Will Kennedy’s Obama endorsement matter? If so, how much?

Following up on yesterday’s discussion, Sen. Edward Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama at an event in DC about an hour ago. It was apparently a well-attended event — Salon’s Tim Grieve reported, “After standing outdoors for more than two hours in a line that stretched along several blocks — and eventually getting within 20 feet of the entrance doors — we were told that the roughly 6,000-seat Bender Auditorium at American University was completely full. At least several thousand people were in line behind us.”

The AP noted that Kennedy’s support for the Illinois senator was quite enthusiastic.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday as a “man with extraordinary gifts of leadership and character,” a worthy heir to his assassinated brother.

“I feel change in the air. What about you?” Kennedy said in a speech salted with scarcely veiled criticism of Obama’s chief rival for the nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as her husband, the former president. […]

“From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth,” he said, an obvious reference to former President Clinton’s statement that Obama’s early anti-war stance was a “fairy tale.”

“With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion. With Barack Obama we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay,” Kennedy said.

As I’ve noted more than once, I’m generally skeptical about whether high-profile endorsements translate to actual votes, but given Ted Kennedy’s near-unparalleled stature in the party, it’s worth considering today’s announcement in more detail.

Jon Cohn and Marc Ambinder both have interesting items exploring the significance of Kennedy’s endorsement, but I thought I’d summarize with some bullet-points. The benefits:

* Obama needs a boost among Latinos, union members, downscale workers, and the liberal establishment, and each of these constituencies hold Kennedy in the highest regard.

* Kennedy’s stature among older Dems couldn’t be higher, and Obama needs to make more inroads among seniors.

* Post-South Carolina, Obama wants to keep up the momentum, particularly in the media, and today helps.

* Kennedy, in many ways, embodies the pragmatic liberalism Obama has in mind. As Ambinder put it, “In some ways, there may be no member of the Democratic pantheon who better reflects the consensus-based, transformative and activist-oriented politics that Obama embraces.”

* Massachusetts is a delegate-rich Feb. 5 state, and Obama now has support from both Kennedy and Gov. Deval Patrick.

* The JFK connection the Obama campaign has been subtly pushing (at times, not so subtly) just got a big boost.

* As Cohn put it, there have been many with “misgivings … that Obama was insufficiently committed to a progressive policy agenda and that he lacked the savvy to enact an ambitious, necessarily controversial agenda.” If Kennedy backs him, those misgivings are at least partially alleviated.

* The Obama campaign gets to say, “Kennedy saw both Obama and Clinton up close, working side by side. And he wants Obama to be president.”

Maybe these points will give Obama a boost; maybe not. But my hunch is, putting aside logic, polls, and charts, there are a whole lot of Dems who, on just a gut level, are willing to take Ted Kennedy’s word for it. Ezra had an item this morning about his grandmother.

Throughout this primary, there’s been very little I could bank on. Certainly not my preference in candidates. That changed with the tides. Not the preferences of my friends, or the voters. The candidates themselves shifted and shimmered and changed, and so did the campaigns they ran. But there was one thing I could count on: My grandmother did not like Barack Obama. Not one little bit. No sir.

Yesterday, she told me she voted for him.

There were a couple of reasons. One, “it’s your generation’s turn. We’ve screwed everything up. Now you get a chance.” That, alone, though, wasn’t enough. “I think it’s terrible how that Mr. Clinton acted.” My grandmother still admires and respects Hillary, but Bill’s behavior has alienated her from the Clinton campaign. “It’s just terrible,” she said. And, finally, “I read Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement, and if her and Ted Kennedy are endorsing, he must be okay.”

It’s a very human response: If Kennedy likes Obama, Obama must be pretty good.

So, will the endorsement make a difference? Arguably, the trick is to figure out just how many Dems there are who think like Ezra’s grandmother. Stay tuned.

I just think it’s unfortunate that the way the nomination race is shaping up, Democratic voters and the Democratic party are increasingly faced with either blanket acceptance of the Clintons’ questionable ethics, or repudiation of the Clintons altogether. Neither choice is a good one.

