home

The Sound of 100 Mayors Clapping

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06:20 PM EST
Tags: Pennsylvania '08, Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

100 Pennsylvania Mayors today endorsed HIllary Clinton for President.

The 100 mayors endorsing Hillary today will work in the final week of the campaign to get out Hillary’s message of change for Pennsylvania and the country. Hillary understands the economic pressures of families who have lost jobs, face foreclosures, and can’t afford health insurance or college tuition. She understands what it’s like to roll up your sleeve and work hard. As president, Hillary will fight for the issues that matter to all Americans starting on day one in the White House.

Add to that 11 Indiana Mayors who wrote a letter criticizing Obama's Bitter-Gate remarks.

< Florida Poll: McCain Would "Trounce" Obama But Tie or Lose to Hillary | Why SUSA Provides the Most Helpful Polling >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Sound of 100 Mayors Clapping | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    100 (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by judyo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM EST
    There's 100 more votes.
    That's assuming that votes count (unlike 2000 and 2004).

    And (none / 0) (#19)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM EST
    it may go a long way to the people who live in those 100 communities - especially if they are small - they probably know the mayor personally and that could say a lot for the effect of an endorsement.

    Parent
    WOW! (none / 0) (#59)
    by STLDeb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    That is FANTASTIC news for Hillary.  

    Parent
    Hopefully Ed Rendell will get some facetime (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:32:19 PM EST
    within the next week and he can report this FANTASTIC News because the MSM surely won't. Fox may, but no one else will. WTG, Hillary! Congrats!

    Just imagine if this was Mr. Hope getting the endorsement of 100 PA. Mayors. It would be on EVERY network as "Breaking News" and we'd never hear the end of it for the entire week running up to the election.

    Rendell machine (none / 0) (#78)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:46:06 PM EST
    Mayors depend on the governor for state aid, so when Rendell says "Jump", they say "How high?"
    Is anyone surprised that some mayors support Hillary?

    Parent
    That's a lot of mayors. (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    Does anyone have any idea how many mayors exist in PA?

    Better order 100 more "I'm not bitter" stickers.  I would interpret this to mean that those mayors agree with HRC; PA folks are "optimistic" and "positive."  This is a good omen for the status quo.  I think McCain will be pleased to know that the good people of PA are "positive."  Since they've rolled up their sleeves and made things work McCain can remind them  of the threat from elite Ds who would try to take their guns and/or religion, while pandering to minorities and illegals.

    Or, are hard core HRC supporters under the impression that HRC can out-wingnut McCain on these cultural issues, just like she can on the CIC issue?  That must be why she uses these arguments during the primary, because they're the keys to D victory in November.  Or not.

    What's next?  HRC accuses BO of being a tax and spend liberal?  That seems to be the only wingnut attack we haven't heard.  Actually, there is one more.  HRC accuses BO of declaring defeat in Iraq.  There's still time for her.

    Go ahead, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:57:57 PM EST
    continue to denigrate HRC's supporters and smear her as Republican-lite.

    Way to unify the Party.

    Parent

    I was trying to (none / 0) (#32)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    be a little tongue in cheek, at the same time I'm trying raise my concerns about the long term strategy.

    Parent
    That was not tongue in cheek it (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    goes with a lot of your other comments.

    Parent
    Long term strategy would indicate that Hillary (none / 0) (#51)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:58:58 PM EST
    be the nominee.  She can beat McCain; Obama can't.  That's about as long term as you can get.

    Parent
    she can win Florida (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:29:08 PM EST
    and that more or less would finish McCain all by itself.

    So there's long term and there's long term.

    Parent

    Obama is the one that attacks from the right. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Healthcare, Social Security, attacking Pakistan. Not exactly a good line of attack when you try and paint her as a wing-nut because she's got small-town support. That's what Obama did with his commentary and you can see how that's working out for him. Hint: not very well at all.  

    Parent
    Obama also attacked unions and trial lawyers! (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    during his attacks on Edwards because a union was airing a pro-Edwards TV ad in Iowa.
    Obama also smacked down universal healthcare in his effort to attack Hillary.
    Gawd! I want a REAL Dem in the White House - go Hillary!


    Parent
    That's right! When unions supported Edwards... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM EST
    Obama complained about the support and the money they were giving Edwards.  Now that some unions are supporting Obama, he has nothing to say about union lobbyists.  

    The longer the campaign goes, the more of the real Obama comes out... and it ain't pretty.

    Parent

    I agree, that he would (none / 0) (#39)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:15:11 PM EST
    need to pivot on Health Care, and it wouldn't be pretty*.  But on social security, it was HRC accusing him of "raising taxes," so there is no damage to HRC there.  Rather, it's another example of HRC adopting wingnut attacks.  And, his Pakistan policy wouldn't be a big deal, his comments aren't adopted wingnut talking points.  Although you remind me of another situation where HRC has used the wingnut attacks because of BO's willingness to meet with those we don't like, never mind that a solution to Iraq must include Iran, or that our Cuba policy hasn't worked after fifty years.

    *For the record I don't believe that mandates are feasible unless the underlying system undergoes a major reform (much more than the add on plans of BO and HRC) first.

     

    Parent

    But he is the one that is saying (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    SS is in crisis which is a RW position used to justify it's privatization  and he is the one whose advisors favor it's privatization.  That and his constantly blaming Bill Clinton with everything that is wrong makes him sound IMO more like a Republican candidate than a Democratic one.

    Parent
    Meeting with foreign governments (none / 0) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:29:40 PM EST
    with conditions is common sense, far from wingnut behavior since they have none. And Obama sitting down with Castro and Ahamdinejad without conditions is just foolish, not liberal.

    Parent
    How do you know that (none / 0) (#57)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    meeting with preparations but not conditions is foolish?  Conditions haven't worked in Cuba for fifty years.  What if Iran says: "screw you, your stuck in Iraq and the government you installed listens to and welcomes us while we subvert your occupation."  Bush has been following the conditions first policy, and Iran seems to be getting by with the existing sanctions, what if they never give in?  Do we keep the status quo for fifty years, like in Cuba?  Do we increase our leverage by threatening a military strike if we don't get our way?  Can we allow Iran to call that bluff,  would we need to blow stuff up to save face?  How did that work in Iraq?

    I understand that conventional wisdom says we must have conditions/concessions first, but if it hasn't worked after fifty years in Cuba, why can't we question the wisdom of that approach?  BO wants to start by opening up some limited interchanges with Cuba, why are you sure this is foolish?  I know it may not be politically popular with some Cuban exiles, maybe that's why you say it is foolish.

    FL resident*:  There is a long term problem with SS, although I do agree that the Medicare problem will be upon us sooner, so I give credit to BO for touching the "third rail."  BO has not supported the wingnut plans for SS, these plans aren't even feasible because there's no money to start the individual accounts at the same time existing SS payments must be maintained, and nobody has figured out what safety net would be guaranteed with the individual accounts.  

    Have you heard WJC on BO:

    picking Obama would be a "risk";

    likened nominating Obama to picking "a gifted television commentator";

    called Obama a mere "symbol for change," adding that "symbol is not as important as substance";

    Falsely claimed that BO said:
    "only Republicans had had any good ideas since 1980."

    * I'm combining responses because I try not to go over 10 comments in a day, but I seem to illicit a lot of reaction, so it's easy for me to have a lot of response comments.

    Parent

    elicit , wasted coment, must preview! n/t (none / 0) (#58)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Also, check your abbreviations ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:45:28 PM EST
    ... when you're doing that previewing :)

    Parent
    I do that so often it's (none / 0) (#63)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    really bad, I also frequently mix up: there and their, even though I'm well aware of the difference.  Embarrassing.

    My only excuse is that I'm not fully focused on what I'm righting (that was on purpose.)  Yes, I realize that this confession does open myself up to the charge that my lack of full attention may explain why my opinions are so wrong, from the perspective of many HRC supporters.

    Parent

    Actually, it's always easier to proofread ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:50:41 PM EST
    ... someone else's writing. We're too focused on the intent of our own sentences to inspect our words carefully. So your self-criticism is a very gracious response. And I assure you that I will do my best not to judge your opinions by your spelling or punctuation!

    Parent
    when you say (none / 0) (#68)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:20:45 PM EST
    There is a long term problem with SS, although I do agree that the Medicare problem will be upon us sooner, so I give credit to BO for touching the "third rail."  BO has not supported the wingnut plans for SS, these plans aren't even feasible because there's no money to start the individual accounts at the same time existing SS payments must be maintained, and nobody has figured out what safety net would be guaranteed with the individual accounts.  

    Are you taking into consideration that the biggest problem for SS is the money that is borrowed from it for other purposes?  So pay the money back I don't see in his or for that fact any candidates proposals.  But the part I don't like about his stance on SS is the "there is nothing off the table" thing he said.  Considering the position of his advisors on the issue I worry.  He is not touching the third rail he is using the same kind of talk the Republicans have been feeding us for the last 40 years of course you believe what you want but reality is that the crisis is not real and all the problems that exist with SS and Medicare could be worked with.  Unfortunately the Hope candidate has decided to scare us with the same crisis talk that the Republicans are so fond of.

    Parent

    That the SS/Medicare money is (none / 0) (#74)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:46:45 PM EST
    borrowed is precisely why it could be argued that the SS/Medicare funding issue is more urgent than some may think.  It is true that SS is expected to be fine until after 2040 (or so.)  But the impact on the budget will start long before that.  As more folks retire (and draw SS and Medicare, instead of paying in) the annual SS surpluses will lessen because outflows are growing as inflows are shrinking.  This means that the federal government won't be able to take this SS money, so it will need to borrow increasingly more from the public. After nine years SS will have a negative cash flow so it will need to borrow from the public to replace these funds that previously came in as SS/Medicare surplus, but were spent on the rest of the budget.  And, it just continues to get worse, because everyone knows that the SS surpluses have all been spent, all the I owe yous won't buy you a gum ball, all this missing surplus money will need to be replaced by a mountain of federal debt to payout the SS/Medicare obligations (I owe yous), this borrowing is in addition to the huge amount of borrowing that is part of the government's routine budgeting.  If this really isn't an urgent problem, why was Gore so proud of his "lock box" eight years ago, when the fiscal outlook was less bleak than it is now (recall that the government's stated deficits don't include the money borrowed from SS this means that we're borrowing a lot more than the announced deficits indicate, e.g. if the whole debt was considered the Clinton administration's biggest overall surplus would have barely been in the black.)

    And, BO has clearly stated that he's opposed to privatizing SS.  But raising the cap, or putting in a donut, for income that is taxable for Medicare/SS is probably prudent.  But, BO would take a lot of flack for "soaking the rich."  But, it would help to make this revenue stream less regressive and more certain in the long run.

    Yes, I realize that Krugman and others are minimizing this issue, but I don't get that.  We do have a problem here, and BO's raising payroll taxes could help with funding for Medicare as well as SS.  Plus, Krugman makes mistakes e.g. his book "The Return of Depression Economics" has all kinds of prediction now shown to be wrong.  And, I see a lot of problems with his support of mandates, without major changes to the existing framework of our health care system.

    Parent

    First of all everything about how much (none / 0) (#77)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    funding etc. is arguable.  But what I want to hear from all candidates and have not heard yet is that they will stop borrowing from the Fund.  Then to put ahead a plan for re-payment of the money that has been borrowed.  Raising gaps, cutting benefits IMO are just more of the same bull..... the system can be put back in working shape if we stop the leaks and fill the tank, then re-evaluate the situation to see if some additional tweaking is necessary.  Putting less money into fancy weapons and other non-productive projects would go a long way into not needing the to borrow from a retirement fund.

    Parent
    economist on Tom Hartman last week (none / 0) (#50)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    was railing about Obama's awful Social Security solutions.

    Yes - we know. Elitists Obama and Kerry have taken an anti-mandate position that omits 15M of us before Obama begins his Kumbaya meetings with the Insurance industry.

    Hillary will implement health care for all!


    Parent

    So if Hillary says it and it goes against what (none / 0) (#52)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    Obama believes then it's a wingnut attack?  

    Parent
    Angel, you pretty much summed it up n/t (none / 0) (#62)
    by angie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:53:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Something I believe that's overlooked (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kbentleyis on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:51:11 PM EST
    I gather from your posting that you seem tired of the same-o-same-o issues directed towards Senator Obama.

    I'm not a good writer, so I'll try to express my thoughts as best I can.

    Reverend Wright's comments and Senator Obama's comments are very important to me personally.  Many years ago, probably many years before you were born, someone else talked like them.  At that time, no one could imagine that an elitist-viewed person could ever come into power and dictate a country, at least the Jewish community didn't.

    I'm probably the only one that noticed in those clips from Rev. Wright's church, that people were cheering him on and supporting his logic.  If you were able to catch Obama's remarks when compairing Senator Clinton to Annie Oakely... you heard that same sing-song, preacher type resonating voice.  And, his movements of superiority commanding an agreement and laugh from his crowd.  

    I'm not afraid of genicide ever happening in America, but our leader must be a good ambassador of human relations.  He/she must not only bring peace within our country, but to those around the world.  His talk on race was commended by many.  Perhaps I'm not educated enough to see it as no more effective than listening to today's forcast.

    We all have to look beyond of what "sounds good" and focus on who's saying it.  Obama has managed to stir up the American people by selling a transparent government promise. How can he promote "transparency" when he couldn't answer a simple question why he refused to have Rev. Wright at his presidential announcement party?  Cannot remember social events at Tony Resko's home (even though Resko donated $250,000 to Obama's campaign)?  Never attended his church when Rev. Wright was making offensive remarks?  

    I will not help Obama become president.  Yes, I'll vote Republican if he is the Democratic choice.

    Parent

    100 Mayors ? (none / 0) (#1)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    Why is she trying to prove she is THE establishment candidate?

    Y'all are really (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    flipping out aren't you? LOL. Establishment Candidate. That's right.  Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi are totally on the edges of our Democracy. No Washington insiders in that group.

    Parent
    well it does give an impression! (none / 0) (#10)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    although Obama may have more support of Establishment, most of his suporters don't come in like this in public display, like Pelosi, Donna Brazille, Gore, [Clay , Al Sharpton, for laughs]

    Parent
    They just pretend to be neutral (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    while undermining the other candidate at every turn. I'd respect Brazile et al entirely more if they just came out and endorsed him instead of using the Party to try and hand him the nomination.

    But you're right. 100 Small Town Mayors = Establishment. 30+ year Senators entrenched in DC = Crashing the Gate.  

    Parent

    CNN's loss (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:29:46 PM EST
    I'd respect Brazile et al came out and endorsed him

    CNN will Lose it's Neutral Analysts!!!

    Parent

    Hahaha! Good one! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    most of his suporters don't come in like this in public display, like Pelosi, Donna Brazille, Gore,

    Brazile is laughable the way she heavy hands for Obama, Pelosi has made so many under the table endorsements it's ridiculous and you do not speak for Gore, who has vowed to stay out of this.

    I suppose if the point is that Clinton's supporters are proud to state that they are as such, then I agree with you.  It seems like the Obama supporters you mentioned would much rather keep it to themselves so that they can openly shill while persuading themselves they are partisan.

    Parent

    Kennedy/Kerry (none / 0) (#17)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:34:55 PM EST
    They found out when they shouted out, they lost their own state. Now they are laying low.

    Parent
    Kennedy more than Kerry (none / 0) (#23)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    I think Kennedy doesn't want people to bring up how he stayed in the race against Carter and was "bitter" to the end, refusing to shake Carter's hand at the convention.

    Parent
    The thing is that Brazile did well (none / 0) (#55)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    under the Clinton administration, and worked on both his campaigns. Here is an out-take from Wikipedia..

    , Brazile served as Chief of Staff and Press Secretary to Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, where she helped guide the District's budget and local legislation on Capitol Hill. She advised Bill Clinton's campaign for the presidency in 1992 and for re-election in 1996.

    In 1999, Brazile was appointed deputy campaign manager and was later promoted to campaign manager of the 2000 presidential campaign of Vice-President Al Gore, becoming the first African-American woman to manage a presidential campaign that also won the popular vote.

    snip...

    She currently serves as a superdelegate for her work for Bill Clinton. (Emphasis added)

    Without the Clintons, there is a good chance that Donna Brazile would not be where she is today. They gave her a big boost out of local politics onto the national stage. Funny how she manages to forget that. She was involved in Dukakis' campaign, but had to resign after making some rather gross insinuations about George and Barbara Bush. Ick.

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by lansing quaker on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    Instead those supporters try to strong arm Hillary out of the contest before this Primary, and also keep Michigan and Florida at 0% participation rather than 50%.

    I'd rather take 100 enthusastic small town mayors rather than those who want to keep voters and candidates out of the running.

    Parent

    No public display? How about the entire Kennedy (none / 0) (#53)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    clan (minus Robert's family) at an event with Obama?  You either don't pay attention or are allergic to the truth.  

    Parent
    she is the establishment candidate (none / 0) (#18)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:36:09 PM EST
    the Clintons silly.  the inevitable candidate "this will be over by Super Tuesday".

    whoopsie.  

    Parent

    Of course she is. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    That's why the Establishment is doing everything it can to try and get her to drop out. Keep saying it. It still won't make it true.

    Parent
    funny (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:58:00 PM EST
    how such an "inexperienced" guy (right?) is now the establishment.  They're asking her to drop out because she can't win (numbers are stubborn things) and she continues to bring down her party, herself and Obama.  

    Her campaign has been an embarrassment - thus her once inevitable nomination is nothing of the sort.  Like it or not.

    Parent

    For someone who has 'won' (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    you sure aren't very happy.  Why aren't Obama supporters out enjoying the sun until November?  I just don't get all the anger and angst.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#36)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    actually is funny. That the DC Establishment has put their eggs in the most inexperienced basket ever to run for President. You're right about that!

    Parent
    Please stop (none / 0) (#49)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:55:42 PM EST
    The non ending campaign commercial. Please. This is a nice honest request. It adds nothing to the discussion. It adds nothing to your candidate. In fact it just alienates people.

    You are not serving your cause.

    Parent

    So you think that (none / 0) (#80)
    by Kbentleyis on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:16:31 PM EST
    the remaining 10 states shouldn't vote, because their votes won't make a difference?  You think Senator Clinton is bringing down the democratic party?  Keep in mind, the delegates-super delegates that stated she should drop out, were voted in their present positions.  I believe it is leaders like them that have gotten this country into its present state.

    Amazing, Hillary brings down the democratic party?  Hummmm.  Obama supporters refuse to accept that Obama's actions and affiliations are unacceptable to most people.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#20)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    funny, Obama too thought that way.

    It's the media that is inevitable.. not the candidates

    Parent

    Only according to you (none / 0) (#38)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    Not according to the Clinton campaign. So stop repeating this falsehood.

    Parent
    I think it says (none / 0) (#3)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    she's the candidate of the people in the small communities that Barack denigrated.

    Parent
    Mayors of small towns in PA (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    are hardly considered "the establishment".

    Obama certainly does not shrink from true establishment endorsements, and he is the one supposedly anti-Washington D.C.

    Parent

    He He (none / 0) (#9)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    Technically, my grandfather is the mayor of his small town in western PA.  He sat on the water board,and way back in the 70's or so, he was quoted in the local paper as "Mayor" (the town is so small it doesn't have one). People today still occasionally call him "Mayor". I'll have to call him and see if he is going to give public remarks soon!

    Parent
    heh! (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:57:31 PM EST
    What an establishment pig he must be! /snark

    give him our regards!

    Parent

    Aren't Mayors (none / 0) (#2)
    by Josmt on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    consider SDs? or only some?

    No (none / 0) (#4)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:15:05 PM EST
    only a select few who are considered "big" in the party.

    Parent
    As far as I can see (none / 0) (#7)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18:25 PM EST
    none are super delegates and Obama just picked up what was the last state wide elected official.

    Oh, so that makes how many (none / 0) (#35)
    by angie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    statewide elected official for him and how many for Hillary? You say it as though his picking of the "last" one has any significance considering the count in toto.  

    Parent
    Finally someone in the Clinton campaign (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    gets a feel for the PR value of things like this. About time.

    Ruff (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM EST
    they have been doing this and doing this, and the media hasn't paid a lick of attention.  Remember the hundred flag officers?

    Parent
    Funny that (none / 0) (#21)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:44:02 PM EST
    Can you see the wall to wall coverage this would get if Obama campaign had announced this? Tingles up everyones legs! ;)

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    I thought of that after I posted. sigh.  Thinking about a change in the campaign strategy gave me some hope.  I know better than to hope for a change in the media.


    Parent
    PR Value ? (none / 0) (#41)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    This is how it is being trashed:

    Hillary Clinton's campaign has scheduled what it's calling a "major endorsement" announcement for noon today at the PA state Capitol in Harrisburg. How major are we talking?

    Looks like something of the overblown and over-hyped "variety".

    Sources say Clinton will simply be rolling out a group of local mayors



    Parent
    If they are trashing Clinton for the 'hype', (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    aren't they also trashing the Mayors for endorsing/participating?

    " . . . simply be rolling out a group of local mayors"

    so I guess they aren't important enough?

    Parent

    The elitists (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    continue to show that they agree with Obama.

    Small towns are unimportant, and so are their elected officials and their voters.

    Parent

    Yeah, that's going to go over (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    well.... oh blah, it's just small town mayor's that the small town rubes elected.  Belittle the small towns more, that'll get votes.  Is someone trying to tank Obama?  Just seems a bad strategy.

    Parent
    Only 19 show up (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:44:37 PM EST
    according to the Philly.com

    Greg Sargent is trying to determine how many previously endorsed Clinton.

    The plan was for 20 to show up. Do you really (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    believe that all 100 should have been there?  Give me a break.

    Parent
    Looking at the list - it's not just (none / 0) (#26)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    the small towns (a lot of which don't have mayors, per se).  She got the endorsements of the mayors of (in descending order of population)
    Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Erie, Reading, Scranton, Bethlehem, Lancaster, Altoona, and Harrisburg.

    Philadelphia
    Pittsburgh
    Allentown
    Erie
    Scranton
    Bethlehem
    Harrisburg
    (the top 4 and 7 of the top 10 in population; the other three - Reading #5 (Dem. Mayor, pop 83K), Lancaster #8 (Dem. mayor, pop. 55K) and Altoona #9 (Repub. mayor)

    After the top 10, she has, inter alia:

    Easton (26K)
    Wilkes-Barre (43K)
    Pottsville (15K)
    State College (38K)
    Monroeville (Land o' Malls outside Pittsburgh)
    Tarentum (upscale-ish suburb of Pittsburgh)

    So, she might have gotten a lot of small towns, but she also got the big ones, with whatever machines they might have, to help her GOTV.

    oops. The post should read like this: (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    the small towns (a lot of which don't have mayors, per se).  She got the endorsements of the mayors of (in descending order of population)

    1. Philadelphia
    2. Pittsburgh
    3. Allentown
    4. Erie
    5. Scranton
    6. Bethlehem
    7. Harrisburg

    In other words, the top 4 and 7 of the top 10 in population.  The other three in the top 10 are:  Reading #5 (Dem. Mayor, pop 83K), Lancaster #8 (Dem. mayor, pop. 55K) and Altoona #9 (Repub. mayor).

    After the top 10, she has, inter alia:

    Easton (26K)
    Wilkes-Barre (43K)
    Pottsville (15K)
    State College (38K)
    Monroeville (Land o' Malls outside Pittsburgh)
    Tarentum (upscale-ish suburb of Pittsburgh)

    Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton, together with their burbs, form the 15th CD, which is the subject of a strong challenge to an 2-term incumbent Repug pseudo-moderate Charlie Dent, by Sam Bennett, whose really nice, bloggy site is here and who deserves every Dem's support.  

    The 15th was almost won by the Dem in 2006, who had to run as a write-in and basically without money, because no one believed they had a chance.  

    The 15th was previously held by Club for Growth carpetbagger Chris Toomey, who seems to have decamped to working for billionaires again, since being Cheney's and the Religious Right's stalking horse in the Specter primary in 2004 (to force Arlen's submission to the admin's will, while in charge of Judiciary).  

    Parent

    Been watching the various news outlets (none / 0) (#34)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    since I am working from home today and have yet to see any coverage on this.  I wonder if "the place for politics" will report it at all today.  Methinks they'll only focus on her focus on the "bitter" stuff.  I'm not holding my breath.

    100 PA mayors clapping (none / 0) (#40)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:20:31 PM EST
    Music to my ears.......

    100 Mayors? How about 1 million PEOPLE? (none / 0) (#65)
    by freccia on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    To me, this story encapsulates the single greatest weakness of Hillary's campaign: her abysmal organizational capacity.  While Obama is out enlisting people like crazy into a nationwide, grassroots machine, Hillary is trotting out "100 Mayors" like she's just executed a triple lutz at the Winter Games.  Big deal!  Her reliance on elected officials and big media will be her undoing, because she has forgotten the lessons of her own thesis topic: Saul Alinsky.

    A column in today's San Mateo County Times summed up the situation perfectly: This time around, it's all about organization.  All the pretty ads in the world aren't going to defeat a face-to-face effort with real buy-in from those involved.

    100 Mayors? Try 19... (none / 0) (#66)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:33:08 PM EST
    LINK

    Errr, did you think (none / 0) (#67)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    They were bringing 100 on stage to announce it? Wow.

    I do like the papers "unbiased" coverage of the event though.

    Parent

    Well, if your going to do a publicity stunt (none / 0) (#69)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    you should really do it properly.

    Parent
    What is "properly" (none / 0) (#71)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:48:54 PM EST
    Bringing out 100 people with actual jobs for a stunt?

    Parent
    I don't understand this (none / 0) (#72)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:23:12 PM EST
    Clinton is a longshot at this point. I've felt this for a while. But people keep endorsing her, voting for her, donating to her. What is going on here? If things were as clear as many make them out to be, then people should have abandoned Clinton wholesale, recognizing that they were throwing away their money/vote and/or endorsing a loser. Am I just being pessimistic? Is my view completely distorted? I get most of my news from the internet, so maybe the world outside is different, but it seems that the tv  pundits have pretty much declared Obama the winner. What's going on?

    This is so incredible! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Folkwolf101 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    And, it seems a great many other mayors from other states are sounding a similar horn. With the open letter from 11 Indiana mayors decrying Obama for his arrogance, and with Montana and West Virgina adding to the mix, who knows where the country will turn. I can imagine a great number of constituents writing to the delegates to plead that they change their votes to Hillary.

    Go Hillary go!!!

    The Sound of 100 Mayors Clapping | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment