican conspiracy left behind by Eisenhower. When it failed, despite his not have had anything to do with authorizing or planning it, Kennedy accepted responsibility for it publicly and admitted it was wrong.

    Kennedy also stood up to the Soviets over Berlin when Krushchev ordered the building of the Berlin Wall. His “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech may have been gramatically incorrect, but the message to the Germans and to Krushchev and the Soviets was clear: he was no kid they were going to push around.

    As to your denigration of the importance of Presidential rhetoric, I can again tell you from personal experience that listening to his Inaugural Address sent shivers up my spine and the spine of everyone else I have ever known who became a “Sixties activist”, and it inspired what became “the Sixties,” which I am certain was something JFK did not expect but would not have been surprised by had he lived to see it. His call for us to go to the moon is directly responsible for the development of the technology that allows you and I to communicate here on this forum.

    Perhaps before you go dismissing history, you might take the time to actually study it, because for those of us who know the history because we lived it, you do your intellectual reputation no good the way you carry on now.

  • Lots of good comments upthread. I will just add that the biggest reason that Ted Kennedy matters to me is super-delegates. I have been worried for some time now that Obama might win the delegate count and lose the superdelgates by enough to throw things to Hillary. In that case, I think the Democratic electorate might be so badly split that it wouldn’t pull together for the general, leading to another four years of Republican nightmare.

  • You know what’s funny is that JFK wasn’t a “50% + 1” president (or however the meme goes). JFK was a 49.6% + 0.1 president.

  • I’ve been reading and listening to the comments about the Clinton campaign for quite some time now. I listen to supposed Obama supporters spewing the kind of Rovian hatred of Clinton that I know so well. In my opinion the Repubs would love to have Obama as the Demo nominee. I think they see him as “easy prey” in a general election. I also don’t think they relish another go around with the Clinton(s.
    Say what you will. Bill Clinton and Company know how to kick Repub ass and they want no part of that. Aside from the fact that Obama is going to have to provide more proof to me and many others that he is the man for the job, I can’t help questioning the vitriol displayed on these blogs supposed in behalf of Obama.
    If that is truly who you are I don’t want any part of you. Let’s leave the dirty work to the professionals and concentrate on the issues and who speaks best to them.
    Feb 5th should provide us all with a good idea about what the majority of Dems think. I settle for that and support that Dem nominee. Not provide fodder for the Repubs or the media.

  • Such short memories, doesn’t anyone remember what happened in Iowa 4 years ago when Kennedy gave the Kerry campaign a charisma transplant the last week before the caucus?

    This time it will be much, much bigger.

  • I think that what made JFK great was what made Jimmie Hendrix great – not literally, of course, I doubt JFK would recognize a Stratocaster if he found it in his bed – but in that nobody knows what he might have become had he lived. JFK had the power to inspire people and take them out of themselves. He knew how to make a speech (which he likely didn’t write himself) and make people believe every word.

    That said, any GOP readers would be encouraged to see the regular commenters turning on each other here, as if nobody is entitled to an opinion. Saying JFK wasn’t great is not like farting in church, and shouldn’t inspire a storm of nerdy derision. Personally, I thought JFK WAS great, but not for reasons I’d have to look up in a book.

    I looked for the “Rovian hatred” of Hillary Clinton in quite a few threads, and I didn’t see it anywhere. I saw quite a few commenters make a case that Hillary Clinton is a polarizing candidate who turns a lot of people off, and who would likely energize the conservative base against her, since the thought of another Clinton presidency inspires a lot more fury in GOP-land than the possibility of an Obama presidency. I didn’t see much there to disagree with.

    Some people are getting wound a little too tight, considering it’s early days yet. Never mind driving a wedge in the Democratic voter base – the GOP could drive an 18-wheeler through it right now, and they wouldn’t even have to say, “mind your toes”.

  • I listen to supposed Obama supporters spewing the kind of Rovian hatred of Clinton that I know so well…Bill Clinton and Company know how to kick Repub ass and they want no part of that.

    Karl Rove himself couldn’t have done a better job of twisting the truth than fillphil does.

    It is Bill Clinton and the Clinton campaign which has been waging a campaign based upon outright lies and race baiting, falling every bit as low as Karl Rove. It is the Clinton campaign which has decided to divide the Democratic Party if they think it will allow Hillary to win the nomination. It is the Clinton campaign which has showed it is willing to say anything, regardless of how dishonest, or do anything, again regardless of how dishonest, in order to try to win.

    The reaction isn’t “hatred of Clinton.” It is disgust for this type of tactic. It is disgusting when done by Karl Rove, it is disgusting when done by the Clinton campaign, and it is disgusting when rationalized by Clinton supporters.

    It isn’t just the Clinton supporters posting on blogs. Numerous long time Clinton supporters have spoken out against these tactics in the media. Ted Kennedy has cited these unsavory tactics as a reason for his endorsement of Obama.

