Source: Senator Patrick Leahy To Endorse Obama Today
The Obama campaign has been touting a mystery "major endorsement," to be announced on a conference call today.
I've just learned from a source familiar with the decision that it's Senator Patrick Leahy.
That's a big endorsement for Obama -- he's a major liberal standard bearer who's been in the Senate for over three decades. More in a bit.
Late Update: Leahy speaks out about his endorsement of Obama here.
Comments (77)
Abe wrote on January 17, 2008 10:48 AM:I love Patrick Leahy. He's the one who got Cheney to walk up to him in front of C-span and literally say, "Fuck You!"
Daily Show Headline: Leahy Subpoenas Vice President's Office
"No no, my friend. . . fuck YOU!"
sickofitall wrote on January 17, 2008 10:49 AM:yessss! gotta love patrick leahy.
best news i've heard all day. of course, it is early ...
thanks, senator!
Steve wrote on January 17, 2008 10:52 AM:Anybody know why whenever Patrick Leahy talks, he sounds intoxicated?
grover_rover wrote on January 17, 2008 10:52 AM:One more strike against those idiots who keep trying to paint Obama as conservative, or as running to the right of Hillary. Those allegations just don't hold up to scrutiny, or reality.
Tom wrote on January 17, 2008 10:54 AM:I know Senator Leahy had ties to Edwards as well, so I guess he decided Obama was more electable.
Nick wrote on January 17, 2008 10:55 AM:Steve:
It's because he's intoxicated. . . with Obama's love.
Why does anybody think it is Leahy . . . It could be the Dark Sithlord Cheney . . .
hello_world wrote on January 17, 2008 10:56 AM:Good for Obama. And even more importantly, good for the Democratic party. Right now, the Clinton's are attempting to hold the Democrats under siege. Anyone else remember in 2000 when people were saying that the Democrats can't win an election without Clinton? I have no desire to return to that mindset. Especially now that I've seen this Clinton operate when the chips are down.
You have no idea how many arguments I've had with Republicans that want to disavow neo-cons, saying they're not true Republicans and whatnot. My answer is always the same. You claimed them, you used them to increase your political power, and in the end, you let them lead. They're yours, and you can't just say NOW that you don't like them.
I now feel the same way about our party, and the Clinton's. They seemed great in the 90's, but now it's time to move on before it truly is all about the Clinton's, and nothing else.
FGF wrote on January 17, 2008 10:58 AM:Would anyone agree that if Edwards fails to win NV or SC he too will endorse Obama before Super Tuesday?
JenJen wrote on January 17, 2008 10:58 AM:Leahy? That's fantastic, and huge! Major Senators seem to be breaking for Obama. I admire them for doing so even after the New Hampshire loss, and before Nevada and South Carolina.
It's a good signal to voters that these seasoned DC veterans feel strongly that Obama is ready for the job.
Happy day!!
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 10:59 AM:One more strike against those idiots who keep trying to paint Obama as conservative, or as running to the right of Hillary.
No, that would be because Obama is so very eager to repeat Republican talking points, and because, on the single most important progressive issue facing the nation (ask Krugman about it), Obama offers up Republican-lite -- unlike either Hillary or Edwards.
My guess about these endorsements from the Senators is that it's all about them having a guy in the WH who answers to their bidding, instead of a powerful, independent voice who isn't so easy to control.
God only knows what Obama has promised these Senators in return for their endorsements.
Jessica wrote on January 17, 2008 10:59 AM:Good lord. Check out the general election polls today. Obama is covering Romney (who I think is the most likely candidate in the long run) by 30%?!! Is that even possible?
I'm open to any of our candidates, I think they're all good and I think there is plenty of reason to be excited about any of them. I just can't believe the Obama numbers. If that is born out I can't see walking away from that. That's landslide stuff.
DonnaG wrote on January 17, 2008 11:01 AM:Steve,
Thanks for your quickie enlightened smear of the endorsement.
Sort of reminds my of the Taylor Marsh high school clique level that can only respond by smearing other democratic endorsers of Obama [ Kerry = loser, Claire McCaskill = liar, Ben Nelson = republican].
Maybe you could go over there and find comfort playing at your level.
Pat wrote on January 17, 2008 11:04 AM:The Clintons are holding the party hostage? Puh-leeze. Obama is truly the heir to Ronnie Reagan -- and he compared himself to Reagan yesterday, saying that Reagan began a new trajectory for America and Bill Clinton did not. Yeah -- and that trajectory was a doozie, wasn't it?
You'd think that might be an issue. But like his newfound hero, Obama is teflon.
frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 11:04 AM:Good lord. Check out the general election polls today. Obama is covering Romney (who I think is the most likely candidate in the long run) by 30%?!! Is that even possible?