I like Hilary and I think she would be a medium-to-good President. But in the future I will be very, very unlikely to support the spouses or close relatives of the party’s elder statesmen. It just creates too much of a conflict of interest when you have some of the party’s best and brightest tearing each other apart for reasons that one can only suspect have nothing to do with actual politics and everything to do do with familial ties.

Obama is a deeply flawed candidate, but I am increasingly of the opinion that the benefits of removing the Democratic party’s royal family from power far outweigh any missteps he might make as President.

  • Those were some speeches the three Kennedys and Obama gave!

    A wonderful rally, and, hopefully, a harbinger of future events. This Baby Boomer is more than ready to pass the power to obama.

  • Inasmuch as late undecideds have played a role in the contests to date, the timing of the Kennedy endorsements and the endorsements themselves may well make a difference. To those who wondered whether Obama was liberal enough, this provides some validation. And being able to invoke the legend of JFK with the backing of his daughter and brother — heady stuff.

  • I suspect there will be a fair number of older folks who will not want to hand the presidency to such a young man, let alone a black one. But those people would also not want to support Hillary, so it’s probably a wash. The number of young people, on the other hand, isn’t even close. If Obama can lead those millions of new voters to the voting booth, the Dems will keep most of them for the rest of their lives.

    I’m Glad Hillary’s team got sloppy, we need this thing to be over soon, to focus on the real target.

  • I’m generally skeptical about whether high-profile endorsements translate to actual votes..

    The actual endorsement? Nope. Opening up the Rolodex filled with potential campaign donors? Yep. Oprah, Kerry, and Kennedy have some pretty good connections that have translated to votes…

  • With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of . . . straight against gay

    Given some of Obama’s past campaigning, I remain a bit skeptical on this one.

  • A a Gay American and life-long Democrat, I will not vote for Donnie McCulkan’s BFF Senator Obama. Obama’s decision to share a stage with a man who called me and every other Gay American a “child molestor” is something Mike Huckabee would do and not something I can support. While this will be a very difficult election cycle for me and I will vote for every other pro-Gay rights Democrat on my state’s ticket, I am tired of listening to politicians claim to be for individual freedom and then do what Obama did and give authority to the ultimate example of a Gay hating bigot. I realize I am in a minority with my view, but I would rather have a Bush third term than allow the Democratic party to embrace the Donnie McCulkan’s of the world. Maybe after 4 years of a Romney or McCain, the bigots in the party will finally “get it”.

  • Brooks (#1) said: I am increasingly of the opinion that the benefits of removing the Democratic party’s royal family from power far outweigh any missteps he might make as President.

    Exactly the point! We have to stop 20 years of Clinton-Bush ping-pong, as a poster put it here last week. Constitutional Republics can’t survive this, and as we have learned in the past 8 years, they are incredibly fragile. Letting a pair of narcissists destory the country over their egos is as bad as letting a moron have the keys to the kingdom.

  • The Ted Kennedy endorsement is good for a few days, especially if he goes on the road for a few speeches like today’s. What is more impressive, however, is that Obama is picking up these important endorsements ar key moments and in a crescendo-like manner. It’s all about momentum, and we’ll see how it plays out next week.

  • I’m back to the position that I’m glad they had it out. Obama erased one of my major reservations by showing himself immune to attempts to cast him as the “black” candidate, or to suggest he’s corrupt. The GOP has to be crapping their pants right now, seeing how well that worked for the Clintons. It’s one of those benefits of likeability — if you like him, nothing sticks. They hate you, everything does.

    For a “hope” campaign to work, people need to like him, and he needs to be able to stay out of the mud. He may actually have the planets aligning for that — if he runs a positive campaign, and all the nastiness that gets thrown at him can work to his advantage by making his opponents look cynical and soulless. He doesn’t have to bring a gun to a gunfight because he’s bulletproof.

    What Hillary is figuring out, and has to figure out now, is the trickiness of using her President husband without weakening her. She’s in new territory.

    Regardless, I think the Clinton era has been vindicated. The most despised administration among the villagers was a success by any objective measure, and the beloved administration of the village was an abject failure by any objective measure. ABC (Anything But Clinton) produced C-R-A-P. Broder and his like have finally had to concede their boy king was an embarrassment, but getting them to accept the bane of all evil was the golden age might be too much for them to bear.
    What Obama gives the villagers is a way to embrace the Clinton “Third Way”, and still dance on Hillary’s grave. So he’s the Villagers’ idea of changing Washington they can embrace.

    For my own part, I’d like to see all this inspirational rhetoric about changing politics have some actual meat behind it. Being against the war in the beginning doesn’t mean much if, when you’re being groomed for the Presidency, you adopt the same policies, or don’t go as far as Hillary on healthcare, or don’t show me how you’ll change the way money works in Washington. In some ways, I have more faith that Hillary has the political instincts to recognize we need to turn the page on the Clinton era and enter the “new politics” of Krugman (who Obama smeared), Josh Marshall and Al Gore.

    That would be her best move: it would show she is different from her husband, the same way Bush distinguished himself by tossing aside so much of his father’s legacy, and casting herself as a new Presidency.

  • Will Kennedy’s endorsement matter? It certainly won’t hurt. At worst, the timing keeps the Obama momentum going.

  • Maybe after 4 years of a Romney or McCain, the bigots in the party will finally “get it”.

    And you have no concern about how many Iraqis and Iranians and God knows who else will die while the Democratic party is being taught a lesson? Or about how many people — gay, straight, everyone — will suffer from lack of health care? Or about how our children — also straight and gay and everyone — will be saddled with even higher national debt?

    As a single-issue gay voter, it makes sense to support Hilary. Saying you’d rather see death and destruction and financial ruin for large swaths of humanity rather than voting for a guy who shared the stage with a bigot is nihilistic to the point of self parody.

  • It can’t hurt, and as noted by others above, it means a lot for access to certain pocketbooks. It will also give many who were worried about Obama’s ‘liberal’ credentials reason to give him a second look, at a minimum.

  • I think this is a HUGE move, and not to be taken lightly.

    Camelot does, after all, retain its ring, even for those of us born well after its passing. Probably the biggest thing about the endorsement is its declaration of finality– I would be willing to bet that the Kennedy’s wouldn’t be taking this strong of a stand without being quite confident that Obama stands an extremely high chance of becoming the nominee. After all, the game of king-making endorsements is a very limited game (that’s why, even now, the majority of the establishment is still quiet, waiting for the nominee to be almost- but not quite!- 100% clear before saying their piece), and the blow-back effect from a ‘wrong’ choice can be fatal– I highly doubt that any Obama-backers are expecting to receive any favors from a Clinton administration…

  • teddy’s endorsement + rep. becerra’s endorsement could help with latinos. also, there’s this.
    teddy helps with the old folks.

  • I made a valiant attempt to get to this event at American University. The line stretched over 1.5 miles – not only packed with college students but also with older folks, kids etc. More than half the people in the line didn’t make it into Bender Hall.

  • Obama has spent a lot of time putting down those people who came of age (chronologically speaking) in the Sixties — you know, those boomer who are supposed to get out of the way.

    So why is he trying to wrap himself on the cloak of the president who ushered in the Sixties?

  • Massachusetts is a delegate-rich Feb. 5 state, and Obama now has support from both Kennedy and Gov. Deval Patrick.

    Don’t forget John Kerry…

    Barack Obama has the endorsements of both Massachusetts senators..

  • K– JFK wasn’t a boomer. and none of the boomer generation would have been old enough to vote for him (given the general definition of the boomers starting in ’45, the oldest could have been 15 when he was elected in ’60). So there isn’t any good analogy to be made with the baby boomers and the President who happened to be at the reins when they started.

  • All things to all people. I wish Obama a lot of luck in maintaining that. I can remember when everyone expected Bill Clinton with his charm to be the next progressive golden boy. He didn’t deliver perfectly and the venom he generated in failing to meet expectations is truly amazing.

  • I’m old enough (60’s) to clearly remember JFK’s presidency. What I remember most is the sense of optimism he gave us after the suspicion, fear, and endless accusations of the Fifties. I don’t know if Obama can do the same, I’m convinced that Hillary can’t, but I’d sure like to see someone try.

    As a boomer, K@20, I’m willing to get out of the way and support someone else. We’ve had our moment, just as the WWII generation had its moment. Time to support the next generation lest we become the very people we railed against in the Sixties.

  • From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth…

    Oh my.
    My walls are shaking.
    I can hear that accent all the way over here.
    Now that resonates!

    Boom it baby.
    Boom it!

  • Terry @ post #9.
    I hear your frustration. It really did bum me out to hear that Obama held the stage with that neandrothol. What i dont get (and maybe your not part of this camp) is why so many of us gays are supporting clinton? What has she done to promote gay rights….DADT??? A lot of my friends think that she will push for gay rights as president…but what has she done so far? Maybe i’m young and naive…but at least Obama never promised me anything. He hasn’t done anything to harm the gay rights movement (he might not of even known who that guy was….i sure didnt) and i think he’s our best bet to get someone in office that wont just pay lip service to us. He might not promise the sky, but he’s not going to fail on that promise either.
    Cheers

  • I’m a boomer. I was too young to vote for JFK, who I admired greatly, and I was crushed when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.

    I have never felt that Obama was putting down my generation. I don’t know what “K” @ #20 is talking about.

  • I can remember when everyone expected Bill Clinton with his charm to be the next progressive golden boy. He didn’t deliver perfectly and the venom he generated in failing to meet expectations is truly amazing.

    Yep.
    He is a proven liar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&feature=related
    And a proven perp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1Bv4&feature=related

    He squandered 3 years of his second term on a blowjob from a 21 year old intern.
    He has got no one to blame but himself.
    He can go fuck himself for all I care.

    MOVE ON AMERICA!

  • I think endorsements at this stage can impact the race in several ways.

    First, as noted above, there are a significant number of undecided voters in many of the SDT states. An endorsement may push them over the edge, but it’s a double edge: the hatred for Kennedy runs deep among Republicans (only bested by the hatred of the Clintons, in my experience). This may push moderate Republicans eying Obama back into the GOP fold.

    It may also help solidify support among progressives hesitant about Obama’s open arms strategy. As also mentioned above, it may help open the donor’s wallets.

    It also might push other high-profile fence sitters to make a choice. An onslaught of endorsements in the week leading up to SDT would keep momentum going and generate a lot of positive headlines.

  • No, the baby boomer weren’t old enough to vote for JFK, but did grow up with him being President and Bobby Kennedy running for President. So as one of the old farts of that time it is a BIG deal, because it will bring to mind of a better time when there was HOPE. My guess is that a lot of the old farts like me will pull the lever for Obama and remember the good old days.

  • The Hill-and-Bill Show has become like a bizarre version of Hansel and Gretel—where two atrociously-misbehaved punksters—wearing head-to-toe goth and more body piercings than the Taliban has caves to hide in—brazenly fling themselves into the witch’s oven because they “know for a fact” that they’re too powerful to be cooked and eaten for supper.

    To the witch, I can only offer a hearty “Bon Appétit.”

    Will the Kennedy endorsement matter? The only people I hear badmouthing it right now are Clintonistas. A few or the right-wing blogs I’ve looked at this afternoon haven’t even picked up on it yet; they seem to be somewhat confused with the Obama campaign in general, having invested so much energy in pounding down the walls of Fortress Hillary only to find that a top-tier Dem candidate is sucking the wind out of their sails with a robust Progressive message that applies to so many more than just Democrats.

    Will it matter? Oh, yes—most certainly….

  • Gay OLD fart– no arguments here! I just re-read my post, and realized that it could look like it was denigrating boomers. I can’t do that, I suppose, since my parents are both in that number (although, considering that they did the unthinkable and voted for a certain incumbent in ’04, I may have to change my mind on this…). I was just trying to respond to what I thought was a very poor choice of analogies– since, after all the boomers didn’t pick JFK. Although, true, they would have taken Bobby, had they gotten the chance (and what a different world I might have grown up in…)

  • what might be overlooked is caroline kennedy’s endorsement; a young woman whom many of us remember holding the hand of her mother during JFK’s funeral procession; a woman not given to the family trade coming out to support a man that reminds her of her father’s memory.

    a picture (symbol) being worth a thousand words.

  • i hope the irony is not lost on anyone of a thread where people are lauding the importance of “the Kennedys” – plural – and mentioning “Camelot” in an effort to get rid of the “dynastic” Clintons or the scourge of Clintons and Bushes serving in succession. . .

  • Terry, if you think that Obama shares any of McCulkan’s homophobic beliefs, you should check out his speech at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, during which he told an African-American congregation that the black community has too often been intolerant of gays. I’m pretty sure none of the other candidates have done that.

    Obama has “shared a stage” with all sorts of people, many of whom he disagrees with on all kinds of issues.

  • My question is why so many big name Democrats are endorsing Obama.

    They must really hate Bill and Hillary.

    But why? Any ideas?

  • I was 15 in 1960 when John F Kennedy made me aware of what America could be, alas he was cut down before the Dream could be realized. So too was Martin Luther King Jr and Robert F Kennedy. Today at 62 I can see the Dream and its name is Obama. He is the future and he is now.

  • hmmm… sounds like another New England vs. New York matchup. Maybe the Superbowl will also predict Super Tuesday?

  • I’d vote for Obama. But what do I know, I’ve voted republican in the last six presidential elections.

    It comes down to this: There are many republicans like myself who would have no problem voting for Obama; the good he could do outweighs any damage he could do. In fact, the good he could do even outweighs our natural tendency to vote for whoever the republicans throw out there.

    But this same group will NEVER vote for Hillary, because to us she represents nearly everything that’s wrong with the country.

    So, if you’re a democrat whose primary hasn’t happened yet, you have a choice: nominate Hillary, at which point some republican putz will win by a sliver; or nominate Obama and carry the election with the biggest landslide since Reagan ’84.

  • i hope the irony is not lost on anyone of a thread where people are lauding the importance of “the Kennedys” – plural – and mentioning “Camelot” in an effort to get rid of the “dynastic” Clintons or the scourge of Clintons and Bushes serving in succession. . .

    Jesus… z… but you are a wet blanket on a cold night in Idaho.

    The only irony is that there is actually a political machine (the Kennedy’s) that will support someone whose genes are more closely related to Cheney’ than to their own.

    Here…
    Go watch this Clinton love video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1Bv4&feature=related
    Hopefully… it will revive your spirits.

  • Ironically, Bobby Kennedy’s kids have already tossed their support to Hillary, per MSNBC this morning. It was one of their talking heads who mentioned it btw, after the rousing Ted Kennedy speech.

  • @ #42:

    If you haven’t been paying attention, MSNBC is pushing hard for Edwards on the Dem ticket, and Romney on the Repub ticket.

    Not sure how they picked these two, but that’s the decision they made somewhere and they are promoting their choices at every chance

  • clearly, td, you missed the point.

    but i guess whether dynasties are bad, or whether they are elevated and worthy of our respect depends less on principle than on whether the specific people involved suit us.

    Dusty @ 42 – unfortunately it doesn’t make quite the same news as Ted and Caroline, but yes the vote in the Kennedy Primary now stands at 3-3. Clinton has Robert Jr, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and Kerry; Obama has Ted, Caroline and Patrick.

  • Anybody catch the really funny quote from the Clinton campaign, that the endorsements didn’t matter, because this was about voters and votes, not a few endorsements (which was promptly followed, naturally, by a list of the Kennedys who have endorsed Hillary)?

  • Re # 42, I did read that this morning — Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. endorsed Hillary.

    Candidly I am surprised by the amount of Clinton hate on these posts.

