The endorsements for Obama are coming in from all over during the past 4 days:

Sen Claire McCaskill (MO)
Arizona Gov Janet Napalitano
Sen Ben Nelson (NE)
Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin
Sen Tim Johnson (SD)
Sen John Kerry (MA)
Rep George Miller (CA)
Ned Lamont
Gary Hart
Unite HERE (National)
Nevada SEIU
Nevada Culinary 226

Obama's campaign also says they are bringing in about $1 milliion/day since Jan 1. Barack is on a major roll. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton supporters are sueing to limit the voting turnout in Nevada. Pathetic.

I recently, a few days ago, posted that Hillary would lose in her back yard - New York. It looks like I wasn't so looney after all -see NYTimes article. As for me, a California voter, a Latino, I am certain that Obama will carry California. I say this knowing of the establishment here against him, including the elected officials in the Latino community - hey you have blood suckers in all shapes and creeds.

There is something in the air.

I don't know if the NH recount will bring a surprise but that would be nice.

I frequently talk to my daughter, a New York resident. However, she and I can't politics very much. She hates the Clinton's and over the years I have defended them, the Clinton's that is. We've literally hung up on each other. Stopped talking to each other at various times because of heated arguments .

This election, however, has brought us together. She likes Obama more than any other candidate running on either party - I think. I have come to hate the Clinton's too!! I have come to the realization that I wasted so much energy and most important (and this is what hurts the most) my integrity defending Bill and Hillary Clinton. I knew deep down that they didn't have a soul. They didn't have a core. And here I was arguing with my daughter. I was blind. I think the country was blind. I justified my actions because the Republicans were attacking them. That the basis of attacks were insufficient and so on and so forth.

Because we were so willing to overlook some blatant and unacceptable short comings of the Clinton's. We ended up Bush, the Iraq War, 2 Right Wing Supreme Court appointments, 8 trillion dollars of debt that our grand children will have to pay and a delay in dealing with global warming. Why? All because we were duped by the spin and our Democratic leaders failed to understand that, while the Monica Lewinsky matter was not constitutionally impeachable offense, it was after all a politically impeachable offense.

Had we impeached Bill Clinton, Gore would been an Incumbent President and he might have had a better opportunity to beat Bush in 2000.

So, at the end of day, the country, I pray, will say enough is enough and go with Obama.

I thank it would be nice if gore would ebduce hillary ,,I thank it it could be a great boost. 1 believe she will walk away the winner at the end ; but it will be a great race untill the end, good luck to both

Any additional endorsements would be welcome and if that endorsement comes from a Nobel Peace Prize Winner in the like of Al Gore - that would be a breath of fresh air for Barack Obama and his campaign efforts. Will the Force be with You Mr.Obama. Posted by Alfred T.M. Kader

Kerry is really a bungler. If I hadn't already removed myself from his list, I'd do so now that he's endorsed Obama. To me, it also shows that Obama is just another insider looking for help from the good old boys. But his resume is so thin, I guess he needs it!

Give him time. He'll flip-flop and endorse Hillary.

the endorsement gave some corporate media a chance to say Kerry "dissed Edwards" (not true) and yet another chance to marginalize Edwards and diss him themselves. Aside from that it's meaningless.
Read asher13's astute comments

I have to say it again: WHAT AN UTTER ABJECT VINDICTIVE, PETTY LITTLE LOSER YOU ARE JOHN KERRY!

It beats the hell out of me WHAT the Mass. voters see in you!

As for Obama, all form, no substance, I wouldn't vote for that disingenuous, calculating, opportunistic, arrogant SOB for dogcatcher. OBAMA WOULD BE AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER AS PRESIDENT.

He referred a few weeks ago to "the President of Canada" uh, yeah, that's right, Obama! You go!

As for Edwards, I'm pretty sure he'd agree to be a VP under Huckabee than Obama. Edwards could beat all the Republican candidates hands down.

I will vote for who I KNOW in my head & heart has my families back, that candidate IS John Edwards.

Posted by: asher13 | January 10, 2008 10:04 PM

__________________________________________

You and me both! And after South Carolina we'll have a good indication how John will go into the Feb5 make/brake primaries.
Until then let the MSM make up the minds of the "UNDECIDEDS"! That's what this hoopla is about, last minute shopping on hearsay!

It is ironic that Obama should seek John Kerry's endorsement. Kerry represents the most establishment politician in the democratic party. The "change" slogan certainly does not fit that. I guess even Obama can sacrifice the principle for a few bucks from the HEINZ company, which happens own by Kerry's wife.

I really think that we should wait for the voters to vote in SC before making predictions based on the MSM propaganda machine. I would hope that the lessons of the past week would point out the recklessness of the MSM.
Certain things I don't feel are predictions though. These are things I'm sure the MSM will continue to do:
1: Their corporate bosses want Obamma as the GOP opponent because he is most vulnerable to the MSM Rove Smear machine, so the MSM will continue to trumpet Obamma
and slime Clinton, his strongest political opponent.
2: John Edwards will receive no press because without gratuitous press he has not enough funds to buy sufficient media exposure.

That said I'm going to sit back and watch, but please , don't any of ya'll call me dishonest! I DON'T LIKE IT!

Once again I am gobstruck at how gullible, easily hoodwinked the Dem voters are. Here we sit with the MOST electable Dem, who is a true Populist, right under our noses and yet we once again succumb to the corporate owned medias manipulation of our politics.
John Edwards has led on ALL the issues of substance this campaign while these other 2 faux progressives, scramble to keep up and ultimately copy, Edwards original policy. Lead is what a President should be doing not following!

The MSM has chosen to marginalize Edwards as they know what a threat he poses to the Corporations, the DC Fat Cats marginalize him as they realize his 'for the people' populist fight will affect how they currently do business, which I might add is clearly not the peoples business.

Edwards has been outspent5/1, outfunded, out covered in all media outlets. And with all that still came in 2nd in Iowa. Why some say, it's because he has camped out there for 4 years, I say to that then woul not the Iowans ferret out his empty suit by now? No! they know they love him and his message. Even though the powers that be have only wanted a 2 person race from the gitgo. Why?
How is it with a rich Dem field with the experiences of a Biden, Dodd, Richardsen that all the coverage has been on these 2 candidates, I might add the two most unelectable in the General election, and the GOP and the Corporate powers that be know that!

Edwards has ALWAYS been the one the GOP feared the most, as his message resonates across party lines. He needed to be neutralized early on, silence his message. ANd yet when his message does get ANY coverage his numbers go up, and if you watch closely as myself and other have, they will shortly follow with a media blackout around him, the name that must not be uttered.... it is quite shocking and VERY telling. I for one will not be hoodwinked and forced to turn my sights toward shiny new objects at the medias insistance.I want the REAL DEAL not a watered down version if a version at all. I am tired of seeing him copied and his message co-opted by others, because these opportunists see how it resonates with voters, but yet have no intention of implementing then if elected.

I will vote for who I KNOW in my head & heart has my families back, that candidate IS John Edwards.

stallionstation: Most of the time I have been the lone Hillary supporter on this Blog, and it is at times hard to understand where her enemies [not opponents] comes up with their garbage. I don't think I have seen anything new at all over these many months, just a slight variation of the lies that have been around for years. globescout: you have the right idea of voting for Reason, that is a good thing. mlalliso: I take the nickname as a compliment. I kinda joke about my FACTS at times, but just look at how accurate they are, I dont get much argument on that FACT.

I don't like the idea of John Kerry supporting Obama. Kerry speaks of the two of them shattering the mold into a million pieces. Isn't Kerry the mold???

Check out the video clip:
http://www.webcastr.com/videos/politics/kerry-endorses-obama.html

harried, I do not know what readers are supposed to gather from what you posted.
Posted by: dcis1 | January 10, 2008 09:02 PM
__________________________________________

That post "fellow truth seeker" is a copy and past from Barack Obbamma's wikipedia biography. If you read any thing in there that you disagree with I suggest you take it up with wikipedia.
And bye the way, with calling me dishonest? Who are you to call me dishonest?
Yes I do judge a person by the company he keeps, and also by how loose his mouth is with charges like calling me dishonest!

harried, I do not know what readers are supposed to gather from what you posted. His accomplishment are what they are. That does not change that Hillary has no accomplishments of her own outside of her Senate seat--an instance where voters decided to put her into office.

Truthseeker, you are well within your right to vote for whomever you choose. But, let's not be dishonest. The idea that you would vote against a candidate because of his/her supporters requires a serious suspension of disbelief. If that's the gauge you use in deciding for whom to vote, it is impossible to believe that you vote at all.

Every candidate in every election has a cadre of passionate/fanatic supporters.

Not voting at all would relieve you of having to vote against a candidate based on his supporters

Truthseeker1, I'm with you!

I think Obama is a talented and intelligent person, but I will no longer consider him mainly because of his supporters who remind me of charismatic revival nuts, ready to demonize those who oppose them, I mean "the forces of evil".

I am more determined now than ever to vote for r-e-a-s-o-n. So Hillary get's my vote.

Truthseeker1, I'm with you!

I think Obama is a talented and intelligent person, but I will no longer consider him mainly because of his supporters who remind me of charismatic revivals nuts, ready to demonize those who oppose them, I mean "the forces of evil".

I am more determined now than ever to vote for r-e-a-s-o-n. So Hillary get's my vote.

obama has to prove to some skeptical black south carolinians that whites will vote for a black presidential candidate.

kerry was useful to help deliver that message to south carolina.

as for a black not being able to carry any southern state, half the dems in SC are black. we'll see what happens.

I will give Hillary points for chutzpah.

She attacks Obama because in the debate his ban on federal lobbyists doesn't extend to state lobbyists. What does she do? She takes more money from lobbyists and PACS than any other candidate in either party.

I am definitely one of those Dems who had "buyer's remorse" when it comes to Kerry. I was a state volunteer for his campaign and probably am still on his mailing list.

He was quite possible one of the worst campaigners I have ever witnessed. He couldn't even defend his own heroic war record.

I think he is still triangulating, hoping for a split convention so he can finagle a spot on the ticket.

The Obama campaign shows poor political judgment touting this instead of continuing to forge closer bonds between Obama and those VOTERS he is asking for their votes.

I have what Obama's appeal is: his oratory, but I still would like to hear a straight-faced explanation of how an African-American Democrat can carry any southern state.

It would be a glorious day when he could, but America has not reached that day, yet, and gambling the White House on a hope, no matter how glorious, is why the Democratic Party has earned the reputation as a party that unerringly pulls Defeat from the jaws of Victory.

P.S.
Mr Kerry, take me off your list

lylepink I should have added that I am a "guy" also. I DID NOT vote for George Bush as even as a lifelong republican, I can still spot a moron at 50 feet. I am from Wyoming and we choke on Haliburton in this state every time we turn around. Cheney is just a pre-altzheimer war monger! I guess if I were pressed I could barely live with John McCain (who I had way more respect for before he started kissing far right Repub butt. He used to be a "moderate"! But this lousy war that we were hoodwinked into has absolutely got to go! As I could not stomach the "Moron" or the "Smarmy" Kerry, I did not vote for either. Horrible to think that in this great country there are those like myself who cannot stomach any of the contenders. I really do feel bad for Hillary CLinton...She really is damned if she does or damned if she doesn't.
I cannot imagine what it must take in the way of personal fortitude and out-and-out guts to be her. The glass ceiling is alive and well in DC.

lylepink I should have added that I am a "guy" also. I DID NOT vote for George Bush as even as a lifelong republican, I can still spot a moron at 50 feet. I am from Wyoming and we choke on Haliburton in this state every time we turn around. Cheney is just a pre-altzheimer war monger! I guess if I were pressed I could barely live with John McCain (who I had way more respect for before he started kissing far right Repub butt. He used to be a "moderate"! But this lousy war that we were hoodwinked into has absolutely got to go! As I could not stomach the "Moron" or the "Smarmy" Kerry, I did not vote for either. Horrible to think that in this great country there are those like myself who cannot stomach any of the contenders. I really do feel bad for Hillary CLinton...She really is damned if she does or damned if she doesn't.
I cannot imagine what it must take in the way of personal fortitude and out-and-out guts to be her. The glass ceiling is alive and well in DC.

Actually, I like Obama a lot. It's Obama's SUPPORTERS, I've come to dislike.

They get hysterical if Hillary or Edwards says their experience, or policies are better than Obama's:

But when Obama effectively called Hillary a "WITCH" on SNL (last October) -- this was great to his fans -- the left media was egging Obama on to punch out Hillary in a fight.

Likewise, when Obama harshly attacked Edwards for accepting a compaign contribution-- without mentioning it was from a well-respected labor union (SEIU) -- Obama's supporters clapped and raved.

But if anyone DARES say Hillary or Edwards is better than Obama, the FAR left (such as Maureen Dowd and Arianna Huffington) are like sqawking religious fanatics. I never realized the far left was just as crazy as the far right before the Obama love fest.

I don't think I can take the rock star status -- and I think Obama would have to be Jesus himself to meet their "expectations".

So Obama, while I think you are a good guy -- I am voting against you because I don't like your supporters!!

(Need examples? Maureen Dowd calls Hillary "acid reflux"; and says she "cries her way to the White House"; it's ok when even Republicans cry though...)

I am appalled. When I vote against Obama in the primary -- I will REALLY be voting against Maureen Dowd, etc.

"Was Kerry Against Obama, before he was for Obama?"
No. They have a long, positive history.
Posted by: wpost4112 | January 10, 2008 05:24 PM
___________________________________

Well given the FACT that Obamma has been in DC since 2004 that would make a history of almost four years.
The STARBUCKS BUCKEROO is almost ready to recieve his Baccalaureate in Political Ball cutting. He's in with prize winning Post Docs folks, and he hasn't a clue how how heavy the incoming turd ordinace can get on Pennsylvania Ave.

Quote:

"Second, Kerry still has the remnants of a national operation in nearly every state. That means donors, activists and operatives who know these states and will be able to add to the already large team of Obama backers around the country. Local knowledge and on-the-ground operatives are crucial to winning any of these early contests and could even prove decisive if Obama winds up as the nominee and is looking for people with in-depth knowledge of the general election battleground states."

Aren't these the same "on-the-ground operatives" that lost the election to Bush?
Hillary should feel fortunate!

>

I have relatives serving the military in Iraq and they chose to enlist to serve their country.

John Kerry made a grossly inappropriate statement and then tried to blame Hillary Clinton for it.

No doubt his delicate ego was offended at somepoint by John Edwards:

Shameful. I have just lost any remaining respect I had for Mr. Kerry!

"lessons of the neighborhood" refers to obama's time as a community organizer, i'm sure.

obama spent a couple years working as organizer. that's his experience, and i'll put up against hillary's at the children's defense fund.

and, johnycheng, hope you're also telling clinton she can't have it both ways either -- she can't have all the experience of the white house and washington and also be an agent of change.

of course, as hillary says, she's "made change" and she "makes change." she's so out of it, she doesn't know that she sounds like she working a cash register at the 7-11.

Kerry/Obama. Keep "nope" alive.

Hey,

John ( Yella Two Faced Coward) Kerry is that SKULL&BONES Corporate doormat is going around endorsing people?
Look out Obamma, next endorsement is comming from independent Joe Lieberman!

lyle, I'm glad you said like the nickname lyleFACTpink. You might, however, want to consider how very large men are sometimes nicknamed "Tiny" (and the largest of Robin Hood's band was called Little John).

Please accept LyleFACTpink with the same sense of irony.

Kerry says that Obama"brings the lessons of the neighborhood, the lessons of the legislature and the lessons of his own life" to the quest for the Presidency of the United States of America.

Good God.

The "lessons of the 'hood"? What is he talking about? What 'hood?
This is really racist palaver.

The reference is the State Legislature of Illinois. What lessons do we learn from the State Legislature?

The "lessons of his own life" is another somewhat veiled racist statement. I don't think it has to do with Obama's Harvard education. It has to do with his race.

Beyond that - Kerry is telling us to accept hope.
Yeah. Right. "Keep hoping suckers".
While we keep taking you to the cleaners.

Kerry would have been a much much..... better president than incompetent, war mongering, corrupt, evil, lying, arrogant brainless Bush. Kerry would be president, just like Gore would have been president, if not for the underhanded crooked tactics and dirty back stabbing done by rich lying republicans and the supreme court. All you republicans love to criticize Kerry. Well, you put in office the man who has done more harm to the nation than any other in our history. So aren't you proud? When you don't get your pay checks because your company goes overseas, when you no longer get your social security checks, when the country goes bankrupt, when America is a laughing stock - be sure to thank your man Bush. He's done so much for you. The most revolting endorsement is the vomitous Lieberman's for warmongering Bush want-to-be McCain. Yeah, let's have the draft cause McCain wants us in Iraq forever. Gag me.

An endorsement from John Kerry is a kiss of death for Obama, he is a man of the establishment and past which Obama wants to overthrow. Americans can see this easily, you can not have both ways.

Teak1, that is an interesting spin on how Obama rose on the political landscape.

Posted by: dcis1 | January 10, 2008 06:50 PM
_____________________________________
Dcis1, Spin this!!!
In 2003, Obama began his run for the U.S. Senate open seat vacated by Peter Fitzgerald. In early opinion polls leading up to the Democratic primary, Obama trailed multimillionaire businessman Blair Hull and Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes.[44] However, Hull's popularity declined following allegations of domestic abuse.[44] Obama's candidacy was boosted by an advertising campaign featuring images of the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and the late U.S. Senator Paul Simon; the support of Simon's daughter; and political endorsements by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times.[45][46] Obama received over 52% of the vote in the March 2004 primary, emerging 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival.[47] His opponent in the general election was expected to be Republican primary winner Jack Ryan. However, Ryan withdrew from the race in June 2004, following public disclosure of child custody divorce records containing sexual allegations by Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan.[48] In August 2004, with less than three months to go before election day, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[49] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[50]

Teak1, that is an interesting spin on how Obama rose on the political landscape.

Would you like to know how Hillary clinton rose?

Instead of posting an entire litany as you have, I can sum her rise up in four words.

She married Bill Clinton.

This is GRRREAT news! Fittingly, Obamarama is really racking up the LOSER endorsements.
Is anything more absurd than the sound of Kerry (!) brainfarting for the Great Black One?
Hey, we all know that Jesus is Chocolate... mmmm, good!

"President Clinton's concerns are legitimate. The former President knows exactly what it takes to put the country back on the right tract correcting the present mess which is much worse than what he has inherited."
________________________________________

just a note that you're implying bill clinton will be president, not hillary.

enough with the clintons. they don't have some inherent right to the presidency.

we have term limits in this country for good reason.

it's past time for a clean slate and a fresh perspective in the white house.

Obama,You have the 'Purple Scratch Kid' on your side.How could you lose?
Maybe you want even have to tell us what you will(would) do if you aaaaaaaaaaaaaccidentally got elected. What would you do about all the illegal aliens? Probably nothing. You could buy their vote via welfare by having them do what they do best.BREED.

"If it walks like "SHUCK and JIVE", talks like "SHUCK and JIVE", looks like "SHUCK and JIVE", it's probably Herman Edwards!"

Just try explain that to the folks in SC.

Once again John Kerry proved to be a class act. Not that I'd vote for Edwards but Kerry did after all; choose him as a running mate in 04.

Now I remember why I wouldn't wanted to share a foxhole with Kerry. Yes, it's all coming back to me now...

It is amazing that people are treating Senator Obama like a super hero. Please look back how he became a US Senator. He was a community organizer and State Senator who lost a bid for a US Representative against an incumbent African American Congressman.
He was discovered and chosen for the candidacy of Illinois senatorial campaign by the Democratic Party establishment (particularly by Senator Chuck Schumer) whose butt he is now kicking. The incumbent Republican Senator got trouble with his former wife and dropped his reelection bid. Republican Party didn't have enough time to look for a potential candidate and imported Alan Keyes from Maryland. So Senator Obama easily won the election with the support of the party.
Soon after he was sworn in, he had a row with Senator McCain. The senior Republican Senator thought the novice senator was arrogant and untrustworthy to work with. According to NYT, State Senator Obama seemed to be indecisive on many important resolutions and just voted "present." Even though he was grandstanding and criticizing Senator Clinton for her vote for the Iran resolution late last year, he didn't even bother to come to the Senate to cast his "nay" vote.
However, Senator Obama is a potential leader who has the great oratory. What President Clinton and others are saying is that it is too soon and too inexperienced for him to claim the presidency now. As someone who has uplifted the economy, employment and prestige of the country for many years, President Clinton's concerns are legitimate. The former President knows exactly what it takes to put the country back on the right tract correcting the present mess which is much worse than what he has inherited.
It is worrisome though how Senator Obama can make a positive change with his self-righteous, hostile and venomous followers. His campaign posters now read "Change we can believe in." Is it a hidden criticism against other candidates who also advocate change

Wpost4112,
If it walks like "SHUCK and JIVE", talks like "SHUCK and JIVE", looks like "SHUCK and JIVE", it's probably Herman Edwards!

Kerry comes out looking like a charmless version of Bart Simpson, saying "look at me" "look at me", when its not even his campaign.

While I voted for Sen. Kerry in 2004, I am still stinging about the way he just never fought back the Tug Boat Veterans for Bush. Posted by: hayden1 | January 10, 2008 05:52 PM
_________________________________

Have you ever thought about why Kerry would let Karl Rove Swift Boat him and not fight back? Kerry is an old "SKULL AND BONER". Karl Rove reminded him of the iniation pix that were taken at his BONER initiation. Pictures like that if made public are not only career ending, they make living in your neighboorhood impossible. Evidence regarding those Boner initiations is what keeps all Boners in line!
By the way they are handy anytime the Corporate establisment wants a Boner to do something for them!

