Another Ticket online chat unfolds

The Ticket's Don Frederick and Andrew Malcolm plus Johanna Neuman of The Times' Washington bureau had another live online politics chat with readers today, this one on Super Tuesday's results. And right away Tony asked, "Do you think endorsements mean much these days?"

"Vastly overrated, Tony, as the Teddy deal showed," replied Don Frederick.

"I used to think they were meaningless," added Andrew Malcolm, "and then drank the Kool-Aid of the Ted Kennedy endorsement. But, boy, was I wrong there. He didn't even deliver his home state to Obama and he was supposed to help with Latinos, which he didn't do."

Saigonbob asked, "Why does experience make a difference? Bill had none as Gov of Ark." Don praised Saigonbob's blog, then added: "Beg to differ a bit on Bill ... he used the governorship to ....

make himself a major player in Dem politics during the 80s, as I'm sure you recall. Founding member of the DLC, right. Now, he was lacking on the foreign front, but that's true of so many pols."

Andrew added: Bill "did have state chief exec experience which Amers seem to prefer. 4 of the last 5 presidents have been govs and the fifth one (Bush I) was a VP. Only 2 sitting Sens been elected president in last 100 yrs and Kennedy was the last. So we'll likely make history this time unless Romney pulls it out."

ohgosh asked if "another month of bare-knuckle campaigning will take a toll on the candidates 'friendship' and prevent a combination ticket for the white house."

Said Don:

"good question about the toll of the continuing Demo fight. Be interesting to see if they each get tougher or decide that it's best to dial it back. Regardless, I have been, and will continue to be, skeptical of the prospects for the 'dream tix.'

"No way Hillary would take the Veep slot, is there? Besides, little percentage for Obama to offer her it, I think. He would look for a woman, I think, but the governor of Kansas (I forget how to spell her last name) or Claire McCaskill, the Missouri senator, are more likely -- each backs him and helped him a lot in their states Tuesday. The odds are better that Obama might get tabbed as Hillary's Veep, though he might want to take a pass on that. Gore's experience in that slot wasn't great, right?"

kap noted: "Johanna. I agree with Don that a combined Hillary-Barack tix seems unlikely (or vice versa). Both need a southerner to pick up extra votes. I sure hope they keep it civilized in the next month or so. No need for competing Democrats to [do] Repub. work of tearing down the potential next Democratic President."

And Johanna replied: "yep, especially if mccain is the gop nominee ... he actually said this morning that he thought clinton and obama were tilting further to the left every day, which may be an early hint of how he intends to run (and win) against them."

A complete chat transcript is available here.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Fred App]

I think you're being a little harsh on Teddy. True, the days where a person's endorsement can translate directly into votes, or can carry a state, are long gone -- and thankfully so. But look at the big picture. He didn't deliver Massachusetts, but Clinton's lead was cut in half. He didn't deliver Latinos, but Obama got a bigger percentage of Latino vote this time around, and he may have even won New Mexico. He also increased his share of the white vote, and Kennedy's endorsement might have helped there. Beyond that, Kennedy's endorsement gave Obama intangibles like credibility and momentum, he gave him a surrogate on the campaign trail, he gave him a news story that dominated the media for a couple of days, and I'm guessing was a significant factor in the amount of money Obama was able to raise.

Beyond that, keep in mind that Kennedy's endorsement came only a week or so before the election -- that's not a lot of time to make a huge impact. As the campaign wears on, he may prove an increasingly valuable asset.

[Jacob Wessel]

Endorsements do matter, not because voters may follow their elected official's advice, but because each Democratic elected official is also a superdelegate. This means that each endorsement puts a candidate one step closer to the magic 2,025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nominiation.

[GS]

To me this says bundles about the Clintons:

“Let’s think of somebody I really admire, the mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg,” Clinton said. “I like him; he’s a really good mayor. But if he’s runs for president, he can spend a billion dollars and not miss it. That’s real money to most of us. Under the law, there are no constraints.”

He railed against the Supreme Court for blocking some attempts to limit the influence of money in politics.

“We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us.”

And he implied that he would not use his own funds to support his wife's candidacy.

“For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform,” he said.

Soon after that expansive answer, he was back on message. Hillary Clinton, he said, was “a first-class change agent, and let me tell you why.”

check the story here;

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7548.html

[1marilyn]

I think that emotionfilled words followed by content lacking arguments should be questioned. When Obama speaks of Katrina I wonder what he was doing during that time. Who did he help? Congress voted to send aid--but the President was unequipted to give it, due to a staff that was not qualified to give aid to those in need. Hillary would assign people qualified to hold valuable positions.