« Pew Poll: Obama Up 10 Points Over Clinton | Home | Obama: I Wouldn't Have Stayed With Church If Wright Hadn't Retired »
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) Endorsing Obama
Barack Obama is set to pick up a big endorsement today in Pennsylvania, that of Senator Bob Casey. With Hillary Clinton backed by almost the whole Democratic establishment in the state, Casey's support could potentially give Obama a decent leg up for the April 22 primary.
Also worth keeping in mind is that Casey had previously said he thought the best thing to do was remain publicly neutral — so his endorsement of Obama could potentially reflect a desire to end the primary race as soon as possible.
Advertisement
Anyone willing to say PA is in play?
March 28, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 'score' is delegates, not states. So Obama is better off winning 45% then he is winning 40%.
Every bit helps.
March 28, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typo Eric, you typed "estate" when you meant "state."
For what its worth, I don't think that this endorsement is a big deal. Rendell controlls the dem machine in PA and that's a plum endorsement. I like Casey, but I don't think that he will carry much weight at all. Also, I believe that the supers aren't going to do a thing until at the earliest after NC and Indiana on May 7. The more this drags on, the more I believe that we won't see any intervention until after Puerto Rico though.
March 28, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What influence do you think a "machine" brings to the election? And how does Rendell "control" it?
March 28, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
PA is an old school dem state. The older people, which is clinton's demographic play follow the leader and will get out and vote for the machine candidate, that's clinton. Rendell controlls all the levers to get those people out.
Add in the clintons' archie bunker strategy and it would be a miracle if obama could pull out PA. Even a 10% loss should be considered a victory for obama and he could easily lose by more than 10%.
March 28, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Michael, for once I agree with you. FYI, that's an email I sent to Tom Fitzgerald at Philly Dailynes who excitedly reported this news.
Dear Tom,
I read your article about Casey's endorsement with great amusement. I just read this article by Mark Halperin and James Carney in the Time with a sentence like this "She can't stop from shaking her head in disbelief when longtime friends who are elected officials inform her that they are going to endorse Obama and were chiefly convinced by their children's enthusiasm for his candidacy." So Casey's decision was influenced by his four daughters but he paid no attention to the people of PA who elected him as their Senator. Poll after poll has shown Hillary has double digit lead over Obama in PA. I guess only his daugthers count. Who gave a damn to other people?
By the way, it will be very helpful for you to point out something very obvious that would have very likely played the most important role in this endorsement. In 1992, Casey's father was denied a spot at DNC because of his anti-abortion view by Clinton. In 2000, Gore intentionally give Bob and his brother a spot to speak to "correct" this mistreatment. Do you think this bit of history has anything to do with Bob's endorsement?
March 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, we can agree on something. Miracles will never cease.
March 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't much like Casey, but do think his endorsement could be quite influential. While there's some overlap, Casey's base (Scranton) is actually closer demographically to Hillary voters, and rather distinct from Rendell's (Philly - and blowhards around the Commonwealth).
March 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another Super for Obama.
March 28, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey now wait a minute. I heard that Catholic men wouldn't vote for Obama.
Perhaps he drives a Prius?
March 28, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, ya!
Does he drink Kool-Aid? Or lattes perhaps...
March 28, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Birkenstock wearing backstabber!
March 28, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Casey Judasized! Truly Judastic news for Hillary. But I don't think it's sufficient to turn it into Judasylvania?
Excuse me for the pun, I just feel Judazzed!!!!
March 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so delighted with this. The Casey family is repected and loved among Pennsylvanians. Also, Senator Casey is a pro-life, ethnic Catholic who never forgot where he came from (Scranton) despite his rise in PA politics and has close ties to the core Clinton constituency. Winning his endorsement is a horrendous blow to the Clintons. I always believed the refusal of the Clintons to allow his father to present the pro-life point of view in a speech at the 1992 Democratic Convention was a blot on my party, althought I am pro-choice,
The Clintons did not deserve this endorsement and were fortunate that he remained neutral so long.
March 28, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that background Always Tip. It is consistent with the hardball politics the Clintons play. They want loyalty and fielty but are the first to dump someone for political expedience. It amazes me how all these folks have forgotten so quickly the way the Clintons jettison people. Like Espy, Ciserneros, Guanier, Elders etc.
March 28, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
o.k., bob casey! i accept your challenge!
i've volunteered to campaign for Hillary in PA for the next 4 weekends.
campaign donations are fine (done that already), but there's nothing like a little on-the-ground legwork.
bob casey will be no match for us committed Hillary supporters ;-)
hope to see some of you obama folks out on the campaign trail. once i get you in person, you'll have no choice but to admit your mistakes and come on over to Hillary ;-)
(for those of you with no sense of humor, the last line is a joke, so hold the snarky comments, please...)
March 28, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Always up for a good fight, so long as we know both know who the real opponent is in the fall.
March 28, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'm not one of those guys who whines that if my candidate doesn't get the nomination, then i'm taking my crayons and going home...
i'll vote for obama if he gets the nomination though reading all of the "hillary hate" here and on other blogs sometimes makes me want to punish the fools who write it... still, i'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.
dems in '08! go team!
March 28, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know kensdad,
If your candidate behaved a bit more like you do, I might consider voting for her:)
and LOL @ "taking my crayons and going home". It reminded me of "my dad can beat up your dad! nuh uh!
March 28, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for that...
you know, there are so many things that i find inspiring about both of these candidates that in the early days of the campaign i didn't really know who i would support.
ultimately, i came down on the side of Hillary because i believe in her commitment to making people's lives better and her long experience in Washington. she knows where the levers of power are and how to use them.
sure, i have my disagreements with some of her positions, and i haven't always been happy with the tactics that her campaign has used, but i can say that for both sides and ALL candidates! her ability to bounce back and keep fighting in the face of adversity and even some of her own failings are a plus for me. for example, i truly believe that she is the most committed to the health care issue, and that her past failure in the 90's taught her more about the subject and what it takes to get it done than anyone else out there.
March 28, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree that she knows where those levers are, but can you point to some successes she's had that prove she knows how to use them any better than anyone else? I remember the health care battle. It was ugly, and she came out of it looking like a rank amateur--petty and secretive and incapable of playing the game the way it must be played. She says she learned from that experience, but so did everyone.
Here's why I don't believe her: her own campaign has been a disaster. By most estimates, she's currently somewhere in the neighborhood 2-3 million in debt, following her best fundraising month ever (and she still hasn't paid back the 5 million she lent her campaign). And she's losing to a relative unknown who was trailing nationally by 20-30 points not so many months ago. It does not exactly inspire confidence in her ability to lead this nation, when she's done such a poor job of managing her own campaign.
When I compare the campaigns, I know who I trust to keep a cool head in the middle of a crisis, because he's already done it. Obama's poll numbers are UP since the Reverend Wright flap. And he's got millions in the bank. That, sir, is the kind of guy we want leading this country.
March 28, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kensdad,
While it is true that HRC knows where the levers of power are and that she pulls them. She does so futilely and with such underhanded methods that she undermines her own issues and polarizes folks and creates dissension. That is the core issue.
Not whether she knows the levers of power but what in her track record indicates that she EFFECTIVELY knows how to pull them? There is just no history of such. In fact her history is just the opposite. Look no further than her healthcare debacle. Heck, there was a Democratic majority at the time in BOTH the house and Senate, yet Hillary so antagonize the folks she needed to push the legislation through that Gingrich was able to turn out Democrats and sweep the GOP into power for the next 20 years.
When looking at the candidacies of Obama and HRC. You may want to consider that there are few policy differences but more importantly it takes effective leadership to get legislation passed. Clinton just lacks that critical attribute.
It would be much more beneficial to the nation if you would reflect on the candidates with regard to leadership and look no further than how each has run their campaigns as a hallmark of their executive skills.
Hillary is just not ready to lead. Hopefully you'll reconsider.
March 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree...
both you and hrebendorf argue that her failed attempt to get health care reform is a negative while i give her credit for trying and i do believe that she has learned from her past (unlike the current occupant of the oval office who never learns anything.) hillary has worked hard in the senate and has earned the trust and respect of many republican senators who admit that they were ready to dislike her before she arrived in 2001. isn't that what obama promises? to work with the republican members of congress for a new kind of politics?
i also don't agree (not surprisingly) that managing a campaign is the best recommendation for the presidency... just take a look at little georgie! he's won the presidency twice by managing a successful campaign.
your anti-Hillary rhetoric doesn't hold much sway with me. maybe you should try some pro-obama arguments... as genghis mentioned, i may have a predilection to agree with him... but i find that angry rants against Hillary make me dig in even deeper for a woman whom i respect.
March 28, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary gets the nomination, here's the first ad the Republicans will run against her:
"On multiple occasions, Hillary Clinton has falsely claimed that she was forced to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia. Is she living in a fantasy world? Or is she just a plain old-fashioned liar?
Vote for a real American hero--not someone who's fighting a war in her own mind.
I'm John McCain, and I approved this ad because I'm not batshit crazy and she is."
March 28, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for that preview, hrebendorf... with your imagination i'm sure that you can figure out what kind of ads the republicans are going to run against obama, right?
look, no candidate is perfect. they all have their flaws including st. mccain, american hero...
the democrats are going to have to find a way to win when the republicans wind up their lies and mudslinging machine. i have confidence in Hillary to hit back just as hard as she gets hit. you may not like it, but taking the high road (think john kerry) to the White House hasn't worked in this country for awhile.
we can blame the media or the seemingly unlimited willingness of low information voters to listen to lies and innuendo, but that won't change things a bit.
the dems have to toughen up, not run away from the mean old republicans.
March 28, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I think you've just put one of the essential differences between Hillary's supporters and Obama's into a nutshell. Hillary's supporters like her because she's successfully presented this image of "toughness." I don't know if that image is truly deserved (you'll have to ask the Bosnian snipers how she performs under fire), but she's successfully promoted herself as tough. And I think, in some ways, many of Hillary's supporters have a secret (or not so secret) desire to have someone in office who will exact some revenge for what we've gone through over the past seven and a half years. I don't think Obama's supporters care about revenge. I think most of us just want things to change. Obama's supporters aren't willing to give in to the cynicism that says that we can't win if we don't play the game by Republican rules. Look: Obama got hit hard over Reverend Wright. And he came back and played it clean, and it worked. Maybe John Kerry didn't have the skills to pull it off, but Obama does. He's the real deal. But you have to suspend fear of failure before you can get behind a guy like him, because he's not going to play things the way you'd expect him to play them. So far, he's far exceeded my expectations.
Obama is seen as not tough enough by Hillary's supporters. There's little to back this up, of course. He's been an incredibly tough competitor, and Hillary has actually criticized him for being TOO tough. He's the one who says he'll go into Pakistan and take out Osama bin Laden, with or without Pakistan's permission. Hillary tried to hang him for that one, but she only betrayed her own LACK of toughness when she did, I think.
I know there's no convincing anyone at this point, but that's what elections are for. Come November, we'll have a great candidate. And come January, we'll be watching a Democrat sworn into office. Of that I am certain.
March 28, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is not about exacting revenge as you put it. she's about working to enact a progressive agenda and restoring america to its core values after 8 yrs of damage inflicted by GWB and his loonies (not canadians!)
and i think you are part of a small minority in america who doesn't believe that hillary is tough. very few political figures in our history have faced the kind of venom and false attacks that she has and continued to fight on and thrive. give the woman credit for that at least... otherwise, i'll think badly of the small-mindedness of some of obama's supporters!
on the other hand, i have no disagreement with your praise for obama ;-)
March 28, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not completely convinced that all the attacks are false. She's been forced to recant lie after lie. That's just a fact. We now know--for a fact--that she lied about her 10,000% profit in commodities trading back in 1979. We know she lied about Travelgate. We know she lied about Bosnia. We know she lied about the Madison S&L. Those are just facts. You can attribute them to the "vast right-wing conspiracy" if you like. But you're ignoring the truth if you do. Now, if you don't think it's important for the president to be honest, that's up to you. I do, however. I respect Obama for sitting for two hours recently to take questions from the Chicago press about Tony Rezko. I respect him for taking on the race issue so directly.
You say you need positives about Obama--not negatives about Hillary. I've given you plenty of both. You're just choosing to ignore what you don't want to hear.
March 28, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for all those negatives on hillary... i could give you a list 100 times longer on the positives for hillary which in my mind far outweigh your pettiness...
i could also give you some negatives to go along with your obama positives, but i'd rather not.
i have tried to stay positive about both candidates, so you'll have to goad others into giving you all the reasons not to vote for obama in this primary season.
p.s. thanks for showing me the slate.com calculator. i don't think hillary will pass obama in pledged delegates, but i also don't consider pledged delegates to be the one and only deciding factor. this race has always been about getting 2025 delegates. if obama gets there first, then i'll support him ;-)
March 28, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
A list of 100 points would be very helpful. Thanks ahead of time for posting them here!
March 28, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be happy if he could post even one that's verifiable and from her own resume instead of Bill's.
March 28, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the other deciding factor? Having the will of the majority overturned by the minority?
March 28, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pettiness? You think calling someone out for being a liar is petty? Jesus. She wants to be president of the United States. I think being forthright is the least we should expect. How do we know where she stands on ANY issue, when we can't even trust her to tell the truth? How do you know she means what she says? Seriously, she just lied to you and everyone else--on multiple occasions--about being shot at by snipers in Bosnia. And when someone called her on it, she lied again, saying that she was "sleep deprived". On every occasion? Give me a fucking break.
If she wants to be commander in chief, she's going to need to quit lying about her credentials. The problem is, if she doesn't lie, she doesn't have much to go on. Oh, but never mind--she was just using those lies to undercut Obama. No harm done.
March 28, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you so eager to antagonize Kensdad? Lord knows that he does not need me to stick up for him, but he is surely one of the most polite and articulate Clinton supporters still frequenting these parts. If you want to try to drive away Clinton supporters, might I suggest that it would be more worthwhile to focus your efforts on Gotalife or Dembillc or one of that troll-like ilk. Kensdad is precisely one of those sorts of folks whom we will need in November, and moreover he is pleasant company in the meantime (even when I disagree with him).
March 28, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, greg... i appreciate your kind words... i was wondering when someone would read this "conversation" between me and hrebendorf and speak up.
March 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, kensdad--try this little exercise.
Go to Slate's delegate calculator:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
Now give Hillary Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Florida, and Michigan, by 60%-40% margins (wildly unrealistic, but let's say for the sake of argument that she somehow pulls it off). Leave everything else even, including the states that Obama will most certainly win.
What do you see? I see reality.
March 28, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm headed to philly next weekend. I'll keep an eye out for you, and I accept your challenge. We'll see who ends up being to converted to whose candidate. You seem to have a predilection to agreeing with me in the end.
March 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
it would be an honor to meet you, Genghis... i'll be in the philly suburbs where my daughter is attending college. i'm hoping to talk to as many young voters as possible.
March 28, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gird your loins. They'll be lobbying you at least as hard as you lobby them. It's pretty tough to convince America's young voters that the old lady in the pantsuit is the one to get excited about.
March 28, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
i suppose i'd have to "gird my loins" if i were going to attack young voters with negativism about obama. fortunately, i am only planning to have a conversation with them (and only those who want to have a conversation...)
you are wrong to think that all young voters have closed minds about Hillary. my daughter recently put a Hillary pin on her backpack and she says that people on campus keep telling her that they support Hillary, too. sure, it's anecdotal, but my daughter said that she expected to get bashed by obama supporters on campus, but has found that people are pretty open-minded ;-)
March 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully, those kids you speak with will convince you to come over to the bright side just as Bobby Casey's daughters convinced him. Come to think of it, you look a little like him.