    I read Obama’s comment about Republicans being the “party of ideas” for the past “10 or 15 years” and think it’s (1) outrageously untrue, (2) right out of the Republican talking points, and (3) cynical pandering. I don’t think it’s helpful to the Democratic Party and I don’t think it’s going to swing so-called Reagan Democrats back in November by talking nice about “transformer” Reagan or talking down the Democratic Party or the Clinton presidency. The “I didn’t say they were good ideas” is pure legal sophistry, we know exactly what the comment meant when he said it, and calling Hillary a liar is not helping anything either because she wasn’t lying, she was calling him out on exactly what his statement meant and everything it implied.

    So this would be the Obama approach in November, apparently — our party really sucked for years and the Clintons were bad, bereft of ideas, but we’re better now, please vote for me. I’ll give you universal single payer health care that Republicans will vote for because I talked nice about them.

  • This country needs hope and tact more than it needs Washington experience. I know this is a bit of a meme, but in this case it also happens to be true. The candidate from either party most likely to deliver these traits in Barack Obama. I say give him a chance. It certainly won’t be worse than Bush and will likely be the beginning of a major progessive movement in this country.

    A Clinton nomination might deliver the White House, but that is NOT assured. She will surely bring out droves of Republicans and Independents to vote against her. Barack Obama will bring many of those same folks along. Not to mention the HUGE waves of young adults he has inspired to actively participate in the process. I have not seen that in my entire life.

  • Zeitgeist… The irony didn’t escape me, but as td noted, Obama isn’t a Kennedy. What’s the Kennedy’s are doing is not furthering their dynasty as much as associating Obama with what JFK and RFK have come to represent — basically, the notion that together we can do difficult things if we set ourselves to doing them. Borrowing or extending an idea or a ideal or a mindset from one generation to another isn’t dynastic.

    Personally, I always thought “change” was a weak term and that “restoration” would serve better considering that conservative changes that we’ve witnessed need to be reversed to restore a more democratic nation. In which case, restoration may be a change, but it’s also much more than that.

    I’m not sure how I feel about a fantasy matchup between JFK and RR, but for the moment, that seems to be a possibility.

  • “This country needs hope and tact more than it needs Washington experience.

    Is “Hillary will say anything” your idea of tact? Or saying that Clinton’s statements are “not factually accurate?”

    If that’s your notion of tact, hopefully you will never be in a position to select any diplomats.

  • in an effort to get rid of the “dynastic” Clintons or the scourge of Clintons and Bushes serving in succession. . .

    I really don’t think Chelsea’s going to run for President.

  • Seems like whenever someone (rightly) observes that endorsements tend to be of little value in terms of changing actual voters minds, the next sentence always seems to launch into a theory of why this endorsement might be different. I heard a great quote recently, I think it may have been Mike Huckabee who said that in his experience, getting someone’s endorsement gets you 50% of their friends and 100% of their enemies. I think it’s an apt observation and TK has certainly been around long enough to have plenty of both. I also think he may be a figure whom red-staters and Blue Dogs tend to run from.

    The endorsement of an established politician can, however, have actual value in terms of putting their support network to work in getting out the vote and otherwise manning the battlements, just as celebrity endorsements can be very good for fundraising even if they really don’t directly translate into actual votes. So in that sense it’s better to have a TK endorsement than not to have one. On the other hand, having the state’s two high-profile Senators plus the Governor in his corner will inevitably drive up expectations for Barack Obama in MA. So if they don’t actually manage to deliver the state for him, that probably tends to look better for Hillary Clinton in the end game, beyond Super Tuesday.

  • Horselover Fat said in response to me:

    Is “Hillary will say anything” your idea of tact? Or saying that Clinton’s statements are “not factually accurate?”

    If that’s your notion of tact, hopefully you will never be in a position to select any diplomats.

    I am quite sure I will never be in a postion to select diplomats. True, the “say anything” bit was somewhat of an exageration, but the line about “not factually accurate” in reference to several statements from the Clinton campaign about Barack Obama’s record was defintely fair.

    I personally do not think Hillary would say or do anything to get elected, but her campaign has defintely employed divide and conquer tactics that, frankly, many of us are tired of.

    But let’s not go down this road to acrimony again. I have my preference in a candidate and am using my right the free speech to say so. You clearly have chosen a different candidate. I respect that.

    Either of our choices will be better than GB.

  • I’m from Trinidad and Tobago . We’re keenly following this election 2008 campaign.
    To us, were Barack Obama a white man, Hillary he would have been elected unopposed, not merely as the Democratic candidate, but, also, as the President.
    Punto final!

  • So, if you’re a democrat whose primary hasn’t happened yet, you have a choice: nominate Hillary, at which point some republican putz will win by a sliver; or nominate Obama and carry the election with the biggest landslide since Reagan ’84.

    That view reflects the views of many swing voters. It might be Hillary winning by a sliver instead of the Republican, but either way we will be dealing with the same red/blue state map and an election which can go either way. Obama has the potential to redraw the map.

  • #47 said : “Candidly I am surprised by the amount of Clinton hate on these posts.” So am I.

    And, #48 said “She will surely bring out droves of Republicans and Independents to vote against her. Barack Obama will bring many of those same folks along.”

    I will be amazed if significant numbers of those who have Sen. Clinton will flock to the polls to support Sen. Obama. I think that’s a pipe dream born of desperation. Some independents, maybe. Republicans? Please.

  • “That view reflects the views of many swing voters. It might be Hillary winning by a sliver instead of the Republican, but either way we will be dealing with the same red/blue state map and an election which can go either way. Obama has the potential to redraw the map.”

    To respond to that with an argument every bit as grounded in fact and reason as that one: Nuh-uh.

    Anyway, JFK is all the rage today and he won the popular vote by about a tenth of a percent in 1960. With Barack Obama, you would also find yourself in much more of a “dog catches car” scenario in the event of a win. Given the mess the current tenants of the White House will be leaving behind, not exactly the best year for OJT. My take is he’d be a one-term president at best.

  • Has cynicism really blinded people from not seeing what is really taking place? Obama is uniting people, inspiring young and old, moderate republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, black and white, asian and native american, latinos and all cultures to vote for him.

    Others complain that he is going to talk to conservatives and republicans to get them on board. I wonder how many of those people have read about his record? His record of working with some of the most conservative republicans that successfully passed legislation without compromising his principles puts that argument to rest.

    Others think Obama is not “experienced” enough. Obviously they are not taking into account Obama has had more years as an elected official that Hillary. His “experience” is much more conducive to changing “politics” as usual because he is not entrenched in Washington politics.

    Some say he is too young: Bill Clinton was two years younger than Obama when he took office.

    This election is not about race; it is not about “experience;” it is however about making wise decisions based on sound judgment & common sense. We’ve had an excruciating 7 years of trickery and deceit with “experienced” politicians and look where it got us. Do we want more?

    Which candidate is more likely to bring change: a candidate entrenched in the Washington political establishment or the one whose experience is outside Washington?

    Last but not least: With a deep understanding of the human psyche and a grasp of world events and how the two are inseparable indicates Obama is uniquely qualified to become the next president.

    Let’s not allow cynicism to blind us to a unique opportunity for real change.

  • Tony @ 35

    I’m afraid you’ll find that those you addressed likely won’t respond. My experience here has been that as the primaries have continued, many intelligent people have set aside their intellectual honesty. Apparently, weighting competing evidence is no longer the way to evaluate situations; instead, we just cherry-pick one or two moments (usually taken without context) that jive with our preconceived notions and call that “analysis”. Oh, and, of course, anyone who disagrees is a “cultists” who’s “blind” to the “deep flaws” of his/her preferred candidate.

    Huzzah.

  • I am a Hillary Clinton supporter because I believe she is the most qualified candidate. I am curious if anyone out there has any thoughts on why old-line democrats are lining up behind Barack Obama. Aside from the rhetoric, I mean. What is the real reason they don’t want to see Hillary Clinton as President? It seems like a well planned political rub-out just before Super Tuesday. Does anyone have any thoughts or theories?

  • Comments are closed.