Kiss of death! Unless Kerry’s delivering mega-bucks to Obama’s campaign.
Amen! Voted for Kerry, appreciate some of his viewpoints, and reasonably like him, but I think he’s come to symbolize another failed Democratic campaign and I wouldn’t want him “reporting for duty” if I were Obama at this particular moment.
It’s not exactly the kiss of death, unless he plans to campaign for Obama. Then it would be. I agree people don’t want to revisit the past. All of the concern about the problems of race and gender make me think that the Democrats, and I am one of them, are really worried about losing because of votes changed in the voting booth where no one is looking. This applies to both Clinton and Obama because Clinton, unfortunately, has some excess baggage in addition to gender. Then if the Republicans take the advice of one of their own, David Brooks, and start paying attention to people earning less than $50,000 a year the election could be lost.
If Andrew Sullivan’s political-consultant reader is correct, Obama now has access to Kerry’s voter file–and activists and supporter file.
Grant, besides my concern with the misogyny issue in this campaign I do see a stop Hilary movement among some powerful democrats. (The two may be related). How in the world does a relative newcomer raise all that money? Will Al Gore come out for Obama next? Secondly, how much of that data that Sullivan talks about is owned by the DNC?
Further, you should know that, even though I am totally beholden to the mercy of God, I cannot be bought. One of my liabilities in my brief forays into politics.
I’m torn between two responses: Who Cares? and So What?
Can someone help me with this dilemma?
What could be better than an endorsement from Kerry?
A commercial of Michael Dukakis and Obama wearing helmets and riding around in a tank.
Bill M.: I don’t think any women in Congress (House or Senate) have endorsed Hillary, have they? Is that misogyny?
Jean: Senator Clinton claims endorsement by almost 80 members of Congress, including Senators Cantwell, Feinstein, Mikulski, and Stabenow. I have no idea how much misogyny is involved.
Why is that a bad thing if Republicans “start paying attention to people earning less than $50,000″?
It wouldn’t be a bad thing for the Republicans because it would be the right thing for them to do morally speaking.
David Brooks in his column the other day suggested that if the Republicans started to pay attention to the people earning under $50,000 a year they might win the election because they have the religious and family values voters already. Therefore, in my opinion would be a a bad thing for the Democrats, not for the Republicans or for the country. That is because I would like to see the Democrats win. But if the Republicans win having earned the vote of the people making under $50,000 a year, that would be better than having them win on their present economic platform.
William Phelps, thanks for that info. I will be visiting the Web sites of these legislators to see if they’re publicly acknowledging the endorsements.
I support women running for office in both parties. I certainly am grateful to Hillary for providing a female face in the line-up, and I’m happy to see she’s been taken seriously. But supporting her right to run isn’t the same as thinking she’s the best candidate.
Kerry’s endorsement struck me as a move to prop up his own image as a progressive. Not that I’m cynical about him or anything.
Carolyn, you have a very interesting idea there! Would you say that McCain’s campaign finance reform bill was an effort to stop the fat cats from having undue influence over politics, and, thus, he could be said to be paying attention to those earning under $50K?
McCain also supported an anti-torture measure, in part because he didn’t want our troops to be subjected to torture. Since most of the people in the military come from the middle or working class, do you see that stand as one that pays attention to those $50K and lower folks?
As a draw for other voters, I think the Kerry endorsement is fairly useless. As a means of distracting the media from the Obama-lost-New-Hampshire-whatever-does-this-mean narrative, I think it’s fairly priceless.
re Kerry endorsement:
I thought Joe Klein on CNN was right: ” a one day headline.”
Yes to both questions. The greatest enemy the Democrats have now is overconfidence.
Carolyn, I hope overconfidence isn’t a problem. With the elder statesmen, Dodd and Richardson gone, Clinton and Obama, in my view, look more like untested wildcards.
I predict that Michigan will go overwhelmingly for John McCain, with Dems crossing over to avoid their votes going nowhere on the limited Dem ballot (Hillary is the only viable candidate on the ballot, your vote isn’t counted if you write in, and party operators are advising us to vote “uncommitted”).
As a Democrat, I’m pretty torn. Some days, I’d prefer that a Republican be elected so that the party that’s made some of messes (high deficit, mess in Iraq, growing unemployment and housing defaults, etc. etc.) have to clean them up. I’d say the Republican best qualified is McCain.
Huckabee lost me entirely when he said that if people thought Social Security looked bad now, wait until a bunch of aging hippies retire and find out they can get free drugs. Sorry, Huck, that drug coverage ain’t free, and half the elderly who qualify for it can hardly wend their way through the paperwork to get it. Buying a dime bag from your friendly, local supplier is probably still easier and cheaper.