Sunday, January 27th, 2008...7:26 pm
And It Just Gets More Interesting…
Jump to Comments
The word out on the dusty streets of this here territory is that former Senator Dennis DeConcini is going to announce his endorsement of Barack Obama.
So, let me get this right, first Ted Kennedy, now DeConcini. Isn’t this about the time that the “party establishment” swings behind the “establishment” candidate?
20 Comments
January 28th, 2008 at 3:55 am
GO RON PAUL!
January 28th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I suspect that DeConcini’s endorsement won’t carry much weight. Dennis has not been in the public eye that much since he left the Senate. He may help bring in some big $$ donors to Obama’s AZ campaign, but the endorsement won’t have much of an impact with regular voters.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I agree with azw88 except for the fact that primary voters are not regular voters. My point is that he could help bring a bit more “establishment” legitimacy to the campaign…and if he is a superdelegate, it is one more delegate for Barack, I guess.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I agree. However, now that the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Ted Kennedy, and the Gov. of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, have announced their support for Barack, there is definite momentum from the establishment moving to him.
All of a sudden, people are leaving the Clintons isolated. I wonder if Bill’s attack dog politics had anything to do with that?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Wait a minute, you mean the former Senator isn’t dead? That is more the news to me.
Knowing the Clintons, I doubt they will let the reality of endorsements get in the way of their campaign.
But it will be interesting…
January 28th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Personally, I felt the Obama camp has been more “endorsement hungry” than the Clinton or Edwards camp…
I just don’t honestly see how some of these endorsements can really “help” Obama, but it will be interesting to watch.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
VWgal,
I don’t see why you would make that comment about the Obama camp being more “endorsement hungry” but I’ll go right to the meat of your comment; that the Ted Kennedy endorsement doesn’t matter.
I quote Chris Cillizza:
“In the hierarchy of endorsements, Kennedy coming out for Obama falls into the category of “symbolic endorsement,” the most coveted of all because it is not simply the typical pat on the back and photo-op, but rather it signifies something larger about a candidate.
Kennedy, after all, is not simply the senior senator from Massachusetts. He’s Ted Kennedy — last of the brothers of the original first family in American politics (sorry Bill and Hillary) and standardbearer for liberals everywhere. For people of a certain vintage, Ted Kennedy serves as the embodiment of what it means to be a Democrat.”
Ted also holds a lot of sway among Hispanics, working-class whites, and other rank-and-file democratic groups, giving Obama an opening into an area where he needs to make gains.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Well all endorsements aside, I wouldn’t say that this shift is big yet until I see more about what is happening in Super Duper Duper, califragilistic, Tuesday states.
While most of what is reported here is polls done prior to SC, Clinton was found to be way ahead in most of the big SDDC Tuesday states.
I have gotten excited about candidates like Barack before (except for the fact that I have never been this inspired) and watched as establishment magic plus an excellent organization dashed my hopes.
See this site:
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/super-duper-tuesday-polls.html
January 28th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Kralmajales,
A couple of weeks ago Clinton was supposedly ahead of Obama by 12 points in California but I can’t tell you whose poll it was. I was reading about it in the San Diego Union Tribune. It was very upsetting.
However, I’m just not so sure that the polls are going to be so reliable given that the Democratic nomination is wide open going into Super Duper Tuesday. Voter turnout will set records and people in those states know it is up to them now. California hasn’t been a deciding primary since I can’t remember when and I lived there for over twenty years.
I’m like you in one respect and that is that I do not want to be overly excited about Obama given the “establishment” record of generally getting their candidate.
If Hillary does get the nomination, and then the presidency, it will be devastating for America. We simply do not have the time on our collective calendar to endure another failed regime. Time is running out for damage control, I am absolutely certain of that.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Well said Liza…
I hope I am wrong too. We need to work hard for him here…do our part…our state is one in which he is supposedly down by more than 10 points.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
The compressed primary calendar, coupled with the 24-hour access to news through a myriad of sources, means that polling numbers can not possibly keep up with the rate by which people make decisions as they acquire new information. Obama’s masterful and inspiring speech in South Carolina, the power of the endorsements from the Kennedys and the heavily negative coverage of the Clinton machinations are having their effect as we read these words. Moreover, the pollsters have consistently underestimated turnout and the numbers of new voters Obama is inspiring.
Be of good cheer heading into next Tuesday! Change IS coming! Rely less on the polls and go with who has the momentum. I have every confidence that Obama will be in an even better position after Feb. 5th then he is today.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Can someone tell me why as a life long Hispanic, I have not once felt any loyalty to Ted Kennedy? I do not know where people are coming from in terms of Ted Kennedy having sway with the Hispanic Community. Can someone clue me in why Ted’s endorsement of Obama has sway in the Hispanic community?
January 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Jeff, the Kennedys have close ties with the Hispanic community stemming from the alliance forged between Cesar Chavez and Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Check out this article: http://www.pbs.org/itvs/fightfields/cesarchavez.html
SI SE PUEDE
January 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Liza:
If Hillary does get the nomination, and then the presidency, it will be devastating for America.
I disagree (and I’ve been quite vocal in criticizing Hillary for her rightward voting record in the Senate, especially regarding the Iraq war.)
But there would be a huge difference between Hillary Clinton as President vs. a Republican (say, John McCain.)
On Clinton’s website:
Hillary Clinton: America is ready for a leader who will end the war in Iraq. Hillary’s roadmap out of Iraq, the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007, is a plan to end the war before the next president takes the oath of office. But if the Bush administration won’t end the war, as president and commander in chief, Hillary will.
vs. McCain, who recently said it would be OK with him if the U.S. stayed in Iraq for a hundred years.
On healthcare:
Hillary: a plan for universal coverage.
McCain: (this is hard to find on his website, you have to go to issues, go to ‘health care,’ then go through the blather and hit ‘read more’ and go to the bottom), McCain wants to phase out employer provided health insurance and give a $5,000 tax refund instead to people who purchase their own insurance.
The Supreme Court: McCain said the other day he would be willing to pick more justices like Roberts. Clinton won’t pick that kind of justice (one of the few areas I’m completely happy with the job her husband did.) Now, with the SC hanging by a thread, do you really want to gamble that Justice Stevens’ heart lasts for another four years?
I, like you, won’t be voting for Hillary on Tuesday, but if she is the nominee, I will certainly vote for her in November.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Eli,
I will modify my statement. Either a Republican or a Clinton presidency will be devastating for America. I was not encouraging people to vote Republican if Hillary is nominated.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Rex and all,
I am rather worried about Obama really. Not about his ability to lead or his ability to inspire, but his ability to beat Hillary.
Clinton has a massive advantage in most super-Tuesday states. Even though Obama couldn’t campaign in Florida, the momentum of his win and all that we have seen on the news about him and his endorsements still only garnered him a 17% loss. That is a big worry for me.
Another worry…I said long long ago that Edwards and Obama in the race, at the same time, would be a major advantage to Hillary. It wasn’t in SC but elsewhere it is. Even in states where he pulls back to make it close, the Edward 5-15% that he pulls will be the difference to put Hillary up by 4-5%…and those being in states.
The biggest worry of all though is this. In Florida, Hillary overwhelmingly pulled white and Hispanic voters. Look at Super Tuesday…the big states…that will crush Obama if it doesn’t change. Dem leaders like Kennedy can say what they will about The Clinton’s strategy to make him a “black” candidate instead of a candidate…but it has worked…thus far. It has worked.
Last, What Rex says has some truth, there is still time to shift polls and to build momentum and there appears to be a backlash, but just how big is it? There is LITTLE time. Establishment campaigns contact voters and work early ballots…how much of this has Obama been able to do? Even tonight, only seconds after her CNN “victory” speech, my wife got a call from the campaign. Coincidence…or very well timed.
Last, I have seen little of Obama’s campaign…a bit on campus but not a ton. I even re-registered to vote for him…no longer an independent. Not a call yet. I have seen some commercials, but the kind of energy to win a primary versus a well connected, well organized establishment candidate? I don’t know.
I am worried. I await new polls in key Super Tuesday states…but I am worried.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Don’t get yourself in a swivet, Kral! Look at the states in play next Tuesday:
-Hillary will win her home state of New York, her adopted home state of Arkansas and probably also New Jersey and Connecticut.
-Obama will take his home state (Illinois) and looks good in the Southern states of Alabama, Georgia and perhaps Tennessee.
-The Kennedys have out Massachusetts’ 121 delegates in play!
-California is ripe for the picking for Obama. It can surprise a frontrunner (like when Hart topped Mondale in 1984) and the state’s residents love nothing more than to be trendsetters! Did you see that Rep. Becerra, one of the highest ranking Hispanics in the House, just endorsed Obama?
-The other states voting that day (Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado,
January 29th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Whoops! Hit submit too soon!
-The other states voting that day (Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Delaware, Idaho, Alaska, New Mexico and North Dakota) can not be seen as anything but toss-ups, I would guess.
-Proportional allocation of delegates will also help Obama, especially in California.
This thing will not be over next Tuesday; it will just be starting up! Moreover, there are some states in between Super Tuesday and March 4th (when Ohio and Texas vote) that I think Obama can take, notably Virginia, Louisiana, Maryland and Wisconsin.
Change IS coming!!!
January 30th, 2008 at 10:09 am
It is going to be really interesting to see what happens on Feb 5 now that John Edwards has announced he is out.
I hope and pray for Edwards to do what is right for America and endorse Obama.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Rex…not totally freaking out, but worried indeed. I think your assessment overall is pretty good above and the one other thing that gives me hope is that delegates are apportioned by Congressional district (in some weird proportional method where most get even delegates) and proportional by state also.
That said, the momentum and polls worry me a bit and I guess I am making some assumptions about who might be better prepared organizationally in all those states at once.