John Kerry's help a blessing or a curse?

John Kerry's decision to publicly back Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential campaign invites comparisons to a star-crossed endorsement during the party's 2004 race: Al Gore's embrace of Howard Dean. And, on the surface, that won't evoke pleasant thoughts for the Obama camp.

Gore wasn't the acclaimed prophet of global warming when he endorsed the former Vermont governor -- then a hot candidate -- in early December 2003. No, at that point Gore was, to a swath of Democrats, the guy who blew a presidential election he should have won (without the angst and controversy of the Florida recount). Kerry, of course, is viewed much the same by some.

In political lore, Dean's collapse four years ago is often correlated with Gore's support -- mostly jokingly, but with some serious undertones. And Gore's backing, to some degree, did appear to undercut Dean's anti-establishment appeal. But Dean's undoing was mostly of his own making -- a series of verbal gaffes on his part just coincidentally happened to follow in the wake of Gore signing up with him.

That said, Kerry's endorsement does seem ...

to cut against the grain of Obama's effort to pitch himself as one who can redefine the ways of Washington. Kerry, given his career path, is an embodiment of those ways. And their personas could not be more different -- Kerry is as charisma-challenged as Obama is laden with that elusive quality.

Perhaps that's the upside of the Kerry endorsement -- he can help Obama deflect criticism that he's mostly flash. And then there's the 3-million-strong donor list that Kerry and his aides love to tout. We imagine most of those folks already have given and committed to a candidate in this cycle's contest, but perhaps a small number have been waiting for a nod from Kerry. And perhaps some of those who have been for Obama now will sign up to actively work for him

Add it all up and, as with most endorsements, the bottom line on Kerry's announcement is that it's worthy of note, but then quickly becomes a footnote in the campaign's narrative.

Ironically, one of the two Democratic bigwigs whose support might make a big difference but who remain on the sidelines now includes Gore (the other being liberal lion Ted Kennedy).

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[dave a]

everyone knows that Obama (in contrast to hillary) is an anti-establishment politician who believes in a hopeful, positive message.

kerry supporting him helps obama. obama supporters are not going to say "oh, kerry likes him, i'm supporting HRC now"... it gives Obama more weight. When people think about Kerry they think about his unfortunate loss to Bush... unfortunately the rest of the country had yet to realize how terrible Bush was in the 2004 election.

[Kim]

I don't expect that Obama will get too much of a boost out of Kerry's endorsement; at least not here in CA, though maybe he's more relevant in MA and other northeastern states. But it certainly doesn't look like it will hurt him. The real effect is that Obama got the first news headliner after the NH primary, which makes him look like he's still gaining momentum, despite the results from NH.

[jennlee]

John Kerry made the unfortunate decision not to fight the disputed 2004 election fiasco in Ohio. Here again, he is making another unfortunate choice. Mr. Kerry seems to have a knack for making decisions that do not benefit the American people. Our problems today call for a person who has the judgement, skills and experience to help our democracy. That person is Senator Hilary Clinton.

[jennlee]

In reference to Dave a's post: Dave says that "everyone knows Obama is anti-establishment." Correction: Obama receives more money from Goldman Sachs than Senator Clinton. Obama repeats republican talking points on Social Security (Goldman Sachs would like nothing more than to get their hands on Social Security money which does not benefit the American people).
Obama is beholden to his corporate supporters and he courts the religious right. Obama wants to lift the cap on Social Security contributions for people who make over 97,000 per year(not a lot if you live in Los Angeles or New York).
We have already had 7 years of someone who was not ready to become president, let's break the cycle.

[janet]

It's already obvious that Obama gets the left of the party, especially the wealthier limo-libs (that Kerry got) who can afford to support a feel-good candidate because they're not concerned with day to day blue collar and middle class issues like too much taxes for the services we get, plummeting home prices (which haven't been as much of an issue in Iowa and NH that they are in Cal, FL and NY), public schools inundated by illegal immigrants and therefore failing (the Kerry supporters in L A and other big cities send their kids to private schools). Kerry also appeals to the most left on Iraq, the pull out right now no matter what it signals to the enemy, crowd.

Only area Obama reaches the poor in, is his more draconian and fiscally irresponsible form of universal healthcare, which would bankrupt thehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/pardonourdust/
Pardon Our Dust country at a time we're already facing a deficit. This too dovetails with Kerry's support (his supporters, like the wealthier classes in Britain, Canada and elsewhere with single-payer) all come to US private hospitals for timely and serious medical care, anyway. (Their hospitals only function well as first-step clinics, and many have closed due to lack of fiscal responsibility and poor management -- after all, why bother to save money when the gov't can just raise more taxes to throw at the failing hospitals and can't touch poorly performing staffs. Kind of like MLK hospital on a national basis.)

So Kerry won't help Obama get the more middle Dems he's been losing to Hillary already. It just solidifies him as being to the left of her and mainstream America.

Who's Richardson throwing his support to? He could more likely help or hurt Hillary.

[miriam biteng]

When you are endorse by a loser, you inherit that aura and most likely you will not benefit from it unless you are destined to be the next president of the USA. And how can you beat Mrs. Clinton when She is destined to be the next president of USA, who can go against it?

[Mary C.]

Here's another Obama supporter. Female, over 40, lifelong Democrat. I think Kerry's support won't hurt. Not sure if it will help. But I don't think being the wife of a president qualifies as experience. Hillary Clinton never received briefings or had security clearance. Her one big policy pursuit, healthcare, was a major disaster. She is not a leader. She carpetbagged her way into the senate (she's from nowhere near New York) and used her husband's name and connnections. She surrounds her self with Clinton admin sleazeballs, the Karl Roves of the Democratic party. No, thanks. Kerry is wise.

[pmorlan]

You guys are much more on target about this endorsement than what CNN and Murray in the Post had to say about it. They actually tried to spin this as a blow to Edwards. Give me a break. Anyone who knows anything about this campaign knew that Edwards would never get Kerry's endorsement. Margaret Carlson also tried to spin that same line and I'm sure all the copy cats in the media will do the same.

Chris Matthews is actually talking about the body language of the hug between Obama and Kerry. Matthews is such an idiot. I bet a lot people in the media cringe everytime they see these people make such fools of themselves with their shallow analysis.

I think the Kerry endorsement is basically meaningless. If Kerry had endorsed him in NH it might have helped but in SC where Edwards beat Kerry I don't think it really translates to votes. If anything it might cost Obama a few votes. This quote in the CNN piece tells me that this endorsement might be more about Kerry than about Obama.

"Barack Obama isn't just going to break the mold," said Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate four years ago. "Together, we are going to shatter it into a million pieces."

[jennlee]

Response to Mary C: It is factually incorrect to say that Senator Clinton's role as First Lady of the United States does not qualify her to be president. George McGovern endorsed her because, as he said, he was "impressed by the experience she had as first lady. I know some people say it's not governing experience, but it really is. You're at the elbow of the power broker. She was there for all the decisions." (ABC News Sept. 27, 2007)
First Ladies have always been at the elbow of power.

[sbc]

Kerry's endorsement of Obama isn't big news. The SEIU's endorsement of Obama is big news. Anyway, all this stuff doesn't matter if you don't bother learning the facts about each candidate for yourself.

For that matter, here are some to ponder:

Clinton worked for the Rose Law Firm, legal representatives for union-busting companies, and was on the board of Wal-Mart. Obama was the first black editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review, and, instead of taking a job with one of the biggest law firms in the country, he became a community organizer and litigated civil rights cases. Clinton claims to have 35 years of experience, but refuses to give public access to her White House papers. Obama, well, go read his books. His life is laid out in them. Clinton's unelected shot at health care policy, unfortunately, was a disaster. A law Obama sponsored, requiring the videotaping of subject interrogations, got the support of Illinois police and passed unanimously. It was the first such law in the nation.

Another thing to remember, Clinton will continue the divisive politics of the past two decades. Obama will breath new life into the presidency and bring world respect.

[sbc]

jennlee: I will not accept Clinton's claim of 35 years of experience until she makes her White House papers public. Until then, she leaves me with no other conclusion other than she will continue the secrecy of the Bush administration.

[LDP]

OH! THis is good. LMAO!

I think this is an excellent symbol and being Obama claims he is just the symbol of change, it's most fitting.

The people are tired of being taken advantage by these politicians. John Edwards doesn't just claim to just want to be change, he is the Real change on Real issues. From campaigning around the country to raise the minimum wage, when he was in the Senate to help pass the Patients Bill of Rights, to helping the people in New Orleans after the hurricane and also the racial injustices of Jena 6.

Where was Obama in his few short years in the US Senate? He said he was busy working, but he sure has decided to abdicate that responsibility to spend all his time campaigning for PResident, while still receiving his salary.

And speaking of symbolic....Senator Kerry, did you claim that you would only support someone with your vision on the environment and global warming? How does this fit with Obama pushing for his Corporate interests, Exelon (Nuke) and Coal industry...pushing the lobbyist backed Tax payer dollar funded Liquified Coal Bill, that finally fell apart again in June of 07 after pushing it since April of the previous year?

...everyone was screaming for him to stop. At a time of such consquences on pollution and global warming, that was equal to replacing every car with a HUMMER, doubling the polllution.

...but hay, he never promised to walk the talk, right? After all, when asked in the Debate what personal steps he has himself made, he responded "my campaign planted 1000 trees". Narrator said, "No, you personally", Obama replied, "well, I'm thinking about changing some lightbulbs with my 2 daughters". ......whoooaa, hold me back, such leadership send chills down my spine. (sic)

[rtilford]

I don't really think that Kerry's endorsement will hurt Obama. Obama epitomizes a new vision for America and Kerry's support doesn't really distract from that. It seems somewhat disingenuous and a bit of a stretch to spin this as "the establishment" supporting a change candidate. Isn't Bill, Madeleine Albright and Wesley Clark part of the establishment as well? They support Hillary and curiously after her Iowa defeat, she also espouses “change.”

[jennlee]

To all the people who feel immense pride when Obama speaks: It is a phenomenon that has happened time and again in our country when people want t leader to lead them. When in fact leadership comes from the people. Leaders emerge from Movements. There is no movement in America today. There is fanaticism for a man who has a weak record in politics and speaks well. The next president will have to navigate through the following: leading the world in climate change, war and unrest in the middle east and a shrinking middle class in our country.
We need more than a president who can utter the word "change" prettily and charismatically. I want details and solutions. I have not heard one viable detail from Obama. Remember when he was asked if he would use his newly won senate seat to run for president? He replied (on Tim Russert) "No I will not."
Obama for pres? No way.

[Xristo Ilievski]

For all intents and purposes, Kerry is the antithesis of Obama in terms of the energy and momentum his campaign is bringing.

If anything, this is a less than ominous portent to Obamas inevitable loss to big momma Clinton.

That's right folks, you heard it here first: McCain and Clinton will get the nod, and Clinton will get the presidency through a carefully planned series of contrived publicity stunts and crowd pleasing, evasive non-answers at the debates.

Sorry Democracy, better luck next time.

[Marks]

Hillary can't run on her record, she needs Bill to keep giving speeches claiming Obama is inexperienced for President than he was. If Hillary has 35 years of experience, why does she need Bill to be on campaigns with her? She needs Bill to keep putting down Obama.

She argue its two one one from Obama and Edwards. Its two on one with Bill and her attacking Obama. Leave the sexism out of it.

Bill was unworthy being President, if general public would have known his personal scandals as Governor in Arkansas and how that behaviour continued until Monica Lewinsky was sneaked in the White House

Obama's past life experience doesn't have those background scandals. He's politically inexperienced that way.

Kerry was attacked by swift boat Republicans, using his background war protesting after serving in Vietnam against him.

GOP loves to label Kerry as a fool, but their candidate President Bush and Cheney re-elected brought ruin to the country. We're in the longest choice war America has ever been in. Bush and Cheney lied about reasons going to war in Iraq. Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear material and he was linked to 9/ 11 plotters. None of that was true.

Bush allowed Rumsfeld to argue less troops in Iraq is fine. It wasn't fine, soldiers have had a hard time against insurgencies, when Cheney said they were dead enders and short timers. That was thousands of soldiers lives injured and dead ago.

GOP ridicules Kerry, look what Bush has done since being re-elected. GOP's hatred of Kerry has no merit.

His international wife was a little different. Kerry's personality didn't serve him well giving speeches. He was a rich Massachusetts politician married to an ultra rich wife, owner of the Heinz Corporation. How did they identify with the common American?

Obama is the poorest Millionaire among those running for President. Bill Clinton used his poverty in Arkansas to benefit himself. He was a three time elected Governor and a multi Millionaire running for President.

A lot of the Energy industry profiting from the Iraq war, $100 barrels of oil now, they supported Bush to continue the fighting. Destabilization of Iraq is expensive to the American economy and soldiers lives affected, but energy groups are profiting making more money than ever.

When Bush first got to office, he cut taxes for Energy companies, it only means more profits now. Less taxation the Federal Government can collect. Consumers pay more for things, wasting the supposed tax breaks Bush claims he gave people.

GOP laughed at Kerry's demise, but we saw Bush behave when Katrina struck. First time ever we saw the Federal Government paralyzed unable to do anything. FEMA took 4 days to begin moving material into a powerless and flooded New Orleans. We saw Bush fly over and nothing occurred.

GOP hates Kerry and we got Bush. It's been a four year curse!

Why media would say its bad luck for Kerry to endorse Obama is beyond me. That idea stems from what point of view? Its too bad Kerry wasn't elected because America is suffering.

Kerry was denied by the GOP machine that has ruined Washington. It created Tom Delay and corruption of Senator offices. Contract on America was realized. It was trickle down jobs lost. Corporations takes cut, enriching executives at expense of workers. Manufacturing increasingly is leaving the country.

The GOP can't win 2008 no matter the candidate. McCain is going to talk about national security? Extend the war spending, increasing it because the military needs more expensive equipment. Stuff in Iraq isn't coming back to America. He wants to balance the Federal Budget. Its not possible.

There is little GOP can trumpet their expertise about. The have had 8 years in the White House and things are grim in many industries. Housing is in trouble. Job creation is weaker. Trade is unbalanced so much being brought in from China. Bush can't solve meat being shipped to Asian countries. He's ruined himself with Japan importing our meat. The largest meat producers laid off workers. Bush has ruined fair trade with this country.

He has ruined America's image in the world.

The GOP can't be allowed to continue running the White House.

If people vote for Hillary, hoping Bill is going to help her create policy they are wrong. I don't want a dynasty...Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. The world will think we're crazy giving the Presidency to those two families. Less respect in the world will happen.

Should a woman be President someday, sure, but her name can' t be Clinton, at least not now. It's a shame actually. We can't award those two families Presidential dynasties.

Jeb Bush former Governor of Florida could want to be President someday. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush in 2012!

GOP will grow bolder if Bill is creating policy trying to have a third term as President. His duties as First Man will be the same as a First Lady. That's the job he'll get and nothing more.

If Clinton's gain re-election to the White House the political gulf between parties will grow wider. Partisan walls will grow taller.

Obama isn't politically scandalized like Bill Clinton was trying to become President. His inexperience politically that way is a positive.

Obama is the best choice for President and its a given his policies need more details.

We have a Decider in the White House that claimed to know it all! Bush has made very bad expensive decisions and he was wrong many times.

I hope a Presidential candidate does learn much trying to be elected. He will appoint a capable staff. I'm for bipartisan hiring in the White House. Obama wants to work with some Republicans. That has to happen so legislation can pass in Congress. Partisanship has to be toned down.

He's not perfect. Isn't supposed to be. He's from common family not background from any political dynasty. He's the most average family Presidential candidate we can get in this time period.

.

[Stephanie.]

Hillary Clinton's time at Wal-Mart involved increasing awareness of women's rights in the workplace, and improving environmental awareness within the company, and there is no suggestion whatsoever that Rose Law Firm was involved in any union-busting cases, except on unreliable blogs. Now Barack Obama's wife Michelle on the other hand currently serves on the board of a Wal-Mart supplier!!! Despite all of the current practices of the company that did not exist when Clinton was working for Wal-Mart from 1987-1992, Michelle Obama is working for a company that supplies goods to Wal-Mart! This is terrible!!!

Back to the topic now...One of the reasons that John Kerry lost the election in 2004 was because he didn't have a platform. His speech today showed that he is endorsing a candidate that doesn't have a platform.

While Hillary Clinton is involved in 90 minute question and answer sessions regarding policy detail, Barack Obama does not get involved in any. What on earth did Kerry mean by "Obama eloquently reminded us of the fact that our true genius is faith in simple dreams and insistence on small miracles?" Did David Axelrod write that empty crapola as well?

Barack Obama does not discuss policy. He is extremely rhetorically talented, but he doesn't have a platform. If a female senator with two years of experience ran for president, everybody would think she was a lunatic, but this is supposed to be okay? Give me a break.

Hillary Clinton is well respected by her colleagues in the US Senate, while its the exact opposite when it comes to Obama. He is not well liked by his fellow senators, and they consider him lazy and arrogant.

Kerry let us down with a monotone campaign and no guts in the face of attacks. Obama fills us with references to MLK and history but does nothing for me on substance or record. We need someone who is vetted, tough, capable, and experienced. Given the last 8 years, we cannot afford to gamble on anyone.

I will not gamble on the feel-good candidate that appears to be a trend. I will rely on my brain and vote for Hillary Clinton. I have removed myself from Kerry's e-mail list because, like Oprah, I think he's sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. And, by the way, don't underestimate women.

[Juli Barbato]

I'm 52 years old, and, for me, this is the most exciting presidential campaign I've ever witnessed. It's satisfying--because all the Democratic contenders are decent, ethical, capable, and impassioned public servants--and it's completely unpredictable--because we are on the verge of a civic breakthrough:

I predict that this election season, candidate endorsements will in the end hold no sway regarding how the citizenry will vote. The people are transcending the boundaries and restrictions that individuals and organizations would hold over their freedom of choice. And I believe this sentiment transcends party affiliation. The Republican and Independent vote is as unpredictable as the Democrats'.

People will vote their hearts, and let the delegates fall where they may. In effect, all voters have become independents.

This is how we begin to break the dictates of party machines and reclaim our powerful and immediate role in governance. This is how we remind the body politic that they work for us, and hence, it is to us that their allegiance should be.

In any event, here's to pure, unadulterated freedom of choice! January 19th Nevada caucus, here I come!