Leahy Endorses Obama, Likens Him To Bobby Kennedy
As expected, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) just formally endorsed Barack Obama in a conference call with reporters. "We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world, and reintroduce America to ourselves," Leahy said, later adding, "Barack Obama represents the America we once were and want to be again."
Leahy likened his support of Obama to the 1968 presidential campaign, when as a young prosecutor he endorsed Robert Kennedy over Hubert Humphrey. "He was bringing us a sense of hope, bringing us together," Leahy said. "I know those are intangibles, but it encouraged me to go against the establishment in my own state, and go with Bobby Kennedy."
Leahy also came out strongly against the ongoing lawsuit in Nevada, where the state teachers union and some Clinton backers are trying to shut down the special caucus locations for Las Vegas Strip workers. "If you're shutting people out from the nominating process, you're going to be discouraging people all the way down," Leahy said. "And that's not the approach we want to take in the United States."
Comments (92)
grover_rover wrote on January 17, 2008 11:35 AM:He hit the nail on the head.
DRinOH wrote on January 17, 2008 11:38 AM:Wow, I only wish the American electorate were knowledgeable enough to grasp the import of all the major endorsements he's received lately. This windfall of late was completely unforeseen even by staunch Obama supporters like myself.
Tom wrote on January 17, 2008 11:38 AM:He seems to be challenging Bill Clinton on both the lawsuit and his point about Obama being the establishment candidate.
Common Sense wrote on January 17, 2008 11:40 AM:Just more good news for Obama. And some sanity on his point about Reagan from Ezra Klein:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=obama_and_reagan
Ted wrote on January 17, 2008 11:41 AM:"As expected"? Strange hook. I doubt many readers will know exactly why this was expected -- I sure didn't expect it.
If there's a backstory, perhaps it would be nice to hear a little more concretely about the backstory. Just floating out there as the intro, "as expected" will sound odd.
Bill R. wrote on January 17, 2008 11:41 AM:It's good to see so many of the Dem. elders who want to see the party free of the Clinton shackles. And the voter suppression effort in Nevada is a prime example of why.
Michael A wrote on January 17, 2008 11:42 AM:I wonder if that bs lawsuit in nevada was the deciding factor for Leahy. I wouldn't be surprised. Trying to suppress voter turnout is so republican.
eric wrote on January 17, 2008 11:46 AM:Except for, you know, Bobby Kennedy was a liberal.
Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 11:47 AM:Rather fitting. I'm listening to Sister Sledge right now. I'm feeling real good after hearing this.
Now, Sen. Leahy, stand with Sen. Dodd and get telco amnesty off the table already!
grover_rover wrote on January 17, 2008 11:48 AM:Ted, as expected refers to the prior story that announced that he was going to endorse. Thats all the background there is.
D wrote on January 17, 2008 11:49 AM:How can the Nevada lawsuit be interpreted as anything but a ploy by Clinton supporters? The party agreed on the "at large" casino sites months ago so thousands of casino workers (many members of the culinary union) could participate. The teacher's union asked for nothing similar. The culinary workers' union endorses Obama - then suddenly the teacher's union tries to shut down the casino sites. How many members of the teacher's union are working on a SATURDAY?
wwjb wrote on January 17, 2008 11:49 AM:@eric
Obama is a liberal too dumbass.
Ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant, it is rather annoying for the rest of us.
sickofitall wrote on January 17, 2008 11:50 AM:hi, ted -- the "as expected" comes from the fact that it was announced earlier this morning that the endorsement was forthcoming. nothing sinister ... :)
Whit wrote on January 17, 2008 11:51 AM:Keep in mind Sen. Leahy's appearances in Batman movies. Might we infer an affinity with dark crusaders? Is he after Robin's role now - adding his long Senate record and impeccable record on Constitutional questions to Obama's ticket? Or might it just be that putting a Constitutional scholar in the White House in this critical period strikes Leahy as the best way to save our nation?
What a radical idea: a White House that governs from the Constitution.
J.Irons wrote on January 17, 2008 11:54 AM:Excellent! It's a different world, but the comparison to RFK rings true.
Barack can run this country as well as anyone, and I love the idea of Barack, Michelle, and their two beautiful daughters in the White House.
diogu wrote on January 17, 2008 11:54 AM:We are beginning to see the demise of the Clintons in our very eyes. Democrats rallied behind these people because of the Republican onslaught against them not on its merit. But for some reason the Clintons saw it otherwise.
Hillary will lose NV and SC and in most of the February 05th states and that will be the end of her campaign. So help me God.
You soon see another “Tears for Fears” Moment from the Drama Queen.
"If you're shutting people out from the nominating process, you're going to be discouraging people all the way down," Leahy said. "And that's not the approach we want to take in the United States."
That's funny. I must have missed Leahy's righteous outrage at the Democratic Party shutting the people of Michigan and Florida out from the nominating process.
I wish more lawmakers would follow Leahy's lead and strongly condemn the voter suppression in NV. Unfortunately Dem leader Harry Reid's son is right in the thick of it. So it will be interesting which lawmakers are going to stand on principle and which will follow HRC/Reid. I'm going to keep notes and strongly urge people not to reelect those who will not stand against this kind of voter suppression.
