Obama the Choice of Those Who Know Both Clinton and Obama Best

Endorsements usually do not mean much, and have multiple, and sometimes unclear, motivations. Sometimes just old history with the person trumps other considerations such as nation and party.

Those hiring people for jobs do reference checks with former co-workers and former employers. Why? They have the best information about how the potential employee performs at their jobs, and provides the best prediction of how they will perform in their new job.

United States Senators are the only ones who have worked with both Obama and Hillary in the same capacity and in the same setting. One might have expected the Clintons' long history that antedated Hillary's Senate career with many of these members to have won their support. Moreover, they have worked with her longer in the Senate because her tenure is longer, as the Clintons continually point out. They know her better.

These are the people who can best judge the claims to judgment, competence experience, likely success and unifying capacity. Making any choice in this situation is difficult because all know that they are going to have to work together in the future with one of them as a colleague and the other as president.

By 18-13 United States Senators have endorsed Barack Obama.

Comments

[96Bravo]

Also, out of the entire field of former 2008 Democratic primary candidates...those who ran against Obama and Clinton...who have observed each other behind the scenes, during debates, etc...only two have endorsed a candidate so far. Both for Obama.

[PaulAbrams]

That is a very good point, but I think that Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich have all endorsed Barack, that would make 3. Edwards and Biden have not endorsed anyone. Gravel is running as a libertarian so not endorsing anyone.
That said, Richardson is a Governor and worked with Bill Clinton as SecEn and UN Amb, but not Obama. Kucinich is a House Member, so did not work with either.

[BlueAsh]

You are absolutely right: It's not just the number of people endorsing Obama--it is WHO is endorsing that is revealing. Richardson and Reich, for example, are both high-profile, well respected people. They may be seasoned politicians, but they are known for things other than their brown-nosing abilities.

[spokensoftly]

All endorsements are important.
If you will note, Hillary had a lot of Supers to jump on her wagon when she appeared to be the likely nominee. Some where along the way, Obama began to appear more attractive. No one want to risk alienating the Clinton machine, it have a way of grinding up the enemy.

For some one to risk their political career to endorse an underdog, says a more about what they are leaving.

Many have state that Obama's organization and leadership is superior.

[OriginalScreenName]

I am an Obama supporter. However, I think the Senators positions of endorsing Obama has far more to do with politics and down tickets elections than a voucher of competence.

The Senators that gained under the Clinton administration support her. The others remembered how Democrats were just thrown out of office under the Clinton administration or have no ties to them. Bill Clinton was absolutely devastating to down-ticket Democrats and they know it.

[moda31]

who helps the party on the whole is an important thing for them to consider, they must feel there is evidence that it would be obama, sounds like another plus for him.

[myskylark]

I'm not impressed.

[frustratedinohio]

If Washington could actually remove it's collective head from it's ass, what you say might mean something.

[Magpie57]

Dear Ohio,

It's going to take a "Network" moment when we all thrust our heads out the window and scream, "I'm madder than hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" If people get pissed off enough and start to get a bit more militant (not violent) like the 60's, it will start to happen. But America is too hooked on the newsutainment, so they gobble every bit up that feed to them.

[docdk]

Part II of II

As a result of this delay, I missed a job that had been offered to me, as long as I took my degree by a specified date. Thereafter, my adviser suddenly rediscovered his e-mail account and started forwarding discipline-related messages and calling my family home; I quickly cancelled my university e-mail account, informed my mother that I was through with him and boycotted graduation ceremonies (ironically, this man, whom I served dutifully as a Research/Teaching/Personal Assistant for over 3 years, is/was one of Dr Susan Rice's mentors). It took me close to a year before I found another job (outside the United States!). Conversely, a former Masters student of mine, who met Obama in Kenya as a mid-level employee of a US Govt Agency in 2006 or thereabouts, had nothing but glowing remarks regarding his deportment and character. So, there you have it, for all it is worth.

[frustratedinohio]

What in God's name does this have to do with Hillary Clinton?

[docdk]

I'm just **frustrated** LOL

[docdk]

Part I of II

A prominent Friend of Bill, who worked in the Clinton White House and whose wife is a friend of Hillary from their Wellesley days, made my life HELL as my dissertation adviser. I was punished for promptly finishing my draft and taking positions that were at odds with his 'status quo' stances. In fact, he directly told me on one occasion: *Do you think that getting a doctorate is easy?* When I finally defended my dissertation, all the other committee members asked me to make minor revisions and submit it to my Chair so that I could meet the impending deadline for graduation. What did my Chair do? He ignored all my electronic mail messages, telephone calls to his home and the completed version of my project (sent via expensive express mail), which only required his assent. Instead, he travelled to Asia and ensured that I missed the deadline. It took the intervention of the ombudsdwoman for him to finally call and ask me to make utterly-trivial revisions, which I completed in an hour.

[aliceblue]

I believe you. My interest is in the Elizabethan era
which was more feudal and less 'early modern' than
many scholars would like to admit.

The Clinton's are feudals, they have the same
authoritarian approach to patronage.

I have no doubt that the Clintons will take us into an
era of corporate neo-feudalism and that is really going to
stink because there's no 'nature' to flee to this time
around. Read Gibbon?

[OtayPanky]

Yes, but you forgot that the senators who endorsed Hillary are way more important than the ones that endorsed Barack.

[rnb]

Obama's wins at everything are only worth 3/5 in the eyes of the Clintons. 3/5 of 18 is 10.8. Therefore, Hillary's wins count more.

[OtayPanky]

Precisely.

[gigi09]

That sound racist! However it does sound like the Clintons...thanks for reminding us!

[KGinSanFrancisco]

Is this a joke?

[OtayPanky]

You tell me.

[Terriac]

I hope you're being facetious.

[OtayPanky]

Me too.

[aliceblue]

Want to list the senators that are 'way more important?'

Put the 'way less important' in a second column so we
can compare.

[OtayPanky]

I'll let you do that for yourself, otay?

[Bertha40869]

What do you mean? Just like the states that went for Obama, filled with people who voted for Obama, aren't important?

[OtayPanky]

Exactly so.

[KillTheMessenger]

If you actually take the time to listen to both candidates, you don't need an endorsement from anyone to make up your mind. It is crystal clear. Mr. Obama represents a new breed of politician who puts the problems of the country at the center of his proposal and asks for ACTIVE help from everyone to find solutions. All other candidates set their solutions at the center and then ask the voter to sign off on them before stepping aside for the next four years. In a world where problems care about pre-fab ideologies about as much as gravity cares about armor steel, Mr. Obama's approach sounds not only fresh but also responsible and inviting. In comparison all other candidates are selling stale dog food in a can and claim that it was made from the best grass-fed meat. Good luck reaching the thinking voter with that message.

[Boadicea]

You've hit on the reason that I didn't support John Edwards.

Edwards said the right things, but after six years in the Senate, he was unable to get a single senator to endorse him in his bid. To me that spoke volumes.

It also surprised me that Hillary didn't have a lot more senate support.

Obama had only been in the senate three years when the campaign started. I think he had one or two senate endorsements at the start. That impressed me. The senators who have endorsed him over the course of this campaign is an impressive list, representing varying levels of experience. They represent various positions on the progressive to moderate continuum.

In all, it's telling. A lot of different kinds of people can see that Obama is a gifted leader, not just an "experienced politician" which is essentially all that Hillary has going for her.

Hillary's endorsements include mostly "loyalty" endorsements. And with the Clintons, we know what it means when your clinton-loyalty doesn't trump the best interests of the Democratic Party or the American people. You're branded a Judas.

Which makes the endorsements of Bill Richardson and Joe Andrews pretty damned impressive. I want both of those two men on my team!

[aliceblue]

Agree. I was wowed by Kerry's remark that Obama's
latest statement on Wright was Obama's 'second
presidential moment' or something to that effect. The
first, of course, was Obama's speech on race, worthy
of a Lincoln in my opinion.

Like your nick 'Boadicea.'

[vfx]

Exactly.

To flesh out Paul and Boadecia's comments I would live to see a timeline on the Sentae support. That is the few who endorsed Obama right away and the undoutably more who did the same for Clinton.

I think she would have the Clinton loyaty-count in her favor at the beginning but he would have a slow steady build of many new supporters as the Senators got to know him while she gained reativly few as the battle war (!) on and personalities came forth.

[hopeless277]

But if you take the 1 in the 13 and make it a 4, the Clinton is clearly leading.

[KGinSanFrancisco]

The Clintonian math stupidity.

[Thorn]

Gosh. Your use of italics has sure convinced me.