And fascinating for disproving the people who have claimed that Obama is still in league with Lieberman. Excellent news.

Just wish Obama would stop talking in generalities. Reminds me of Reagan.

Yeah, same goes with Kucinich endorsing him for Iowa's 2nd choice votes. It is annoying to hear people say that Obama is running to the Right of Hillary, or that the fact that he appeals to Independents and some moderate Republicans is some indication that he isn't liberal. Same thing with the Lieberman crap. Basically I'm tired of people talking without knowing what they are talking about.

Anyway, keep coming with those endorsements =)

As an Obama supporter, it is so frustrating to see people deeply misunderstand why Obama's approach to getting a political solution is so fundamentally different from Lieberman's approach. Thus, this endorsement makes me happy.

Obama's secret weapon is the use of respect, sincere listening and the open forum to expose any bad faith approach to problem-solving. Obama's argument - a persuasive one - is that if you have deeply held principles and a popular mandate from an engaged citizenry you can afford to take this "come let us reason together" approach because all attempts to derail it by special interests and ideologues are so easily apparent.

Lieberman's idea is figure out where the two goalposts are at any given moment, then plop down halfway in between, smugly pat yourself on the back, and then go on Fox News to rip your own party for not being so wise as you to start off in the middle.

This is some interesting reading:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/that_kerry_endorsement.html

"Two losers endorsing in one day; ugh."

I guess I'm depressed because that's what I was thinking. It seems like all the losers of the past are endorsing Obama: Kerry, Bradley, Lamont, Daschle.
Hillary got the Mondale endorsement, so all that's left is Dukakis and Gore.

Matt A wrote on January 10, 2008 7:35 PM:

Good get! A reminder of the broad, working coalition he is building.

It would be really, really good for him to announce a new major endorsment from a FEMALE sometime soon. He doesn't want this primary to turn into boys against the girls.

Well there is the matter of Oprah endorsing him, who just happens to be probably the most powerful and influential woman in the country...I think that little endorsement should give him a certain degree of women cred

Plus he got more female votes in IA than Hillary did, which lends credibility to his broad appeal. Despite the stupid media crap over the last few days, Obama is in no way sexist, and the female effect in NH wasn't a retaliation against him, it was due to the media (the Chris Matthews effect if you will), the Iron My Shirt stunt, and yes, the tear performance. There is no sex divide in this country, or at least no real proof of anything emerging yet...so we shouldn't buy in to that hype.

This will also help quash the carping of Lamont supporters who complain that Obama should ahve been more helpful.

Humorously, at the exact moment you were posting that, OpenLeft was using the opportunity of Lamont endorsing Obama, to attack Obama for not having been helpful enough to Lamont. (And then attack Obama on some other points as well.) Two commenters at that thread so far have used the occasion to conclude they were wrong about Lamont all along, and Lamont must be a bad guy after all; only one of them appears to be joking. I guess some people just don't forgive no matter what happens?

Either way, the endorsement from Lamont is great news and this made my afternoon.

JR,

No one said he was the "enemy," just that it's obvious from his voting record, policies (foreign policy especially; Iraq), and strong ties to corporate lobbyists that he is no progressive champion. He's a centrist.

If you want to play that game, perhaps someone should tell Obama that progressives aren't the enemy? Stop being so damn whiny.

Davidson wrote on January 10, 2008 8:02 PM:

LOL, Obama scores on numerous political scorecard ratings higher than Russ Feingold, much less Clinton (lower than Feingold) and Edwards (lower than Clinton) as a liberal and progressive.

All three are solidly progressive and would make outstanding Presidents. To say otherwise is pure bunk. You do your candidate ZERO favors by talking down the other Democratic ones.

Greg Sargent's article on the Politico criticism of the media today contains the following:

The piece ticks off a litany of journalistic failures: Addiction to horse race coverage; slavish adherence to arbitrarily created narratives; a willingness to let coverage be tainted by the preference for certain outcomes; an eagerness to be led around on a leash by Drudge; etc., etc.

