Nunn And Boren Back Obama
Former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren, in a joint statement, throw their support to Obama -- giving him two high-profile southerners that are both key foreign policy voices in the Democratic Party.
Both will serve on Obama's national security team, giving the Obama camp an effective weapon against the Hillary campaign's claims that Obama has not passed the "commander in chief test."
Their full statements after the jump.
Nunn:
"America remains the strongest nation in the world, but we can only be successful in tackling our toughest problems if we gain cooperation at home and abroad. Our next president - working across party and economic lines - must restore and strengthen our national purpose, our credibility, our competence and our spirit."We need a president who has the temperament of a leader - a sharp, incisive, strategic mind, a rare capacity for self criticism, and a willingness to hear contrary points of view.
"Based on my conversations with Senator Obama, reading his book and his speeches and seeing the kind of campaign he has run, I believe that he is our best choice to lead our nation. Senator Obama, as evidenced by his words and his deeds, recognizes that:
· We have developed a habit of avoiding the tough decisions and seemingly lost our ability to build consensus to tackle head-on our biggest challenges.
· Demonizing the opposition, oversimplifying the issues, and dumbing down the political debate prevent our country from coming together to make tough decisions and tackle our biggest challenges.
· Solving America's problems will require difficult choices and sacrifices and leaders capable of considering new ideas from both political parties.
· On foreign policy and security policy, we must recognize that we are not limited to a choice between belligerency and isolation and that we must listen to lead successfully on the key issues facing America and the world.
· Our next president must also recognize that the battle against violent terrorists, while requiring a prudent use of military power, is also a long-term contest of psychology and ideas.
"I believe that Senator Obama has a rare ability to restore America's credibility and moral authority and to get others to join us in tackling serious global problems that will determine our own well being and security. I believe that he will bring to the White House, high principles, clear vision and sound judgment. I believe that he will inspire people to put aside extreme partisanship for the common good. I believe that he will awaken the energy and idealism of people who have never been active in public affairs, particularly our young people. I believe that he will also attract skilled, experienced and energetic people to government and will have the sound judgment to put together an outstanding governing team, bringing people together across old boundaries."I believe that Barack Obama is the right choice for our nation. My own role in this campaign will be as an advisor - particularly in the field of national security and foreign policy."
Boren:
"I am joining Senator Barack Obama's advisory team on foreign policy and national security because I believe it is my duty as a citizen to do all I can to help our country at this critical moment. Our strength is declining. Eighty-one percent of Americans believe we are headed in the wrong direction. We must act quickly to meet and overcome the challenges we face.
"Our most urgent task is to end the divisions in our country, to stop the political bickering, and to unite our talents and efforts. Americans of all persuasions are pleading with our political leaders to bring us together. I believe Senator Obama is sincerely committed to that effort. He has made a non-partisan approach to all issues a top priority.
"Senator Obama is also a person of sound and good judgment. He had the good judgment more than five years ago to warn against our involvement in this tragic and costly war. He also understands the need to repair our partnerships with other nations and to more effectively use diplomacy to serve our national interests.
"It is my hope that in sharing what I have learned during my time in public service, I will be helping my country."
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ready right out of the gate! I love it!
April 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
G O O D !
More beer for us!
(insert buh-bye here)
Be sure to ask your cashier for "Change I can believe in" !!
April 18, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do they wear flag pins?
April 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and Idiotic, you're killing me! (:-)
Boy, would it be great to see a TV ad from these 2 cats talking up Barack on national security.
April 18, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which two guys, Idiotic and Billy Sunday?
Oh, you mean Nunn and Boren. Much more boring, but, yeah, they've got cred Idiotic and Bill lack.
April 18, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I meant Nunn and Boren. Thanks for the catch.
[sorry, i was up at 3 am last night and, well, you know the rest ...]
April 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
all us foreign policy wonks know how those 3am phone calls are.
April 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't discount the effectiveness of an Idiotic-billysunday endorsement
April 18, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
How patriotic are their pastors?
April 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And can their lapel-pin-wearing pastors bowl 200 while drinking coffee and not orange juice?
April 18, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
They damn well better! How could we trust them otherwise? There's no telling where their allegiance lies without a flag lapel. That's how I determine who might be a communist or hippie and who might be an American.
April 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could never value an endorsement from someone who doesn't wear a flag lapel pin.
April 18, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
YEA!!!!
Those were some heavy swipes by Nunn.
April 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's pleasant to say aloud, "Nunn And Boren Back Obama." all those N's and B's.
okay, nevermind.
April 18, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Sam baby!
LOL!!!!!!
Take that Hillary Joe and Stepinfechitopoulos!!!!!
April 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville1975 should be by here momentarily to tell us why this doesn't matter.
Billy Glad will say they've been stuck in the echo chamber for too long.
AJM will tell us that these endorsements don't matter.
April 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, even better and oar for the course:
No response at all.
April 18, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soon we will hear from Wolfson and the Hillary campaign that these endorsements don't matter because endorsements do not matter unless Hillary is getting them.
April 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes but we've already heard from idiotic, and that the only one that matters.
I wonder if commenter will show up.
April 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
These two quotes jumped out at me, especially the first one:
Still think the debate was disastrous for Obama, Hill trolls?
April 18, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, but being endorsed by Nunn and Boren means little to me. Christ, apart from the war, I'll bet Lieberman has a better Democratic voting record than these two. Still, if it helps Obama in their red states that's a plus.
Hey, maybe Ben Nelson of Nebraska will back Obama too.
April 18, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
he already has.
April 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It fits with the "Obama has the ability to connect with a wide range of people" theme, I think. These were both guys that were mentioned as running mates for the rumored Bloomberg bid. When you have the backing of two politicians who are otherwise unsatisfied with either party, it carries some weight. Note that their remarks don't contain a single reference to the Democratic party or how they all need to rally around the presumptive nominee.
April 18, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Nunn and Boren are "centrists." But there are obvious clues as to why they would support Obama, beyond their desire to promote a different kind of political discourse. Boren voted against the first Gulf War, and that basically ended his career in the Senate. So I can see Boren aligning with Obama on Iraq policy. And even if Boren is BFF with Tenet, well... I hope we've all learned some lessons about guilt by association.
Sam Nunn partnered with Lugar on the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (or, as I like to call it, The "Let's Get All Those Stray Cold War WMDs Out of Circulation, Shall We?" Iniative). The legislation that Obama and Lugar worked on together (Lugar-Obama) is an expansion of Nunn-Lugar, which adds conventional weapons (land-mines, shoulder-fired missiles, unsecured stockpiles of artillery and ammunition, etc.) to the list of "arms" which we're seeking to "non-proliferate." Again, I can see an obvious point of policy connection for Nunn and Obama, beyond the overly simplified "he'll be a good bipartisan" meme.
I tend to enjoy seeing Obama get these endorsements from people whose politics don't line up neatly with mine. I don't think they say "Obama will sell out." I think they say "there are many, many different appeals that Obama makes, to many different constituencies." No single President, nor any single person, is going to please the entire electoral at any given moment. But I want to know that my President can communicate with people on issues, not ideologies. We have elected enough ideologues. I'm ready for a leader who wants to hear from people he disagrees with because it makes him smarter and stronger and better able to lead.
April 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And not to be nitpicky, but Boren isn't a southern politician.
Oklahoma is out west. You know, surrey with the fringe on top, and all that. I'm sure Oklahoma is "southern" to some of you New Yorkers/New Englanders, though.
April 18, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations Senator Clinton on having done your worst.
You have everything to be ashamed of.
Now get out off our our way. We have a president to elect.
April 18, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Idiotic: Ready to Lead on Day One!
April 18, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wolfson:
"Paging Carville... We need another Biblical allusion, fast..."
April 18, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shhhh! He's in deep thought.
Can't use Judas anymore. Dead by overuse. Quisling is too new and does not pack the right punch.
April 18, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
iirc, the national journal pronounced nunn and boren the most liberal senators ever.
April 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing but net.
April 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
i thank you.
April 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies if this is a stupid question: Are they supers? I wrongly had assumed that Reich was a super.
If so (as former senators), are they new pick-ups or had they already supported him on the superdelegate front? Again, pardon my ignorance.
April 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boren is a superdelegate, Nunn is not.
Good info here: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
April 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's David's son Dan, actually, who is still uncommitted.
April 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Nunn and (David) Boren are emeritus Senators and not DNC members, they aren't superdelegates. But their endorsements carry weight because they *are* party elders.
I wonder, though, in Boren's case, if this will might yield a flipped version of the "my kids got me to support Obama" narrative. Maybe David Boren will nag his son Dan until he throws his superdelegate support to Obama. That would be funny.
April 18, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't seeing either of them on your link, but I noticed farther downthread that neither of them are superdelegates. Thanks for the link, by the way.
April 18, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are they super-delegates?
April 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
does the tin man have a sheet metal cock ?
April 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does he?
Inquiring minds want to know.
April 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you think Dorothy got tetnus?
April 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignoring his negatives, his divisive tactics and complete meltdown in the debate is irresponsible.
Sad.
April 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
aw, need a tissue?
waaaaaahmbulance coming through !
April 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Complete meltdown." Do you have a link for that?
April 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignoring your negatives, your divisive tactics and your complete meltdown as the campaign progresses is the only responsible course of action.
April 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad. I agree. Very, very sad. Obama was like a little kid, completely reduced to tears by the far more intelligent, talented and experienced Hillary Clinton. It was no contest. I mean, she's been "in" the White House. She's been shot at by snipers in Bosnia. She's crossed the "commander-in-chief" threshold. She totally swept the floor with Obama. Mopped the room. Reduced him to a small puddle of stinky liquid.
CNN just announced the Reich, Boren and Nunn endorsements. Not important. Doesn't matter. No one cares. Hillary will win!!!
Yaaaaaayyyyy!!!!
April 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignoring his negatives, his divisive tactics and complete meltdown in the debate is irresponsible.
Sad.
Posted by gotalife
April 18, 2008 1:05 PM
There there now little troll. We understand why you are sad. You have every reason to be. We Feel Your Pain!!!
April 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always wondered why gotalife spends so much time on these blogs since she's a Canadian.
April 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoy the insightful comments on TPM. I really do. I don't agree with all, and I can see how others may come to different conclusions.
But you, gotalife, you have a special place in my scan of comments- comedic relief. I value reliability.
April 18, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder lots about gotalife. Who pays it? Does it work? When does it take a break and eat dinner? Does it talk in normal life like it talks here, i.e., when it looks for parking, does it go:
So sad no parking
Ouch no parking
SAD.
These are the things I think about. Everything but the words it's actually saying.
April 18, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that this election has so far played out like the 7th season of Aaron Aorkin's 'The West Wing', I only have one question left - Who is the real life version of Leo McGarry?
If you aren't a West Wing fan, here's what happened in season 7...
1) Republicans nominate an older 'maverick' (Arnie Vinnick)
2) Democrats beat each others brains out all the way to the convention
3) Incumbent types (John Hoynes and Bob Russel) end up losing the nomination to a young, charismatic candidate who isn't white (Matt Santos), but is way short on 'experience'
4) Leo McGarry, a Democratic 'elder statesman' becomes Matt Santos' running mate.
5) Matt Santos, wins the general election (barely), but not with the conventional red-blue map.
WHO IS LEO MCGARRY?
p.s: Also, who do we think is the real life Donna Moss and can I get her phone number?
April 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly punctuation took a huge beating in my post, as did Sorkin's last name.
April 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been bringing up the West Wing Season 7 similarities for months now! haha
But I think Joe Biden = Leo McGarry (except for that whole dying during the campaign, hopefully).
April 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Biden seems like he'd be a McGarry. But I think Dodd and Nunn fit in that mold too.
Given that I live in San Diego, I am definitely hoping that an equivalent of the San Andreo (there's an actual reactor near San Onofre 50 miles north) nuclear mishap doesn't occur, even if it would flip the election to Obama.
April 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is so funny! I had the same vague thought a week ago.
The end of season 6, Smits/Santos' speech to the Dem convention, was one of the show's best moments for me. I love replaying that ending segment. Very moving.
I think one of WW's writers, Lawrence O'Donnell, said somewhere that he based Vinick on Giuliani (thinking wouldn't it be interesting if the GOP nominee were someone who's actually moderate on social issues). I could be wrong about that one.
I don't know who Barack's McGarry is, but the storyline of Leo having the heart attack seemed a thinly veiled Dem version of Cheney's condition and whether he was capable of serving in that capacity.
April 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Its time we fire the pundits and have TWW's writers speculate on the election. Didn't O'Donnell float Clark's name for VP? Not the worst idea in the world. Personally, I'm rooting for a more seasoned politician. I really don't want to find out, in the middle of a heated election, whether our VP candidate can take the heat. I know nothing about Nunn, other than that he helped kill healthcare reform, but he'd make an interesting choice if he's somewhat progressive.
April 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark is totally in the Clinton's pocket and has been since he washed out as a candidate back when. My guess is he's been promised big things if Hillary wins, and if she should win (throw salt over your shoulder), I could see him moving into the second spot with her. But with Obama? I don't think so. Clark's even written some quite critical articles, and he was sitting in the box with Chelsea during the debate, a total surrogate Daddy visual.
April 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he's ever had a progressive bone in his body. He's a conservative, establishment, corporate, hawkish Democrat (in name only IMHO) whose sole courageous vote, if I remember correctly, was to oppose the first Persian Gulf War. He'd bring as much to Obama as a running mate as Lloyd Bentsen did to Dukakis. If you want someone with military/national security credentials, Wesley Clark (despite his support of Hillary) would be much, much better. As would Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. And if you want someone with the potential to appeal to working class, rural, and/or socially conservative white voters, Jim Webb would be light years better.
Lest I sound like an ingrate, I'm still glad Nunn endorsed Obama. The more the merrier!
April 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nunn has very good security and defense credibility, and that's good for Obama. He's not exactly a social liberal (or a foreign policy one either), but he's an honest man. Not a huckster.
April 18, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that Obama is lacking in appeal to rural whites in comparison to Hillary is, of course, puire malarky.
The problem, as I see it, is for those who fancy themselves liberal or progressive in every other instance being so enthusiastic for the centrist, corporate cheerleader Obama. Do any of you progressives/liberals so thrilled that the support of Nunn and Boren is going to Obama understand why this is? It ain't Hillary hate folks. It's that Obama has given them every assurance that he will not be a liberal/progressive President. If those two conservative Democrats are this keen on Obama, it's good in tactical terms for wrapping up the nomination, but it's dreadful in terms of what an Obama victory might portend.
I sometimes think that many of the liberals/progressives who have been so enthusiastic in their support of Obama are going to wake up about midway through his first term and wonder what happened to the Obama they supported. What they will have to face at that time is that the Obama they supported never existed outside their own heads. This guy is no liberal. He's no progressive either and he's campaigned quite clearly on that. If anything, he's even more pro-corporate and centrist than Hillary (who I do not support in any way)on some issues. In terms of policies and approaches, the two of them are nearly identical twins!
So regardless of which of the two of them wins the nomination, the loser is the American people and the progressive/liberal wing of the party, most of whom flocked to one of these two for reasons it's hard to fathom when you consider the policy consequences of and Pres. Obama or Pres. Clinton.
April 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Square that forecast with his voting record from National Journal, please?
April 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am more progressive than our frontrunners but they are so-o-o much closer to my views than the opposition. The Dems need a little nudge to the left IMO but we have to win first.
And to do that we must go all out for our nominee and not split hairs about policy.
April 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect, that's the very same line they always hand us and the result is always the same:
no national healthcare
no reduction in the obscene "defense" budget--most likely more growth there
more cuts in the programs that invest in our people and our future like education
more jobs leaving the united states
more excuses about why we can't invest in mass transit and trains vs more subsidy for automobiles and trucks
little or no action to decrease our dependence on foreign oil
What it boils down to is progressives and liberals who settle for just keeping the right wingers from achieving their entire agenda right away. We'll go slow and give it to them bit by bit. I'm sorry, but that's just no good anymore for me.
I am astounded that so many people don't understand how deep is the trouble our nation is in now and how little time we have to rescue our economic position in the world as well as our political position. Centrism is simply a watered down version of the right's recipe for destroying the country we love.
A "nudge" to the left ain't gonna make any difference. I wish it would but that's just not the case. We need a hard left turn and some real leadership. The cowardly lemming Democrats of Washington DC will never cross their corporate patrons. Obama, while a better choice than Clinton, is still one of them. Far from being an agent of change, he will be an agent of preserving the status quo.
April 18, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It takes a majority to win an election, and I'm sorry, but there just aren't enough "liberal/progressives" out there to reach 51%. Obama has always run strong among moderates, independents and even (gasp!) Republicans. Obama is building a coalition that is not beholden to one side of the political divide or the other. If you think his policies will be more "pro corporate" than Hillary's, or McCain's, then we just don't see eye to eye...Over half of Obama's money comes from donations ounder $200, HRC or John McCain cannot come close to matching that sort of grassroots support.
April 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main attraction of Obama is his vision on process. The main theme of his campaign is process not issue oriented. The biggest problems with our national governemt the past few years have been ablut process and not ideology. He is the fix we need then we can argue about ideology again.
April 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% agree with Dorn76 and the Geater here.
After 7 years of Numb Nuts, do we really need to re-hash the Nader assertion that Gore wasn't leftie enough? Does any sane person really think Gore would've jumped into Iraq or blown off fuel efficiency standards?
April 18, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't disagree more. To me, everything in Obama's record as an Illinois state senator, most things in his record as U.S. senator and most things in his campaign agenda clearly speak to his being a solid, reliable, thoughtful, consistent progressive. Much as I dislike Nunn and Boren, there is nothing about their endorsements that diminishes Obama's appeal for me. In fact, it reinforces the notion that he is uniquely capable of building a broad, big-tent coalition on behalf of a fundamentally progressive agenda because his approach is inclusive and inspirational, rather than divisive and demeaning.
April 18, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
These endorsements are BULLSHIT!!!! Hillary-Lieberman '16!!!!
April 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's good news for Obama. Today's Gallup poll wasn't. She has closed to gap to just 3 points.
Gallulp Daily: Clinton Moves Within 3 Points of Obama
Thursday night interviewing suggests Obama may have been hurt by debate
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows a tightening of the national Democratic race, with Barack Obama now holding just a 3-percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton, 47% to 44%.
These results are based on interviewing conducted April 15-17, with Thursday night's interviewing the first conducted following the April 16 debate in Philadelphia. The initial indications are that Obama may have been hurt by the debate, which was noted for its negative tone and focus on the candidates' recent "gaffes" and Obama's associations with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers (a former member of the radical Weather Underground group).
In Thursday night's interviewing, Clinton received a greater share of national Democratic support than Obama, the first time she has done so in an individual night's interviewing since April 3. That stronger showing for Clinton helped to snap Obama's streak of statistically significant leads in the three-day rolling averages Gallup reports each day. Until today, he had led Clinton by a statistically significant margin in each of the prior 11 Gallup releases.
The full impact of the debate -- and the ensuing media coverage of it -- will be apparent in the coming days, and it will soon be clear if the debate has produced a shift back to a more competitive race, or if Clinton may have received just a temporary boost in support. The next big event on the Democratic primary calendar is Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.
There has been slight movement in the general election trial heats, with Obama's margin over Republican John McCain dropping by a point and Clinton's margin increasing by a point. In the latest polling on the general election, based on April 13-17 interviewing, registered voters prefer Obama to McCain by 45% to 44% and Clinton to McCain by 46% to 44%. -- Jeff Jones
April 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cherry-pick much?
April 18, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am Otto F. I do not pay attention to thread topics. I do not pay attention to comments. I do not pay attention to facts. I write because I care very deeply about my own words and only my own words.
April 18, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind o' like Sen Clinton and her tin ear.
April 18, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume former senators are but not former cabinet members... but I really don't know.
Maybe he did have 50 superdelegates lined up after Ohio/Texas and just decided to sprinkle them out to create and continue momentum since he couldn't knock her out then.
April 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would be a nearly essential strategy. If a huge bloc of superdelegates came out and endorsed Obama on the same day, Hillary's supporters would be outraged. But if they take their time, it's a lot easier for people to sort of "ease in" to the idea of an Obama victory. It doesn't look so much like they're ganging up on her.
She's finished. Everyone knows it. The most important thing now is to get her out with some dignity intact and preserve party unity.
April 18, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I think the info on the 50 supers (or something like it) was solid, and we would have seen a more dramatic group endorsement if Obama had taken Texas (that night, when it mattered in terms of perceptions) and the "knock-out" blow was seen as having been delivered. That didn't happen though. I doubt he really lost that superdel support, but any group endorsement was off the table.
April 18, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that 1/2 of the "Unity 08" ticket has endorsed does that mean the other half is coming along as well?
We need not agree with someone 100% to enjoy their support 100%.
April 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they needed a job.
April 18, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good job helps keep people from getting bitter like you.
April 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The end is near.
April 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, especially now that 2 recent Indiana polls are going Obama's direction:
http://www.wane.com/Global/story.asp?S=8192998&nav=0RYb
April 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg, you might want to add that Nunn and Boren aren't SuperD's, since that's getting asked a lot. I know it was my first question, and I had to check.
April 18, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
They might have needed jobs... and I love how insightful they have been to confim my belief that a job will not be found in another Clinton administration since THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANOTHER CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
Here it comes doen the road...
It's your WAAAAAHHHHHHHHHBULANCE.
April 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts immediately after the debate were different than many others I heard. I felt Barrack clearly rose above Hillary and the moderators in his refusal to take the bait and engage in mud slinging re: 'sniper gate'. Several times he spoke about the need to turn the discussion away from tabloid garbage to issues meaningful to the American people and maintained the moral high ground throughout.
People are beginning to notice and understand that winning the debate doesn't equate to how many cheap shots you take advantage of, but rater, how credible and honest and committed you present yourself in engaging the people.
The narrative is changing. Nunn's statement is continued evidence of this. Obama may have been right after all to have bet on the American people. I'm shocked myself, but I do believe a critical mass of them are getting it.
Obamma'08
April 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain Teddy Kennedy. Explain John Kerry.
April 18, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
When asked to comment on the news that Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren have endorsed Senator Obama to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee:
Senator Hillary Clinton responded:
"Screw 'em, and why are you asking me this question.
Asking me all those tough first questions has left me feeling bitter, and has caused me to cling even more to my long family tradition of lying my arse off."
April 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reich's endorsement is up:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-for-president.html
"He also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators."
That's it. That's the Obama candidacy in a nutshell. Another great endorsement.
April 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Josh,
This had to hurt:
Down
Over the last four days the Gallup tracking poll has charted Obama's lead declining from 11 to 8 to 7 to 3.
--Josh Marshall
Ouch.
Endorsing now is irresponsible. Let the voters speak and let their votes count.
Then endorse.
April 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not even right about Gallup....Jeezus, at least you could try and distort actual facts.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106594/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-Clinton-42.aspx
Lead holding steady, as the article points out, "11 straight days of a statistically significant lead". Facts. Comin' at ya'.
April 18, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Update to self.....Obama lead down to 3 in Gallup tracking. Ok, point taken after reading latest Gallup poll numbers. Still a small lead I would point out (though no longer stat. significant), and still mostly irrelevant in a campaign that is about individual states at this point.
More relevant is Indiana (Barack now showing a lead in more than one poll), and Penn (polls all over the place after showing HRC way ahead for months).
Facts. Updated. Comin' at ya'.
April 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are these guys superdelegates?
April 18, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The *most* important thing is to get her out, first out of the race, then the Senate, then the party. Thanks for nothing, Hillary.
April 18, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never liked Nunn and Boren. I always felt they were Republicans in Democratic clothing. That said, I'm still glad they endorsed Obama. In sharp contrast to Hillary, when Obama says he can bring people together, he's proving he means it.
April 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Endorsing now is irresponsible."
Maybe so, but it's going to happen anyway. This is over. Hillary has lost old friends, party insiders, and much of America. Americans think she's dishonest and untrustworthy. Her old friends think she's hurting the party and making a fool of herself. There's no way she can win the election. The endorsements will keep coming, and they won't be for Hillary. Believe me, if she had anyone big to roll out, she'd be doing it.
I'll venture a guess that John Edwards might endorse her right before North Carolina. But Obama will still win the state.
April 18, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok I am actually disppointed with gotalife.
All along I have actually been humorously engaged by his sassiness over his candidate, Hillary Clinton.
I always thought gotalife was kind of an asshole.
But I never though he was a liar.
Now that it is so clear is lying about polls and numbers (outright lies)... It has become clear he is either an employee of Clinton or McCain meant to stir the pot on these blogs.
I have to admit I am disappointed.
April 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The debate is what finally pushed Nunn and Boren into the Obama camp. Up until then they were not sure that he could win in November. What convinced them that he could beat John McCain was hearing Hillary proclaiming so enthusiastically and emphatically, Yes, Yes, Yes, he can!
And you folks thought that was not a team player. Don't you feel ashamed of yourselves now.
Long before she fought off Bosnia Snipers, Hillary was Molly Bloom.
"...I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes. "
April 18, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the endorsements will probably start coming pretty steadily since it's clear that the DNC, which is the party these days, along with us, is pissed and wants this over with.
So it's almost there - I expect a steady stream of endorsements.
April 18, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I've ever really wanted to camp with Messrs. Boren and Nunn, and not that any actual voter runs with their cue, but these guys are right in the wheelhouse of Late High Broderism and Serious Bipartisan Consensus. Folks, I think the Dems have their Big Tent Guy for the op-ed pages now. Can't believe I'm sitting here hoping for wave of High Broderism to o'erwash the Recent High Drudgebot impulses of ABC et al. But I am, to get us through the next two weeks or so.
April 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
These endorsements sounds very much like the endorsements George W. Bush racked up in 2000. Take Liddy Dole's for example:
Ladies and gentlemen, the world watches us as we undertake the election of an American president in this year 2000. This president must be a president of all Americans -- like Ronald Reagan, who could bring people together whether they're Republicans or Democrats or independents...The fact is that George Bush ran a much better campaign for president in 2000. He promised to restore civility to Washington. He claimed to be a uniter rather than a divider.
Yet, despite his promises, despite his disciplined and effective campaign, the Bush administration has been an unmitigated disaster on every level. So when endorsers or political pundits cite a candidate's excellent campaign or his vows of political reconciliation, I don't give it too much notice.
April 18, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a rape and ice cream correlation.
April 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure?
April 18, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because different people use the same phrase set to describe a candidate does not mean that the candidate will act similiarly:
A says X about Y
B says X about Z
The value of X remains constant, but Y, Z, A, and B are all different. Therefore, the conclusion can not be the same because there is only one factor in common: X... which in this case is the statement of unity.
Therefore, there isn't any rational room for your conclusion to be justified. You are operating of a false causation... in this case, when someone says "unity," about a candidate, that means they will act like Bush. That is the same as saying the consumption of ice cream correlates with the rise in rape during Summer time, ergo ice cream causes rape.
April 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because different people use the same phrase set to describe a candidate does not mean that the candidate will act similiarly.
That's true enough...but, it's not my argument.
I am not making the claim that Barack Obama will govern in the same way that George Bush has governed simply because both the Bush2000 and Obama2008 campaigns have employed similar rhetoric on the issue of political reconciliation.
My point is that citing a promise to unite Democrats and Republicans or citing one campaign's organizational superiority isn't, to me at least, a very convincing way to establish fitness for office.
As I noted, George Bush in 2000 ran a much better campaign than Al Gore. Does that mean that a Gore presidency would have been worse than what we got from Bush? And, in terms of unity, George Bush made the same promises that Barack Obama is now making. What reason do any of have to believe that Obama's promises are any less idle than Bush's were. Keep in mind, on this point, that Bush actually did have a fairly strong record of working with Democrats in Texas. And let's not forget that Bush got half the Hispanic vote and nearly a third of the black vote in his gubernatorial reelection campaign. Obama, by comparison, doesn't have a very strong record at all of crossing the aisle to work with his Republican colleagues.
April 18, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
'What reason do any of have to believe that Obama's promises are any less idle than Bush's were.'
-Bush as TX governor, held a fairly ceremonial position. Obama has accomplished legislation under his belt in Illinois and the US Senate.
'Keep in mind, on this point, that Bush actually did have a fairly strong record of working with Democrats in Texas.'
-See my response to the first point you made.
'And let's not forget that Bush got half the Hispanic vote and nearly a third of the black vote in his gubernatorial reelection campaign.'
-A gubernatorial reelection cannot compare with a national election, but, hey, you could compare Bush's TX broad support to Obama's IL broad support and Obama would shine in comparison.
'Obama, by comparison, doesn't have a very strong record at all of crossing the aisle to work with his Republican colleagues.'
-Oh, you went off base on this one. His impressive record in the Illinois Senate was due to his being able to work successfully with the then majority [Republican] party. And in the U.S. Senate, also still within the Republican majority that existed before January, 2007, he teamed with Richard Lugar on updating and extending the Non-Proliferation legislation; and Obama partnered with Tom Coburn on the sunshine legislation [giving the public internet access to how, what, and where our tax monies go] which was signed into law in August of 2006.
April 18, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has accomplished legislation under his belt in Illinois and the US Senate.
First, what does this have to do with the question as posed?
Second, Obama's most important legislative accomplishment as US Senator has been to get the name of an East St. Louis post office changed.
A gubernatorial reelection cannot compare with a national election
I wasn't comparing a gubernatorial election to a national one. I was giving supporting evidence to the proposition that Mr. Bush had a pretty good argument for an ability to bring people together.
Oh, you went off base on this one.
Actually, diverse publications (e.g. NYT, Christian Science Monitor) have made the same point that I have. In an article entitled For Obama, bipartisan aims, party-line votes, CSM noted that:
Or take an analysis from the Washington Post:April 18, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama arrogance and bluster, his pretense of being beyond it all, his comical air of superiority, is starting to get stale and boring.
God! What's wrong with him. He's an ordinary politician, a rookie, that can't deliver a speech unless it's written for him. It it isn't, he stmbles, hems and haws, like a freshman poli sci student.
jp
April 18, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing how many serious, smart people, people who know the Clintons, well, won't endorse Hillary Clinton.
She was the presumptive nominee. She hasn't gotten a single endorsement from any of the Democrats who ran in this primary with her.
Obama has gotten two.
Sam Nunn knows Bill Clinton, and is very familiar with Hillary Clitnon's foreign policy approach and, maybe more importantly, her advisors.
Seems like a gimmee, for Clinton. Yet, it's not.
Why is that?
April 18, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must mean McCain.
April 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean she'll cook Leopold some breakfast?
Yes.
April 18, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam Nunn is a good catch.
He's the bipartisan grown up in the room on foreign policy.
I think he trumps Wesley Clark, actually, as far as credibility on POLICY.
Although Wesley Clark, as we found out at the debate, is really photogenic, and Sam Nunn is less so.
April 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 18, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the front page, Boren and Nunn thought to exemplify "politicians who do or did make their careers on the votes of people from small towns and rural areas".
On the same front page, another time with another race at stake, these former senators might have exemplified "the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party".
April 18, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe before Lieberman endorsed McCain.
One he did that, he is no longer an "Independent" Democrat.
He's a Republican. A Republican most Republicans and Democrats hate.
April 18, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the NYTimes these guys are not superdelegates.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/new-obama-endorsements/index.html?hp
but good gets nonetheless
especially on top of Robert Reich
April 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are not supedelegates but they can INFLUENCE superdelegates, esp. from their home states.
April 18, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the desk of:
Howling Wolfson
Why does Sam Nunn and David Boren hate Irish Teapots.
Call Sam Nunn and David Boren and tell them to stop hating Irish Teapots.
I am Hillary, Queen of Ulster, and I approve this message.
April 18, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama gets more endorsements from the conservatives and opportunistic hypocrites who chickened out on healthcare reform and budget balancing in 1993/94...yay.
April 19, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok! FARC This!
Did Barry send an envoy to reassure FARC? Investors Business Daily has some evidence:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=289786626246641&kw=Obama,FARC
Sir...Can you spare some "Change I can believe in" so I can buy a pint?
April 19, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are there any right wing Democrats who don't support Obama? These guys don't come cheap. Lucky for Ben Nelson he's the first guy in the chow line.
April 19, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink