Do the endorsements of John Kerry and possibly Edward Kennedy affect your feelings Barack Obama?

I will stick with John Edwards ‘until/and if’ JE decides to go another way, regardless of polls and what the msm tells me to do.

With that being said, folks coming out to support Obama, like Kerry/Kennedy do make me see Obama in a different light. For quit some time now, my perception of him has been that he was relatively too right wing for my taste.

With endorsements like these, I have to reevaluate my perception and say, ‘Maybe these guys see something in Obama that I am missing.’ Just wondering how other people see this working out.

I see John as the "outsider" here, and I wouldn't expect the senators to support him, sadly.

nt

...it's impressive as hell and I congratulate Obama for getting them.

Caroline's article was especially moving.

More so than my feelings that Obama is the right choice.

Now he is looking for votes in the South like a Kerry/Kennedy ???? How is that going to work out?

And I know nothing about his feelings about women in power. Wanting something on the side didn't make Bill Clinton less supportive of his secretary of state, his attorney general, or the Supreme Court Justice he appointed.

right-

Teddy's actions if president might well have been different.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

...meant more for Dems who are just getting interested, rather than the kind of voter that hangs out here.

imo what it also says is that there are a lot of Dems who want to move forward rather than revisit a Clinton WH.

I guess we can put that meme to bed, now.

And, simultaneously, the Clintons are being retired.

anointed.

Personally, I don't much care about DC insiders ~ I just want to beat the Republicans, and think Obama is the one who can do it.


(I do care more about what Gore thinks though, because I care so much about the environment.)

Which is why it took me a long time to warm up.

And will stick with him. Endorsements mean nothing to me. I think that many of the latest endorsements are simply done so those doing them can get in on the "winning" team, or at least the one they think will win. If Hillary had won SC I think things might have been different. If Edwards was in the lead, things would be different. To many politicians just want to jump on the "winning" band wagon.

Edwards has the right message, and he talks about how he will make the changes, and I like that. Obama and Clinton seem to want to "fight" instead of address the issues, and I don't like that. I want to know "what" each canidate is going to do about the problems we have. I don't want to see them avoid telling us their plans, I want straight talk, and until I hear that from the other two, well I just can't give them my vote!

"maybe these guys see something I'm missing".

But I'm uncommitted and have no desire to "support" anyone at this point. IF the race is still close when my primary comes around (May), then I would take such an endorsement into consideration.

But then I've personally never been swayed by endorsements. And I've been on a losing team of every primary since 1984, so it really doesn't bother me to see others get the endorsements I would want my candidate to have, I'm used to it by now! (though I'm not on any team this go round, but will probably vote for Edwards)


Maybe I should try a get rich scheme during the next contested Dem primary. Do you think I could convince a candiate to pay me to support her/his opponent, since that would guarantee them a victory? :)

when a woman or black man is running? They would be seen as racist or sexist. Obama and Clinton are the media darlings, and are "making" history. Why would any of those dems have a back bone and support Edwards, when they haven't shown a back bone against Bush.

zalinda

I have to wonder what is behind the endorsements. From what I have seen I haven't seen any real substance from Obama on his policies and there are a lot of questions unanswered in regards to his economic stimulus package. The Nation magazine had
a real concise illustration of the differences which has not been brought to light at the debates. Here is a quick snip of what I'm talking about:

"As the sub prime mortgage debacle drives a recession that threatens financial markets around the world, the Democratic presidential candidates are pushing plans to address the crisis. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are pledging substantial federal resources to stabilize the mortgage market and intervene on behalf of borrowers. Barack Obama's proposal is tepid by comparison, short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility. As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well.

Edwards's plan includes a mandatory moratorium on foreclosures, a freeze on rising interest rates for at least seven years, federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and explicit measures to rein in predatory lenders and regulate the financial sector. Clinton's plan is weaker--a voluntary moratorium, a shorter freeze, less commitment to new regulations--but she has promised $30 billion in federal aid to help reeling homeowners and communities.

Only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze. Though he has been a proponent of mortgage fraud legislation in the Senate, he has remained silent on further financial regulations. And much like his broader economic stimulus package, Obama's foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund."

There is more in the article and I really would like to see a debate where we get the "real" information on their stances and ideas because in the end that's what its about.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser

I do my own research and make up my mind.

Especially the Kerry endorsement. I feel close to Kerry not just on issues but the way he thinks about politics and what matters most. I was a little hesitant about Obama at first because I didn't know if he was "for real" or if he had what it took to go the distance.

When John Kerry endorsed I felt that settled the first question - yes Obama is for real; and as for the second, Kerry must think Obama is going to at least make a good enough run at it to be worth going out on a limb.

I know some people might think that "we shouldn't let these people tell us what to think." And I did think hard about whether I should let Kerry influence my opinion that much. But here's the thing - Kerry (and some of these others, like Kennedy) actually work with Obama and get to interact with him. They absolutely do know things that we don't know. So if I trust Kerry's judgment, then it is reasonable for me to give a lot of weight to his endorsement of Obama.

I've even convinced myself that if Kerry had endorsed Clinton, I would have been surprised and maybe taken a couple days to think about it, but I would now be an avid Clinton supporter. It was a lot easier than that as it happened (him endorsing Obama) because I was already leaning that way, but that's how much Kerry's endorsement meant to me - he could have gotten me to support even Clinton.

However, it does confirm how I have always felt about the old white male guard.

Although I do think that the Kerry endorsement is a negative for the general.

I make up my own mind.

Obama's help in sweeping the 2nd stolen election under the rug cemented my opinion of him from the start.

Now that I've been further exposed to him in the debates and reading, I can't believe anyone is supporting him other than the clueless kool-aid crowd.

But it did reassure me that the people who would likely be in his inner circle would be people I trust. I liked Obama's comments on how he would make decisions. I knew that Richard Clarke had been advising him and per a comment he made to a person very close to me - Clark said that he asked great questions and was a very smart guy who put things together quickly.