Coming off his impressive South Carolina win, Sen. Barack Obama is keeping the momentum going by pulling in some headline-grabbing endorsements — most notably that of Sen. Ted Kennedy. The Democratic icon appeared with Obama today at a rally along with Caroline Kennedy, JFK’s daughter, who wrote a New York Times commentary over the weekend comparing Obama to her father.
Obama also got the endorsement of Nobel Prize-winning novelist Toni Morrison, who famously coined the idea that Bill Clinton was the “first black president.†She called Obama “the man for this time.â€
Do endorsements matter? Usually not that much. But arguably they are important for Obama, because they help him reassure voters that experienced party elders such as Kennedy think he’s up to the job.
Speaking of endorsements, the timing of Barack Obama’s Tuesday visit to El Dorado seems ready-made for one by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, as some are speculating. By Tuesday, the day after her delivery of the Democrats’ response to President Bush’s State of the Union address, she no longer will be bound by the agreement she made with congressional Democratic leaders not to endorse anyone until after Jan. 28.
72 Comments
It takes a lot for a seasoned politician like Kennedy to support someone new – over his longtime relationship and friendship with the Clinton’s. Folks I think they are on to something here. It is more telling for what the Kennedy family is NOT saying:
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Edward Kennedy backed Sen. Barack Obama for president Monday, saying: “It is time again for a new generation of leadership.”
“It is time now for Barack Obama,” the Massachusetts senator and brother of the late President Kennedy added.
He stood with Obama, his son Rep. Patrick Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy before a screaming capacity crowd of students at American University in Washington, DC.
“Like you, we want a president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American dream,” he said.”
It is more telling for what the Kennedy family is NOT saying
Okay. Go on.
As much as anything else, endorsements from Senators for Obama may show that Ms Clinton isn’t liked.
Thanks Fleetwood.
Is it just me, or does it seem the Wichita Eagle
is trying to deemphasize the strong endorsements Obama is getting? Why not give him credit when credit is due?
In all the below threads, which the WEblog editors led off with, candidates were given endorsements. The author discusses the merits of the endorsements, but never makes it sound like they do not matter.
Why now?
Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani?
Clinton, McCain leading among governors;
McCain also gets Rambo vote
Why Jill Docking is backing Obama
Why Brownback backs McCain
I think Ted Kennedy’s endorsement is important due to the fact that he is a friend of the Clinton’s, and in the face of that, STILL endorsed Obama. And for Caroline Kennedy to not only endorse Obama, but to compare him to her much lionized father JFK, I think that’s a huge endorsement. Toni Morrison’s letter was very eloquent, but if people don’t read it, it may not make that big of a difference, since there are too many illiterate people that vote.
I care little about who endorses whom. Big frigging deal. What deals were made? I will make up my own mind. Right now, in my own mind, they all suck
Agree with TDT. I think what makes it potentially important is that we are seeing ‘establishment’ leaders endorsing the ‘upstart’ instead of a fellow ‘establishment.’
I remember when Hillary got the Barbara Streisand endorsement a few weeks ago, THAT was made to be a big deal.
Doesn’t the swimming homicidal maniac carry any weight with the press anymore?
Remember, right after Obama got the Oprah endorsement, we heard about Streisand vouching for Hillary.
IT was BIG Fng Deal.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/how-that-streisand-endorsement-came-about-hint-not-like-buttah/
Remember, right after Obama got the Oprah endorsement, we heard about Streisand vouching for Hillary.
IT was BIG Harry Deal.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/how-that-streisand-endorsement-came-about-hint-not-like-buttah/
Endorsements are important under Democratic Party rules when they come from members of Congress, governors, members of the Democratic National Committee, past party officials, and former elected leaders such as Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and their vice presidents, Al Gore and Walter F. Mondale.
These are the 796 so-called “Super Delegates,” who are officially uncommitted to any candidate at the convention.
If the primary season does not settle the nomination fight and it turns into a hunt for individual delegates, it is conceivable that this group of politicians and party insiders could hold the balance in awarding the nomination.
Ted Kennedy on Barak Obama.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos
MonkeyHawk-
Thanks for that information. WHile who endorses whom does not affect how I feel/vote, I guess some endoresements make an actual difference! The rest, maybe somebody cares who Oprah, Or Stallone, or *fill in the blank* supports. I don;t think they should. THey should do their own research, and make up their own minds. Anyway, thanks for the FYI!
Admittedly, Ted Kennedy is a very powerful Senator, well known and in many circles well respected. Does the endorsement of an old line, long term, established Senator fit with Obama’s message of “change”?
“Doesn’t the swimming homicidal maniac”
Ted Kennedy and Laura Bush have the exact same body count – one.
Here is an opinion piece that argues that the Kennedy endorsement matters. FWIW.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/28/why-kennedy-s-endorsement-matters.aspx
WS…did Laura Bush leave the scene of the accident? I believe that counts as a felony in most states.
“Taz” asks –
“Admittedly, Ted Kennedy is a very powerful Senator, well known and in many circles well respected. Does the endorsement of an old line, long term, established Senator fit with Obama’s message of ‘change’?”
This answer will send the Limbaugh-tomized Masses into hissy-fits, but the fact is the Clintons are not the dyed-in-the-wool liberals they’ve been portrayed to be. They’ve always been moderates — welfare reform, triangulation, Bill’s pandering to the the Fat Cats that he thought he raised their taxes too much…. — and the Right Wing Media Machine kept pushing further right; to the point of
marginalizing themselves.
The Republic partisans are so deluded as to the actual policies of the Clintons, they’ve lost track of what true liberalism (and, for that matter, true conservatism) really means.
After decades of selfish everyone-for-himself (and it HIM,/b>self for the Republic Party, Obama’s message that we’re all in this together is resonating with Americans. We’re not (as real conservatives used to say) African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans or Male or Femal or Gay-Americans…, but United States of Americans, with emphasis on the “united” part.
JFK was of another era altogether. But Barack Obama most certainly conjures up memories of Bobby Kennedy’s 1968 campaign.
And Hillary’s surrogates are out playing the gender card full tilt:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/NY_NOW_Betrayal.html
And this from Jan. 11:
http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html
So, anyone who opposes Hillary must have some fear or issues with “strong women.” Uh-huh.
Hillary’s presidency is unraveling before her (and our) eyes. I expect a fullblown hissy-fit to be thrown if she does not get the nomination; she truly believes she is entitled to the presidency. After all, she stayed with the mysonigist SOB for all those years, she earned it!
As one commenter put it: “Hillary’s campaign really is Tracy Flick on steroids.”
BTW – would like to see Obama tomorrow; you don’t get this opportunity to see a candidate up close in Kansas very often. Unfortunately, I cannot. Let me know how it went.
Endorsements are important but where the candidate stands on the issues is too. AARP and the Divided We Fail Effort has asked voters to pledge to vote for candidates that will work across party lines to solve problems in our health care and financial security areas. Go to dividedwefail.org and click on get involved.
“After all, she stayed with the mysonigist SOB for all those years, she earned it.”
A telling symptom of Clinton Derangement Syndrome…
You don’t get into these powerful positions if you’re “clean”. But I’m sure Obama’s on the up and up.
Nader really bags on the Clintons:
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2008/01/nader_rails_on_clinton_family.html
Who cares what Bush supporter Nader says?
California is the real battle ground and a Clinton operative campaign guy is the one who spread that comment, Hispanics won’t likely vote for a Black candidate.
Polls have Billary up on Obama previous to the Kennedy endorsements there.
But newspapers up and down the Pacific Coast are giving endorsements to Obama.
Seattle Times endorsed Obama
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004145661_obamaed27.html
Oregon Herald enthusiastically says Obama for President
http://www.oregonherald.com/n/aubra_salt/stories/endorse_obama_for_president.htm
San Jose
Mercury News endorsed Barack
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8092306
Sacramento Bee wants Barack Hussein Obama for President as the Democratic nominee.
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/646185.html
San Francisco Chronicle says No Billary
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/27/ED6EUKN15.DTL
LA Times hasn’t giving their’s yet. First time in 34 years they said making a Presidential endorsement.
http://www.latimes.com
They did endorse no political experience Arnold for California Governor. His celebrity wowed them.
San Diego Tribune not yet so far.
http://www.signonsandiego.com
“Doesn’t the swimming homicidal maniac”
Ted Kennedy and Laura Bush have the exact same body count – one.
Dick Cheney missed the fatal shot but he tried!
AARP…has asked voters to pledge to vote for candidates that will work across party lines to solve problems in our health care and financial security areas.
AARP sold everyone out a few years ago when they couldn’t say yessir fast enough to Bush and his putrid buddies.
The AARP sucks.
“I believe that counts as a felony in most states.”
Eighteen year old Laura ran a stop sign in broad daylight and killed the boyfriend that broke up with her that morning – she obviously couldn’t run from the scene, her vehicle was destroyed – but she killed him, nonetheless.
Why does Laura Bush get a pass and Ted Kennedy does not?
Why does Laura Bush get a pass and Ted Kennedy does not?
I don’t recall anyone voting for Laura Bush.
Why does Laura Bush get a pass and Ted Kennedy does not?
I don’t recall anyone voting for Laura Bush. But is confusing now, what with Hillary and Bill both running.
“I don’t recall anyone voting for Laura Bush”
Well, how is it going, Kristin Shepard? How is JR, Ms Ewing, Bobby and all the Dallas gang?
What’s that? Suck to be you since the Cowboys lost to the Giants?
Tough Bush, lady.
Ted Kennedy left the scene, tried to cover up his involvement, and tried to get someone else to take the fall for him.
Ted Kennedy did not try to find help, to see if his victin was still alive.
Ted Kennedy was well into adulthood, when he went off the bridge.
What’s that? Suck to be you since the Cowboys lost to the Giants? WSCLARK
Laugh all you want. We are building a stadium which will become one of the great Wonders of the World. If Kansas were any closer, our new stadium might possibly cover yer whole state! Pert near could.
We are spending more on the ROADS leading to our stadium – than you spend on your entire state highway system.
We also enjoy NO STATE Taxes.
Enjoy the tax increases your lady governor is planning!
DALLAS COWBOYS STADIUM
Design Statistics
Total Square Footage: 2.3 million square feet. The entire Statue of Liberty and its base could fit into the stadium with the roof closed. The stadium is also the world’s largest column-free room.
http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/
Comparing Laura Bush’s circumstance and Ted Kennedy’s as the same thing demonstrates only blind partisanship. WS, you’re usually a reasonable sort; why would you go there? Yes, Kennedy’s crime so many years ago is probably irrelevent. But that does not change facts.
Both were accidents; neither intentionally killed anyone.
But Kennedy, drunk, ran his mistress off a bridge and then fled the scene. He was 37 years old at the time, and by that time had been a Senator for 5 years, having been in effect given the seat (his brother’s before he was elected president) by his father. Had he been anyone other than a Kennedy, he’d likely have gone to prison. His leaving the scene WAS an intentional act – and a crime – in itself, and one which might have led to a death; though there was another person in the car, he waited some 10 hours to report the incident. Further, the underlying act was a crime in itself (driving drunk).
Laura Bush committed no underlying unlawful act – she had what many of us have had: a car accident. Most of us, thankfully, were not unlucky to have a death as a result. Neither did she leave the scene. Neither was she drunk. She was 17 at the time.
Just how are these comparable?
WSCLARK
You get an “F” again, on accuracy:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp
Laura Bush was not 18. She was, in fact, one day past her 17th Birtday, or BARELY over 16!
Also, the accident was not in “broad daylight” — it happened at NIGHT!
More to the point, the boy’s father witnessed the accident, and never sought criminal charges.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of any serious relationship between Laura Welch and the boy who died.
WS, you should be ashamed of yourself.
“Ted Kennedy was well into adulthood, when he went off the bridge.”
And an eighteen year old Laura Bush was what – a child? She killed her ex-boyfriend, what else is there to say?
“We are building a stadium which will become one of the great Wonders of the World.”
So what, you are still Cowboys fans – suck to be you.
My team rang up 48 on you ‘Boys.
Sucks to be you.
WS
I will assume that our posts crossed.
Otherwise, you are really being obtuse.
Laura Bush was ONE DAY passed 16, when the accident occured.
There is NO proof, from anyone, that Laura and the dead victim of the accident were in ever in any kind of serious relationship.
The boys father witnessed the accident, he has had no complaints about the way it was handled.
Disappointing that Kennedy has done this.
Obama is a panderer. He wants to work with the enemy.
I don’t care who endorses him. He does not get my vote.
“The boys father witnessed the accident, he has had no complaints about the way it was handled.”
Where did you find that nugget, Rossell? It does not state that in the Snopes article.
As for the “no connection” suggestion – it is obvious that the Bush Family criminal empire has scrubbed the records, just as they did with George’s TANG records and his cocaine arrest and the Robin Lowman abortion.
Laura Bush is a killer.
George Bush is a coke head.
George Bush paid for an abortion in 1971 for his girlfriend at a time that abortion was illegal in Texas.
Prove that those charges are not true.
WS…”MY TEAM…” you are a team owner?
I think WSClark is turning into the Leftist Liberal Ian Santiago.
“It does not state that in the Snopes article.”
According to a biography of Laura Bush…….
Yeah, that is just about as credible as any other Bush was a War Hero story, etc.
Jeez, do you think a Bush could lie, like Iran/Contra or the October surprise?
Naw.
” you are a team owner?”
Yes, thanks for asking.
Are you a member of the cast of Dallas?
Didn’t think so.
I win.
GMC, you’ve never prosecuted anyone for running a stop sign? and aren’t charges usually filed if you kill someone as a result of committing a crime, speeding, driving drunk, running a stop sign?
“win”? I didn’t realize this was a contest, WS. Unless it is a contest of who is the most obnoxious on this blog. And yes, you do win.
“And yes, you do win.”
Thank you, Taxzzzzz, I do my part.
Now, answer this, why is it just fine with Republics to make up stuff about the Clintons, Obama and Edwards, and they are given a pass, but if someone alleges something about the Bushes, they are out of line?
Huh?
Why is Rush Limbaugh given a pass for calling Bill Clinton a “turd licker” but if anyone says a naughty word about the Bush Family Evil Empire, they are un-American and deserving of the Death Penalty?
Why is that?
Any takers, Republics?
Right Wing-Nuts have more fantasies about Mary Jane Kopechne’s death than others have JFK conspiracies.
It’s always seemed to me that it was a tawdry weekend on Martha’s Vinyard. But it was 1969 and there were different rules.
Personal accounts of that party — tawdry as it was — portray it as a bunch of political cads hoping to hop the bones of some sweet young campaign volunteers (which, is not all that uncommon in either political party, even today).
From what I’ve read — not just the Republic Party rants, but personal testimonies — is that Mary Jane Kopechne was a “nice” girl and wasn’t into a 1960s sex party. She got drunk and found a car outside to sleep it off and it happened to be Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile.
Somebody brought out some pot and Kennedy, ever the drunkard, freaked out and left the party. Yeah, he was probably intoxicated by today’s 0.8 standards. But he wasn’t gonna get involved in *DRUGS!!!* So he left the party.
Hundreds of people have testified that the bridge involved was on an awkward angle, and many full-sober people in daylight have driven off the “Ted Kennedy Bridge” before and since.
If you parse what was, admittedly, a carefully scripted 1969 confession from Ted Kennedy, you’ve got no case whatsoever of all the Republic Party fantasies that have survived for nearly forty years.
If you’re gonna believe all the right-wing fantasies of what happened on Chappaquiddick, there’s always an option that Kennedy drove off the bridge, escaped from his Oldsmobile, went back to the party and someone said, “Omigod, where’s Mary Jane?!”
And that moment could very well have been the first moment Ted had any idea that Kopechne might have been in his car. It, at least, has just as much validity that Laura Lane Welch — fueled by 17-year-old hormones and emotions just might have run that stop sign to crunch the boyfriend who’d just jilted her.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter to anyone execpt you’re related to Mary Jane or Laura’s boyfriend.
We’ll all think what we think and we’ll probably not change what we think.
The people of Massachusetts have had many opportunites to deal with Ted Kennedy’s real or imagined crimes. They’ve determined it to be an unfortunate accidenct. The people who’ve supported George WMD Bush have determined Laura Bush’s potential vehicular homicide, too, to be an “unfortunate accident.”
So deal with it.
Even the Democratic Party was not willing to nominate Ted Kennedy in 1980. The Democratic Party chose, rather, to support Ted Kennedy’s rise as a major force in the United States Senate.
I recognize how much hate comes from Republic Party activists toward Ted Kennedy. They’re perfectly willing to play out their sexual fantasies as to what happened on Chappaquiddick Island nearly 40 years ago.
But even we die-hard Democrats don’t have the audacity to blame today’s Republic Party advocates for the sins of Richard Nixon. Lord knows, we have the opportunites. But that was then an this is now.
And that’s pretty much why this is gonna be a Democratic year. It’s now and tomorrow… not then and all the Republic Party’s failures… that will decide the election in November.
Who cares what Bush supporter Nader says?
Ben, you might see a doctor about that memory problem.
Tom Paine –
Running a stop sign is a traffic infraction, not a crime (yes, there is a difference). And an accidental death is just that – an accidental death. Unless there are some aggregious circumstances (i.e., being drunk and reckless), running a stop sign generally does not lead to a prosecution (aside from the traffic ticket) even if a death results. At least in Kansas.
MH’s historical revisionism notwithstanding.
Well at least one of them is sober.
“Hey Teddy, What if I’m pregnant?” “Don’t worry Mary-Joe, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”
when they cremate Kennedy..that sob will burn for 2 weeks
The people of Massachusetts have had many opportunites to deal with Ted Kennedy’s real or imagined crimes. They’ve determined it to be an unfortunate accidenct. The people who’ve supported George WMD Bush have determined Laura Bush’s potential vehicular homicide, too, to be an “unfortunate accident.”
That basically sums it up. One more things about Kennedy, though: he long since ‘fessed up to his wrongdoing (the affair, if there was one, wasn’t really our business anyway–unless you buy lunatic-fringe arguments about an assassination).
If justice wasn’t served, you can lay that outcome at his door. Yeah, money and power can buy differential justice. But if you’re going to go down that road, Bush and Cheney should be in prison now .
And for my money, I would be more concerned about, say, the young man serving an 25-year prison sentence for a crime he clearly did not commit.
When are the democrats going to figure out that these two are splinting the party? The republicans have to be loving this.
I don’t care who supports who but at the end of the day I will never vote any who is or ever was a Muslim to this office. That is out of respect for those who gave there lives.
If you even think Clinton is .01% bad just wait and vote this “Black Muslim” into the office. If you don’t believe this is about race you are as blind as Helen Keller. And to end this I am not a racist, I would vote for Collen Powell in a heart beat.
“GMC70″ tries to rebut –
“Running a stop sign is a traffic infraction, not a crime (yes, there is a difference). And an accidental death is just that – an accidental death.”
Sort of like driving off a dangerous bridge, as have many before-and-since the Ted Kennedy incident?
“Unless there are some aggregious circumstances (i.e., being drunk and reckless), running a stop sign generally does not lead to a prosecution (aside from the traffic ticket) even if a death results.”
And a just-jilted girlfriend might not be considered as some aggregious circumstance when the just-jilting boyfriend gets T-Boned at a familiar intersection? It’s hard to believe, since the accident happened in what was a familiar neighborhood fopr her, that she simply didn’t know about the stop sign.
Which reduces “GMC70’s” defense of Laura Bush to this:
“SHE IS NOT A MURDERER!!! SHE IS A MAN-SLAUGHTERER!!!”
Good luck with your moral superiority argument, there, “GMC70.”
California is the real battle ground. Hillary’s campaign dog whoever he is, said Hispanics aren’t likely to vote for a black candidate. It was wrongly repeated by some news as a fact.
Polls have Billary up, but have they been right in any of the primaries?
Believe in the undecided polling data as a truth! People can flip their minds in a day or in line to vote!
Seattle Times endorsed Obama
http://www.seattletimes.com
Oregon Herald enthusiastically want Barack
http://www.oregonherald.com
San Jose Mercury News says Go Obama Go
http://www.mercurynews.com
Sacramento Bee buzzes for BHO
http://www.sacbee.com
San Fransisco Chronicle wants Barack Hussein Obama for President.
http://www.sfgate.com
Check those sites and read the Opinions. That’s a nice list of Pacific Coast well known newspapers.
LA Times after 34 years is finally doing Presidential endorsements for both sides they said.
http://www.latimes.com
San Diego Tribune hasn’t chosen yet either.
http://www.signonsandiego.com
Monkey
There is no hard evidence that Laura Bush and this unfortunate accident victim were ever “boyfriend and girlfriend”.
Laura had a passanger in her car. This happened at NIGHT. It is doubtful that Laura would become a “suicide driver” even if she were alone. It is even more doubtful that she would be willing to sacrifice the life of her friend, as well. It is even more doubtful that she knew, ahead of time, who was in the car that she struck, until after the accident occured. (IT WAS DARK OUTSIDE, THIS HAPPENED AT NIGHT!)
Whoa I missed this.
Laura rammed and killed a jilting boy friend?
Sorta explains who she eventually married.
Maybe Teddy likes Obama.
Teddy likes attention.
Obama is not electable among progressives.
An excerpt of his praise for Ronald Reagan and some progressive take:
Published on Thursday, January 17, 2008 by Democracy Now!
Obama Appears to Laud Reagan for Confronting 1960-70s “Excesses”
In campaign news, Senator Barack Obama is coming under criticism for appearing to slight the civil rights and feminist movements while expressing admiration for former President Ronald Reagan. In an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette, Obama lauded Reagan’s challenge to what Obama called the “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s.
Senator Barack Obama: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Obama did not specify what he believes those “excesses” were. But Reagan is widely credited with leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election.
I have to agree. Obama has “made it”. SO he is ready to abandon those who have not to the tender mercies of he and the other haves and have mores.
Why doesn’t he run as a Republican if he wants to be President?
Oh yeah. He’s black. And the GOP does not treat blacks equally let alone with respect.
I will not savage Obama as the GOP does fringe candidate Ron Paul. But I will say that there are those on the left who will not vote for a pandering sell out.
“After all, she stayed with the mysonigist SOB for all those years, she earned it.”
“Good luck with your moral superiority argument, there, ‘GMC70.’”
Obviously, MonkeyHawk, you don’t get it, GMC is morally superior to everyone.
I hope that he represents the Republic crowd for a long time. Sanity might return to this country…
Was Mrs. GWB the inspiration for that song “Tell Laura I Love Her”? With some major changes in the lyrics from the facts.
“There is no hard evidence that Laura Bush and this unfortunate accident victim were ever “boyfriend and girlfriend”.
Laura had a passanger in her car. This happened at NIGHT. It is doubtful that Laura would become a “suicide driver” even if she were alone. It is even more doubtful that she would be willing to sacrifice the life of her friend, as well. It is even more doubtful that she knew, ahead of time, who was in the car that she struck, until after the accident occured. (IT WAS DARK OUTSIDE, THIS HAPPENED AT NIGHT!)”
Hell, she’s a Texan, nuff said!
Huh?
There was nothing objectionable this when I posted it a bit ago. Why remove it?
Well what I was saying is that there is no small number of progressive voters troubled with Obama’s respect for Ronald Reagan. Here is a sample:
Published on Thursday, January 17, 2008 by Democracy Now!
Obama Appears to Laud Reagan for Confronting 1960-70s “Excesses”
In campaign news, Senator Barack Obama is coming under criticism for appearing to slight the civil rights and feminist movements while expressing admiration for former President Ronald Reagan. In an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette, Obama lauded Reagan’s challenge to what Obama called the “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s.
Senator Barack Obama: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Obama did not specify what he believes those “excesses” were. But Reagan is widely credited with leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election.
And like I said before it was deleted for no reason, there is no small number of progressives who must be convinced Obama is not in fact a Republican who was afraid to run as one because he knew THAT party could never elect a black man for President.
JR
You missed nothing, other than MH’s fantasies. Like many other teens who are often not as careful drivers as they should be, Laura Bush had a traffic accident at 17. A person died, a person she knew and may have had a previous brief relationship with; the “‘ex-boyfriend’ angle is pure fantasy, with no evidence in support.
MH attempts to argue that is the same as a drunk Senator taking his mistress (date, hoped-for grope for the night, take your pick) off a bridge in his car, and disappearing for 10 hours before he even reported the accident.
In one, local police filed no charges; at the time, the young girl was a nobody, and the father of the victim, a witness, did not seek charges – he recognized it as it was: a tragedy.
In the other, a connected and powerful political family (who gifted the Senate seat to the youngest of the family) got him off with a kiss on the cheek.
Yea, MH, they’re just alike. No difference. How could I have been so wrong. I bow to your superior moral judgement. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Yeesh.
Both are tragedies. One is clearly an accident, and at least in Kansas is not a criminal act (a criminal act requires criminal intent, at least gross negligence); the other is at best gross negligence and at worst knowingly reckless, IS a crime times 2 (both the drunk driving and the failure to report) and would in most states be t least negligent manslaughter, were he not connected.
And both are, today, largely irrelevent. Why MH and his ilk attempt to join the two is beyond me.
Bill Janklow got convicted of 2nd Degree manslaughter for killing a motorcylcist and he was speeding and ran a stopsign, but thats South Dakota.
Bill Janklow got convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter for killing a motorcyclist because he was speeding and ran a stop sign, but that’s South Dakota. But i remember a case in Kansas where a trucker who fell a asleep and killed a toll-worker was convicted of manslaughter, and a case in Wichita where a driver hit a pederastian was convicted because he had a seizure and didn’t take his meds that day.
“Rage
Posted January 28, 2008 at 7:31 pm | Permalink
Who cares what Bush supporter Nader says?
Ben, you might see a doctor about that memory problem.”
No memory problem Rage. Nader, by siphoning off votes in New Hampshire and Florida, helped Bush. That makes him a supporter if Bush; his loud protestations to the otherwise notwithstanding.
Upon learning that bush shook Obamma’s hand last night, but not Clinton’s, I’m leaning stronger than ever towards Clinton!
No memory problem Rage. Nader, by siphoning off votes in New Hampshire and Florida, helped Bush. That makes him a supporter if Bush; his loud protestations to the otherwise notwithstanding
And interesting take on democracy, Ben, albeit one openly and profoundly hostile to it. I’m afraid I’ll be compelled to keep that in mind when examing your other judgments.
“Supporter” implies. . .support, as in, if not outright endorsement, at least working towards the same goal. So, by your same logic, John Edwards is surely a Clinton “supporter” (how dare that spoiler syphon off white votes!) or an Obama supporter (how dare that spoler syphon off ‘change’ voters!). Apparently, you’ve joined the Joe Williams club, and are defining terms to your own liking.
Let’s get this straight: I have absolutely no interest in rehashing the same tired arguments of 2000. But it’s fascinating to me that you view the mere existence of an alternative as a fait accompli. How dare he give those who were justifiably disgusted by Gore’s campaign an acceptable third choice!
Yes, we know the sheeple can’t be trusted, don’t we, Ben? After all, fifty million of them voted for Bush. A half-million than than voted for Gore. So it’s obviously Nader’s fault.
Surely Kerry’s loss can be blamed on Nader,too. After all, Kerry lost a key swing state (Ohio) where Nader was running. While math isn’t as convenient, surely the mere fact that Nader was running–and thus give that alternative to voters–is enough to hang that one on him, too.
Perish the thought that we should actually hold voters responsible for their own votes, or care more about votes that were never counted. Nope– It’s all Nader’s fault!! Cue the scary music!
I guess the “Nader factor” provides a somewhat plausible “what-if” scenario and convenient scapegoat for all that went wrong in 2000. Oh well.
http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/12/25/tomo/index.html
P.S. In case anyone was wondering, I lived in Kansas in 2000, and voted for Nader. Bush won Kansas–by 20 points, I believe, so by contributing to Nader’s 2.7 percent, it’s obviously all my fault. Resume scary music!
A friend of mine, with generally the same liberal attitudes, could not bring himself to vote for Gore either, so he voted for Bush .
Rage – I remember 2000 well. Had Nader been a legitimate possibility then he might have been important. I also recall some discussion of ‘trading votes’ – I might vote Nader in KS while someone in a swing state sticks with Gore.
I liked a lot of what Nader had to say back in 2000. However it was all too clear that his presence in close states would tip the balance. New Hampshire and Florida (hanging chads notwithstanding) were those two states.
You are dead wrong with your claim that more people voted for Bush than for Gore. It was the other way around – Gore out-polled Bush by a large margin. It was only in the ‘College’ that Bush won.
In the case of Kerry and Ohio the numbers do not add up that way. Even if you add the Kerry and Nader vote numbers he still loses to Bush as reported. That was not the case in NH and FL in 2000. Nader clearly made the difference there.
A comment about Edwards – in the primary system, especially with proportional delegates, he can ‘transfer’ his to Obama or Clinton if he scoses. That is not the case in the general election.
You are dead wrong with your claim that more people voted for Bush than for Gore.
I didn’t say that, of course. I said the opposite. But I can see how someone could read the “than than” typo that way, but that also ignores pretty much everything I’ve written about that election! ;)
ah – ‘than that!’ Gotcha! Somehow it just didn’t make sense to me that you would make that mistake! ;) Typos can really foul us all up.