Surely a mayor's endorsement counts for more than a Senator's (or former Senator's), no? As they say, all politics are local and mayors have more resources at their disposal to mobilize the votes on the ground.

Incidentally, am I the only one hungry for polls form LA, NE, WA and ME? Is there nothing recent out there?

This commenting system sucks. The number of comments goes up on the post, but you can't see the comments come up for a long time. Then the comment strings don't make any sense.

Ok, I can see some of the comments on the first post now, but nothing else. Sounds like a computer problem.

Former Senator Bob Kerrey has been head of a New York City school since 2001. Does he even live in Nebraska any more--even part time?

"Former Senator Bob Kerrey has been head of a New York City school since 2001."

New School for Social Research. Prior to that I believe he was one of the leaders of the Concord Coalition, the most well-known budget hawk think tank.

KERREY should have said:
"the bottom line is simply you must vote for Hillary because I want a bigger job now." -I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this MSG.

Hard to believe, but not everyone follows your messiah. Once again,anyone who says something positive for another candidate becomes irrelevant, a has been, a Clinton crony. Did anyone listen to Kerrey on the 9/11 comission? Was he pushing for a "higher position" then? Maybe, just maybe he actually thinks Hillary is the best candidate, like many people.

Oh yeah, this Bob Kerrey:

From Think Progress--Bob Kerrey: Wrong Before Going Into Iraq And Still Wrong Today

On September 13, 2002, just as Congress was debating whether to approve a resolution providing President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq, former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

The real choice is between sustaining a military effort designed to contain Saddam Hussein and a military effort designed to replace him. In my mind the case for the second choice is overwhelming. … Regime change is the only way we can safely reduce our military commitment to the region.

In calling for regime change, Kerrey displayed an inability to comprehend the predictable chaos that would ensue. The intelligence community warned the Bush administration in January 2003 that regime change “would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.”

In December 2003, an undeterred Kerrey claimed that he had been vindicated and Iraq war critics would ultimately be proven wrong. “Twenty years from now, we’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who says it wasn’t worth the effort,” he wrote.

Today, Bob Kerrey (D-NE), unrepentant over his failed Iraq war predictions, returns to the Wall Street Journal op-ed page to blast “American liberals.” In making his argument that democracy can indeed be imposed by military force (apparently by overlooking the Iraq war), Kerrey writes:

American liberals need to face these truths … [A] unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

Perhaps he should have thought about that before advocating regime change as “the only way” to “safely reduce our military commitment to the region.” By staying in Iraq as an occupying force, the U.S. is helping inflame the terrorist movement. But Bob Kerrey has never understood that from the beginning, so why would he understand that now?

UPDATE: The National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez heralds Kerrey as “my favorite Democrat.”

UPDATE II: Rush Limbaugh says “Bob Kerrey is right on Iraq.”

I'm a very strong Obama supporter but would simply like to say that Bob Kerrey is, in my opinion, a fine public servant (as is the case with many others who are supporting Sen. Clinton) In fact, stumbles aside, I sure as heck wish he'd been nominated instead of Bill Clinton back in 1992! (A Kerry administration wouldn't have been so, er, unseemly, and if necessary I'd rather have had another 4 years of George H W Bush than 8 years of his son!)

Also, I don't know how many of you actually saw Kerrey make the comments about Obama's middle name, family Muslim connections, and his having attended a 'secular madrassa' (which does exist when you consider that madrassa actually means nothing more than 'school'). I truly do not believe he meant anything other than an off beat, sort of Quixotic, but genuine, compliment to the person he wasn't endorsing. (You know, more normally expressed as "I have great respect for X but have decided to endorse Y") Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that's mine. And I was watching when he first made the statement (on Hardball, I think)

He did apologize to Obama - immediately - for any *unintended* harm he'd caused; Obama immediately accepted the apology; and Kerrey has followed up with similar corrections, actually quite complimentary to Obama, in several letters to editors and blog comments. -- And there is nothing negative or biting in that video above.

Let's leave the demonizing when it may not be warranted to the Clintons, okay?

Thsi guy is no war hero.

He was revealed to have committed war crimes, murderign civilians. Story broke in the 90s by NYT.

Total sleaze.