Geez haven't we had enough from the repugs on this one. Time to get lawmakers to respect voters rights.
eric wrote on January 17, 2008 11:59 AM:wwjb wrote on January 17, 2008 11:49 AM:
@eric
Obama is a liberal too dumbass.
Ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant, it is rather annoying for the rest of us.
Why do you Obama people think that it is a good idea to personally insult others? Are you TRYING to get me to hate Obama?
As somebody said here yesterday, the biggest problem that many people are having with Obama comes from his supporters.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:00 PM:I noticed that in his round-up on the main page, Josh Marshall asks how Obama is planning to close the gap in the really delegate-states upcoming (CA, FL, NY, NJ & MA) where Sen Clinton still shows large leads in the polls. It is a very good question, because we need delegates to win, and if Clinton wins big in all of those states it will become very hard to get to the magic 2025 number before she does.
To my mind, the best hope we have (if not quite the only one) is that a continuous torrent of good news for Obama turns the tide in those states (which mostly still have fairly high numbers of undecideds). With this in mind, this ongoing stream of endorsements, while not worth much on their face, might help to keep Sen Obama's name in the news day after day with good press ink. If, in addition to that, he can pull off wins in NV and SC, this might be enough to move those undecideds into his column, so that he can keep the delegate distribution favorable enough to stay alive.
Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 12:00 PM:I'm feeling really good now!
"Woodstock," CSNY
GOBAMA!! And I'm not talking about the Crimson Tide!
Mary wrote on January 17, 2008 12:01 PM:hwc,
Shows how informed you are. MI and FL tried to move up their dates, agains DNC rules. The DNC sanctioned them and the candidates agreed.
Try reading a little before you make uninformed comments.
Jmac wrote on January 17, 2008 12:01 PM:Except for, you know, Bobby Kennedy was a liberal.
In a technical sense, RFK opposed a lot of the 'liberal' institutions that are in place now (there's no indication he'd be pro-choice, and he vehemently opposed welfare, opting for a New Deal-style federal jobs program instead). He still backed progressive ideals and policies, but different ones than we see today.
If RFK, or FDR for that matter, were around today, places like Open Left would be killing them for 'pandering.'
Tom wrote on January 17, 2008 12:02 PM:eric,
Are you really so immature that you would start to hate Obama because one of his supporters called you names on the internet?
Hillary will lose NV and SC and in most of the February 05th states and that will be the end of her campaign. So help me God.
No way. This much I know for certain - if Obama wins this, it will be a victory late in the game. The only candidate who is poised to finish things on Feb 5 is Sen Clinton. She might win big and end Obama's run, or he might turn things around enough to stay alive to fight another day. I do not see any plausible scenario in which he wins so resoundingly that she is forced out on Feb 6.
Mary wrote on January 17, 2008 12:05 PM:With the constitution being torn to shreds, I would love a president who has not only READ the thing, but is actually a Constitutional Law Professor and believes in it. Wow, believing in the constitution. What a concept.
Common Sense wrote on January 17, 2008 12:06 PM:the Democratic Party shutting the people of Michigan and Florida out from the nominating process
HWC:
The blame falls squarely on Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties. They had an opportunity to move their primaries back to the Feb 5th or later dates and chose not too. How you blame the DNC for their actions is beyond me.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:09 PM:eric asked: "Why do you Obama people think that it is a good idea to personally insult others?"
eric, I urge you to count the number of Obama supporters in this thread and the previous one. I honestly don't know where your comment is coming from, but it is certainly not evident among the vast percentage of comments this morning.
I applaud the endorsement by Leahy. And I have no quarrel with fellow Americans who choose to support someone else. The right to vote and the freedom to choose one's own candidate need not lead to reviling anyone else's choice. Let us not tear each other apart here. What's the good of that?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:09 PM:Are you really so immature that you would start to hate Obama because one of his supporters called you names on the internet?
Does it matter? Whether or not Eric really is turned off from Obama by some of his more boorish supporters, I am sure that such things really do occur. As Angry Vet has been at pains to make out, not only is incivility on these boards unpleasant, it is counterproductive. No one is ever brought over to your side of an argument by force of insult. My fellow Obama supporters who respond with rudeness (even when justly provoked) are doing our candidate no great favors. Our man has demonstrated that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar; we would do well to follow his example.
Keith wrote on January 17, 2008 12:09 PM:I co-sign Greg. February 5th isn't going to be determinative of anything. The Clintons are employing a scorched earth policy right now and I don't see them getting out of this race until there are no primaries to contest. Plus, given her lead in the superdelegates, I think she doesn't feel the same pressure as Edwards and Obama going into February 5th.
Michael A wrote on January 17, 2008 12:12 PM:Eric, alot of the vitriol on this site was ginned up by clinton supporters for months, and months, and months. I would suggest that you go back a couple of months and just arbitrarily read a couple of posts and you will see what I am talking about. I don't know if it was by design to keep playing the victim or sexist card, but it was clearly the intent to degrade the discourse.
And, this is the type of discourse to expect with a clinton nomination. I'm really not interested in that.
eric wrote on January 17, 2008 12:12 PM:Tom wrote on January 17, 2008 12:02 PM:
eric,
Are you really so immature that you would start to hate Obama because one of his supporters called you names on the internet?