Clinton camps goes racial:

"You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room." Andrew Cuomo today.

If Bilary wants to lose the election, they are doing a great job.

Nothing like alienating an entire race.

Kerry is a loser. To me this works against Obama. Hard to imagine that he didn't support Edwards, or at least keep his mouth shut.

tonight's debate should be colorful...Thompson hints he's going after Huck.

Who will survive the southern charm?

Straight Dem.

stallionstation: Coming from a Repub your comment is much appreciated. I hope you will vote for whoever you think is best for this country. I am a Dem and have only voted straifgt Dem once since my first one in 1960 and that was in 2004, I just can't GW and his policies.

Madeleine Albright (Clinton Sec. of State and Hillary supporter), January 9,2008, Washington, DC on how the USA could be better liked by other countries:

"If we were all rich, that would be very nice. If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same."

OK. Let's all agree to live in poverty so the rest of the World will like us.

Big whoop-tee-doo that Mr. Obama gets an endorsement from Mr. Kerry. While I voted for Sen. Kerry in 2004, I am still stinging about the way he just never fought back the Tug Boat Veterans for Bush. Ultimately it turned out that my 2004 vote for Kerry was really more a vote against Bush. The choice was easy. A totally sucky prez i.e. Bush, or a snoozer of personality, Kerry. The later I still think was a much better alternative. After all the water thats passed under the bridge, the misstatements, the egg on his face flubs, etc, I think Kerry's endorsements won't mean much. It may even hurt Mr. Obama, if he advances to the general election.

I just hope the media at least makes the public aware that Kerry is an old "SKULLS AND BONER". You don't get more "ESTABLISHMENT" and "STATUS QUO" than that crowd. In 2004 when Edwards was bucking Kerry the media said nothing about this! NADA!
When it came time to fight the other Skulls and Boner (BUSH), Karl Rove ran the SWIFT BOATERS and showed Kerry his Boner initiation photos. Then Kerry ran and hid. Evidence regarding those Boner initiations are essentially what keeps all Boners in line!

A SKULLS and BONES endorsement makes it even more obvious that the Corporate Establihment is pushing Obamma!

OBAMA IS FOR CHANGE.
KERRY ENDORSES OBAMA WHICH INDICATES KERRY FAVORS CHANGE.

TO THE MASSACHUSETTS VOTERS, I SAY GIVE KERRY THE CHANGE.
VOTE KERRY OUT OF THE SENATE.

either obama or clinton would make a better president than kerry. kerry didn't even have the nerve to call the worst president ever on his abysmal track record in 2004, i.e., four years of lies and deceit. how much weight does an endorsement from a lightweight carry (kerry)?

So John Kerry is mad a Clinton because she publicly disagreed with his joke and doesn't like Edwards for whatever the reason. Sounds like good reasons for going elsewhere for your presidental choice if you don't care to make a choice that is clearly thought out and given with regard to an individuals qualifications.

Perhaps Kerry should have had ill feelings toward the "Swift Boat" gang during the last campaign. He confronted them at the time, we might have avoided another four years with bush smiling down on us.

John Kerry shouldn't endorse Obama because his wife is dying of cancer?

Where do you people get this stuff from. My goodness!

Correction: Hillary did not call him irresponsible for making those comments, it was Dodd.

RV, yes I would agree that is important. However, he answered the question, was criticized for it, and repeated the assertion which was agreed to at all. He did not change his original position and both were asked within a debate.

The info Clinton added is like the understood "you."

Will any president do what Obama asserted without taking into consideration of the Pakistan/India conflict? No, they would not. Therefore, I do not praise Clinton for saying such.

jimd52: My FACT that the Repub strategy of supporting Obama in an effort to stop Hillary has been proven to be a FACT over and over again. The key word in your post is "seem", and I KNOW you have been around long enough to KNOW any politician wants to run against their weakest opponent.

"Was Kerry Against Obama, before he was for Obama?"

No. They have a long, positive history.

This appears to be another indication that the mostly caucasian, male dominated political machine will do anything to keep a woman from winning (and it seems to be particularily this woman.) I am a Republican and would not vote for Ms. Clinton but is seems to me that she is certainly being ganged up on. This is one tough broad...what woman could stand up to the public humiliation she withstood during the "Monica" ordeal? Many of us have had to deal with infedelity but very few of us had to see ourselves on CNN and listen the the laschivious details of that infedelity. But for her liberal persuasion, I see an eloquent, poised, articulate candidate with more than enough experience to do the job and were I not a republican, She would be my choice of the democratic candidates running. Sadly, we have such poor choices on the Republican side that we long for someone with her qualities but of a conservative bent. I wish her good luck and am not sure if Kerry's indorsement of Obama will help or hurt her. He is rather an inconsequential part of the Democratic machine and rather "smarmy" in my opinion. Obama is just a babe in the woods and it is easy to cry "Change" but put forth no concrete (or pratical or feasible)objectives. It is going to be a long 10 months for all of us!

Kerry's endorsement feels like a twofer--a vindictive finger to both Edwards who Kerry felt didn't push his message in 2004 and to Hillary who didn't support Kerry fully.
As someone who worked tirelessly for Kerry I feel betrayed that he felt he needed to endorse anyone. He has only himself to blame for his 2004 debacle and this endorsement seems transparent and selfish.

Was Kerry Against Obama, before he was for Obama?

Its amazing how cold-hearted people can be.

Elizabeth Edwards is dying of Cancer.

I think the Kerry coming out for Obama, rather than coming out for Edwards, or simply keeping his mouth shut, shows a total lack of character on Kerry's part.

Edwards campaign is already on life support.

For Kerry to gleefully stick the knife in shows him to be a total SOB, with no character, compassion, or human decency.

I pitty people who can't see that.

So Sad, but very telling, to see that John Edwards' running mate in 2004 overlooked him in for the 2008 race. As has been gone over well in an earlier New Yorker Mag article, John Kerry's supporters throughly excoriates Edward's half harted work on Kerry's behalf during the earlier campaign. And I for one will never forget Edwards playing Kisseyface with Cheney during the Vice-Presidential debate-Shameful and unmanly at the very least.
Edwards will certainly never get this dogs vote.
And in regards Kerry: Old News, Sour Grapes, different time/different era-you can have him Obama...I'll take Wesley Clark and Powell's endorsement any day...

Hey Becky.
My comment is not TOTALLY wrong. You just cherry-picked one item where I was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, after the Iowa caucus, he did not congratulate Obama. In NH, he acted hard-hearted, and I say ruthlessly, with regard to Clinton's tough moment. Like the good attorney that he is, he can switch tactics quickly, just like Romney. But advocacy of issues is not the character trait we need in a president, at least from my point of view. Bush is the chief advocate of the business interests; look how badly he screwed up the economic pie chart.

Unfortunately Edwards did not do his job when we needed him most: ifn 2004 as the Veep nominee and 2002 in his advocacy for war. If he would have had the same passion against Bush and Cheney that he employs now, imagine how different the country might be. If he couldn't do an effective job as Kerry's number 2 in 2004, then he doesn't deserve to get the top job now.

From this day forward, every day that Edwards remains in the presidential race is one day longer that he avoids the really big question regarding what he is going to do with the rest of his life.

Republicand would love the Clintons back....how elsewill Delay and company make a comeback???

Not against Barak....can't argue against a positive force, but against the the demonized Bilary, the demonized Repubs have the opening they need.

Clinton in the Wh gaurantees Tom Delay's return.

Hillary Clinton will lose in November. She only excites the Democratic base. She does excite the Republicans but in a negative way. She won't be able to govern. Obama brings out new voters, the independents and the young. He will create a working majority for change. And Kerry can vouch for his character and judgment, and readiness to fill the office. That is big.

Someone needs to have the courage to send the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying Mass Murderer War Criminal Serial Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture to the International Criminal Court to face War Crimes.

http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

151,000 Iraqis died after invasion

Surveyors face danger to count casualties from 2003 to 2006
The Associated Press
updated 6:15 p.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 9, 2008
About 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the first three years after the United States invaded, concludes the best effort yet to count deaths -- one that still may not settle the fierce debate over the war's true toll on civilians and others.

The estimate comes from projections by the World Health Organization and the Iraqi government, based on door-to-door surveys of nearly 10,000 households. Experts called it the largest and most scientific study of the Iraqi death toll since the war began.

Its bottom line is far lower than the 600,000 deaths reported in an earlier study but higher than numbers from other groups tracking the count.

The new estimate covers a period from the start of the war in March 2003 through June 2006. It closely mirrors the tally Iraq's health minister gave in late 2006, based on 100 bodies a day arriving at morgues and hospitals. His number shocked people in and outside Iraq, because it was so much higher than previously accepted estimates.

No official count has ever been available. While the U.S. military says it does not track Iraqi deaths, it has challenged some news reports of tolls from shootings and bombings as exaggerated -- indicating it does in fact monitor fatalities.

U.S. working to track better
In November, a U.S. military official said the Pentagon was working with Iraqi authorities to better track civilian casualties. One goal is to avoid duplicate reports, said Col. Bill Rapp, a senior aide to the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.

The true toll may never be known. Many deaths go unreported in the chaos that has gripped the country, and the numbers may be tainted by sectarian bias; the Iraqi security forces and government are led by Shiites. Muslim burial traditions add to difficulties -- many families are believed to simply bury loved ones before sundown on the day of death without ever reporting the fatality.

Still, Iraq's minister of health, Dr. Salih Mahdi Motlab Al-Hasnawi, defended the new estimate in a telephone interview with reporters Wednesday.

"This is a very sound survey" with a large sample and good methods, he said.

Richard Brennan of the New York-Based International Rescue Committee, which has done similar research in Kosovo, Uganda and Congo, agreed.

"The goal is not to give an absolute, precise number of deaths. The goal is to give a sense of the magnitude of the problem," he said.

Deaths in Iraq 'tragic'
White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said White House officials had not seen the study, but called the deaths of Iraqi citizens or any troops "tragic."

"We mourn the deaths of all people in Iraq as the country fights to defeat extremists ...," he said, contending that last year's surge of troops is reducing civilian deaths.

The United Nations paid more than $1.6 million for the new study. Results were published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine.

By any count, the toll is "massive," wrote Catherine and John Brownstein, statistics experts at Yale University and Harvard Medical School, respectively, in an accompanying essay. It likely still is low, because many Iraqis have fled and aren't there to report deaths and because Iraq is too dangerous to survey some areas.

A poignant example: One statistician was killed during the project and another, shortly afterward.

A dangerous assignment
The survey was done by Iraq Ministry of Health employees during late 2006 and early 2007 in all 18 provinces, divided to get a valid sample of each area. But Iraqis hold a deep distrust of central authority, given the tribal nature of their society and the years they lived under Saddam Hussein, whose grip on power was built partially on a web of informers.

"We are dealing with surveys in a country where there is unrest and high insecurity situations," said Dr. Ties Boerma, a WHO official. "Surveys are imperfect, no matter how well we do it."

Researchers asked families whether any deaths had occurred in their households, recorded details like age and time and place of death, and assigned deaths as violence-related or not.

However, road accidents were not counted unless they were caused by a bomb -- one of many ways that surveyors could have underestimated the true toll, some experts said.

Limiting the study to the time from the invasion in March 2003 to June 2006, and extrapolating results to the whole country, researchers arrived at the 151,000 estimate. The study authors say they are 95 percent certain that the true number is between 104,000 and 223,000. Iraq's population is roughly 26 million.

That seems low, especially because the new survey saw no increase in deaths in recent years, as previous surveys did, said Columbia University's Dr. Ronald Waldman, who has long done humanitarian research for WHO and others.

More than 100 neighborhoods, mostly in Baghdad and Anbar, could not be visited for safety reasons. So researchers estimated deaths in those areas by using a formula based on information from another group that tallies fatalities, the British-based Iraq Body Count.

The Body Count project bases its figures mostly on media reports -- a method known to underestimate deaths because many go unreported. That group listed 47,668 civilian deaths from violence during the period studied in the WHO survey, and between 80,331 and 87,742 to date since the war began.

The group's numbers do not include deaths of fighters, but the WHO survey and an earlier one published in the journal Lancet in 2006 do.

The Lancet study, by Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, drew wide criticism, partly because it came out just before the 2006 congressional elections. It surveyed 1,849 households and concluded that 600,000 Iraqis had died from violence, mostly gunfire, and roughly 50,000 more from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

The WHO survey tallied only violence-related deaths, but researchers plan future reports on other health measures.

Les Roberts, a Columbia University epidemiologist involved in an even earlier survey in 2004 when he was at Johns Hopkins, believes the new toll is too low.

"This is consistent with family members not wanting to tell the government about violent deaths," he said.

The Associated Press began tracking civilian deaths after the new Iraqi government took office on April 28, 2005.

Since then, at least 37,547 Iraqis have lost their lives due to war-related violence, according to the AP toll, which is considered a minimum since many killings go unreported or uncounted. It's compiled from police, hospital officials, morgue workers and verifiable witness accounts, and reporters and photographers at the scenes. Insurgent deaths are not included.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22578010/

lyle

I think you are delusional about a Republican plan to stop Hillary. They seem to be salivating over the chance to run against her.

i agree about wanting to avoid the drama of the clinton family.

but more importantly, i can't believe we're looking at bush, clinton, clinton, bush, bush -- and now clinton, clinton?

so 20 to almost 30 years of the same 2 families in the white house? what is this, pakistan? political power dynasties are a sign of weak democracies, imo.

time for a change...wow, someone should make that their campaign theme.

I agree that Kerry's endorsement is a good thing, note worthy, now move on. This column was extremely detailed for a minor contribution to the Obama campaign. Kerry is seen as a loser in the eyes of democrats, establishment or not.

Although I'm skeptical of how much his endorsement will help, I understand that every little bit counts. I'm deathly afraid of Hillary Clinton being elected president because of the extreme and fervent partisanship that will rid our country during her presidency.

Hillary Clinton's bid is utterly irresponsible on behalf of her party. Also, if John Edwards is SERIOUS about bringing about change then the best thing for him to do is to drop now and endorse Obama, with a good portion of Edwards' supporters turning out for Obama he will win the nomination HANDILY!

Hey buddy can you cut me a deal on some Real Estate?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

Not that I'm conplaining. the more the lies, the easier it is to paint them, and in turn her.

hahahhahahahahha

MArk and drindl. Is this how it always is election years?

Paid candidate propoganda all day everyday?

No wonder most people hate politics and poloticains. This site was much differant before iowa. :)

jimd52: I don't want to gloat to much [lie] but think of all the pollsters that are so busy wiping the egg of their faces about NH. I readily admitted I was a tenny bit suprised that the all out Repub effort to stop Hillary was a tad short. I am also gratified that my exposing the Repub strategory may have played a small part in the margin of the Hillary victory. Don't forget I was the only one[I think] that picked this up. I Posted this information on several blogs, and a few NH voters may have seen it for what it was, FACT.

dcgrasso1

I know that, she is nothing like the right wing caricature of her. But see wpost4112's 4:46 PM post - that is exactly the problem.

Thats what I want, to run for change and bring something different to Washington and at the same moment have a liberal northeast Senator with over 22yrs in the senate endorse me. Yes, that reinforces my hope to change Washington, campaign with Washington insiders.

Kerry's endorsement is the kiss of death. It should be a reminder to all Democrats how NOT to run a national campaign. The mistakes made by him and Edwards should not be repeated...and if we nominate Obama I am sure Kerry's wonderful advisors will lend a hand to another successful defeat.

And I agree it is disgusting for Kerry to endorse Obama while Edwards is still in the race, shows how fast he FLIP FLOPS, but we already knew this.

My votes goes to a dem with experience, a backbone and the ability to run against a republican in a brutal general election... Senator Hillary Clinton.

Doesn't really matter what Hilary wants, it matters what Republicans want. If Hilary is POTUS, it is in their selfinterest tio fight her becuz their base has demonized her already.

On the other hand, it is in their self-interest to cooperate with Barak becuz he has a broader support among left-leaning repubs and indies, and would not gain any support from the base.

Good its time for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party to assert itself for change. Certainly, the Clinton wing did nothing for 8 years before Bush and led to a GOP disaster. Hillary stay in the Senate and be a good senator like Kennedy.

"RNC is apparently already using this against Obama.

Posted by: rdklingus | January 10, 2008 04:27 PM
"

tHE PROPOGANDISTS can "use" anything they want. who's buying their propoganda these days? That is currently the question. Fox business is about to close. Fox will soon be behind them, or a watered down version. What Fox has done the last 8 years has been criminal. Factor in the conflict of interests and their is no why they should be doing what their doing. The traitors.

hopefully they bought off the right people.

r

dcis1, would you agree a rather IMPORTANT addendum to obama's tendency to answer complex questions with simple answers? Just like meeting with foreign leaders we don't have good relations with? I think he actually spoke before he could think--Hillary answered it the way you want our President to answer it--NO...and her reasons were legitimate and not based on a naive notion of how to be President. I was actually looking at him favorably until he showed the lack of experience, FOREIGN POLICY experience in particular. McCain vs. Obama? its a cakewalk...

jimd52, Clinton has a good record of working with Republicans in the Senate. She understands the value of compromise, unlike the current president.

This does little to nothing for Obama. However, it does underscore the "Hillary hatred" that is out there and as yet relatively obscure due to the small numbers having voted at this point. Kerry has no love for Hillary, and certainly not for Edwards - the "son of a millworker." And Novak is right - Obama, perhaps the most left of all the lefties, will benefit from the right wing who can't stomach their own candidate and who DEFINITELY want to keep HC out of the White House. However, I do think HC is a great actor. Wow - that teary scene.....

"For Kerry to do what he did to his ex running-mate, is disgusting, considering the fact that Elizabeth Edwards is dying of Cancer.
Out of respect for Elizabeth's feelings, Kerry should never have done what he did."

I have to say that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen in here. Kerry owes Edwards NOTHING. If anyone owes anyone something in that relationship, it is Edwards who owes Kerry for putting him on the ticket in 2004.

dave

Reagan and Clinton had majorities of the opposite party for most of their time in office. Only Clinton had a majority in both houses at any time during his tenure and he did not get much through the Democratic Congress of 1993-1995.

Both of these presidents also could call on political skills far beyond those Hillary Clinton possesses. Reagan reached across the aisle quite well and generally did not try to shove things down Congress's throat (ala Bush II). Clinton started to have success after winning the battle of the government shutdown and the success wilted during the impeachment fiasco. I think that the impeachment fiasco exacerbated partisanship to new levels in this country.

I think that Hillary Clinton is such a paraiah to the Republican base that it will be very difficult for the Republicans in Congress to do business with her. And will that notoriously thin skinned person want to do business with the people reviling her as almost as bad as the anti-Christ? Look at the nonsense floating around the internet accusing her of everything from lesbianism to murder. Resolving the problems with Social Security and Medicare will absolutely require bipartisan support. I just see a continuation of the poisonous partisanship we have seen lately if Hillary is elected.

For Kerry to do what he did to his ex running-mate, is disgusting, considering the fact that Elizabeth Edwards is dying of Cancer.

Out of respect for Elizabeth's feelings, Kerry should never have done what he did.

Nobody asked him to jump in and appoint himself "superman".

To skpedersen, let me suggest these links: http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html#null, and http://lcv.org/voterguide/. The first is a comparison of the candidates' positions on environment from Grist.org, a wonderful environmental website, and the second is a comparison from the League of Conservation Voters. I am not a "single issue voter," but if I were, the environment would be that issue. Take a good look at both links.

I supported Richardson primarily because I felt he was the strongest candidate for the environment. Clinton DOES have strong environmental credentials. Obama has an excellent voting record (see the LCV writeup), but his proposals are not quite as strong as Clinton's. There was also a very active campaign within the environmental community several months ago when he came out with some poorly thought-out propasals about liquid coal. In all fairness, he did listen and modified his proposal significantly.

As for the Republicans, the only one with any semblance of a reasonable proposal for environmental issues is McCain, and at that, ANY of the Democratic candidates are far more pro-environment. Some of them are still global-warming deniers.

Kerry should get a clue: NO ONE CARES WHAT KERRY THINKS, WHAT KERRY DOES, OR EVEN IF KERRY IS STILL HERE ON THE PLANET. HE IS ONE OF THE USED UP OLD WASTED POLITICAL JERKS WHO ARE TRYING TO GET A BREATH OF LIFE FROM OBAMA'S CANDIDACY AND LOOK LIKE THEY KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. OBAMA PROBABLY CRINGED AT THE THOUGHT OF KERRY HUGGING HIM. WHAT BAD LUCK FOR OBAMA.

Latest polls show McCain leading Huckabee in SC. That's huge news since if Huck can't win in SC, a large evangelical circus tent, he won't get the nomination.

Who runs against McCain? Hilary. Who wins? McCain. Barak hasn't much of a chance either. But will return at a later date with the necessary experience to lead the country after McCain rids us of neocon crazies.

Kerry showed a total lack of character by backing a candidate in competition with his former running mate.

He should have stayed above the fray.

If he endorsed anyone, it should have been Edwards, or he should have waited until Edwards dropped out of the race.

That's like getting the endorsement of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro.

WELL, Kerry's list is basically Howard Dean's list of internet supporters, which he must have turned over to the DNC who in turn willed it to Kerry.

In any case, Kerry and the DNC still email me and my only connection to any of this is that I was, and still am, a Dean supporter. (Before Obama, the only Dem or Repub to speak in clear complete meaningful sentences in a generation.) So how did my email go exclusively to Kerry?

Democrats are internally showing their usual self-defeating stupidity. Hillary will never win a general election and she shouldn't. This is nothing personal; she is a great Senator but she's not the man or woman for the presidency and many independents and Democrats won't vote for her, for very good reasons. If she and Bill start trashing Obama, please, please consider the issue of her character!

Rvme, Clinton put an addendum to Obama's original comment. That does not distinguish her as being the stellar of the two. It also does not negate that when Obama said (which she later agreed) that he would invade Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence and the gov't failed to act, Clinton and others called him naive and irresponsible. I do not see any superfice in what he said.

When asked about it at this debate, she and all the rest echoed his sentiments. I do not have to spin her words and make it into something it is not. She agreed with what she had previously chided him for.

No opinions here. That's a fact.

Not sure this means that much--reminds me that I voted for a loser candidate who is still elite, effete and an opportunist who did make a stupid joke (he's still holding a grudge against Clinton ?) that offended many and then his ego prevented a simple apology for days.

RNC is apparently already using this against Obama.

sounds like he is describing Bill Clinton in his early WH years.

And you think Karl is wanting to help any Democrat??

"Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting "present" on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn't know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through."

Reason 3 of 4 - why Hillary won and Obama lost, by Karl Rove

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992615845679531.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

""If people think so little of Kerry, why would they keep his bumper sticker on their car?""

To keep the bumper from falling off thats why... its SC after all! just some country humor!

That Kerry announced for Obama in South Carolina is also important because SC is Edwards hope for a comeback of any sort. And Edwards cuts into Obama's numbers against Hilary.

Kerry's supports helps Edward's supporters to move over. Not all by any means, but enough I suspect.

Very very smart.

If Al Gore endorsed Obama he would have to give back his Nobel prize and his Oscar. It will never happen. I used to take RFK, Jr. seriously as a crusader for the environment until he endorsed Clinton. Please.

And as for John Kerry and his donor list from 2004 - I am ashamed to say I donated, but only because I supported John Edwards more than John Kerry - but I will mark any solicitations I receive as a result of his selling my name to Obama as SPAM and Obama will not see a dime of my money. Let him go call the Pharmaceutical Lobby if he wants money. They've already given him plenty, so I'm sure they won't mind giving him some more.

Either way, if it's Clinton or Obama, we lose. We will lose as Democrats, but more importantly, we will lose as Americans.

I don't know, maybe Kerry's endorsement will help a little. After all, I see numerous bumper stickers on cars with Kerry/Edwards on them. You would think after 3+ years, they would wear off but I know I see more of those than anybody running this year. If people think so little of Kerry, why would they keep his bumper sticker on their car?

dcis1, but only Clinton brought up the need to be cognizant of the effect that an attack would have on the Pakistan/India conflict. I think she just thinks a little deeper and further than Obama. . . His answers tend to be too superficial. I am still waiting to see what his economic policies would look like. I will given him credit, no person running for president has gotten this far without his supporters(rank and file) even knowing his positions. They even admit it.

joy2: I just wanted to 2nd your comment on the kind person you want to be our first female president. Napolitano, Sebelius... I don't want there to be any question in anyone's mind about who's really running things.

And as someone said above, I'm not interested in all the drama another Clinton presidency would undoubtedly unleash.

jimd52 - "You cannot accomplish much in Congress with very narrow majorities - especially in the Senate."

Reagan did. Bill Clinton did.

Obama is smart, and so he hedges his bet. He understands he will most likely not be the nominee, not this time around. He's young, so the negs of this Kerry anchor/joke is not harmful this time around, but will be in the future. Take the dough and keep clear of Kerry, Obama should carefully avoid diminution by association.

Obama has clarity of mind and superb communication skills. Kerry has neither.

...how does that saying go,"Revenge is a dish best served cold,with a little Ketchup on the side"...

Rvme, it is clear that you watched a different debate from the rest of the country.

Obama was asked whether he stood by his comments that if there was actionable intelligence in Pakistan and the gov't failed to act, that he would go after Bin Laden.

He responded by not backing away from them.

The same question was asked of the other candidates and all of them said that if there was actionable intelligence and the gov't failed to act, they would go after Bin Laden. The only difference is that Clinton said she would alert the Pakistani gov't of her plans.

I repeat, Edwards, Richardson and Clinton agreed with Obama's statements on invading Pakistan. This is the same stance that Obama was called naive and responsible for making.

That's not conjecture or opinion. It is a fact that they ALL agreed with what Obama said.

"The Repubs "FEAR" Hillary because the KNOW they cannot beat her in The General Election."

lyle -

If that is so, why do Obama and Edwards out-perform Hillary in all national polls versus the Republicans? I have never seen you address this FACT (if you have I am sorry).

Did you see Novak's column in the Wapo today? It seems the NH Republicans WANT to run against Hillary and FEAR Obama.

I think saying that Hilary can't beat any Republicans is off. I'd love the R to put up Huckabee. Hilary would win handily. Even I would vote for her against him.

But if they are smart, they'll stick with McCain. Whom Hilary might, just might, beat if she drops the Bill Clinton/Carville/Penn attacks against Barak and unites the dems behind her.

I won't vote for her otherwise if she goes up against McCain.

P.S. I just wrote to my excellent Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano urging her to endorse Obama. By the way, Gov. Janet is a perfect example of a strong, independent woman who has made it on her own. THAT'S what I would like our first woman president to be.

"I cancelled my subscription to e-mails from Kerry, but not because he endorsed Barack. I don't wish for any candidate except Edwards to e-mail me if s/he wants money, and obviously, that e-mail list meant a great deal to Obama. I suspect many will unsubscribe as I did."

Becky, don't you realize you are only helping the republicans? I personally like John Edwards but he got killed in NH and is getting killed in SC polls. A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary and ultimately a vote to elect a republican in Nov because Hillary can't win against any republican.

Hooray for Kerry! Next, let's hear it from VP, Nobel Prize, Oscar Winner Al Gore. Obama has what it takes to bring this country back together. Clintons would keep us stuck in the divisiveness of the last 17 years.

"I cancelled my subscription to e-mails from Kerry, but not because he endorsed Barack. I don't wish for any candidate except Edwards to e-mail me if s/he wants money, and obviously, that e-mail list meant a great deal to Obama. I suspect many will unsubscribe as I did."

Becky, don't you realize you are only helping the republicans? I personally like John Edwards but he got killed in NH and is getting killed in SC polls. A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary and ultimately a vote to elect a republican in Nov because Hillary can't win against any republican.

I think this endorsement does have considerable weight now, for 2 reasons. This endorsement is not to take Clinton supporters away from her, as it will not do that. This endorsement, though, may give Edwards supporters reason to look to Obama. I mean, Edwards is losing in every state fairly badly, Obama has defeated Clinton in Iowa & came a very close 2nd in NH, he could actually win this race vs. Clinton. Because of this, and because Kerry opted to endorse Obama over Edwards, Obama may see a jolt in the polls from Edwards detractors. A Kerry endorsement for Obama at this point certainly means much more than a Richardson endorsement for Clinton, or anyone else in the field. Reason 2 is obvious, the donor list. What a time to get this endorsement & that list, before Feb. 5. A big feature in the cap of Obama.

The Clinton attack machine strikes again!!! What more mortal blow could they possibly hope to inflict on Obama than by putting Kerry on-stage with him?

By the way Sen. Kerry, this doesn't mean we forgive you running the most hapless campaign in living memory. Losing to Bush, actually losing unlike Big Al, has done more damage to this country than can be expressed in mere words.

LOSERS UNITE!!! The most incompetent presidential campaigner in history should teach O-BOMBA how to lose an election. That would be the best thing Kerry has done in decades.

Perhaps it's relevant to my last comment to add that before anyone announced their candidacies last year, I hoped for a Richardson/Obama ticket. I thought Obama could build up some experience and Richardson could push some serious movement on energy and environmental policy. I was really disappointed by Richardson, though. It seemed like every time he opened his mouth, all he did was read his resume instead of saying what he would do as president. Now I'm solidly in Obama's camp and hoping that he picks a vp with some serious experience (Biden, Richardson, etc.).

The only one whose endorsement will carry equal or greater weight than Bill's endorsement is that of Al Gore's.

John Kerry - ho hum! And this coming from a supporter, contributor, and volunteer. But I'm not surprised by the endorsement. Let's face it - Kerry's failure to win in 04 and later verbal mishaps are because he has a purely intellectual approach in problem solving - something I fear would be Obama's problem given his minimal experience. We've already witnessed some of this.

"Sen. Clinton has taken a lot of mud over the past 20 years and she's still standing. Her negative ratings will not rise, and in fact are likely to fall....And in fact she DOES appeal to many moderates..."

Well said, mlalliso. What I think is interesting is who voted for HRC in NH. Amy Walter of the National Journal was on the News Hour last night, and she said the following: "The other is that, for as much as we talked about the role of independents, I don't think that independents decided that they're going to go for McCain because suddenly Obama didn't need them anymore. What you found was that independents actually turned out at a higher percentage than the polls had predicted, but she did better among those independents."

And finally, it's worth noting that Wall Street heaved a sigh of relief that McCain and Clinton won the NH primaries. The fact is that the financial markets become very leery of unknowns - and we are headed for a recession. Even bargain destinations aren't bargains right now because of the dollar's devaluation. The economy is overshadowing Iraq as the issue of the day during these primaries, and for that reason, I'm predicting HRC will prevail by virtue of the electorate remembering that they were, in fact, better off financially in the 90s.

Nostalgia for better days should never be underestimated.

I really wish Hillary staffers would stop gunking up the comments sections of WaPo with their orchestrated "experience" pitches.

Insanity is voting for the same politicians over and over again and expecting something different.

A "President Hillary" would only mean 24/7 drama and Clinton-bashing by the MSM/GOP media. It was pretty sickening for 8 years in the 90s, I can only imagine it being worse now. She won't be able to use her "experience" to govern.

Republicans are traditionally "de-regulators" (and with Bush, now law-breakers) and the media knows this--they want a de-regulated media so their support increasingly goes to the GOP, regardless of any candidate's "merits."

So I'm votin' for Obama. If I can't, then Bloomberg is starting to look mighty good.

"Edwards looked ruthless in going after Hillary's emotional display on Monday. He has yet to acknowledge or congratulate the winner of Iowa and N.H. His post-primary speech sounded like a tough defense attorney's closing argument. In 2004, why didn't he go after Cheney and Bush with such ruthlessness? People have already questioned his staying in the race while his wife fights her cancer; That decision will again be reviewed now that he has no clear path to being president in this cycle. There is sufficient evidence that he

I have no idea what Edwards is trying to do by staying in the race to the end. The stains of his record are dyed into his political fabric, and they are only becoming more pronounced.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | January 10, 2008 01:28 PM "

That comment is totally false. On Tuesday night, Edwards congratulated Obama and Clinton for their wins in Iowa and NH respectively. But he added, "2 states: 48 to go" and he will make it to the convention.

Regarding Kerry's endorsement, I'm glad he found a candidate he likes. The irony of the announcement in SC is lost though on CC and other readers.

I cancelled my subscription to e-mails from Kerry, but not because he endorsed Barack. I don't wish for any candidate except Edwards to e-mail me if s/he wants money, and obviously, that e-mail list meant a great deal to Obama. I suspect many will unsubscribe as I did.

Onward, Edwards.

The Kerry endorsement is what it is, an item to be consumed then spit out by the news media in its voracious appetite for anything to fill their space or time. As such it keeps Obama out in front of the voters. I agree that only the endorsements of Edwards, Gore, Biden, Kennedy, Richardson & Dodd are potential game changers. It is highly unlikely that Gore will endorse while the outcome is still in doubt, unless he finds the opportune moment where his endorsement would seal the deal. Not likely that he could cut it that close. I didn't list Bloomberg because that just seems too far-fetched.

Kerry's endorsement means nothing to me.
It felt like all us were trying to carry him across the finish line in 2004, despite him. He has left a very bad taste in my mouth
It is almost like he is trying to relive some glory by thinking his endorsement actually means something.

While many voters felt dissapointed that Kerry did not fight back strongly enough the Rove/Bush assault in '04 and some even resent him for it, he is still perceived by many as a patriot, a highly intelligent and accomplished statesman, and his endoresement will prove to be very helpful to Obama in stemming the tide of "not experienced enough" being propelled his way by his opponents.

I have been a loyal democrat since 1972. Hillary is a conservative republican who has no business in the democratic party. If she is the nominee, I will vote for the republican nominee no matter who it is. In fact, I would vote for Bush over Hillary. She is wrong on Iraq,wrong on Iran,wrong on social security and wrong on taxes(increasing them for the wealthy)

From rvme:

"Nice speech by Richardson--My guess is he is Hillary's VP... for 2 very important reasons. Helps her in the West... But most importantly it lets her be TOUGH on immigration while having a Hispanic as her VP, Its like the welfare reform bill that Bill passed prior to 1996 campaign, pissed off his base, BUT offered more down the line. If Richardson is her VP, she can appeal to the right with TOUGH immigration reform, while placating the Hispanics by having one of their own on the ticket. It will be a brilliant tactic to sway conservatives on one of their big issues."

Thank you for providing a wonderful example of the types of strategies that make it hard for me to imagine voting for Senator Clinton if she wins the primary.

grassy123: I don't know where you are coming from or simply do not want to accept FACTS that have been proven time and time again. You do not understand the Repubs supporting Obama because they believe he is the weakest candidate? Give me a break. I can not put this thing in any more simpler terms than "The Repubs "FEAR" Hillary because the KNOW they cannot beat her in The General Election.".

I doubt he gets the VP nod from Hilary. Hilary needs Hispanic support for the primaries, esp in Hispanic-rich Nevada, not the general election.

That he didn't throw it to Hilary is tantamount to not supporting her.

BTW, the Hispanic vote is crucial to Hilary's winning the nomination, and she is likely to get it because she has paid attention to that section of the population.

They are just as important and overlooked as the boomer women and their mothers in NH.