Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. Obama’s toast now.

    <

    p>Just kidding. Actually, hopefully this will help Obama win in MA, where he needs to positively cream Clinton if he’s going to take the nomination. He needs to get like a 4-1 ratio of delegates here and CT and places like that in order to counter Clinton’s count in NY/NJ and such.

    <

    p>Speaking of which, does anybody know where I can find a good delegate map (a map of the Feb 5th states and how many delegates are in each district)?

    • I know a lot of people who would have worked hard for him who are going sit this one out because of his endorsement of Obama.  Maybe he thinks his Senate seat is safe, but I am so disgusted that he did this. Maybe Kerry really means what he says about a new beginning in politics and he will decide not to run for re-election.  Hey John, be a man of your convictions, step aside so someone new can have a chance, and I do not mean your current opponent,

    • Don’t think a Kerry endorsement by itself is all that meaningful unless the MSM makes a big deal out of it. It could help here in MA, of course, especially in terms of ground organization.

    • There’s no love lost between Kerry and Edwards.  According to Bob Shrum’s “Concessions of a Serial Campaigner,” Kerry and Edwards had a really icy relationship after ’04.  When Kerry chose him for the ticket, Kerry made him promise that if they lost, Edwards wouldn’t run against him in ’08.  Of course, as soon as the election was over, Edwards started paving the way for ’08 without consideration for what Kerry would do.  And it’s fair to say they gave his performace as vice-presidential candidate mixed reviews.

      <

      p>He’s also on record with Shrum as saying that the Clintons are all about the Clintons, and that she probably couldn’t beat McCain in the general election.  So, really, the Obama endorsement isn’t all that shocking.

  3. I wonder who Ted will endorse.  The reason I think that would be interesting is that Ted and Hillary have been the ones most active in getting $’s for health care initiatives.  Not sure if they have written or cosponsored anything, but both have been the ones getting money for CPOE, EMR, etc.  It goes towards the “what have you done” and “change” themes that have been talking about at length.  If he goes with Obama, at least for me, it will be a factor.

  4. Why would he announce this at a state he lost twice, and not a week ago before NH, where he won twice??

  5. Just how strong is the Kerry organization in Massachusetts? He hasn’t run a truly contested race here since 1996, the bid for the White House notwithstanding. I tend to think Sen. Kennedy’s endorsement is the bigger deal in this state. Actually, I’m sensing a lot of apathy toward Sen. Kerry here in the Commonwealth. Combine that with the overall disappointment in Governor Patrick’s first year in office and Sen. Obama may have a real fight on his hands in Massachusetts come February 5th. We’ve all learned a lesson in what happens when you underestimate Hillary Clinton.  

    • It already penciled in the win column for her on Super Tuesday.  As we all know, a lot can happen until then, but at this point an Obama win will be an upset.

  6. We may have just seen the Mass Primary for all candidates. But seriously it is unlikely that much will go on here except the tarmac campaigns like NY, CA, IL. People will fly in, have a rally, raise some money and talk to the media. The turnout will be huge for a Mass Presidential Primary. I could be wrong because of the fact it will be competitive and some like NY, IL probably won’t be.

    <

    p>I can not imagine what would possess Sen. Kennedy to endorse in this race. The party needs some elder statespeople to stand above the fray and help pull the party together after what could be a bruising fight. Sen. Kennedy has a huge role to play particularly if the contest becomes a liberal v. moderate fight (Edwards/Obama camps v. Clinton camp for those needing a scorecard).

    <

    p>And Gail Collins was really funny in Today’s NY Times.

    • Do you really think Obama is a “liberal,” as opposed to Clinton’s being a “moderate”?  If so, what’s your basis for saying that?

      • since the two’s policy positions are really pretty similar. Nevertheless, I’ve heard this from many others as well — that Obama is a “liberal” and Clinton a “moderate”.

        <

        p>The only explanation seems to be based on who are each’s core supporters — younger and more affluent voters for Obama, and working-class voters for Clinton. I guess the assumption is that the former are more liberal and the latter more conservative?

      • Last week I heard someone calling Barry Goldwater Jr a liberal …
        Guess times have changed more than we thought …

  7. Here’s why:

    <

    p>He is up for reelection this year but has no “organization” to speak of.  Thus, he needs the MassDems to work for him.  But, the MassDems are completely controlled by Deval’s people.  Supporting Obama helps Deval, so This way, Deval will tell John Walsh to put together an organization for Kerry/Dem Nominee this November, as opposed to just working for the Dem Nominee.  Presto, now Kerry has an organization.

    <

    p>Plus, had Kerry endorsed last week, we’d all be talking about how much of a curse and an albatross he is.

    <

    p>All in all, a good move at a good time.

    <

    p>p.s. – is there anyone even announced as a GOP, Green, independent or other candidate running against Kerry?  I know about the Dem challenger, but anyone else out there?

    • He has disappointed a lot of people. BTW, the so-called MassDems who you say “are completely controlled by Deval’s people” were many of the people who went to Massachusetts to help Hillary Clinton and who made it possible for her to win.      

        • And judging by the postings here on BMG, there were also Devalites who worked for Edwards.  Don’t be so sure Massachusetts Dems are all for HRC.

          <

          p>Someone on NPR was speculating that Kerry’s timing (waiting until after New Hampshire) was directed at Edwards – e.g. “OK, John, you’ve had a shot and you aren’t winning – time to bow to reality and get out.”  Makes as much sense as anything else I’ve heard.

          • Judging by the endorsements on the top of this page, and the comments in general, it actually looks to me like Senator Clinton hardly has a lock on the sympathies of Massachusetts Democrats. In fact, I’d say that right now BMG readers, who as far as I can tell mostly vote Democratic, overwhelmingly favor Edwards, followed by Obama, followed by Clinton.

            • I did not say that Sen. Clinton had a lock on Massachusetts Democrats. I was simply responding to the poster who said that Deval Patrick controlled Mass Dems.  He does not. He and, I guess, Kerry may think he does, but he does not.  

          • The posting I was responding to said that Mass Dems are controlled by Deval Patrick.  If that were true, then it is logical to assume the person who made that statement thinks that all Mass Dems support Obama since Deval Patrick supports Obama.  My reply was in response to that incorrect assumption.  I did not say, nor do I think,  that all Mass Dems are all for HRC. I also know that Deval Patrick does not control all Mass Dems.    

            • Open,

              <

              p>Great points.  It will be interesting to see how things play out in 3 weeks and if there’s any “party” activity that day for Kerry.

              <

              p>Regardless of all of this, I am confident that people active in party politics will be active for the Dem nominee this fall, whoever it is.  I wonder if it will be worthwhile for Mass Dems to spend time in NH this fall, working to ensure that state goes in our corner.  I don’t anticipate Mass. going GOP, even if Mitt is the nominee.

  9. Based upon nothing, I think Kennedy is with Clinton but smart enough to recognize an endorsement will hurt her in the south.  Kerry, apparently not smart enough to recognize that half of America voted for him because he wasn’t George Bush, not because they liked him.

  10. If you like Obama, this is someone with experience adding legitimacy to a candidate with a paucity of the stuff.  If you don’t like Obama, this is a personification of the privilege and coldness of the system standing for a man who proclaims his desire to vastly change it.

    • Biden, Dodd and Richardson could play the experience card with some justice.  Coming from Edwards or Clinton, it’s just spin. Obama’s held political office longer than either Edwards or Clinton, and he’s the only one of the three who has held office at both the state and national levels.  
       

      • another is to point out the tremendous experience HRC gained as first lady, and the tremendous experience WJC has which will come with her to the White House.

        <

        p>Of the “Big 3”, there’s no question in my mind that HRC has the widest and deepest experience in government, and has the most experienced team around her.  That may not be what any given voter values most, but I think it’s a tough argument to claim that Obama’s government experience is wider or deeper than H Clinton’s.

        • Need to think about how they’d regard Laura Bush running for president, or Nancy Reagan. Do you still feel the same?  If not, then I’d argue that you are valuing something else about candidate HRC than her experience as first lady.

          <

          p>My spouse has worked in the human services for 20 years.  We talk, I sometimes attend an event with her, and as a result I have some insight into the field.  But I wouldn’t because of this try to claim human service experience on my resume.

          <

          p>I should add that although I’m not supporting HRC in the primaries, I respect her, and I’ve donated to her Senate campaign in the past.  I’m not saying she’s not qualified to run, or that the experience of being first lady is worthless, or that having her husband’s advice isn’t a nice plus.  I’m just saying that the experience line is a campaign tactic, not what really differentiates these candidates.

          • I wrote HRC.  The experience she gained as first lady.  Not the default re-decorating the second floor of the White House and choosing some feel-good issue like “Just Say No” or literacy.  HRC did real work — diplomacy, health care, etc.

            <

            p>There’s no evidence that Bush or Reagan did much more than smile for the cameras and behave like ladies of the 19th century.  HRC was a 21st century woman ahead of her time while serving as first lady.

          • Laura Bush was a librarian. Nancy Reagan was a B-movie actress. Both have/had considerable influence in spite of the fact that they have/had never run for or held public office. Nancy even told Ron whom he needed to fire on his staff.

            <

            p>Hillary Clinton earned a BA and a law degree, she worked as an advocate for the Children’s Defense Fund and practiced law. She was elected to the United States Senate from the state of New York twice. She is in her 9th year in the Senate and has moved key legislation on the Armed Services Committee. She has worked with Dems and Reps alike that got children’s health coverage for thousands and thousands of uninsured kids.

            <

            p>In this field now, that would be more than enough to be experience-competitive, knowledge-competitive and qualification-competitive…but she also brings the unique experience of having been in the White House for 8 years as the wife of the President of the United States…unlike poor Pat Nixon who was left to chain-smoke in a closet, Hillary Clinton was clearly in the know and part of the conversation on policy. She traveled the world and had the opportunity to meet, listen to and size up many world leaders and she doesn’t need a briefing book to know whom she is talking about.

            <

            p>And on the day after the next Inauguration, (the day after CHANGE has come no matter who is elected because Bush will be gone)…on that day, if the new president gets a message to head for the Situation Room in the basement because a crisis has erupted, that’s the day that the “inconvenient experience thing” will be most important to me.

            <

            p>That’s why I was for Biden. That’s why I could have enthusiastically supported Dodd or Richardson as second choices. But, given those options are not options now, I will be with Hillary.

            <

            p>On a domestic issue, she knows what a PLA is and will make her first Executive Order to reverse Bush’s first Executive Order…she is committed to that as no other candidate will.

            • And what’s that got to do with the Office of Faith-based Initiatives (which, by the way, I think nearly all the Democratic candidates — not just Clinton — would agree should be eliminated)?

  11. How Kerry of John Kerry to endorse Obama AFTER the primary in neighboring NH…oh, the political courage of the man…publicly dissing his running mate John Edwards in NH may have shifted enough votes to Obama to carry the day, but no, he waits for a less crowded stage. (Kerry calculation: why stand with Deval crushed in the crowd near the rope line when I can have my own national moment next week?)

    <

    p>How Kerry of John Kerry to turn on John and Elizabeth Edwards who worked, some would say harder than he did, for Kerry’s presidential election and had to suffer the same consequences for Kerry’s failed and flawed candidacy. (Kerry calculation: I never liked them anyway and they are old news, no use to me now.)

    <

    p>How Kerry of John Kerry to think his endorsement can convert his “Huge national email data base” into instant support for Sen. Obama. (Truth of the matter: that database is filled with names of people who were stuck supporting the party nominee, swallowed hard when they voted, and blame Kerry for his inability to defeat a very beatable Bush…with $15 mil of their donations left in the till when it was over.)

    <

    p>The timing of this endorsement from Axelrod’s perspective is to get Edwards out of the race as soon as possible…ASAP, because he is getting in the way now. (Kerry’s attempt to deliver a Kennedy-esque endorsement speech was lame, but the big hug made the news and the message was delivered: DUMP EDWARDS)

    <

    p>Thursday night, reporter turned WBZ talk jock Dan Rea claimed that Kerry’s endorsement was a great thing for Obama because Kerry was a titular head of the Party and his opinion counted quite a bit with Dems across the country (Dan should try to get out of the soundproof booth more often)…in the next breath, Rea told a caller that the reason he does NOT like Hillary Clinton (and takes every opportunity to make that clear) is because she is so “ambitious, cold, calculating” and “she has lusted after the White House since she was in high school!”  Sound like anybody else Dan might know?

  12. Can’t speak for the other 2,999,999 supposedly on Kerry’s email list. Contrary to the AP report per Kerry aides, however, my being on the list doesn’t make me a supporter.  

    <

    p>I understand Kerry’s non-presence in the Commonwealth during 2004.  But, during Kerry’s ’02 Senate run, did anyone see hide or hair of him in the Pioneer Valley, my home, or elsewhere west of the Quabbin?  I did not.  And did anyone else feel somewhat taken for granted?

    <

    p>So, now I wonder:  Without challenger Ed O’Reilly in the 2008 Senate race, would Kerry have endorsed the charismatic & super-newsworthy Obama, even after the New Hampshire primary, or indeed shown up at yesterday’s Berkshire Brigades sustainable energy fest? (It’s so far from Boston!)  

    <

    p>One of those deep philosophical questions, no doubt.    

Archives