Hardly. It is just that I think it is unavoidable for one start to think that there is something terribly wrong when these comment threads are barraged, day after day, with all sorts of insults and vitriol aimed at Clinton, Clinton supporters, and basically anyone that doesn't use some form of BAMA in their moniker. The level of discourse has sunk so low because of these people that one begins to wonder what in the world is going on.
Which leads me to my question, What is going on? Are we just dealing with a lot of people that are new to politics and don't really have the etiquette down?
To pull it off, Barack Obama is going to need kick ass in southern states with large African-American populations, keep it close in the big states (where he can still collect delegates, even if he doesn't win), win a bunch of Midwestern states and pull out some of the caucuses in smaller states like Idaho. To close the gap, he's going to need momentum and endorsements like this certainly help in that regard.
eric wrote on January 17, 2008 12:14 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:09 PM:
Thanks for that. I agree. This isn't a war and nobody benefits from insults.
Desider wrote on January 17, 2008 12:16 PM:I'm glad everyone's worried about culinary workers and not that 28 million people from Michigan and Florida are unrepresented and that primaries after Feb. 5 will likely be irrelevant (goodbye, Louisiana, Virginia, Wisconsin, Maryland. Aloha, Hawaii. Ctl-Alt-Del, Washington) And I'm sure if this were a special dispensation to hold extra caucuses on Wal-Mart premises so good Wal-Mart employees don't have to leave work to vote, we'd be just as understanding, right?
What's with these caucuses? What's the problem with anonymous ballots - best if they can be mailed in so as many people can vote as possible. That's called a "level playing field". I can talk and send documents around the world instantaneously, overnight it if I need hard copy, but I have to be there in person to vote? Up yours. Of course we never fixed Florida, a state of 18 million people, so blacks and thus Democrats will get screwed come November yet again, but let's gather around to be aghast about the huge state of Nevada, 2.5 million, as dictated by the 60,000 members of the culinary union.
Mike wrote on January 17, 2008 12:16 PM:Sorry to ruin Obama-mania, but there is no way Obama wins the electoral college. Blue dog states like Pennsylvania will not support him, but they will support Hillary. Hillary is the only Dem hope for taking Pennsylvania, and she has a shot in Virginia. Virginia just elected 2 conservative Dem govs back-to-back, and they voted in conservative Dem Jim Webb over George Allen. NO WAY Obama takes the Old Dominion. If the Dems want the White House, they better bet on Clinton.
Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 12:20 PM:Greg D-
Thanks for the props, man.
On a related note, the US District Judge James Mahan is expected to rule on the Teacher's Union injunction case later this afternoon. Some quick googling has turned up some interesting things.
Apparently he has had some past ethics complaints filed against him in 9th Circuit (US Appeals), as a result of an investigation spearheaded by the LA Times. Something to do with an accounted $4.8m he received in fees and judgments from connections at various places throughout the Nevada political and commercial worlds. Note, he is a Bush appointee. You can read the article here at:
I'm now VERY interested to see how he rules. And, since I have an hour or so before class, I'm going to do a quick analysis of election law and fire back the details. Peace, y'all.
ineedalife wrote on January 17, 2008 12:20 PM:Great, one loser recognizes a kindred spirit. Another endorsement from the spineless caucus. This is the guy who won't even follow up his own subpeonas. And lets radical right wing Supreme court nominees sail thru his committee.
No surprise that he endorses the candidate who has already capitulated on the central Democratic program, Social Security.
'Here Republicans take social security, please. Just don't raise your voice at me. Please, can't we just all get along?' or 'Yes, I was against your war, but you can count on me. I won't vote against it. No siree, not me. Of course I'll keep troops there forever to"protect American interests and fight terrorists". Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Can we be pals now?'
Mike wrote on January 17, 2008 12:16 PM:
Sorry to ruin Obama-mania, but there is no way Obama wins the electoral college. Blue dog states like Pennsylvania will not support him, but they will support Hillary.
I was just talking to somebody about PA. I do agree that it could be a problem. Also, Ohio and Florida.
Mike-
Ah, Virginia. Now, what if, and this is a big "if," Jim Webb is Obama's running mate?
Things change. Predicting the GE now is not particularly worthwhile nor effective arguing.
In the meantime, I am relishing the campaign right now. No more sex or race-baiting. Thank God.
eric wrote on January 17, 2008 12:26 PM:ineedalife wrote on January 17, 2008 12:20 PM:
Great, one loser recognizes a kindred spirit. Another endorsement from the spineless caucus. This is the guy who won't even follow up his own subpeonas. And lets radical right wing Supreme court nominees sail thru his committee.
No surprise that he endorses the candidate who has already capitulated on the central Democratic program, Social Security.
'Here Republicans take social security, please. Just don't raise your voice at me. Please, can't we just all get along?' or 'Yes, I was against your war, but you can count on me. I won't vote against it. No siree, not me. Of course I'll keep troops there forever to"protect American interests and fight terrorists". Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Can we be pals now?'
