Lyle,

Yeah, really well.

Read the "Obama Slams Clinton's 'Meet' Appearance" comments to count the ways.

Re the Russert interview. I think Hillary did very well for herself and it only yook six minutes into the interview for him to try and distort what Hillary has been campaigning about and she did an excellent job of setting the RECORD straight. The same thing happened several times and she was well up to Russert trying to put words into her mouth. This will give her a boost.

correction, that should be his PAC for Democratic House candidates in 2006.

rd

Regarding Kerry's mailing list and fundraising for Obama, I had made a contribution to Kerry's PAC for Democratic Senate candidates (same as I did to his PAC for House candidates in 2004, and glad to see that several won). Then I saw this endorsement, and I'm a supporter of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

I emailed them to ask to make sure my contribution went to my intended use, to break that Republican roadblock in the Senate, very important regardless which Democratic candidate is elected President.

To John's organization credit, they responded and let me know the funds are kept separate and the Senate PAC donations are not given to Kerry or Obama.

I had also received a separate email from Kerry raising funds for Obama. I can't imagine any Obama supporter not voting for him because of Kerry's endorsement, and I can see the value of an establishment figure endorsement lending credibility to Obama's campaign, and of course any funds raised for Obama is a plus as well.

Kerry's organization also assured me the mailing list is kept confidential and not given out to those he endorses.

Thanks to Sen. Kerry and his PAC campaign organization for responding.

rd

"Regular readers know that Stu Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, an invaluable political tipsheet, is a close friend and mentor to The Fix. So when Stu speaks, we listen."

I used to be a regular reader but I never knew this. I kept reading your column but you kept knocking Edwards so I don't read it very often now. Now I know why.

Stu Rothenberg practically foams at the mouth whenever he talks about Edwards. A couple of weeks ago he wrote one of the most vicious screeds against Edwards that I've ever seen (Lawrence O'Donnell has now eclipsed that Rothenberg column but not by much).

In Rothenbergs' piece he used the politics of fear to try to scare people away from Edwards. He claimed that if you supported Edwards you stood to lose your retirement savings because of Edwards populism. It was a piece that sounded like it came from Fox news.

So if when Stu speaks, you listen....there is no way that I will. Thank you for letting us all know this so when you talk about Edwards (if you even do it anymoer) we will know that you are channeling Stu. Now that we know about your connection to Rothenberg we can now start calling your column "The Fixed" instead of the Fix.

Here's the Stu Rothenberg column I referenced. If you read his article make sure you read the comments too.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/in_iowa_will_edwards_divide_an.html

I Predict Russert will go after Hillary Big Time and she will put him in his place. Meet The Press airs at 11:00 AM eastern time, hope I can stay awake, tried to take a nap and didn't do to good, only about 10 or 15 minutes.

Smeesq,

Read the transcript and keep contibuting to Mr. Obama.

You watch too much TV!

Who are we celebrating on Jan. 20, LBJ's day?

Wouldn't you know, right after I decided to get on Obama's bandwagon, and gave him some money this week, John Kerry suddenly becomes the public face and main Democratic supporter of the Obama campaign. Right now he's on Stephanopolis' program, with his Boston accent and rich-white-male chablis drinking and brie eating demeanor, doing everything possible to remind people about his disasterous campaign and why he was able to be defeated by a chicken hawk and quasi-criminal like Bush.

So thats it, right now I pronounce the Obama campaign totally derailed. No more money from me. If Obama is stupid enuf not to know that Kerry is a trojan horse full of bad karma, sent by the Clinton's to undermine his candidacy, then he doesn't deserve the nomination.

Lyle,

So did she say what she said or did the "press" make up her spoken words.

Barrett, the bad guy, made her say what she said and make her sound like she sounded.

By the way, what is is?

rfpiktor: Simple, the Media, no friend of the Clintons, are having an ongoing "Love Affair" with Obama, and will do anything they can to diminish The Clintons, Hillary in particular.

jimd52: The key word/words in the article, Highlighted in Blue at the beginning are a total of 3 [three] words, and one "appearing" is the key.

Lyle

If she was "100%" accurate, why all the explanations by her staff.

Was it a laconic "Mrs. Clinton stands by what she said (to the no friend of hers Fox ugly guy reporter), end of story" statement -and on to the next question- not enough?

She definitely bamboozled herself into a "It takes a village" moment. Big Sister knows you have to work "really hard" to get elected president kinda moment.

jimd52: There you go again, as Ronnie would say. The AA [Black] communities are not made up of stupid people like some folks would like to portray them.

jimd52: Again I will remind you of what I said early on about something out there about McCain that I hope will never be used. The 2000 smear was nothing compared to what some of us KNOW is out there waiting to be used against him, if necessary, by his Repub opponents.

lyle

More on how the African American community is reacting:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html

lyle

You are missing the point - it was how the comments were taken by the African American community that matters. Yes it is literally true that LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed but Senator Clinton's comments are being perceived as disrespectful of Dr. King. That is very dangerous for someone who wants to appeal to such an important element of the Democratic base. That is what riled Rep. Clyburn and is causing problems in South Carolina for the Clintons.

In politics, as in much else, perceptions trump facts.

rfpiktor: Yes, I saw it and what Hillary said was 100% accurate. The person that asked her for a response was Major Garrett [Fox News] no friend of the Clintons. There is another, "Response" by an Obama supporter that runs 11 minutes or so, and has the MLK I have a dream speech after his comments. Another good one to watch.

lyle

McCain has sureged into the lead in Florida, South Carolina and Michigan - if he runs the table on those primaries he will be the odds on favorite to win the nomination. Huckabee has very limited appeal to the GOP coalition outside of evangelicals. Giuliani's candidacy is imploding, Romney is unpersuasive and Thompson's campaign is moribund. McCain is the most likely Republican nominee.

The Clintons and the Clintonista are bunch of cry-bybies they complain about everything and blame everyone else except themselves.
These are people without shame or remorse and when you are dealing with this kind of people if you play their game you are going to lose.
The central problem with Obama is that we wants to be liked more then he want to win.

35-years of being Bill Clintons wife is maybe experience enough to run the USA maybe crying is going to make the Islamist melt like the New Hampshire snow.
The Clintonista are the supporters of Clinton name they will minimize everything that is not aggrandizing of Hillary

jimd52: You seem to have forgotten that McCain will, most likely, drop out of the race at some point and again, most likely, throw his support to the Huckster.

Lyle,

did you see the video on my January 13, 06:18 AM comment?

I have a funny feling Mrs. Clinton doesn't know what Mr. Obama does:

Dare you make a faux move or a say what was not really a good idea, and youtube will make you pay.

Candidates are facing a devastating new weapon. We, the little people, are Big Brother and we love to watch. Say/do what you will at your own peril.

lyle

Those comments are not going over well with African American voters. Should Obama start getting a much larger portion of the African American vote, Hillary is in real trouble. Check this article out:

http://www.thestate.com/presidential-politics/story/282561.html

You should be worried about how Hillary turns off independent swing voters like myself. You should be even more concerned about how she turns off Democrats like bokonon. You should be very worried that Hillary, if she is the nominee, is likely to face John McCain - to whom she loses in most every national poll. You should be worried about the contrast between McCain's "straight talk express" and Hillary's double talk.

rfpiktor: I watch youtube quite a bit and a good one is Bubba being emotional about NH, surprise, unexpected, and this "Feeling" he had about it. I KNOW what he is talking about, because i have these "Feelings" as well, and a lot of folks laugh at me when I tell them about these "Feelings" but they are amazingly accurate. Like in NH, I had written it off as a loss for Hillary, but still had this "Feeling" that I cannot explain, even to myself.

I usually check the spelling, specially when it comes to last names. I'm that kind of geek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Clyburn

Lyle,

"It takes a president to get it done" or whatever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w82ftBSordM

jimd52: "I was never going to vote for Hillary Clinton anyway." Nuff said.

bokonon

Sounds like exactly the kind of thing Obama is running to change.

I was never going to vote for Hillary Clinton anyway.

jimd, sorry if I was unclear. Yes, the primary voters, some of whom have this almost religious reverence for Bill - the only successful Democratic president of the recent past. But I think his ego is all involved in having his wife succeed him, and HER ego and sense of entitlement is apparently enormous.

Read the latest installment of The Trail, if you haven't already... she apparently was up to some Karl Rove-esque trictks in NH. I have no real expectations one way or the other, but it will be interesting to see what if anything the NH recount (commissioned by Kucinich) reveals.

I meant the primary voters - if the Republican race is decided before Tsunami Tuesday - if Mccain wins South Carolina, Michigan and Florida. Consider the contrast between the "Straight Talk Express" and Clinton's poll-driven, focus group tested sound bites. Authenticity counts for a lot in presidential elections. I think that is why Romney is doing so poorly. His late father's closest political ally in Michigan is supporting McCain.

jimd, you would think so, but it will depend on who the decision-makers are for the Democrats. I hope it's the voters and not the Clintons.

bokonon

I see no way that Hillary Clinton beats John McCain. Ironically, Edwards and Obama perform well against him in head to head polling, Clinton loses every contest against McCain I have seen. If McCain starts pulling away in the Republican race will that influence Democrats to abandon Hillary?

lyle

You underestimate the impact on African Americans of the statements Bill and Hillary made. She was interpreted as trying to play down Dr. King's achievements through his appeals to people's hopes in a veiled slap at Obama. The remark misfired badly. As popular as Bill is with African Americans, Dr. King is revered. Bill's remarks, in and of themselves, were not so bad when read but when you see his red-faced finger-wagging and hear the contempt in his voice, it takes on a whole new meaning. African Americans who like Obama might support Hillary because they buy into your delusion that she is more electable. However, if the Clintons' are seen by the African American community as being too dismissive of the first African American with a legitimate shot at the White House, a lot of that support could dissipate. Especially since Hillary does not share Bill's personal popularity with the African American community.

Read the latest installment of The Trail, which might not be a bad topic for us here, CC... apparently Clinton staff tried (in some cases successfully) to get Obama staff kicked out of NH polling places on primary day, and were responsible for some push polling and deliberately misleading statements - specifically targeting women - that may have been responsible for her "turnaround" in the polls.
And now she is trying to also pin the blame for the statements she and Bill made in re: MLK and the "fairy tale" nature of Obama's candidacy on OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN. Apparently she is only responsible for what she says when voters like it.
That does it - there is no way she is getting my vote now. I will write in Obama or maybe Mike Bloomberg, Or maybe Paula Jones or Monica. I know this will tick you off. Lyle, and you will accuse me of not being a true Democrat... but the tactics described are not those I associate with the Democratic party my friends, parents, teachers, and colleagues have been part of for years.
If Hillary wins using strategies like those, it will be without my vote. How could I ever have any faith in a president for whom those things were considered fair play?

Read the latest installment of The Trail, which might not be a bad topic for us here, CC... apparently Clinton staff tried (in some cases successfully) to get Obama staff kicked out of NH polling places on primary day, and were responsible for some push polling and deliberately misleading statements - specifically targeting women - that may have been responsible for her "turnaround" in the polls.
And now she is trying to also pin the blame for the statements she and Bill made in re: MLK and the "fairy tale" nature of Obama's candidacy on OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN. Apparently she is only responsible for what she says when voters like it.
That does it - there is no way she is getting my vote now. I will write in Obama or maybe Mike Bloomberg, Or maybe Paula Jones or Monica. I know this will tick you off. Lyle, and you will accuse me of not being a true Democrat... but the tactics described are not those I associate with the Democratic party my friends, parents, teachers, and colleagues have been part of for years.
If Hillary wins using strategies like those, it will be without my vote. How could I ever have any faith in a president for whom those things were considered fair play?

lyle

Clyburn said he was reconsidering his neutrality due to the offensive nature of the comments made by Bill & Hillary. (at least that was as far as it went yesterday). African-Americans are certainly willing to support Clinton over Obama but will bolt in a heartbeat if they think they hear racial overtones in the Clintons' rhetoric. I think a Clyburn endorsement of Obama could influence a lot of African-Americans wondering if Obama can pull it off.

And yes, BJ's are not techinically sexual relations but it is a distinction without a difference.

drindl - did you mean 1-20-09 for the bumper sticker?

rfpiktor: I have been unable to find it. Rep. Clyburn [spelling] is going back on his word and I don't think the folks are going to take kindly to it. The best thing for him to do is Shut Up. Drindl: I don't get out much on my Pronto speed buggy, it is a little cold around here, but I haven't seen any lately.

lylepink Jan. 12, 01:50 PM

Lyle,

Have you seen the Hillary Luther King - LBJ interview.

Both Bubba and Hillistas had to explain they didn't mean what they said.

Obama was asked by reporters about it and he explained that Bill wants his wife to win and he is telling only half the story about his Iraq stance.

Obama wisely is playing above the fray and eschewing the negative give and take. He doesn't stop others from raising the issue and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is seen by some as a demagogue for bringing up Katrina.

Rep. Clyburn giving an interview about the Billary King and Obama statements is probably part of the Obama tactic of hitting back while he himself talks up a game of hope and faith.

Endorsements irritate me. What are they supposed to do? I guess there are a lot of people who do not keep informed of the candidates or issues. Personally, I think I am smarter and better at this than most who endorse. So far, they haven't told me much when they do endorse.( Beware: A feeling is a feeling, not a fact)

Oprah loves Obama and feels he will change the world. Can you tell me something of substance as to how she knows this? Kerry thinks that Obama is ready and is a leader. And how does he know this?

You know, many of us common electors are not very happy with our Senators and Representatives. I might suggest you give it some thought before endorsing a candidate for this election. They should ask themselves:

Am I getting even for something in the past

Do I know this or is it a "feeling"?

Can I give people facts as to why this candidate is best for the country right now?

Am I endorsing for the good of my country or personalities?

Do I have something to lose or to gain by this action?

Am I being honest?

'Every woman I have discussed this with certainly believes a BJ counts as sexual relations.'

by a strict dictionary definition it's not... but that's definitely lawerly parsing.

i am gathering a little reasearch for somethng-- wonder if any folks out there would tell me what kind of bumper stickers yuo see arund your area?

i saw one a little while ago which read '1/20/08 -- the end of an error.' the most common one areound here just has the date. how about in your area?

jimd52: I have talked with quite a few folks [M&F] and a majority do not think it is. Back to the Endorsements-I completely agree with mstrong, although I give a lot of consideration to someone I know personally that also knows the candidate personally.

Kerry's endorsement will remind people of his failed campaign and wooden approach. His email list probably has in it many names shared by other candidates already. He insulted Edwards, his former partner, by ignoring Edward's candidacy, and the hard work previously done by Edwards for Kerry. Kerry still hungers for the spotlight, and he pretends he is a major player with this big announcement which is meaningless. Its his way of getting the spotlight.

In this case, I can't imagine the endorsement helps very much. When I heard the story, it just reminded me of how much I grew to dislike Kerry by the end of the '04 campaign.

That said, I can't think of anyone whose endorsement would make me change my mind about a candidate. I like to make up my own mind!

Most folks don't think getting a BJ is "Sexual Relations".

Every woman I have discussed this with certainly believes a BJ counts as sexual relations.

rfpiktor: Yes, I have seen it. The thing about it that sticks in your mind about the ["I did not have sexual relations with..."] is the drift I think you are trying to get across. Well, he was accurate on both counts. Most folks don't think getting a BJ is "Sexual Relations". Funny though, I got a good laugh.

buzzm1

That is a very offensive post loaded with bogus statistics.

Somethung just occurred to me - can you imagine how overheated zouk's posts will be if the race comes down to Mccain versus Clinton?

Spectator

"All politics is local" was Tip O'Neill's famous dictum.

The Economy, Jobs, and Illegal Immigration

Presented by Hillary and Barack, "La Senora y El Senor Amnistia" and John McCain, "Varón de Amnistía"

Based on figures obtained from immigrationcounters.com
There are over 21.3 milliom illegal immigrants in the U.S., costing American Taxpayers 100's of Billions of Dollars per year.
Over 10.3 Million Skilled jobs have been taken by illegal immigrants
Over 42 Billion Dollars per year, is sent, out of the U.S., by illegal immigrants, to Mexico, and Latin America
Over 36 Billion Dollars a year is spent on Social Services for Illegal Immigrants
There are over 4.35 Million Illegal Immigrant Students in K-12 schools costing taxpayers over 40 Billion a year
There have been 1.9 Million Anchor Babies born in the U.S. since 2002; all births, Social Security benfits, Healthcare, Welfare, Food Stamps, Housing subsidies all paid for by American taxpayers (you and I)

Hay Caramba!! What a wonderful country America is!! How can Americans afford us??

Lyle,

Have you seen the "I am not a crook" 3 minute version.

Officially its official: WPost and NYTimes have a story on the "Fairy tale" kerfuffle.

Wait until the 2:10 minute mark, then sit back and enjoy Bubba's cretin rant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRkw03woqc&NR=1

Finally a voice of reason.

Hey Chris, hope you are able to recharge your batteries for the Long Run of this Marathon toward an uncertain finish. Even political junkies must come up for air sometime, I imagine. Miss your occasional appearance on MSNBC. The local Comcast Cable monopoly dropped them in favor of "HDTV upgrades." Fox lives on, however.

Read your colleague's aforesaid column with my own conclusion that All Politics Is Local, oft-attributed to LBJohnson (?).

I would add one caveat. If the endorsement means money for the endorsee, then it really will help. Unfortunately.

On the other hand, if the endorsement is out of line with the voter's inclinations, then it could have a negative impact. I read somewhere that all the Dem candidates are thankful for not being endorsed by Michael Moore.

BTW, what has happened to Herr Ralph Nader? Is he saying anything about anything?

pg923: I have posted several times about the all out effort to stop Hillary. I have learned a few things about who some of these people really are. There is a number claiming to be Dems, who are not, and some claiming to be Liberal, who are not. There is one in particular who most regulars of The Fix will know who I am talking about. Be very careful when you see things like--"I have been a Dem all my life, and there is no way in hell I will ever vote for Hillary." Most of the time these folks give themselves away by their own writings.

John Kerry isn't exactly viewed favorably by die-hard Dems... He's a "loser" in the sense that he let himself be swift-boated, lost the election to a man die-hard Dems despise, and who can forget Kerry's awful joke, just before the 06 elections, which left many wishing he'd never go near a microphone again. Obama's forward-looking campaign has very little to gain by embracing John Kerry.

It's cold outside so what about my point of people just not wanting another Bush or Clinton. Every democrat I know does not like Bush, but an awful lot don't like Hillary either. I haven't done a poll but there are quiet a few democrats friends of mine who really don't like Hillary and the majority of those are women. Hillary has more support among men then women in my small universe. Obama is great, but Clinton should be killing him in these primaries. There is an awful lot of money going to Obama, or is it really going to stop Clinton. So far some 65% of the voters are voting against Clinton. OK, those aren't all democrats but I think they all get to vote in the general. My question: Is there a concerted effort to stop Clinton by a part of the Democratic party or is this just the way primaries work things out.

pg1923

I certainly do not want another Bush or Clinton.

Endorsements mean very little unless you pick up a viable political organization that can turn out voters. Even then it doesn't help all that much in the real world. Kerry's maiing list is almost worthless.

My wife loves liberals except for two - Kerry and Hillary. She just wrote her 3rd check to Obama (they are not big ones). She loved Bill until Monica but never liked Hillary either before or after Monica. Almost all her friends really dislike Hillary and the crying thing made them dislike her more. I hear more and more democrats say no more Bush and no more Clinton. Does anyone think that a lot of people just don't want another Bush or Clinton? At this point I still think Clinton will get the nomination.

I wonder what impact McCain becoming the clear front-runner on the Republican side will have on the Democratic race. Polls now show him leading in Michigan and Florida. If he wins South Carolina as well, Giuliani's strategy is completely undermined.

The reason I speculate about the impact on the Democrats is that Hillary Clinton consistently loses head to head polls against McCain while Obama runs even. Think about the contrast between McCain and Clinton. If McCain is the "straight talker", Clinton is the poll-driven, focus group tested talker.

Now if it is McCain versus Clinton, I would expect McCain to pick a female running mate. The question is would he look for a running mate to appease the base or to reach out to independents. Should he chose the latter and select, say Christine Todd Whitman, Olympia Snowe, Governor Jodi Rell of CT. He might even ask Condi Rice. That would cause problems with the base but would reassure moderate women who are not wholly comfortable with Clinton. Furthermore, given Mccain's age, the likelihood of a second term is not great so his VP would be the odds on favorite to win the 2012 nomination. A GOP ticket of McCain with a fairly moderate running mate would overwhelm Clinton in the general election. The only question is, if he were to go in that direction, would the evangelical extremists mount a third party challenge as James Dobson threatens to do if Giuliani is the nominee.

If I were a Democrat I would think long and hard about how my nominee would fare against McCain. I think Mccain is the only one of the Republicans who could win the general election and his odds are far better against Clinton.

whatmeregister

Like you, I do not understand how anyone can credibly make the argument that Kerry owes Edwards his endorsement. Someone actually claimed in another thread that it was classless for Kerry to do this because Elizabeth Edwards is dying of cancer. By all accounts, Kerry regrets having picked Edwards as his running mate. Edwards could not even bring his own state's electoral vote.

"Maybe the most significant endorsement I can remember was General Crowe's endorsement of Bill Clinton"

Posted by: keniosso | January 11, 2008

Actually, you are referring to Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff. I served under his command in Italy in the early 1980's. He went on to become Ambassador to Great Britain in the Clinton administration.

I doubt if Kerry's list of 3 million or so contacts is exclusively his own. I remember after logging on to Kerry's website to donate to his presidential campaign in 2004, I got "stamped" emails from Bill Clinton and other folks in the Democratic party. I'm inclined to think that there's an overlap of email/contact list among the 2008 presidential candidates. (I lost the old email ID at the end of 2006 and thus I do not know which 2008 presidential candidates had tried to ask me for money).

Sorry, Rothenberg, I was thinking the hamburger he was making out of steak, in his opinion.

Sorry, Rothenberg, I was thinking the hamburger he was making out of steak, in his opinion.

I think Rothenburg's logic is ridiculous using his logic Obama should refuse any endorsement. Isn't the Obama movement about being new? Aren't all the other politicians to some degree part of the past?

Kerry has cast his lot on a the transformational train. The other politicians "of the past" are not going away, either they will play a rearguard status quo action or become part of the transformation. Also, the idea that an important organizational and financial tool like Kerry's list is not a plus, because these folks somehow will come to Obama otherwise, seems similarly flawed. Also, it Kerry endorsement burnishes Obama's bon fides.

Whether you say the Kerry endorsement was a small net plus or significant net plus, may be debatable. That it is a minus is really farfetched. This isn't the first time that I've found Rothenburg's judgment flawed.

Chris,

As you might have noticed I have a patent on subtlety.

You want seismic trepidation by way of endorsement?: tell Edwards to call it a day, endorse Obama and campaign for Obama. Whomever is voting for Obama/Edwards is not voting for Hill. It is not impossible, it is doable and a clean play that sticks a fork on the Billary dynamic duo's say/do- anything-but-lose dump truck operation.

Other than that, you deserve the comeuppance your mentor Rothenberg dispensed.

You need a vacation. Your posts of the last few days have been off the mark and disconcertingly weak.

It depends on who is doing the endorsing. Remember McCain in 2004 for Bush? The religious leaders carry a lot of sway w/their flocks so I assume that's helpful especially w/the evangelicals.

Sometimes it can help a candidate on particular issues. If Russ Feingold endorses someone, it will mean something to me, that that candidate is strong on civil liberties. Ralph Nader endorsing Edwards also meant something to me. Many may still be angry w/him but he's sincere and he's vouching for Edwards' sincerity and agreeing w/his issues.

Now to Kerry. Perhaps his stock is not at its highest value, but again I can only speak for myself. He was the last Democratic nominee for president and a war hero. I think it helps. Obama is the insurgent candidate and all (most) establishment candidates help. I don't want to overrate the value of endorsements, but I disagree w/Stu. I don't believe his endorsement in any way is a contradiction of Obama's message for change.

Joe Lieberman would be a candidate that might hurt Obama with democratic voters, most definitely with me. I'm not sure if he could have helped w/independents, but of course, he's taken.

Weigh in

Are Congressional Endorsements 'Overrated'?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1494

.

The endorsement was relevant for a few reasons, the most important being that it was a snub to (my guy) John Edwards, a candidate hanging on to his final thread of viability. If your former running mate is endorsing someone else while you're teetering between viable candidate and spoiler/issue/afterthought candidate, it's another nail in the coffin for you. It also gives Obama a news cycle of coverage with good news and more coverage. Kerry's email list is nothing to scoff at by any means (Do any of us honestly think that the other Democratic candidates have no interest in being supported in e-mails to that list?) Is the endorsment earth shattering? Will it decide the election ultimately? Of course not. However, it's relevant news, and good news for Obama.

Meanwhile in the GOP race, a series of polls released today show just how much of a front-runner McCain has become, as he leads big in Michigan AND in Florida (supposedly Rudy land): http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/01/gop-update-mccain-surges-everywhere-kos.html

bsimon, while you're right that the rest of America won't know who Chris Dodd is, the party faithful will.

Personally, I like to hear what my GOP friends think of this race, and an interesting thing is emerging: for what it's worth, every single one of my GOP friends and family members is not 100% behind any one of their candidates, and for the first time, they all are concerned about who ends up the nominee on the Dem side because they all seem to believe that one of them is likely to be president. And interestingly, while not one is a Hillary fan, they hope she gets the nomination rather than Obama -- not one feels that Obama has been around long enough to be president. Depending on who gets the GOP nomination, they can see themselves begrudgingly throwing their support towards Hillary vs. the GOP nominee they do not like.

Meanwhile in the GOP race, a series of polls released today show just how much of a front-runner McCain has become, as he leads big in Michigan AND in Florida (supposedly Rudy land): http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/01/gop-update-mccain-surges-everywhere-kos.html

Meanwhile in the GOP race, a series of polls released today show just how much of a front-runner McCain has become, as he leads big in Michigan AND in Florida (supposedly Rudy land): http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/01/gop-update-mccain-surges-everywhere-kos.html

Meanwhile in the GOP race, a series of polls released today show just how much of a front-runner McCain has become, as he leads big in Michigan AND in Florida (supposedly Rudy land): http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/01/gop-update-mccain-surges-everywhere-kos.html

most of the posters, and Mr. Cilizza himself, in his original article, have gotten this right. High profile endorsements help, but not that much. The Obama campaign may be able to mine that list for some volunteers and money, they may be able to connect with some organizers around the country, and most importantly, Obama was all over the tv for another day during the most important month of the primary campaign.

Napilotano's endorsement is helpful because as a well-respected white female leader she cuts into Senator Clinton's base.

Maybe the most significant endorsement I can remember was General Crowe's endorsement of Bill Clinton during the first campaign. It gave a Governor the kind of national security bona fides that he needed and he brought it up again and again to great effect.

svreader says >>>It shows a total lack of class on Kerry's part.

Kerry should have endorsed Edwards or no one at all.

That would have been the best.<<<

That makes no sense. The only reason Kerry should have endorsed Edwards is if he believes that Edwards is the best candidate. Obviously that isn't the case. Kerry should endorse the person he believes is the best candidate, period.

And I hope you're not trying to claim that Kerry owes anything to Edwards because of the '04 race, because it was Edwards who was given the the honor of being picked for the VP slot by Kerry, not the other way 'round. If anything, Edwards is forever indebted to Kerry, especially since he seemed to run out of steam after he was added to the ticket and turned out to be a disappointment as a campaigner in the fall of '04.

To argue that Kerry should remain silent, especially if he thinks he can make a difference by speaking out, is ridiculous. Suppose he kept quiet and Hillary winds up winning the Democratic nomination, which will pretty much ensure a GOP victory in November? At least this way he knows he did the right thing and stood up for what he believes in.

Your argument reeks of the old-school style of partisan politics which is exeplified by the "choose loyalty to the party machine over candor/honesty" meme that you suggest. Most voters are disgusted with that status quo, which is one of the reasons why Obama's message of change is resonating so broadly. We built a bridge to the 21st century and crossed over it--we don't see any sense in crossing back now.

Anyone could have told you that Kerry's endorsement is far from a major plus. It;s nice background noise, but his rep with Dems has been shattered.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

I look at endorsements from politicians with a grain of salt because so many of them have contributed to the mess our nation is currently facing. They are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I believe those who endorse Obama if they agree that Obama is right about the need to fix the way government does business and about his leadership skills. I take this as positive sign that they are truthful and that they will buy into Obama's plan and will support his actions to create change if he is elected.

As for those who endorse Hillary, they all tout her "experience" and ability to hit the ground running, but not one of them has cited the need to change the way our government does business which tells me they are for the keeping the status quo and hanging onto their perks and other bennies they get from PACs, lobbyists and big corporations. Their interest in endorsing Hillary is a veted interest or one that is motivated by a deal with Hillary for a cushy cabinet or ambassador post.

I don't take the endorsement of local politicians seriously as many of the local politicians in Clark county Nevada take handouts from people with vested business interests.

I do think that union endorsements count. They are looking out for the interests of their workers - the people who form the middle class of our society and who are fast becoming the lower class or poverty class. The Amercian economy is based upon the strength of the middle class, not the upper class. Keeping the middle class economically viable and strong means keeping America strong. When there is no longer a middle class, there will be civil war in America this time between the haves and have nots.

I'm sure that someone else said these 3 million names aren't new names, they are the names that are already in Barack's, Hillary's and John's files.

I was an early supporter of Barack and I'm losing my hope for him. He needs to say something...

He's becoming the Rudy of the Democratic party:

September Eleven!---------Change!

September Eleven!---------Change!

September Eleven!---------Change!

It shows a total lack of class on Kerry's part.

Kerry should have endorsed Edwards or no one at all.

That would have been the best.

Kerry's already lost one Presidential election for the Democrats.

As Obama could rightly assert, Stu is caught up in the past because, imho, this is a very different race from past races.

Those emails do matter.

As far as I know, there hasn't been much talk about how Pelosi's right hand man's endorsement means a lot too. Pelosi can't come out an endorse anyone, so maybe that fella is giving a heads-up to others in the Democratic Party of who to endorse?

Kerry's endorsement stings Edwards, and the Arizona Governor's endorsement stings Clinton. I don't know if either help in S. Carolina or Nevada, but Edwards was the running mate of Kerry and Napolitano was appointed by the Clinton administration.

Ouch, babe.

femalenick writes
"Tomorrow, the HRC campaign is supposed to announce the endorsement of a CT senator...I'm guessing it's Christopher Dodd's. Will that carry weight?"

femalenick, your prediction is likely accurate, as Lieberman has already endorsed McCain. To answer, no, I don't think a Dodd endorsement will carry much weight. 95% of the US population will say 'who?'

Stu makes a reasonable argument, until his conclusion. He says a Kerry endorsement won't matter, for reasons X,Y & Z. Then concludes "Indeed, the endorsement by Kerry, who is more associated with the past than with the future, fundamentally contradicts the Obama message and could turn out to be a liability."

If people won't vote for a candidate based on an endorsement, why would they vote against one for the same reason? Perhaps Stu doesn't eat his own dogfood.

I am one of those 3,000,000 names on Kerry's list (or was before I asked to be removed from future e-mailings). I can't think of a worse association for Obama at this point. Kerry blew the last election which should have been an easy Democratic victory. His loss in 2004 turns more than a few of our stomachs over the way in which he let the Republican machine roll over top of him. Not to mention his seeming fecklessness in never being able to settle on a guiding theme to his general election campaign.

The shots at Kerry are unwarranted. He took on an incumbent president, AT A TIME OF WAR, and came within a couple of percent (or one state) of knocking them off. Compare that to the recent performances of Dole and Mondale. The two presidents who took on an incumbent and won, Reagan and Clinton, were two of the most gifted campaigners of the 20th century and benefited from serious economic anxiety in the year of the campaign.

Kerry made several serious errors--he let a vicious smeer campaign sit and couldn't keep to a straightforward message. Still, knocking off Bush in 2004 would have been akin to knocking off Roosevelt in 1940.

BB

Obama or Clinton are probably going to win largely on the basis of which of them the voters think has more potential to deliver the results they want. It probably helps some to have Kerry's endorsement. On the other hand one might wonder how much real advantage there is from the blessing of losers like Kerry or Bradley. I was more impressed with Oprah for Obama or John Lewis for Clinton. Probably the biggest potential factor is help in getting supporters out to vote on February 5.

After Hillary finally gets the nomination, Kerry can make a speach at the Democratic National Convention endorsing her and then declaring he was for Obama before he was against him.

LTW in Dunsmuir, CA

Of course there's value in an email list of 3 million! We marketers would salivate at the thought of getting our hands on that - even if the average response rate is perhaps 2%, the standard for direct mail. Email marketing results tend to be a little bit lower, perhaps because it's too easy to hit the delete button or as in my case, I no longer see those John Kerry emails though I was a contributor and volunteer. Why? Because like FairlingtonBlade, after the 04 election results, I stopped caring what John Kerry thinks. He's an MA senator, and I live in CA. I think, however, that the current presidential candidates' endorsement may be more meaningful.

Tomorrow, the HRC campaign is supposed to announce the endorsement of a CT senator...I'm guessing it's Christopher Dodd's. Will that carry weight? The numbers may suggest otherwise since he didn't garner much support. But it might mean something to Democrats who watched the debates during which he, too, hammered the argument of readiness and experience.

The endorsement is helpful in Massachusetts which is a February 5th state and also further signals that there are two frontrunners in the race, Hillary and Obama and helps erase whatever damage that the Clinton win in New Hampshire did to the new formed perception that Obama was as likely, if not more likely, to be the nominee than Hillary.

It also changes the main news story from being about Hillary's win in New Hampshire to Kerry's endorsement of Obama. The email list etc helps too.

I can not see any endorsement doing much. People do vote emotionally but feeling general are for the person not the people supporting them.

The timing was more important than the endorsement itself, I think.

Coming off the NH loss, and coupled with the Culinary Workers endorsement, this bought Obama some much needed positive press.

But also, um... hello? 3 MILLION email addresses.

Even if 0.1% of those people donate, that is 3000 extra donations for no effort whatsoever. Something tells me Obama will take it.

It might not change the election, but it certainly helps Obama rather than hinders... even if that help is limited to a few positive news cycles.

Chris, since you asked, here's my comment on the column in question (the third comment after you posted):
__________________

Posted by: mlalliso | January 10, 2008 11:16 AM

I don't really think Kerry's endorsement deserves the number of column-inches CC gives it. Nice to have, add it to the endorsement scorecard and move on.
...

I wonder how old Stu would feel if these were endorsements for Hillary?
He knows Obama is rolling out some big name endorsements over the next few weeks and he wants to blunt the news to make sure Obama does not usurp the queen.
Honestly, I never saw him complain when you guys were touting all of Hillary's.

John Kerry can't even change his wife's vote with his endorsement. She is not listening to him.

I even heard that John Kerry's dog heard about the endorsement and walked into the corner.

I think Rothenberg has many valid points. I am one of those 3,000,000 names and I am committed to another candidate. Kerry got many of those names as a nominee from a party anxious to beat Bush. He failed in that regard and really disappointed a number of Democrats, especially the way the campaign was managed. The media hyped this endorsement greatly.

As for the Arizona Governor...its good for Obama for Arizona and is meaningless for Nevada. As a native of the Silver State, we do not take marching orders from Arizona Governors regardless of party. Nevada caucus Democrats are partly a social network of volunteers who pick their choices with the help of a number of party leaders and activists. If Obama comes to Nevada with the endorsement of an Arizona Governor, it would be an embarassment to his campaign. Arizona and Nevada compete for power and water...especially in Southern Nevada. Harry Reid's son is going to help more than the Governor.

Stu, as smart as he is on some things, at times just misses the point in spectacular fashion. (For proof, just look at his 2006 election predictions, for instance.)

The point of Kerry isn't that Obama would instantly get 3m new donors. Instead it's that he saves enormous resources in putting together a list of that size. Combined with his own campaign's work, it provides a database of Dem-friendly voters that will be very difficult for the Clinton campaign to match. Sure, some additional donations may come as a result, but it's about building infrastructure both for the primaries and the general.

Another use of an endorsement is that it sends a signal to be incorporated with other information on the candidates. The Lamont endorsement is a perfect illustration. Some elements of the liberal blogosphere have created an image of Obama as another Lieberman, happy to sell out Dems to win the good graces of the GOP. Lamont tells them that Obama is a safe bet and not at all Liebermanlike. It won't be enough to win them over wholesale, but it at least gets them to think that their prior judgment may have been too hasty.

It's a lot like advertising for soda. No one ad convinces you to buy the can, but a systematic campaign that pushes the right buttons will get it into your head that it's the right decision. Endorsements individually usually don't mean much, but collectively they say quite a bit.

I absolutely agree. Kerry was the worst candidate the democrats ever got stuck with, why tar someone new and fresh with this foul smell from the past. I hope the mailing list is really worth this cost of association.

Just out of curiosity - Has anyone considered Oprahs impact in the Iowa and New Hanpshire contests among females? I am sorry but I hardly believe Obama got the "women's" votes without it. The dynamics suggest otherwise. Hillary was way ahead with females - OBAMA made some noticeable in roads.Let's discuss amogst ourselve shall we. No one has written about this, I wonder why.

My view: you are right, Stu is somewhat right, and many of the people Stu criticizes are wrong.

Kerry's 3-million E-mails are what matters. Stu says "Some of those 3 million people must have already contributed to either Obama or Clinton. Am I gullible enough to believe that Clinton donors on that list will now write a check to Obama because Kerry has endorsed him?"

I've done grassroots organizing and run a campaign (not sure what Stu's background is). Many people do not help because ... no one has asked them. Kerry gives Obama an opportunity to ask all of those people to help. Stu's model assumes that the donors will just find the campaigns they like. Some do, but many do not.

But then I agree with Stu that Kerry's -organizational- assets are all that matter. He is right to mock people who think -voters- might decide based on Kerry.

But people who can help? A fundraiser needs only two things -- a finger (to dial a phone number or compose the E-mail), and A LIST OF PEOPLE TO ASK. So the real question is, does money still matter? I don't know what Stu thinks, but both campaigns think it does (they haven't stopped fundraising).

I bought the original idea that the mailing list is useful, but the truth is, it's not. I donated to the Kerry campaign for the general election. I received a call in late 2006 (I think) asking me to donate to his PAC. My thought was no, you are a senator from Massachusetts and I live in Virginia. Run for national office and I'll think about it.

So, I'm on the mailing list and it's of no value to Obama. I like him, but will be voting for Clinton.

BB

I totally disagree with Stu logic regarding Kerry's endorsement and Obama's message of change. To infer that Kerry's endorsement contradict Obama's message of change is ridiculous

If you read the transcript of Kerry's speech, it pretty much sum up the reason why he is embrasing Obama's message of change.

I totally disagree with Stu logic regarding Kerry's endorsement and Obama's message of change. To infer that Kerry's endorsement contradict Obama's message of change is ridiculous

If you read the transcript of Kerry's speech, it pretty much sum up the reason why he is embrasing Obama's message of change.

I totally disagree with Stu logic regarding Kerry's endorsement and Obama's message of change. To infer that Kerry's endorsement contradict Obama's message of change is ridiculous

If you read the transcript of Kerry's speech, it pretty much sum up the reason why he is embrasing Obama's message of change.

I think Kerry endorsement matters in MA and reassured AA in south Carolina that their vote for Obama will go a long way.

I fully understand the unhelpful precedents cited in The Fix on 1-11-08, and as far as I'm concerned Kerry's endorsement is worse than worthless. But ... it's my guess that the endorsement of Governor Janet Napolitano will be very helpful to Senator Obama here in Arizona.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.