That is o.k. Sen Clinton recently picked up her own big endorsement (no, I am not talking about Janet Reno).

I endorse Obama too:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagobama_29jan29,0,4127698.story

It is unfortunate that so many people endorsed Hillary way early because she was the establishment "inevitable" candidate. If they had waited I bet a lot of them wouldn't be endorsing the same way now.

I endorse Hillary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Hsu

Wow. Check out pollster.com's chart for the Dem Florida contest. A Hillary blow out there, as it appears it might be, would be something, even if it is a delegate-less contest...for now.

Also, the prediction markets do not seem to have been taken in yet... I suspect that is a reflection of the disconnect between the real world and world of punditry and the blogosphere.

Um, I disagree, a Gore endorsement of Obama wouldn't make him establishment. Also, even if he was branded establishment (which could never happen compared to the Clintons), there is no reason to think that would hurt him, because a) Hillary is establishment and has a lot of support from establishment sheep, and b) there isn't really any alternative.

In reality it just shows that even many key Democrats are aware of the need for real change, and are sick of the party living in the shadows of the Clintons, and are also sick of the Clintons' unethical behavior, and also realize that Hillary on the ballot will destroy our chances for the presidency and kill our majority in Congress. No amount of endorsements is going to make Obama the establishment.

The NYT is rumored to be working on a BIG follow-up story to their earlier piece (20 DEC 200&) on the Clinton Foundation, and how Bill has taken in millions on the promise that Hillary takes the White House, and he can return favors. This looks to be the real explanation for Bill's panic. He has made a ton of promises and has already taken in the capital.

I am warning my fellow Democrats, the liberal press which eviscerated the Clinton's this weekend in the NYT and the LATimes clearly has it's knives out for them. There is something BIG coming on this Foundation's activities and donors

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?ex=1355893200&en=6551dc1319d1e2b9&ei=5124&partner=delicious&exprod=delicious

Gore never said he wouldn't endorse.

In fact, he said it was likely that he would.

Tomorrow would be the best time to do it if he's going to do it.

Dem Florida contest = beauty contest

Oops, posted the Gravel bit on the wrong thread. That's what I get for keeping two windows open.

It might be a shock if the money trail from Tony leads to the Middle East all these years....from the hands of some undesirables to the hands of some pols who have used it in some Chi. races and maybe some Senate races and maybe National races.
Monies that can be traced from Leb. and Syran groups that are bad people. Tic tock.

Here it is...LOL:

TPM: Rep. Waters Backs Obama

I like that Obama keeps getting endorsed by folks who have done something in this century. Hillary's all seem to be from the 1990s or before and they pull them out to counter Obama's big endorsements and it is laughable. The countered Oprah with Magic Johnson and The Kennedy clan with Janet Reno. Does this make Hillary look good? They might as well just let Bill continue his red-faced rants.

My trackrecord of predictions has been fairly spotty so far, but I will go ahead and predict that Gore endorses no one until the nomination is already essentially secured.

Florida is meaningless, the only reason Hillary is up so much there is because none of the other candidates have been able to campaign there, and she is the default candidate in all of these places by virtue of being the establishment candidate with the most name recognition. They have no delegates, and it wasn't really a democratic contest because the other candidates didn't have the same access to Florida residents (Hillary has had her access since the 90s, and Edwards and Obama haven't been able to make up their information deficit). Florida is as meaningless as Michigan, I don't care about states without delegates where basically only one candidate is on the ballot.

Are the Hillary supporters seriously trying to compare Representative Waters (who most people have never heard of) to frickin' Ted Kennedy??? Hahahaa, yeah, they are about equal, sure. Haha.

Why isn't the news media making more of the issue that Obama LIED during the last debate about his connection with Rezko? Obama claimed that he only did 5 hours of work for him when it turns out that they have had a relationship for over 17 YEARS!!!! Not only that, Rezko helped Obama buy a million dollar plus home for $300,000 under the asking price by purchasing the land next door. Obama also wrote letters of support for Rezko while he was a Senator in Illinois. Is this the kind of change Obama is taling about? Rezko happens to be from Syria by the way and is involved in getting money from Lebanon. Read the Chicago Sun Times for much more information on this slum lord and his relationship with Obama.Also, who cares that Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama. He is 76 years old and has a lot of scandals in his background including Chappaquidick where he was responsible for a young woman drowning. He also ran for President when Carter was president. He is not a loyal Democrat and why should we believe what he says. Who assigned Ted Kennedy as the God of the Democrats? And how is this looking toward the future?Obama claims to be a uniter but after seeing how he turned his back on Hillary at Congress for the President's state of the union address when she was reaching out to shake hands says plenty about his lack of character. I think he is arrogant to think he is qualified to be President after only two years in the US Senate.Hillary graduated at the top of her class at Yale Law School which demonstrates her intelligence and hard work. She ran for Senate in New York and people told her she couldn't do it. However, not only did she win, she also won reelection with 67% of the vote. Hillary has clearly performed the best in the debates while Obama frequently stammered and hummed and hawed while trying to come up with answers. Hillary will get my vote as she is the most qualified as the NY Times has said when they endorsed her.