Why, yes it is, while Obama receives nothing but glowing press.
Let's see, though, how Obama fares if subjected, for the first time in his entire political career, to the onslaught of Republican attacks.
People don't seem to remember -- if they were even adults at the time -- that Jimmy Carter seemed like just the freshest and most wonderful voice in American politics at this stage of the primaries.
I'm glad for all of us Democrats that that ended so well.
Bupalos wrote on January 17, 2008 11:05 AM:>>>on the single most important progressive issue facing the nation (ask Krugman about it), Obama offers up Republican-lite -- unlike either Hillary or Edwards.>>>
Sorry, they are all Republican-lite on health care. Until we can talk about single payer, we're all just whistling dixie, and the thought that unenforced and unenforcable "mandates" makes this pig "liberal" is some pretty thin lipstick. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all tinkering around the edges, still fearfull from the HillaryCare disaster that turned over the congress. The distinctions are bogus. Krugman is flat blowing smoke on that.
As for what Obama promised Leahy...I hope he promised him the freaking moon. Leahy is absolutely one of the lions on the left. What is wrong with you? Worrying about what someone promised Leahy? Oh no, maybe he promised war crimes prosecution of Bush. Oh disaster!! We can't have Leahy getting his way...why...we might actually leave Iraq!! Ahhhhhrrrrgggg, attack of the liberals.
MGinVT wrote on January 17, 2008 11:05 AM:As a Vermonter, I'm very proud to say that I, along with 80% of our electorate, voted for the guy who Dick Cheney told to "Go F*ck" himself, and who had the balls to stand up to subpoena those MFers over the politicization of the Justice department.
I might also point out that Vermont is the ONLY state that W hasn't been to during his presidency.
Just another reason to love Vermont.
TheraP wrote on January 17, 2008 11:07 AM:Amen. This is good news. Wish I were someone important enough to endorse you, Barak Obama...and have it make a big difference. Your message of hope is sorely needed. I'm applauding from the sidelines along with millions of Americans and likely tens of millions in the world.. who would also like to see America as a more hopeful beacon in this century.
Thanks for your endorsement, Senator Leahy!
eric wrote on January 17, 2008 11:10 AM:FGF wrote on January 17, 2008 10:58 AM:
Would anyone agree that if Edwards fails to win NV or SC he too will endorse Obama before Super Tuesday?
No. He is in, at a minimum, through Super-Duper Tuesday. It is unlikely he can win anywhere, but he would see how the delegates shake out.
hello_world wrote on January 17, 2008 11:13 AM:Would anyone agree that if Edwards fails to win NV or SC he too will endorse Obama before Super Tuesday?Edwards can say he's in it to win it, but that's no longer possible, and he knows that. Right now, he's in it to pull in as many delegates as he possible can prior to the convention in Colorado. If this thing goes the distance, and it just might, then Edwards can leverage his delegates, and essentially become a king-maker. If I had to guess, I'd say Edwards isn't even looking for a spot in anyone's administration at this point. He's looking to buy into party leadership, a la Dean in '04. Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 11:14 AM:
As for what Obama promised Leahy...I hope he promised him the freaking moon.
You really don't get that Senators might, quite independently of their political positions, have a very real interest in consolidating and aggrandizing their own power, do you?
Why do you think all these Senators have come Obama's way? They see a naive newcomer arising in their midst, and know that this is their opportunity to have someone under their thumb, rather than the other way around, and they make deals with the neophyte to get what they want.
Ad Absurdum wrote on January 17, 2008 11:14 AM:Let's see, though, how Obama fares if subjected, for the first time in his entire political career, to the onslaught of Republican attacks.
With the Clinton camp engaging in a typical republican smear campaign, cry-babying and all, we're already getting a clear impression.
eric wrote on January 17, 2008 11:15 AM:Pat wrote on January 17, 2008 11:04 AM:
The Clintons are holding the party hostage? Puh-leeze. Obama is truly the heir to Ronnie Reagan -- and he compared himself to Reagan yesterday, saying that Reagan began a new trajectory for America and Bill Clinton did not. Yeah -- and that trajectory was a doozie, wasn't it?
You'd think that might be an issue. But like his newfound hero, Obama is teflon
Teflon, for now. It would be a miracle if it holds up.
BluePuppy wrote on January 17, 2008 11:15 AM:Damn, there goes the Ben & Jerry's vote. Seriously, this is irrelevant. Most of the country has no idea who Leahy is. The real story is voter intimidation by the Culinary Workers Union in NV.
DonnaG wrote on January 17, 2008 11:15 AM:frankly0 is batting that 0.....just keeps on swinging those bat[ty] messages destined to only foul.
stemper wrote on January 17, 2008 11:16 AM:Amen indeed. Leahy's insistence on standing up to the Dept. of Justice crap is one reason Gonzo was forced to leave. The man has guts. Anyone that Cheney lays the F-bomb on, I love.
Go, Barack-ster!
TheraP wrote on January 17, 2008 11:17 AM:I'd like to see Edwards stay in the game as long as possible... and garner delegates, so that when he does concede he has a huge package of delegates to give to Obama. He has a loyal following; I respect him tremendously. I'd love to see him in charge of fighting the insurance companies for national healthcare.
Keith wrote on January 17, 2008 11:17 AM:Great endorsement. I'm sure the HRC supporters will try their damndest to step on this somehow, but it will just smack of sour grapes (and sock puppetry).
Still, great grab for Senator Obama.
kenoshaMarge wrote on January 17, 2008 11:17 AM:I used to think Leahy was the real deal too. But what the hell has he done except talk? So he endorses Obama, big deal. Why would I be more inclined to vote for someone because someone that has talked about doing crap hasn't stood up and done anything about the crimes of those in the Bush Administration? Just another politician.
huffpostdantheman wrote on January 17, 2008 11:22 AM:New to TPM,
It's very simple actually. Democrats know full well that if Hillary is the nominee, not only will we lose a shot at the White House, but because she is so polarizing, the republicans and independents who vehemently despise her will mobilize and congrssional democrats on the ballot might be swept out of office in the anti-Hillary wave.
If Hillary is the nominee, we may once again be stuck with not only a republican president, but also a republican majority in congress.
Those of you who support Hillary look at the polls. In a head to head match up with most of the republican candidates, she loses. Both Barack Obama and John Edwards win by landslides. You vote for Hillary at democracy's peril.
>>>>Good lord. Check out the general election polls today. Obama is covering Romney (who I think is the most likely candidate in the long run) by 30%?!! Is that even possible?
>>>>Why, yes it is, while Obama receives nothing but glowing press.
Accepting your thesis, why would he receive glowing press now but not later? Maybe instead of seeing that as a weakness it is a strength? It seems to me this has been a pretty no holds bared primary, especially when Clinton had the near death experience. Is the experienced Clinton camp all that less effective at taking out Obama's popularity than a fractioned Republican party?
Methinks a lot of democrats are just overtraumatized and give the 'tards a little too much credit. Maybe Obama gets good press because people like him? Maybe that's a good thing?
I've been honestly agnostic and I do think that the fact that the Clintons have been "through the wringer" is in their favor. I think they might be less risk of an implosion. But I can see the argument that to actually accomplish this stuff, a landslide would be a big help. Clinton can win I don't doubt, but can she get a landslide? It would take a lot of sliming, and a lot of reporters changing their tune and siding with Romney (?!) to erode a 30% lead.
>>>>People don't seem to remember -- if they were even adults at the time -- that Jimmy Carter seemed like just the freshest and most wonderful voice in American politics at this stage of the primaries.
I'm glad for all of us Democrats that that ended so well.>>>
I'm only 32, but it seems to me Carter won when he was the fresh face. Then Reagan won when he was the fresh face. Fresh faces work a lot better, especially when the incumbent is reviled, IMO. So I'm not sure what your "I'm glad that ended so well..." comment is.
Michael A wrote on January 17, 2008 11:24 AM:This is an excellent endorsement. Leahy is one of my all time favorite senators. I too loved the FU he got from darth vader. Priceless.
I am not a big endorsement fan, but these string of endorsements that obama has been getting are extraordinarily interesting and send a signal. The time of the clintons may be and hopefully is over.
The clintons are the establishment and have been holding a gun at the heads of the democratic pols to either not endorse or to sanctify her cooronation. In the face of an obvious backlash from the clintons and their allies, dem pols who obviously care more about the country and the good of the american people are willing to put their necks on the line for the good of the country.
For example, kerry, I wasn't happy about it at the time, but I have been thinking about it. He is the current leader of the party as he was the last nominee for president. He is honest and made mistakes, but I believe that he truly cares about america and in particular the troops. He could have run again out of personal ambition, but he realized that his chances were slim and he would cause more harm than good. He could have made the easy endorsement, by endorsing clinton, but he didn't. He did what was right and what america needs, he endorsed obama.
Same thing with mccaskill. She just won a tight election and is a freshman senator. She went way, way out on a limb to endorse obama, again in the face of clintonian retribution.
Finally, Leahy, a maverick for sure, but in the party for over 30 years. Again, he could have sat on the sidelines or made the easy call, endorse clinton. He didn't. Again, he sees what is going on with the country and the bitter partisan divisiveness. He chose the good of the country over pandering to the clintons.
Hopefully, these endorsements will help obama, but it remains to be seen. The fact of the matter is though, I think these endorsements also reflect very highly on the endorsers and their character. They are making the endorsements in the face of political retribution from the clinton machine and at great political risk. Thank you to all the endorsers so far. Obviously, the good of the country is far more important to these endorsers than politics.
onceler wrote on January 17, 2008 11:24 AM:yes, Leahy is one of the best of the best.
Gtash wrote on January 17, 2008 11:25 AM:I like Sen Leahy, but he is tired and old and unwilling to really fight anymore. Witness how he and others like him have conducted spiritless resistance to the Bush-Cheney Administration. The strongest thing they have done in over 5 yrs is be angry in front of the press and "send letters" requesting co-operation from a trhe man-boy President.
I have no doubt Leahy wants to move the party forward and thinks Obama is the best consolidator of Dem votes at this time. Maybe or maybe not on the idea of keeping a newbie under his thumb. I guess I am not quite that cynical---yet.
But the whole business-as-usual scene is why I am still sticking with Edwards. He knows who to fight; he knows when to fight; he knows how to fight; and he is willing to fight. Cannot say that for these other appeasers.
ChrisO wrote on January 17, 2008 11:25 AM:I like Leahy, and good for Obama. It's a good endorsement. But I wonder how many of the Obama supporters who are talking about Leahy in such glowing terms have also posted comments about the ineffectiveness of the Dems in the Senate, Leahy being a perfect example. It seems every time he issues another subpeona, I see an awful lot of commenters here saying what a no balls guy he is, and why doesn't he take some real action.
And can Obama supporters please stop using the word "smear"? Every negative thing said about Obama isn't a smear, for God's sake. You may disagree with speculation that Senators have ulterior motives for endorsing him, but it's hardly a smear. Is anyone allowed to say anything negative about your guy?
bert wrote on January 17, 2008 11:29 AM:Patrick Leahy? WOW!!....That says something, he has 30 years REAL experience, if he feels Obama is the best, it certainly weighs heavy for me. And the Santa Barbara Independent Paper endorsed Obama today, as well. Really amazing write up on their site stating how qualified and experienced they feel he is. The RIGHT kind of experience. Not "how to get through an Impeachment" or "how to return items to the White House", or "how to avoid trouble with Whitewater"...do I NEED to go on.
Dems will NEVER win a general with Clinton.
max w wrote on January 17, 2008 11:29 AM:
Great question FGF at 10:58. How's the wind blowing on that Edwards issue? I would guess he would go Obama...would that put him over the top? Is it conceivable it could happen before Super Tuesday?
Bupalos wrote on January 17, 2008 11:29 AM:Are you people (or person under several names) new to TPM? Leahy was THE strongest voice in outing the justice department shenanagans, which for my money, is practically the ONLY thing the dem congress has done to stand up to Bushco. What are you smoking? If you would toss Leahy under the bus for your Clinton addiction, who wouldn't you toss? Is there ANYONE in congress at all that you approve of?
This is bizarro world!
max w wrote on January 17, 2008 11:32 AM:Amen @ 11:29. Leahy is the man and it's nuts to trash him now.
steve wrote on January 17, 2008 11:32 AM:Love and respect Leahy. The drumbeat of (impressive) endorsers makes it very, very hard for the Obama campaign to continue claiming the anti-establishment mantle, though. It's one or the other, and they seem to be emracing the establishment mantle these days.
Bupalos wrote on January 17, 2008 11:33 AM:>>>And can Obama supporters please stop using the word "smear"?
ChrisO, there are 5 uses of the word smear on this page and 3 of them are you.
grover_rover wrote on January 17, 2008 11:34 AM:Anonymous:
No, that would be because Obama is so very eager to repeat Republican talking points, and because, on the single most important progressive issue facing the nation (ask Krugman about it), Obama offers up Republican-lite -- unlike either Hillary or Edwards.
This would be the type of idiot I was referring to. Observe, the idiot spout of loads of BS about Obama using conservative talking points, when A) that isn't true, and B) Hillary is the queen of GOP talking points and tactics (for some recent and easy examples see "Obama is going to raise your taxes!" and "If you don't vote for me we may be attacked by terrorists on Day One!") not to mention a big friend of voter disenfranchisement (when voters don't support her), which has been a big hit with the GOP for a long time.
And as for Krugman, he is an economist who is way out of his area of expertise when he opens his mouth and politics or healthcare. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Krugman has had it out for Obama (yet never scrutinizing Hillary or Edwards) ever sine Obama disagreed with his assessment of his healthcare proposal. If you actually look at the health plans, they are virtually identical. The only real difference is the mandate, which I agree with Obama isn't an effective way to cover people, and it puts the burden on already stretched thin working families. So if someone has a problem with Obama's plan, and thinks it is soooo Republican-lite, then they must also think Hillary's and Edwards' plans are soooo Republican-lite as well. When it comes down to it, none of the major plans are anywhere near what we need, which is a single payer, not-for-profit, government administered universal healthcare system like the kind Kucinich has proposed. So if you are going to attack someone, how about you actually know what you are talking about first, and then actually draw intelligent conclusions. Krugman can kiss my ass and you don't know jack about the Democrats' plans or Republican plans.
Liam wrote on January 17, 2008 11:37 AM:Why has TPM not reported this?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/17/clinton-supporter-apologizes-for-obama-comments/
Clinton supporter apologizes for Obama comments
Posted: 09:20 AM ET
(CNN) – High-profile Hillary Clinton supporter Bob Johnson is apologizing to Barack Obama for comments he made last week regarding the Illinois senator's acknowledged drug use as a teenager. Johnson said he sent a letter to Obama Thursday morning and said he was also reaching out by phone.
I'm only 32, but it seems to me Carter won when he was the fresh face. Then Reagan won when he was the fresh face. Fresh faces work a lot better, especially when the incumbent is reviled, IMO. So I'm not sure what your "I'm glad that ended so well..." comment is.
Let me explain to you about Jimmy Carter. The guy, as I said, received glowing press while he went through the primaries, and was considered a fresh voice for a "new politics", soon after a disastrous Republican administration under Nixon. It seemed like a "transformational" time, and he seemed the man to fit it.
And then, after he was nominated, his high poll numbers eroded and eroded some more under the Republican attack machine. They were so low near the end of the election season that it's likely that he would have lost the election to Gerald Ford, had not Gerald Ford committed one of the worst unforced errors in a Presidential debate in history (Poland was not part of the Eastern bloc??). Carter squeaked by with a win.
And then everything that seemed fresh and wonderful about Carter turned to shit. All that seemed inspiring before suddenly seemed corny and embarrassing. His Presidency went down the toilet while he lectured Americans about how they should be a better people than they were.
And for years and years, and even decades after Carter left office, he was a symbol to all Americans of the supposed ineffectuality of a Democratic President. A Republican needed only mention his name to score major points with the voters.
There are, to my mind, a LOT of similarities between Jimmy Carter and Obama. I do think, though, that Jimmy Carter actually possessed some very real integrity. That's one thing I don't really see in Obama.
But I don't see Obama faring any better in the long run than Jimmy Carter. Indeed, I expect worse.
bupalos wrote on January 17, 2008 11:48 AM:"It's one or the other, and they seem to be emracing the establishment mantle these days."
If edwards makes it competitive, then you might have a point at some time. But there is no way you are going to lose the "establishment" battle to the Clintons. Bill's comment was almost a joke, it sounded self deprecating...it drew chuckles if you heard it. This isn't a line they can actually pursue...the inexperienced, neophyte, establishment candidate? Good luck with that.
eric wrote on January 17, 2008 11:52 AM:frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 11:37 AM:
I'm only 32, but it seems to me Carter won when he was the fresh face. Then Reagan won when he was the fresh face. Fresh faces work a lot better, especially when the incumbent is reviled, IMO. So I'm not sure what your "I'm glad that ended so well..." comment is.
Let me explain to you about Jimmy Carter.* * *
Exactly. And one of the biggest problems that brought Carter down was a terrible economy, though it was something that he inherited. Interestingly, it was expensive oil and a huge Vietnam war debt that was bringing us down...(kind of like the situation that we have now).
The comparison to Carter is instructive.
Good for Obama! That's quite a get.
It's particularly nice because it counterbalances the rather dubious Nelson endorsement. Sorry Donna, but the man IS a Republican. Zell Miller without the tirades...
frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 11:55 AM:the inexperienced, neophyte, establishment candidate? Good luck with that.
And yet it's exactly what one might expect -- it's precisely the neophyte who can most easily be taken advantage of by the establishment, having no clue about how the game gets played.
I have little doubt that Bill Clinton in his years in office not infrequently went his separate ways from many Democratic Senators who thought that they were owed great deference because of their many years in office.
I see this move by so many of these long time Senators as a way of settling scores, and making sure that they swing a deal with the ingenue to guarantee the increased power of their little fiefdoms.
wglad wrote on January 17, 2008 11:58 AM:I don't remember Bobby trying to run on Eisenhower's record. Be interesting to see a list of the primary candidates all of the endorsers of both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama endorsed in the 2000 and 2004 primaries.
hello_world wrote on January 17, 2008 11:59 AM:It seems every time he issues another subpeona, I see an awful lot of commenters here saying what a no balls guy he is, and why doesn't he take some real action.Citation, please.
Is anyone allowed to say anything negative about your guy?This line is interesting, and at the risk of making an inflammatory analogy, very much reminds me of something Ann Coulter once said and the aftermath. It was when Coulter made the outrageous claim that the wives of the 9/11 victims "enjoyed" their husband's deaths because they had been pushing for an investigation. Now Coulter was rightfully castigated like she wanted to be, but I caught something interesting that came out of the tail end of that debate, such as it was. Some people came out and said that she was right, not because of her point, but because, they claimed, the 9/11 widows had become politically untouchable due to their loss, and therefore their point was tainted. What they were really saying was, "how are we supposed to attack and smear the messenger when the messenger is so pristine?" Which begged the question, why are you attacking the messenger, and not dealing with the message?
Which is the same question I put to Clinton supporters. There are lots of things we can and do disagree on, but when your candidate makes false charges against someone else, or distorts their record and accomplishments, why defend that? Why when a respected Senator like Leahy doesn't fall in lock-step with your views, is one of the first posts intimating that he's a drunk? When did we mirror the Republican party so closely that these are things to be lauded. I want a Party that I can be proud of, and I don't like what I'm seeing of late, honestly.
Kefa wrote on January 17, 2008 12:09 PM:Well I guess it's all over now....time to pack it up. lol
HarpoMarxist wrote on January 17, 2008 12:15 PM:"...any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10th, 2002
"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason
but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
-- Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
wglad wrote on January 17, 2008 12:17 PM:Why do I get the feeling that about 90% of these comments are being written at someone's campaign headquarters? Leahy's a good Senator. Held tight on DOJ. How did he vote on the war? How did he vote on ending the occupation? Everybody has some kind of ax to grind. Like PS said, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. And that was before the blogosphere.
ondioline wrote on January 17, 2008 12:21 PM:hello_world:
This might just be the lasting legacy of Karl Rove. The worst of the worst in our camp don't care about the moral high ground. They don't care about issues. They don't care about good government. They only care about cannibalistic, win-at-all-costs politics. He has convinced so many of us that it is acceptable to be like so many of them. He has turned so many people into simpering cowards that all they can come up with is "Wait until the all-powerful GOP Machine attacks Mr. Squeaky Clean." Really?
So Republicans will really, really, really want to beat Barack Obama if he's the nominee, but they won't want to beat HRC or John Edwards enough to slime them. So the only way WE can win is if we just slime each other pre-emptively.
And don't even get me started on the idea that BO is somehow the "establishment" candidate compared to HRC because of the folks who have endorsed him. "He's naive. They're just doing it so they can take advantage of him when he's President." Right. John Kerry doesn't have any ideas about who among his current and former Senate colleagues might be best suited to run for and serve as POTUS. Leahy is just some old fart who isn't tough enough because he hasn't initiated impeachment hearings that won't go anywhere and will only hurt the party since WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES IN CONGRESS.
You guys crack me up...
wglad wrote on January 17, 2008 12:24 PM:There has been one Senate amendment offered that, had it passed, would have ended the occupation of Iraq: Feindgold-Reid. Here is the link to the votes. Clinton, Obama and Leahy all voted for it. Held tight on DOJ, backed Feingold-Reid, Leahy is looking good to me.
zonk wrote on January 17, 2008 12:26 PM:The navel-gazing faux-intellectual elites channeling Pauline Kael just make me laaaauuugggghhhh...and laaaauuuggggghhhh... and lllaaaaauggghhh some more.
It's a bad thing that Obama seems to be made of teflon?
It's a bad thing that Obama seems to be drawing strong support from everywhere in the party - centrist, leftist, conservative, liberal?
It's a bad thing that press seems to have a puppy love crush on him?
The GOP smear machine? Puhlease... He's already being accused of being a Manchurian Muslim crack-dealing, Farrakhan loving, closet Republican, who will rewrite all our bibles as Korans while simultaneously leading us to a huge defeat in November.... Good Christ, my supposedly oh-so-smart friends... Exactly what is left for the GOP to use against him? ... and despite all this - his poll numbers, both nationally and in individual state contests -- keep rising and rising and rising.
If you like Edwards or Clinton more - fine, your vote, use it however you want... but the rest of this crap logic about the doom Obama will bring us? Spare me.
Bupalos wrote on January 17, 2008 12:31 PM:Jesus, Frankly0, why don't you tell us how you really feel?
If you think Obama is Carter without the integrity, I don't blame you for going for the Clintons. But I think you are being unrealistic. First of all, Obama is extremely intelligent. He's a professor of consitutional law. No disrespect to Carter, but he never was in that league and never pretended to be. And while Obama may be "fresh," he has at least seen the ropes in the senate. The rap on Carter was that he was so outside that he really just didn't understand the role. He also micromanaged.
And for all that, to my mind, it really was external forces that really ruined Carter in the way you are talking about. I don't think stagflation was so much his fault. The economy was a mess coming in and was a mess for Reagan for some time. And just what he was supposed to do about the hostages I don't know. If the military mission had worked, he would have been a kick-ass hero, it failed, and people went with the predictable hind-sight. If you think you can predict this kind of thing happening on the basis of someone being "new", you are wrong.
On the 76 election itself, Carter made more unforced errors than Ford. Plus he came off as a little bit stupid. He threw away all his conservative religious support in one fell swoop by pardoning the vietnam draft dodgers and "lusting in his heart," and it was tight from then on. He was simply bad campaigner. He came off looking dumb. The new primaries meant he was totally untested. None of this parallels Obama. He's facing a very difficult primary, and his numbers climb the longer he campaigns, despite being up against a very professional and entrenched machine that is hitting on all cylinders.
So you're welcome to your Carter parallel. I think it's totally off and another example of the dem timidity and self-loathing that produced the DLC.
Michael A wrote on January 17, 2008 12:33 PM:Funny post zonk. I like the summary of the clinton attacks. Excellent point about exactly what else the republicans can say. Too funny.
Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 17, 2008 12:45 PM:The IOU chips keep piling up in front of Obama. I have great respect for Leahy, but Jeezus, comparing him to RFK???
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:46 PM:The 28 Senators who voted for Feingold-Reid are the hard core of the anti-occupation movement in the US Senate. Every one of them is unimpeachable on the occupation. For those of us who want to end the occupation, Feingold-Reid should be the litmus test for candidates and endorsers alike. I don't support Senator Obama, but the Leahy endorsement is a good one and he should be proud to have it.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 1:00 PM:Why do you think all these Senators have come Obama's way?
Because most of them are scared stiff at the prospect of running for re-election with Clinton on the ballot or in office. Ben Nelson, Ted Johnson, Claire McCaskill, Tim Kaine, Janet Napolitano - these folks answer to constituents who preferred Bush over Clinton. They know that the Clinton name at the top of the ballot would draw every nuggle-walking troglodyte out of his cave to come vote against the hated Clinton, and against them in the process. To nominate Sen Clinton as our candidate would be to vitiate the democratic slate in the down-ticket races around the nation. Simple self-preservation instincts dictate, then, that these folks do everything in their power to stop Sen Clinton from taking the nomination, and that means throwing whatever (little) support they can offer behind Sen Obama.
wglad wrote on January 17, 2008 1:02 PM:I'm impressed, zonk. How do you tie Pauline Kael in? I didn't even know she was political. I know she lost it at the movies, but at the polls too?
kenga wrote on January 17, 2008 1:03 PM:First of all, Obama is extremely intelligent. He's a professor of consitutional law. No disrespect to Carter, but he never was in that league and never pretended to be.Bupalos, are you suggesting that a nuclear fucking physicist isn't intellectually in the same league as a Con Law professor? Seriously? I mean, I know attorneys who have trouble with algebra, let alone calculus and higher order math. That's not to say that I think they're retarded, but they're sure as hell not in the same league intellectually as my old man the electrical engineer. Or are they, except in different fields. kenga wrote on January 17, 2008 1:06 PM:
Because most of them are scared stiff at the prospect of running for re-election with Clinton on the ballot or in office.And this is the primary reason I don't want to see HRC on the head of the Democratic ticket any time soon. The deleterious effect on down-ticket races could be disastrous even if she manages to win - which is far far far from a sure thing. Pyrrhic victory, anyone? Joyce wrote on January 17, 2008 1:09 PM:
As a boomer generation female voter, I am pleased Obama has been endorsed by this brave Senator.
For all other posters on this thread:
Can we discuss this issue without using profane language?
frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 1:10 PM:Bupalos,
While you're right that Carter was in a certain sense more of an "outsider" than Obama, because he had had no Washington experience, it's pretty important to remember that Obama has been in the Senate now for only 3 years, and a good portion of that time he has been either running for President or preparing to do so. Before that, he was, by his own admission, working in a "part-time" position as a State legislator.
I think that it's very fair to say that no successful President in modern times has had a resume so breathtakingly slight.
At least Jimmy Carter had genuine executive experience as Governor of Georgia. Bill Clinton, with a similar background, did just fine as President. John Kennedy's involvement in national politics was vastly greater than Obama's -- he had been in Congress I believe 14 full years before he became President.
And, I'm sorry, I just don't accept that Carter's woes as President were all out of his control. The man ended up blaming everyone but himself for the problems that came up under his watch -- just as you are pretty much doing. He presumed to put the onus on the American people themselves for their malaise, and clearly wanted them just to snap out of it.
What we have not seen yet in great detail is how Obama handles genuinely adverse conditions. What we have seen of this one the campaign trail is very troubling. He gets attacked for not having an honestly universal health plan, and what does he do in counterattack? Take up Republican talking points, because he knows that they work, even though they ultimately damage the prospects for universal health care. Indeed, that desire to counterattack at all costs also explains his bizarre adoption of Republican talking points on SS, where he was likewise being attacked by his opponents.
We won't know the real Obama until things truly go badly for him, as they do in every Presidency. Everything about his behavior so far suggests to me that we will see Jimmy Carter redux, except, I believe, considerably worse.
zonk wrote on January 17, 2008 1:19 PM:I'm impressed, zonk. How do you tie Pauline Kael in? I didn't even know she was political. I know she lost it at the movies, but at the polls too?
She's generally credited with the famous comment, following Nixon's '72 election -- "How did he win? I don't know anyone that voted for him."
frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 1:21 PM:Because most of them are scared stiff at the prospect of running for re-election with Clinton on the ballot or in office.
Oh yeah, that would of course explain why Kerry of Massachusetts and Leahy of Vermont are backing Obama.
How about the idea that what all the Senators really want is to allocate maximum power to their fiefdoms? Don't you think that hypothesis makes a little more sense as a simplifying, unified explanation?
wglad wrote on January 17, 2008 1:22 PM:It seems to me that Mr. Obama and his supporters have thrown the Kennedy name around enough now that he has to have Ted Kennedy's endorsement to avoid the "I knew Bobby, and you're no Bobby" implication. Ted Kennedy, unlike John Kerry who may need the Obama vote to survive, doesn't need Mr. Obama. His endorsement would carry real weight and pass the Kennedy torch to Obama.
ceci wrote on January 17, 2008 1:24 PM:This is definitely an important endorsement for Sen. Obama. Thank you Sen. Leahy!
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 1:25 PM:How about the idea that what all the Senators really want is to allocate maximum power to their fiefdoms? Don't you think that hypothesis makes a little more sense as a simplifying, unified explanation?
Not really. If we were to go with your prefered hypothesis, we would need still to explain why Tim Kaine and Janet Napolitano, neither of whom have a senate fiefdom to expand, are endorsing Obama. I grant you that Sens Kerry and Leahy must have other reasons for endorsing Obama than the one that I suggested, and perhaps your hypothesis is the best one to account for their endorsements. One way or another, however, I am sticking by the central thrust of my earlier post - red state democratic elected officials have a very good reason to prefer Obama over Clinton.
wglad wrote on January 17, 2008 1:25 PM:Thanks, zonk. Droll. And, rereading my previous comment, it occurs to me that maybe all Mr. Obama needs is for Senator Kennedy to remain silent, relying on the dictum: silence gives consent.
kenga wrote on January 17, 2008 1:57 PM:frankly0 - try this re-write of Greg's statement - my edit in bold.
Because most of them are scared stiff at the prospect of losing Congress with Clinton on the ballot.
pat leahy -- the man who voted to confirm john roberts to the supreme court because he didn't want a partisan vote.
frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 2:35 PM:Because most of them are scared stiff at the prospect of losing Congress with Clinton on the ballot.
Oh yeah, as if that's a serious prospect. As if they don't read the same polls that everyone else reads, demonstrating that there's not a chance in hell of that happening barring some cataclysmic event between now and November.
Please.
Lavocat wrote on January 17, 2008 11:46 PM:frankly0: Yeah, this is a strange turn of events. Given the dynamic of the Senate, one would have expected Leahy to come out in support of Hillary at this stage of the game. One has to wonder what sort of backroom maneuvering is going on right now - and whether this will have any sort of cascade effect on future endorsements for Obama.
This seems, on its face, to be a risky move by Leahy. But, then again, Vermonters are a wily and fiercely independent bunch.
union rep wrote on January 20, 2008 3:20 AM:Leahy is a moron, hes as stupid as the rest of the populace that thinks Obama is ready to run the show. Edwards is just to much of a Reagan hater heh? Image is dillusional at best in this day and age the wolves are truly nipping at our heels, and America just does not get it. It the economy stupid,its the jobs stupid,not sucking up to the corparations like Obama did when he said he would like to kiss Ronnies ass. Its biz as usual in this screwy country of ours. I would leave but where in the hell am I going to go?
