Should We Endorse For President Now, Or Wait?

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 20:45


Tonight, we at Blue Majority are asking our readers on Daily Kos, Open Left, and Swing State Project a simple question: should we endorse in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign tomorrow, or should we wait until the nominee is certain?

There are two reasons we ask this question. First, we have always valued your insight and suggestions for which Democrats to place on the page. For an endorsement of this magnitude, a super majority of you, the supporters who make Blue Majority work, must approve. In order for us to place a presidential candidate on the page while the outcome of nomination campaign is still in doubt, two-thirds support from the community will be required.

Second, while we were always going to place the presumptive Democratic nominee on the Blue Majority page as soon as s/he emerged, over the next month several new candidates will be placed on the Blue Majority page in anticipation of the March 31st fundraising deadline. With the overwhelming majority of progressive, grassroots, electoral energy current focused on the presidential nomination campaign, we believe that the newly added candidates will receive vastly more support if there is a presidential candidate on the Blue Majority page. And yes, you know which candidate we are talking about.

So far in 2008, Barack Obama is on pave to surpass all electoral records in terms of progressive grassroots support, even the high marks set by John Kerry four years ago after he became the presumptive nominee. If the energies of people-powered congressional candidates and that of the movement behind Barack Obama's presidential campaign were to combine, it could create a powerful symbiosis that can build the sort of governing majority we need to pass strong legislation in 2009. For example, in the Democratic primary for Maryland's 4th congressional district, the Donna Edwards campaign was able to convert the new wave of Obama voters into a decisive victory. We want to help translate that energy into even more big victories like the one we saw in MD-04.

Now, many in the community are ambivalent about the Democratic nomination campaign. Also, there are still many Hillary Clinton supporters within the community. Further, even many Barack Obama supporters have reservations about him, and I am sympathetic to those reservations. Here on Open Left, for example, I recently expressed my displeasure with the way Obama distanced himself from the term "liberal," Matt blasted Obama for his Harry and Louise mailers, and Mike blasted the Obama campaign for using Bush Dog Jim Cooper, who played a major role in sinking health care reform back in 1993-1994, as a spokesperson for health care. In fact, Matt and I even once appeared in a commercial attacking both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for their plans to leave residual American military forces in Iraq. There are good, progressive reasons to be wary of Barack Obama, of which these are only a few.

So, we have decided to leave the decision to you. If two-thirds of the community approves, we will add Barack Obama to the Blue Majority page tomorrow, and roll out several new congressional candidates over the next couple weeks. If there is not two-thirds support for making an endorsement now, we will roll out the new congressional candidates anyway, and wait until there is a presumptive Democratic nominee before adding a presidential candidate to the page. And whether or not we add Barack Obama now, we will add Hillary Clinton to the page if and when she becomes the presumptive nominee.

So please, take the poll in the extended entry. Would you like Blue Majority to endorse now, or to wait until the nominee is certain? The deadline to vote is 6 p.m. eastern tomorrow, and the decision will be made based on the cumulative result across all three blogs. Take the poll.

Chris Bowers :: Should We Endorse For President Now, Or Wait?
Poll
Blue Majority should
Endorse in the presidential campaign now
Wait until the Democratic nominee is certain

Results


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Seems to me the negatives of endorsing now outweigh the positives. (4.00 / 9)
If it were me, I'd wait.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

Still negatives (4.00 / 2)
I'd say the nominee is certain right now.  You think so too.

Unless you think Hillary might win well over 62% of the vote in TX and over 60% in Ohio and over 60% in Pennsylvania also you don't believe in any scenario where Hillary could get enough delegates to win.

But BM should not offend the Hillary fans who have a right to root for their champion a while longer.  She's a good senator who deserves some abeyance while she winds down a lifelong dream.  Let's not make her supporters feel unwelcome.

I vote to wait.

Are we even sure having Obama on top of the list will gather donations for downballot races rather than dilute them?  Downballot candidates need the money more -- Obama has a great money machine already.


[ Parent ]
They have a right to root for her (0.00 / 0)
but not at the expense of what can be gained for the party.  When people enter the race someone's going to win and someone's going to lose.  This isn't Jr. T-Ball.

If endorsing and putting the presidential nominee on the page helps I vote endorse.


[ Parent ]
good point. he's got ALL the money he needs. the LAST thing we need, as a (0.00 / 0)
party, is for Obama to suck up all the money that other, deserving candidates need to run for the house or senate.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
btw, the percentage of people saying to "endorse now" mirrors the percentage (4.00 / 3)
who are for Obama, give or take a few.  That makes it even more compelling to NOT endorse now.

I am for Obama, but to endorse him at this point is needless and would only serve to piss off HRC people and call into question - and even defang - the ability to effectively criticize Obama when he really needs it.  Like his foolish lack of mandates in his health care plan, for instance.  Notice I didn't use "UHC" inn that sentence, because Obama's plan is NOT "universal."

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


When do we get to constructively criticize Obama? (0.00 / 0)
This is not snark; I now support Obama.

I don't like his health care plan*, but I don't see what I can do about that between now and November. I don't think it would be a good idea for him to make changes to his health plan until he's the nominee, because that would too easily be used by the Republicans as flip-flop fodder.

I don't see that waiting to endorse grants us any more leverage than we have (or do not have) at any other time.

Enlighten me?

[*] McCain's plan is worse, of course. "Don't get sick, you little shits!"


[ Parent ]
um, that's my point. We need and should criticize Obama (or any other Dem) (4.00 / 1)
whenever it is needed and deserved.  But to give criticism, and, more importantly, to attempt to PRESSURE Obama to change some stances is made more difficult if we have already endorsed him regardless.  Basically, it lessens our bite.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Congress works on the plans (4.00 / 1)
Hillary will be in congress so she can get a big say how the plan will ultimately look.  Not all nominees are perfect.  He has been criticized and has not changed.  When he goes about working on the healthcare plan, as he said, he will bring the American people into the process.  He will make it as transparent as possible.  So if a grassroots group were to get together to lobby on behalf of mandates during the process, I would say that would be your best bet.

[ Parent ]
Never, if the Obama camp has its way (4.00 / 1)
Criticizing the Great One is not allowed. Any criticism is met with name calling and profanity by members of the Obama cult.

Today I was banned from Digg as a result of critism of Obama. They actually blocked my IP address. None of my comments or submissions used profanity, threats of violence, or any type of inappropriate language (unlike the language used by Obama supporters against Clinton--such as b****, c*** ,and f***.

The Corporate media thinks that they alone, should pick the candidate, and that they should attack or censor criticism of their newly annointed messiah.

Economic Populist Forum

 

Economic Populist Forum



[ Parent ]
I thought we already endorsed Edwards (0.00 / 0)
is that over?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Not necessary (4.00 / 2)
It's not like Joe Lieberman is in the finals.  And there are plenty of more important things to discuss.

I'm an Obama volunteer and donor (4.00 / 1)
And I'm feeling very ambivalent on this.

On the one hand, Obama is getting lots of money already, and I'd rather the presidential campaign not suck any more oxygen away from important congressional races.  I'd also rather not scare off any Clinton supporters who might no longer feel part of this community.

On the other hand, the Clinton campaign is getting uglier by the day.  Between saying that over 2/3 of the states don't matter, mocking caucusgoers, and announcing that they want "superdelegates" and the Michigan soviet-style election (1 candidate on the ballot) to override the people's choice, I want to see her buried, just to show that such crap has no place within the party.


You want to see Hillary Clinton buried (4.00 / 2)
You want to see Hillary Clinton buried.

This is the kind of right wing rhetoric that has become quite acceptable among those who consider themselves liberal or progressive.

Obama has earned my contempt many times. Not the least of which was his unconscionable campaigning for Lieberman - citing what he called Lieberman's work "in our behalf".

But as much as I wish Obama would disappear from the political scene, because I think he is a phony, I can hardly imagine calling for him to be buried.

The left has fully adopted the fever that the right wing has long promoted with respect to the Clintons and has done their work for them.  


[ Parent ]
DLC (4.00 / 1)
I'd like to bury the DLC. And Ned Lamont has endorsed Obama.

[ Parent ]
I didn't support Lamont, (0.00 / 0)
I supported kicking Lieberman out on his ass.  Lamont was just the tool, so I don't care who he endorsed.  Bury the DLC?  With pleasure, and Hillary losing this race out to do it once and for all.    

[ Parent ]
You don't get it. (0.00 / 0)
I don't care about Lamont and who he endorses.

The thing you are not capable of taking in is that Obama said that Lieberman was working in "our" behalf.

That means his behalf.

This is a crazy and repulsive statement from someone who alleges that he is the candidate who is against the war in Iraq.

It casts a giant shadow on his character.

Not that anybody on the so-called left cares.

Let the war fester.


[ Parent ]
what hillary defenders on the web never seem to "get", is that the Right and (4.00 / 7)
the Left dislike her for very different reasons at their respective cores.  However, both sides loathe the triangulation and the lying and revisionism and the never-take-a-stand-without-doing-a-poll bullshit behavior.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Why? (4.00 / 3)
Why does the "left" hold HRC in such contempt? Why are they so undiscriminating when it comes to Obama?

Their voting records with respect to the war in Iraq are identical.
Both, in different bills, endorsed calling the Iranian army "terrorists".
Both have lousy health care plans, although Obama's is a little bit lousier.
Both showed comtempt for our civil liberties by voting for the Patriot Act.

Obama gets away with everything.

Clinton is not even mentioned except to vilify her.

So something else is at work.

The nature of the invective aimed at Clinton from people on the "left" is exactly the same as that slung at her from the right.

I think that people just enjoy the license they have been afforded by the mainstream media, the right wing media and the left wing media to be abusive.
They can vent their hostility, much of it based in being fucked up with women.


[ Parent ]
Style (4.00 / 2)
Hillary, rightly or wrongly, comes off as entitled and overly cautious at a time when people want to see change, especially in terms of who influences what gets done in DC.  That is the kind of campaign she has run--entitled ("inevitable!") and cautious.  She is Penn-driven, and that is entoirely her own doing.  Plus, she has never really come to termns with the role that Bill would play in her Admin, and like it or not, many Dems deeply resent him for (literally) blowing the best chance the Dems has had in years to make real progress.

Hillary could have run a more audacious campaign, standing totally on her own merits.  Instead, she kept seeming calculating and trotted out Bill to save her (a very unfeminist thing to do).  She tries to have it both ways ("I dealt with world leaders for 15 years!  But I secretly opposed NAFTA."  Too bad it made no difference to Bill and Bob Rubin.)

For me as a woman supporting Obama, I think it is her inability or unwillingness to really run as her own woman that is so disappointing.  That, and the constant ranting of her supporters that I am unfeminist because I support a man who has rekindled idealism and gotten millions of young people out of their passivity and into the political process.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
We disagree. (4.00 / 3)
Why do you assume that Hillary Clinton "trotted out" Bill Clinton?
Doesn't it occur to you that he believes in her?
Is it any worse than Michelle Obama and her declarations?

Bill Clinton was absolutely right to call into question Obama's unquestioned reputation as the anti-Iraq war candidate. For this, somehow, he was called a racist.

It is the press that has fostered the idea that she is not running as her own woman. "Billary" is an obnoxious nickname that has been planted on her.

I do not judge your motivation for supporting Obama. If you think he has rekindled idealism, fine. I think he is a phony.

As for Hillary Clinton coming off as "entitled" and "cautious" - well that is in the eye of the beholder. Obama is parading about as entitled as anybody. As as far as "caution" is concerned - did you see both of them responding to the possible opening of Cuba with a caution borne out of a reluctance to leave the cold war behind?

They are both cautious. But of the two, I find Obama to be the more arrogant and full of himself. Saying to Clinton that she's "likeable enough" is repellant.

But my point is, their positions on most issues are similar. Both are lacking in courage and vision. But Obama is treated with kid gloves and Clinton is treated with contempt.

So, something else is at work.


[ Parent ]
Sorry... (4.00 / 10)
....that's patently absurd.

Obama has earned my contempt many times. Not the least of which was his unconscionable campaigning for Lieberman - citing what he called Lieberman's work "in our behalf".

Obama and Hillary Clinton had (lamentably) exactly the same record in the Lamont-Lieberman race. They both endorsed Lieberman in the primary, and paid minimal lip service to Lamont after it. But nobody, nobody did more for Joe Lieberman than Bill Clinton. From his last minute headline grabbing campaigning (and robo-calling) two days before the primary to his post-primary endorsements of Lieberman (all dutifully parroted by Clinton cats-paws like Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer--who was also head of the do-nothing DSCC). Call me cynical, but I think Bill had other motives than "friendship".


[ Parent ]
Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
Obama praised Liberman at some dinner in CT in March--about 5 months before the primary election, when Ned Lamont was down 45+ points in the polls.  After that, as Lamont rose, Obama stayed away.

[ Parent ]
and let us not forget (0.00 / 0)
that NED LAMONT HIMSELF ENDORSED OBAMA.

why is the blogosphere still upset if the man himself isn't? I mean, Obama campaigned for Lieberman but long before the primary was through, and stayed out of it once Lamont won. If Lamont was bitter, would he have endorsed Obama?

Fired Up, Ready to Go! NithinCoca.Com


[ Parent ]
Who cares if Lamont is bitter? It's about Obama. (0.00 / 0)
As I mentioned above, Obama actually said that Lieberman was working in "our behalf".

That is what he said.

This is after years of the Iraq war with all of its' horror and casualties.

We are dealing with a very shallow and ambitious politician in Obama.


[ Parent ]
Apologies. (4.00 / 3)
I was speaking about wanting to see Hillary Clinton buried politically, not literally.

I wish Hillary Clinton very a long, happy, healthy retirement.


[ Parent ]
typo (0.00 / 0)
I wish her A VERY long...

[ Parent ]
OK. I'll try your formulation. (0.00 / 0)
 I would like to see Barack Obama buried politically, not literally.


[ Parent ]
I might want to see Hillary Clinton buried too... (4.00 / 1)
...and I'm not anti-Clinton.

It's nothing against Clinton's candidacy so much as that I'm beginning to wonder if she's doing more harm than good to the Democratic Party.

That ain't no right-wing rhetoric.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss


[ Parent ]
Obama campaigning for Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
Hillary and Bill campaigned for Liebermann more often than Obama did.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 2)
I also think Obama is a complete phony. And, as of this writing, it is Hillary Clinton who leads among registered Democrats. Obama's total margin is due to the 22% of non-Democrats who have voted in the Democratic primaries, where Obama has picked up 64% of the votes, compared to roughly 1/2 that amount for Hillary. This means that 14% of Obama's votes have come from non-Democrats, while no more than 8% of Hillary's have come from non-Democrats. If these non-Democrat votes were removed, it would reduce the Obama-to-Clinton vote ratio by 6%. For example, if Obama was ahead by 3% counting non-Democrats, he'd be behind 3% if only Democrats were counted.

Below is a link to the Digg post on this.

http://digg.com/2008_us_electi...

Polls show Mr. Obama leading among independents by double digits in Texas & Ohio. Independents cast 22% of the vote in 22 Dem primaries held so far. Obama won 64% of non-Dem votes. Anecdotal reports state Republicans are crossing over in "open" primary states, and voting for Obama. Dems may not even determine their OWN party's Pres.

Here's the link to the actual article referenced in the above Digg submission:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

It would be insane to endorse Obama at this point, especially when the majority of Democratic voters have voted for Hillary.

A perfect example of the difference between open primaries and closed primaries comes from the California results. California does not allow non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic Presidential primary. As a result, Clinton won by a margin of 8-10%. And in case anyone has forgotten, California is the most populous state in the U.S., has more electoral votes than any other state, and has roughly 1/8th of the US population (~37 million of our 303 million population).

And Clinton also won the next most populous state, of those counted so far--New York.

And Clinton is still ahead in the polls in the most populous state still remaining--Texas.

There's no justfication whatsoever to count Hillary out at this point. It is already 100% guaranteed that Obama will NOT get the 2,000+ delegates needed to win before the convention. And no one knows who will win the remaining primaries, nor by how much. And no one has a clue as to which way the Superdelegates will break.

Economic Populist Forum
 

Economic Populist Forum



[ Parent ]
An endorsement by Blue Majority wouldn't affect (0.00 / 0)
the choice of nominee (since that's all but certain), but every little bit helps in affecting the timing of the nominee.

Yes, Obama is probably going to end up the nominee.  And Clinton probably won't end up winning by enough to actually be able to win.

But what if she has positive enough results for the Clinton campaign staff to be able to justify to themselves going on to Pennsylvania?

Shouldn't that also be part of our decision?

I think the far more damaging development for down-ticket races (in terms of attention, fundraising, etc) is that the presidential primary continues for another two months (to the end of April when Pennsylvania votes).  It might do that anyway, but Blue Majority should weigh in on finishing the presidential contest up.

One Million Strong --- Join up!


[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 1)
One of the reasons the Democratic primaries have drawn such overwhelming media attention is the closeness of the race. Despite the popular notion that early unity will help Democrats, all evidence indicates the exact opposite. If the Democratic primary were already decided, there'd be only a fraction of the coverage of the Democrats that there is now. Since McCain has nearly clinched the Republican nomination, media coverage of the Republicans has declined over 90%. Now it is all focused on the Democrats. The Keith Olbermann show has morphed into little more than a 1/2 hour campaign spot for the Obama camp.

This type of coverage will vanish when a nominee is selected.

It is ludicrous to suggest declaring Obama the winner, when he clearly cannot reach the magic 2,000 number before the convention, even if the Superdelegates break for him.

It is also unfair to the voters in the states whose primaries elections haven't been decided yet, to simply declare a winner--thus invalidating their votes. It's also ludicrous to call Obama a winner at this point, when Hillary Clinton has won a majority among registered Democratic voters.

Many in the Obama camp seem to have gone off the deep end. You can't declare a winner just because the media has already declared one. And the Obama camp certainly didn't want to declare the race over when Hillary was the frontrunner.

This is pure hypocrisy on the part of the Obama camp, as well as being very un-democratic. The votes aren't all in, and the winner has not yet been determined. And if the media's Obama-philic estimates are wrong, like they've been in the past, Hillary may well win the most delegates. And maybe by a longshot.  

The winner is determined by who gets the most votes, not by who makes the most noise, or by who claims they have the most "momentum."

Economic Populist Forum

Economic Populist Forum



[ Parent ]
The question should be: (4.00 / 8)
What does the progressive cause gain from endorsing?  More specifically, would endorsing earlier result in a gain of influence for the netroots/blue majority?

What is the practical effect?  It's clear the vast majority of the netroots would prefer Obama be the nominee over Clinton, but a formal endorsement needs the question to be asked "What do we get out of it?" (in the least cynical way possible).


Agreed (4.00 / 6)
And I don't think there is much practical advantage to be gained. Obama will win, with or without the endorsement. The most likely effect is just to piss off Clinton supporters even more, and permanently alienate a few more of them from the blogosphere.

MoveOn should not have endorsed, either. Primaries are state by state, and running "pre-primaries" within online groups, like MoveOn did, just preempts some of the normal, healthy process of intramural competition.

Try to remember that we were the netroots before Obama, and will still be the netroots when we are complaining about Obama's inaction over the next four years.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)


[ Parent ]
Also remember, though... (4.00 / 4)
...that the Netroots is going to be fundamentally and deeply reshaped by this election.  Our adaptability will undoubtedly cause some serious changes in how we operate, and the influx of new activists isn't going to be limited to MyBarackObama.com by any stretch.

I actually think our goal right now should be to lay the groundwork for a transition to the new paradigm.  Clearly there needs to remain a force for accountability on our side, but the sheer brute force that we can potentially channel in 2010 and after needs to be better harnessed and better directed.

But of course that's a secondary concern and pretty big digression, given the question at hand.

Yeah I blog.


[ Parent ]
the great comming fractioning (4.00 / 2)
of the online progressive community may be at hand, me thinks. I think the clinton obama divide was a bit of a start, but it will be even greater with democratic sweeps of the white house and congress.

there are going to be new communities that sprout up out of the shared generational and collective experience of supporting obama. those communities will have a different perspective on the democratic party and what policies need emphasis and who the enemies are and who the heroes are. so i suspect we'll see some fracturing along those lines, as well as internal fracturing of the current online progressive community, as it is empowered more or less. different issue will become more or less important to different subgroups i suspect. there will be more micro-issues oriented communities - damn you mark penn!

no longer will we be united by a kind of singular big common enemy of republicans and lieberdemocrats. the whole picture will become more murky as some agenda victories become easier and some become actually harder, as enemies are more frequently heros and heros less distinguishable from enemies. the online political communities may look noticeably different in two years as they shape themselves around a whole new political dynamic - the dynamic of holding power. dag, I really don't want a facebook account.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
Facebook account says it all.... (0.00 / 0)
The generational divide with its lack of history is bad enough, but the facebook divide is huge and one that I don't think I can overcome. No kidding.  

[ Parent ]
Unless I misunderstand (4.00 / 3)
the practical effect is coattails money:

...we believe that the newly added candidates will receive vastly more support if there is a presidential candidate on the Blue Majority page. And yes, you know which candidate we are talking about.

which isn't nothing, in terms of potential influence of the netroots.

The flip question is: what do we have to lose?


[ Parent ]
Key here is.... (0.00 / 0)
....that recurrent phrase:

....we believe....

Don't nobody know and that's a fact.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Since 2004 (0.00 / 0)
Since 2004, I decided to make only token contributions to presidential candidates, and instead look for progressive candidates for the House (and sometimes Senate) where it makes more of a difference. My assumption has always been that presidential candidates soak up money that could otherwise go to down-ticket progressives. Are there any facts to go on here?

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

[ Parent ]
I think the time (0.00 / 0)
were an endorsement would be effective has passed.

The time to maximize an endorsement's influence is before the primaries begin.

I am not sure what the practical effect of an endorsement now would be.  


[ Parent ]
I voted yes... (4.00 / 3)
But honestly, I'm not sure that this is the purpose of Blue Majority. It seems to undermine it, actually.

Barack Obama is not going to have any trouble raising money.

So why endorse?

I think the Blue Majority list should be for candidates that aren't getting the national spotlight. This is even more important for presidential elections, when things are so focused on the Presidential race that other candidates can sometimes struggle to raise funds.

Let's continue to endorse House and Senate candidates, and you know I'll be asking for your support for Scott Kleeb.

But there isn't much tangible impact that an endorsement can bring at this late stage. In fact, it might only hurt.  

Further Reading


I was for Edwards.... (4.00 / 4)
....now I'm 60/40 Obama/Clinton. If you guys endorse now, this blog will just become like a crab-pot as half the commenters scream at you, and the other commenters scream at the other screamers. And I suspect very few people. at this point, are going to be moved by any endorsement.

More importantly, your voice(s) will have more credibility in the GE if you were neutral in the primary, and, most importantly, we have a bigger enemy that whichever candidate you don't endorse.

Like I said, I'm for Obama, but I think MoveOn's endorsement was a huge mistake. As would be Gore's, as would be Edwards', as would be yours. Who knows what will happen over the next few weeks? Who knows how many voices we may need to calm things down?

We're (most of us) agreed that whatever happens on our side, we're going to be on one side when the nominee is chosen. So support the Eventual Democratic Nominee, and train your fire on McCain.


sad thought, but... (0.00 / 0)
If you guys endorse now, this blog will just become like a crab-pot as half the commenters scream at you, and the other commenters scream at the other screamers.
...why should this site be any different?

;)

j/k

Yeah I blog.


[ Parent ]
You've already endorsed Obama (0.00 / 0)
You have already endorsed Obama - so there is not much suspense.

You mention him a gazillion times.
Clinton gets a mention or two - usually to trash her.

So, why the pretense of ongoing thoughtful consideration?


Reread the post (0.00 / 0)
This is Blue America's endorsement, not OpenLeft's.

[ Parent ]
Blue Majority, you mean (4.00 / 1)
Seriously, though, can we get some more creativity in the PAC names, people?

Yeah I blog.

[ Parent ]
How About: (0.00 / 0)
United Move America Forward to the Left on the Progressive Blue Majority Path to Progress PAC???  haha

[ Parent ]
Pretense of thoughtful consideration (4.00 / 1)
This site has backed Obama in every way.  Clinton was handy for vitriolic abuse but never a serious condiseration.

Now is is about the importance of "Open Left"

check out how many people voted and then consider your weight in this issue.  


[ Parent ]
now (0.00 / 0)
I need help understanding this. If you wait are you trying to be sure you endorse the winner and in the end are you not going to back whoever is nominated anyway. To not vote and then stand behind it appears to be a part of the same old politics that we are all grown so tired of.  

every time (4.00 / 5)
Every time I hear the phrase "the same old politics," I die a little.

[ Parent ]
It's A Movement... (4.00 / 1)
I voted yes because it's time to get the primary season over with and...Move On.  America is singing a different tune and this came from the bottom up.  For the most part, the blogosphere has been a follower, not a leader.  That's fine.  In the long run the Donna Edwards victory may be more important than this or that primary.  

I do feel strongly, however, that we are involved in a movement that transcends the Obama vs. Clinton dynamic.  I doubt that it will be over a 2/3 vote but the time is now to think forward, not to, yet again, fight the fights of the winter of 2007.  

How about an endorsement just for Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, North Carolina & Pennsylvania?  (I'm trying to be funny).


Endorsment (0.00 / 0)
If Blue Majority endorses Obama then as a strong Hillary supporter I will never return to these blogs again. Wait until we have a nominee then endorse!  

Will you listen to yourself? (0.00 / 0)
If you lose an election/vote by 66-33 that is more than just democracy. If your loyalties are so cheap that you can not manage to stay around when the vast majority disagree with you then please take your little threats elsewhere.


[ Parent ]
Can I change my vote? (4.00 / 7)
I voted to endorse, but I'm having second thoughts.  The more I think about it, the less it makes sense to endorse while there is still a significant portion of us who are very passionately supporting another candidate.  It's pretty clear that a large majority and of us support Obama, but we don't need to make Clinton supporters feel anymore like outsiders.  I'm also not sure that I buy the argument about a symbiosis between the presidential nominee and the congressional candidates.

I made a mistake.  Take one vote away from endorse and add one to do not endorse.


endorsement (4.00 / 1)
Chris,

Thanks for the opportunity to express ourselves on this question.  I voted 'endorse now' because I believe that the essence of progressivism is to act on our beliefs and not wait around until it's 'safe' to move forward.  That kind of cautious, calculated thinking is at the root of Hillary's poorly run campaign.  It's mushy DLC-centrism, and it's a proven loser.  Also, early endorsements have more utility than later ones....


The essence of progressivism should be (0.00 / 0)
about identifying our issues and not necessarily going with the winner.  Obama is NOT a progressive and I just don't understand this rush to endorse him by progressives.  They can support him as the best choice at the moment but the effectiveness of progressives is really diminished by this jumping on bandwagons that don't even represent the progressive view well.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

[ Parent ]
I voted no (0.00 / 0)
Although I support Obama, it seems better to focus on the Congressional races.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

I voted' wait' (4.00 / 2)
And I think that's the only way to go.

Those blogs which endorsed have found themselves in a difficult postition to say the least. dKos is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama campaign and the netroots have noticed. Not to that site's benefit.

Blue Majority should only endorse when the party has selected the candidate and.....

IF THE PROCESS IS DEEMED FAIR AND JUDICIOUS.

Sheesh, Chris you and Matt have done good work to date talking about the process don't let Blue Majority become a creature of either campaign.

We need to be Democrats not campaign supporters or our leverage and our moral 'high ground' will be zilch.

I can see all sorts of negative shit going down in this primary, which is not over, that it would do the blogs and Blue Majority no good to be involved in as they would be if an endorsement has been made.

If folks want to add either candidate to their Blue Majority Page they can already do so.

Don't let this bonehead move happen!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


Endorse Change (0.00 / 0)
I really hate all of the people that refer to the "Clintons" plural as if Bill Clinton is running for something and everything about him should be imputed to Hillary.  But, with that being said, I think you need to endorse the "Team for Change" - "Change is on the Way!".

Change1
Change2


You hate..... (4.00 / 1)
....Have I got that right? In today's hypercharged political environment you admit you....

Hate.

Nice. You are a prime example of why Obama should not get the nomination and really should not be elected President.

If the nation wanted and needed 'haters' why any Republican would be better.

Would they not?

Back under yer bridge pal.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 2)
Huh?  I am a Clinton supporter.  I was just posting this stuff, which I found cleaning throught some old boxes from college, to show that the "Change" idea has been used before.  And it is really ironic, I think, to look at this stuff.  The "change" thing isn't anything new.

I don't hate anyone.  Change is good, and we had good change in 1992.


[ Parent ]
What's our real goal? (4.00 / 2)
One potential advantage to endorsing is that, if Obama goes on to raise a lot of money through Blue Majority and to win Ohio and Texas (where he now trails or is tied), the progressive netroots will be in a position to claim some of the credit for his victory. If you thought that victory was going to happen anyway, you could say we all might as well jump on board the bandwagon while we can still get a good seat.

On balance, I do favor Obama, but his nomination is less important to me than the successful creation of a vibrant progressive coalition in American politics. So the real question is: does endorsing Obama now help build that coalition? If the scenario I described above would definitely serve that end, I'd vote "yes." But I'm not sure that it would. I don't think the "online left" would get much credit from anyone but ourselves if he goes on to win, while if we collectively endorse Obama and he doesn't win the nomination (which is certainly possible), then our community will have dealt a major blow to public perception of its political influence.

Given that a stance of principled neutrality is available to us, we might do better to take it. Individually, we should of course work, contribute, and vote for the candidate we support, but as a whole activist community, I don't think it serves us to take sides between two progressive candidates, both of whom we would (almost) all be eager to support in November.


Three Reasons Not To Endorse: (4.00 / 1)
1. Once you endorse, you instantly create a situation where some blog readers begin reading this blog through the endorse filter. Uncharged stray words become charged, misspellings become intentional slights, and the benefit of the doubt as a concept stops existing on this url. The level-headedness of Matt and Chris is the reason I keep coming back.  I want to keep coming back!  Don't endorse.

2. Why now?  What is the rush?  And please let us not make the  NH / IA media mistake and say this thing is over.  We don't get to decide when the nominee process is over in this country...voters in TX, OH, and PA do.  Or a convention does.  Or the majority whip or Al Gore does...I'll be honest, I'm not sure who decides it, but WE don't.  We just get to sit back and watch it all unfold.  Or actively help it happen and hope it happens.  But we don't get to say when it is over. Don't endorse.

3. When you are trying to make strong point, always give three reasons.  For some reason three reasons are exponentially more powerful than two or one.  Maybe because three points make it easier to take a straight edge and draw a straight line.  So always always give three reasons.  Don't endorse.


Why Wait! (0.00 / 0)
If the candidates are so close in terms of policy, than I think you would want to endorse the Presidential candidate who will help you most down-ticket.  You know, where change actually happens...

vodamusic.com

And just exactly who is that? (4.00 / 3)
Yeah, I know who you and Chris thinks it is. And I know why you make that argument.

But....

Nobody really knows. And no the Kool-Aid buzz you got that ain't 'knowing'.

One thing that the netroots need to understand is that the established folks in the 'establishment', of which Obama is a part,...wait for it...they.....

Don't like us.

Nope. They like the $$$$ they think they can get from us but....

As a movement or a cohesive force they'd really we just dropped dead.

Absent proof that which ever Dem candidate is endorsed will have huge 'coattails' a defensive strategy  would seem to be the best course.

And the Donna Edwards campaign is not proof. not in my humble opinion. She'd been on the ground working her ass off for years to create the conditions for that win.

So I say the 'coattails' argument is doubtful maybe even specious. Further, I think that people really need to readjust their timelines. The ReichWing have been working on their empire, their brainwashing of the citizenry (had a person who described herself as a 'progressive' who felt corporations were taxed too much and that that interfered with the formation of good jobs....at our D/L meetup today) for forty years.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO REVERSE ALL THAT DAMAGE IN TWO CYCLES.

NOT EVEN IF OBAMA IS THE SECOND COMING.

Folks need to calm down and do things which make sense for a long haul progressive movement.

Not fool themselves into thinking one person's candidacy or even a dozen candidacies are going to fix everything.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
who's the progressive? (4.00 / 1)
Hillary is on the fundraising trail as we speak, desperately hoping to raise a quick $10 million from big donors to tide her through the next couple of weeks.  Her campaign is asking for checks up to $100,000 from various wealthy individuals.

Obama is on target to raise six times that much next month, almost all of it from small indidivual donors. I would hope that Blue Majority would prefer to align itself with the candidate who is getting it done at the grassroots level.


Evidence please. (0.00 / 0)
Obama has taken plenty from the financial section - like Goldman-Sachs etc. - and the health care industry. Millions of dollars.

Yet he is being represented as if it is the little moms and pops shaking their piggy banks that is garnering his millions.

What is your evidence that the bulk of his money comes from "individuals"?
Who are these individuals? Plain old Jane and Harry, or Oprah Winfrey type millionaires?

To what degree do the demographics of these donors differ from those contributing to Clinton?

The energy behind Obama is very similar to the energy leading up to the war in Iraq. To say anything against Obama, like he is a big phony, is equated with being "pro-Hillary" with the same quality of intensity that tarred anyone saying that the rationale for the war in Iraq was bogus. You were then labeled as being soft on Bin Laden. Discussion was, and is, being stifled by the right, left and center.

It is OK, even encouraged, to say that one HATES Clinton - and her husband.
It is forbidden by a kind of strange Orwellian energy to say that one HATES Obama or his bizarre wife, Michelle.

It's like the crap being laid on Ralph Nader.
He is one of the undeniably honest people in public life.
The right hates him. The left hates him.
The right hates him because he is against the war machine and the corporations that make all this war possible.
The left hates him because they are chumps and want nothing more than to be loved by the right wing. Like during the election season, the left was falling all over itself to wave the flag and say how they support the troops.

One major bombing from some terrorists in this country and we have lost our collective minds and souls. We have forgotten who we are.  


[ Parent ]
Don't lose focus (4.00 / 2)
We endorse the Democratic nominee, period.  Either of them will be much, much better than anything else in the offering, and it would be wise to not lose sight of that.

What candidate has brought more voters to the polling place, the (4.00 / 2)
volunteer effort to actually make a blue majority this year?  One the other hand, who was the candidate to question students of nearby colleges being allowed to vote, and of workers in kitchens in Nevada to have an easy way to vote? If the goal is to actually have a "blue" majority, there is no question in my mind that that candidate is Barack Obama.  You may quibble that he has made mistakes, but that is to be expected, imagine this momentum pushing us into the future.  Am I delusional?

There are two reasons to endorse (4.00 / 1)
One - You truly believe in the candidate and want to support him/her.

Two - You want to curry favor with the eventual winner.

Don't do it for the second reason.  

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain


hold off (4.00 / 2)
I have tremendous respect for the blogs and bloggers who have not inserted their preferences regarding the candidates into this race.  Some might argue that if preferences are merely "hidden" then the readers' needs are poorly served.  I argue that holding a position of neutrality allows the writer to advance ideas, criticisms or an analysis they otherwise might withhold for fear of appearing in opposition to a preference stated earlier.  If open left endorses, I see no reason to continue to follow this blog until after the primary has been completed.  Basically, you will have told me everything you think I need to know at the moment you endorse.  Nothing more need be said.  Also, I agree with folks who argued upthread that your clout (if I can use that term) is diminished once a candidate knows they have you in your hip pocket.  Why dilute your influence over the candidates... unless, your real premise is to influence the voters?  My preference is for you to influence the candidates.  We're supposed to be the group of voters who can deal with ambiguity, aren't we?

Well said.... (4.00 / 1)
.........and I'll be gone from here as well. Many might applaud that but I really don't care.

To endorse either candidate now is just dumb politically and I've had enough 'dumb' from Bush and the Dead Loser Caucus and the Dead Corpse Committee on Centrism to last me a lifetime.

This would be just more 'dumb' than I can take.

Sorry.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Please reread. (0.00 / 0)
This isn't about OpenLeft endorsing or not endorsing anybody.

Tonight, we at Blue Majority are asking our readers on Daily Kos, Open Left, and Swing State Project a simple question: should we endorse in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign tomorrow, or should we wait until the nominee is certain?


[ Parent ]
It's a good question. (0.00 / 0)
Is it better FOR OBAMA to endorse him now, or later, since we all seem to be assuming that which seems obvious, now, that Obama is going to win the nomination but the battle will just linger on and get uglier.

So I say endorse him now.  Obama wasn't my first, nor my second, nor my third choice.  (I can list them: Finegold, Gore, Edwards)  But I got on the Obama-train in mid-December when I realized that it was the only train that was going to get us to the White House without eight more years of the Clintons and their spineless hangers-on.  So I am pleased to see him win, with reservations.  I have no illusions about Obama.

But I would suggest that OpenLeft, as an editorial position, reserve the right to criticize Obama if/when he swerves from the righteous path.  We want him to win in November, but we need to hold him accountable, between now and then, for those things he says and does which let us down.  He and his staff need to know our eyes are on them, and we can turn on them like a rattlesnake if they fuck with us to much.  Let's keep'em honest.  AND support them.


I really look forward to an endorsement (0.00 / 0)
But I voted No, for now. But assuming the situations looks like it does now after the 4th I would change that vote. I don't think we should wait for Clinton to give up... she might stick with this think way too long and hope to win with super delegates. We're probably be certain enough after the 4th and an endorsement might (very slightly) help to clear the way and keep this from going on too long.

Next week will still give us enough time before the fundraising deadline and assuming Obama does well enough on the fourth the endorsement will be less hurtful to Clinton supporters.


I voted no, because of what was (0.00 / 0)
happened to Mydd, even though they have not endorsed,  I am an Obama supporter...but, I appreciate the unbiased reporting on OpenLeft

you should endorse based on principle, not timing (0.00 / 0)
because of the particular role that you play.

meaning (0.00 / 0)
what are the policy planks that are your bottomlines that you absolutely won't bend on.  Who best meets those.  If no one, don't endorse.  If both, then don't endorse until voters endorse.

[ Parent ]
The job is to catch the ball. (0.00 / 0)
The job of progressives is to govern. If you drop the ball, bad things happen. We got this one.

1) What is the biggest problem we face in the struggle to get a mandate. The party hurting itself in convention in a manner than cannot be rectified in convention. The unavoidable crisis. "How did we get in this mess?" To avoid that, and its a very real and ugly possibility, we can push Obama to a contest ending win.

2)We don't want a win we want a big win in November, a win that re-aligns voting for a long time. Movement, participation, buying in, and numbers all point to Obama.

3) The t-shirts.
(Oh right: don't endorse for whats in it for you  .  .  . is that a hard and fast rule?)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
endorse (0.00 / 0)
Thank you Dumbo for saying Feingold!!!

The only choice as far as I am concerned!

As for the endorsement, it is a MUST!  

Obama/Edwards 2008!!!

That ticket would guarantee a Democrat in the White House for the next 16 years!!!

As far as pissing off HRC peeps, they need a wake up call.  I would love to vote for a woman, but can't.  Maybe if Amy Goodman ran!!!!


Nicely dismissive pal... (0.00 / 1)

....sure hope your SO, if yer have one, don't see this.

See, it's considered only polite to say why you won't vote for the bitch.....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Please stop. (0.00 / 0)
Why do you write like that? Thats awful and offensive and unwelcome. Please stop.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
"the bitch" - Wonderful and colorful writing by ACitizen (0.00 / 0)
It's cool and accepted to call Hillary a "bitch".
It is definitely not cool to call Obama a dumb n.
Sexist invective - Tolerated and subtly encouraged. Brings a chuckle.
Racist invective - Forbidden - Brings frowns and righteous indignation.

[ Parent ]
THIS EDWARDS VOTER SAYS WAIT (4.00 / 2)
I voted for Edwards, who is waiting, so why crown Obama, who has trashed the health care plans of Edwards and Clinton. Obama lemmings will stuff the OpenLeft caucus but let the Ohio and Texas voters decide!

I support Obama (4.00 / 2)
But resent being called a lemming by someone who can't deal with his guy losing and lashes out by trivializing the supporters of a rival candidate and likely nominee in Rovian fashion.

And I voted "wait", btw.

Quit the ad hom. It does no one any good and just makes you look dumb.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
I voted No (0.00 / 0)
If you didn't have one when it was 3 candidates, no need for one now.  

Uh.....I'm also....in addtion to the points... (0.00 / 0)
..........I've already made in this thread, 'Don't', still making up my mind as to if Senator Obama is indeed....

The One!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


It's too late (4.00 / 3)
If Blue Majority wanted to endorse one Dem. candidate over another, it should have done so back in January when it would have meant something.

You do it now and it just looks like hopping on the bandwagon only after it's clear who's going to win.  And geez, it's also piling on and sticking another knife in HRC.  Does Blue Majority really want to do both of those things?  I sure hope not.

There are some Obama fanatics who have a wildly distorted view of HRC (cf the comment upthread about how she's getting rich people to donate $100K apiece to her campaign), but reasonably sane people -- including both candidates -- agree both are superb potential nominees.  I see no reason why it makes any sense for Blue Majority, given its mission, to endorse one over the other.  But if it wanted to, it should have done it back when it would have had some effect on the race.  Endorsing a presidential candidate for some idea that it will help fund-raising for downticket races doesn't make a lot of sense to me and honestly seems a bit craven.

I think you have more integrity and more credibility if you generally stay out of presidential endorsements unless there's some truly compelling reason to get in, and then do it early before it's obvious which way the wind is blowing and you just look like you're jumping up and down and saying, "Me too! Me too! Me too!"



Who is "we"? (4.00 / 1)
Unlike MoveOn, blogs are forums before they are organizations.  At least, the really good ones like OpenLeft are.

I don't think that choosing a candidate, at this stage in this race, is the best role for blogs like OpenLeft.  This site is about good debate, education, articulating values and strategizing to win.  We should debate the relative merits of the candidates in those contexts, but not endorse.


Don't Endorse Now (0.00 / 0)
I'll be voting for Barack Obama in the Vermont election on March 4th, but I don't think Blue Majority should endorse him at this point in time.  Would the effect of an immediate endorsement mean that money donated to Obama via Blue Majority could be used in the primary instead of the general election?  If so, I think this is a bad idea.  I'm willing to donate money to Democrats to run in a primary, where it is clear that a particular candidate (e.g. Donna Edwards) will help establish progressive governance.  In this case, however, the political differences between these two candidates is simply not great enough to spend money to aid one over the other.  I've decided that I will donate money to support whichever candidate wins the general, so that my money will be spent defeating John McCain, not another Democrat.  

I would be more supportive of the endorse now position, if the Blue Majority web page would permit a donor to restrict the dollars donated to building a war chest for the general election.  Or is it possible to restrict all dollars donated to the the general election?


If there were a significant difference on policy (4.00 / 1)
Then it would make sense to endorse.  But since there isn't, don't bother.

This is an interesting exercise (4.00 / 1)
because it raises the question of whether the decision should be based on the stronger arguments or on sheer numbers.  I realize you've already committed to going with the numbers, so it's a moot point practically speaking, but i can't help noticing that the arguments people have articulated are overwhelmingly anti-endorsement (and they are pretty persuasive), while the polling numbers are in favor.  What does that mean?

Wait (4.00 / 2)
He certainly doesn't need it, and I'd rather have him earn it without too much progressive netroots support, to remind him that we're not entirely happy with his policies, rhetoric and politics, and expect him to shape up if he wants our unqualified support. It was for precisely this reason that I was glad that he lost in NH, even though I personally (and reservedly) support him. It toughened him up and gave him the edge that he'll need to beat McCain, and reminded him that all glory is fleeting. I was a politically hardened candidate running against St. Maverick. This is good for him, and us. He'll survive, and it'll make him better, if anything.

I see him slowly being transformed into a man who can soundly beat the other side, not just in the election but as a president, and govern well. This is a process. No one starts out a campaign being the person who ends up winning and governing. They become that person, and the campaign makes them that--if they let it (as opposed to a certain candidate who refused to let it, and is paying the price). And as he rides his triumphal chariot into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, someone needs to stand behind him and whisper "Sic transit gloria mundi" into his ear, to keep him grounded. Let that be us.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


This Obama supporter says: (4.00 / 2)

Wait.


Convention Crisis is still real. Endorse. (0.00 / 0)
I am sure that a good win for Obama in Texas or Ohio would be enough for Clinton to drop or offer terms, I hope its not VP, but that at least avoids a convention from hell.

Endorse. Unify the party. Move to the general. Make up. Shake hands. Beat McCain/Bush, re-establish democracy.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


I wonder (0.00 / 0)
why is there so much hate for Hillary. It seems that she is hated more then Bush. I also don't get the Obama worship. I don't want a politician that i think is so wonderful and perfect that no one can say criticize them. I want a president that i can expect a certain kind of behavior from. I have no idea who Obama will be as president; i fear he wouldn't be a very good one.

[ Parent ]
Criticism of policy is always fair game. I haven't seen (0.00 / 0)
anyone say it wasn't. Attacking patriotism or the like deserves the wrath it receives.  

[ Parent ]
Endorse (0.00 / 0)
Admittedly there is an element of risk to either course of action, but the possible advantage an early endorsement now of the candidate who then becomes the nominee far outweighs the risk.

That energy and level of involvement is what the progressive movement has always been about, and this is an opportunity to crank it up even a few more notches.

Shameless Blog Plug: The SideTrack


wait, in a very big way (4.00 / 1)
Obama is simply not vetted and I for one, because I focus on trade, economics, labor, global labor issues (labor arbitrage) am extremely reacting to this Obamamania.  Neither one is a Progressive, but please can we get the closest thing possible?

There are some serious issues going on and seemingly so many are on the rah, rah bandwagon which disturbs me greatly because it is policy and commitment to that policy that is going to break the US or make it great again.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


Wait (4.00 / 2)
I think everyone knows I'm for Obama, but I vote to wait.

Objections very relevant, but endorse anyway (0.00 / 0)
As a reluctant Obama supporter who respects Hillary and the people who continue to support her, I understand the reluctance of many people to endorsing now.

But even if you support Hillary, here's why this is a good thing: more money earlier for Congressional candidates.

Endorsing now will bring Barack's supporters to Blue Majority now.  I don't think it will make much of a difference for Barack's funding.  But it will make a substantial difference for the kind of Congressional candidates that all of us care about.

Hillary will get the nomination, or she won't.  But if she does, she will benefit more from a deeper bench of well funded Congressional candidates than she will be damaged by our endorsing Barack now.


Flip side of that (0.00 / 0)
The flip side is that you'll alienate Clinton supporters and lose the potential for getting money from both sides.  You've already got the attention of Obama supporters now.

By endorsing Obama before the primaries have played out, I think it's much more likely that you'll lose the chance to get donations from Clinton supporters and agnostics who want this thing to just play out in the most fair way possible.


[ Parent ]
forum for dissent, wait (4.00 / 1)
also, if you endorse, us issue people will have yet another cheer leading playground versus a place to discuss the issues in depth.  There are plenty of candidate sites and by endorsing someone you will push away all of those who don't agree.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


Wait a few weeks (0.00 / 0)
If you can wait a few weeks to add the congressional candidates, you can wait to endorse a candidate.

Why now?  It makes no sense.


My assessment.... (0.00 / 0)
Why would you even consider endorsing BEFORE the nomination?  Certainly the followers of the Messiah don't need any encouragement, maybe they need just the opposite, and you would most assuredly turn off the Clinton backers if you chose Obama.  Speaking for myself, I've been reading liberal blogs for six years, and this is the first time I'm turning away from them, simply due to the obsessive Obama Derangement Syndrome.  Haven't been on Kos for three weeks, and it may be permanent!

Ah yes the deranged suporter meme (0.00 / 0)
I'm a 40 year old civil rights and immigration attorney. as their positions are pretty close on most issues I'm pretty sure that I came to my support of Obama based on HRC's positions which I found harmed my clients and the clients of my colleagues. An example? Being against retroactive application of the USSC guidelines for fear of the type of people that might get let out of jail. Those would be people put in my discriminatory laws. Another? Being for the removal of due process from immigrants convicted of a crime. A more draconian position than her husband's terrible law in 1996.

Voting against an amendment to ban the use of carpet bombs against civilians was just icing on the cake.  


[ Parent ]
Endorse on March 5th (0.00 / 0)
I am strongly opposed to nominating Hillary Clinton, but I think waiting until March 5th before making an endorsement would be wise.  Barring an unlikely Clinton landslide, an Obama nomination will be a certainty.  I'd rather wait until then than risk alienating the (few) netroots Hillary supporters.

I'm all for Endorsing Our Candidate Now (0.00 / 0)
but I think that there is still a chance that Obama may make it to the Convention and that it is still too close to call.

That said, Yeah, OK let's endorse Hillary Now and ON To the WhiteHouse!!!

Hah!


The hate mail wouldn't be worth it:) (0.00 / 0)


Is it still an "endorsement" if you wait until its settled? (4.00 / 1)
Seems to me that a true endorsement should come before the final votes are counted, otherwise its basically meaningless. But, maybe that is as it should be.

But - your endorsement is yours.  You can do whatever you want with it.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


Why bother? (0.00 / 0)
Most of this blog is a defact endorsement...i can't imagine it being a huge surprise for anyone...

I think it will be really hard for me to vote for Obama in November. I just dont see the guy as capable of being the leader of the US. His debate performances are lacking and the way he stutters reminds me of BUSH...

Does anyone really know this guy and what he stands for? I may not agree with everything Hillary says and does but at least i know who she is. I can't imagine or "beleive" that Obama will be as progressive as anyone seems to think he will be. I think he would really surprise the "grassroots" with the kind of president he will be.

I wont be surprised...i would be surprised if he wins the GE but he seems to be oblivious to the republican attack machine.  


Debates don't run the country. Thoughtfulness is never (0.00 / 0)
a good trait in a debate but it's a great trait when you run a country.

If you want to know what he stands for there is a ton of material out there. At this point though, if you haven't reviewed it, one might wonder if you're really interested in knowing...


[ Parent ]
Or I should say that you don't run the country by debate. (0.00 / 0)
Not the stilted debates that the candidates are part of anyway.  

[ Parent ]
All about the benjamins. (0.00 / 0)
"...we believe that the newly added candidates will receive vastly more support if there is a presidential candidate on the Blue Majority page. "

This is the only reason for doing this now.  But frankly,  exactly how much money are we talking here?

C'mon, guesstimate some numbers.  My threshold for voting yes is 30k (roughly half of what Blue Majority raised for Donna Edwards).

 

 



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq

this Obama supporter says wait (4.00 / 1)
I would strongly oppose Blue Majority endorsing Obama right now, although I would reconsider after March 4th.

I don't think an endorsement now accomplishes really anything good: it isn't going to help Obama raise any extra money, and it isn't going to swing Texas or Ohio. Plus, if you aren't rolling out the Congressional candidates for another few weeks anyway, endorsing now isn't going to help them raise money immediately. Rather, endorsing now will probably alienate Clinton supporters who already seem to feel alienated on the blogs that have leaned towards or endorsed Obama individually, and further fracture the netroots into Clinton blogs and Obama blogs.

Given that there is little or no gain, and considerable potential downside, to such an endorsement, I don't see the argument for making one now. However, if as many people expect Obama wins enough delegates on March 4th to effectively clinch the nomination, I could see the argument for endorsing then, even if Clinton doesn't officially drop out. That is still plenty early enough to use Obama's coattails to raise money for Congressional candidates before the March 31st deadline, and in fact may be more effective, as such an endorsement would probably get more eyeballs March 5th than tomorrow.

So I would strongly urge waiting until at least March 5th, when the state of the race should be much clearer.


please wait (0.00 / 0)
I really like this site, but if you decide now to endorse Obama, I will have to add this to my every growing list of blogs that I no longer read (like Kos, Huffington Post, AmericaBlog, TPM, Balloon Juice). I just can't take the rabid anti-Hillary bent to their posts. Your posts have been (mostly) balanced. I never read comments anymore, here or anywhere.

Please Wait (0.00 / 0)
The main reason that I come here is to read a site that is pretty much impartial.  You criticize and evaluate both campaigns fairly.  Is there any reason that you need to endorse?  I mean really.  Won't endorsing one candidate open this site up to people doubting some of your analysis because, in their minds, your posts will be tainted/painted with the slant your endorsement?  

your endorsement will help me (0.00 / 0)
I voted for you to endorse because I need the help. I'm an Edwards supporter who lives in TX (yes, we are half way throught the early voting) and I still don't know which way I'm going.  I like Obama on foreign policy more than Clinton; I like Clinton's health care policy much more than Obama's.  Neither one is as willing to call corporate america to task as was Edwards.  what to do?

The Time is Now (0.00 / 0)
After the shamelessness Clinton showed today you should endorse IMMEDIATELY!  

[ Parent ]
Give it, oh I don't know, a week! (4.00 / 1)
Things may be much clearer 8 days from now. I think it is unfair to throw support to one candidate at this point.

Let the primary process work. Then throw the full weight of the netroots behind the nominee. I'm a Moveon member, but I think they also jumped the gun.

PS, my candidate would apparently be the beneficiary of such a move, if I read the Blue Majority plea correctly(?).

And yes, you know which candidate we are talking about.

Why are they being coy? It's unseemly.

"It's the Constitution, Stupid!"


I'm an Obama supporter and I don't see the harm in (0.00 / 0)
waiting 'til at least after March 4th.  It's not as if we're under any illusions about this endorsement affecting the outcome of the contest, right?  I happen to think Obama is winning but, you know, why poke sticks in the eyes of all the Hillary supporters just as she's teetering on the edge?  We're going to have to be working together pretty soon, no need for pointless last minute provocations.


If one were clearly more progressive than the other (4.00 / 1)
then an endorsement might make sense in just alerting people to that. But it would be hard to make that case. Edwards was more progressive than either of these two.

Plus, let's not pretend it's such a big deal. An "endorsement" from a blog is not one everyone is waiting to hear, with breathless anticipation. Sorry.


It's tricky. (0.00 / 0)
we believe that the newly added candidates will receive vastly more support if there is a presidential candidate on the Blue Majority page

If you're right about this, then you probably should endorse.  Capturing small-dollar donations that are already going to Obama, routing them through Blue Majority, and siphoning some of that money off into the congressional campaigns is a Big Deal.  That's an important thing to accomplish, and if you can you probably should.  These congressional candidates need scratch now, way more than Obama (or Clinton) do.

Especially if you're right about "vastly more."

On the other hand, you might do some damage to your own sites.  There will be the pissed-off Clinton supporters.  There will be the pushback from other blogs.  There may be some hits to your reputations for covering the race with neutrality.  And you might get some stories in the MSM too.  I'm not sure how or if it would be covered, but it wouldn't shock me to see "Daily Kos endorses Obama" on the MSNBC crawler.  (Ever since the first Yearly Kos, the MSM has had a weird interest in the Daily Kos.)

Not to mention, I'm not sure what would happen to you in the event Clinton wins.  Probably not much, because half the Democratic universe has endorsed Obama and the Clintons can't retaliate against everyone.  But still, I don't know if net neutrality or anything else gets hurt in an endorsement.

If Clinton does well on Feb 4th, y'all will look kinda dumb for having endorsed with eight weeks or more left in the campaign.

But, weigh all that against the "vastly more" money for congressional candidates, and it might be worth it.  In fact, I think it's probably worth it, and I voted for it.  Those are pretty soft, fuzzy negatives, and cold hard cash is a very non-fuzzy positive.  Probably everything will work out fine (Obama seals the deal around Mississippi), so just go for it, and get those congresscritters some scratch.


with much trepidation (0.00 / 0)
I voted to endorse. I have deep worries about Obama's true progressive stances, especially his language regarding the "excesses" of the 60's and 70's. However,the movement he is building is certainly something to behold, and if he is indeed a progressive then he will have a power to act in a progressive fashion that perhaps has never been seen before.

Furthermore, I see increasing signs that he "gets it" regarding the struggle. I only decided for endorsement this morning after reading Glenn Greenwald's new post, highlighting this Obama exchange:

About not wearing an American flag lapel pin, Obama said Republicans have no lock on patriotism.

"A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?

If he is willing and able to fight back against the noise machine using progressive principles, then I believe the progressive blogosphere should most definitely put our whole support behind him. The deep questions, however, are whether or not he will continue to be both willing and able...


So sick and tired (0.00 / 0)
I am so sick and tired of the bias media and the O-bots celestial rocky horror road show trying to end this when 47% of the delegates are still in play and the polls show that Hillary has the numbers on her side for future number of those delegates.  

third option - it's unimportant (0.00 / 0)
I'm dismayed (but not surprised) to see the strength of feeling about this question.

The major point of an endorsement is (1) to establish an ideological position (2) to help the chosen candidate win.

Obama is almost certainly going to win the nomination -  with or without an endorsement. And pretty much everyone agrees that the ideological/policy differences between the two are minimal in the context of the general election matchup.  

I voted to endorse because I think it's a healthy time to wrap this primary season up. It's been a relatively long season with great enthusiasm and debate. If Clinton can't prove on March 4 that she still has a path to the nomination, it's time.

But let's not get too hot and bothered about it.    


Making An Endorsement (0.00 / 0)
While I do NOT want you to make an endorsement for the Democratic nominee, I must point out that when I read about your decision to poll readers you informed us that the 2/3 level had not been reached. Sorry! That's not fair. You shouldn't have done that! Having read all of your protests about superdelegates, et al., what you did might skew the results.

Obama enthusiasts are just as manipulative as any other political group.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox