will this really help him? Just keep Kerry off the stump.

Gee, I didn't know Kerry was a sexist misogynist pig!

Thought I'd strike before the hillary devotees started wailing.

...and Obama continues his downward spiral...

wow, this is a surprising development. Great news for Senator Obama, especially for those Feb 5th states. Seems unlikely that Kerry will have much time for public appearances, but he could really shake up Mass. in Obama's favor -- a state presumed to be Clinton's for the taking -- if he campaigns there.

When's the Daniel Inhofe endorsement of Hillary coming?

...I can hear a sigh of relieve from the Hillary camp.

Agreed annon, hopefully people will forget about this endorsement by the time of the nevada caucuses.

Honestly, are so many of the Obama supporters here so twisted and cynical that they can't feel happy about such a great endorsement like this?

A switch of a few votes in every Ohio precinct and we wouldn't even be supporting Hillary or Obama on here now.

He got more votes than any Democrat in history against a well-entrenched incumbent.

It's a great endorsement for Obama. As a Clinton supporter, I'm freakin' jealous.

Y'all never cease to amaze me sometimes. Inexperience maybe ? ;-)

Re: a "bunch of very experienced politicos stepping out ... For Change"

Isn't that at best message dilution and at worst a contradiction in terms? Establishment figures (esp. really, really wooden establishment figures) saying yes to change just says to me that the change isn't going to be such a much.

Seriously.

"A switch of a few votes in every Ohio precinct and we wouldn't even be supporting Hillary or Obama on here now."

Or if all the ones who had voted had actually been counted.

It's a plus to have the sitting governor (Patrick) and now a sitting senator (Kerry) of a February 5th state backing you. Donors (I think Kerry has one of the more coveted lists--something like 3 million folks) is probably the real key here. And the news cycle win. The campaign needs that now.

There is a real battle brewing within the Democratic Party. It will be interesting to see how it breaks out.

Also, whatever we knowledgable folks know about the strained relationship between Edwards and Kerry, I think, at least optically, hurts Edwards.

Oh yeah, he's got another superdelegate. He needs all that he can get.

No matter how badly Kerry did, it's still a great endorsement, especially when you hear some of the reservations about voting for Obama. When black voters in SC are supposed to be scared of voting for Obama because they don't believe whites will back him, the endorsement of an older, established, wealthy white Democrat certainly can't hurt to prove that a vote for Obama is not a wasted vote.

I think this is great news for Senator Obama. Senator Kerry is... ahem, not the most dynamic or effective orator I've ever seen, but I think the earlier comment that he's "toxic" overstates the case by 2,000%.

Kerry's 3 mm list may be important but it will be a betrayal of his donor for him to give out those names. They didn't necessarily support him. They supported a Democratic nominee.

How's he going to pump up Obama? He's going to say experience does not count? He's going to say freshness is more important? Then why does he not just retire to make way for someone else?

Have many hands you got there, Michael?

If Kerry was so hot with the democrats he'd be running this time around.

Most of you are missing the point (besides Keith) that this is another superdelegate. Catching up to Hillary in that regards.

I welcome the Kerry endorsement.

I hate to bring up yesterday's battle, but I keep thinking about that Jesse Jackson Jr. interview and his questioning of Hillary's tears and suggesting that she didn't cry for Katrina victims. I'm now certain this was racial politics and it's about the worst move the Obama camp could make. One thing I like about Obama is that he doesn't have the anger of Jesse Jackson or other blacks-as-victims leaders. But that comment was racial politics at it's worst. I know others have made similar comments, but it just left a bad taste in my mouth. So John Kerry in S.C.? Talk about someone who couldn't connect with African Americans. I suggest it has no impact at all. In fact, it may give him a negative bounce. I think Hillary can win S.C. The images of she and Bill singing in black churches, and Hillary speaking of issues instead of lofty rhetoric may make the difference. It seem to have in New Hampshire.

How do you figure it's Obama supporters that are badmouthing this Colon? Did anyone seriously think Kerry would go Clinton? The Clinton's are DLC.

But in any event you can't blame us for seeing everthing negatively right now, and being a little FIRED UP. The suggestion that it's both racial and gender identity politics that sunk our candidate...that people were LYING on exit polls because of latent racism... gahg....it's disgusting. It's so much more comforting when you can feel like it's THE OTHER GUYS that do this stuff.

Maybe it didn't happen that way. Maybe it was just females feeling sorry for Hillary with everyone dumping on her. I sure hope so, even though that would still be stale old identity politics. We will beat this garbage back into the far-right cesspool where it belongs!

Fired up! Ready to go!

I'll bet by the end of the day, Obama'll distance himself. this is just playing too poorly everywhere.

(or, alternatively, Kerry will be built up as the Great Democratic Elder Statesman, but that'd just take too much work.)

Bluepuppy, then don't. Your post was pathetic, as usual. She did look hot in that jacket during her victory speech though, didn't she. Wow, she is hot.

I am not an Obama fan but why would Kerry want to ruin Obama's career by endorsing Obama?

Some things are best never being said.

Patrick's lack of success and inability to get anything done WILL have a huge impact on the Mass vote, including Dem's. I live here, and there are many people who are already questioning voting for the inexperienced exciting guy.

Sounds like Massachusetts already took a chance on this great experiment, and it failed.

Feingold and Gore would be the big prizes, IMO. Obviously they are not going to endorse DLC Clinton, there is no way. But there's a good chance they won't endorse at all. Especially Gore.

@Michael A.
the obama campaign is, as far as I can tell, among other things, no more politics as usual. Get the people motivated to take back their country. Get rid of lobbyists and special interest influence in washington.

I have a hunch - if Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, it will very much be politics as usual. That doesn't mean things won't be VERRRY different from how they are under Bush (and if Clinton is elected things will also be VERRRY different). "Politics as usual" is quite distinct from the "policy status quo." We'll get much different and better (from Bush) policies regardless of which Dem wins the White House (and we will, dammit!). But politics will still be pretty usual. A Dem candidate talking about how they're going to break the grip of special interests, etc., *is* politics as usual. I don't know why people think otherwise. Obama supporters need to understand this, otherwise you're setting yourselves up for a huge disappointment later, even if he wins.

In part this is because of the nature of the institutions. Institutions, including informal ones, are supposed to trump personality in our system, which was the intent of Madison, Hamilton et al many years ago. That's not a bad thing, and it doesn't mean they can't be changed - by no means am I trying to be defeatist here.

To me there is little that is "unusual" about Obama's politics, or the style of his campaign. His style/politics are not identical to Clinton's or Edwards', but they're not something we've not seen before. Of course they are different to some degree, but all candidates are different to some degree.

I don't think the Kerry endorsement will have much of an effect on voters. Its importance lies in its effect on the calculations of other superdelegates, other potential endorsements. These are political elites signaling to political elites about the viability of their chosen endorsee, the future of the party, how donations should be directed, etc. Also, don't discount the desire of powerful non-Clinton Dems to muscle aside the Clintons (and everyone associated with them) from their central place within the Democratic party structure. I'm sure there are a number of powerful Dems sick of the Clintons holding center stage, who want to see them dethroned, for reasons that have nothing to do with policy or vision and everything to do with their own prestige and power. They *are* politicians, after all!

Way to go! The establishment Democratic Party lines up behind Obama, and Obama campaign plays the race card, (Michel Eric Dyson on yesterday's hardball). They are playing there cards perfectly! What genius thought this up?

Go Hillary.

Bye Bye Hillary.???

We've heard this song before. Maybe you can move out of this country like some republicans when Madam President is inaugurated. Bye-bye, no name guy/gal!

Kennedy needs a backbone? I wonder what that was in reference to...

Wouldn't Kennedy be to the left of Obama?

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, and I'm not a big fan of the latter day Bob Woodward, but I do believe his claim that Carville tipped off Matalin re plans to contest the '04 Ohio vote. (And Matalin then told a friend, Rove, who told a friend Blackwell, and so on, and so on.) Carville was ensuring the '08 place be held for Hillary. One of the many reasons I feel so disenchanted with the Clinton camp.
Her failure to admit that her vote endorsing Bush's Iraq plans and her support of Kyle- Lieberman further demonstrates that desire for power weighs heavier than a desire to act in the best interest of the country.
This endorsement is a much deserved poke in the eye.

Hm, I am with Michael (plain Michael, not Michael A) that this is a good thing. Not a great thing, but a good thing. I have a hard time believing that anyone is going to vote against Sen Obama because Sen Kerry endorsed him. Has anyone here ever voted against a candidate in whole or in part because he received (among many others) one endorsement about which you were less than entheused? I know that I never have, and I never remember anyone I know claiming to have done as much. It may not help much, but it does not hurt either, and it is one more superdelegate in our column. Good news, that.

The important endorsements for my money are:

Sherrod Brown
Claire McCaskill (esp. imp for Obama)
Jon Tester
Jim Webb.

Those are bellweather people given their recent contact with the electorate. I know McCaskill wants to endorse Obama, and she would break Clinton track record with women in the Senate. Amy Klobuchar also would be good. I know these women probably are a little peeved that someone who'd never been elected to anything before becoming a U.S. Senator might become representative of women in politics. Also, it's doubtful Sen. Boxer endorses anyone other than Obama. Those other ones are just "boys playing with boys."

Kerry can't hurt but have the same problem with him I have with Edwards. The election was there to be one and he failed to respond in the debates. In kerry's case he was asked in the town hall debate about his votes on Iraq and instead of explaining that he voted for an appropriation that was paid for by cuts in spending and against one that simply passed on the costs he gave a long rambling explanation that left only the sound of cricket's chirping when he was done.

Edwards let Chaney slander him about not appearing in the Senate and never meeting him until the Vice Presidential debate when Cheney had sworn him in and they had sat at the same table at a Senate luncheon.

Old history but it took me about a year to get over 2004.

I think the Democrats have three strong candidates and any of them will win. i just want them to play nice and tell their surrogates to do the same. I am as tired of Bill Clinton' snide remarks about Obama and his experience as I am of jesse Jackson Jr.'s questioning Clinton's tear.

How this plays all just depends. As a former Kerry supporter and a current Obama supporter, the endorsement doesn't go down well with me. I like John Edwards too, and whatever may have come between Edwards and Kerry, it would seem that Kerry could have been more silent prior to South Carolina, where Edwards could at least shine somewhat. It certainly is possible to send a big email list to someone without the world knowing about it. What does the endorsement really say? Smash Clinton, prop Obama, and squash Edwards. It seems to me it generates, at this point, more bad blood than is necessary.

All you Kerry bashers go get 59 million votes in a general election (nearly unseating a "wartime" incumbent president), and tell us why this is bad.
Obama needed a good foreign policy endorsement and this was a great one.
It certainly has this fence sitter taking another look at him.

"...Fact is, Kerry is very popular in the Dem party and as an establishment politician and war vet, he can speak credibly to the notion that Obama has the experience and foreign policy chops necessary to be President......."

Heeheeheehahahahaheheheheheh. Oops, sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've seen in ages.

"....The people who can't let Kerry's name pass without snarking at him are generally the same guys who voted for him in the primaries because he was electable and cheered how he destroyed Bush the Dimmer in the debates....."

That's about the dumbest thing I've seen in ages. Or was that sarcasm? Way too many of us held our noses to vote for Kerry, which is why we are demanding change today, not just change from the Republies, but change from the Dem machine. I will not hold my noae again to vote for a candidate.

Oh well. It's over.

Stop with all the smearing of John Kerry. He may not be a great campaigner, but he is a very honorable person. He did not duck his military service, like Bush, and so many others did, and he had the moral courage to come back home and work to end the Vietnam War.

That alone, if he never did anything else in his life, places him in my Profiles in Courage Pantheon.

John Edwards fought against the ticket coming out stronger against the Iraq War, during the 2004 campaign, and added nothing to ticket. Tell me of one State that he delivered to the ticket. He is a loser, and Kerry knows it. He also has gotten to see Hillary work, up close and personal for the past seven years in the Senate, so that tells me he just does not rate her very highly.

Barack Obama in 2002:

"I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics…

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US 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."

WHAT WAS HILLARY SAYING THEN?

Barack Obama in 2006:

"I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test."

John Kerry learned in 2004 that John Edwards is a backstabbing ungrateful creep.
Read the article in the NY Times for all the details of what a snake John Edwards turned out to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/politics/21edwards.html?scp=2&sq=Kerry+and+Edwards+2004

Here is an extract from the article. You can go to the link to read it all.

John Edwards, accepting his party’s nomination for vice president, roused a cheering crowd at the 2004 Democratic convention with the kind of buoyant refrain that had become his trademark: “Hope is on the way.”

The next night, wanting to give the American people something more tangible, John Kerry offered his own pledge, one intended as the ticket’s new slogan: “Help is on the way.”

But Mr. Edwards did not want to say it.

So the running mates set off across the country together with different messages, sometimes delivered at the same rally: Mr. Kerry leading the crowd in chants for “help,” Mr. Edwards for “hope.” The campaign printed two sets of signs. By November, the disagreement had been so institutionalized that campaign workers handed out fans with both messages, on flip sides.

To the end of their disappointing run, the two men were unable to agree on the script, whether for slogans or more substantive matters. And like so many political marriages, the one between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards — Senate colleagues who became rivals then running mates but never really friends — ended in recrimination and regrets.

Kerry aides complain that Mr. Edwards never stopped running for president — a Democratic Party official recalled some aides wearing “Edwards for President” pins at a fund-raiser long after they were working for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Kerry supporters say Mr. Edwards refused to play the traditional vice-presidential role of attack dog even going up against a purebred, Dick Cheney. And Mr. Kerry had barely conceded the race, they say, before Mr. Edwards was aiming for 2008 and embarking on what one campaign aide called the “it wasn’t my fault tour” around his home state to distance himself from the loss

Where are all the stories about Hillary getting an over night windfall from her one small investment in the futures market. Where is the story about her brothers being paid hundreds of thousands to obtain presidential pardons for convicted drug lords.

Where is the story about HillBilliary being given millions by the wife of a fugitive, who never faced trial, and HillBilliary granting him a pardon, without even requiring the billionair fugitive from justice to first answer to the charges.

Has the entire nation developed a severe case of amnesia.

The Clinton supporters trying to claim that Senator Obama is corrupt is like the Piano player in a Bordello complaining about the dandelion on the neighbor's lawn.

Not surprising that Kerry endorsed Obama. Obama is simply Kerry v. 2.0.

I'd vote for McCain. Though I disagree with him on many issues, at least he has integrity.

Oh yeah. Nothing demonstrates integrity like speeches at Jerry Falwell U. Besides, McCain is probably the one candidate in the race that is actually dumber than George W.

While you are trashing Bloomberg for not having a "movement" keep in mind that Obama had no "movement" until after he decided to run for president and he wants to build that "movement" from the top down, just like any religious movement based on a personality cult.

At least you can say this about Nader, he built his movement first, then decided to run.

Liam:

You're really trying to claim that Kerry lost the election because of Edwards(!)? And you're really trying to claim that Edwards watered down Kerry's message? Or that Edwards pushed for a weaker stance on the Iraq War than Kerry?

You've really bought into this Bush Newspeak thing haven't you?

Obama maintains his relationship with Rezko was "above board and legal" but has admitted bad judgment, calling his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."

Geez -- this man is capale of having judgement? This must be a right wing republican smear. I know Obama. He is a saint. He is born with good judgement. He can walk on water, make water wine, and cries a river for katrina. This is not true. I don't believe it!!!

(Since others don't seem to have any problems double or even triple posting their own talking points of choice here when it suits them, whether they're even on topic or not, I suppose I'll do the same, although my talking points don't include any juicy or spurious allegations meant to damage a particular candidate's campaign or reputation, although it does include actual facts that some might consider pesky.)

I'm glad to hear about this endorsement. And Obama hasn't lost the slightest bit of "momentum," IMHO. The way the New Hampshire story is being spun--huge surprise victory for Clinton--seems really misleading to me, especially in light of the following two key points:

1) During most of the pre-primary run-up, Clinton was expected to win NH in a landslide, so really the more natural story here is the one about how little of a margin she managed to hold in the popular voting, given her early clear advantage in the race.

2) Clinton didn't actually win more delegate votes than Obama, and since ultimately the delegate votes are what count, the claim that she won NH at all is pretty specious. She won the popular vote in NH, apparently. But just as in the General Election, popular votes aren't what really matter. The real story is that Obama is in the lead in terms of pledged delegates at this point in the Primary Race. Yet, that story is getting coverage nowhere. Even Obama supporters haven't been quick to point this fact out for some reason.

But then I'm solidly in the Obama camp, so I'm biased. Still, it seems like an odd way for the punditry and press to cover what from my POV was really a disappointing tie finish in a state previously referred to as Clinton's "firewall."

Still, it seems like an odd way for the punditry and press to cover what from my POV was really a disappointing tie finish in a state previously referred to as Clinton's "firewall."

Anonymous knows where the "spin cycle" is, even if Clinton doesn't!

Only a Misogynist Pig would treat woman as his personal Kleenex the way Bill Clinton always has.

Hillary has always accepted it. Hell, even Doctor Phil would be screaming at her to get real, and leave the serial Bimbo man.

Now, Hillary is going to be such a strong leader. Right, hell she let Bill treat her like crap for the past 35 years.

Do you think that World Leaders will not be aware of that, and will feel that she is really a tough cookie that no one should mess with, when they know that Bill always behaved lik she was nothing but a weak enabler.

No matter what you think of him, Kerry is very important as a symbol of establishment saying 'Obama is experienced enough' to all the Dems who are tempted to make the same kind of 'pragmatic' but losing choice for Hillary that they made for Kerry in 2004. I was a big supporter of Bill Clinton, but if the current Clinton camp pulls this off by sliming Obama, I might actually stomach a McCain vote against Hillary in November. And I suspect there are enough independent oriented Democrats like myself who might be considering the same. Go Obama!

Liam:

Totally not surprising that you, a loud and truth-deficient Obama supporter, would pull out Republican talking points to attack Hillary as "misogynist". And cite conservative icon Dr. Phil to boot! Dollars to donuts you voted for GWB in 2000.

It's becoming clearer by the day that Obama has a problem connecting with traditional Democratic voters. His prospects in the primary are directly tied to getting Republicans and independents to vote Democrat.

I'm a Clinton supporter, we're a military family, and if Obama supporters don't want the John Kerry endorsement, we'll take it.

John Kerry is a true war hero and deserves to be a leading voice in the Democratic Party.

However, I think stepping on Obama's Nevada Culinary endorsement was a GIGANTIC mistake, and it shows why Kerry didn't do as well as he should have in 2004. (I agree 100% that the 2004 election was stolen in Ohio.)

For any marketing people (regardless of who you support) I think you will agree that the Clinton campaign truly understands the psychology of an election.

Example:
After Clinton's NH win, she made the morning shows to prove that she wasn't exhausted...
And then got off the stage while the entire world talked about her win.
And watched Fox News eat crow after crow after crow.

No one stepped on her message, including her... except Terry McA to let us all know that she out-raised Obama in the 4th quarter.
Brilliant psychology.

Kerry's endorsement stepping on Obama's major NV endorsement?
NOT brilliant psychology.
Now the talk is all about Kerry, and, among Obama supporters themselves, it's even about whether it helps or hurts the campaign! Not good.

Also, I doubt Kerry's 3 million names will hurt Clinton, as I have a feeling Hillary already has the same names.

I believe this endorsement was strictly to jab at John Edwards, in time for SC, because John Edwards will need to knock Obama off his game in SC in order for Edwards to grab any of O's "change" voters. John Kerry is not in favor of Edwards going on, imo.

My prediction is that JK will come out "in combat mode" FOR Obama, AND against JE. One of the reasons I don't support Edwards is because I believe HE betrayed Kerry, not the other way around. I think Kerry agrees with me.

I hope Hillary Clinton just stays out of SC and campaigns elsewhere. I'm ready for JE and his supporters to be gone. I think Kerry can do the job, while proving to Edwards what it looks like to actually fight for a candidate.

As far as these types of posts:
"Ahem. The GOP wants Hillary because it'll be a bloodbath, the Gingrich years all over again. Yippee."

The Clintons WON the bloodbaths. I know; I was a Gingrich Republican. And I still think a hell of a lot of him.

Gingrich didn't feed the bloodbaths; the Rightwing Slime Machine did. Gingrich is not part of the Rightwing Slime Machine, imo. If you're afraid of the Rightwing Slime Machine, I'd leave the arena right now if I were you.
1) There will be attempted bloodbaths, no matter who the D candidate is. You are really naive if you expect to avoid them. Plus, you empower them by letting them have a say in your choice of candidate.
2) If we stick together after the primary, I guarantee that ANY Democrat will beat ANY Republican.

One of the reason I support Hillary is because of the Rightwing Slime Machine's attempt to make politics a blood sport. That reality doesn't scare me, OR them.
FACTS:
The Republicans LOST seats during the last bloodbath in 1998.
And Gingrich resigned.
And then Bob Livingston resigned.
And then Henry Hyde was publicly exposed as the hypocrite that he was.
And Bill Clinton's poll numbers went UP.
And Hillary Clinton's poll numbers went UP.
And, I repeat, the Democrats WON seats in 1998, in the midst of the bloodbath.

Predictions:
Huckabee will win SC big, SC will be a setback for McCain, and Ron Paul is going to keep making the GOP acknowledge that he exists, as he will take his solid 8-10% of the vote from the rest of the field,

For Dems? I have no idea.

In my humble opinion, we should have just let SC secede, instead of fighting a civil war in order to keep them in the fold.
Great place to visit; racist place to live. (And, yes, I've lived there.)

just as in the General Election, popular votes aren't what really matter. The real story is that Obama is in the lead in terms of pledged delegates at this point in the Primary Race.

So much for your "movement" candidate. Wake up and smell the coffee, Children of the Corn, Obama is politics as usual -- and so are you.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

So much for your "movement" candidate. Wake up and smell the coffee, Children of the Corn, Obama is politics as usual -- and so are you.

So does the gig pay well, or are you just a volunteer? You're comment sure sounds like it's chock full of campaign worker sound-bites, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

In any case, the take-home point about Obama's actually leading in the delegate count at this point in the primaries is that the media and Clinton camps are completely ignoring the fundamental realities of the primary process in order to bolster the story line that Clinton made some kind of break-out comeback in NH. That's what I call politics as usual at its very worst--massive coordinated efforts to shape public perception in a particular direction are exactly what this country doesn't need anymore of right now. Right now, it needs as much straight talk and reality-driven thinking as possible. Sure, there's some spinning of primary outcomes being done by all the campaigns (some more than others), but to completely misrepresent what by even the very best of measures was a tie as an out-of-the-ballpark victory is so stunningly manipulative and politically calculating that it doesn't bode well for what we can expect coming out of the Clinton camp in the future, in my opinion. As for your other comments, I think we should be looking at this primary process as adults with a serious responsibility to make the right choices for our children's futures here, not as overenthusiastic sports fans, rooting for their favorite team. At least, that's how I see it. Feel free to fling around some more crushing insights like the "Children of the Corn" barb, though, if you like.

"Totally not surprising that you, a loud and truth-deficient Obama supporter, would pull out Republican talking points to attack Hillary as "misogynist".

I don't believe Liam was accusing Hillary of msiogyny, he was talking about Bill.

"You're really trying to claim that Kerry lost the election because of Edwards(!)? And you're really trying to claim that Edwards watered down Kerry's message? Or that Edwards pushed for a weaker stance on the Iraq War than Kerry?
You've really bought into this Bush Newspeak thing haven't you?"
">">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/politics/21edwards.html?pagewanted=print,/url>

Well, I respectfully disagree with your support for Clinton, but I thank you for engaging me directly and taking the time to discuss the issues a little more even-handedly (and with a more personal touch).

I'd like to be able to say I could enthusiastically support Clinton, too, were she the Democratic nominee at the end of the day. But that would be a bitter, bitter pill for me to swallow, because I truly believe that, despite all the good the Clinton administration did, many of its policies inadvertently laid the groundwork for the Bush power grab and even helped to advance the broader right-wing agendas of draining the revenue base for government services, further undermining the strength of unions, weakening consumer protections, etc. (Clinton's welfare reforms, emphasis on market-friendly solutions, pro-globalization policies, etc.) And I believe Clinton herself is far too cozy with corporate America and the military-industrial complex.

Still, I'm sure I could hold my nose and choke down the pill if it was the only alternative to voting republican. That's saying something positive, right?

As I read and have read the books and articles concerning the arranged marriage between Kerry and Edwards one thing sticks out.

Who did Kerry really want as his VP and why didn't he push it?

Of the three current Democratic candidates there is only one who has moved beyond the handlers.
1. Where did the three announce their candidacy and why?
2. Which candidate of the three was the first to put forward specific plans..knowing that the sooner you put something up the more time there is for attacks?

Which candidate "wasted" campaign time on a poverty tour?

Which candidate has forced the other two campaigns in giving more specifics on health care?

Which candidate has forced the other two in talking about entrenched interests?

A simple question...
If Edwards was not..and will remain in these Primaries what would they be looking like? What would they be talking about?

1992 and 1996 is Not looking forward.
2004 is Not looking forward.

you know me and songs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE

If nothing else, this endorsement has made Barack the #1 story going into the weekend. Or at least stolen airtime that might have otherwise gone to Hillary. Her NH win already seems like old news.

I wonder if this might have done Barack more good before the NH vote. Wouldn't Kerry have helped Barack more in the northeast? Seems odd rolling out a Kerry endorsement in front of SC, but what do I know...

"Sure, there's some spinning of primary outcomes being done by all the campaigns (some more than others), but to completely misrepresent what by even the very best of measures was a tie as an out-of-the-ballpark victory is so stunningly manipulative and politically calculating that it doesn't bode well for what we can expect coming out of the Clinton camp in the future, in my opinion."

Good point. Bill's working the refs ("fairy tale") rant in the days before NH was a low point for him, IMO. And you've got to go pretty fucking low to reach Bill Clinton's low points.

If the Clintons had any class at all, he would be keeping a very low profile. It's unseemly for a former president to be this involved in a primary campaign, even if his wife is a candidate.

hisos jatydiwy gakma
bura http://zi51630.bu4egr9.in/sitemap17.html [url=http://zi51630.bu4egr9.in/sitemap17.html ]pixe[/url] dohyt

buwos mezemyni gukma
gule http://ma638860.bu4egr9.in/sitemap3.html [url=http://ma638860.bu4egr9.in/sitemap3.html ]fyji[/url] kasit

jagos pyhypajo gakma
kigu http://ty915308.shucqyf.in/sitemap3.html [url=http://ty915308.shucqyf.in/sitemap3.html ]gosa[/url] kebax

xiros pudofupo gakma
fiwa http://ci48931.xk9jhp5.net/sitemap18.html [url=http://ci48931.xk9jhp5.net/sitemap18.html ]deho[/url] gopit

komos hodosaca gakma
myku http://go826435.xk9jhp5.net/sitemap15.html [url=http://go826435.xk9jhp5.net/sitemap15.html ]gycy[/url] mehiv

zejos gynojewo gakma
voke http://to180617.je8h3jp.net/sitemap23.html [url=http://to180617.je8h3jp.net/sitemap23.html ]foda[/url] munyb