Jan. 15, 2008
Red-State Dems Sour On Clinton
Politico: Concerns About Electability Lead To Rash Of Obama Endorsements
-
Photo
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right, acknowledges the students of Del Sol High School with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano during a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Friday, Jan. 11, 2008. (AP)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Dems Eye Economy For Nevada
With the GOP candidates focusing on the economy, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also rush to define their economic platforms before the Nevada caucuses. Jim Axelrod speaks with Jeff Glor.
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
A look at the life and meteoric rise of the president-elect.
-
Photo Essay
Hillary Clinton
A look at a life and career full of firsts.
Barack Obama in recent days has sprinted ahead in the endorsement derby against Hillary Rodham Clinton when it comes to a certain breed of Democrat - politicians who have won statewide in places where Republicans dominate presidential politics.
Among a barrage of prominent statewide elected officials to back Obama publicly this month is Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, and U.S. Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tim Johnson of South Dakota.
What all three politicians have in common is that they are Democrats who have cracked the code in getting elected in states where Republicans historically have triumphed at the presidential level. George W. Bush won these states both times.
So did most of his Republican predecessors. In fact, these three states have each voted for a Democratic presidential nominee only once since 1948.
The string of recent Obama endorsements seems to be more than a coincidence.
During extensive interviews in recent weeks in Republican-leaning states, Politico found widespread belief among current and former Democratic statewide officials that Obama is the more electable candidate with their electorates. These politicians also frequently registered a fear that Clinton’s personality and past history make her too polarizing to win independent and Republican-leaning voters.
The interviewing - which included both on-the-record and on-background exchanges with a couple dozen Democratic politicians - was focused on states that were won both times by Bush but also that were lost at least once by Bill Clinton.
That list includes states, like South Carolina, that have been off the table for generations for Democrats. It also includes places on the edge of the table, like Colorado, which in recent elections has been in play even though Republicans usually win in the end.
“I happen to believe that Obama is the most electable, both in Virginia and elsewhere,” said Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, an early Obama backer. “I really think to win you gotta get independent votes….Independent voters like people who they don’t believe are defined by political orthodoxy.”
In Arizona, Napolitano first met Obama last February at a governor’s meeting in Washington and ruminated about her choice for months, following up with the candidate and his staff by phone and e-mail. She said she decided that Obama’s message of generational change and transcending partisan polarization in Washington was best-suited for winning the 2008 election, including in Arizona.
“One-third of our voters will be independent voters,” Napolitano said. “Whoever wins independents will win the state. That’s not to say she doesn’t or can’t. But he does better.”
Bill Clinton won Arizona in his 1996 re-election, but neither Al Gore nor John Kerry could put it in the Democratic column. Democrats believe the state -- represented by Republican John McCain in the Senate -- is gradually becoming a swing state as Hispanic voters and out-of-state suburban transplants change the complexion of a historically conservative state.
Historically, endorsements from fellow politicians are not major vote-drivers. Still, Napolitano’s blessing was well-timed for Obama, coming just days after the candidate came up short against Clinton in the New Hampshire primary. As an accomplished woman politician, Napolitano can help slow what in New Hampshire was a sharp tilt of women voters to Clinton, and also amplify Obama’s case that he is better suited to widen the battleground of competitive states in a general election.
Two days after Napolitano, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill’s (D-Mo.) nod for Obama had much the same effect. Missouri, unlike Arizona, is a classic swing state - it has voted for Republicans and Demcrats seven times each since 1948.
Clinton is not bereft of prominent support from Democrats with experience winning statewide in presidential red states. Her backers include former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat.
She also has the support of former South Carolina Gov. Richard Riley, who served in Bill Clinton’s administration as Secretary of Education. Citing her experience in New York, where Clinton softened up and eventually won over many upstate Republicans, Riley predicted she “will be very supported moderate Republicans and independents once they get to know her.”
“She’s very much a result-oriented person who works with all ideologies and all kinds of people,” added Riley, who is one of Clinton’s national co-chairs.
But Politico interviews suggested it is far easier to find red-state Democrats who regard Obama as the more promising bridge-builder, and regard him as the more likely candidate to either pick off a traditionally Republican state or at least make the GOP work harder to keep it.
One of Riley’s successors, former Gov. Jim Hodges, recently endorsed Obama. In an interview before he made his plans public, Hodges said, “there are many voters who surprised me when they talked about Obama - these are generally soft Republicans.”
These less-partisan Republicans, Hodges said, “tend to be more economic conservatives” and that Obama’s status as an African-American “doesn’t come up - that should be encouraging to the Obama campaign.”
Hodges also praised Clinton as someone who has “made a persuasive case on experience to Republican-leaning voters.”
But other politicians, given the protection of not-for-attribution comments, made clear their suspicion of Clinton as the party’s standard-bearer.
“It would be very hard for Clinton to do well here,” said a Democratic governor in a Southern state. “She remains a very polarizing figure.”
A Democrat who has won statewide in a Republican-leaning western state said: “I think her negatives are high out here, very high. Close to 50. That makes it very tough.”
Most of Clinton’s Democratic skeptics did not attribute her problems to her gender, though some did.
“I do somehow feel that statewide or national women candidates have a steeper hill out here,” said former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm.
Colorado has not gone Democratic since Bill Clinton won in 1992 with the help of independent Ross Perot, who siphoned support from President George H.W. Bush.
Even in 2004, when Coloradans elected Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar to replace a Republican and the state legislature flipped from red to blue, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry could not beat President George W. Bush.
Lamm and his wife, Dottie, are long-time friends of the Clintons and have stayed as their guests in the Arkansas governor’s mansion. While Dottie Lamm is backing Hillary Clinton, the former governor is supporting Obama as the person he believes is the more winning face of the party.
“Obama I think does offer a hope and a sincerity and a credibility that you don’t see in everyday politicians and it seems to come from a more real place than the calculated brilliance of Hillary Clinton,” said Lamm, who served as an iconoclastic governor in the 1970s and 1980s.
Responding to the recent Obama endorsements and the findings in the Politico interviews, Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said: “Hillary Clinton has been pulling support from blue states, red states and purple states, from all over the country. We’ve got tremendous support from people that have gone Republican in the past, because those people believe she is not only the person that can bring change, but is also the most electable.”
He cited one of Clinton’s recent swing-state endorsements, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, as a harbinger of her competitiveness in the general election if she is the general election nominee.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the support his candidate is gaining in traditionally Republican states shows, “Obama is the candidate best suited to not just win next November, but to win with a new governing majority.”
“Endorsements from respected leaders are important because Obama’s getting the stamp of approval of someone who’s very respected in the state,” Burton added. “But ultimately it’s Obama himself that has to close the deal with these voters.”
Chris Frates and Avi Zenilman contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 POLITICO
|
We cover politics with enterprise, style, and impact. |
Video and Galleries from Politico
-
Video
McCain's Comeback Chances
-
Video
Cheney Condemns Russia
-
Video
Novel Based On Laura Bush?
http://saynotoobama.blogspot.com/
Their positions will be secured by a successful candidate and Hillary isn''t it. Read the article.
Bella_triana,
We''ve had 16 years of Bush & Clinton, you don''t know what sick is.
If you really love this country like you claim, you would NOT have placed your faith in someone that has NEVER been tested before in our ECONOMY, and GLOBAL WAR on TERROR.
Posted by metroduck75 at 02:25 PM : Jan 15, 2008
+ report abuse
Of Course I know SICK is...
SICK is to put someone with NO experience what-so-ever in the OVAL office in "hoping" he will do well.
Posted by metroduck75 at 02:23 PM : Jan 15, 2008
******************
Of course the same arguement could be made and won against George Bush. he had no experience--except to bankrupt companies, rape them, and run them into the ground and he did it to America and Iraq also. At least he is consistent. The only people who have experience at running the country are former Presidents and maybe some VPs. Everyone else that runs is a novice---everyone.
what a stupid slogan
Here''s a few fast facts for you. Bill Clinton had no experience before he was elected; in some instances it showed(like putting his inexperienced wife in charge of his signature program). All in all the results were mixed but were generally a success.
*** Cheney and Colin Powell had lots of experience. Where did that get us?
I''ll take judgement and character and real life experience over being a Washington insider and 35 years primarily as a Corporate attorney.
Regarding the red states how do you propose your Queeen will be Coronated without expanding the base beyond Kerry & Gore?
Her husband won by winning what are now considered red states. What''s red and blue can change over time and so can the needs of the country.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice and I have no regrets about that. I wouldn''t vote for him again because after 8 years we know exactly what we''re getting with the 2 for 1 deal and I believe we can do better as a party and a country.
As far as you and excoachKen are questioning my patriotism the Bush supporters already beat you to the punch and i could give a *** what any of you think.
There''s a huge difference between not ruling out military action and actually going off the deep end and pre-emptively invading countries. Intelligent people understand that reality is more complex than your simplistic leftist view.
Quite often the possibility of military action acts as a deterrent against having to take action.
If the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq had not told Sadaam that we were cool with him going into Kuwait Desert Storm might not have been necessary.
If the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq had not told Saddam that we were cool with him going into Kuwait Desert Storm might not have been necessary.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 04:14 PM : Jan 15, 2008
That is true and then you have the Republican administration. Saddam was working with the world he allowed UN inspectors in Iraq to have a free hand at everything. But the Republican administration has said that Saddam was not working with the world. Three days before he bomb that country back to the beginning of time they left because they were told by the administration that attack would happen and to get out.
Lies, lies and more lies is what has come out of the Reactionary religous wing nuts. Anything is better than a neo con anything and I do mean anything.
Barack Obama will even fight for the rights of a DANGEROUS CRIMINAL to SUE YOU if they get themselves hurt after breaking into your home!
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual ... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
- Suzanna Gratia-Hupp
www.a-human-right.com
The choice is CLEAR... :)
VOTE for the TESTED, VOTE for Hillary ''''''''08!!!!!!!!!
Posted by metroduck75 at 04:19 PM : Jan 15, 2008
I second that! Go Hillary!
She has been an activist working for the people of the US for as long as I can remember her name.
Those that will keep trying to smear her name are a Neocon''s dream!
That''s bull! Hillary had a great package for universal health care and the Neocons blocked every avenue for it and cried SOCIALISM! Which is what they do everytime a bill is presented to benefit the people!
Hillary was totally active in her husband''s presidency and helped him get issues pushed through!
She''s got more guts than any other candidate standing there, and more experience than all the others except Biden and Richardson, and we see how close they got, didn''t we?
it''s not bull. I didn''t say the plan wasn''t any good or that the repubs didn''t block it. An experienced hand would''ve anticipated the opposition and better prepare a legislative coalition and a PR appeal to counter that oppostion. If an experienced hand had been appointed to handle that most important of priorities the results would most likely have been different and the offensive against the neo-cons wouldn''t have been lost(the Dems wouldn''t have lost control of Congress for 12 years).
I grew up in Columbus and I''ve been following Ohio politics for 48 years. Ohio is definitely the bellweather state and the republican machine of the taft family has controlled the state for years much in the same manner as castro controls Cuba.
Things are different now and the GOP is totally discredited. Even in the best of times for Republicans Ohio re-elected Steve Young (co-sponser
of the Vietnam pullout legislation). Howard Metzenbaum defeated Willaim Howard Taft''s grandson
and was re-elected to the Senate comfortably after compiling the only 100% liberal rating ever awarded by the ADA for an entire enate term.
Imagine that, red Ohio comfortably re-elected a Senator more liberal than McGovern, Kennedy, or Church.
Metzenbaum taught Democrats like myself that if voters believe you''re principled they will support you even if they don''t totally agree with you on every matter.
No one can be dismissed as unelectable, particulalrly this year.
-----------
Being opposed to a war of aggression against Iran, is a Moral, not a ''leftist'' position. Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman were left of center...Both Bush41&43 and Clinton are as well...scratch a Neo-Con and a Neo-Liberal bleeds...and vice-versa.
I have no interest in a war of aggression against an unoffending power...one who involvement is tolerated and forwarded by its Russian neighbor.
Obama, in not ruling out a war of aggression while calling for continued involvement in Iraq and for an invasion of Pakistan, is squarely in the War Pig Camp...his vote against the Iraq war notwithstanding....he is plenty willing to drink the blood, he just didn''t want to make the kill.
Understanding how the self-absorbed and self-destructive Clintons helped to build and then initiate the destruction of the US economy to this day.
1. Every intelligent mind should know by now that THE UNPROVOKED & ARROGANT BUSH WAR IS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE PRESENT DESTRUCTION OF THE US ECONOMY?
2. The huge depletion of the US treasury gives rise to inflationary pressures, weakening of the dollar and a huge loss of confidence in the fundamentals of the US economy by business people THE WORLD OVER.
3. Every alert American must have known that bush wasn''t qualified to lead the nation, and that Al Gore would have continued the successful economic policies of his and the Clintons'' administration.
4. So why were the American people so careless and mindless in allowing the bungling bush over Gore?
5. The American people allowed the bungling bush over Gore because they were disgusted by the Clintons misbehavior, which fouled the White House, destroyed what marriage they had and undermine the US Presidency.
6. That self-destructive behavior by the self-absorbed Clintons was what initiated the undermining of the US Presidency and allowed the bungling bush to get a chance to mindlessly wage a foolish, UNPROVOKED war that subsequently empty the national treasury and destroyed the US economy.
7. Only the most ASLEEP/careless Americans would want/wander into another round of the Clinton destructiveness. NO CLINTON THIRD TERM! END THE SELF-DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA!
Obama, in not ruling out a war of aggression while calling for continued involvement in Iraq and for an invasion of Pakistan, is squarely in the War Pig Camp--his vote against the Iraq war notwithstanding, he is plenty willing to drink the blood, he just didn''''t want to make the kill.
Posted by Prinzowhales at 10:33 PM : Jan 15, 2008
~~~~~
An excellent post.
It is unfortunate the voters are aiming for much of the same again by eliminating one who wants troops out now (Edwards); McCain, who thinks running from Viet Nam was a mistake (he could not win from behind bars in his Hanoi prison) now thinks the US could have won if they stayed indefinitely, thereby spending another 10,000 American lives. Therefore he wants to bet the rest of our finances on endless war In Iraq to prove his point. Some other candidates who want to end the war are slowly being sidelined. Maybe it is just American to want a war, just as long as someone else''s kids are doing the fighting, and the soldiers'' families are doing the sacrificing.
I threw away my meaningless $5 Support The Troops metallic sticker, and watch with disinterest the headlines of last week (9 U.S. deaths in one day) and today (3 U.S. deaths by "friendly" fire.
As the fellow who walks around Washington with his wheelbarrow full of pacemakers, defibrillators, blood pressure monitors and the like said "The insurgency is in it''s last throes."
I''m not accusing Iran of anything or advocating a pre-emptive strike, in fact i think that would be foolish. However, let''s say that the U.S. begins pulling out its troops and Iran attacks them during the pullout. Should we not attack?
Leaving military action as an option on the table is diplomatic speak to keep the pressure on the other side to negotiate in good faith; most people understand this. Has Iran ruled out military action against our troops?
There''s a huge difference between this diplomatic talk and actively supporting a policy of pre-emptive war and when you act as though they are the same you are promoting simplistic leftist nonsense.
Also don''t forget that all the candidates in both parties (except Ron Paul) are members of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) just like Bush.
Jack would rather have more Neocon destruction of this country rather than get over a little embarrassment created by the Neocons against Clinton.
It''s thinking like this that is really scarey!
Obama''s endorsements show that people who best understand the urgency for a new direction within the party have the courage to change. The public outside Iowa, so far, not so much.
Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, and U.S. Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota among others understand that a new generation of leaders - unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old deals and old friendships - can move America beyond the gridlock which is destroying our country.
This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power.
AGAIN, here''s another one! You want to blame what the Bush Neocons have done on the CLINTON''s????
Get a brain! The ignorant voters put this idiot in office TWICE!
Pulling a stunt like this??? He is certainly willing to play dirty politics.
Obama is starting to sound more like the street thug he is.
Pulling a stunt like this??? He is certainly willing to play dirty politics.
Obama is starting to sound more like the street thug he is.
Posted by RowdyTexan2
Actually it was the Gutless Hag that told boy wonder that she''d take care of the black man if she was elected. Problem is, black man no longer need massa. That''s for telling the world LBJ was the guy needed to pass MLK''s philosophy. ''Bout time the Gutless Hag gets her due.
This spirit for change will be her undoing.
Obama & Clinton have agreed to put an end to the race-baiting. Obama made apologised for the memo(which I personally think was nothing to apologise for)and put his surrogates on notice to stop.
Clinton hedged on apologising and on reigning in her surrogates, so you can expect more of this from her once she loses some more primaries.
It''s time for the candidate "Ready from Day 1" to take control of her goons and stop the sleaze for good. Rather than laying down the law to her campaign she gigled about them being overzealous and shucked and jived her away around saying that she wouldn''t tolerate it.
40% of Mich. Dems walked - in the snow, up hills both ways - to vote undecided because, in their words, "She must be stopped!"
This spirit for change will be her undoing.
And 55% walked in the snow to vote for Hillery.
40% of Mich. Dems walked - in the snow, up hills both ways - to vote undecided because, in their words, "She must be stopped!"
This spirit for change will be her undoing.
And 55% walked in the snow to vote for Hillery.
It does show that 40% would vote for anybody instead of the status quo candidate. Obviously it reveals a motivation within the party to head out to the booth to vote "no to Clinton."
CBS didn''t make all these red state Dems come out and endorse Obama. These professional politicians know their states and know the polls and they do what is best for THEM.
Obama can reach out to disaffected Republicans and moderate independents and they are receptive to him. Hillary & Edwards, not so much.
As a matter of fact there has been much made recently in the business press that the business community is spooked by Edwards'' populism. Whether that is right or wrong the political effect is to make him less capable of broadening the democratic base to build a working coalition to actually effect change.
-
by blackyowe
January 18, 2008 7:58 AM PST
- -Got the Blues here in rural, NY. I am not from a Red State but I have soured on her so to speak. She is a corporate candidate not a middle class person''s. Heck the lady was born and raised a Republican and it does show. She looks and acts like one of those stiff republican Midwesterners I like her as my senator but don''t like her for Pres. I am going for Edwards a she is electable.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 36 Comments