March 28, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good on you, kensdad,
I've set aside 10 days to do in PA what I did in IA last fall......which activity is a quiet one person grassroots effort designed and carried out by me alone, i.e, it's in support of Obama, but not through or coordinated with or known by his campaign.
This citizenship action you and I and so many others are doing is what democracy is supposed to be about. Taking responsibility and action is so much healthier than sitting on the sidelines and lamenting the state of affairs which affects our future.
March 28, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
PA is much too far for me. I do plan to head to IN shortly, however, to put in some time there. If you decide to head to Terre Haute or Indianapolis (for instance) then maybe I will run into you there. :-)
March 28, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's been known to sip the latte on occasion...
March 28, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Color me shocked.
If ever there was a politician who was risk averse and careful, it's Bob Casey, Jr. I had no doubt that he would eventually come out for Clinton as his MO has always been to be a bit of a follower, not one to break from the machine.
Virtually every single prominent Dem in PA has lassoed themselves to Rendell and Clinton. The fact that Casey has broken with them is highly significant. I think we can expect Rep. Jason Altmire to finally make an endorsement now that Casey has shown the courage.
Amazing.
March 28, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if it puts PA in play. If Obama wins here, it means there's been a major sea change and Hillary has been thoroughly rejected. She has too strong a base for that to happen, I think. But it should definitely help him hold down the margin, which is most of what they're playing for here. Given the similarity of the demographics here and in Ohio, the fact that PA's primary is closed, and the almost unanimous institutional support she's had here (until now) suggest that Hillary should win by more than the 10 points she won by in Ohio. Anything less is probably a moral victory for Obama. Casey helps with that. Possibly by quite a bit. But I'd be shocked if he actually won here.
March 28, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Obama needs to start playing ads showing the 'sniper fire' fabrication on 3 separate dates along with the double talk Edwards made.
Perhaps the good people of PA will decide then that truth and honest are core values they appreciate especially when it results in being bamboozled by things like NAFTA.
March 28, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect the supers are getting sick of this in-fighting and are starting to realize what's right in front of their face.
March 28, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Id be more willing to say its in play if people could still register to vote.
March 28, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Prius limousine.
March 28, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been reading a lot of blogs and analysis, but so far have not read speculation about what Clinton would do if Obama actually won PA.
OK, probably very few people think it is possible (including Obama), but nobody thought Clinton would win in NH either(Obama 12 points ahead going in).
What would this do to Clinton just from the math point of view? Wouldn't she have to win the remaining races by 62% or more?
At this point would the DNC step in and say, "Enough!"
March 28, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, I wonder. Perhaps there are some who wouldn't mind seeing the prominence of the Clintons and their supporters in the DNC leadership stomped into dust by repeated losses. Every loss reduces the future influence of these folks in the Party, IMHO.
March 28, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he wins Pennsylvania, it's over. She has to know that.
March 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, as a member of the class of 2006, Casey recognizes that, unlike Hillary, Obama is actually committed to strengthening the Democratic Party and increasing our margins in the House and Senate -- and that his presence at the top of the ticket will help down-ballot races, while Hillary's would hurt it.
March 28, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhh, so he has in the same freshman class as Obama?
March 28, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha ha. And maybe Casey has now spent enough time in Washington to recognize we need a president who hasn't been corrupted by it.
March 28, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may not be a prius or latte. What about Birkenstocks? The photo is only a head shot, what's he wearing on his feet!
March 28, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I thought I just voted for Casey to get rid of inSantorum. The gift (or vote) that just keeps on giving!
March 28, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is great news for Hillary.!
And i am begining to suspect that indeed PA might be in play. Between this, the Richardson and other SD endorsements and teh larger than expected voting registration numbers.....
March 28, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not going to get into whether Casey matters that much because I really don't know. But I think it is safe to say that it doesn't hurt at all.
March 28, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
JUDAS!! (TIC) How dare Casey go against the entire state Democratic establishment. Let's cut off his campaign funds. Maybe Chelsea would like to be a Senator in PA? To quote one of the sages here (in small letters as an homage); this is excellent news for hillary. Seriously, though the drip-drip of superdelegates is encouraging and I think represents a trend in much the same way the delegate count has. Obama has support of more Senators (maybe Cantwell as well?!), more Governors, nearly the same Representatives. Clinton's only bastion is the DNC most of whom endorsed her last year. Clinton's last significant endorsement was (and I still can't believe it, Jack Murtha - what did they promise him?!).
March 28, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What can the machine do? It can encourage city clerks and the Board of Elections to toss new registration forms out for the littlest "mistake" - and we know that new voters trend towards Obama. There are hints that this is already happening.
But I plan to be on the ground for the next 4 weekends as well, doing my best to GOTV.
March 28, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty interesting. If I remember the details correctly back in the spring of 2005 I participated in a rally on the west side of Philly outside of the SEIU union office across the street from the post office loading docks before the union folks all mounted buses for a bigger rally in DC against SS privatization. All kinds of people were there for the TV cameras. Afterward a big labor union guy was arguing with a woman from NARAL I think it was about backing Casey for senator. She was balking and he got so frustrated he shouted "do you want another 6 years of Santorum?!"