I do agree about the spineless comment. Although Gonzo did *finally* resign, they never did get all of those documents they wanted. Leahy was disappointing on that. He would get all mad and threatening at the hearings, then he'd do nothing.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:28 PM:I'm tired of which is more electable. Polls show it's Obama. Sure, there will be some issues for him, some unknown. There will be many issues for Hillary as well, most of them known and many feel more acute than Obama, especially since polls support this as well. There would be many issues for Edwards too though many purport he's the most electable. I feel completely confident that all 3 of them could handily beat any Republican assuming the Democrats unite for their candidate. And any of our candidates would be infinitely superior to theirs. Of the risks, I think Hillary may present a larger problem just in the Democratic party, but I base that on my blog musings and I am not certain that represents the general voting public but their is certainly a lot of vitriol for her.
There's no denying it's not over and at this point I don't count Edwards out though it is likely, but the Hillary and Obama battle will continue for some time. They both badly want to be President and will both politic vehemently to the finish.
Michael A wrote on January 17, 2008 12:30 PM:I just talked to someone in pa, me, and I think clinton would be ten times more of a problem than obama. Also, in va, the polls for a while showed obama beating all the republicans and clinton losing. I don't see virginia as a problem. Finally, I am hoping webb is obama's running mate as well. Talk about a winning ticket and webb would play great all over the south.
Obama/Webb 08.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:31 PM:Dear Desider,
I share your concerns about the way that so many states primaries effectively do not count, and the way that Florida election law disfavors important segments of the electorate. That said, three wrongs do not make any more a right than do two wrongs. We should be against all of these election woes, including the attempt to suppress the votes of casino workers.
Incidentally, I definitely share your concern about caucuses vs primaries. I voted over the internet for MI primary four years ago and it was a great experience in my mind. The whole nation should vote that way. The idea that one cannot trust an election that does not require hours of effort by its participants is nonsense.
Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 12:34 PM:Bash the endorser.
This is fun. From these comments, I am really starting to hate all of the Democrats. Hell, why should I vote democratic if all of our elected officials are "spineless."
Eric & Friends: You need to look ahead to what kind of effects your comments would have on the undecided. Personally, I'm in favor of an "inclusive" Democratic Party, if for no other reason than to win. Now, if after that point at that hard work, the Democratic Party does not put into place our agenda, it's time to start thinking about ditching the Dems.
However, you are currently advocating a very Bush-like "you're either with us or against us" approach. Obviously, this kind of attitude has worked wonders for us in our foreign policy.
Please, no more attacks on Sen. Leahy just because he didn't support HRC. I don't see anyone around here getting on their high horses against Rangel or Schumer or Feinstein.
Mike wrote on January 17, 2008 12:38 PM:Angry Vet,
I don't see Webb as Obama's running mate...Jim Webb is not a "big picture, touchy feely, let's have some Chardonnay and listen to jazz" kind of guy, nor are his supporters. But let's suppose he is Obama's running mate. They may take Northern Virginia, but there's no way they carry anything south of Fredricksburg...it's way too conservative. And, Pennsylvania will not go in Obama's corner. Again, too conservative and the Reagan Democrats will go in the Repub column. You can figure that Clinton would take Pennsylvania and Arkansas, and may take Virginia...key states for a Dem victory.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:40 PM:NO WAY Obama takes the Old Dominion.
I certainly agree with you on that...
Hillary... has a shot in Virginia.
... but not on this. As far as I can see, neither Clinton nor Obama has a prayer anywhere in the south, VA and FL very much included. If we want to keep any southern states on the table, we should be rushing to nominate Edwards. I am not advocating that; I am an Obama man. I am just saying that, in my opinion (based on years of life spent in the south and many friends still living there) neither Clinton nor Obama could or would carry any southern states. Even white, southern male Al Gore lost them all, and equally white, southern male Bill Clinton lost most of them both times around (including FL in 1992 and VA in both 1992 and 1996).
Hillary is the only Dem hope for taking Pennsylvania...
Bah. Stuff and nonsense. No democrat can count on winning PA, but neither can any republican. PA is in play still regardless of whom we nominate.
Desider wrote on January 17, 2008 12:41 PM:Greg DeLassus,
How about "Nevada gave us Harry Reid - why should I care?" as "4 wrongs make a right"? ;)
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:45 PM:Pennsylvania will not go in Obama's corner. Again, too conservative...
Do I understand you to imply that your prediction here is predicated on the idea that Hillary Clinton holds an appeal among conservatives?!? Gracious sakes, no wonder we disagree on the question of who can win PA. We are apparently speaking of two entirely different candidates both named "Hillary Clinton."
I am referring to the former first-lady. Which one had you in mind?
Publicus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:45 PM:Mike:
You make no sense. If Obama is more appealing to moderate Republicans and Independents than Clinton, what makes you think that she will do better in Virginia (he's already got the Governor backing him, Wilder (former governor) and my guess Mark Warner as well)? Are you suggesting that Democrats would rather put a Republican in the White House than support Obama? Are you suggesting a Bradley Effect in those states? Spell it out, because something's missing in your analysis.
skibumlee wrote on January 17, 2008 12:47 PM:John Edwards is much more like RFK,
Obama is more like Carter.
i agree that the ball was dropped with mi and fl. the republican's 1/2 solution was a much better idea.
green heron wrote on January 17, 2008 12:49 PM:I'm growing tired of Bill Clinton's crazy bug eyed cracker routine. Every time he opens his mouth and spits it reinforces the argument that we don't want to go back to the past. Leahy seems to agree.
CranialRectalLoopback wrote on January 17, 2008 12:50 PM:Great,
An endoresment from a man with no balls.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:51 PM:Incidentally, I am really hoping that Jim Webb is not Sen Obama's running mate (assuming, good Lord willing, that Obama is able first to take the nomination). I really like and admire Sen Webb, but I would not count on the idea that just any other democrat that we might be able to find would be able to win the election to fill the vacancy he would leave, and we cannot afford to lose too many senate seats. I think that he is more valuable to us in the senate than as the second name on Obama's yard signs.
LJ wrote on January 17, 2008 12:54 PM:Except for, you know, Bobby Kennedy was a liberal.
Eric, when you write vacuous snark like this, odds are someone's going to smack you back. Improving the tone here begins with your own keyboard.
colonpowwow wrote on January 17, 2008 12:54 PM:Michael A wrote on January 17, 2008 12:12 PM:
"Eric, alot of the vitriol on this site was ginned up by clinton supporters for months, and months, and months. I would suggest that you go back a couple of months and just arbitrarily read a couple of posts and you will see what I am talking about."
Allow me to edit this stunning example of "insight," to make it more correct. My corrections are in CAPS.
Eric, alot IF NOT VIRTUALLY ALL of the vitriol on this site was ginned up by NON-clinton supporters for months, and months, and months. I would suggest that you go back a couple of months and just arbitrarily read a couple THOUSAND of THEIR posts and you will see what I am talking about.
SEE ALSO:
REPUBLICAN LITE
MRS. BILL
THAT BITCH
DRAMA QUEEN
CORRUPT
FELON (Corruption is a felony, you know)
I'm sure you can find all these terms to describe Senator Clinton in posts littered around here today and yesterday. Maby Michael A. sees it a different way, but I've seen far more posters regularly come on here and they're aghast at those who would make Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove proud.
I did see someone call Obama a "snake oil salesman" the other day, though. My stars!
I think concerns over Obama's electability are over-wrought. Believe it or not, the vast majority of people around the country know very little about him right now. However, the trends have been consistent in every poll you look at one pollster: in Iowa, as the election approached and people started paying attention, his numbers sky-rocketed. In NH, same. In Fla, even though he's not even campaigning there, same. In Nevada, same. In SC, same. Nationally, same.
I've seen polls that put him at 80% approval rating among Dems, +/- 5 points. That's right where Hillary is. Meanwhile, those same polls show him as the most popular politician in the country among independents, and having over 50% approval rating among Republicans.
That's staggering.
Survery USA did a poll of Iowa general election matchups; remember, this is the state where all the candidates have campaigned. Obama beat the GOP winner in Iowa, Huckabee, by 23 points. He beats Rudy be a cartoon-ish 40 points. McCain, by far the strongest Republican among independents, clocks in at the most respectable among the GOP, at 17 points. Ooooh, so close!
Iowa, mind you, went for Bush just recently and has been a 50/49 purple state the last 2 elections.
Obama can put together an amazing coalition: Rank-and-file lower-middle Dems, African-Americans, the creative class, + a huge influx of young voters (in both NH and Iowa they matched voters over 65, unprecedented), + the lionshare of independents, + moderate Republicans disenchanted with their political leadership.
The national favorability polls show this, the results in Iowa and even NH show this, the trends in pollster show this...might there be some state-by-state issues? Sure, but the type that are totally washed away when the margins of victory aren't even close. You might be able to win the popular vote by a %point or two and still lose the electoral college, but we're talking about winning by 8 points or more here. And that's not pie-in-the-sky stuff, that's what all the data right now suggests.
green heron wrote on January 17, 2008 12:55 PM:Leahy just didn't want to an endorse a woman who has balls--big hairy ones hiding under her pantsuit.
Mike wrote on January 17, 2008 1:05 PM:Publicus,
I am looking at it state by state, rather than on a national level. When you say that Obama is more appealing to moderate Republicans and Independents, I assume that you mean nationwide. I am looking at the electoral college and each state individually. I don't see how Obama carries either PA or VA. I think Hillary at least has a shot in those states. Obama may have Doug Wilder's endorsement. Trust me, that means next to nothing in the Old Dominion. Mark Warner is running for Senate...he will come out once the Dems pick a nominee, but will not throw his support to anyone before then. If memory serves me correctly, Bill Clinton raised money for Warner when he ran in the past. Anyway, my point is that the majority of Dems and Independents in VA and PA skew more conservative. If Obama goes up against McCain, Giuliani, or Romney, I see those Reagan Dems/independents going with the Repub ticket.
LJ wrote on January 17, 2008 12:54 PM:
Except for, you know, Bobby Kennedy was a liberal.
Eric, when you write vacuous snark like this, odds are someone's going to smack you back. Improving the tone here begins with your own keyboard.
There is a big difference between arguing about things and making personal insults. Calling my comment "vacuous snark" is probably OK because it isn't some kind of personal attack. Actually, I thought it was good snark. It's also the first thing that popped into my head when I heard the comparison.
