Senator Pat Leahy endorses Barack Obama, adding a blue state liberal to his recent parcel of red state endorsers.
UPDATE: It's worth saying that Obama already has John Kerry and Dick Durbin from the blue state liberal category.
« Tough, Fair, Practical | Main | The Nukes »
Leahy for Obama
17 Jan 2008 11:49 am
Comments (19)
Why, exactly, are these politicians endorsing Obama now? They have to know that they're in for something of a beating if (when, I think) HRC wins. Does this mean we really are going to see a replay of the early 90's, when Democratic Congresspeople weren't enamored of their Democratic President, thus helping to weaken him? (In some sense, I suppose it would be the reverse, as the problem wouldn't seem to be that HRC is too far to the right or not sufficiently part of the Establishment.)
Or does this all just artifact: red-state politicians have to run from HRC, and Leahy's senior enough not to have to care?
Or does this all just artifact: red-state politicians have to run from HRC, and Leahy's senior enough not to have to care?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 17, 2008 12:03 PM
I think you are on to something...
red-state politicians have to run from HRC
I don't think any of these politicians are going to win big points with the Clinton-hating voters by endorsing her primary opponent in January -- especially not Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson, who aren't up for reelection till 2012 anyway. If it was about distancing themselves from HRC, they'd probably just be keeping their heads down and not endorsing anyone.
Maybe Leahy thinks Obama would be a better President?
Maybe Leahy believes Obama has enough experience and would be good for the party and good for the country?
Did Gore endorse Obama?
It's interesting that all these senators choosing among people they presumably know pretty well, two current colleagues and one former. I don't have the tally, but it sure seems to favor Obama.
What does this say about how easy they think it is to work with these three, not to mention the "likeability" factor?
If I had been in the Senate in the late 90s and was looking forward to a Democratic administration and fresh start, I'd probably learn toward the one that wouldn't remind me of the incredible waste of time that was the Lewinsky/Starr/Clinton scandal. Fair or unfair, another Clinton administration would turn back the clock in some ways, and I don't think guys like Leahy enjoyed being lied to and distracted from important work.
Leahy knows the candidates and their records, and isn't dumb enough to take campaign rhetoric too seriously.
And, you know, Obama himself happens to be a blue state liberal.
Man, Dick Durbin is underrated. I'm not saying he's the best senator out there, but he seems pretty awesome.
Again for the legal nerds and other interested parties, I think Charlie Savage's questions to the candidates about executive power (new resolution: learn how to link) and what they intend to do about the signing statements is invaluable. While I'm sure Leahy has a host of reasons for endorsing Obama, I still think Obama's answers on this issue are better than Clinton's.
"new resolution: learn how to link"
Probably not what you meant, but better than nothing. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum/
Kerry's endorsement and his Sunday ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos (sp?) was helpful: Kerry noted that Obama has more total years legislative (state and fed) experience than Hillary, and he emphasized Obama's sound judgment in opposing the Iraq war before we went in, unlike himself (Kerry's tragic mistake). Certainly Hillary along with secretaries and aides may be good paper-pushers and paper-finders but Obama has demonstrated that he is capable of making the important great decisions. Incidentally, Hillary, on Meet the Press, made a big deal about the fact that Obama had said in 2004 he didn't know what he would have done in 2002 if he had had access to different information from the intelligence services. This is just another example of Omama's honesty (like his response to the weakness question in the last debate, when of the three, he was the only one to give an honest answer. The other two invented self-aggrandizing pseudo-weaknesses, like caring too much or pushing too hard to do the right thing). No honest person could say what he or she would have done in 2002 given totally different verifiable information. But at least Obama would have read it, unlike Hillary who didn't bother to read the whole NIE. Anyway, a significant number of congressmen who did have access to all the available info voted against the 2002 resolution.
Tamsin: I'm an Obama supporter, but I wouldn't attribute his 2004 answer to honesty. He was trying to give cover to Kerry and Edwards -- putting party loyalty before personal ambition. Democrats should see the Clinton's use of that statement against Obama as the Democratic canibalism that it is.
I found this running total of endorsements by members of Congress. The tally among Senators is Clinton 10, Obama 7, Edwards 0. But Clinton was the presumptive frontrunner for a while, so I don't think that counts too heavily against Obama. (I support Obama over Clinton.)
Also, I'm not sure Durbin's endorsement counts, since you'd expect the home-state guy to endorse him; and Clinton is also a blue-state liberal and is endorsed by some senators I think of as blue-state liberals (Mikulski, Inouye, maybe Stabenow).
Wow, that's great, Matt. A service to all. It will be interesting to see how it evolves.
Hillary could be running for re-election in 2012.
McCaskill is very smart to get an early start on distancing.
Thank you, Gary Sugar at 1:45, that article is what I was babbling about on executive privilege.
More importantly: why didn't all these northeastern bigwigs (Leahy, Kerry) endorse before New Hampshire?
Comments closed January 31, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I just commented on Ambers that Leahy's endorsement could be one to actually give a crap about. Hillary's running on "experience" and trying to out-serious Barack by virtue of four more years in the Senate. So why then are some of the elder statesmen in the Senate choosing Barack over her? Leahy stands to gain very little either way, whereas other endorsements do indeed smell like job applications and political maneuvers aimed at self-preservation or promotion. To me, Leahy is signaling that he respects Obama more and fears him less in terms of having another president who craves more executive power. Gore's endorsement of Obama might seem worthless by comparison because it could be written off as sour grapes.
Posted by tinisoli | January 17, 2008 12:03 PM