Not to get into the whole libertarian thing again, but I’ve heard a few conservative republicans say that libertarians are just liberals in disguise.
And it’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative, btw (gay rights and lower taxes, baby!)
I believe my original post said something about “all other factors being equal” which, of course, they aren’t. If Obama and Edwards were the current frontrunners and had an equal chance, I’d be more interested in who’s endorsing who. But if it’s Obama vs. Huckabee (? isn’t he the bible-thumper?) then it doesn’t really matter
No, neither of the parties will care until the general election, somehow forgetting that we’re all watching them shoot themselves in the collective foot by tearing their fellows down in a frantic attempt to propel themselves to the top.
What’s the point of endorsements, anyway? If you think Ted Kennedy is the greatest person since FDR, would his endorsement cause you to give Obama another chance? If hell froze over and Dubya threw his support behind Obama, would you feel this was a point in his favor? If you’re not entirely sure if you like Obama or Edwards better, then one suddenly was talked up by someone you don’t much care for while the other was joined by someone you respect, would that make a difference?
Sorry for the disjointed and rambling post. Trying to get the kids to bed and I’m not really a big political junkie anyway.
Yes, which is why I find it stupid that many self-identified libertarians side with Republicans, considering that recent Republicans have been the exact opposite. Either way, that’s for a different debate.
I agree that the endorsements shouldn’t matter, but like yourself, many people are busy doing things like putting the kids to bed, etc., and have little time to research every candidate under the sun. If an endorsement gets them to at least look more closely at a candidate, then it’s accomplished something.
That was my thought. It’s not a question of “Will I vote for Obama simply because Kennedy likes him?” but rather the fact that Kennedy can go out and campaign for Obama. Kennedy is a big name and can rally more folks and, of course, get them to open their checkbooks. He can also draw the establishment Democrat crowds that Obama has more trouble with.
Plus, when the primary attack against you is lack of experience, it’s a nice bulwark to have seasoned and well-known politicans saying that they see in you the potential to be a great president next year.
I never buy into the “lack of experience” thing. It’s almost like people think Hillary would have an advantage because she knows where the silverware is kept. Everybody lacks exerience unless they’re running for their second term.
This viewpoint presupposes that any longtime politician actually has the nation’s best interests at heart, rather than his party’s interest or some obligation due to a previous backroom deal.
Well then, that’s how Obama should respond when it comes up. If he times it right, he can do a Reaganesque “youth and inexperience” remark.
Hillary:
I bring experience to the White House that my opponent lacks. I spent eight years there, and I know the ins and outs. I can hit the ground running. I know my way around that place, and my opponent doesn’t.Obama:
Well, Hillary, if I need to know where they keep the good china, I’ll give you a call.
This is most likely the key. Kennedy’s endorsement probably doesn’t mean jack as far getting ordinary voters, but most of the superdelegates are fellow senators, representatives and Washington insiders. Kennedy still wields a great deal of power and influence there, so his endorsement probably will likely carry considerable weight among them.
Ted is a progressive who has fought for the disadvantaged ,even though he is a little wealthy. I see him on cspan and he has his heart in the right place. I have great respect for the work he does. But it does not matter to me who he endorses. I will now have to analyze why . If he sees Hillary as a tool of corporations ,I will agree with him.
Her history shows a lifetime of exposure to the most famous political family in the country and to other wide interests which include a doctorate in law and the authorship of two books.
She worked in the Senate as an office intern during the summers while she attended Harvard. After receiving her JD in law from Columbia, she co-wrote a book on the Bill of Rights and became a member of the Board of the Citizens Committee of New York City. She serves as President of the Kennedy Library Foundation and founded the libary’s Profiles in Courage awards – an award given to public officials for acts of political bravery.
She was asked to chair the Democratic National Convention in 1992, but turned it down. She has actively campaigned for her Uncle for Senate and for her cousin Patrick for Congress. And she gave a speech at the U.N. on behalf of children’s rights.
Other than that, she generally stays out of politics. I’m glad that she made an exception to speak out in support of Obama. She must feel that it is a matter of some importance.
All of this is in addition to her primary interests which are her children and family and other civic and cultural concerns.
What should she have done before she deserves to have her opinion considered?
Yes, it matters to me what Senator Kennedy thinks of Obama and of the Clintons. My 95 year old mother has always said that she watches to see how he votes on things. It would take more than that to change our votes, but it does matter. It is part of what tips the scales.
Those of you who delight in the “water under the bridge” joke, please consider that it is literally as old as Woodstock, Charles Manson jokes, and man’s first steps on the moon.
I was there, and let me tell you, the crowd went NUTS when Michelle Obama announced her. Her endorsement is HUGE!
I was standing on the floor, right up front, just a few feet from the podium. Close enough that when it was over, and the women made their handshaking rounds, I got Michelle Obama’s autograph on my ‘Women for Obama’ rally sign!