« Obama's New Pennsylvania Radio Ads: Register As A Dem | Home | Hillary Visiting Michigan To Campaign For New Primary »
Jack Murtha Endorses Hillary
Hillary Clinton has picked up the endorsement of Jack Murtha, the Pennsylvania Congressman and retired Marine whose 2005 turn against the Iraq War has made him a hero to many liberal activists.
It's more than a month to go until the Pennsylvania primary, so there's no telling just how much Murtha's support will help with anti-war voters, or how much he'll campaign for her. But it probably couldn't hurt.
Advertisement
Many obama supporters will now say that Murtha is a corrupt hack, we didn't want his support, blah blah blah.
That is the same type of nonsense I read from Hillary supporters back when Kennedy endorsed Obama ("Kennedy's the past, he's a pig, blah blah blah").
A number of progressives supported Murtha when he came out swinging against the war, despite his checkered past. We shouldn'ttear the man down now, just because he happens to endorse a candidate Obama supporters do not prefer (or--ugh--hate).
I am an Obama supporter. I support Murtha. I think this is one endorsement of many each side has claimed.
Temper your comments accordingly, children.
March 19, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, with all due respect, I've been calling Murtha shady for a good long while before today...
http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/004409.html
...so I don't feel particularly bad for ripping into him once more, now that he's endorsed Sen. Clinton.
If you're serious about campaign finance, lobbying, and ethics reform, Murtha is part of the problem, and has been for a good long while now.
March 19, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Murtha's significance speaking out against George Bush's catastrophic war in Iraq was the fact that he is and had a long reputation for being a hawk. It was a great slap in the face to his former ally Dick Cheney who took it very personally. SInce then many other hawkish Democrats have spoken out against what is clearly one of the worst blunders in our history.
Endorsements have been cheered and dismissed here and by the campaigns themselves. (Maybe the Ugly Betty endorsement helped her win the primary in Texas?) This might help Hillary since Murtha's a Pennsylvania congressman, but it still reinforces the fact that she's a hawk. If her old friend Joe Leiberman hadn't alienated himself from the party, I'm sure he'd be on board too.
Hillary Clinton is a hawk. She's in the leadership of the neo-liberal DLC. Good for Hillary. Murtha may help her win Pennsylvania, but she still lost the nomination.
March 19, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is great news! FOR HILLARY!
March 19, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you may be sued by Idiotic for trademark infringement.
March 19, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Everyone already knew about the Murtha endorsement five hours ago. Why is TPM always slow on the uptake?
March 19, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to make this confession, but there are times when even political bloggers have to sleep. And sometimes, important news breaks while we're off in Dreamland.
March 19, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"A hero to many liberal activists"?
He's always been the bane of progressive activists.
CREW numbered him among the top 20 most corrupt members of Congress. (http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/murtha.php)
Taxpayers for Common Sense noted that he led the House in earmarks in 2007.
He's been involved in shady scandals going all the way back to ABSCAM.
So, yeah, Clinton can have him. Given the respective records on earmarks and lobbyist money, they deserve each other.
March 19, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very odd that in his endorsement Rep. Murtha fails to explain how someone who voted for and justified the war (all the while refusing the concede it was a mistake) can possibly be effective in a campaign to explain how to get us out. Rep. Murtha has been passionate in his denuniciation of the war, making his choice all the more puzzling, and indeed seemingly irrational and self-contradictory. Senator Obama explained in detail what would happen to us if we got in and showed better judgment. It defies logic that Rep. Murtha would not reward good judgment. One can only question whether this is old transactional politics--because the endorsement defies Murtha's own self-professed values.
March 19, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obamanator,
you seem to be forgetting that Murtha himself voted for the war.
Also, look at who he is: an older, white Catholic born in West Virginia who turned into one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. Other than his gender, he's practically the stereotypical Hillary voter.
March 19, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
FIRST!
"But it probably couldn't hurt."
No bias in that statement I suppose.
March 19, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its definetly good news for Hillary. You can parse and present a more studied opinion on Murtha, but for a larger majority he represents a voice on Iraq.
However, he waited four weeks too long.
March 19, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you spell Status Quo?
March 19, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because Murtha's the Democratic King of Pork!
Why on earth would he want a president who was in favor of major ethics reform? Murtha IS a hack, someone who uses his position to funnel money into PA.
His endorsement is simply based on who he thinks will keep the taps on and the money flowing. He doesn't really care about the war.
March 19, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
So . . . A dude with almost as much green on the knees of his jumpsuit as Clinton's . . . endorses Clinton . . .
File under B.F.D.
March 19, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that Murtha was a hero to liberal activists is just nonsense.
Yes, we appreciated the fact that he reversed his initial support for the war and defended him when the chickenhawks attacked him for it, but we also knew that he was one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress and one of the most corrupt. This is why most people in the blogosphere and most liberals in Congress opposed him when he tried to parlay his newfound opposition to the war into a leadership position.
March 19, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Murtha is Pelosi's puppet in Washington. Could he be just exemplifying what Pelosi stands for: Super-delegates should follow the voice of their constituents. And Pelosi's position on super-delegates and dream ticket are supposed to help Obama. Can any one explain to me the politics behind Murtha's endorsement of Clinton? Do you smell any rat here?
March 19, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I wonder how much this endorsement cost the clintons. Did they pay as much as they got for the marc rich pardon? I wonder.
March 19, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Murtha endorsing the Clintons makes about as much sense as Jack LaLanne endorsing deep fried Twinkies.
March 19, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, the most that a strong finish by Clinton can yield her is pressure on Obama to give her the VP slot.
March 19, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I listen to the Obama people and the press keep saying 'Hillary has to win or she has no where to go' and 'Hillary's strong finish is to beg for the VP slot from Obama'
She is a U.S. SENATOR from New York. Is that chicken feed? Is that chopped liver? Good grief, she is going to be the distinguished Senator crafting legislation and continuing to influence for DECADES to come.
March 19, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are losing a Presidential, not Senatorial race, so in that sense the remarks you are hearing are appropriate.
And while they're not my favorite staples, at least you can eat chicken feed and chopped liver (which, by inference, is more than I can say for the Clintons).
March 19, 2008 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
if Edwards doesn't get the VP, it will be
Obama-Ford '08
hint, hint
March 19, 2008 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama-Ford ticket is unlikely, not because it is an all-black ticket, but because Ford is a DLC member, just like Hillary.
March 19, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
hey don't marginalize this dream ticket, they're white too
I think Ford represents the perfect balance to Obama's candidacy.
the Real Dem ticket
http://www.betastart.com/SW/obamaford08-3.jpg
March 19, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude you fail to comprehend that MOST Americans have gone from a position of nominal support for the war to a position very much against the war. That puts Murtha right in the sweet spot and is not any damn contradiction. You got the smell of koolaid all over you man. Obomb was a liberal state senator from a liberal black Chicago district so it was both easy and necessary for him to be against the war. Clinton's home state of New York was attacked and thousands of her voters were killed so it would have been much harder for her to look like a pussy on the war .... any war in 2003. You sound like you are giving a right wing religious purity test that is sooooo unappealing to TRUE LIBERALS ..... hahahah!
March 19, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not of test purity -- no one is pure. A test of integrity and good sense of judgement. A great C-in-C test. I marched in D.C. and the freezing cold NYC streets with hundreds of thousands of other protestors. Millions of of the international community marched with us in their respective cities -- some of the largest protests in history.
Obama shared our views and Clinton didn't. And she can't even recant, like Edwards did. She fails the C-in-C test.
March 19, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
hollywood, don't you know that 98 pct of the commenters here in TPM who support obama have 20/20 hindsight? eventhough over 80 pct of americans supported military action against saddam in 2003, 98 pct of the TPM crowd were hiding in the tiny minority of those who could foresee disaster in their crystal balls.
hillary is the devil, hollywood... how dare she support tough action against anyone with dirty hands? how dare she trust the president (we all know with perfect 20/20 hindsight now that he was oh so untrustworthy!)
obama, on the other hand, has perfect realtime 20/20 judgement on all issues. rezko, wright, etc. will turn out to be non-issues when the rest of us catch up to obama, hollywood... he's just ahead of the curve again!
oh, and that jack murtha! how could anyone respect him? the pro-obama TPM crowd knows better. they have all the republican talking points memorized on murtha for just this occasion. anyone politically related to or sympathetic to anything clinton needs to be destroyed! half of the democratic party are low information, unenlightened, corruption-loving racists who haven't bought into the obama light and sunshine new theory of politics... of course, we are all very bad people, because we admire hillary clinton (oops, i said it... this post is likely to self-destruct.)
but take heart, hollywood! there is still hope for us! the light is shining. obama is waiting for us. his supporters will only remind us of our shame from time-to-time if we promise to support obama starting from the moment that he vanquishes hillary once and for all. we too, can contribute to obama's coronation campaign as long as we keep our one time contributions to under $100 per shot (no ostentatious displays of penance allow for former HRC supporters.)
how could i have been so misguided, hollywood? i feel so much better now that i know that obama is waiting for me...
March 19, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, the term "coronation campaign" used by a Hillary supporter against Obama rings just a tad bit hollow.
March 19, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'm not talking about how obama is running his campaign... i'm talking about the attitude of his supporters at this particular junction...
that's just my "snark" clarification.
March 19, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about jumping on a sinking ship.
Anti-war my ass.
March 19, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Jack Murtha: "What speech?"
Nicely timed.
This is certainly not going to help Obama finish within ten percent in Pennsylvania.
March 19, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Murtha King of Pork? Over the Honorable Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia?
March 19, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike the HRC haters who smeared Kennedy and Kerry for their choice, I have no problem with Murtha making his choice, especially given his constituency.
She'll probably win PA so not a big surprise.
I would be surprised if any of these PA folks have the guts to buck the Clinton machinery there.
I'd be interested to see if there will be any backlash against Mayor Nutter. Obama will likely win Philly, so why is he bucking the city on this?
March 19, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes! by all means! mayor nutter should be punished... how dare he!
March 19, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Philly's mayor is probably like St. Louis' mayor--good at backing the wrong horse. Yes, our white Dem major and a whole swath of the ward leaders backed Hillary and then did absolutely nothing here in St. Louis to help her out. A few, very few, backed Obama but the Obama volunteers were here very early finding more volunteers to work for Obama. McCaskill endorsed Obama and her voter data lists (which were current since she last used them in 2006) were used in phone banking.
Endorsements only matter if local contacts are supplied and these contacts actually cough up people and organizational skills for a campaign. Murtha's been around a long time so I suspect he knows the local leadership very well; I doubt that he has much use for keeping up his voter lists since he is re-elected by wide margins. Someone like Rendell is of more use, frankly.
March 19, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That is the same type of nonsense I read from Hillary supporters back when Kennedy endorsed Obama ("Kennedy's the past, he's a pig, blah blah blah")."
Historically this is just not accurate.
Most of the DNC early on jumped on the HRC bandwagon and none of them were smeared.
OTOH, Kerry, Kennedy, even Oprah, were smeared for endorsing Obama. I hate this "both sides" type stuff when it is clearly one side.
March 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if it was really really hard for her to do, then I guess it's okay she didn't.
Now that's leadership!
March 19, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
kensdad, do you have anything useful to share with us today besides sarcasm and bitterness?
March 19, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, baristaberry... i'm very tired, and feeling sick with the flu, so no, i have nothing cheerful to make you guys feel better about BO.
i try to keep my posts substantive (as most people here know), but sometimes i can't help but to scream out in frustration. it ain't easy being a HRC supporter here at TPM, but i'd rather not runaway for more friendly environs like most of my compatriots already have... i've been reading TPM for yrs and was an early supporter when josh was looking for readers to support his expansion into muckraker, and even earlier than that.
sorry that my bitterness bothers you. lots of anti-hillary posts here bother me, too.
feel free to skip over my posts, baristaberry. maybe i'll be in a better mood for you tomorrow...
March 19, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry you are feeling unwell, kensdad. I know that your posts are usually more substantive - that's why the tone of today's surprised me.
Yesterday's speech made me realize that we ALL need to be kinder to each other. Both Obama and Hillary supporters have gotten increasingly more antagonistic toward each other in the last few weeks, and I'll be the first to admit I have participated in the rancor. That's not the kind of person I want to be, and I sincerely apologize to any of you who may have been on the receiving end of a snarky comment from me.
Whatever happens in Denver, or in November for that matter, I think it's important for us to start treating each other like human beings - even if we disagree on who the best Democratic nominee would be. I'm not saying we shouldn't engage in substantive discourse on policy issues, but I don't think personal attacks on each other are going to accomplish anything positive for our respective candidates OR our country.
So from here on out, I'm pledging to keep my posts from descending into pettiness or rudeness. Anytime I violate this pledge, I'll donate $5 to HRC's campaign. Consider it a peace offering to my fellow political junkies.
March 19, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
i whole-heartedly support what you've said...
i will say that Obama's speech yesterday was remarkable and made me think that he has the capacity to really move the country forward on the issue of race. this alone does not make him my first choice for president, but i do admire him.
i have never (or at least i do not recall having ever) attacked obama or what he stands for... it has always been the vile attacks on HRC by obama supporters that really get me riled up.
here's hoping for better days, baristaberry!
March 19, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am also sorry that you are not feeling well, dear Kensdad. I hope that you feel better soon.
March 19, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, greg...
March 19, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Kerry, Kennedy, even Oprah, were smeared for endorsing Obama. I hate this "both sides" type stuff when it is clearly one side."
Very well said. Why, if Obama supporters were like Hillary supporters, you'd be reading comments like "He's been involved in shady scandals going all the way back to ABSCAM." or
"One can only question whether this is old transactional politics--because the endorsement defies Murtha's own self-professed values." or
"Murtha IS a hack, someone who uses his position to funnel money into PA. His endorsement is simply based on who he thinks will keep the taps on and the money flowing. He doesn't really care about the war."
Good thing Obama supporters are above all that.
March 19, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
nice post, ChrisO, but don't let baristaberry catch you! he/she is anti-sarcasm. please keep your comments at TPM very sincere, and sincerely pro-obama whenever possible. thank you.
March 19, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heck, I do admire Rep Murtha, earmarks and suchlike notwithstanding. His is a worthwhile endorsement (for what little my non-Pennsylvania voter opinion is worth) and I tip my hat to Sen Clinton who has won it. Good for her.
March 19, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this was a very important endorsement for Hillary.
And I'm sure Pelosi was dissappointed.
Rae
March 19, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't make a blanket statement about Obama supporters because I think Murtha is a hack.
My family lives in PA and have gone to some lengths to try and build opposition to Murtha over the last 5 years. Long before I was an active supporter of Obama. So don't write people off so quickly.
I don't think particularly highly of Ted Kennedy either. I think he's only slightly less of a hack than Murtha.
March 19, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I said nothing of the political value of having him endorse. Hillary will surely benefit from the endorsement, as Obama did Kennedy.
That doesn't change my opinion of any of the 4
March 19, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another pastor goes after Obama as a "long legged freak."
LOL!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU
March 19, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink