This has the feel of a landslide of support away from Clinton to Obama. Aside from the endorsement of Senator Clinton by Representatives McGovern and Frank, have there been any significant Clinton endorsements in the past few days? Please, enlighten me in the comments if I have missed some.
With hundreds of thousands of ballots cast across the country, for the first time in MoveOn’s history, we’ve voted together to endorse a presidential candidate in the primary. That candidate is Barack Obama.
Something big is clearly happening. A few weeks ago, MoveOn members we surveyed were split. But with John Edwards bowing out, progressives are coming together. Obama won over 70% of the vote yesterday, and he’s moving up in polls nationwide.1 As comments poured in from MoveOn members across the country, the sense of hope was inspiring.
i don’t know, but i’m guessing that a fair slice of moveon.org’s membership comes from the same demographics that already support Obama: wealthier not-so-old white people. if that is the case, then this is sort of a re-endorsement by people who already have endorsed him with primary votes (or will in the next week). if this is not the case, i think moveon.org and/or Pbama would be trumpeting his support from whatever ‘new’ demographic moveon represents. since i see non of that, i assume the former is the case.
And consider what they say about the change in recent week. That’s why I wrote, “this has the feel of a landslide.” Their term is, “Something big is clearly happening.”
<
p>Personally, I think the deceptive Karl Rove-esque politics that Clinton has been playing — especially in South Carolina — have alienated millions of people, and simultaneously reminded millions of others about Senator Clinton’s sky-high negatives with tens of millions of people. Thus, they are swinging to Obama.
<
p>Maybe it is mostly former Edwards supporters, but I doubt it.
what do i think? well, since i don’t know the inner machinations of the org, i can only guess that something like one of the following is the case:
– they think they’re solid enough now as an org to endorse without driving away too many of their dissenting members.
– they think it is politically feasible to endorse this year, whereas in other years it was not.
– they’ve been sucked into the Obama cult and can’t help themselves. đŸ˜‰
Especially.
“they think” is hard to apply here. It’s not simply a strategic decision made by a few people, it’s a matter of context and circumstance.
<
p>In the last cycle, MoveOn held an endorsement vote with a 50% threshold. Howard Dean came close (something around 44%) IIRC but nobody got 50%. The campaign never narrowed down to just two candidates, and even after Howard Dean dropped out, Edwards and Kucinich were still in – and Kucinich had received a significant percentage in the earlier endorsement vote. Regardless of what MoveOn’s organizers might have thought, it had to be clear to them that their membership had no consensus, and that the one candidate who their membership might have coalesced around was out of the race.
<
p>In this cycle, MoveOn held some earlier straw polls, so they had some idea which ways their membership was leaning. They could see that with the campaign narrowed down to just Clinton and Obama, there was a chance of a strong consensus. So, to test that out without risking a harmful division, they held and endorsement vote with a 66% threshold. Of the more than quarter million votes cast, Obama got over 70%, and Clinton got under 30%.
<
p>This was membership driven.
<
p>I have to say that I am surprised. I was sure Obama would get a majority, but I was not so sure he’d get a large enough majority to pass the threshold, and as it turns out he beat it comfortably.
<
p>However, the value of this endorsement is now whether it’s surprising or not. MoveOn is not a person. It’s a large organization with a lot of resources, able to open up field offices quickly, make hundreds of thousands of phone calls, raise millions of dollars, run a lot of ads, etc. Even if everyone could have expected it (which I think is far from true), it’s still a very valuable endorsement that will make a difference.
I was interested in what some of the MoveOn members said:
<
p>This woman speaks to the large numbers of new and young voters who have come into the process inspired by Obama
Liz B., New York
<
p>This woman speaks to Obama’s appeal to the usual Republican constituency as well as inspiring hard-core Democrats
Desirina B., Georgia
campaign for Hillary if McCain is the GOP nominee, so there’s one that you may have missed. Say what you will, that’s a fairly significant endorsement.
<
p>Strange times.
FWIW she did say that Clinton was more conservative than McCain on everything including terrorism. Hannity and Colmes objected only on the latter. That exchange didn’t sound too snarky.
make of it, and I certainly don’t trust Coulter’s motives. I get that the Neo-Fascist wing of the GOP doesn’t like McCain, but he’s likely the GOP nominee, so her choosing Hillary over McCain just seems bizarre. Maybe it’s a Hail Mary for Mitt, but that’s a reach.
I frequently don’t understand wingnut “logic”, and this is one of those times.
Right here
of colter’s endorsement. something along the lines of ‘dems for romney’. đŸ™‚
more like the visceral hatred that many Rs have for McCain.
I skimmed the thread so far to make sure someone didn’t mention this, but I think it’s significant to mention that MoveOn was not going to make an endorsement unless a majority thought they should; and after that happened, not unless a candidate got a two-thirds majority of voting members.
<
p>Although there were a lot of Dean people among MoveOn folks in 2004, I don’t remember an endorsement or whether they went through the same process.
<
p>This is huge, IMHO.
…U.S. Senator Patty Murray of Washington, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters of California.
<
p>I know that you are wishing and hoping for a “landslide of support away from Clinton to Obama”, but don’t count on it just yet.
<
p>By the way, Blue Mass Group has the feel of BarackObama.com these days…
Maria Cantwell also endorsed Clinton some time ago. Gov Gregoir will give an endorsement before the 2/9 caucus. I’ve no clue which way she is leaning.
Yes, we’ve all now endorsed the same guy, after splitting three ways in the early going. But did I not front-page Barney Frank’s and Jim McGovern’s missive backing Hillary Clinton? And the post about Obama talking up Rumsfeld in 2001? If you think we’re being unfair to Clinton, let’s hear some specifics, but I don’t think you can make the case.
David has been more than fair, he doesn’t have to be but he is. My feeling that it’s their blog and they can do whatever the hell they want. We decide to come here. I did post Maxine Waters endorsement that was not front paged, but all endorsements are not FP’ed, we shouldn’t have that expectation.
Were you around for the 2006 election? The site “had the feel of DevalPatrick.com” then about as much as it “has the feel of BarackObama.com” now, because the Editors had all endorsed the same candidate, and made no pretense of being “impartial” in that sense — but then, like now, they were perfectly willing to front-page, recommend, and discuss posts critical of Patrick or in favor of his opponents. Healey supporters probably didn’t feel very welcomed at times, true, though you’d do better to check with Peter Porcupine than me for the scoop on that; but I don’t recall anyone being silenced or shouted down for preferring Chris Gabrieli or Tom Reilly, or even Christy Mihos or Grace Ross.
But it’s actually BarackObama.cult
<
p>I’ll be signing up next Tuesday.
<
p>Say it now: Yes.We.Can!
For much of last year, BMG was a cold and lonely place for Obama supporters.
Davids endorsement was very tepid and he has been incredibly critical of Obama throughout, so much so that his endorsement came as a huge shock since I had assumed he was leaning towards Hillary. There are plenty of vocal Hillary supporters and I would say there the individual members as well as the editors are a lot more critical of Obama than they were of Deval.
<
p>All of them were early enthusiastic Patrick backers. As we all know Charley really liked Edwards, David endorsed Dodd before he became inviable, and Bob shocked me by swallowing the Kool-Aid for the Obama campaign. So I say this with my Obama blinders on but it seems that they have been fair and balanced, and definitely more so than in 2006.
Seeing Bill ‘n Hill in their full win-at-any-cost race-baiting regalia was just too much to deal with for many people. I suspect that many folks – the Kennedys, MoveOn, and so forth, who might of otherwise held their tongue, decided that they had to do something to try to change the outcome.
and I’ll say it every time someone brings up that canard. Did you see today that Obama said he’d have credibility in the Muslim world because of his background? How much vitriol was heaped on Bob Kerrey for saying the same thing? The Obama campaign has been incredibly sensitive. I guess it works for them since everyone’s parroting the “race baiting” meme, but it disgusts me. Accusing someone of racism is the worst thing you can do in Democratic politics, and the Clintons have done too much to deserve this kindd of slime. The Obama campaign wants to own the discussion of race, and dictate when and where it can be used. Obama supporters can kep bringing up things from Hillary’s past to point out why she’s unelectable, but let anyone point to something in Obama’s past and they’re racist. I happen to think there was nothing wrong with Billy Shaheen saying Republicans will paint Obama’s drug use in the worst possible way. But to even bring it up makes him a racist and the Clinton campaign a slime machine. Yet I see constant references to why Hillary is unelectable, with a laundry list of reasons why andwhat the Republicans will say about her. But as long as those reasons don’t have anything to do with race, they’re acceptable.
<
p>The fact is, in South Carolina, 85 percent of blacks voted for Obama and 75 percent of whites voted against him. This doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with Obama, but why is this the only demographic breakdown we’re not allowed to dicuss? Is Obama now going to go and win every primary by the same margins as South Carolina? If not, why? Is there anything about the profile of South Carolina voters that might lead to him enjoying such huge margins? Nothing we’re allowed to discuss. Actually, we’re allowed to discuss it. Only Bill Clinton isn’t. The huge margin Obama enjoyed in South Carolina gave him tremendous momentum. But if Bill Clinton tries to put it in perspective, he’s a racist. This is despicable politics, and certainly a far sight worse than saying someone liked Reagan or that the Florida delegation should be seated.
<
p>I think Obama’s racial politics are much more Rovian than anything the Clintons have done.
Clinton’s comments about Jesse Jackson’s wins in 84 and 88 were way, way more than trying to “put it in perspective.” He knows full well that the SC caucuses (and they were caucuses, not primaries) in the 1980s were basically afterthoughts — SC did not at that time have its currently favored position in the primary cycle, and the nomination in both cases was pretty much decided by the time the SC caucuses rolled around. More info.
<
p>In other words, Bill Clinton is far too savvy a politician not to realize that the 2008 SC primary has pretty much no relation to the 1984 and 1988 SC caucuses. Yet he made the comparison without any caveat, obviously to plant the idea of Obama as “the black candidate.” That’s nasty business, and Bill (and Hillary, by unavoidable association) has been justly criticized for it. If Bill’s stupid statements cost Hillary the nomination, it’s his own damn fault.
I finally saw a clip of Bill Clinton making those comments and he made no reference to race either implicit or explicit. He was simply pointing out that another candidate had won SC, but did not get the nomination. In other words, the state is not make-or-break. If I did not know that Jesse Jackson is black, nothing Clinton said would have enlightened me to that fact.
<
p>I also think we over-analyze the racial breakdown. Just because I happen to be a white Hillary supporter does not mean I would not vote for Obama if he is the nominee. It certainly does not make me racist. People have their preferences and I hope they are more “for” a candidate rather than “against” another.
So he just happened to pick the one black candidate that had won SC rather than any other (white) candidates that have won SC but lost the nomination such as – oh, I don’t know – John Edwards in 2004? If all he was pointing to is the fact that you can win SC but lose the nomination, it would make a lot more sense to go with the most recent example rather than pick the only examples of a black man winning.
<
p>And if you didn’t know that Jesse Jackson was black …?! Are you serious? He’s only one of the most influential black leaders in the US. Pretending that most people don’t know who he is assinine.
It’s tough to imagine why the most controversial (thanks, media!) person in the 2008 race would not pick Edwards just as his campaign is fading out. After all, since 1980 the people who won SC and lost the nomination are Edwards and Jesse Jackson. Could it be because it was by then clear that Edwards’ supporters may well decide the nomination, and its the most delicate type of seduction to bring them over?
<
p>No, it’s because the Clintons are racist.
Just that Bill is a smart enough guy to understand the implications of what he was saying.
<
p>FWIW, you won’t find many bigger Bill Clinton fans than me. And I think Hillary would make a GREAT president (just happen to think Barack would make a better one). But that doesn’t mean that I can’t see when Bill is playing politics.
<
p>There are certainly a good number of voters out there that are still worried about whether a black man can win. Bill’s statement played to that line of thinking. But that doesn’t make him racist (IMHO), just ruthless, which has long proven to be a useful trait in elections.
<
p>And as for Bill being America’s first black president … c’mon. With all due respect to Toni Morrison, Bill’s not black.
Of course I know he’s black and I certainly would expect others to know it. However, Clinton did NOT say, “A black guy won before so it doesn’t matter.” Some people are so sensitive and assume that any criticism of someone who is black automatically is because he is black. Let’s leave race out of this and talk about the merits. The implication that the “first black President” is racist is ridiculous!
I’m sorry that I didn’t put quotes around the statement, but with the exception of changing “I” to “you” and a tense change, I quoted you word for word.
<
p>You wrote:
<
p>
<
p>I wrote:
<
p>
<
p>Now that being said, I was never claiming that you din’t know that Jesse Jackson was black. The “if” in your statement makes it obvious that you did know. My point is that it’s absurd to talk about people not knowing Jackson’s race because most politically aware people do.
<
p>For the record, I don’t think Bill’s racist. I just think he was playing with race in that speach. IMHO, it’s far from the same thing.
That would only be an interesting statistic if there were only two people in the race. The fact is that Obama was not shockingly behind either Clinton or Edwards in that demographic.
This should go a long way in countering the kool-aid charges especially for progressives who look to The Nation as a serious voice for liberal thinking. This is a very thoughtful essay that doesn’t go overboard in praising Obama.
And who could forget this passage:
What a gruesome metaphor.
The MoveOn.org endorsement is a great example of how some endorsements can be toxic to a candidate. MoveOn does not represent a lot of Democrats when the rubber actually meets the road, just the party zealots. Groups like MoveOn turn off independent/unenrolled voters. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh endorsing a Republican. Not all of them are that far to the right.
<
p>McCain’s endorsement by the NYT quickly became a punchline among conservatives.
<
p>Sidenote: Ann Coulter’s comment that she would vote for Hillary over McCain made me laugh. There’s an endorsement that Clinton probably doesn’t want.