Yo, fellow undecideds, how much did the Kerry endorsement make a difference

Not at all?

Make you stop and think?

Settled the deal for you, one way or the other?

As for me, it made me stop and think.

Something the Obama supporters on the board hadn't been able to make me do yet.

I'm looking in his direction, and I wasn't before.

Not saying I'm voting for him yet. But the door is open now, and before it was closed.

and everything to do with Kerry the man. I don't care how good a candidate he was or how good a campaign he ran. I care about his integrity. I can say at least that after reading his speech, I know exactly WHY he endorsed Obama. He said it as far back as 2004. He doesn't want to see the country divided anymore, and he thinks Obama can help fix that.

I am no Kerry Fan........

and I'm no Hillary fan. So I have to pick either Edwards or Obama.

I was pulling for Richardson......now I guess I'm leaning Edwards.

Neither are now in the race. And if things don't improve soon, neither will Edwards.

I do need a viable candidate.

And I can see what Kerry sees that's appealing in Obama, re: unity.

But the McClurkin thing stands in my way.

Meanwhile, I've thought about Edwards, known people who were going for Edwards because he's the best Union guy, even know someone whose brother knows Edwards, and loves him. But there is a smarminess factor I detect. He's not the man I thought he was, I think sometimes.

That's probably all Kerry meant for people to do.

Some talking heads last night were saying there seems to be a realignment of the Dem establishment going on, and Kerry's endorsement signaled that ~ interesting.
<><><>

GET OUT THE VOTE! http://www.cafepress.com/powerboutique

let alone any Obama spam.

Le sigh.

I'm getting his spam now. Eh, so I delete it.

I don't pay too much attention to endorsements, particularly from other politicians. I often wonder if it's just an attempt to be relevant or a way of telling the candidate he/she wants a position in his/her administration.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Kerry's opinion doesn't mean anything to me.

...one for the ages.

I had so wanted to find a reason to vote for the first woman President, but yesterday, after hearing Kerry's speech, I knew I was going to vote for Obama. I learned today that there is a podcast on CSPAN and I recommend, even if you read the speech, to listen to it, too. It was singularly remarkable for its content and passion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2653385

I can't say the endorsement changed my opinion of Obama. And the truth is, no endorsement is likely to do that. But I'll admit that I don't care about endorsements; I base my votes on my own feelings about a candidate's platform.

listen to Kerry's speech....

referenced in another response to this post.

or feels about anyone or anything, but I decide whether or not a candidate will receive my vote on my assessment of a candidate's stated positions, voting record, etc. And that's it.

dont cheat yourself out of the speech of the new century,

hon....

You're really not accomplishing anything by simply re-posting your frame over and over in an attempt to wear people down. But I guess your objective...isn't really about accomplishment.

I decided to go sign up for the other candidates e-mail lists too.

I'm leaning for Hillary right now.

I guess I'm typical of voters who are persuaded by whatever is going on currently. First Obama, Kucinich, then Biden, then Edwards, now Hillary. I read a lot here on DU, follow links, just got cable recently although it stretches my budget, because I want to be able to watch the debates and keep up. I;m trying to stay informed.

If Obama sends me emails, I want them from Hillary and Edwards as well.

and the psychology of the campaigns.

Kerry has a phone, donor, and email list that can be of value to Barak. There's no illusions about it changing many votes.

When our PAc endorses it makes little difference to the public, but it does mean the candidate will have access to our resources.

which would explain why he was being courted by more than one of the frontrunners, I'm told.

To follow his lead. His endorsement won't affect my vote, even though I am a fan of Kerry.

he gave away the election instead of challenged Ohio and for that, I don't think Kerry has good judgment.

that's not to say I don't like things about Obama. Thought he gave a great speech in the first caucus. but Kerry isn't really someone I admire.

I'm determined to back nobody until the convention.

if a nominee emerges before then, i'll back that person.

in the meantime, it's nobody.

I have no idea how i'll vote on February 5th - maybe Kucinich. Or Dodd if he's still on the ballot here in CT.

I prefer to interpret Kerry's endorsement as a thumbs up for Obama, not a thumbs down for Edwards. In the end we all have to go with our gut.

1. The associative trust issue: This is what your OP mentions - will the endorsement of one who has X amount of trustworthiness or gravitas or "brand" have an effect on support for that candidate? Notice the Hart/Kerry endorsements are timed to address the "He's not ready" charge. Why would such foreign policy heavy hitters endorse someone who is "not ready?" In this sense, it may be effective.

2. The LIST: Kerry has one of the largest mailing lists of progressive leaning voters, maybe the largest out there (I forget, is it 30 mil?) That is gold.

3. Superdelegates: Remember, they are uncommitted votes that could put anyone close enough over the top. Since they are uncommitted, each endorsement has its own gravitational effect. Imagine the underlying psychological and power-brokering effect this has behind the scenes. You can almost smell the cigar smoke. ;)

4. The news cycle battles: How these are timed out to control the news cycle is a very important aspect of the daily strategy. ONe of the reasons Kerry was kept down in 04 is the fact that the GOP put out terror alerts, news conferences and speeches to time EXACTLY over big Kerry/edwards events. To the minute, It was frustratingly machiavellian. And effective. "Kerry never really refued this, or got big crowds, or..." --well, you did not see them because of this. GOP even gamed c-span, the bastards.

There are other aspects, I am sure. but these are off the top of me morning head. I need some coffee.
I am staying "undecided" specifically because I want to be clear headed and objective, the better to see this on the level of cultural trends, mass psychology and other cultural anthroplogical factors.
On an emotional level, after the devastating 04 loss, and how close we came to getting someone who I have followed and admired for decades (and that after Gore, similarly) I don't have the will to love again to that degree.
Gore and Kerry were the directions we SHOULD have gone. Our futures have been hijacked.
So now, I want to see it from a higher perspective. I did this in 2000 to a degree, and saw the implications of our future, and knew of the evils to come if the BFEE got into power. The stakes were clear. Now the future is more cloudy, and I need that elevated perspective right now.

It is never just a "game" to me, so the sports level and associated blindness that comes with it, (and the insane and childish GDP battles) are the shallow end of the pool, as far as I am concerned.


Hope this helps, LittleClarkie!
Food 4 thought, at least.

more because of his previous relationships with them.


JMO

comments from the Edwards camp, especially from Elizabeth, Edwards distancing himself from the Kerry campaign, second-guessing while he was the VP nominee, plus Clinton piling on the botched joke with everyone else when she must have known what he meant, that sort of thing.

I think Kerry was close to Bill, but the Clinton loyalists were not helpful in 2004. I think of Carville in particular.

Meanwhile, in reading Kerry's speech, I can see exactly why Obama would be appealing to Kerry, considering past comments Kerry has made about unity. I think he's serious when he says he thinks Obama is the future, so I think it was less of a slap and more of a true endorsement.

that truth.

In their minds it will always be perceived as Kerry slapped Edwards and Clinton in the face, while they ignore that Edwards and Clinton did their own share of backstabbing while Kerry and Teresa have been nothing but classy to the Edwards.

This is more about Big, bad Kerry hurting "poor ailing Bill's feelings" cause he got up after heart surgery to campaign for him in 2004, and Big, bad Kerry "hurting the Edwardses and owing nothing to them for 2004."

As I wrote in another thread, Kerry could cure cancer or AIDS and people here would still be complaining and moaning, "Nope. Too little, too late" or "no, not good enough."

And a lot of these over the top threads and posts are vicious smears on a progressive, liberal senator, who does more than those who are constantly lionized here. Kerry took responsiblity for the entire 04 camapaign, I mean no one but him (he wouldn't let anyone else take the heat except him).


That is ethics and integrity, and it's sad that few people here recognize it.

;)