Weren't those exactly the things Politico promised to do in their mission statement when they went into business?

Oh, jeez. It keeps getting worse. Happen covering the fact that Cisneros now supports Hillary. That's an endorsement which may actually be worth something.

Jeanba:
Whoops. Thanks for reminding me about Kaine.

I would buy all this if Webb, Kaine and Mark Warner endorsed him. They are major winners. Otherwise who cares?

Kaine endorsed him.

Gore and Kerry aren't losers because they lost elections, they're losers because they won and surrendered.

Davidson,

Respectfully, I doubt that you have in fact at any point reviewed Obama's voting record. Please see Vote Smart et al.

"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

For those of you who still have not heard:

There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O."
You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama.
The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

YES WE CAN
Anne

Lampwick,

The depressive facet of your post is way more accurate.

MNPundit,

Of course, we will vote for the Republican Light candidates if they are our choices in the General. Clinton & Obama just have recessivist mindsets . . . Every farging one on the Republicans are fucking insane. So just don't expect us to vote for either of the right-wingers of the Democratic Party and everything will be okay in November.

bnb: Point well taken on Gore not fighting enough in 2000. I never really understood that, actually. Of course, I never really understood his choice of VP candidate, either - and I can imagine that he now regrets both moves.

For all of you who keep lamenting about Obama talking in generalities:
This guy is extremely intelligent and knows our policy problems cannont be explained in sound bites. If you find people who say he's all flash and no show please direct them to his plan for America. Wow! Yes he really does have a detailed plan with even more to follow. Folks this has been on his website from the beginning. Please send all of the nay-sayers the pdf file of his plan.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

All one has to do is give a flashy speech and the sheep fall right in line.

I've seen Obama's 'plan'. Pelosi and Reid promised to end the Iraq war, too. How's that goin'?

We always hear about how whoever is 'going to change Washington'. It's all crap.

Whoever moves into the White House, it will be business as usual.

Just wish Obama would stop talking in generalities. Reminds me of Reagan.

Yeah, and we all know how that turned out come general election time...

Jane,

Should I remind you that Obama supported Ned and campaigned for him against Liebermann and the republican candidate in CT? Please stop your lies and spins, we are not stupid. Note that everyone who writes here is well informed. You are making yourself look stupid, no offense!

Jane,

The factual errors in your post is that you willingly omitted to say that Obama supported Ned instead you implied that he supported loserman. The truth is that the establishment, most of them supported loserman in the primary, that's a fact. In the general Obama had the courage to stand up for Ned and to respect the people of CT choice, but where was Hillary? Now tell me!

I guess camp Obama presents this latest slew of endorsements to try to drown the REZKO story from the voters.

Not that those congressional endorsements (or whatever you want to call Ned Lamont’s) are all that effective but, hey, as long as they can get people to talk about anything else than Obama’s shady dealings back home in Chicago they’re at least good for something.

Good for Obama that is. Not necessarily good for the voters.

Kucinich asks for recount in N.H. Democratic primary:

http://www.wdtn.com/Global/story.asp?S=7608868

***

Kucinich thinks there was an error in the counting of the NH primary votes on the democratic side and he's asking for a recount!

DemAC,

Please, Obama's shady dealings? Don't even go there, the Clintons are the masters in this game, and for endorsements at least are not bought like the Vilsack's, or force upon! How do you sleep knowing that you support a person who is partially responsible for one of the worst foreign policy disaster in the America? As a veteran I can't, if I would I will blame my friends deaths on her and other politicians who have sent us in Iraq but again I also understand that as a soldier I am required to obey orders of my command. And by the way, although I support Obama and Biden (he dropped out) Edwards is my candidate. Now tell me why do you support Hillary? Just wondering!

jeanba wrote: Now tell me why do you support Hillary? Just wondering!

Unlike Obama, Hillary doesn’t have to use her endorsements to cover for any corruption scandals in the media. So you tell me, how will the voters react when Obama’s corruption is disclosed?

My bet would be that the voters react much like the good folks at Daily Kos:

“With the trial scheduled to begin in February, the scrutiny will only increase over the coming weeks. After losing heartbreaking elections in 2000 and 2004, we Democrats can’t afford to lose the White House again.”

hello_world,
While I fully understand that phrases like “done and debunked” and “old story” and “is that all you’ve got?” are the new Obama talking points, I doubt that they will work as designed on the media. (These talking points admittedly however do work better on a comment section like this, so as to stop all further discussion, so everyone can go back to the usual Hillary hating.)

However, as devote an Obama worshiper as you undoubtedly are, do you or anyone honestly believe that this one story is the only story? Not that it matters much. Obama was completely aware of what he was doing. He has known Rezko personally for many years and he knows exactly how Rezko operates.

The fact is that Obama chose to do business with this corrupt slumlord for many years. That says something about Obama’s ethics, doesn’t it?

And the problem for the Democratic Party and for the voters is, when someone like Obama sets himself up as the clean candidate he had better live up to it, because he has both invited and deserves any kind of scrutiny that now comes his way.

So let the vetting of Obama begin. There’s plenty to find out that’s of interest to America’s voters.

Absolutely pathetic. No evidence of any wrong-doing, just innuendo.

But I guess the candidate sets the tone for her supporters.

DemAc,

You must be a good student, it seems like you are learning from Rove, project your weakness onto your enemy to cover your own. If there is anyone with shady dealings in this America are the Clintons, seriously are you even talking about lobbyists? Why don't you check the Clinton campaign (defense, pharmaceutical, insurance lobbyists) then your eyes would be opened! You see my candidate Edwards is not perfect, he voted for Iraq and apologized, and has other weaknesses but your Hillary is perfect.
I doubt that America is interested anymore in the Clintons' drama with Republicans, there are other pressing issues right now to deal with: Pakistan, the economy, Iraq not the Clintons' 90's back drama. We are moving on whether you like it or not!

jeanba,
As I answered your question and you avoided mine; let me repeat that question for you:

Unlike Obama, Hillary doesn’t have to use her endorsements to cover for any corruption scandals in the media. So you tell me, how will the voters react when Obama’s corruption is disclosed?

The more that Hillary's surrogates continue to trash Obama, the more trouble they'll make for the Clinton's.

Obama's supporters don't like the Clinton's tactics and the Clinton's have 20 years of scandals. If they want a memory dump of all of that into the media, it's their choice.

They won't be able to use the old line about it being "old stuff" to avoid answering tough questions either.

If Obama has to rehash stuff he has already answered in the past, so do the Clinton's. It's fair game.

Let the re-vetting of the Clinton’s begin.

Voters have a right to ask – “Do we really want these to sleazebags in office again?”

NO!

That she, not Obama, is the only one that has failed to stand for a woman's right to choose? And unlike you, I can demonstrate with objective evidence that she didn't.

I'm interested in hearing about this. I was able to sway a few of my gay co-workers by letting them know Clinton signed DOMA into law.

Duane:

Emily's List was looking for people to sign fundraising letters and generally help them raise funds to battle the South Dakota anti-abortion measure (I think in 2006). Senator Clinton refused to put her name on the line. The only person who helped: Senator Obama.

Emily's List was looking for people to sign fundraising letters and generally help them raise funds to battle the South Dakota anti-abortion measure (I think in 2006). Senator Clinton refused to put her name on the line. The only person who helped: Senator Obama.

Anything on the web you can point me to for the back story?

Here's a link to the story.

http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/12/04/emilys-list-goes-after-obamas-leadership-on-choice/

My favorite part is Illinois NOW, which endorsed Obama in 2002 (Illinois State Senate), is now playing politics . . . they loved him until they didn't.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/08/fact_check_obamas_strong_proch.php

In the end, it undercuts Illinois NOW, Emily's List and the other groups who've endorsed Clinton attacking him as if he's not strong on a woman's right to choose. Hell, in 2006 Obama and Emily's List worked together on a project called Yes We Can and he was the keynote speaker at their annual luncheon. And yet, here they are dropping anti-abortion mailers on him. It's pathetic.

DemAC:

Thanks for the post. Innuendo . . . check. Unsubstantiated suspicion . . . check. Absence of evidence of wrong doing . . . check.

This Message Has Been Approved By Hillary Clinton For President. Because how you run your campaign, says a lot about how you'll run your White House.

Can you post a flyer for the Obama Gay Bashing Tour?

Can you post a flyer for the Obama Gay Bashing Tour?

Blah blah blah… It only works if you play along…

Anyway, the vetting of Obama will play out in the mainstream media. The distorting and self absorbed talking heads do have one single thing going for them though: they don’t care one bit if you play along or not.

Trust me. I’m a Clinton supporter.

DemAC:

Just because your candidate has a shit load of questions in her closet doesn't mean everyone else does.

Hm, we had almost two days of civility there.

DemAC's Rezko stories are just as unsubstantiated blah blah blah…

So far in the Presidential campaign, Rezko has donated $120,000 to Obama, of which Obama has given $44,000 to charity. Or perhaps you chose to believe the money’s unsubstantiated too?

Losers united for Obama! Cool...

DemAC, this is old news, and no news, give me a break.

It’s even getting international traction as of late. There is a brilliant analysis of Obama in the British magazine New Statesman:

The further away you get from Chicago, though, the more the saintly image takes hold. Publications like the New Yorker may coo for pages over "the conciliator", but the two Chicago newspapers are much more interested in Obama's close 17-year friendship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a long-time Obama donor and property developer awaiting trial on charges of attempted extortion, money laundering and fraud. A low-income housing project received more than $14m from taxpayers while Obama was a state senator, but he consistently denied that he had done any favours for Rezko.

That was until the Chicago Sun-Times unearthed two letters Obama wrote to state officials in 1998 urging them to grant extra funds for Rezko's project. Democrats and Republicans alike in Chicago, too, are intrigued by the question of why Obama paid $1.65m for a mansion in the city's south side in 2005 - $300,000 less than the asking price - on the very same day Rezko's wife happened to buy the house next door for the asking price. In their tax return for the following year, Obama and his wife, Michelle, who is vice-president of a non-profit hospital organisation, reported taxable income of $983,826 for 2006, down from $1.6m the previous year.

“I suspect that the longer the relationship continues, however, the more Obama’s many faults and shortcomings as a presidential candidate will emerge. In his speech admitting defeat in New Hampshire on Tuesday, for example, a hint of his bad-tempered haughtiness emerged. He is not the fresh-faced young idealist the media like to portray, but a hard-headed 46-year-old lawyer whose monumental drive and political calculations make the Clintons seem like a pair of amateurs. The media and electorate may have fallen in love with him spontaneously, but Obama has been carefully plotting his strategy to seduce them for decades.”

It also doesn't change the fact that the Clintons are just trying to muddy the ethical water

1) Obama is actively helping in funneling tens of millions of dollars in government money to longtime friend/crook/slumlord Rezko.

2) FBI starts investigating Obama’s longtime friend/crook/slumlord Rezko. This is widely reported in Chicago media, but only sparsely in the rest of Illinois and basically not at all in the rest of the country.

3) Obama then engages longtime friend/crook/slumlord Rezko to get Obama an expensive house.

4) This is all the fault of the Clinton family.

Do you see where you get it wrong?

And do you see where it actually gets pretty interesting to American voters to see how Obama conducts himself on a matter of ethics and integrity?

I never said it was the fault of the Clinton family. My point is that it is all circumstantial evidence of some wrongdoing. Obviously Rezko is a bastard, and Obama has already said that he was foolish to have anything to do with him, but you also leave out the fact that Obama didn't do anything illegal, and Obama isn't being investigated. You try to twist it as if Obama is being investigated, or a lot closer to the guy than he really was. Rezko isn't even being investigated for anything related to the house thing with Obama.

The point is, that you are implying that Obama is worse than the Clintons, because of circumstantial events and associations that happened years ago, despite the fact that the Clintons have had years of financial and shady dealing scandals themselves. It is a classic example of throwing stones from a glass house. You try to muddy the water by implying that since there is one semi-questionable thing in Obama's past, that there are undoubtedly many more. We have absolutely no reason to think that. Indeed, Obama HAS been examined ("vetted" if you will), and this story proves that, and the fact that this is the best that can be dug up against him is a good indication that it was indeed a one time lapse in judgment. On the other hand, we don't have to wonder whether or not the Clintons had multiple scandals and dirty dealings, because tons of those have already been exposed throughout the 90s. So okay, at best for you, you have 1 point against Obama, compared to god knows how many points against the Clintons for far more unethical dealings. Hillary supporters attack someone who is probably one of the cleanest politicians in the US, to try to drag him down to where the Clintons have been quite comfortable for decades, and he still isn't even close to that level. Regardless of whether or not the Rezko thing was the honest mistake of someone new to Chicago politics, no amount of mud slinging is going to make your candidate any shinier. The Clintons are still filthy next to Obama. If anything this article from half a year ago just hurts the Hillary line about him not being "vetted".

Now personally, I'm fine with not rehashing the 90s, even though it is ripe with tempting gems to dig back up on the Clinton side. I'd rather talk about their current character, their current integrity or lack thereof, their voting records, their judgment on critical issues, and how dirty they are willing to go to win an election. These are the things that are important to me. If I have to judge the candidates solely on these issues, I choose Obama hands down, and if I had to judge on solely on their pasts, I would definitely choose Obama. It isn't even close. THAT is why this is a non-issue, that is why the whole thing is a sign of desperation from the Clinton campaign, just like all the other fake dirt and lies they were spreading pre-NH, and beyond.

mr hope strikes again!

Funny that only his home town paper (the one that really knows him) is doing the digging into his shady past.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04,1,7336556.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=chi_news_politics_util

I want to add something here. I have often noticed that folks like DemAC will come onto this site to lay down a pile of crap, then slink away when challenged on facts.

Several times, for instance, colonpowwow has offered that copy-paste list of Senator Clinton's 'senate achievements' [which originates from a Clinton web site which lays out everything in glowing but not identifying terms], but whenever asked for researchable details, colonpowwow will fail, when asked, to provide actual senate bill numbers that would allow any verification of that list.
I have come to realize that the Clinton camp is awash and at sea, riding waves of fluffled up spin and undocumented slander of her challengers, all of which is not the way to endear Hillary to thinking folks.

So, to you DemAC, to have known someone for years is to automatically be that person's 'longtime friend'?
Gee, that means that everyone I have known for years is my longtime friend? Can you admit to knowing anyone, say in your neighborhood, or work place, or town government who is not necessarily someone you consider a longtime friend? I am calling you on your handy exaggeration, here, DemAC......

Still waiting on the supportive Chicago news stories of purported widespread knowledge of Rezko's being investigated.

Yet still no mention of the obvious truth that the Clintons' have a far worse record of unethical dealings. The point is what you are trying to accomplish, which is something that isn't going to make a damn bit of difference since at the end of the day, Obama is squeaky clean compared to the Clintons. No matter how much you try to paint Obama as unethical or anti-African American the facts remain that he has been one of the biggest supporters of transparency and ethics reform in government, and he has spent his entire professional career helping impoverished African Americans. Those are the facts and this innuendo and circumstantial conclusions aren't going to change those facts.

Personally I love that this is all coming from a supporter of an ex-corporate lawyer, an ex-board member of Wal-Mart, someone who has been bathing in lobbyist money for decades, and someone who has probably one of the worst records as far as ethics and shady financial dealings/political favors go than I can think of in the current Democratic party.

Regardless of a possible misstep years ago, Obama has tried to raise the bar in politics on ethics, whereas Hillary has consistently lowered the bar and showed no interest in limiting the influence of corporate financial favors in her campaign or in her career.

Hell, one of her biggest fundraisers in her current campaign was Hsu, who is now in prison for fraud and illegal fundraising. Who fled the law when he was first discovered to have shady dealings with campaign contributions. There was all kinds of illegal funneling of donations from corporate interests in that little scandal. And she knew damn well from the beginning that he was dirty, because he had a warrant out for his arrest from a fraud case years before. So right there, one recent example off the top of my head. They aren't hard to come up with from her. Now you may say that yeah, she made a mistake, she should have known better but did dealings with and accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the guy. I'm sure you'd like to say it is all a big mistake. But where there is smoke there's fire right?

This basically sums it up: Obama on his worst day is a lot cleaner than Hillary on her best. The facts speak for themselves. So instead of wasting your time being a Hillpawn trying to throw stones from a glass house, how about you take a look at your own candidate's sense of ethics, look at her scandals, look at where she stands on lobbyists, and quit being a huge hypocrite. I, at least, look at my own candidate's record (which is why the Rezko thing is old news to me), because I'm not interested in blindly following someone out of ignorance. So go do something most diehard Hillary supporters tend to hate, and go actually research your candidate, and question the statements she makes against her opponents. This poor level of critical thinking is something I would expect from a Republican, not a Democrat. Just another reason everything about Hillary and her campaign reeks of the lowest common denominator.

Another exaggeration by DemAC:

Now Rezko has become 'Obama's finance chair', though on the links DemAC him/herself offered, Rezko was on a finance committee for an earlier Illinois campaign. Hmmmmm.

Oh, in the interest of investigating real facts, any response about the Rodham brothers, DemAC?

Athenian Stranger wrote: Don't let this guy start a flame war.

Athenian Stranger,

Umm, just check out DemAC's comments on the site that provides a center of gravity for DemAC and other Obama trashers, check DemAC's link above to find that site, where DemAC as well as others write so excitedly about trashing Obama. That site is all about tearing down other Dem candidates as part of a political burn and slash 'ends justify the means' program to follow Hillary's 'I'm in this to win' mantra.

Umm, just check out DemAC's comments on the site that provides a center of gravity for DemAC and other Obama trashers, check DemAC's link above to find that site, where DemAC as well as others write so excitedly about trashing Obama. That site is all about tearing down other Dem candidates as part of a political burn and slash 'ends justify the means' program to follow Hillary's 'I'm in this to win' mantra.

Shame on you.

I'm a creature now? How cute.

I'm a creature for pointing out to a Hillary supporter who has been attacking Obama for "ethical missteps" is a giant hypocrite, and suggesting that they need to take a good hard look at their own candidate's record before calling the kettle (or the snowman in this case) black.

If point out the blatant hypocrisy of a ridiculous argument makes me a creature then so be it. I'd rather be a well-informed creature than an ignorant and blind lemming.

I don't enjoy negativity, and as I said before, I was willing to give the Clintons a free pass on their 90s (and even more recent) dirty/unethical/corrupt/sketchy dealings, but I wanted to make it clear that if their strategy is to try to throw mud at every other candidate, ALL of which is squeaky clean compared to themselves, then they are going to have to deal with the blowback. I'm sorry if I didn't say all of that in the most sunny and chipper way, but I really don't know how to deal with mudslingers and hypocrites in that manner.