home

Is This The Kind Of Endorsement Obama Needs Right Now?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:02:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Tim Johnson Endorses Obama:

South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson is endorsing a colleague for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Johnson says he's backing Barack Obama because he's bi-partisan and wants to bridge differences between the two parties.

(Emphasis supplied.) Um, that endorsement makes me less likely to support Obama. Obama already is having trouble with Dem partisans. This language from Johnson is not helpful.

< Don't Forget the Volunteers | Late Night : Battle of the Sexes with Mick and Bette >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Is This The Kind Of Endorsement Obama Needs Right Now? | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    But ... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:19:29 PM EST
    you don't live in South Dakota and maybe Tim Johnson thinks this is something that will attract South Dakota voters to Obama.  

    It's up to Obama to show what he's made of, not his endorsers.

    That reminds me. Was Oprah on the (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:23:15 PM EST
    stump in NH?

    Parent
    Not that I know of (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:26:00 PM EST
    and I feel certain we would have heard many times if she was.

    Someone today said "Obama had an Oprah Endorsement but Hillary had an Oprah Moment"  I thought it was funny.  

    Parent

    She was but the rally wasn't as big (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:35:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:24:58 PM EST
    The effect of this endorsement is what? Or do you think it intended to be read only in South Dakota?

    Who wrote the freaking copy to the press release?

    The Obama campaign seems not get it imo.

    I thought they did and would.

    Parent

    Maybe they'll get it tomorrow. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:34:43 PM EST
    In the meantime, most people outside South Dakota don't even know who he is.  Which is kind of sad considering what he's been through.

    Parent
    the language is the thing (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:47:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#42)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:50:58 PM EST
    it's not encouraging.

    On the other hand, for all we know Johnson's copy was written days ago and was always planned to come out the day after NH.  I say give them a few days.

    No, I take it back.  Keep hitting them but don't get deeply disturbed for a few days.

    Parent

    Most people outside (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:37:06 PM EST
    of SD don't know who this guy is.  It is not like an Lieberman, or that old southern democrat(i forogt his name) that retired recently.  It doesnt cause a reaction in most dems

    Parent
    It's like Lieberman (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:46:53 PM EST
    Well, he DOEs cause a reaction so that is wrong.

    But, for the record, I was talking about the LANGUAGE of the endorsement.

    Parent

    I see your point (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:09:11 PM EST
    but don't think that jumps out at most democrats.  Everyone talks about being bipartisan.

    Parent
    Actually, people who follow politics (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:10:22 PM EST
    closely probably do know who Senator Johnson is.  He was hospitalized shortly after the 2006 Congressional elections, making it unclear if the Dems. had a majority in the Senate, as know one knew whether he would be able to return to the Senate.

    Parent
    Yes but (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:16:31 PM EST
    they don't know him in the context of a Leberman, who actively works against Democrats.

    Parent
    well why not wait (none / 0) (#22)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:29:54 PM EST
    until south dakota is up for a vote?  Why now?  Clearly he is trying to influence beyond his state.

    unless they are in super tuesday and nobody told me.

    Parent

    like I said before (none / 0) (#1)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:06:29 PM EST
    it gives me the creeps to have the GOP endorse a Democrat.

    Johnson is a Dem (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:08:28 PM EST
    the language is my reference.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:11:30 PM EST
    your last post was from Sullivan - whom I now understand is endorsing Obama even though he is a GOP stooge.

    Inanay case, I fail to see why a Democrat saying the same thing Obama has already been saying suddenly creeps you out.  You dont like echos?

    Parent

    Obama is backpeddling hard on that (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:13:09 PM EST
    And I am hopeful this whole schtick will be gone in a couple of weeks.

    Parent
    Why is working with Republicans (none / 0) (#6)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:14:27 PM EST
    Inherently bad?

    Parent
    Because you can not work with them (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:18:41 PM EST
    This is a proven fact.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:19:58 PM EST
    They are like the borg.

    Parent
    I thought his schtick was attacting more voters, (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:38:34 PM EST
    some of whom are repubs.  Not working with them.  I always though the bloggers were getting that confused.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:49:09 PM EST
    You were confused.

    Parent
    my contention (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:26:35 PM EST
    as it has always been, is that there is a difference between electoral broad coalitions and bipartisanship, and congressional.

    Parent
    pretty good analysis from across the pond (none / 0) (#64)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:23:19 AM EST
    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/substance_not_style.html

    think this gets it pretty much right.

    Parent

    ANNOUNCEMENT! (none / 0) (#69)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    After reading that article, I am now favoring in this order:

    60% Obama, 30% Edwards, 10% Clinton!

    (Wow. Just thinking about those economic advisors scares the living daylights out of me.)

    Parent

    Perhaps Johnson didn't get the memo (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:15:52 PM EST
    in time?

    Parent
    But I have seen you (none / 0) (#12)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:19:52 PM EST
    say you didnt like it before. Did you think he didnt really mean it?

    Parent
    correction (none / 0) (#14)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:20:53 PM EST
    I have NOT seen you say before that you didnt like it.

    Parent
    I've criticized Obama (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:34:37 PM EST
    several times for it -- that's why I use  "code word: working with Republicans" every time I refer to his "working majority."

    Working with Republicans means compromising. There's no more room for compromising, we've already lost too much in the last 8 years (and in Congress, going back to 1994 and Newt and his Contract on America.)

    Parent

    I use different code language (none / 0) (#29)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:39:29 PM EST
    When I see working majority, I think and translate it as "broad coalition around progressive values". Maybe that's why we're on opposing sides, eh? We see the very language, English so differently.

    Parent
    my comment (none / 0) (#30)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:40:03 PM EST
    was to Big Tent.  If he supports Obama why is it only now when somebody outside of Obama say he likes what Obama already said?  it make zero sense.

    You have to have some logic to your opinion flow.

    Parent

    You clearly have never read me on the subject (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:48:37 PM EST
    of Obama.

    Parent
    actually I have only read you the last few days (none / 0) (#43)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:51:51 PM EST
    so again, i am suprised you voice this complaint here without attaching it to the fact that Obama himself has been saying it.  Why is the endorseent of his statements the problem and not the statements themselves? It isnt logical.

    Whatevah  - not a biigie for me.

    Parent

    unsolicited advice: give it up (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:53:09 PM EST
    You are incorrect.

    Parent
    okay (none / 0) (#45)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:58:50 PM EST
    it isnt advice, though.  An observation. I can hardly be expected to know everything ever written by everybody before last Friday,


    Parent
    It is advice. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:05:33 PM EST
    BTD expects everyone who reads him now to know his prior oeuvre, even from DK days under a different handle and also, more recently at MyDd.  Its tough.  But his writings on Obama are mostly recent and mostly at TalkLeft.  

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:19:38 PM EST
    I really dont get what you are saying.  How could anyone new join in and ask questions?

    Sounds like you are saying that I cant without casuing offense.  I really didnt understand that.  Doesnt sound like i can do that - I am back to work tomorrow and cant spend time like this - I would just drop in.  Sounds like that wont work - I will tick people off.

    I appreciate the heads up.:-)

    Best

    Parent

    You are free to ask questions, but, (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:23:10 PM EST
    I, who try to avoid confrontation mostly, would not accuse BTD of never having stated something before until I was pretty sure I was right.  

    Parent
    Although jgarza apparently vehemently (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:05:24 AM EST
    disagrees.

    Parent
    This comment doesn't track. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:49:58 PM EST
    What's interesting is that the Bismarck newspaper published an AP story that doesn't identify the political affiliation of any of the elected politicos mentioned in the story.  Unusual.  

    Parent
    Hmmmm. He has sd. he doesn't (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:27:18 PM EST
    like Obama pushing for support from Republicans in the primary.

    Parent
    I understand (none / 0) (#26)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:36:37 PM EST
    That we should be talking about Democratic values in a Democratic primary, but Obama's done that, or have the past 11 months just been a mirage? Hasn't Obama been a progressive this whole time, or does what the media say about your speeches, how conservative pundits laud you make you who you are? I think Obama's own positions and statements should make his campaign what it is, and not what Brooks or Broder or conservative Democrats say about him. Do they cast a light on his campaign? Sure, but they do NOT define it.

    Parent
    Come on, please Judith (none / 0) (#5)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:13:33 PM EST
    Talk about insulting...

    Tim Johnson is a Democratic Senator from South Dakota.

    Is he a progressive? No siree, but he's not a Republican! Please get it right next time.

    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Johnson_(politician)

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#8)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:17:01 PM EST
    I started that before the extra comments came in response to hers.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#31)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:42:28 PM EST
    you said it before you understood what I meant.
    you went and made yourself an assumption.


    Parent
    That's right (none / 0) (#34)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:45:01 PM EST
    I made an assumption based on what you said before YOU clarified your statement. Don't get indignant with me for what YOU said.

    Parent
    so why not ask me (none / 0) (#37)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:47:13 PM EST
    instead of assume? Isnt that what discussion is?


    Parent
    This is a discussion? (none / 0) (#46)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:01:09 PM EST
    I do not see where

    it gives me the creeps to have the GOP endorse a Democrat.

    has much room to be intrepreted, in a post about Democratic Senator Tim Johnson endorsing Democratic Senator Barack Obama, as much else than an offensive error in calling a Democratic Senator a Republican. Once it was clarified that you meant someone else completely, although that was not even close to provided in your original comment, I saw that my determination was based on information not given to me at the time of the analysis and I tried to be courteous and apologize for the error. Why both an understanding of one's error and an apology are not acceptable, especially when the person being APOLOGIZED TO did not provide enough information in their first comment as to warrant the request for further clarification they now seek, is beyond me.

    Still, I do not want us to be at each other's throats and I have to calm down, so I apologize AGAIN for blowing up at you as I did not know that extra information that was later provided.

    Parent

    Please stop. My eyes are hurting. (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:07:45 PM EST
    Maybe the post was entrapment.

    Parent
    ny post? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:11:43 PM EST
    I simply slipped over form the sully thread.

    I dont understand - sis that a joke? Do you really think i would do that?  Why would I?  I like Big tent and Jeralyn - i have donated twice here in less than a week.  Why I do that if I was some kind of troll trying to cause trouble?

    Parent

    Not you. Neither the link nor BTD (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:16:58 PM EST
    disclosed in the initial post the party of Senator Johnson.  

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#57)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    Now I see the game...don't worry, the back and forth was frustrating, but I had some Pringles, read some of Ron Paul's racist newsletters (it's funny seeing him then and now) and calmed down.

    Parent
    Hey - (none / 0) (#50)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    My response to you was mild and it is mild now.
    I simply asked why not ask me instead of assume?  That is all.  I am not indignant and I dont see where you got that emotion from me.

    So getting upset is not necessary - I sure dont wsant you to be   - and I hope you feel better right away.  

    Parent

    I was very frustrated (none / 0) (#59)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:28:16 PM EST
    Because of the whole thing I mentioned in that long post. I'm quite alright now, though. I get worked up, and then I settle down five minutes later. I'm like a...................very large spring.

    Parent
    Pringles and Ron Paul. Must remember. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:31:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks for the reminder... (none / 0) (#70)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:04:47 PM EST
    Ah, much better now. Apparently Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "world class adulterer" and "seduced underage girls and boys". Dr. Paul, you teh crazy.

    Parent
    what's weird is that (none / 0) (#10)
    by sammiemorris on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:19:21 PM EST
    Obama is far more to the left than Hillary. According to the National Journal, I believe in 2006, Obama was the 9th most liberal senator, and Hillary was center left at 32. The funny thing is that most Republican senators would privately concede that they admire Hillary's work ethic in the senate, and that she works with them really well on getting legislation through. Unfortunately, because we keep hearing how the media paints her as polarizing, you never hear about this, or about stories like Sam Brownback crying over the fact that he hated her once he got to know her.

    What's ironic is that even though Clinton appeals to democrats while campaigning, and stays away from the whole unity schtick,  when it comes to rhetoric vs. results on bipartisanship, Hillary has been much better at achieving that consensus in the senate than Obama.

    Most senators privately believe that Obama hasn't done much in the senate, and that hes just using the position to piggyback to the executive office. I mean as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, he hasn't even held a hearing since joining the Senate in 2005.

    My mom always says, hope without work ethic is just hype.  

    Ah... (none / 0) (#18)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:26:32 PM EST
    hope without work ethic

    The "lazy" charge. No one's used that before. Right?

    Parent

    I disagree with the comment (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:27:58 PM EST
    But I did not get lazy out of it.

    Parent
    Ouch. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:28:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, I looked (none / 0) (#61)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:42:43 PM EST
    up the 2006 National Journal rankings

    Clinton, Hillary Rodham, D-N.Y.
    Economic (63) Social (80)  Foreign (62)

    Obama, Barack, D-Ill.  
    Economic (87) Social (77)  Foreign (85)

    Out of 34 Economic Bills, they disagreeded only 3 times:


    Clinton (YEA) and Obama (NAY) for all 3

    10/HR4297: Approve the fiscal 2006 tax reconciliation bill extending various tax cuts that are scheduled to expire by 2010.

    44/SConRes83: Increase funding for the community development block grants by $1.3 billion. March 15.

    219/S3711: Authorize oil and gas drilling in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. August 1.

           

    Parent
    Brownback & Clinton did bipartisan (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:08:20 AM EST
    with Santorum and Lieberman on their videogame ban crusade in 2005.

    Parent
    Obama needs Gore's endorsement. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:42:55 PM EST
    Obama talks alot about the environment and his supporters, at least at the rally I watched on C-Span, seemed to be there for that reason.

    P.S. Hoping Gore doesn't do it though.

    I cant see it (none / 0) (#33)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:44:54 PM EST
    why would he?  Bradley came out for him and next thing ya know Obama lost. Eek.  Makes him look like a loser.  Which he was.

    Parent
    Oh, not by all that much! (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:47:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Im guessing Gore prefers Edwards, (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM EST
    and also guessing Gore doesn't like Obama's message either.
    I have read many times that Gore and Hillary didn't get along, but I don't know if that's accurate.

    Parent
    Kerry is endorsing Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:45:15 AM EST
    I wonder if Gore is next?

    The best possible endorsement for Obama at this point, aside from former presidential nominees and maybe Richardson, would probably be someone like Barbara Boxer.  That's probably extraordinarily unlikely, but that would be a huge boost among California voters and a decent boost among women.
    Oprah's great, but a prominent female politician's endorsement would be better, because it helps dampen the race vs. gender dynamic the media's trying to hype.

    Just saw that (none / 0) (#66)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:25:39 AM EST
    announcement at 11:00?  

    Now his language WILL be a test to see if Obama is going to take this in a different direction.  

    Given the actual language (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:30:17 PM EST
    of John Kerry's endorsement of Barack Obama, I'll venture a guess we will be seeing another diary like this one soon.  

    Is This The Kind Of Endorsement Obama Needs Right Now? | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment