Wow.
President Bill Clinton will urge voters to get out and vote for Martha Coakley in Tuesday's election. Clinton recorded a phone message to be sent on Monday to more than half a million primary voter across the Commonwealth. Listen to the message here. The full text of the recorded phone message by President Bill Clinton:
Hello, this is President Bill Clinton. I’m calling to remind you to vote tomorrow, Tuesday, December 8. And I hope you will vote for Attorney General Martha Coakley as your next U.S. Senator. Martha Coakley will go to Washington to fight every day to create good jobs with good benefits and to get health reform with a strong public option. You can trust her to get results in the Senate just as she has as your Attorney General. This election is very important to Massachusetts. So don’t forget to vote tomorrow and please vote for Martha Coakley. Thank you.
From a press release, Martha's response:
I am humbled by President Clinton’s support and his help in reminding people to get out and vote on Tuesday. President Clinton oversaw one of the great periods of economic expansion in our nation’s history and was one of our staunchest advocates to move our country on a path towards universal health care. As Senator, I will work to carry that torch to pass meaningful health care reform and also help turn our economy around.
Because this information speaks for itself, I won't say anything else
Martha Coakley backed Hillary Clinton. Showing loyalty, Bill Clinton now backs Martha Coakley. Loyalty is one of the things I like and admire about the Clintons.
<
p>That being said, I’ll be casting my vote for Mike Capuano.
before making this decision. It would be nice if he gave some feedback on why he doesn’t appreciate the qualities of the other candidates, or at least what comparisons he drew in his research.
Capuano backed Barack Obama
<
p>Coakley backed Hillary Clinton
<
p>Any questions?
<
p>But I have to say that I believe it will have an impact to some voters.
Bill Clinton is still one of the most popular politicians in the U.S. I’d say this could easily (1) get some Coakley voters to show up who otherwise might’ve stayed home; and (2) push some undecideds into Coakley’s column.
But who’s internal poll do you believe now? Coakley’s 21% or Capuano’s 7% (plus a third candidate with similar numbers to Capuano).
<
p>You don’t bring out the Big Dog if you are up by 21%.
against Carolyn Kennedy for US Senate in NY? It’s not surprising the guy who governed from the middle would endorse the candidate who is likely to vote from the middle in the Senate.
came out strongly for Barack Obama. So if his M-O is supporting those who endorsed Obama instead of Hillary, I guess that this would make sense.
Patterson, Rupert Murdock and others have said that Carolyn’s not getting the nod and pissing off Patterson had to do with her last minute decision not to want the seat and withdrawing her name. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with it. Nice try to harsh the chill of Coakley supporters but think we’ll sleep a little better tonight no matter what you try to throw at us.
This is what M Dowd said. It’d be a pretty big misstep to get it wrong but maybe she did. What do you got?
<
p>
She doesn’t miss an opportunity to blame the Clintons for anything that she doesn’t like–I think they didn’t invite her to a party. It was Carolyn Kennedy who had the sense of entitlement–that she had a right to the seat just because she was a Kennedy.
While I would tend to agree that Clinton probably just paid Coakley back for her help, I would also agree that Dowd is someone who need to be bashed…
The title of this post is incorrect and should be edited:
Chris Smith says Caroline withdrew for personal reasons and you claim that means Bill CLinton did not lobby Gov Paterson agianst her.
<
p>Her withdrawal does does not preclude Clinton lobbying Paterson. Do you have anything that specifically rebuts the claim that Bill Clinton lobbied Gov Patterson to not appoint Caroline Kennedy?
<
p>Your attacks on hit woman M Dowd may have merit but you offer NO substantiating evidence of that. You say, “Bill Clinton had nothing to do with it. ” You may be right that Bill did not lobby Gov Psterson. I’m just asking for some evidence.
<
p>http://nymag.com/news/politics…
<
p>From the New Yorker (much more reliable)
“Until Kennedy called Paterson to say she was pulling out. “Personal reasons” had emerged that made it impossible for her to accept the Senate seat. She was sorry, but she was done. Paterson told her to think it over and call him back. And then she vanished.”
<
p>Yet in two months politics in New York devolved from dysfunctional to chaotic, tarnishing every major player involved. And sometimes it seemed that David Paterson wanted it exactly that way. His style of governance, a dizzy mix of ingratiation and trickeration, has turned what could have been a moment of triumph-a powerful new ally in the Senate, a relationship with President Obama-into a slapstick fiasco, a fitting sequel to the way Paterson got the job in the first place. Politics is often a contest of half-truths, where the winner is the best bullshitter. But thanks to Paterson and a cast of dozens, the fight to become the next senator became instead a world-class festival of lies.
<
p>Read more: The Zany Adventures of (Senator) Caroline Kennedy — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/news/politics…
<
p>They even have a picture graph of those involved- not one reference or photo of Bill Clinton.
<
p>Like I said-nice try but I’d stop thinking Maureen Dowd was anything but fantasy. From personal experience, she once included me in one of her Hillary hit pieces and had every verifiable detail wrong.
here
In baseball, if you are up by four runs batting in the opt of the ninth, you still fight hard for one run, because a five-run lead is so much better than a four-run lead. If Bill’s endorsement is good for her, does it matter if it changes her odds of victory from 99% to 99.5% rather than from 50% to 60%? She could save some money by not doing the robocalls if she thinks it’s really in the bag, but no one likes to end a political campaign with a surplus.
They brought him in the midnight hour of the election. There is a reason for the push to get his taped message.
I teach a course in reasoning about uncertainty (Bill Belichick gave me a great exam question with the fourth-down call against the Colts). Let’s suppose Coakley has the choice of calling in WJC’s endorsement either now or just before the general election on 19 January. We need to know her probabilities p and q of winning the primary with and without the endorsement, and her probability r of winning the general given that she wins the primary. I don’t see how r is affected much by when Bill endorses, if he’s going to endorse anyway.
<
p>Pr(wins general | Bill endorses early) = pr
<
p>Pr(wins general | Bill endorses for general) = qr
<
p>It seems to me that p is bigger than q, even if both are very high, and thus pr is bigger than qr whatever r happens to be. But even if you want to say that Bill making a big push just before the general makes it pr versus qs, where s is bigger than r, take a look at the reality. I’d say r is something like 0.99, wouldn’t you? Whereas p is somewhere between 0.5 and 0.95 — I haven’t seen betting odds but I could probably get someone to bet Coakley to lose the primary if
I gave them 20-1 odds. So s can only be slightly higher than r, but q could be significantly higher than p even in a fairly rosy scenario for Coakley.
<
p>I’m voting for Capuano Tuesday, but I’m not very optimistic about
him winning.
Coakley maintains lead but Capuano gaining ground, which has in fact been widely reported. The comfort level in a single digit lead is low. So you start making phone calls and calling in favors just to make sure you are safe.
<
p>Trust me, a Bill Clinton fundraiser and being an early supporter would have made a huge impact on this race. They didn’t get an interview, appearance or anything other than the 15 second tape. I agree this will still have an impact, but this is a last minute deal, they would have lined up some kind of airtime if this was planned out in advance.
If Bill Clinton offers to endorse it doesn’t matter if you’re ahead by 50% you take it. Just plain silly to think any candidate would refuse at any stage of an election, especially in MA.
Bill Clinton offered … really? That’s what happened?
<
p>Or did the Coakley campaign went after this hard over the weekend?
<
p>Pleeeease, this is a reality based blog.
Given the 2008 presidential history, I would think B&H see Coakley as an ally that they want to reward, especially if she will be a more powerful ally in the Senate and especially if it creates the impression that B&H are still powerful players in internal Democratic politics. Both endorser and endorsee are better off with the endorsement coming now, when it might have some effect, than on Wednesday when Coakley is either the 99% certain winner of the general or a surprise loser of the primary — in either case, the endorsement then has little practical meaning.
<
p>The more interesting question is why now rather than earlier. My guess is that both endorser and endorsee thought it would have more impact now, dominating tomorrow’s press coverage as someone mentioned above and blunting the impact (if any) of Capuano’s and Khazei’s endorsements. And that reasoning makes sense if Coakley’s current chances of winning the primary are 50% or 99%. Unless you see some cost to B&H or to Coakley of the endorsement happening?
I made the observation that Capuano’s internal seem closer to the truth than what the Coakley camp put out as their numbers. In all honesty, I’m not sure what that has to do with how Bill feels about Coakley. Don’t think I was going there, you obviously support the candidate that you are making a robocall tape for.
Unfortunately, his touch isn’t as golden as I would sometimes like.
likely won’t matter much to the voters getting this call — a staggering 500,000 of them, according to the Coakley press release — or the folks reading this in the papers tomorrow. This is going to dominate the press coverage going right into the election, so great timing for Coakley. Also smart of the campaign to post the call online; I suspect a lot of folks will click through to hear what Bill has to say.
<
p>Re: the comment on him not discussing the other candidates, did you really expect Bill Clinton to break down the race for you in a recorded message? Would you expect him to do so if he were supporting your candidate and not Coakley? All this speculation about his motives sounds a lot like sour grapes, coming as it is from Capuano supporters. Maybe Clinton supported Coakley because she’s the best candidate in the race, plain and simple.
<
p>Either way, this gives Coakley some major buzz going into election day and is going to fire up her supporters in a big way. And it’s not going to just impact “some voters”; I think it’s going to have a big impact.
But not all Democrats, especially not all liberal Democrats love Bill Clinton.
The reason he made the Republicans so livid is that he stole all of their positions. He wasn’t much of a Democrat.
…over the longest sustained period of peace and prosperity in a long time, if not ever in our history. There are a handful of things I wish he’d done differently, but overall even with Obama in office, I still miss Bill.
I can think of a lot more than a handful of things I wish he’d done differently.
is withdrawing from Iraq, pulled us from the edge of econimic collapse, has changed the face of US foriegn policy from contempt by our allies to a more cooperative, influential partnership. There are a handful of things I wish he’d done differently, but overall even with Obama in office, it’s much like having Bill who also governed from the middle.
Yes, I do expect President Clinton to make a sound decision based on review of all of the candidates. I expect nothing less from anyone. I don’t expect him to state this on his phone message, but it’s not unheard of to release a press statement, and he could tell us then how he came to his conclusion.
QED
<
p>;-)
As I said before, I respect and admire the Clintons for their loyalty. While, Bill Clinton may genuinely believe that Martha Coakley is the best choice, I think it is also fair to say that he would never endorse somebody else over an ally who was loyal to him and Hillary. I’d be shocked if you could find a Bill Clinton endorsement, official or otherwise, of somebody who supported Obama over somebody who supported Hillary. I don’t fault him for it or say it is a bad thing, but it is the way things go, and this endorsement needs to be seen in that light.
The Clintons have hated the Kennedys ever since Ted endorsed Obama, which was Ted’s way to get Bill back for mucking up health care and skipping John Boys funeral. Ted also felt Bill undercut his homeboy John Kerry in 04 to give Hillary a clean shot in 08′. With Caroline implicitly endorsing Khazei, one the Kennedy cousins coming out for Khazei, and Joe and Patches endorsing Cap implicitly and publicly, respectively, it is pretty clear which candidate the Kennedy don’t want (Coakley) who didn’t even wait for the corpse to be buried before she ran for the seat. This is a way for Bill to dance on Ted’s grave just a little bit, and a way to payback an ally.
It must be very interesting having all of these leading politicians sharing their innermost thoughts with you.
The past couple weeks have seen a lot of high profile endorsements & support for Khazei and Capuano –Wes Clark, Dukakis, Globe, Herald, Sam Nunn, Caroline Kennedy, Speaker Pelosi, BMG, etc.– with notably few for Coakley. Implicit in many of these was the message that support for “the frontrunner” is a mile wide and an inch deep.
<
p>Polls notwithstanding, Coakley insiders surely were concerned at the contrast; soft supporters I’ve spoken with in multiple communities this past week expressed dwindling enthusiasm for Coakley’s play-to-not-lose approach.
<
p>Any endorsement from the Big Dog will, in the least, allay some doubts while boxing-out the other campaigns from favorable media coverage in the final 72 hours.
Definitely better to bring him out now than earlier in the campaign. In the beginning such an endorsement would have been big, but forgotten by now. IMO Obama’ best endorser was Colin Powell since it came right after the successful Republican convention and the (brief) period when Sarah Palin was considered a maverick hail mary that would win over independents and women voters (this was before she spoke). Powell not only endorsed Obama in very strong turns, but did so without mentioning race, and was the only public figure I recall who not only defended Obama from attacks proclaiming he was a Muslim but also said that even if he was a Muslim he could still be President cause its America. To me that was the best repudiation of Palin. It started the floodgate of moderate/libertarian Republicans flocking to Obama, which drove a lot of independents over IMO, and it destroyed the Palin talking points about Obama being a terrorist.
<
p>Similarly this endorsement could save Coakley’s ass, though I agree they would not have brought it out unless they were in trouble.
<
p>My biggest fear was that Coakley would get the Clinton vote left over from the primary, and that the Obama voter were less likely to turn out for this election (a lot of first timers and independents) and that those that are turning out are split between two candidates. I really hope Coakley’s support is shrinking, perhaps Khazei is taking away equally. At this point the victor could possibly have a razar thin margin of victory and will most certainly be the choice of a minority of Democratic voters. When will we get polling?
Boston Globe Front Page:
<
p>
<
p>Boston Herald Front Page:
<
p>
but how many endorsements for any candidate have been front page news in the Globe or Herald? And for what it’s worth, there is a link to the story on the front page of boston.com.
The Globe story on the Senate race is A1 and above the fold. Further, it mentions the Clinton endorsement at the end of the front page, before the flip.
<
p>The Herald has that Senate Sprint banner head and then does cover the Clinton endorsement story (at least online – I refuse to by the damn thing):
http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
<
p>Is it shocking that the Herald couldn’t resist the “rich moonbates hate Mother Nature and DEMOCRAT Deval Patrick” story line for the cover?
<
p>Confused that the Pats’ loss gets more coverage than the Senate race?
<
p>Or were you looking for a “CLINTON ENDORSES COAKLEY” headline in giant type?
<
p>I don’t get your point.
<
p>
The story is about the Senate Race, one that you would expect, you know, the day before a primary. This is in response that the Clinton endorsement would make headlines (see above). No headlines folks. Carry on.
Are you questioning the use of the title? Generally Presidents do get to keep the title as a courtesy, though I wish “President Emeritus” would catch on as “former President” sounds demeaning.
She says that some titles, like “Senator”, “Governor”, and “Ambassador”, stay with the holder after they leave office, but “President” and “Congressman” do not. So the living ex-presidents are Governor Carter, Ambassador Bush, Governor Clinton, and Governor Bush, though if life were fair Senator Gore would be the last on that list.
They should be able to keep their highest title, so I guess I’m on record disagreeing with Miss Manners, but I think I’m on solid ground as a matter of convention.
Yes. It is impropoer.
<
p>The broadly accepted practice is to call the current president only, President. All former presidents can be referred to as ‘former President’ or Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States.
<
p>I seems so unfair doesn’t it?
<
p>
I hear and read “President x” for those no longer incumbent all the time. 42nd President works in some contexts, but I for one absolutely refuse to use “former President”. To go from the most exaulted and powerful person on the planet to “Gee, now I’m just a former President; I’m no good anymore.” in a matter of minutes on January 20th sounds like such a demotion. I’ll continue to push for “President Emeritus” as at least that carries the connotation of dignified retirement in keeping with one’s status and rank.
A major get. I think it’s a little silly to pretend otherwise.
If Coakley wins the primary, then she will get my vote in the final against Mitt lite, Brown. In an idealistic world, Khaezi would be the one.
that President Clinton has such a short memory. Mike Capuano was one of the first elected officials in Massachusetts to endorse then-Governor Clinton way back in 1991 during his presidential campaign. Capuano also helped Clinton in NH, where many of you might recall he came in a strong second and his “comeback kid” line helped energize his campaign.
with celebrities – especially someone who can put you at ease like Clinton is funny. I obviously knew it was a robo-recording but I held on until the end because I wanted to say Hi to him!! I felt like I was talking to the real Bill Clinton. Well done.
<
p>This may get a few people out to the polls. I was expecting it. I’m still for Capuano but it was nice to get a call from prez Clinton — even if it was a robot.