Brian Beutler raises an interesting point -- if senior legislators like Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy, Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Ted Kennedy have all stuck their necks out to support Barack Obama, is it possible that Hillary Clinton may not be the master of the legislative process we've been led to believe? Something worth thinking about in the larger context of an odd campaign which is based on "experience" but not especially grounded in any concrete experiences.
« Lunch Table | Main | Photo I Meant to Blog Months Ago Blogging »
Obama's Endorsements
28 Jan 2008 12:23 pm
Comments (45)
It's an indication of how racist Billary is. The Senators were going to support Billary until they saw the race baiting Billary was putting out and switched their support. This happened to Ted Kennedy. He heard about Billary's racist attack on Jesse Jackson and decided to switch to Barack even after a last minute phone call from Billary (you can read about that in the Politico).
Doesn't Obama actually have more years in elected office than Hillary?
I realize that Hillary's basing her claims on the years she was in the WH, but has anyone ever actually pressed her on what role, precisely, she played during that time? After the Hillarycare fiasco, I seem to recall her largely dropping back into a more low-key role as First Lady.
I'm confused. Who was it that believed Hillary was the master of legislative process?
I think HRC, having witnessed the power and workings of the Presidency close up, is closer in philosophy to the idea of a stronger Executive than Obama is. I see legislative branch support of Obama as simply defending legislative perogatives and power. After years in the wilderness, the Democrats on the Hill don' want to just hand things over to a strong Democratic President. Sort of saw the same thing with Carter (with unpleasant results) back in the 1970s.
I thought that the skeptic in me made me pretty much conspiracy theory proof, but has nobody else thought that the timing of the Tony Rezko arrest immediately following Obama's huge South Carolina victory could not have worked out better for the Clintons if they had arranged it themselves? I'm just saying.
Or perhaps they are all annoyed by Obama's incessant push for tougher ethics rules and want him out of the Senate.
I thought that the skeptic in me made me pretty much conspiracy theory proof, but has nobody else thought that the timing of the Tony Rezko arrest immediately following Obama's huge South Carolina victory could not have worked out better for the Clintons if they had arranged it themselves? I'm just saying.
Democratic senators support Obama because they'll run the country if he is elected.
Rich & "Ethel-to-Tilly":
Thanks so much for the hearty belly laughs I had after reading your respective posts. Now I can go back to work in a much more jovial frame of mind. It always cracks me up when people talk out of their ass and I get the suspicion that they actually believe what they're saying.
Hilarious.
Funny how so many of Billary's current and former Senate colleagues are not endorsing her. Bill Bradley comes to mind as well (who has endorsed Obama). As noted in Bernstein's book, over her destruction of health care reform (1993-94; c'mon, you don't really remember?), "That was it for for me (e.g., Hillary's behavior), as far as I was concerned. The arrogance, the self-righteousness." Her years as First Lady quite clearly demonstrated her lack of executive temperment. Bill just drove everyone over the edge. And their injection of racism, all for their pursuit of power, at the expense of anything else.
or maybe it's because they don't want to relive a unified clinton-obsessed republican party?
that period probably wasn't so fun for those guys.
I'm still voting for Hillary!
I was always inclined to believe the talk about
what a great senator Hillary is and how she quickly
mastered the intricacies of Senate rules. And
that's all fine: but it seems that isn't really the
necessary skill for the White House. Charisma,
oratorical prowess, and the ability to articulate a
vision are vastly important for a President; and
most important of all the judgment to choose good
advisers and sift their advice carefully. Sure,
the President decides what legislative campaigns
to fight; but other people get down in the trenches
and count the votes - calling on the President for
persuasion of the public and individual legislators
as necessary.
Anyhow, the story of how Obama achieved consensus
in the Illinois Senate in favor of changes to
protect criminal suspects from being forced to
confess is quite as impressive as anything Hillary
has done as a legislator.
And above all that if Hillary is
the next President then we're all gonna spend
2009-2017 rehashing the issues of 1992-1994.
A lot of people - including probably a lot of
Senators - would go a long way to avoid that ...
Maybe Obama reminds them why they believe in public service in the first place.
Snark aside, there is something to be said for Obama's understanding of how the executive is supposed to work within the strictures of the constitutional framework, compared to the arrogations of power under Clinton and Bush II. (Edwards's views of executive power also appear extreme by historical standards.) Yet another reason to support Obama.
And clearly, the Senate cats know Obama well enough to reject HRC's notion that she's the only capable leader. Anyway, on "Day One," don't you just give a speech, revoke the gag rule, and then go to the inaugural balls?
Not to take away anything from Obama, but I thought his candidacy was about the future.
This flurry of endorsements from the Kennedy family hardly conforms to his insistence that his candidacy is forward looking and all about change. Why does he want to show us the reruns of the Camelot?
Oh, come now, let's not forget Hillary's stunning legislative achievement in co-sponsoring a bill to send flag burners to prison. Now that, if you'll pardon the pun (and Marc Rich while you're at it), was a burning issue...
Seriously, why is anyone supporting this dishonest, no-accomplishment war monger?
Okay, Rich and Ethel - I'll bite. If you're right, why did Robert Menendez, Sheldon Whitehouse, Dianne Finestein, Maria Cantwell, Debbie Stabenow, Sivestre Reyes, Loretta Sanchez endorse Hillary?
Matt's point is that according to Hillary, she has awesome experience and Obama has like none. If that's so true, why are so many people who have been viewing that experience up close choosing the so-called neophyte?
You think by electing Obama that we won't be rehashing issues of the 90's. Dream on. The GOP isn't going to roll over and play dead. Face it: We're in a "culture war." Simply announcing that we don't want to be in one doesn't end it.
You can't compromise with the Republicans. The southern Republicans have never known defeat. That's why they're so arrogant and clueless. The only way to get to Obama's era of good feelings is to beat the the Republicans. They can't be reasoned with. They can only be beaten. Then, perhaps, they'll see the virtue of working and playing well with others.
Okay, Rich and Ethel - I'll bite. If you're right, why did Robert Menendez, Sheldon Whitehouse, Dianne Finestein, Maria Cantwell, Debbie Stabenow, Sivestre Reyes, Loretta Sanchez endorse Hillary?
Can't help noticing that MY spoke of "Senior legislators" endorsing Obama - not "all legislators". People make endorsements for many reasons - nothing's monolithic. The women on your list may be for Hillary because she's a woman - the Latinos because Clinton is perceived as a friend of the Latinos.
but - if you believe that Hillary is the "establishment" candidate and Obama is the "outsider" who's going to shake things up - and Hillary does have a respect for the powers and perogative of the Executive - I believe that a lot of that was behind her Iraq vote - then it does make sense that "Senior" legislators - those who have congressional power and don't want to lose it - would prefer Obama, who, without an independent power base within the party, would more likely be more deferrential to party leaders in Congress than Hillary might be.
We did see this in 1977 - Jimmy Carter was the consumate outsider who came into DC representing "change" and who had the goodwill of the Democratic electorate, but without a broad power base within the party and was very weak vis-a-vis Congress.
Don't forget the "experience" thing is primarily for the benefit of the voters and the media - the motives of other politicians in the endorsement game is for the political insiders with their own strategies and agendas.
Half of the reasoning behind endorsements is personal stuff we just don't know anything about. Example - Feingold dissing on Edwards. I've heard a pretty good theory where that goes back to the Patients Bill of Rights legislation in the late 90s. Feingold and others had worked on that for years. Edwards was elected in '98 and for some reason was given a starring role in the floor debate. He got loads of credit for it actually passing (not that it matters that much now) and that pissed off some more senior members - ie Feingold. Of course, this isn't the kind of thing Feingold will reference but it can count for a lot.
Who knows why anyone endorses anyone? Usually what we hear is only half the story.
John Petty,
Hillary supporters always hand-wave this critique. Simply put, the Clinton's unify Republicans. Yes, they play politics well no matter who the candidate is. But this doesn't deny the fact that Hillary unites Republicans, while Obama seems to garner Conservative support while being more progressive.
Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy, Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Ted Kennedy have all stuck their necks out to support Barack Obama, is it possible that Hillary Clinton may not be the master of the legislative process we've been led to believe?
More likely, they, like all non-old-white-female US citizens, are just sick of Clintonian bullshit.
Like the conservative support Obama got in South Carolina and Nevada? Come on. This notion that he can win crossover votes has never been proven by the numbers. And Obama is obviously lagging with the certain sectors of Democratic base. That's why Teddy had to step in.
The media and the establishment are working so hard to stop Hillary because they're afraid she'll win.
Yes, once again let's judge someone's fitness for political office by how they campaign. It has worked so well so far.
The media and the establishment are working so hard to stop Hillary because they're afraid she'll win.
LMAO!! What the hell does that mean? There's some sort of anti-Hillary conspiracy out there among the media? Honestly, I had to sit down because I was laughing so hard after reading this. If the Clinton's have gotten any less than glowing press it's been a result of the Machiavellian tactics and their obvious assumption that they basically can do whatever they want to in plain sight and no one will notice. It's truly amazing. Hillary still commands a decent lead on Obama and may yet win. However, if you think this thing's going to have a happy ending you need to think again.
Like the conservative support Obama got in South Carolina and Nevada? Come on. This notion that he can win crossover votes has never been proven by the numbers.
Yes, exactly like that support. He got lots of rural backing in Nevada (and in New Hampshire and Iowa too, by the way). He won almost every county in SC, so there was clearly some broad appeal out in the rural sections of the state. Do you wonder how it is that he got the same number of delegates out of NH as Clinton, and how he got more out of Nevada? I believe it was the Sun that had a great piece on how he went out and got organization ops up and running in rural, out of the way areas of Nevada which the party usually ignores. Obviously that kind of stuff matters.
Susan...I wonder, have you ever considered another candidate the the Clintons? If so why and if not why? I really am curious and not dissing your choice.
John Petty-Maybe we can't compromise with hard right Reps, but that doesn't mean we have to allow them to dictate the conversation does it? What's wrong with rejecting their fear and presenting our progressive agenda as wholly correct?
Susan:
Just to be clear: I AM dissing your choice. I've yet to find a Hillary supporter that's not some sort of fiercely partisan hack who reckons that 51% is a good thing and that everyone "on the other side" are coming from a position of evil and ignorance and should be fought as ferociously as were the Crusades. It's an amazing mindset that - I hope - will eventually shrivel to an insignificant minority in this country.
You really need to get a freakin clue.
I agree with Susan. Hillary's supporters seem to be of two types: respectable folk who transparently want cabinet posts in the next administration (Martin O'Malley would sure like to be Attorney General. Wesley Clark desperately wants to be Secretary of Defense, probably more than he wanted to be President. Tom Vilsack... well whatever he wanted, he screwed himself out of it by watching Hillary get stomped in Iowa) or crackpots and hacks who want jobs in the next administration (Joe Wilson, RFK Jr., Jesse Jackson etc).
Obama seems to have a virtual monopoly on the "nothing to gain" endorsements -- guys like Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry (and maybe Al Gore later this week) serious and respected politicians who have nothing to gain by supporting either candidate. What does that say?
The entire Clinton campaign can be summed up by their response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement. Take one of the most effective Senators in history for Obama - counter with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. For those not versed in Maryland politics, this was the Lt Gov. Kennedy who, despite personal unpopularity, was handed the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 2002 only to get beat (relatively badly) by Robert Ehrlich, a complete mediocrity. Among those who know her, she has a toxic reputation, and her career in Maryland politics is effectively over as a result. Of course, the national media only reports "Clinton has a Kennedy too!"
Oh I forgot, she has the "Childhood vaccines cause autism/Bush stole the 2004 election" Kennedy too. Independents eat the stuff up.
Anyone with a little knowledge of the characters in play and critical thinking abilities can figure out that for the most part (but not entirely), the respectable folk are lining up for Obama and the crackpots, hacks and self-interested power-grubbers are being rounded up by Clinton. Clinton people -- correct me if I'm wrong.
The O-bambis think politics started in December of 2007. Obama makes them feel good and partisanship makes them feel bad. It is the politics of self-esteem writ large.
Michael - that is what I love about Obama supporters. They are not afraid to diss dems to get their guy elected. I would not endorse Obama, but others certainly have the right to without being called worthless. But apparently, brushing off literally dozens of Democratic elected officials is worth it just to make your guy look good.
Just like saying Social Security is in crisis to appeal to David Broder. Or attacking your opponents health care programs from the right. Or saying Democrats don't sufficiently pander to religious voters. Or saying that gays should tolerate homophobes in service to Obama's big tent.
Par for the course.
Columbia--
Of any of the people I named, refute me. Wesley Clark doesn't want to be Secretary of Defense? RFK Jr and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend AREN'T world class hacks? Look I'm not saying everyone supporting Hillary is doing it to get a job or is an unscrupulous hack, but well, hell, I am saying that. Name me a counter-example. Maybe you can actually debate the point I was making instead of calling me a turncoat?
And as far as tearing down Democrats goes, no Obama supporter can touch notorious anti-liberal Mark Penn, the guy running the numbers for Hillary.
So, Columbia...your point(s) are that the Social Security crisis is a myth, and dramatically bringing down health care costs but excluding mandates is some sort of fascist talking point? Oh yeah, and wasn't "Don't ask, don't tell" enacted on the Clinton's watch?
A Clinton supporter obfuscating yet again to divert attention from their candidates' dishonest and divisive ways? Now that's an example which is well deserved of a golf idiom if I've ever seen one.
Joseph said:
I thought that the skeptic in me made me pretty much conspiracy theory proof, but has nobody else thought that the timing of the Tony Rezko arrest immediately following Obama's huge South Carolina victory could not have worked out better for the Clintons if they had arranged it themselves? I'm just saying.
I thought that was very interesting, also!!
...crackpots and hacks who want jobs in the next administration (Joe Wilson, RFK Jr....
RFJ Jr. doesn't want a job in the next administration. He wants Clinton's (and his father's) Senate seat.
RFJ Jr. doesn't want a job in the next administration. He wants Clinton's (and his father's) Senate seat.
That definitely could be. Here's hoping he doesn't get it--the guy's a total crackpot.
Seriously - how about Debbie Stabenow or Jennifer Granholm or Bill Nelson or Evan Bayh or Mark Pryor? I would just like to reiterate - you can disagree with these people WITHOUT calling them names. Jebus.
On Social Security, I direct you hear (and in case you didn't know it, 1993 was 15 years ago - McClurkin was 3 months ago):
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111607.shtml
Seriously - how about Debbie Stabenow or Jennifer Granholm or Bill Nelson or Evan Bayh or Mark Pryor? I would just like to reiterate - you can disagree with these people WITHOUT calling them names. Jebus.
On Social Security, I direct you here (and in case you didn't know it, 1993 was 15 years ago - McClurkin was 3 months ago):
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111607.shtml
Columbia,
Bill Nelson's endorsement was, I thought, a pretty blatantly obvious quid pro quo for Clinton's decision to push for the inclusion of Florida delegates. Nelson has consistently said that his endorsement was pending seeing how the candidates treated Florida; he came out with an endorsement the day Hillary made her announcement. Hard to get much clearer.
Bayh is, like Ted Strickland, pushing for a VP nod. He's ambitious (as judged by the fact that he almost ran for president himself), he believes he can put Indiana in play. He wants the nod. His early endorsement and support and surrogacy was part of that.
Now, that being said, obviously your larger point on endorsements is correct that while many of Clinton's superdelegate supporters are offering that support because they see it as a means to advance their own political careers, the same is true for a lot of Obama supporters. Sebelius is talked up as a VP prospect for Obama whereas she'd never be a viable pick for Clinton; Kaine and McCaskill are repaying Obama for his early support and fundraising. And meanwhile many Clinton supporters are doing so, natch, because they believe she's the right choice. I don't think Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner believes herself to be in the running for anything and she doesn't have much in the way of asperations beyond her current job. But it's hard to deny that there are, recently, a lot more of these senior statesmen (Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Daschle) with little to gain coming out for Obama. Read into that what you will.
Or attacking your opponents health care programs from the right.
Everyone's going to be to the right on some issue. I was pretty troubled by Clinton attacking Obama from waaaaay on the right when he said he'd be willing to meet with and discuss issues with America's enemies. Opposition to diplomacy's not a hot idea these days.
Or saying that gays should tolerate homophobes in service to Obama's big tent.
He also said African Americans need to take stock in their own role in furthering anti-gay prejudices, and that they should instead embrace them. I hate this "guilt by association" stuff, though. If you want to point out flaws in his actual rhetoric or impugn his record on these issues, do so; saying "he had lunch with soandso" is an ineffective point.
I remember when several large evangelical groups were holding a big summit, and Obama and Brownback were both invited to attend. Opposition to abortion was discussed, but so was AIDS, support for family planning... they took a lot of heat for having a pro-choice liberal Democrat there and he took some for being surrounded by people whose beliefs are largely in opposition to much of his own, but it seemed a good moment in illustrating his point that you need to at least talk to these people and look for the areas where common ground does exist, because at least that can be a starting point for getting stuff done. I'm personally tired of the Bushian obsession with "with us or against us" that this refusal to even speak with the other side propagates.
To those of you who keep slandering Latinos as racist:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez28jan28,0,1688217.column
University of Washington political scientist Matt Barreto has compiled a list of black big-city mayors who have received broad Latino support over the last several decades. In 1983, Harold Washington pulled 80% of the Latino vote in Chicago. David Dinkins won 73% in New York in 1989. And Denver's Wellington Webb garnered more than 70% in 1991, as did Ron Kirk in Dallas in 1995 and then again in 1997 and 1999.
He could have also added that longtime Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley won a healthy chunk of the Latino vote in 1973 and then the clear majority in his mayoral reelection campaigns of 1977, 1981, 1985 and 1989.
Here in L.A., all three black members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts and ultimately couldn't survive without significant Latino support. Five other black House members represent districts that are more than 25% Latino -- including New York's Charles Rangel and Texan Al Green -- and are also heavily dependent on Latino voters.
So, given all this evidence, why did this notion get repeated so nonchalantly? For one, despite the focus on demographic changes in America, journalists' ignorance of the aspirations of Latino America is pretty remarkable. They just don't know much about the biggest minority in the nation. And two, no Latino organizations function in the way that, say, the Anti-Defamation League does for Jewish Americans. In other words, you can pretty much say whatever you want about Latinos without suffering any political repercussions."
Now, now, Ellen. It's common knowledge that many Latinos simply don't like blacks. In fact, I recently asked my cleaning lady, Carman, about the issue and her response was, "Oh jeez mister, them darkies are scary". Enough said.
The endorsements for Hillary are simple. She is expected to win. Her congressional brethren have plenty of evidence of Clinton petulance and vengeance. The Clintons have stated we will forget about you if you don't support us now. It is for this reason that the Obama endorsements are much more significant. Young Senators like Claire McCaskill are risking their political future by crossing the Clintons. To the extent that Hillary looks vulnerable, more Obama endorsements should materialize.
Ken..it is spelled Carmen and Usted es un pinche guerro pestoso....ask Carmen what that means!
Latinos don't even talk like that and it is not true that all Latinos dislike blacks. The Latino community is very complex and with so many of us it is just as racist to lump all of us together and say that we are all one way.
Obama is a good orator and knows how to get the people stirred up. If he becomes President, our military will have to go down to Africa and put out civil unrest, to Kenya, Sudan and other places. America will be fighting for black causes on the world stage and no longer for democracy or freedom.
We will have turned over the greatest power on earth, to a black man, with muslim roots, who is a bastard child, who's father is bigamist, who doesn't have a birth certificate and who isn't even a citizen. Now, if our Country is that stupid, then we deserve what we get and a driver license in not proof of citizenship.
We have to rely upon on news media to bring out the truth, but they are mum on the matter, having been taken over by threads of lawsuits and the nappies propaganda machine. Their voices suppressed and ignored. This should be about a serious candidate for the Presidency, not a about some snake charmer
from a muslim country, trying to take over our Country.
Even if he wins, the majority controlled Senate and Congress, will stop his agenda's, but all those years fighting him, will be years loss for things that matter. He will be pushing his black muslim agenda and the conservatives will be fighting it. Wasted years.
Comments closed February 11, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well, Saints Be Praised! I just saw something on TPM that both Hillary AND Obama are now going back to DC to fight that horrible FISA bill.
Maybe one or both of them will even start strongly opposing an endless Iraq Occupation...
I guess that close primary campaigns actually have *some* value after all...
Posted by RKU | January 28, 2008 12:28 PM