Greg D-
You make a great point about Webb NOT being the VP, and probably the exact reason why he would not be selected as a running mate.
However, I love the guy. He has a son in Iraq. He's an angry vet himself.. Hence the hopes.
Yes, an Obama supporter is willing to admit that hopes sometimes do not match reality. But that is never a reason to relinquish hope.
Colon Powwow-
You are absolutely correct. There are plenty of trolls to go around here. Point conceded.
But, of course, that does not mean we should use that as a talking point to attack other X-Candidate supporters.
Arguing about who is attacking more is so circular its disgusting. In the meantime, I would just like to note that Leahy backing Obama gives Obama (HOPEfully) the type of motivation to support major judiciary measures, both in the Senate (as he has done) and, more specifically, from the bully pulpit of the campaign trail.
I'd be interested to compare the two candidates records vis-a-vis Leahy/Spector's attempt to actually make the Constitution REMAIN the supreme law of the land....
litigatormom wrote on January 17, 2008 1:34 PM:Sigh. I wrote a GBCW diary at Daily Kos because I was sick of all the pie-throwing between Clinton, Obama and Edwards supporters, and hoped to find refuge here. I guess not. :-(
Michael A wrote on January 17, 2008 1:35 PM:I'm going to try this post again, it didn't take.
Gregg D, I disagree on your view of obama and the south, as well as mikes. Check the polls. Obama has been polling very well in virginia and I think that he could very well take southern states with large transplant populations added to an energized african-american vote. Of course, mississippi and alabama are probably out of the running. However, the virginia, north carolina, georgia, florida and possibly south carolina are all very much in play. Clinton on the other hand would never win any of those states due to energizing the base.
On webb, Mike your comment about obama totally distorts who obama is and what he stands for. Webb and obama are actually very close politically and I could see a good alliance. On the senate seat, the governor, a democrat, could appoint another democrat to take the seat. Also, I would like to see webb take over after obama serves for two terms.
Colonpowwow, I could write a list of the things that you and other clinton supporter have said to attack and demean anyone questioning your candidate, but I won't. That's why I referred eric to review a sampling of the posts.
I agree that bitch is clearly off-limits and I have seen the word only used very few times. I haven't seen the word felon used, I assume that you made that one up based on the corruption claim which is again pretty much made up by you from people claiming that she is beholden to special interest money.
Nonetheless, you are entitled to your opinion and me to mine, being an uninformed, commie, pinko, left-wing, lunatic, wingnut, wacko, etc.
wwjb wrote on January 17, 2008 1:43 PM:eric, I'm going to have to agree with LJ that if you come on here to attack Obama by spouting incredibly ignorant crap like that, you are going to have to expect that someone is going to come back and call you on that ignorance. If you showed me that you had some intellect floating around in your head, instead of baselessly saying that Obama isn't a liberal, then you probably wouldn't have been called a dumbass in the first place.
As for the "boo hoo Obama supporters are sooo meeaaann" crap, I have heard some nasty things (and pretty much 99% of their comments are uneducated attacks/lies about Obama) from HRC supporters, so don't even try to pretend you people are so above the fray and that people who support Obama are a bunch of animals. I just call them as I see them, and unfortunately I see way too many Hillbots on here regurgitating her campaign talking points without the slightest regard for facts/reality/critical thinking, and frankly, it is tiresome.
It used to be that I only had to debate with people so ignorant of their opponents AND their own candidates when I was debating against diehard Bush supporters, yet now I find myself dealing with the same kind of stubborn ignorance in my own party, from the supporters of a candidate who has sunk to unbelievable lows in this campaign, and who will say and do anything to win. I'm disgusted with Hillary, and I'm disgusted with her supporters who come on here and throw around their lies and baseless accusations.
liz wrote on January 17, 2008 1:44 PM:Thank you Senator for helping America break free of Bush Clinton Bush /?Clinton... there are more Bushes and another Clinton people... please remember that.
sickofitall wrote on January 17, 2008 1:46 PM:i dig jim webb. but obama's gonna pick joe biden as his vp. watch and see ...
Mike wrote on January 17, 2008 1:50 PM:I don't understand why you think Obama has "no shot" in those states. I think you've got it absolutely backwards. Obama's ability to bring new voters to the polls, attract political independents, and divide the Republican base by poaching moderate GOPers who are pissed at their current leadership (and there are a lot of them out there, trust me on that) seems to suggest he'd be our best bet in those states, no?
Look at the Iowa cross-tabs: Obama won among liberal Dems, moderate Dems, Indies, and Republicans. His weakest demograph is conservative Dems (which would come as a shocker to those who want to paint him as the mealy-mouthed Lieberman light, but w/e), and I appreciate that, in Virginia, say, a lot of the Dems are conservative Dems, but I think if you stack Obama up next to a Romney, Rudy, etc, the choice is clear for those blocs as well.
Just like every other Dem, Obama's biggest challenge would be against McCain, in that McCain is the one GOPer who's managed to avoid getting tagged with insidious GOP brand that's dragging their entire party down right now. However, in a lot of ways Obama would be the perfect candidate to run against McCain, in that he offers the starkest contrast. If the electorate is hungry for change and a departure from the culture wars (and there certainly does seem to be evidence of that), the young, energized, "post-racial" candidate vs the old, crusty Vietnam Vet seems to shape up quite well for the Dems, no?
I mean, Hillary's "experience" card looks like it'd fall pretty flat next to McCain, no?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 1:52 PM:Gregg D, I disagree on your view of obama and the south, as well as mikes.
Fair enough. I also said that there was no way in heaven or Hell that Ratzinger would be elected pope, so my track record as an election-prophet is far from stellar. I still do not think that Obama or Clinton can carry a single southern state (VA and FL included), and if there are polls that suggest otherwise I would simply say that these polls are wrong. I will say, however, that my prediction assumes that black voter turnout in these southern states will be just as poor in 2008 as it has always been. Given the effect that Obama has had in turning out larger-than-expected numbers of voters from usually-unreliable demographics, I will concede that my predictions are predicated on some possibly-faulty assumptions.
On the senate seat, the governor, a democrat, could appoint another democrat to take the seat.
That is a dangerously short term view. That hold-over appointment does not guarantee that the seat would stay democratic for as long as it would if Webb continues to occupy it.
Also, I would like to see webb take over after obama serves for two terms.
Hey, so do I. That said, is the VP slot really as great a launching off point for him as the Senate? He is a naturally gifted politician, and the Senate allows him a spotlight in which to shine. The VP's office never makes anyone look good.
TexModDem wrote on January 17, 2008 1:55 PM:I'm still mystified why not making it easier to vote is the equivalent of denying the opportunity to vote and why if making it easier for casino workers is necessary to prevent denial of the right to vote why that standard doesn't apply to everybody else.
Where's the state-sponsored day care so mothers who want to caucus for Clinton can do so?
This spin that refusing to make it easier to vote is the same as denying the opportunity to vote is repugnicantly dishonest.
Another convenient misrepresentation anf false logic by Obama supporters to dig at Clinton.
TexModDem wrote on January 17, 2008 1:57 PM:Greg DeLassus: "He is a naturally gifted politician, and the Senate allows him a spotlight in which to shine."
Too bad he's never taken advantage of that spotlight.
I guess it wasn't big enough for his ego and it will take the presidency or more for him to "shine."
TexModDem wrote on January 17, 2008 2:02 PM:Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democratic voters say that Obama is getting the best treatment from the media while just 18% think Clinton is favored. Among Republicans, 46% say Clinton gets the best coverage while 36% say Obama is the media favorite.
Another interesting similarity between Obama supporters and the GOP faithful: they both believe that Clinton is getting the better press treatment.
Birds of a feather . . .
TexModDem wrote on January 17, 2008 2:02 PM:. . . neo-cons and neo-progressivs flock together.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 2:04 PM:Dear TexModDem,
I was speaking of Sen Jim Webb of Va, not Sen Barack Obama of Il. Was your response to me predicated on the assumption that I was speaking of Webb, or on the assumption that I was speaking of Obama? I ask because I am not at all clear as to why you want to take a swipe at Webb.
Bupalos wrote on January 17, 2008 2:04 PM:>>>>I guess it wasn't big enough for his ego and it will take the presidency or more for him to "shine."
>>>>.
Christ "TexModDem", your obsession is starting to show. That comment was about Webb. Take a deep breath, purge yourself of insane Obama hate for a minute, and read.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 2:06 PM:Totally off-topic, but if anyone wants to follow the results of the NH recount underway, they are available here.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 2:06 PM:Whoops, make that here.
cjop wrote on January 17, 2008 2:10 PM:And if I don't vote for Obama what is Leahy going to do? Subpoena me? Leahy's endorsement is as irrelevant has he is. More of a disservice to Obama in MHO.
Jen Zigler wrote on January 17, 2008 2:10 PM:One note on Virginia... As one of only two states to have elected an African-American governor, I don't think the argument that Obama cannot win there carries any water whatsoever...
Let's face it, the Republicans are backed in a corner this year... they know it... this will be the ugliest Presidential contest in the history of the world... None of the Democratic candidates will have an easy time of it... That is, or should be, one of the most obvious reasons that we should end the in-fighting... It doesn't matter who the nominee is... as long as they win the White House... We should save our strength for the arguments yet to come in the general election... They will be plentiful.
wwjb wrote on January 17, 2008 2:14 PM:TexModDem would be another example of those idiots I was referring too earlier...spouting off some of the most ridiculous and uneducated nonsense out of perhaps anyone here.
Ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant, it is rather annoying for the rest of us.
GMFORD wrote on January 17, 2008 2:16 PM:skibumlee wrote on January 17, 2008 12:47 PM:
John Edwards is much more like RFK,
Obama is more like Carter.
I respectfully disagree. Clinton is more like Carter and Obama is more like RFK.
wwjb wrote on January 17, 2008 1:43 PM:
eric, I'm going to have to agree with LJ that if you come on here to attack Obama by spouting incredibly ignorant crap like that, you are going to have to expect that someone is going to come back and call you on that ignorance. If you showed me that you had some intellect floating around in your head, instead of baselessly saying that Obama isn't a liberal, then you probably wouldn't have been called a dumbass in the first place.
As for the "boo hoo Obama supporters are sooo meeaaann" crap, I have heard some nasty things (and pretty much 99% of their comments are uneducated attacks/lies about Obama) from HRC supporters, so don't even try to pretend you people are so above the fray and that people who support Obama are a bunch of animals. I just call them as I see them, and unfortunately I see way too many Hillbots on here regurgitating her campaign talking points without the slightest regard for facts/reality/critical thinking, and frankly, it is tiresome.
It used to be that I only had to debate with people so ignorant of their opponents AND their own candidates when I was debating against diehard Bush supporters, yet now I find myself dealing with the same kind of stubborn ignorance in my own party, from the supporters of a candidate who has sunk to unbelievable lows in this campaign, and who will say and do anything to win. I'm disgusted with Hillary, and I'm disgusted with her supporters who come on here and throw around their lies and baseless accusations.
Obama supporters, this is exhibit A on how to argue with people. It's insulting. First of all, I DONT EVEN SUPPORT CLINTON! Why would you assume that I did? All I said was that I considered Kennedy to be a liberal and that Obama wasn't. It was a bit of snark. I didn't "attack" Obama.
This incessant vitriol from Obama supporters is very troubling. It's all way to personal.
BTW, I know that there are many Obama supporters that aren't like this, and I don't mean to generalize. But this commentor and many others are reflect very poorly on Obama.
how NOT to argue with people, that is. Geez, I need to proof read.
brad wrote on January 17, 2008 3:00 PM:TexModDem,
Another slow day at RNC headquarters?
brad wrote on January 17, 2008 3:06 PM:Eric,
I'm with you on the vitriol. I don't think it puts our side in a good light. I'm guilty myself.
But it is not emblematic of the candidate or most supporters. I was at a campaign event/phone bank session in Milwaukee last night. Very positive crowd. No harsh words about any other candidates. Lot's of commited people who are willing to work hard to help get him elected. Being there also gave me more respect for all of the candidates and supporters who are putting themselves out there. Retail politics is hard work and most of it is not a lot of fun, and the people who are trying to get out there and change things deserve more respect from all of us.
Off the soapbox now. Back to attacking folks I disagree with.
Zephyrus wrote on January 17, 2008 3:23 PM:So, eric, if I said, hypothetically, something like "LBJ and Clinton are very similar. Except, you know, LBJ wasn't a bitch" it wouldn't be an attack on Clinton?
Please.
eric wrote on January 17, 2008 3:27 PM:Zephyrus wrote on January 17, 2008 3:23 PM:
So, eric, if I said, hypothetically, something like "LBJ and Clinton are very similar. Except, you know, LBJ wasn't a bitch" it wouldn't be an attack on Clinton?
Please.
What? Of course it is. That's a nasty personal slur.
Jen Zigler wrote on January 17, 2008 3:33 PM:"This incessant vitriol from Obama supporters is very troubling. It's all way to personal.
BTW, I know that there are many Obama supporters that aren't like this, and I don't mean to generalize. But this commentor and many others are reflect very poorly on Obama."
The incessant vitriol is certainly not limited supporters of any one candidate... It comes from all sides and reflects poorly on all of us... The media eats it up... CNN was gleeful after Clinton supporters booed at the mention of Obama's name... Given these clowns in the press will try very hard to influence this election... see 2000 (or read The Daily Howler if you don't believe me).... especially if McCain gets the nomination on the Repub side, why on EARTH are we willing to provide more fuel to that fire?
WOw Leahy just made show a Republican victory in November. How stupid can demcorats be to think Obama can win in November.
They are all caught up with the hype. I can't wait for the republicans who are praising Obama now to turn on him about his Black Nationalist church. Just like the others did to Romney.
Hillary must now show a vote for her is a vote for a democrat win in November.
Anon 1 wrote on January 17, 2008 3:56 PM:When Jesse Jackson ran he won five Primaries. It is possible for Obama to win much more. Obama in his racial memo made certain that blacks will hate the Clintons. This was a low blow in my books for Obama to do. He knew Amaya Smith, one of his staffers sent that memo documenting innocuous remarks Hillary Clinton made before the Iowa Primary. He kept quiet in Iowa because he wanted the white vote. But once he got his win in Iowa he suddendly thought her comments were ill-advised. And after his lost in NH, he found "fairy tale" to be offensive. WHat a big joke!
Obama looks like he still smoke. I say all presidential candidates should under go random drug screening.
This tells me Dems in the Senate 1) think Obama is the better candidate 2) are also sick of the Clintons and DLC.
Good for them and good for us.
DonnaG wrote on January 17, 2008 7:52 PM:Back awhile, Robert Kennedy, Jr [of RiverKeepers] endorsed Hillary Clinton, and that really gave me pause to take another look at her candidancy, though I have been solidly an Obama supporter.
It never occurred to me to try to trash or denigrate RFK, Jr because he endorsed Hillary. Adults can disagree or have different priorities or preferences.
On this thread, I notice a few commenters who have done the opposite, learned of this endorsement and promptly set out to trash or denigrate Leahy.
Is this just a way to stay consistent in a theme of trashing or denigrating Obama?
