As the second-longest serving member in the Senate, I know the importance of experience in government. But as someone who entered the Senate at the age of 30, I want to reiterate what I said on Monday. Barack Obama has more than enough experience to handle the job. What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and our people.
Barack Obama’s ability to unify and inspire is a rare gift, and matters in politics because it allows a leader to get things done. It’s not enough to rally the base and push an agenda through. A leader like Barack can bridge the gaping divide in this country to bring Americans together in common purpose.
Even rarer — and more powerful — is the movement of inspired Americans powering the Obama campaign. This is proof to me that an Obama presidency will be a transformational moment for our country. I’ve endorsed a leader not only with tremendous intelligence and skill, but a leader who has the extraordinary ability to move our country past the politics of fear and personal destruction and make Americans want to be part of something bigger than themselves.
Two days ago I endorsed Barack Obama. But today I’m following that with an emphatic endorsement of a new generation in American politics. Across this country, there’s overwhelming turnout at the polls, unprecedented attention to the critical issues facing our nation and a growing conviction that our best days are still ahead. No matter who you support for president, I challenge you to accept the responsibilities of this new generation.
On Monday, I told Barack Obama he can rely on me. But the hope and promise of our nation relies on all of us.
speaking for just myself but hearing the voices of many disappointed women who are looking straight at you (whom we have helped elect time and again) and saying: Thanks for your opinion, but no thanks. You have come to the well one time too many times.
<
p>Senate President Therese Murray pegged both you and John Kerry correctly….you would choose (and ask others) to choose any new, less qualified guy on the block rather than the more qualified woman…what’s new? if you were endorsing your old friends Biden or Dodd, you could at least make a case on experience and long record of accomplishment, but that is not the case here at all.
<
p>Kerry’s endorsement was timed to put the shiv to John Edwards’ campaign before SC…imagine…trying to drive your former running mate into the ground…shame on his self-serving self.
<
p>Thanks for your advice. But, I’m stickin’ with the RFK wing of the clan…I’m stickin’ with the candidate best prepared to be president who just happens to be a woman. Hillary Clinton.
<
p>
First of all, who are you to be so rude to a guest poster?
<
p>Secondly, Hillary claims to have such a long record, from Yale Law School to Walmart’s Board of Directors to First Lady. Where are the RFK-like parts of it?
<
p>Post-feminism should hardly mean that women have to vote for the female candidate just b/c she’s a woman.
Who am I to speak truth to the power of 2 US Senators…me a nothing, lowly, citizen…how dare I be so rude to our guests!
A politically second rate woman…why don’t I accept my place in the heirarchy? How dumb-blonde of me! Sorry to offend.
make me tempted to vote McCain in a general election between him and Clinton.
<
p>You folks have GOT to come up with a better reason to vote for Sen. Clinton than
<
p>”It’s a woman’s turn!”
You’re an Obama guy. And it’s offensive to suggest that the only reason to vote for Senator Clinton is that she’s a woman. We’ve provided a legion of reasons…so cut the crap.
That’s why the above comment about Sen. Kennedy “not supporting women” is BS.
<
p>That’s why the NOW-NY press release today was total BS
<
p>That’s why Sen. President Murray’s comments yesterday were complete BS.
<
p>Hey, remember how it was MLK day not long ago? How maybe we ought to be judging by the content of one’s character? IF we judge on the merits, Sen. Clinton get ZERO bonus points for being female, just like Sen. Obama gets ZERO bonus points for being African-American.
<
p>This whole victim complex you people are promoting, “Oh no, everyone is picking on Sen. Clinton because she’s a woman!” is really disgusting. Grow up.
but a ton of women are talking about it, maybe you Obama boys ought to get sensitized …. you guys sound like the old He Man Women Haters Club.
Buck up, friend. This is not a victim complex. This is just women watching the same old, same old – and it’s getting old. It isn’t BS. It’s real. The Senator Murray hit it on the head and it’s resonating.
<
p>What part of the NOW-NY press release is inaccurate, Dave?
<
p>”hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills.”
<
p>It appears pretty accurate to me.
<
p>If you think it’s BS, then remember us when the pahty needs us once again to perform the yeoman’s duty we’ve done, lo these many years.
<
p>BS, indeed.
who the only two senators who tried to filibuster judge Alito’s confirmation were.
<
p>I’ll give you a hint. They’re both from MA.
I’m guessing you worked pretty hard to get Kerry Healey elected, no? Because after all, it’s about time this Commonwealth elected a woman governor. Since that’s the most important thing.
No – I didn’t help Kerry Healey because she doesn’t reflect my values.
<
p>It’s not about just any woman, Dave. It’s about a well-qualified, well-funded woman who is also very good on the issues. Is there a hair breadth of difference between Hillary and Barack? Yeah, yeah – the Iraq vote, for which Barack wasn’t even a member of Congress. Hillary had lots of company on that vote, and it’s not a deal-breaker for me, not with the compendium of lies that were fed to Congress. In fact – doesn’t Barack’s voting record track Hillary’s 69/70? Yeah.
<
p>If Ted had anything besides a tin-ear in this election, he would have stayed out of it. So….we’ll see what happens on Super Tuesday and beyond.
<
p>Yeah, yeah. You know, only the future of the world at stake here with these pesky votes. Can’t expect to get ’em ALL right….
If my comment is all it takes to have you vote for Republican John Iraq-for-100-years-anti-choice-pro-death-penalty-anti-wage floors for immigrant guest workers and American tradesmen-
McCain…then be my guest. That’ll show her who’s boss.
I’m seriously considering John McCain for many reasons. As it happens, I’m against an immediate pullout from Iraq, unless we can make sure somehow that the Shia and Sunni won’t just go even more genocidal on each other than they already have. I think we owe the people of Iraq AT LEAST that much. I also happen to be pro death penalty, so that part doesn’t bother me.
<
p>Sen. Clinton is clearly a strong and exceptionally qualified candidate. I don’t hear anybody denying that, least of all me. But I have a very hard time imagining myself supporting someone who has shown so little willingness over time to ever challenge the status quo. That is why she is not my favorite politician.
<
p>What I object to with you and Sen. Clinton’s other supporters is how casually you brand “anti-woman” or “woman-hater” or “chauvenist” to any Democrat who does not support your chosen candidate, as if it were SO CLEAR that she is the best choice, the only reason to vote against her would be because you’re a woman hater. How would you like it if I started calling you a “dumb racist hillbilly” for not supporting my candidate of choice in the Democratic primary, who happens to be African-American?
<
p>Just as you have reasons not to support Sen. Obama that have nothing to do with you being racist, I have reasons not the support Sen. Clinton that have nothing to do with wanting to keep women down.
<
p>So no, I don’t plan on voting for senator Clinton, not now, probably not in November, at least if McCain is the Republican nominee. Perhaps not ever. If, in your eyes, that makes me anti-woman, than so be it. I judge my leaders by their actions, not just their experience, and certainly not by their color or by their gender.
<
p>
You make some common and somewhat valid points. But I think you’re off on some, factually. Others I just have an opinion issue with. But it’s not a hatefull difference of opinion.
<
p>
<
p>Seriously? It seems to be quite common for people to pooh-pooh her experience, even on this site. They say being the wife of a governor and president and a short-term Senator doesn’t impress them.
<
p>
<
p>…because Hillary-care was a safe play that was widely endorsed and adopted?
<
p>I wouldn’t expect you to support Hillary because she is a woman. And I don’t think Hillary supporters do, either. But it’s a huge bonus for them.
<
p>I actually think African-Americans have faced the same situation and have some of the same feelings women do. Nobody ever says we can’t elect a woman because she’s a woman. And nobody ever says we can’t elect an African American because they’re an African American. We’re just supposed to accept the fact that no woman or African American has been the right candidate. Ever. Ever. Just a big coincidence. That’s what we’re supposed to believe.
<
p>And I believe there is a chance that’s the case. There just hasn’t been the right woman or African American that could become a candidate and win. Ever. Ever. But it makes me wonder when, any time a woman or African American gets mentioned, there is an endless string of stories carrying the “Is American ready to elect a woman/African American?” narrative. Wouldn’t the answer always be yes?
<
p>So I give a little more latitude to women and African Americans who you might think are looking for prejudice where none exists. Because in any given time and place it has never existed. Ever. Ever.
but this is completely deranged. Whatever problems you may have with Senator Clinton, she is infinitely better on a whole lot of important issues than Grampy McCain. McCain’s “maverick” shtick is largely an act — he is very, very conservative, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Sure, he’s more honest than other Republicans, which results in his occasionally departing from party orthodoxy. But that’s not much of a reason to vote for the guy for president. “Vote McCain — he doesn’t always lie!” Great.
<
p>You, jconway, and the other Clinton-haters on this site (and elsewhere) need to get it together. Clinton may well be the Democratic nominee. If she is, Democrats are going to have to pull themselves together and work hard to get her elected in order to keep this country from plunging into another 8 years of Republican-led darkness. I certainly intend to do that. I hope you do as well.
I also disagree with your characterization of me as a “Clinton hater”- while, as I’ve said, Sen. Clinton is not my favorite politician, I have nothing like the passionate dislike for her that you seem to suggest. I’ll admit I’m not very impressed with her record in the senate, but more because of what she hasn’t done than because of what she has (I was really dissapointed not to see her standing beside Sen. Dodd during the Habeaus corpus and FISA battles, and I wish she’d pushed harder for passage and to work out a compromise, like Kennedy, Obama and McCain, during the immigration bill meltdown this past summer).
<
p>I understand she’s been a very effective, attentive senator to New York. It’s what I hear, I have no reason to doubt it, but I dunno, because I don’t live there. What I do know is, on big, national issues, Sen. Clinton has been far more cautious than I would have liked. Her voting record as far as I know has been okay, save for the iraq war (yes, it’s a big deal) and a handful of others. She was talking big about abolishing the electoral college and switching American presidential elections to biggest-vote-getter-wins right after she joined the senate, but, so far as I know, never really pursued any action on it, which I thought was too bad.
<
p>I’m not a big fan of the centrist, DLCish positions Sen. Clinton has taken on economic issues as a senator. Actually, this was probably the thing about President Clinton, as well, that I liked the least…I wished he’d been more economically populist. Free trade brings growth, I know that, but, sadly, it also seems to bring greater inequality with it as well. I find this troubling, and I wonder if there isn’t some way to mitigate that awful side effect.
<
p>I’ve also been VERY turned off by the tone this Democratic race has taken since Iowa. Sen. Clinton seemed to me to go on the attack after losing Iowa, without much regard for truth. The Rezko like of attack I thought was particularly repulsing, since her whole accusation had been disproved in a NYT article from March of last year. I don’t like her sending Pres. Clinton to do her dirty work in South Carolina, so the two of them could play good-cop bad-cop. Race baiting for anyone is disgusting, and I DIDN’T see that coming back from Obama.
<
p>I see Clinton as a ‘meh’ senator, whose run a rather sleazy campaign lately. Hense my lack of enthusiasm. Obama and McCain have not run choirboy campaigns either, but I don’t see the same magnitude of slime coming out of either of their camps. As has been mentioned upthread, Sen. Clinton’s and Sen. Obama’s positions on most issues, and indeed their senate voting records, are very similar. But as far as I can tell, Obama has taken on much more of a leading role in forging compromises and making deals that actually move good legislation forward. I also like the positive, less-smarmy campaign he’s run. So, he’s my pick among the remaining Democrats.
<
p>As for McCain, I disagree with him on many things. I think it may be a bit overkill to describe him as ‘very, very conservative’, but i guess it’s in how you define it. The man is pro-cap and trade for greenhouse gasses, has spent a career leading the fight for campaign finance reform, wrote the amendment banning torture, opposed the Amendment banning gay marriage in his home state, and has been more willing than any other figure I can think of to call out his own party when he thinks there screwing something up. If he were ‘very, very conservative, you’d think he’d have been able to beat Romney, of all people, among the Republican vote in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. He won both, barely, only with the overwhelming support from independents.
<
p>Lastly, perhaps I misremember, but didn’t you vote for McCain in the 2000 primary, David. Maybe it’s someone else I’m thinking of, but I could have sworn…
I have not read any Obama supporter posts which explains why Barack Obama is better qualified to be President. All I hear is he has great oratory skills (see Lawrence Olivier) and repeats of the old Republican attacks on the Cliton Administration.
Let’s talk about what that means. Personally, I don’t think the job’s been finished yet; I think we may still be in feminism 101…but I’m happy to follow you where you think it goes. So – this “post” bit – does it mean that feminism has already achieved all of it’s goals?
<
p>Are women making a buck for every buck that men make? Nope.
<
p>Does our elected government accurately represent the percentage of women in our communities? Nope. Not. by. a. longshot.
<
p>Healthcare for all? nope.
<
p>Affordable childcare? nope.
<
p>Respect? Well, Susan Fargo felt like it was NECESSARY in 2008 to write legislation allowing women to breastfeed in public. Hillary has been pilloried for her looks…and yet, guys with a face that could make gorilla cookies get a pass. So, nope.
<
p>Reproductive rights? Backsliding….
<
p>So, please – explain the post-feminism bit, because if you think it ended with our bra-burning, marching sisters – then you’ve missed the whole point.
<
p>
I think this was just a reference to the fact that three of his children (RFK Jr., Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and Kerry Kennedy Cuomo) have endorsed HRC. Senator Kennedy (son Patrick also?) and Caroline have endorsed Obama.
I am sure it makes you feel better, but if you think that this kind of rhetoric is going to bring undecided voters to your side, I think you are very much mistaken.
<
p>
Come on Kev, let’s be honest…any comment that does not support Obama turns you off…that’s okay, he’s your guy.
David was the last hold-out…he, too, is now a “decided”
<
p>.
It’s just possible that not everyone who reads, comments and/or posts here automatically falls in line behind the Editors.
God dammit!! What is the point of running this blog if people don’t do our bidding?? 😉
…I guess I thought you were all in it for the money, power, and women.
I am only leaning to Obama at this point. I do not at all think that Obama is the perfect candidate and have many concerns regarding both of the remaining candidates. I have absolutely no problem with reading critical comments.
<
p>I meant what I said. I find that the tone of your rhetoric turns me off. Specifically, your tone was condescending and disrespectful of Senator Kennedy. It was more about tearing down Kennedy, Kerry and Obama than it was about lifting up Clinton.
<
p>I hate this rhetoric just as much when it comes from supporters of Obama or Edwards.
<
p>Why can’t you just say something like: “thanks for your opinion Senator, but to me Hillary Clinton is the person with the energy and new ideas….”.
<
p>
are part of your strategy and it’s damned condescending. You were never a Hillary fan and would love nothing better than for the girls to shut up about Ted. You don’t want to hear that anyone could possibly be disappointed in this endorsement. You want everyone to drink the Koolaid. The only issue is that some of us aren’t drinking. I’d rather be “mistaken” than stay silent about what this is.
rest assured, you are not alone.
I think Hillary is a good candidates with many great qualities. I think she could make a great president. I think Obama could make great president as well. I am still undecided about how I will vote on tuesday, but am leaning to Obama.
<
p>I have no problem with people being disappointed with the endorsement. That’s fine. But please don’t tell me Hillary Clinton was entitled to the endorsement. She was not.
<
p>I also fail to see what is condescending about stating that the comment turns me off. Am I somehow implying that I am superior in some way? I suppose I might be a tiny bit presumptuous in assuming that others might be turned off by it as well, but I don’t think I am alone.
<
p>
But I am mad, as are a lot of other women, that he endorsed Barck Obama because Hillary Clinton is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama by any measure. She worked as a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund right out of law school, she worked on an important congressional staff having to do with the impeachment of Richard Nizon, she was a law professor, she practiced law for a number of years in Arkansas while serving as first lady of Arkansas, she was instrumental in ensuring that major changes were enacted to the Arkansas educational system, she was First Lady of the United States for eight years, and she has been in the Senate for seven years.
<
p>BTW, anyone who thinks that being First Lady does not count as experience for being president does not understand what Hillary Clinton did while she was First Lady, including how she was essentially an ambassador for the United States around the world. In Hillary Clinton’s case having been First Lady matters even more because she had to endure, along with her husband, a Republican attack machine the likes of which this country has never seen before. She also put together and presented to Congress a major piece of health care legislation. Yes, it failed, but she learned from that experience what not to do next time she presents such a proposal as president. Quite frankly, discounting Hillary Clinton’s experience as First Lady is sexist. And if you do not think it is, then please explain what experience Barack Obama has that comes anywhere close to the experience Hillary Clinton had as First Lady.
<
p>What Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, do not understand is that, for many women, they have acted like a lot of other men women have had to deal with over the course of their lives. Those men who decide to promote or hire the man who has less qualifications instead of promoting or hiring the woman who has far more. They both should not have endorsed anyone.
I could give you more than a six.
Damned straight, HL. Your comment is not “worthless” as deemed by some Obama supporter, but reflective of what many women are feeling right now. I am very disappointed in Ted, but not surprised. There’s nothing new under the sun with this endorsement; the good old boys have done it again. And counting on the John Edwards votes before they hatch is a great idea. Please – keep it up.
I’m with Clinton, but I’ll always be with Kennedy, and anyone who watched that speech knows that he spoke from the heart. The easy thing to do was nothing. He’s Ted Kennedy. But he did it, and I give him credit, even if it wasn’t for my candidate. Do you really want to open up a discussion of why women don’t support other women in recent contests. Do you HL?
In any contest, this or any other contest, I have absolutely no problem with women choosing a male candidate over a female candidate IF the criteria for selection is founded on who is best qualified to do the job being sought.
<
p>What Sen. President Therese Murray was saying was that in her opinion the Kennedy-Kerry endorsements of Obama did not meet that criteria. While Kennedy and Kerry have every right to endorse whomever they want for whatever reason they choose, in this case, I have to agree with Therese Murray.
<
p>As for women being required to support any women candidate…Knee-jerk, lock-step voting whether based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or geography has always seemed silly to me, although, I am aware that many people do just that…I think candidates should bring more than that to the table and voters should demand that they do…
<
p>Like you, scott from belmont, I have held many a sign for many a Kennedy and appreciate the advantages Ted, in particular, has brought to Massachusetts over the years. But, in this primary election, we disagree not on the gender or the race, but on the criteria for selection.
Why should it be anyone else’s.
<
p>Clearly if someone is not qualified, that would be a huge problem.
<
p>My critera is who I believe would fight for working families and address the growing inequality in the nation.
<
p>The candidate I felt was best qualified for that dropped out yesterday. I feel uneasy about the remaining candidates, but I support Obama over Clinton. Mainly because I distrust Clinton more than Obama. But if she wins the nomination, she will be the candidate I trust the most.
<
p>You are taking your critera, your evaluation of it and assuming it is a given. There are many democrats, progressive & conservative, men & women, etc who are on both sides of this nomination process. Maxine Waters endorsed Clinton, Janet Napolitano endorsed Obama.
<
p>It is not automatically wrong because some has a differing opinion.
and my first choice was gone after Iowa…now I am left with a choice (and my own personal criteria for making it)…but, Clinton gets my nod.
Do you get to set the criteria? Or do I? I think we should let Senator Kennedy set his, you set yours. I’ll set mine. Mine in this instance is for Senator Clinton. Under your criteria, of strict experience, it would have been for Biden, or Dodd, or Richardson. But as it was not, it seems to me OK to question your challenge to Senator Kennedy, who has been clear in his choice, and it should be repected, even if we aren’t happy about it. There is also no need to be coy about identifying me, as “Scott in Belmont” repeatedly. If you look at my thread, it will be clear that I sign every post where I’m working for a candidate that pay me, and I wish everyone did the same on this post, but that doesn’t happen, alas, does it HL?
I stated and believe…”While Kennedy and Kerry have every right to endorse whomever they want for whatever reason they choose, in this case,…” and clearly, Sen. Kennedy has set his own criteria.
<
p>I have no idea who your paying clients are…I have no presidential client paying me or I would say so…in this election year, it frees me to have a personal opinion here…and in every post i have been quite clear about whom I was supporting.
<
p>I addressed you as “scott in belmont” because that is the name you signed your post with…and I was specifically addressing the points you had previously made….I will tell “helen” you were asking for her.
I haven’t missed anything, except of course Helen, so thank you for passing on my best wishes. What I am missing is a consistency here, and I’m not refering to anyones paying clients. However, where was the outrage over Emily’s list’s endorsement, and in fact, huge financial attack of a more qualified woman candidate in the 5th congressional race? Will you put Emily’s List in Ted Kennedy’s category?
Caroline Kennedy was up there too… she must also hate women.
The worst thing we can do is lose focus of the end result. Democrats have the momentum, I hope that everyone debates the issues and come out to vote, but have a clear candidate after Super Tuesday. Then we can unite and push for a Democrat for POTUS whoever that would be.
but, in the meantime, that awful democratically in-between time, women have the right to point out the hypocrisy of certain elected officials…if we don’t, they will think they got away with it yet again.
If it’s an issue it should be discussed. I just hope it ends sooner rather than later. The last thing we need is to battle this thing out to the end and lose voters in the process. That’s why I hate Hillary bashing. Hey, if someone has an issue bring it up, no problem. Obama’s statements and some of his issues are bit too much to the right for my tastes, but hey, they sure are left of McCain (only by a modest amount in health care though). I’d rather flush out McCain’s positions and how they are wrong for our country than the Obama/Hillary back and forth.
Why not be a man who has the courage of his convictions and announce that this will be your last term in the Senate because you want to make way for a new generation of Americans?
This guy has his big butt in a Senate seat for forty years and bases his endorsement on:
<
p>”We need new energy. We need someone who can bring people together. People are basically saying that they want to new day and a new generation.”
<
p>Excellent. After 40 years, it’s long past time for “new energy” and “change” in the Senate. Move it, Dino-boy!
I know an awful lot of conservative-leaning women who are planning to vote for HRC, for reasons articulated above– even those reasons may sound “shrill.”. Which always makes me scrath my head when I hear about Obama’s cross-over appeal.
<
p>Anyway, it should be a Democratic year, because the GOP deserves a trip to the woodshed and a time in the wilderness. (It pains me to say this, because I do really like McCain, who seems likely to be the nominee.) Either of the leading Democratic candidates would be an improvement over the present occupant of the White House.
<
p>Since McCain is now in the catbird seat, Democrats ought to hope that somebody wins– Hillary or Obama– on Tuesday, if only to put an end to the intramural knife fight.
Here in Massachusetts, the Kennedy endorsement may carry some weight, but nationwide, the endorsement is deadweight or at best irrelevant. National bookmakers still have Hillary as the odds on favorite.
<
p>FWIW, my opinion for the D nonminee:
<
p>
An entire legion of Carvilles and Blumenthals awaits them. Oh, I’m afraid the Clinton Magic will be quite operational when election day arrives.
<
p>/nerd
Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve created…
That thing’s operational!!
are issues notably absent from the manufactured “debate”.
Change!!!!!!
Ya, CHANGE means you, American citizen stand to loose 1/4 of your purchasing power with the new Amero. Even more when you add the global carbon tax to support more development in China’s industrial base.
Bildeburg owns the world.