Wow to tell a whole state their votes don't counts is stupid since we need them to vote for either of our candidates. So tired of the media..Hillary was in Flordia for a fund raiser which by the agreement was allowed, she did not break the rule and the media forget to say Barack as T.V. ad's going on for weeks which not allowed by the agreement He break the rules and nothing is said

While not getting the press coverage in the MSM or here, not all the Kennedy's are endorsing Obama.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. and his sisters, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Kerry Kennedy Cuomo have endorsed Hillary.

Wow to tell a whole state their votes don't counts is stupid since we need them to vote for either of our candidates.

Well, yes and no. In point of fact, I dare say that angering Florida really does not matter, because the state will not vote for either Clinton or Obama in the GE. I agree that, in general, it is a bad idea to slight large, electoral-vote rich states, but in this particular case there is nothing really lost by it. The loss by either Clinton or Obama in Florida will make Kerry's 400K vote defeat there look mild in comparison.

I don't understand the statement, Hillary is the default candidate. What does this mean? Do you think that people in Florida do not watch T.V.? If she is the "default" candidate, how do you explain it? Could it be that people think she is the best candidate?

J/Union

The default candidate means that she is the establishment candidate. The same reason that the press tried to coronate her a year ago. The same reason why super delegates pledged their support to her six months ago. Wake-up! She has Bill's whole administration standing behind her at campaign events. That's what people mean by the default candidate.

And, that is why it is so much fun to watch Teddy Kennedy emphatically support Barack and backhand Hillary at the same time. Because the democratic party is about the insurgent or the underdog. That is half of Obama's appeal, its that he is NOT the establishment.

On another note, I really liked the kansas governors presentation last night. She was great and it was a great rebuttal to the king's nonsense.

Annon, here is the website for you hillaryis44.org. Go there, they will like you. If you want to repeat trailer trashing lies by the clintons' campaign, just refer to the site, its alot easier. Thanks.

Dear Laurence,

I confess I have none. If you feel that my prediction is baseless, I will not put up much of a counterargument against your contention. I have a very spotty track-record as a prophet, so no one ought to take my opinion as especially insightful. That said, I am still of the opinion that neither Clinton nor Obama will carry a single southern state, including Florida. Florida is always close, so any block of a few thousand votes can swing the state one way or another, and both Clinton and Obama have real power to motivate sizable voting blocs in Florida against them.

If Clinton is the nominee, every knuckle-walking troglodyte in the state will crawl out of the swamps to march to the polls and voted against hated "Hellary Clit-on" (I saw that name on a bumper sticker parked in front of a Mexican restaurant in Panama City Beach when I was visiting my aunt in Florida last year). If Obama is the nominee he will do more than any ten Republican activist groups to motivate the Klan vote to turn out. I would be delighted to be wrong about those beliefs, but I think the prudent plan would be to approach the election with the idea that the democrats will lose every southern state (just like they did in both 2000 and 2004) and to seek to make up that loss in the midwest and west.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/uploads/hillary_slumlord.jpg

McQuaid’s Union Leader minces no words in slamming Clinton’s post-pledge campaigning efforts in Florida today:

COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to “campaign or participate” in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar…

Clinton coldly and knowingly LIED to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning…

New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers.

rob, I was there, just feet away, and Kennedy didn't mock Hillary in any way. He simply said he was ready to lead on day one, in refutation of Hillary's self-proclaimed monopoly on the "experience" to be prepared on "Day One". That is in no way mocking or mean or anything of the sort. Give me a break, is this all you Hillbots have to go on? It gets even more pathetic as the days go by.

The MSM keeps pressing the "SOTU Photo" issue. Did Barack snub Hills? Is that presidential? BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

I'm reminded of an article in The Onion last month that talked about how much Bullsh-- will the MSM cover this election year. Well, it's obvious that it has already started. Oh, and Sen. McCaskill has already said that she was asking Obama a question at that moment.

YYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.

Again, if Hills becomes prez, will she fight for more NAFTA-like trade pacts? Will she fight for more flag burning amendments? Will she fight for another 1996 Welfare Reform Bill that hurt millions of poor families? Will she bring Dick Morris back? Will she fight for another Telecommunications Act of 1996-like bills that allowed major corporations to buy up smaller stations across the U.S., and thereby giving Hannity, Ingrahm, and Beck more exposure? Will she fight for more school uniforms again?

What a bore.

Bush + Clinton= Same hypocrisy.

What a bore.

She will not get my vote. Please Dems, wake up!

Anon at 12:19:

A modest suggestion. When writing a long, ignorant rant full of half-truths and conspiracy theories, I strongly recommend the use of paragraph breaks. I use them all the time in my long ignorant rants, and, I believe most will attest that it makes them much more likely to be read, which greatly expands the number of minds you can potentially poison.

That said, the reason the media isn't accusing Obama of lying at that debate is because, wait for it, he didn't lie. Hillary, at the debate, was referring to whateve noble legal work it was she said she was doing when Obama was "representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." He responded to her accusation that he represented Rezko by stating that he did five hours of grunt work for an entity that was partnered with Rezko in a development project. Which was, as it happened, absolutely true.

Accusation about legal work done for Rezko, truthful response to the accusation showing that accusation was incorrect. See how that works?

That said, I ask yet again, how is it possible for any Clintonite to believe that raising the topic of ethically challenged campaign donors and friends is a winner for them?

http://prorev.com/2008/01/so-you-want-to-talk-about-obamas-pals.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325852,00.html

Interestingly, the same day that it was rumored she would be supporting Obama, Fox News ran this story about Sebelius's RISD attending son creating a "rauncy" prison themed board game, placing it on the front page of the site, including the main photo on the front page. Essentially, they made it their headline story. Where is the outrage?

Call me an Obamamite, but this has been out there for awhile. Fox was clearly trying to lessen the impact of the endorsement. By implication, does this suggest that the Fox News folks are hoping for Hillary to trounce Obama (it would certainly boost their ratings - easy ammo).

Am I out on a limb or am I on to something?

PeterB

So you are saying that Barack is NOT the establishment, and wants to change the establishment. This is why it was so important to gain Ted Kennedy's endorsement? Ted Kennedy, a man who has been in the senate for 40 years. I think you have to be on one side of this policy of change or the other. Neither candidate is perfect, it seems that you want to have it both ways though. Maybe that "say anything to win" applies a little to Obama too now.

Please, someone tell me what, other than her marriage to Bill, is the root of all of this "experience" of Hillary Clinton's. I want to believe, I really do. But Obama has spent more time in elected office than her and he now has the support of many folks who would seem to value and understand the "experience" factor more than any of us. Obviously, in their minds, judgement, intellect, and leadership abilities are worth far more at the executive level. The tenures of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush only reinforce that idea. Can someone point me to a few examples of how Hillary Clinton's supposed experience enables her to lead better on day one. It seems to me that other than her limited Senatorial experience, she is on par with Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush and Pat Nixon.

Imagine this:

Bill Clinton roaming around the WH with nothing to do as "first husband." The WH staff will probably start a drinking game estimatig just how many bimbos can pass through the west wing in a given week.

Enough of the Clinton drama!

dcshungu wrote on January 29, 2008 11:47 AM:
"Wow. Check out pollster.com's chart for the Dem Florida contest. A Hillary blow out there, as it appears it might be, would be something, even if it is a delegate-less contest...for now."

Maybe. But, the obvious issue is that nobody is really trying to woo the Florida vote except for Clinton. And, keep in mind that HRC has always polled well, but in states where the voters get to compare the candidates closely - to kick the wheels and check under the hood - her numbers drop and Obama's (and sometimes Edwards) goes up. So, there is opportunity for 'spin' on both sides.

Victoria wrote on January 29, 2008 12:24 PM:
"Wow to tell a whole state their votes don't counts is stupid since we need them to vote for either of our candidates. So tired of the media..Hillary was in Flordia for a fund raiser which by the agreement was allowed, she did not break the rule and the media forget to say Barack as T.V. ad's going on for weeks which not allowed by the agreement He break the rules and nothing is said."

Nobody broke any rules. Not either one of them. Both are exploiting loopholes that existed in the agreement. However, HRC's direct pandering to FLA does go against the spirit of the agreement, if not the actual terms - though it is shrewd.

Wonder why he's getting all of these great endorsement? One word JUDGEMENT!

On Iraq
“"I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”
– Obama 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President..”
- Hillary Clinton 2002, floor speech right before the war authorization.

To 'another reader'
You ask a very valid question - and I'm sorry for your disappointment. I made the same trip (from likely Hillary supporter to .. well... being unable to vote for her under any circumstances) a while ago. Like most losses and grief, it gets easier (and in this case, more certain!) with time.
I don't know that I can assist a great deal in helping you to 'see' Obama. I had always respected him tremendously based on what I learned about him from his books, esp "Dreams From My Father" (which is just a whopping good book even if he'd never done anything else public in his life!) After Bush, the idea of a president who could - and would - *think* and *communicate* effectively, who clearly learned from life experiences, and who was very, very intelligent is almost intoxicating! Also, before there was any talk of his running for president, I had started to become intrigued by what I was hearing from other Senators whose opinions I respect about the diligence and effectiveness of his work there.
So I was always sort of pro-Obama but was one of those wishing that he would just wait and gain more experience before making this run. (On the other hand I've seen others, like Mario Cuomo, wait for that 'better time' which never came.) I've changed my mind, however, about his ability to handle things intelligently and well - right now. Despite some missteps, he's 'handled' the Clintons better than anyone would have believed possible - and few people could have done! And if the Clintons are an example of what experience brings, then maybe it's best that he's running now! --- Plus, if he IS what he promises to be - a true unifier and someone who doesn't double-talk and divide - then right now is when someone like that is most needed. There's a lot of healing and re-directing to be done after the Bush years.
So I'd suggest that you just watch closely, as I have been doing, to the actions he takes in connection with the campaign. I have been seeing a very skilled, intelligent, fair and effective person. He, and he alone, put a *stop* to the racial wars in Nevada (by his press avail. addressing with it in a way that the Clintons had to go along, and by refraining from defending himself as much as he legitimately could). He also put a *stop* to their frentic harping on his (quite legitimate) Reagan comments by putting out a radio ad in response to theirs: one that was accurate and much harder-hitting AND, the important part, pulling his ad immediately as soon as they backed down, took their ad off the air, and shut up about the topic. --
And in a more, well, adversarial sense, I think he's been quite brilliant: without lying or distorting, he's set things up so that the Clintons have revealed, as never before, their own weaknesses. Contrasting Reagan and JFK to Clinton (and grouping him with Nixon)was almost guaranteed to evoke a revealing overreaction from them, if you believed their ego was bigger than their common sense. They didn't have to walk into the trap but they chose to. And there have been other, similar occasions. When they are their own worst enemies, Obama doesn't have to directly attack or distort. Now THAT kind of fighting is almost the antethesis of an Atwater/Rove battle, and I can admire it without reservation.
Grace? His strong, instant support of Biden; apologizing for his rudness and misstatement in the "you're likeable enough, Hillary" comment (as compared to Hillary who never makes a misstatement); helping Richardson on the Katrina question; making an effort to cordially greet Sen. Clinton at debates and public appearances even when things are heated; even (I believe) the so-called 'snub' which, based on the way he's acted on other occasiosn, I see as a respectful gesture to give Kennedy and Clinton a bit of privacy at a probably awkward moment.
Granted these are small incidents in a political campaign ... but think how much we've learned about the Clintons in seeing how they handle such things, right?
So that's my suggestion. Read his book if you have the time, and then just watch, closely. What I've seen is that he learns and corrects himself, that he picks up something tossed at him as a rock and fashions it into a positive thing of substance; that even as he shows his strength he allows 'the other side' to save face (something we surely need in dealing with other countries). I'm a great believer in Emerson's maxim "the ends pre-exist in the means". To my mind, if this is HOW he does things, then I have a good deal of faith that WHAT he does will be good for our country. (And that he's a wonderful, inspiring orator is just a nice added bonus!)

Thank you for responding with such a thoughtful and impassioned comment. I'm going to take your points into consideration and hopefully pick up his book(s) soon. My initial reaction to some of your points was with skepticism, but I know I have to realize that I've been viewing this campaign through a slightly pro-Hillary lens. Which isn't to say that you may not see things through a pro-Obama lens, but I'm sure there is some middle ground where Obama will still shine through as a great candidate.

Like you, I was excited about him long before his actual announcement that he'd run. It was once he was in the race, once the initial "crush" was over, that I started to move back towards Hillary. I can't pinpoint exactly what it was that swayed my opinion--I think just a general sense that he was a little green, and that he may be an easy target for the Republicans come the fall.

However, your point that he has managed to fight the Clintons and still remain relatively dignified (I do think that SC ad was politics of old, and his debate performance was sub-par), does deserve a closer look. If he can beat the Clintons, why couldn't he beat the Republicans?

Anyway, thanks again for the great comment and I'll have to go explore your points on my own now. :)