I think Casey helps Obama a lot. Ed Rendell is very popular in SE PA. A real man of the people and for a politician he comes across as a regular guy even with his diet coke fueled, type A, hyper "atteetude" as they like to pronounce it in Philly. But the lower key Casey, even with his more patrician personality has the gravitas and
rock solid reputation that gives Pennsylvanians of
from all regions and of all ages and political stripes very good reasons to go for Obama.
As the race goes into overtime and all the other justifications get stripped away increasingly there's only two reasons to vote for Hillary. Because you desperately want a woman president - and any woman president will do - or out of spite.
Neither are very good reasons to prolong the inevitable.
March 28, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Casey Jr ran in a gubenatorial primary against Rendell, so it is not surprising that he ends up on the other side of the fence from Fast Eddie.
This endorsement will not swing PA. Still, it can't hurt for Obama to pick up this type of endorsement (blue collar, Catholic guy). Certainly better than if he sat on his hands until after the primary.
March 28, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Senator Casey! This won't necessarily make a big diff in the votes but it sure helps the momentum (in media and among the super-d's anxiously hovering at the sidelines). I think Gov. Dean's comment today they should declare themselves "between now and July 1" (and reading between the lines I think he would be just fine with *Now*) will also help a great deal.
I do appreciate Sen. Clinton's "don't vote for McCain" comments yesterday and hope that is an indication she has started to accept the end is near. She deserves many kudos and I would love to see her as Senate majority leader. However, this is not her time and it just was not meant to be.
March 28, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you'd like to see the pure, unadulterated hatred being pushed by Hillary's supporters, trot on over to Taylor Marsh's website and read the commentary and the comments. It's jaw-dropping in its venom and mean-spiritedness.
I've seen that kind of hatred at FreeRepublic or LittleGreenSnotBalls, but it's disturbing at what is supposed to be a liberal website.
March 28, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
i don't endorse hate speech by dems against dems, but i don't think that taylor marsh or the other pro-Hillary websites are any more offensive than the pro-Obama websites... the whole "hating on the other dem" thing has gone way too far.
are you not equally offended by the "hillary hate" right here at TPM or Dkos, etc?
March 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got to understand that there's a lot of anger right now, due to the fact that Hillary has the slimmest possible chance of turning things around, and yet she stays in the race, doing grave damage to the party and to the eventual nominee. At this point, she's helping the Republicans to make their case against Obama, but she's not effectively making the case for herself. Her negatives are UP, for God's sake. What will it take to convince her to deal with reality? She's like one of those creatures in a monster movie, where you chop it into bits and the bits just keep on attacking. Eventually, she'll accept defeat, but how much damage will she do in the meantime?
Just add up the numbers.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
It's simply not reasonable to expect that Hillary will get the nomination any longer. Her campaign has become quixotic. She's behind in every possible metric, and it would truly take a miracle or an act of God for her to get the nomination. Consequently, she's seen by the majority of us (yes, Obama IS ahead in the popular vote as well as the delegate count) as hurting the party. So allow us a little bitterness. We'll put up with her for another few months if that's the way things must be. But we don't have to like it (or her).
March 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"like one of those creatures in a monster movie"
we've got nothing more to discuss... i'll leave you to your bitterness. have fun with that...
in the meantime, i'm off to PA to campaign for my candidate.
see ya around, hrebendorf...
March 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's always amusing to watch you Hillary types push the "open-mindedness" meme until someone tries to make an argument against your candidate. Then, like Hillary, the veneer of civility falls away and the opportunistic phoniness bares its fangs.
See ya at the convention. I'll be the guy supporting the nominee.
March 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
i've been uncivil?
um... i think you'd better take a hard look at yourself.
anyone who's read both of our comments would probably disagree with your last comment.
March 28, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, you can't have it both ways, alright? First you wade into the conversation, looking to stir up a little trouble: "o.k., bob casey! i accept your challenge! i've volunteered to campaign for Hillary in PA for the next 4 weekends. campaign donations are fine (done that already), but there's nothing like a little on-the-ground legwork. bob casey will be no match for us committed Hillary supporters"
Next you make the claim that you're supporting Hillary over Obama because "the dems have to toughen up." But when someone like me disagrees with you, you take your crayons and leave: "we've got nothing more to discuss... i'll leave you to your bitterness. have fun with that..."
See, you're all open-minded as long as other people agree with you. But if they disagree? Well, that's another story. I think you're playing a ruse. I think you're pulling the old "Let's agree to get along. I'll agree with you if you agree with me. But you've got to agree with me first."
March 28, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, that is some tantrum you're throwing there...
my challenge was good-hearted (which was lost on you i guess)... besides, who am i to challenge a u.s. senator? anyone with a rational mind understood what i meant...
i never said obama wasn't tough (you pulled that one out of your ass.) i said that dems shouldn't cower because the republicans are going to run tough ads...
and finally, i told you to kiss off because you called hillary a creature from a monster movie and i realized that i was trying to have a rational discussion with a bitter hate-monger.
March 28, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"wow, that is some tantrum you're throwing there..."
No. It's not, actually. But nice try. That's always been one of my favorite logically fallacious techniques.
March 28, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"i realized that i was trying to have a rational discussion with a bitter hate-monger."
Ah. NOW you're being uncivil. Good job. You've finally exposed yourself as the fraud that I knew you were from the beginning.
March 28, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
bitter hate-monger... you're taking offense at that and calling me a fraud for using the term after you called yourself bitter and you called hillary a creature from a monster movie... which part is fraudulent? those are words out of your own mouth (or keyboard.)
March 28, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't be serious. You're a fully grown adult, right? But you're getting all bent out of shape because I "called hillary a creature from a monster movie." One more time: you're a fully grown adult, right?
Why don't you just skip the diversionary tactics and the sophomoric nonsense and tell us why we should vote for her? Tell us why the Bosnia lies don't matter.
March 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't call you uncivil, by the way. I called you something else.
March 28, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"i don't endorse hate speech by dems against dems, but i don't think that taylor marsh or the other pro-Hillary websites are any more offensive than the pro-Obama websites..."
First let me commend you on one of your earlier comments about supporting Obama if Hillary wasn't the nominee, I'm an Obama supporter who would have no problem voting for Hillary - its good to see that other Dems have their eyes on the prize. That being said, agreeing with you that there is definitely venom on the Obama side as well - but I have to vehemently disagree with you on Taylor Marsh brother, if a person didn't know any better you'd think she was a republican. The rampant Obama smears, her feigned outrage about Michelle Obama's "lack of patriotism" and other garden variety gutter tactics - there is definitely filth on both sides, but Taylor Marsh scrapes the bottom of the proverbial barrel.
March 28, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, i am not going to argue with you on taylor marsh. i don't read her very often...
i suppose the sin of the blogger (e.g. talyor marsh vs. josh marshall) is greater when it's their blog as opposed to the hateful comments by readers found in the comment threads...
TPM is more balanced for sure, but i feel like josh's anti-hillary tone has become more shrill of late (though still not enough to send me packing.)
March 28, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taylor Marsh is a harridan from Hell. There's nothing there but bile. She doesn't even attempt to focus on the facts. Just grabs any nasty little nugget she happens to come across and runs with it.
I'm all for a spirited debate, as long as it's based in reality. Taylor Marsh is a guttersnipe.
March 28, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is some speculation in the water that Senator Clinton may be running out of cash. Anyone know the size of her media buy in Pennsylvania? Obama went up on air in Indiana earlier this week....
March 28, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last week TPM reported that Clinton was "essentially in the red."
March 28, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to her recent FEC filings, she's a couple million in debt. She had something like $30 million on hand at the end of the month, but $20 million or so is earmarked for the general. But she's got nearly $9 million in outstanding debt, plus she's never paid herself back the $5 million she lent the campaign. She may be willing to fight all the way to the convention, but I don't believe she can afford it. Every time someone like Dodd or Leahy or Richardson or Casey jumps on the Obama Express, it makes the job of raising funds that much more difficult.
Her campaign is definitely in shut-down mode. It's just a matter of how long it will take.
March 28, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NY Times article on Obama's bus tour says that she is spending about a third of what he is in PA.
Remember, though, that spread didn't matter in OH.
March 28, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Early polling showed Obama losing Ohio by 20 points. He lost by 7.
March 28, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This could well be blow back from the Clinton money people's threat against the DCCC. (delivered to Pelosi)
The Supers are seeing that HRC is willing to do direct, tangible damage to the party in order to further her personal ambitions.
March 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT news for Obama. Maybe, "BILLARY" Clinton will start to wise up and withdraw!
http://OsiSpeaks.com
March 28, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great news is it Obamabots?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Casey,_Jr.
Casey, like his father, is strongly pro-life. He has publicly stated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade.
When asked to state a position on legalizing same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania, Casey responded "Oppose."
March 28, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm...
We Pennsylvanians know that. His father the Governor was, too. In fact, the majority of PA voters are also.
Geez. We're not stupid or braindead here in PA, ya know.
March 28, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Curious to see if Casey can win the formidable catholic vote in PA to go with Obama.
March 28, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, help me verify a theory here. I'm hearing a lot of talk about how working class Pennsylvanians are vaguely racist and how an African-American is going to have a tough time winning them over. That hasn't been my experience, there, however. What I've seen is that blue collar Pennsylvanians are vaguely racist sometimes, but if Obama talks to them like they're intelligent adults, he's got just as good a shot as anyone at winning them over. In other words, they might be vaguely racist, but that won't get in the way of their vote. They get it, as you said. But it's all about him not acting like he's better or smarter than they are. And having good ideas, of course, that don't sound like typical pandering bullshit.
And besides, the ones who won't vote for him because he's black are probably Republicans anyway.
Am I way off the mark here?
March 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blue collar people of PA are a varied bunch.
Yes, there are some real hateful, racist people here who could be classified as blue collar. Believe it or not, there are places in PA that are KKK and white supremacist strongholds here. But none of those people were ever going to vote for a Dem, let alone a woman or an African American. Hell, they won't vote for a white male Dem.
That said, most blue collar people here aren't racists. I live in the area of PA west of Pittsburgh, an area situated along the Ohio River. It's old mill towns and just filled with the blue collar workers of which we speak. With some exceptions, they aren't racist. At least, they haven't been lately, especially since the disastrous Reagan years which put the white blue collar workers in the exact same boat as the African Americans here. Meaning they have been just scraping along economically ever since and no one seems to care. I deliberately had a political discussion with some of them last night in a neighborhood bar and their main concern with Obama is that they think some nut will kill him before he can implement what they think is a pretty good bunch of policies. These people sent their children to high schools and colleges with diverse populations and are glad their kids aren't growing up with the same prejudices and misconceptions that they did.
The people here who I see as the most viciously racist are the huge number of senior citizens. They are a huge population in this state (especially in this part of the state) and they are fossils who haven't come to terms with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let alone a black president. They are Obama's challenge and they are why he probably cannot win the state over Hillary.
March 28, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me, people were throwing fits about that back in 2006. Everyone knows. If anything, that's just more indicative that his endorsement is useful, since Obama's weakness is with conservative Democrats. Please whine to Pennsylvanians about things they ALREADY KNOW about their senator.
March 28, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such is the price one pays to be rid of santorum (i.e., the frothy mixture of lube, etc.).
And despite his Blue-dog leanings, well worth it, finally.
March 28, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, what is your point? I am an Obama supporter (I have never described myself as an "Obamabot," but I will stretch a point for present purposes) and I love the Caseys for just the reasons you listed. May Casey's tribe increase and lead this party back to its roots.
March 28, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool. He finally has an endorsement. If I was a voter in Pennsylvania, I'd be against any the state's establishment getting behind Hillary. She just shows Barack Obama as the underdog. What we need to note is, Barack Obama has the establishment support in Indiana and Oregon. Not sure about North Carolina, but he's up by 15 points there. Her advantage is that she has Bill Clinton to help her campaign. If you notice, they do a whole lot more events than Obama does. People should ask themselves this question, why can't Hillary win any states west of the Mississippi? I think these states are much more progressive and the people who live in them are forward thinking. People east of the Mississippi are caught up in racial tensions.
March 28, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Casey's recognizing the same delusionary Clinton that Richardson did. If Clinton would just accept the inevitable, and get behind Obama, all this crap about a Dem split would disappear.
Richardson and Casey represent moderating influence, not some sort of inner-party rebellion.
As for those DLC billionaires who recently threatened Pelosi with a signed letter of admonition, I think we might all want to add those names to the AIPAC scoundrels who planted the first seeds of the Iraq war back during Bill's administration.
Birds of a feather. Self-appointed royals..
They are just new chapter of the "let them eat yellowcake" club.
The People will not soon forget it.
March 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW;
The polls are pushing upwards for Obama... but not much coverage of that fact.
The Clinton Big Apple core is much smaller (and much rottener, i.e. that letter to Pelosi) than she imagines.
Surely she considered Richardson one of "hers."
How many other Clintonistas have seen the light of inevitable reality?
A smart blogger will practice typing the words "former Clinton supporter,"
...it will be coming into vogue next week, in a big way.
March 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
'scuse my freudian slip, but I meant PNAC, not AIPAC in that last post...
I think...
March 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look who just got a prime speaking slot at the convention! Papa Casey is smiling down on his son today.
March 28, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in Pennsylvania, and this is big news for Obama. Rendell isn't the only one with a machine. I did phone banking for Bob Casey, Sr. only twice, and even I got on his Christmas card list! The Caseys know how to take care of their supporters and make them feel appreciated. And the Caseys are not viewed by Pennsylvanians as "latte liberals" by any stretch of the imagination. The Caseys have their support base in Scranton so this will undercut the fact that the Rodhams have roots in the area.
March 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporter demographics line up with Rendell. The Casey endorsement helps him address his weakest support; blue colar white Catholics.
But it helps well beyond PA; it helps in the broader narrative of this campaign which is that we are coming to an end regardless of the results in PA. Obama has won and Hillary needs to end her campaign.
I wrote this weeks and weeks ago: there are only two questions remaining for Hillary:
1) when (not if) will she end her campaign
2) how low will she go in the meantime
March 28, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somewhat off topic: As a sign of how low the issue bar is for the Clinton team these days, in a conference call with reporters they raised the issue of Obama describing himself as a former "professor" at the University of Chicago. (For 12 years he taught there part-time, ending up as Senior Lecturer.) I assume this is to show that Obama can mispeak as easily as Hillary did on Bosnia.
The University has issued a press release that settles the matter. Not only was Obama entitled to be called professor, but they offered him a full-time position, which he declined.
OK, now that that is settled, maybe they can next question his claim that he was the first AA president of the Harvard Law Review. Or in fact, that he even went to law school. Why stop there? They can circulate rumors that he did not even go to college. Kindergarten anyone?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx
March 28, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a native Pennsylvanian who has watched state politics here for a long time, i have to say that Casey's endorsement of Obama is huge. Casey is seen by many in PA as the new face of the PA Dem party.
There is no one that doesn't recognize how huge his victory over Rick Santorum was in 2006. For many of us, Rendell represents the entrenched, corrupt Harrisburg political machine that has lost focus on the problems that face the largely rural population and farming families of Pennsylvania.
Obama has been seen as having strong support in the Philly and Pittsburgh corners of the state, but lacking in recognition in the "T". Casey brings his huge rural appeal and moderate/conservative credentials to Obama.
From Wikipedia: "Casey faced former Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell in the Democratic primary election. Casey performed well in the rural areas of the state, and won a majority of Pennsylvania's counties. However, he lost to Rendell by 12 points, after Rendell was victorious in the state's major population centers. Rendell went on to win the general election."
The key here, again, is that the primary is not a winner-take-all kind of election. Each county awards delegates, and with Casey's connections to those rural counties they helped him beat Santorum, Obama will be able to increase his delegate count.
This also is a big boost for Obama in the northeast corner of the state. His connections to Scranton run a lot deeper than Hillary's. The Casey been been active on behalf of Pennsylvanians for decades, that fact that Hillary's grandfather lived in Scranton doesn't really count for much.
All said and done, Casey represents another surprising and highly influential endorsment for Obama. It's grey, cold, 30 degrees and snowed again last night in northwest PA, but it sure has turned out to be a nice day.
March 28, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a native Pennsylvanian who has watched state politics here for a long time, i have to say that Casey's endorsement of Obama is huge. Casey is seen by many in PA as the new face of the PA Dem party.
There is no one that doesn't recognize how huge his victory over Rick Santorum was in 2006. For many of us, Rendell represents the entrenched, corrupt Harrisburg political machine that has lost focus on the problems that face the largely rural population and farming families of Pennsylvania.
Obama has been seen as having strong support in the Philly and Pittsburgh corners of the state, but lacking in recognition in the "T". Casey brings his huge rural appeal and moderate/conservative credentials to Obama.
From Wikipedia: "Casey faced former Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell in the Democratic primary election. Casey performed well in the rural areas of the state, and won a majority of Pennsylvania's counties. However, he lost to Rendell by 12 points, after Rendell was victorious in the state's major population centers. Rendell went on to win the general election."
The key here, again, is that the primary is not a winner-take-all kind of election. Each county awards delegates, and with Casey's connections to those rural counties they helped him beat Santorum, Obama will be able to increase his delegate count.
This also is a big boost for Obama in the northeast corner of the state. His connections to Scranton run a lot deeper than Hillary's. The Casey been been active on behalf of Pennsylvanians for decades, that fact that Hillary's grandfather lived in Scranton doesn't really count for much.
All said and done, Casey represents another surprising and highly influential endorsment for Obama. It's grey, cold, 30 degrees, and it snowed again last night in northwest PA, but it sure has turned out to be a nice day.
March 28, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many jobs did Hillary's grandfather create in Scranton? How many votes can Hillary win through nostalgic connection with that family, that most people in Scranton never heard of? This is an urban myth created by the Clinton campaign and lapped up by the media. Not a factor.
March 28, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compared to his father, junior is a relatively minor player who many find lazy and incompetent. I am an Obama supporter, but I think that this endorsement is more about Casey than Obama. Casey won his senate seat simply because Santorum pissed off most of his republican support in the Philly burbs, not because he is the new face of the PA democratic party. He relies 100% on the good feelings that people in PA have for his admirable father.
This endorsement is politically advantageous for Casey who will be up for re-election in 2112, hopefully coinciding with Obama's reelection campaign.
March 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama/Casey '08?
Casey could make a good VP for Obama: a fairly conservative Democrat, pro gun rights, pro life, Catholic, popular with blue-collar white Dems, from PA, etc. I like Jim Webb better myself, but whoever it is they will probably need similar quality to both of these guys.
March 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Backing a winner.
I wonder if the media continues the HRC can't possibly win meme, whether that will influence her supporters to stay at home. No one likes to vote for a hopeless cause.
March 28, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Casey just did this for Spite, because of what the DNC did in 1992 when Bill Clinton won the nomination and the party would not let his dad speak at the convention. This isn't because of anything else, catholics have not voted for Barack Obama in the past, and after all they have heard from his pastor, the Rev. Wright, they will Not be vote for him Now.! Sooner or later people are going to see that the Media, and sites like this are ramming a candidate down the throat of the American people that has to many holes in his campaign and are blinded by the hate of a woman. It will be to late when they see what has happened, and we will have four more years of the same. We started out with names like Biden and Edwards, but in the end you can thank TPM for McCain.
March 28, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm skeptical that there's a monolithic "Catholic vote" in PA or anywhere else -- especially when the two candidates' positions are basically identical on the only two issues the Catholic Church really likes to get involved in in North America: abortion and same-sex marriage.
I also have to think that most Catholics are perfectly familiar with the experience of hearing priests say things that the churchgoer strongly disagrees with -- and yet most of us didn't leave the Church (though I did, but I'm a godless, latte-lapping, Prius-driving liberal). So I'm not sure the Rev. Wright issue will resonate as much as the Clinton campaign might hope.
March 29, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, dude. She sits down at the very same table as Richard Mellon Scaife and brings up the reverend issue. Scaife, the prime mover of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy."
And they called Bobby Keddedy an opportunist!
March 28, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people of PA haven't spoken yet....including me.
March 28, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant for this to be in response to Aimey's comment at the beginning of the thread. lol
March 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a Hillary supporter and I am tired of reading about people who don't support Hillary. Don't they know that they do not matter? The only support that matters is the support for Hillary Clinton. It does not matter that Obama has more delegates, states won, popular vote, and has even raised more money from ordinary Americans. At the end of the day Hillary is going to win because the only people who matter are those who support Hillary. Hillary might be at second place when all the voters are considered, but if you only count Hillary supporters, Hillary is #1. This is why Hillary is going to win the general election. For the general election we are only going to count those who support Hillary.
March 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain won't use Hillary's Tuzla adventure to his advantage. It'll only highlight the fact that McCain was captured during his moment of truth and Hillary wasn't. What's more Hillary was able to land her plane, escape sniper-fire from everywhere, and hit a game-winning homer while at the same time ushering her daughter, Sinbad, and Sheryl Crow to safety. McCain's a twerp who was captured by a bunch of scrawny gooks.
March 28, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink