Ohio's Largest Paper Endorses Obama
If Hillary was counting on a win in Ohio to change the story-line after expected losses in multiple states this month, this isn't good news: The state's biggest paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer has just endorsed Obama:
Obama's frequent talk of hope strikes some people as naive. It leads others to question his toughness. But Obama understands something his critics do not: Change requires vision and optimism, shared sacrifice and mutual trust. Hope can sustain those elements; a presidency defined by political tactics cannot.Hillary Clinton is an exceptionally bright and accomplished woman. Only a fool could dispute that. It would be nice if Obama's policy proposals were as meaty as those she has put forward. It's no wonder she wants Democrats to see this race as a choice between resumes.
But in a campaign where history matters, she carries an inordinate amount of baggage. Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s?
Buying Obama's argument, and then some. Full editorial here.
Advertisement
Greg,
Do you consider yourself objective, or have you endorsed in the primary?
Thanks! I've been enjoying your site for a long time and just registered this week.
peace,
JW
February 9, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not endorsing, haven't endorsed, won't endorse.
February 9, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Greg Sargent's TPM bio: "Greg Sargent is the editor of Election Central, Talking Points Memo's politics and elections Web site. ...
He splits his time between New York City and Connecticut."
So, if you won't endorse, Greg, how about letting us know who you voted for? Did you vote in NY or CT? Be interesting to hear which side of those contests you were part of... ;-)
February 9, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg: That sounded like a bit of a dodge to me. What about the first part of the question? The part about whether you consider yourself objective.
February 9, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Half the time, Greg is accused of being biased toward Obama. And half the time it's for Hillary.
Who cares?
February 9, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't recall ever seeing Greg accused of being an Obama supporter. :o)
February 9, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really hilarious to compare the text of the Plain Dealer's endorsement with the section that Greg chose to cite. It's a pretty glowing endorsement, but Greg chose to lead with a line that suggests that the endorsement was tepid and that they believe Obama is naive. A nice little attempt at spin, Greg! Totally transparent, but pretty funny as an example of how the press attempts to manipulate opinions.
February 9, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a vast, left wing conspiracy!
Obamentum
February 9, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yessiree, we sure don't need nobody with a great resume and lots of experience and toughness...please give us the guy who makes us feel good!
February 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please give me the guy who makes us feel hopeful and has an impressive resume, experience and backbone: Barack Obama. Please don't give me the one who uses her husband's experience as her own, is a divisive figure that many Americans don't trust, and will take money from any lobbyist who can write a check.
February 9, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need no logic class, no sirree, we just need a tuna sandwich.
[/loki]
February 9, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you were trying to be objective or journalistic you might have just left off the line "Buying Obama's argument". There's clearly a snarky aspect to that, whether it's a matter of bias or just arrogance (as if voters aren't perfectly capable of making up what is important to them rather than having some "argument" spoon fed to them). Frankly, I just think you are an amateur who succeeds at demonstrating almost all of the flaws of our less illuminating media sources.
February 9, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then don't read the damned site. JFC.
February 9, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hunter tells you to go away, you'd better go away. He drinks a helluva lot and he's into guns. Plus, he's dead.
February 9, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
let's have the lawyer who didn't parlay his/her ivy league degree into a position as a highly paid corporate attorney.
February 9, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone actually pay attention to newspaper endorsements?
February 9, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Buying Obama's argument, and then some".
A very poisonous passive-aggressive comment.
February 9, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's have the person who can actually write a book (or two) himself rather than taking credit for the work of a ghost writer.
February 9, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The endorsement is a nice pickup, but it won't shift a lot of folks.
Now in regards to what is referred to here as Obama's argument:
This actually has long been made by a considerable number of smart people. Way before Barack Obama used it in an oblique way.
I suspect the crap that is currently dominating TPM's homepage,
Hillary...Chelsea...Pimping...
Chelsea...Pimping...Hillary...
is a clear view of the future arc of another Clinton presidency.
With at least these two differences:
1) Will Hillary seat her daughter in the West Wing and give her something to work on?
(Like Bill did for Hillary?) Think of the experience Chelsea would get!
2) Since I defended Bill Clinton's honor to the nth degree, only to wake one morning to the news that he vehemently lied, I can never type a word in defense of a Clinton again. Been there. Done that. That's not my baby to bathe and feed. So that's changed too.
For those of you who haven't yet learned your lesson: Good luck with that. As she hasn't even been elected and her diaper needs changing again and again. Yuck.
February 9, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a monumentally lame-ass argument.
February 9, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lame-ass? Not at all. It's been a central argument between the Clinton and Obama camps. Electability matters.
From CNN:
"Clinton does have higher negatives than Obama -- and McCain. Forty-four percent of the public say they don't like Clinton, compared with 36 percent who don't like McCain and 31 percent who don't like Obama, according to the CNN poll conducted February 1-3."
Exactly how are stats on Clinton's electability lame-ass?
February 9, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to the lame-ass "baggage" argument. Perhaps you replied to the wrong post.
February 9, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to have a rough time in Ohio no matter what. I fully expect a blowout by Hillary in Ohio, but that'll be nothing compared to the blowout in Pennsylvania in April. She's got that ste locked up so tight Obama stands no chance at all.
Texas will go the Clinton, too.
February 9, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
With such in-depth analysis like that, it's a wonder Obama doesn't just drop out now.
Party's over, Barack. WStarr says so.
February 9, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmm hmm. And back in October, she had the whole thing locked up solid, delegate landslide in the bank. Inevitable, she was. And there were lots and lots and lots of people here citing poll after poll to prove it.
And, also, we were going to win the war in Iraq within months, they'd welcome us as liberators, throw flowers in the street, join hands across sectarian and ethnic divides, pay all the costs of our win, and then send us on our way a few months later with a shower of good wishes and $20.00 per barrel oil.
And in 2004, the Republicans were locked into a permanent majority and we Dems were going to recede into a meaningless token minority because of the dazzling success of Bush's social security reforms.
Funny how reality has a way of rearing up and takin a chunk out people who pull rosy predictions about the future out of their fundements.
February 9, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's very hard to predict what an endorsement will or will not do viscerally with voters as individuals.
Odd that there are comments that say it carries no weight, yet...
We're on a thread talking about said endorsement.
February 9, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wstarr,
My god you're right! Will somebody tell the Obama campaign so he can quit now and save us the trouble of voting?
February 9, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey speaking of Cleveland, I got a call earlier from someone raising funds for Denny Kucinich, for his congressional reelection campaign. It would seem he's drawn a primary challenger, which was news to me.
February 9, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather have it than not, but still don't think it will move many votes. Look at Iowa. And MA. And CA (where Obama had every major paper's endorsement all over the state).
February 9, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
does anyone know the number of actual delegates that Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas has?
I think whoever losses 2 out of the 3 states should drop out...
February 9, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But in a campaign where history matters, she carries an inordinate amount of baggage. Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s?
This is one of my main arguments against a Clinton candidacy I backed the Clinton's in the 90's but I can't go through that again. We need to unite the country. Why should we put these people back in the White House?
February 9, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But in a campaign where history matters, she carries an inordinate amount of baggage. Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s?"
Here are the things that most bother me about the Obama campaign.
On the one hand it talks about how idealistic their candidate and his cause are. They say he will bring America together and that he will move the country forward. On the other hand the campaign continually directs negative attacks against both Bill and Hillary Clinton, often using the derogatory term "Billary". In particular, the campaign seeks to denigrate a truly outstanding, brilliant and accomplished woman by blaming her for some of the past peccadilloes of her husband.
This hypocrisy of the campaign extends to Sen. Obama's supporters. While they mouth how much they want to become "their better selves" under his leadership (as Arianna Huffington puts it), they often engage in nasty and demeaning langauge about former President Clinton,Hillary or Chelsea.
How about showing a little common decency now???
The problem that the Obama campaign has is that apparently they find that they cannot win the campaign without going negative against the Clintons. Given that many people like myself consider it a privilege to have lived when Bill Clinto was President, this negative campaign is undoubedly going to split the party.
When Sen. Obama talks about what a great uniter he is, I am now reminded of another policitican who claimed to be a "uniter not a divider". That hasn't turned out too well, has it?
February 9, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an interesting bit of revisionist history, John. I'm sure Bill, Bob Kerrey and Bob Johnson would agree with you.
Problem is, the Clinton campaign fired the first, second and third shots to try and turn this campaign negative. You can't complain now that Obama is effectively fighting back.
And Hillary can't have it both ways, either. She either was an integral part of her husband's administration, and should be willing to take the good with the bad, or she's her own person, in which case she has no right to bring up the '90s or her husband's Presidency.
February 9, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us are very much trying to show decency in our dealings, as best as we can.
February 9, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you check around the blogesphere you will find all types of comments. Some are childish and some are just mean and it is done to both candidates. I got a really nasty and false email the other day attacking Obama. I did not blame the Clinton campaign for the stupidity of the writer.
No one from the Obama campaign has said anything mean or disrepectful about the Clinton's. The endorsement speaks the truth. The MSM are the ones that are mean and disrespectful. You need to address these matters with them. Don't put that in our backyard.
I have defended the Clinton's for years and I decline to do it any longer.
The truth will set us all free.
February 9, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
How hard is this to understand? Many Americans really dislike Hillary. We're not all big fans of Bill either. True, he presided over an active economy (an economy, unfortunately, driven by a fictional tech boom that he had little control over). But there's this sort of ridiculous refusal among some Democrats to accept the notion that Bill was not THAT great a president. He turned the National Forests over the logging companies and claimed he didn't understand the bill he was signing. He launched a missile strike against a factory full of innocent civilians in the Sudan. He perjured himself before Congress and he lied to the American people. He really wasn't that great.
Hillary's fans like to accuse Obama's supporters of deifying Obama somehow. I'd say they know what they're talking about. They've been doing the same with Bill for years.
February 9, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
But she keeps on winning among Democrats and that's key.
David Shuster's comment was way out of line and totally uncalled for. Besides, if I remember correctly, the witch hunt that took place during the Clinton presidency cost many Republicans their jobs.
I did not agree with what bill Clinton did, but so many presidents before him did worse. Remember Marilyn Monroe et al? we have too many 24 hour news stations. just think about how many men need to be punished for lying because of the inability to keep their fly closed.\
She is her own person and I and many other females and males will gladly vote for her.
February 9, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Winning among Democrats" is how we keep losing general elections. Ask Presidents Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry what the support of all the good solid reliable Demcoratic voters will get you in a general election.
We are not a majority. We are now larger than the R's again but we cannot win, and we will never be able to win, without grabbing more than half of the independents. And,sorry, but the indies just can't stand her and she can't change it.
Oh, and those indies? They like McCain just fine.
February 9, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"'Winning among Democrats' is how we keep losing general elections."
Amen to that. If we don't broaden the base, as Governor Dean has been pushing for, we'll never get where we want to go. In many ways, this election is a confirmation of Dean's strategy of campaigning in all 50 states and a repudiation of the tactics of the DLC. Barack Obama won Alaska. What Democrat before Dean would have bothered to even take Alaska seriously?
Obama is the face of the new Democratic Party. But Howard Dean is setting the course.
February 9, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caucused today in Nebraska. We had a huge turnout. Obama won 73% to Clinton 27%. 6000 took part in this caucus with 75% were Democrats. Quite a few Republicans for Obama were there. They had on their Republicans for Obama stickers and they are serious.
This is a red state and very conservative. They want change. They can't wait to see George Bush and the rest of that crowd go, and yes, they like Obama. We will carry a huge victory in November if we run Obama.
Shuster is MSNBC problem, he was wrong, wrong. Maybe we should boycott the station, that usually works. I don’t condone his remarks.
February 9, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Less than brilliant.
So it is election night and what does TMP have going on front and center: All pimpin' all the time. Not one story, but two. Total headline dominance.
Frankly my dears this is not news anywhere else:
Not on google news or yahoo.
Not on the nytimes.
Not on MSNBC.
Any chance we can move on to the election?
Or are you folks pimpin' for someone?
February 9, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC calls Nebraska for Obama
February 9, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pish posh. Everyone knows MSNBC is biased against poor Hillary. I'll bet she's actually ahead.
February 9, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN just called it for Obama too.
February 9, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now Washington.
February 9, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
(just so i can use all caps once)
WHY IS THERE NO COVERAGE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS!
(sexishist maybe?)
February 9, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary just spoke in Virgina. Wow. She looked like crap. This can't be a fun night for her. I wonder if she's going to steal Obama's "yes we can" line like she did last night.
Obama's won Nebraska and Washington. Louisiana's next. Low voter turnout there. Not a good sign for Obama.
February 9, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"baggage." well, yes. and as a lifelong Democrat and a Hillary supporter, I worry about that. but I also worry about what the Republicans might do with Obama, who despite his apparent deification is still pretty unknown.
on the one hand, we all know everything about the Clintons and their scandals. what might the GOP do with Barack Hussein Obama? if I was running the McCain campaign, I'd probably spin Obama as the terrorists'choice. and I'd be sure to mention Louis Farrakhan and this "Afro-centric" church that Obama attends in Chicago. is this stupid and unfair? sure. but when has that mattered to the GOP?
on the other hand, something like 44% of the electorate already hates HRC.
can this really be happening to us? this was supposed to be our year. can anyone say "President McCain"?
February 9, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems there's one thing Democrats have learned to do this decade...lose national elections. We pick the worst candidates possible. Clinton will probably pull this out and then we're really doomed...again. The fractured Democratic Party and our loss of the next generation of voters will be the story of the next decade.
February 9, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The church is a black church. Most Blacks attend a Black Church. Yes, Obama is Black. I live in Nebraska with a black population of 6%. Most Blacks here attend a Black church. The area were I live is about 1% black. Obama carried 73% of the vote. I think everyone has heard about that BS you are talking about. The narrow minded people will be swayed but thinking Americans will not. Most people are sick and tired of the Republican party and thier 401K's are starting to look slim.
February 9, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The church is a black church. Most Blacks attend a Black Church. Yes, Obama is Black. I live in Nebraska with a black population of 6%. Most Blacks here attend a Black church. The area were I live is about 1% black. Obama carried 73% of the vote. I think everyone has heard about that BS you are talking about. The narrow minded people will be swayed but thinking Americans will not. Most people are sick and tired of the Republican party and thier 401K's are starting to look slim.
February 9, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The church is a black church. Most Blacks attend a Black Church. Yes, Obama is Black. I live in Nebraska with a black population of 6%. Most Blacks here attend a Black church. The area were I live is about 1% black. Obama carried 73% of the vote. I think everyone has heard about that BS you are talking about. The narrow minded people will be swayed but thinking Americans will not. Most people are sick and tired of the Republican party and thier 401K's are starting to look slim.
February 9, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am totally amazed that just a few years ago the average American public would have nothing to do with anything that even remotely sounded like a Middle Eastern or Muslim name - TODAY -we are ready to elect a man to to the President of the United States of America who's name is "Barack Hussein Obama". No wonder the entire world thinks we are crazy! It's amazing how the media can talk the America people into anything!
February 9, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound like a racist a-hole. Are you?
February 9, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nuclear Leaks, anyone?
Old-fashioned politics like forgetting we held a primary in Michigan?
A little favor from a ward heeler for the State of Illinois when you buy a house in a Landmark District when your wife has spent time on the Commission that splits the property bringing it into your price range in the first place?
Recognizing that unskilled labor --black and illegal immigrants -- is scapegoating when that's what you yourself recognized in your book?
Donnie McGlurkin
False charges of racism -- any racially charged slip of the tongue is planned racism on the part of the opponents campaign but Mr. Clean goes out of his way to say that he never charged racism -- he's just pumping smoke. Yeah, right.
Dr. Martin Luther King called us to our better selves: he would say if we responded to our best motivations we would do much better things. Obama says I recognize that this is bad but I recognize that you did that bad thing from the best of all possible motivations which I share. The bad thing may be how Bush dealt with the war, voters opted for Reagan -- it doesn't much matter -- Obama might as well be a concern troll --he goes -- vote for me I understand that nobody does anything from bad motives.
February 11, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has there been any buzz or comment out there for republicans, specifically Ohio reps., asking for democratic ballots to vote for Obama?
All the numbers out there show Obama running better against McCain than Hillary but I would rather have her out of this race sooner rather than later. The thought of those Arkansas cleptocrats getting back in the White House after 8 years of Texas cleptocrats is more than I can stomach.
February 12, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink