Thursday, January 10th, 2008...6:01 pm
Napolitano Endorses…?
Jump to Comments
Talk coming out of the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area is that Janet Napolitano is going to endorse Barack Obama.
Would be unusual…stay tuned.
-
Blurb-o-Matic
-
Search
-
FeedBlitz
-
-
Recent Comments
-
Election Aught Eight
-
Blogroll
- A Guy in the Pew
- Arizona 8th
- Arizona Congress Watch
- Az Green Day
- AZ Left
- Blog for Arizona
- Capitol Ideas
- Catholics for Obama
- Daily Kos
- The Data Port
- Deep Thought
- Democratic Diva
- The Dry Heat
- Espresso Pundit
- Lavender's Backwaters
- Liberal Desert
- Man Eegee - Latino Politico
- Matt's Madly Musings
- Mr. Super
- Neto's Tucson
- Politicker AZ
- Politico Mafioso
- Scramblewatch '08
- Sonoran Alliance
- Spidelblog
- Sustainability, Equity, Development
- Talking Points Memo
- Tucson Weekly Blog
- Wactivist
- Wonkette
- Working Life
- Arizona Blog
- Baja Arizona Blog
Links
Feed It!
45 Comments
January 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I heard that too!!!
Excited!!!!!!
January 10th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I heard it from a Pima County party regular…won’t name her.
Also came with a rumor about a potential cabinet position (I heard something moronic like Interior…that would be the dumbest position I could ever think of her taking by the way…other than the ideal of doing good public service of course…attorney gen…MAYBE…VP…hmm?)
January 10th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Jesus god no don’t take Janet Napolitano out of AZ and leave us stuck with Jan Brewer!
January 10th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
I think its obvious she doesn’t care about the larger political ramifications of her abandoning us.
Anyway, I am very surprised that (if this plays out to be true) that she didn’t endorse someone she was more ideologically and genderly related to..
January 10th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
If it were to be for Secretary of the Interior, that is an important (though low profile, perhaps) department which manages all federal lands–mining, forest, parks, etc–most of the west!!!
However, I hope she stays here–god forbid we end with Brewer.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Only position worth taking would be Attorney General, geniuses
January 11th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I think that Janet would make great Veep, AG, et al!
HOWEVER, if she ever expects to EVER get any kind of vote or support from Arizona in the future (ie Senate, Veep re-elect, et al), she had damned well better not leave before her term is up….
January 11th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Gretchen,
No question about the importance of the position, but the adage about cabinet positions is that most are never heard from again…particularly with positions like Interior. Sec. State, Att. General are a bit different, but still rare that any of them ever get elected to anything afterwards. Babbit for instance.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Educate me a bit more about what happens if she leaves before her term. Brewer steps in, right? For how long? Until a special election a few months away? Finishes the term?
Thanks for the help anyone.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:30 am
We’d be stuck with Brewer until 2010. Probably for another term as well, since she would have the advantage of incumbency.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Thanks Katie and WOW that would suck massively. I would only forgive her if it were something like VP…even attorney general wouldn’t make me feel much better about it. My thought was that she was going to wait around for McCain’s seat someday, but maybe that is just not doable given that he could stay in there until he’s ninety.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Napolitiano was a Clinton appointee and owes her career to the Clinton and now she sides with Obama.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
James,
your point is more salient in the GOP. They are the party of favors, “wainting your turn”, and kissing the ring. We are more independent-minded. That’s one of the best things about our party.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Cynical SOB that I (sometimes) am, I think this was brilliant.
She endorses when it still matters. She makes a cold-blooded assessment (and our Gov. is an expert at that talent) that NH notwithstanding, Hillary will not win the nomination.
Now, if any other AZ pol decides to take the plunge for Obama, they will get second-tier billing.
The only thing that scares me is what worries everyone else - Gov. Brewer, reverting to Arizona’s history of putting total wackos on the 9th Floor.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Sam-
Don’t dismiss our legacy of whackjob governors…it’s the only way I’d ever be elected.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Is that a campaign announcement?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Hmmm I have been thinking about this some. Say, Napolitano actually takes a VP or Att General slot and, god forbig, Brewer is Gov. Think for a sec. about what this means for 2010 when the race is open. Yes, Brewer is indeed the incumbent running but doesn’t this cut off “Mr. appendage to Joe Arpaio Thomas up there in Maricopa”at the knees. It is the ultimate FU to him. Run against Brewer if you really want to be Gov. buddy! After that primary, Mr. Goddard would look mighty nice.
Still, we have to suck up Brewer for two years.
I doubt she will take anything other than VP if she has political aspirations for the future. I haven’t seen an Att Gen do much of anything since in my lifetime (and I wasn’t born until after Bobby).
January 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Let’s see here…
First, there has never been an attorney general that has ever been President of the United States….EVER….not even in early America where people were trading around offices.
That said, I love what Janet Reno did for America…established the money to fund drug courts which expanded them from number in the 100s to what today is over 2000.
But, not a place for higher office if you want it. Here are all the AGs since Carter:
Griffin B. Bell
Benjamin R. Civiletti
William French Smith
Edwin Meese III
Richard L. Thornburgh
William Barr
Janet Reno
John Ashcroft
Alberto Gonzales
Michael Mukasey
January 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Oh…and….check this list out….
Cecil D. Andrus
James G. Watt
William Patrick Clark
Donald Paul Hodel
Manuel Lujan, Jr.
Bruce Babbitt
Gale Ann Norton
Dirk Kempthorne
Interior…since Carter.
I think I only recognize three….
January 11th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
KRALMAJALES–
I’ve heard of only a few of those names. I would prefer for Janet to run for the Senate down the road. As a Senator, you have an independent power base–not serving at the pleasure of the president–just the voters of Arizona. [And she is the best chance we have of getting a Democratic Senator.] As a Senator, she could always choose to take a cabinet post down the road. I agree with you re the obscurity of the cabinet positions but one can accomplish great things.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Even if she doesn’t take a cabinet position with Obama, she has secured some powerful support for whatever else she wants to do. Janet did this perfectly, I think, by waiting to this point when it’s crucial and everyone is listening. Now she can play Kingmaker in AZ for another day.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Eh, I still see Brewer going down to a Goddard candidacy. The man is known everywhere and the only AZ Republic poll from 2006 had him in the 70s approval rating and 90% name ID. Brewer had like below 60% name ID and lower than that on approval. People don’t like the bitch. And people love electing AGs to Governor.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Gretchen,
Exactly. Senator is far, far better place for her…unless of course…if her goal is to do legal policy as att. general. Still, she could serve in the Senate on the Judiciary Committee…still much better.
Carlos,
I think you are right also. Goddard would beat Brewer…AND…Thomas is cut off…beaten down…and forced to try to become att. general…which is a disgusting thought.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Looking at the likely composition of the Arizona Legislature after 2008, it would be tragic for a Republican to be our Governor. Should Janet leave before the end of her term for anything other than a Supreme Court nod, she would be throwing us to the wolves.
Moreover, it is not clear to me that Terry Goddard would win a race for Governor. Frankly, I have long thought that Giffords would be an exceptional gubernatorial candidate. She is a thinker and a doer and such people can get more done at the state level than in being one of 435 representatives to the US House.
Also, as long as we are prognosticating, don’t rule out Tom Horne on the GOP side in 2010. He didn’t “inquire” about TUSD’s ethnic studies departments just to pass the time. My hunch is that he saw that craven move as a way or proving his bona fides to the conservatives, just like when he took on bilingual ed. when he knocked off Jaime Molera.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
As a Clinton supporter who volunteered for Janet in 1998, 2002, and 2006, I feel downright betrayed and I am not the only one. She may have made a calculated move to advance her career but it will cost her support of the very people who worked thier *butts* off to get her elected. Shame on you Janet, shame on you.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Dear Betrayed,
So would you feel differently if she had endorsed Clinton and, allegedly, promised to take a cabinet position?
Or are you just bummed out that Janet didn’t endorse Hillary?
January 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
BETRAYED DEM–
Janet should be judged mainly for what she has done as Governor–this endorsement business is tiddlywink stuff. Get over it!
NOTE–I’m still undecided between Hillary and Barack–even more so after the presidential candidates forum today at Saddlebrooke.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I am so SICK of people who assumed that Hillary would have an easy ride to the nomination and now that Obama is doing well they respond by berating him and everyone who supports him. Let’s face it, he is a better candidate and in many cases, has more realistic and pragmatic policy ideas than Hillary.
Oh - and Betrayed Dem - I suspect you just might be one of these Democratic women who only want to elect Democratic women to office - even when there are capable, qualified, and more electable men to choose from. I respect and admire Hillary Clinton, but I don’t believe she is the right choice for our party right now. Just because I am a woman and she is a woman does not mean I have to voter for her no matter what.
You should be the one ashamed of yourself. The Governor has done an amazing job as a GOVERNOR - not as a WOMAN. She should endorse whomever she wants, not whomever she shares a gender with.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
BO voted over 100 times “present” rather than take an controversial position. That takes guts. BO also said he “didn’t know” the vote on the Lieberman resolution was taking place and that is why he missed *that* vote. Really? Is his staff inept to the point they don’t inform their boss of what the United States Senate is voting on today? If so, he has no ability to select competant staff - hardly a commander in chief quality; but if he really just…ducked the vote rather than take a controversial position, well that would be cowardice. I see a trend here: “present” “I didn’t know”. Give ME a BREAK. Cowardice. No backbone. Weak. Yellow.
And Janet… 40% of the Democrats in Arizona are ashamed of your position right now. People who sweat to get you elected. Think about it.
January 13th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Rex: Gabby is not running for Governor. I would like it to in some ways, but she is not. I am sure she would be flattered with such talk.
Right now you are looking at Jim Pederson or Terry Goddard and I’ll, take Goddard any day. He is a great Attorney General.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Dem, that tired old line has been refuted often enough. When he voted Present in the Illinois Senate, it was because Illinois Planned Parenthood asked him to do it.
And really, do you think as a Hillary supporter you have any room at all to talk about cowardice and having no backbone, when Hillary F’ing Clinton was supposedly duped by Bush into supporting the Iraq war, a position she’s only recently started to back away from? Is a person so easily misled, or led to sacrifice principles and human lives to be more electable, really deserving of being Commander in Chief?
Other than that, the Governor’s endorsement is not a betrayal. Suggesting that makes you look like an idiot. If she endorsed Hillary Clinton, do you think she’d be “betraying” the activists who volunteered for her, then started Arizona for Obama?
January 13th, 2008 at 10:58 am
All the talk about who will be governor in 2010 is great.
But, unless we reform the redistricting process so that we can have competitive districts, we are going to be in the same boat and the next governor is going to be dealing with the same extremists.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Gabby won’t run for Governor because it’s only 8 years. Congress is forever. Hillary supporters will just work harder because of Gov. Janet’s endorsement of Obama. Then Janet will have egg on her face for stabbing the Clintons in the back. She will never get elected to another office and be stuck working for herself the rest of her life. I didn’t care who she supporter - just that she should have stayed out of the race. But Obama promised her a high position in his campaign so she took the bait. Maybe he’ll stick her in the backroom with all the other people he has promised high positions and they can Caucus together! Obama certainly won’t have enough cabinet positions to go around to all of them. Interesting to see what happens!
January 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
What happened to “I’m going to ride my horse in the middle of the river” ?
:Rollseyes:
January 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Oh bummer…like Hillary’s campaign is really in jeopardy now. She has most of the establishment power behind her, leads in fundraising, and won NH.
This and now everyone (especially her campaign) is acting like they are some kind of underdog, that they are being beat up on unfairly, and the like.
She talks and talks about how Obama has little experience, her campaign insults the Civil Rights movement, etc. Just look at HER experience for a second. What exactly has SHE done as a Senator.
I can tell you this, I have been reading the New York Times closely for years and I have read umpteen articles about her struggles to look tough on Iraq. In addition, and most disturbing to me, is that she has become more and more moderate in her in support of choice.
Last, I believe that her executive branch will be a replication of the Clinton administration (those who are still around). Nothing wrong with that, but here is an opportunity for an executive branch with fresh young faces, with energy, and not the same ole same ole.
I am going with Obama still.
January 13th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Joe,
I am sure that you will be immensely pleased that Hillary is explaining that pesky Iraq vote of hers. From the huffingtonpost.com:
“”This morning on Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton defended her 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution, saying that she “thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in” so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked. She insisted that she and others were “told by the White House personally” that this was the purpose of the resolution, and cited President Bush’s assurances to defend her position.
Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” Clinton responded saying, “We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, ‘It was not a vote for war,’ What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, ‘If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,’ I was told that’s exactly what we intended to do. “”
January 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
JC– do you have proof of this supposed deal she made with Obama?
Wait, I know the answer to that– you don’t, you just wrote that because you’re pissed that not everyone loves your candidate. Grow up.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Liza, that’s not very convincing, especially when millions of Americans were convinced enough that that resolution was an authorization for invading Iraq that they took to the streets in protest, and a young Illinois State Senator had the guts to come out in public and say it was a bad idea.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
In all seriousness, I think that Hillary’s explanations about how she was misled on the Iraq War resolution make her look more incompetent than anything else. Does this mean that she didn’t read it?
January 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
She read it…she was triangulating toward this election…she has been for 3-4 years or longer if you look at her evolution on choice and the war in Iraq. The number of bills she supported, then didn’t, and ways she explained support of the war and against it, would make the criticism of John Kerry (as for it before against it) look fairly serious and without deviation.
BTW Liza…I saw the same exchange on Russert…live…also. It was not at all convincing NOR was her backpedaling about Bill and her campaigns ill advised attempt to make the civil rights movement and Barack’s campaign look like a “fairytale”.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Joe,
At this point Hillary and Slick Willie are just throwing stuff out there to see if it flies. They must be totally full of themselves after New Hampshire. I keep hoping that one of their attacks on Obama will create that special moment when they really step in it and can’t recover.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Kralmajales,
I took that remark about Martin Luther King very personally. I lived in the deep south throughout the civil rights era. I am connected to that time and that place on every emotional level you can imagine. I can’t even think about Martin Luther King without tears in my eyes, like right now.
Lyndon Johnson must be given credit for what he did, to be sure. Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was his finest moment, in my opinion. What seems to be lost on Hillary is the significance of what will always be the most important populist movement in American history and the role of one of the greatest visionary leaders of the 20th century.
She just doesn’t get it. She doesn’t understand what the Civil Rights Movement means to people.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I love how people love Janet for her “straight forward-ness” and “no nonsense”. She likes Obama, period.
The word from Napolitano staffers is that no one from Hillary’s campaign ever called her, ever. She had to call Hillary herself to tell her since she hadn’t talked to anyone from her campaign.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
There’s a lot more to the “Great Society” besides the Civil Rights — the Voting Rights Bill, Medicare/Medicaid, clean-up of US townscapes and roadways, etc., and of course VietNam escalation.
And LBJ didn’t just sign the Civil Rights Act, he got it passed at tremendous personal and political cost to himself and the Democratic Party — because he was a real liberal and the New Deal lived in his heart. No one in the world could have gotten that Act passed except LBJ. He knew that, so on principle and in an election year he got it done.
I’m an Edwards supporter (because the New Deal lives in my heart, too), but Sen. Clinton’s remarks were not only respectful of Dr. King, they were also absolutely and unequivocally the truth. Both sides of this current “race” brouhaha turn my stomach.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:46 am
TexAz,
Nothing against what you’ve said about LBJ with respect to civil rights, etc… I’ve always felt that his legacy has two opposing sides and the Vietnam escalation is just so extremely unfortunate.
I would never be willing to say that John F. Kennedy could not gotten the Civil Rights Act passed, although it may not have been 1964.
Hillary’s statement did, in fact, diminish the role of Martin Luther King, President Kennedy, and every single person who risked his/her life, limb, or liberty to finally, once and forever, put an end to segregation. This was not about one person, this was about the rightful actions of tens of thousands of people who placed themselves on the front lines of the populist movement knowing they could die for it. Martin Luther King did, in fact, eventually die for it.
Hillary, on the other hand, supported Barry Goldwater in 1964, her first exposure to political campaigning. Perhaps that is why she is so insensitive toward the feelings of those who have such immense respect for Martin Luther King.
Leave a Reply