An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« The Candidates And Crying

Why the DLC supports Obama and Clinton? »

Flurry of Endorsements for Obama

Posted by DAVID SCHRAUB, Assistant Editor in At TMV.
Jan 11th, 2008 | Comments

Political observers were as stunned as everyone else by Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, and are struggling the re-establish the frame for the race. Many people thought that Clinton would get major momentum out of New Hampshire, and it certainly didn’t hurt her. She narrowly edged out Obama in Q4 fundraising, got a bevy of positive media coverage (ironically enough, most of which related to voter backlash against the media’s prior sexist coverage), and is looking to reestablish her status as the “inevitable” candidate. Iowa is now just a blip.

But Obama is showing himself to be surprisingly resilient, pulling in a flurry of new endorsements. John Kerry was the big name (indeed, there are few Democrats in all the country who have a higher profile than the 2004 nominee). But Obama also grabbed three other intriguing endorsements yesterday: Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), Rep. George Miller (D-CA), and 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont. Johnson is important because he has a vulnerable Senate seat in 2008, and his endorsement shows confidence that Obama’s coattails will be a boost for Dems in tough election fights down-ticket. Miller, for his part, is a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who herself has pledged to stay neutral in the race for the White House. Finally, Lamont doesn’t have the political pull of Miller or Johnson, but he is a progressive hero for taking on sworn enemy Sen. Joe Lieberman, and could help solidify Obama’s credentials with the base, which still reacts warily to Obama’s conciliatory, independent-appealing rhetoric.

Today, Obama built on that momentum, snaring the endorsement of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (someone I’ve mentioned as an interesting VP candidate). Napolitano helps Obama both as a governor of mountain west state, a state bordering Nevada, and by cracking Hillary’s hold over high profile female politicians. And finally, powerful Black South Carolina Democrat Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) has announced that he is considering ending his own stated neutrality in the primary process in reaction to comments by Hillary Clinton that seemed to minimize the importance and role of civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King. Obama would be the likely subject of Clyburn’s support.

Folks have had questions about whether Obama possesses the raw political talent to hang with a seasoned player like Clinton. But so far, he’s run a rather impressive campaign, and this string of endorsements has really taken the bloom off Clinton’s New Hampshire boom.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

cosmoetica

David: Give up this sexist BS. If the Obama crowd were crying the media was racist, you'd be ripping them, and rightfully so. Hillary has been treated fairly and as her own person. When she's gotten negative coverage it's because she is not an appealing candidate, not because she's a woman!

schraubd

I am a member of the "Obama crowd"! Why would I rip them/me if they/I thought the media was treating him in a racist manner? I mean, aside from schizophrenia.

Supporting an opponent of Clinton in the primary, I have precisely zero vested interest in seeing sexism where it isn't there. The ridiculous coverage of Clinton's tears as a avenue for "discussing" whether her "emotions would get the best of her" was sexist, plain and simple. I mean, John Boehner seems to break down sobbing every 30 minutes on Iraq, but nobody starts questioning whether he's really just a sniveling wimp without control of his emotions.

DLS

The delusions, this time about sexism, continue. The next time Obama falters or is criticized, the racism delusion and its constellation of lies will will resurface. [sigh]

cosmoetica

David: the bulk of the tears incident was whether or not they were real or staged. I believe they manifestly were staged, as she wept while not missing a beat in her anti-Obama talking points.

This was not because she was a woman, but because, regardless of sex, she is seen as cold and unemotional, a conniver, and luster for power.

Were their some comments by troglodytes re: sexist tinged? Sure. But they were no Obama backers.

As Joe documents, the same cannot be said of Clintonistas' race tinged remarks: http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blo...

Somebody

What I find truly amazing within the democratic power is how they continue to criticize the Republicans for their thirst for power and yet let us look at something truly sad.

In 2000 The Vice Presidential Candidate for the Democrats was Lieberman. Today he is an independent siding with Republicans. Stabbed in the back by his own party and the progressives who are vehemently antiwar.

In 2004 the Vice Presidential candidate was John Edwards. Today the man who asked him to help him govern America endorsed his rival and left him standing in the cold.

From 1992 until 2006 Bill and Hillary Clinton were considered the champions of Civil rights in this country. Today they are being accused of being racist because they are campaigning against a black man.

Politics of course is a brutal business but no where more so then in the Democratic party where "I've got you back" means here comes the dagger.

StockBoySF

Look, I don't believe the Clintons are racists nor do I believe that Obama is a sexist. But there can be no greater advancement for women than if Hillary were elected Prez. Likewise there would be no greater advancement for African-Americans than if Obama were elected Prez. To the extent that there are competing interests in this race, one "minority" will win and one will lose (assuming either Hillary or Obama becomes President).

Now to be flip: why don't the Republicans just nominate Condi Rice? Skip right through all the primaries (the Republicans can use the money these days). Then maybe the Dems can nominate Oprah. Talk about experience v. inspiration....

elrod

I don't think the tears did much in New Hampshire. The debate did much more to humanize Clinton than the tears.

Hillary won in NH because she had Michael Whouley's great turnout operation that brought more working class single women to the polls than at any time in history. No poll picked up on those voters in likely voter screens. Interestingly, GOP likely voter screens missed the massive evangelical turnout for Huckabee in Iowa. And those single women voters were with Hillary from over a month ago - they didn't just turn to Hillary. Look at how well Hillary did in Manchester and Nashua - those are working class women. As for undecided voters that broke for Clinton, her debate performance did the trick.

I am an Obama supporter and I watched the debate and the coverage with my mother, who I've also convinced to support Obama. But watching with her showcased for me just how mysogynistic much of the media is - especially Chris Matthews. Mind you, none of that would make me support Hillary out of sympathy. But I could see why many women were angry.

But will that carry over to NV, SC and February 5? Not sure about that. I won't predict anything anymore, but I'm quite sure this race is far from over.

cosmoetica

Elrod, which debate are you talking about? I watched the GOP & dems debates, and Hillary was hysterical, and laughable, and Edwards won hands down. Was there another debate to which you are referring, because, frankly, of the dozen or so debates I've seen- on both sides, Hillary is bad at that sort of venue.

blog comments powered by Disqus