  • Dear RonChusid: Let’s go at it again. Hillary Clinton wants to get the Democratic nomination. So, her tact is to “drive a wedge” thru the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton wants the Dem nomination so she thinks that “inroducing the race card” is the answer. Listen to your own self talk. Does that make any sense? Is that anyway to get the nomination in the Dem Party? How stupid do you think Hillary Clinton is? How stupid do you think we are?
    On another thread I invited other readers to visit your web site. They can discover for themselves what your true agenda is. You are the type I’ve referred to in my earlier post.
    p.s. Again I ask you- Is the fact that you are a physician have anything to do with your intense dislike of Hillary Clinton? Still practicing or living on your drug stocks?

  • fillphil,

    The fact that Clinton’s tactics backfired doesn’t mean that this is not what she did. I have provided a considerable amount of evidence to back up my arguments on my blog, and many others have done the same.

    How stupid do you think we are? It is hardly only me making these accusations about Clinton. Are all the journalists and politicians, such as Ted Kennedy, who are making the same charges against the Clintons also trying to deceive you?

    You are really a disgusting piece of slime. You attack the messenger because you can’t accept the truth. I have provided extensive documentation of the lies and race baiting used, quoting multiple sources. You repeatedly respond with personal attacks upon me, using the tactics of a Karl Rove.

    Facts are facts. I have no “true agenda.” My agenda is cleaning up government. I have been protesting these types of tactics from the Republicans for years. I will similarly protest these types of tactics which undermine our system of democracy when practiced by democrats. This is not about whether I dislike Hillary Clinton. It is about opposing the types of tactics she has resorted to.

  • Like i said. I invite any and all who come across this tiff between you and I to vist your web site. There will probably be other “disgusting pieces of slime” who might question you as I do.

    My question stands: If intended, what do you think Hillary thought she stood to gain from Dem voters? Do you think she is so stupid to intentionally resort to the lying and tactics thinking she would attract more votes?

    I think the information you tend to furnish on your web site says exactly what you want it to say. Total agreement w/ your Hillary hate.

    p.s Take a pill Doc and worry about your drug stocks. Hillary’s gonna get you!

  • If intended, what do you think Hillary thought she stood to gain from Dem voters? Do you think she is so stupid to intentionally resort to the lying and tactics thinking she would attract more votes?

    She expected to gain votes from people who were deceived about Obama’s real positions when she sent out mailers and made statements lying about what Obama has said. It could have worked if the media hadn’t exposed many of these lies.

    Her strategy on race baiting is to turn the race into a black vs. white vote after she found Obama receiving a considerable number of white votes.

    As I said facts are facts. You are being extremely dishonest in portraying this as me disliking Hillary and then posting information information based upon that. I have posted the facts as they are, and have opposed Clinton due to these tactics. As I said above, these are not only my views. These views are well documented and are being expressed by many prominent journalists and many Democratic leaders. South Carolina exit polls also show that many voters also felt this way, leading to their votes against Clinton.

    Once again, facts are facts. I have also defended Clinton against some attacks in the past when the facts have been on her side. I’m interested in the truth. Lately the facts provide a pretty negative picture of Clinton. This is not what I want to find but what I regret to find to be true about a Democratic candidate.

    As the facts disprove what you claim you repeatedly resort to personal attacks and invent claims of having an evil agenda. Your smears do nothing to change the truth about the tactics the Clinton campaign has engaged in.

    Your attempts to wage flame wars against those who document the truth is just a sick means of denying reality.

  • Just Like Her Daddy and Worse

    The Princess Royal of the Kennedy clan, who has herself accomplished nothing in life except being born to wealth and privilege, has draped her father’s moth-eaten cloak on Barack Obama, who, in her father’s White House, would have been a footman or cook. Say what you will about Obama, he got there himself without the benefit of a rich daddy or corrupt political machine. He may be more unprepared to be president and more disastrous for this country than was JFK, but we hope, at least, that he will be impervious to “love notes” from middle-aged political camp followers who are still trying to be influential without ever being relevant.

    Tomorrow the black sheep of the family, Sen. Ted Kennedy, will follow in his niece Caroline’s footsteps and endorse Obama at American University. It is still possible that some Kennedy cousin might endorse Hillary; perhaps the other murderer or the rapist.

    http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com

  • I am cheered, especially uplifted to see that Democratics…who time and again vote with Bush (against) matters of the poor and working class, for even more corporate control, eviscerating civil liberties and the Constitution are endorsing Barack Obama…

  • Fillphil—Ron’s comments on his blog are spot-on.

    Let’s see—what were those words from the other day? Oh, yeah—“thanks for playing, don’t try again.” Sound familiar?

  • I’d suggest that Fillphil (or anybody else for that matter) read post number 53 above. As indicated, Senator Clinton is essentially breaking her agreement with the national Democratic party and her Democratic colleagues by trying to generate publicity for the MI/FL primaries and offering to fight to have delegates from these two states seated at the national convention. (I heard this morning on the Today show that she has announced to Floridians that she will be in Florida on Tuesday for the non-delegate primaries to make her “victory” speech.)

    There is nothing in that post but facts which underscore the truth that Hillary Clinton is both dishonest and desperate. Such tactics (applying the “Southern Strategy” in California to drive a wedge between Hispanic voters and “the black candidate” and breaking her agreement about Michigan/Florida) might work…but she’s already lost my respect and admiration forever.

  • zeitgeist @72 said:

    Actually, Hillary is now leading the Kennedy Primary 3 votes to 2. 🙂

    So I guess it could be said that the newer generation of Kennedy’s, by 3 to 1, prefer the torch be passed to Hillary Clinton. Anyway, Clinton would have been what, 15 or 16 when JFK was shot?

  • Hey Missy,

    It appears Hillary Clinton is abiding by the letter of the Florida pledge. Barack Obama is not actually, as he is sort of accidentally advertising in Florida right now on cable TV — a minor and understandable infraction, certainly, but glass houses and all that.

  • Hillary Clinton is abiding by the letter of the Florida pledge. Barack Obama is not actually, as he is sort of accidentally advertising in Florida right now on cable TV — a minor and understandable infraction…

    I’m disappointed that some would make comparisons where no comparison exists.

    Hillary is claiming victory in a state where the other candidates did not even put their name on the ballot (MI). And now she announces that she’ll be in Florida on primary day to claim victory in a state where her opponents are not campaigning, per their agreement.

    Let’s not forget that the reason that the national party is punishing MI and FL is to give states with more diverse populations more say in the outcome of the Democratic race. Clinton is sticking her finger in the eye of this idea in order to win cheap points going into super Tuesday.

    As Missy correctly pointed out, Clinton continues to display her dishonesty and desperation for all to see.

  • It is debatable in comparing Obama’s cable ads being included in Florida versus the number of times Clinton has made public statements to appeal to Florida.

    The situation is far more clear cut in Michigan where she clearly pulled a fast one in keeping her name on the ballot when her opponents had their names removed, expecting Clinton to keep the pledge that all of them made to do so.

  • I am amazed at how much influence the media has given to Kerry, Kennedy, considering any other time you hear about these two it is some off hand way to put them down, but suddenly they have become the new elite elder statesmen of the Democratic party, I will state what I have stated before, WHO CARES, these people didn’t make a dent in politics for themselves, so who cares what they think of Bill Clinton, He was President, I like what he is doing, he is saying the truth and everyone knows it. Obama should have taken S. Carolina, if he didn’t it would have been a bigger let down for him than John Edwards, I hear everyone saying he is crossing over, WHERE, I talk to everyone I know and not one is going to vote for Obama, not because he is black but because He is arrogant, He thinks he is due this because he is black, What has he done to deserve the nomination, NOTHING, if he were white with his credentials you would all talk about his lack of experience, He cannot and will not win the national election, and we will have this corrupt bunch of Republicans around again, through our politically correct stupidity.

  • More dishonest behavior from Hillary Clinton —

    USA Today: “Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton, senator from New York, greets the press as she arrives in Sarasota, Fla., on Sunday.”

  • In comment #34, Bjobotts quotes the op-ed piece in this week’s Nation that I was going to refer to in order to explain why, as much as I loathe Sen. Clinton, I am reluctant (to put it mildly) to get behind Obama. From health care, to social security, to the mess of financial markets, Obama’s economic agenda has been timid at best and often contains regressive measures — not much in the way of “change” that all his supporters have been shouting about.

  • Um, CJ, the party/candidate decision/boycott on Florida specifically permitted fundraising there; HRC is in Florida for a fundraiser, which is permitted. Yes, I know the line between campaigning and fundraising is slim, but that was the way the deal has always been structured.

  • Um Zeitgeist,

    1. Clinton went on national television yesterday and trumpeted her victory in Michigan…a state where her opponents, consistent with both the letter and spirit of the agreement, did not even place their names on the ballot.

    2. Only after it became apparent that she would lose South Carolina, Clinton decided to advocate “on behalf of” Florida and Michigan delegates seeking to have them seated at the national convention (directly contradicting her expressed support for this decision by agreeing not to campaign in those states).

    3. Clinton arrives in Florida two days before their primary for “fundraising” events (speaking to the local press about Florida delegates).

    4. Clinton announces her intention to be in Florida on the day of the primary to make her “victory” speech (again, in a state where her opponents, consistent with their agreement, have not campaigned).

    5. With her new found advocacy on behalf of Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton spits in the eye of Howard Dean, the national party and all the Democrats who worked and supported the decision to punish MI/FL for moving their primaries up such that they would dilute the voices of diverse populations living in Nevada and South Carolina.

    With all due respect, this “abiding by the letter” crap is exactly that. Hillary Clinton is thoroughly dishonest.

  • CJ,

    That’s the problem. She might be abiding by the letter, allowing her supporters to defend her, but it only highlights how little integrity she has.

    I can only imagine how she might abide by the letter of the law while following in Bush’s foot steps in deceiving the country and abusing presidential power.

    She has no concept that for many voters integrity really does matter. I’m sure she assumes that she can do anything to win the nomination and then Democratic voters will fall in line.

  • I remember that people were wondering why Hillary kept her name on the Michigan ballot when Obama and Edwards had their names removed. Now we know.

  • Comments are closed.