Comments on Kerry to Endorse Obama

Ouch. If you're an Edwards supporter, that's gotta hurt.

Nobody cares about that shithead.

Hmmm, interesting. The support of Kerry himself I could see as being something of a double-edged sword, but if as the article suggests this leads to endorsement by more senior democrats it could add to the Obama campaign's momentum and maybe even sway a few of the staunch democrats that seemed to be more frequently supporting Clinton in NH.

1,2,3... this is the NINTH Obama SLOG propaganda piece in the last twenty four hours. Versus one Josh and two ECB Clinton pieces.

You guys sure do have ants in your pants about New Hampshire. Heh heh.

Lot of people don't want Hillary to win for some unimaginable reason. Go figure.

Didn't the Clinton Machine back Kerry in 2004? In fact I think they were the people that pumped up Howard Dean's mike in Iowa!

Kerry endorses Obama, just in time for the critical NH primary.

Oh, wait.

Does Kerry really draw that much water in the party? I mean, he's no Bill Clinton.

I think the fact that Obama has Daschle as a senior advisor is more impressive than Kerry's endorsement.

I'm an Edwards supporter and my initial reaction was irritation that Kerry endorsed Obama rather than his past running mate, but it's all business, I guess. While I love Edwards's message, I'm feeling less confident that he has the juice. Pity.

Now he's sure to lose. Remember what happened after Gore endorsed Dean?

@1 - if you're Edwards that's got to hurt. I wonder what their relationship is/was like when they were running mates?

One looser in the past supports a future looser!!
Birds of a feather flock together!!
If I were Senator Obama I would worry about this endorsement

hey Ralph - looser in what sense? Their shoelaces? There are advisors on each campaign that can fix that issue. And hold the piss bucket.

@ #9, Daschle? I didn't know that. I love him. And now I love Obama even more.

I guess that's like Adlai Stevenson throwing his support to Hubert Humphrey in 1960 - meaningless. If Kerry couldn't (or wouldn't) effectively smack down his lying assailants in 2004, why would you listen to him now? If Dean had cried in Iowa, 'swiftboating' would never have entered the lexicon. And don't think the media isn't anticipating or hoping to provoke a Munchian reaction out of Hillary.

Is the Kerry endorsement supposed to help Obama or Clinton? Just wondering.

Kerry endorsement? Who cares. Obama needs Gore to endorse him. THAT would make an inroads!

I think President Gore will endorse Sen Obama in February.

Preferably on President's Day, after our Feb. 9th Dem caucus in our state.

@18, in my alternate universe it was a Gore/Obama ticket in 2000 that goes to the White House and now Obama would be running as the incumbent VP for the Presidency. Obama with 8 years under the tutelage of Al Gore.... *sigh*

Just Me @17: Kerry endorsement? Who cares. Obama needs Gore to endorse him. THAT would make an inroads!

Agreed. Like just about any politician's endorsement, Kerry's endorsement doesn't amount to much. There are only two political figures whose endorsements would mean something for Obama:

1. Edwards. But the longer Edwards keeps running, the smaller his support is going to be, the fewer delegates will be at stake, the less his endorsement will matter if he does drop out.
2. Gore. This would be the closest thing to a transcendent political endorsement. Even then, I'm afraid people would dismiss it as a sign of a Gore-Clinton rivalry.

@ Big Sven,

Since you seem to be jonesing for Clinton, you should read this:

We Forget What It Was Really Like Under the Clintons

http://www.alternet.org/story/72336/

NAFTA, welform "reform" which has led to an explosion in the number of poor people and shredded the social safety net, Don't Ask-Don't Tell, DOMA, deregulation of the energy and banking industries which led to massive abuses of the American public, union-busting, the escalation of outsourcing, the divide between the rich and poor turning into a Grand Canyon size chasm, and on and on. All the Clinton era policies have perversely created the opposite effect for which they were sold to the public.

Please tell me exactly why electing Hillary Clinton and returning to Clintonism would be a good thing.

I'm with Original Andrew.

There is no difference between any Clinton, and the Republicans!

Clinton = Bush
Clinton II = Bush II
Democrats = Republicans!

One of the toughest questions Edwards has had to face on the campaign trail is "We worked so hard for you guys to win in 2004 and you folded overnight. Why should we support you?"
Now, that Kerry has turned his back on him Edwards can say with ease and honesty that he would have fought the Swift Boaters more and the he wouldn't have conceded Ohio the next morning.
For his own reasons Kerry endorsement manages to hurt the top three. It implies Obama is not his own man. It minimizes the Clinton legacy and it is a slap against Edwards.

@ 19 - had you even heard of Obama in 2000? No points if you're from Illinois.

@ 24,

Wow, great argument. Hillary Clinton should hire you.

I don't give a flying frak which Democrat is elected, just not *her.*

She's surrounded herself with people like Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, Rahm Emanuel, etc: People who feel contempt Democratic voters even more than the Republicans. These people have benefited greatly from the status quo and there's no way in a million years they'd change it.

Are you happy with the failed Democratic Congress whose solution to every problem is to give the Republicans exactly what they want? Then Clinton's your candidate.

@24, @19 - hmm. Look, I think most Dems would far prefer Gore run for re-election as President, which thanks to the US Supreme Court, he can hold for two terms (making him the only post-decision Pres to be elected three times as Presdient).

But I'm trying to be realistic.

Now, remember, most Dems are pretty happy with ALL of the Dem candidates for Pres. It's a very good year.

Sure, I'd rather get Obama at this point, but I have no prob with ANY of the other Dem candidates taking the top spot.

Maybe we'll have a brokered convention after the decisive caucus vote in our state on Feb. 9th. That would be fun!

@21 Spot on assessment!

Great articly by the way... Big Sven will have a hard time explaining it away...

@25,

Obama's hardly surrounded himself with huge progressives, either. He tried to get as much establishment cred on board as he could, it's just that most of them were already backing Clinton.

I didn't like Bill Clinton's triangulation and I hated his foreign policy. The fact that Hillary Clinton has some of Bill's worst foreign policy flacks on her team is worrisome. But Obama's opposition to the war as a state Senator who didn't have to grapple with the choices of a US Senator doesn't really mean much when his foreign policy team is just as status quo ante as Clinton's is.

The reality is that while W. is a disaster in foreign policy, the mainstream foreign policy of the Democratic Party is pretty bad and only looks good by comparison. If I thought that any candidate offered a truly real and viable alternative on foreign policy, I'd back that candidate instantly. I don't, and so I'm undecided and leaning toward Edwards.

Oh, and I'm an Edwards supporter but this doesn't hurt. Kerry and Edwards were never a good match, and Kerry lost in large part because he didn't listen to Edwards, who wanted to hit back against the swiftboating. Kerry's got bad political instincts.

I also am pretty much resigned to an eventual Edwards defeat, so that takes the sting out anyway.

OA and RC-

I'm not going to engage you in a point for point examination of the Clinton record. Partially because many of the suppositions on which the article you site are not agreed upon facts, such as the success or failure of NAFTA.
Also because Cleve here did a better job than I ever could have.

I will reiterate that Bill has an 88% approval record with Democrats, and point out that you both are the tiny majority of those Democrats that think Bill was a bad president.

You may feel comfy here on the SLOG, where the commenting tends to be at the far left end of the Democratic spectrum, but the vast majority of Democrats disagree with your and alternet's arguments.

I see this as a negative for Obama. If Kerry had any real savvy or judgement, he'd be President; I think we all know that by now. Even more, it's hard to continue to talk about not being an insider the more endorsements you rack up from insiders.

The kiss of death... What's next, a Nader endorsement switch?

@ Big Sven,

I don't think Bill Clinton was a bad president, I'd say he was the least worst one we've had in awhile.

And it's really fine that you won't explain why a Hillary Clinton presidency would be good for the country, no one else will either.

You also seem to be taking the *perception is reality* position, meaning if everyone doesn't agree on the facts, then they simply don't exist. I guess that's fine, too.

Here's what I want: Universal, single-payer healthcare (which every other industrialized country has), peace instead of endless war, free or nearly free primary and secondary education, a progressive taxation system in which the rich and corporations pay their fair share, equal marriage rights for gay men and lesbians, protection from discrimination, real protection of the environment, and a sane, sustainable energy policy.

I'm well aware of the reality, though.
Today's "moderate" Democrats and Republicans are going to do everything they can to make sure none of those things ever happen.

You must be thrilled, congratulations.

The endorsements of Kerry and Will in Seattle are roughly equivalent...they deliver their own vote.