Thursday, January 10, 2008

Wait, Is This Good Or Bad

2004 Dem Nominee Kerry Endorses Obama

I still respect the hell out of Kerry's years of service to this country and his committment to party ideals. But he kinda was a sucky candidate (ie: bad at campaigning). So is it good or bad for Obama that someone who botched his own chances so terribly is now on-board?

Even though "[t]he Republican National Committee pounced on the endorsement to brand Kerry and Obama 'liberal soul mates,'" I don't think that's going to be a problem. It worked last time, fellas, but not so much this time. Have you seen our turnout numbers? Where are your voters? Not motivated by the fuzzy liberal scourge this time. Not yet, anyway.

6 comments:

Aaron B. Hockley said...

The story here isn't that Kerry endorsed Obama... the story is that kerry didn't endorse Edwards, his former running mate.

Anonymous said...

Instead of looking at it as a transfer of political strength how about the idea that voters will be impressed that a respected progressive Senator (irregardless of his campaign abilities) who worked closely with both candidates in the Senate has decided that Barack Obama is the best choice to lead our country.

cd said...

(First note: there's been a sharp spike in "anon" commenters. that's fine. But can you all choose a nom-de-blog? initials? numbers? favorite cartoon character? thanks.)

To anon - yeah, that'd be awesome if that were the story. But the knee-jerk MSM response and likely a good number of voters may be "uh-oh, Albatross!" I don't think it's a question of a 'transfer of political strength.' Perhaps a transfer of weakness. Or a transfer from yesterday's news. Awful, isn't it. But kinda true. The upside, if the article is accurate, is the purse power.

To aaron - the same could be said about Hillary. But given the tension between Kerry and Edwards, I don't think it's that surprising. I also don't think it has too detrimental an effect on Edwards. Mostly because he's already likely down for the count. Had Kerry backed him, it wouldn't change things anyway.

Frankly this all feels like a no-story story. We'll see if it has any visible effect on the next primaries.

Anonymous said...

The spike in anonymous posters probably has to do with the fact that your site won't seem to take my google account password. Until that changes, I will remain affectionately, "The anonymous blogger" which I think is an acceptable "Nom de guerre".

As for Kerry, I still think you are reading it wrong. I don't think real voters will view consider it in light of his failed Presidential campaign. I think instead they will recognize it as an honest appraisal by a person with nothing to gain (and who knows all of the candidates very well) of who should be the next President of the United States and in Barack's case since he is a relatively new figure nationally, every time something like that happens, it's a big plus. It also says some good things about John Kerry.

Let's face it. Right now Hillary is the frontrunner again. If you were angling for a lot of influence in a future Presidential cabinet, you would at least hold off on an endorsement to see how it all played out. For John Kerry to step forward when Barack is down and say this is the best choice to lead the country says a lot.

cd said...

Click "nickname" and just insert one of those . . . .

I think real voters are busy and get most of their information from mainstream media sources, which use their analytical skills to opine on the significance of political events. So I think my reading is very plausible in terms of how a Kerry nod does or doesn't influence Obama's campaign or detract from another's.

To hope otherwise is a beautiful sorkin/capra-esque endeavor, but my cynical mind just won't buy it.

bottom line: if an only slightly educated voter says, "who is that who endorsed Obama" and the answer is "John Kerry." And the follow up is "Oh, right, isn't he that guy who lost last time?" - you have your answer.

Anonymous said...

An awful lot of time and money was spent saying good things about John Kerry and convincing roughly half of America's voters that he was qualified to be President. People will only notice it peripherally, but I think they will file it away as useful information and perhaps not even consciously. If you are trying to decide between Hillary and Barack, there are a lot of differences between them. However polling for whatever it is worth (in my opinion not much) shows that most people who are unsure about Barack feel that way because they question his experience. Hillary gets a pass because people think her husband will be along to help out. Both of these statements are big jumps, because both candidates have a lot more in their background, but that is what polls say. I think if you are trying to decide whether or not Barack Obama is qualified to be President, every time a John McCain, a Tim Johnson (South Dakota Senator who also endorsed Obama)or an Al Gore (another guy with a lousy campaign who is rumored to be considering an endorsement of Barack)decides to make the jump, I think it helps to reassure those voters that Barack Obama is not an affirmative action candidate, but instead is very qualified to be President.