Led by Jeff Merkley, Oregon for Edwards leadership team endorses Barack Obama
At a noon press conference today, Speaker Jeff Merkley endorsed Barack Obama for President.
Previously, Merkley had been the co-chair of the Oregon for Edwards committee. Today, the leadership of the Oregon for Edwards team all endorsed Barack Obama - Merkley, Senator Margaret Carter (D-Portland), and local attorney Robert Stoll.
A number of the other members of the Oregon for Edwards steering committee also endorsed Barack Obama today, too. (I'll have a complete list later today - and it includes me. More on that later.)
In a statement, Merkley noted his and Obama's shared background of working with low-income families for affordable housing:
Barack Obama and I share something more in common than simply our determination to change America for the better ... Both of us come from the grassroots, where real change is sewn: Senator Obama was an organizer, committed to public housing in the neighborhoods of Chicago. And I worked with low- income families in need of housing through Habitat for Humanity and Human Solutions here in Portland.Both Senator Obama and I understand what it means to empower Americans house-by-house, community-by-community. That's the reason I'm running for U.S. Senate – to put that kind of power back into the hands of everyday Oregonians again. And that's the same reason I'm endorsing Barack Obama for President today.
At the press conference today, Merkley sounded an optimistic note - saying that he looks forward to a strong Obama presidency focused on bringing the American people together.
Of course, that's a stark contrast with Steve Novick's recent comments about Barack Obama. His statement this morning was a strange and back-handed not-quite-endorsement:
[Hillary Clinton] knows, possibly better than Obama, what’s wrong with the country, and she knows what we need to do to fix it. ... I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe that he has the self-confidence to base his Presidency on hope, rather than fear. And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I’d rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.
I don't know about you, but the presidential field this year was an embarassment of riches. Unlike some past election cycles, I wasn't deeply disappointed by any of the candidates. Sure, I had my quibbles - and I was definitely an Edwards guy first, and an Obama guy second (and hooray for Chris Dodd!), but "disappointed"? Nope.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to a general election where the top of our ticket here in Oregon will be Barack Obama for President and Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate. They've both still got to win their primaries, but that's a ballot that will lead us to victory here in Oregon.
[Full disclosure: My company built Jeff Merkley's website. I was a volunteer and donor for John Edwards on the Oregon for Edwards committee. As always, I speak here only for myself.]
|
February 25, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (95 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: AnotherPressRelease? | Feb 25, 2008 3:05:44 PM
Just one day without Jeff Merkley being hailed for something. Please! That's all I ask.
His campaign already sent out an email about his hard work making a better road for Oregon homeowners.
"Oregon homebuyers are the big winners here," House Speaker Jeff Merkley said in a statement. "This bill paves a much better road for Oregon's homeowners. By restricting prepayment penalties we're making sure the dream of homeownership doesn't become a nightmare."
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2008 3:15:33 PM
I find Novick's gushing praise of Hillary much more baffling than his back-handed endorsement of Obama.
Seemingly equally at odds with both is Novick's old praise of Portland for having given Nader more votes than any other metro area in the 1996 election. Would he like to see Nader do equally well in Portland this November?
Posted by: Pat Malach | Feb 25, 2008 3:21:25 PM
Wow! You're shamelessness never ceases to amaze me, Kevin.
Posted by: Miles | Feb 25, 2008 3:49:44 PM
Wow, I can't believe Kari allowed the top post to be about Novick for almost five hours(!) before swooping in with a post about Merkley.
What this press conference says to me is that Merkley's team is really, really worried about Novick. They couldn't even let Novick be out there for one day with an Obama endorsement without rushing out with their own. As a Novick supporter, I've been saying he doesn't have a chance, but I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong.
The unprovoked attack on Novick's "back-handed" endorsement was uncalled for, but it's so egregious that everyone will see it for what it is.
Game on!
Posted by: Harry | Feb 25, 2008 4:26:59 PM
The only thing slicker than this 'mini-me-too' Merkley endorsement was the sleazy way Kari positioned it.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 25, 2008 4:30:53 PM
Actually, Miles.... The Novick folks heard about the Merkley press conference, and jumped the gun with their own statement.
After all, in order to hold a press conference, you have to tell reporters what it's (mostly) about. That almost always gives them a chance to call around for comment in advance.
One more thing: Is being "top post" on BlueOregon some magical prize? That's a strange place you live, where no one knows how to scroll down.
Posted by: Miles | Feb 25, 2008 4:51:00 PM
Come on, Kari, be proud of your bias. Own it! That's what the rest of us do.
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Feb 25, 2008 4:57:39 PM
Wow Kari - that's a pretty strong accusation with no basis in truth. A simple call to Charlie would have disproved it (been talking to the Obama folks for a while.)
We didn't say boo when Merkley's education plan appeared on his website an hour before Steve held a press conference calling for the repeal of No Child Left Behind. And didn't even say much when the language suddenly changed from "Improve" No Child Left Behind to "Completely Overhaul" No Child Left Behind almost immediately afterwards. That's why I write our press advisories carefully - to catch shenanigan like trying to step on our story.
So remind me again why you get to make false allegations while being being paid by the Merkley camapign and the campaign shouldn't be held accountable for them? Particularly when your follow-up comments make it clear you've been part of the campaign's media rollout strategy for this announcement?
Posted by: pam | Feb 25, 2008 5:17:43 PM
Reactions to the news that Merkley and other Edwards supporters have shifted to Obama is the news, not Kari. The squad of Novick crusaders just can't stop themselves.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Feb 25, 2008 5:23:28 PM
The Novick folks heard about the Merkley press conference, and jumped the gun with their own statement.
Well that's just not true. I knew about Novick's plan to endorse Obama last week.
And it does seem odd that what should have been a simple post about Merkley's presidential endorsement is used as yet another opportunity for the publisher of BlueOregon to bash his client's opponent with dubious claims.
OK, it's not really that odd. It's politics as usual; certainly not the alleged change Merkley is promising.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Feb 25, 2008 5:25:40 PM
I don't think the comment was that back handed. It's definitely something I've thought.
Over and over again we hear about Obama that he could just be all talk and could end up doing not much of anything. Well, he's coming at the presidency with a fresh perspective, and we're sure to get at least something new and refreshing out of him, even if his presidency doesn't get us all the things we're hoping it will. With Hillary, we've been there before.
Posted by: Harry | Feb 25, 2008 5:27:57 PM
pam is correct... Obama is the news. Too bad Kari's behavior shifted the dialogue to his bias and obvious Merkley shill-iness.
No Novick crusader here, just a non-primary-voting Indy calling out slime tactics when I see 'em.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 25, 2008 5:33:55 PM
I knew about the pending endorsement before merkley's press advisory as well. More of that Kari Kredibility, I guess.
I smell fear.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 25, 2008 5:35:43 PM
I knew about the pending endorsement before merkley's press advisory as well. More of that Kari Kredibility, I guess.
I smell fear.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 25, 2008 5:40:33 PM
sorry, it claimed the first send crapped out.
Jenni's right--there's a Facebook group called Conflicted Obama Supporters, or something similar. It's a common sentiment I think--we want transformative politics, but we know powerful forces still exist against change. Call it sober overenthusiasm.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Feb 25, 2008 5:44:43 PM
A simple call to Charlie would have disproved it (been talking to the Obama folks for a while.)
As an Obama supporter since early last year, I'm thrilled to have both the Merkley and Novick folks on board. And I have no doubt that with Obama leading the ticket, Oregon Democrats will do well up and down the ballot, and on both sides of the Cascades.
I can confirm I have been talking to Jake for at least a week about this endorsement, and pegging it to Merkley's timing was never part of the discussion. There's plenty of work to go around, so we're thrilled that Obama will have strong support no matter what the outcome of our U.S. Senate primary.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 25, 2008 5:56:45 PM
sorry, it claimed the first send crapped out.
Jenni's right--there's a Facebook group called Conflicted Obama Supporters, or something similar. It's a common sentiment I think--we want transformative politics, but we know powerful forces still exist against change. Call it sober overenthusiasm.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2008 6:38:34 PM
It's really interesting that Merkley spoke very positively about Obama while Novick spoke much more positively about Hillary than about Obama. Hillary would be "great" while Obama might "disappoint"?
Compared side-by-side only one of these actually looks like an endorsement of Obama.
Posted by: Harry Wilson | Feb 25, 2008 6:41:25 PM
The Harry commenting above is not Harry Wilson.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Feb 25, 2008 6:42:13 PM
It's really interesting that Merkley spoke very positively about Obama while Novick spoke much more positively about Hillary than about Obama. Hillary would be "great" while Obama might "disappoint"?Compared side-by-side only one of these actually looks like an endorsement of Obama.
and your point is....?
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Feb 25, 2008 6:58:36 PM
Well, I'm a huge Novick fan. Make no mistake about that. But I wouldn't have been as positive about Hillary as Steve was. Also, I have been a huge Obama fan from the start, so I would also have endorsed him more thoroughly then either Merkley or Novick possibly could.
That said, given the choice between Hillary gratuitous hatchet jobs against Obama and Kari's hatchet job against Novick, I'm not sure I can tell a difference.
I suspect Steve was simply trying not to piss off those of his supporters who feel passionately about Hillary and didn't think that, in supporting Novick, they were purchasing diatribes against their favored Presidential candidate. Now that Steve is informing them that he is supporting Obama, it is probably the appropriately diplomatic thing to not to add insult to injury.
But I'm not running for office, so I can be candid. Hillary is making a complete fool of herself in the way she is trying to ridicule and shame Obama, and this is on top of her Hubby playing the race card (which is especially despicable since he isn't even racist). Plus, she has run her campaign as ineptly as Bush has run the Iraq War -- assuming everything would go swimingly at first and leaving no options if it didn't.
By the way, Hillary endorsed the Iraq War and didn't even read the Intelligence Report before doing so. That alone should make you think twice about voting for her if she figures out a way to steal this election.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Feb 25, 2008 7:33:34 PM
This endorsement saga is a pretty good representative of the two campaigns.
On the one hand, you have Jeff Merkley, who as a leader of Oregon for Edwards worked with his team to find a new candidate that most closely matched the positions and style of the candidate they formerly supported. It seems like Merkley coordinated the effort with the idea of maximizing the impact of this group's decision.
On the other hand, Steve Novick, a fellow former Edwards supporter (but not affiliated with the Oregon for Edwards team), does not feel strongly about either remaining candidate. Nevertheless, he feels compelled to make an endorsement because he holds his own opinions in high regard, even if they're not fully-formed or particularly clear. Novick's endorsement of Obama is grounded in that presidential candidate's buoyant hope; however, Novick uses a 'worst-case scenario' logic to pick between Obama and Clinton. Does that seem inconsistent to anyone else?
This is another episode where Merkley leads and Novick simply weighs in.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2008 7:36:42 PM
I suspect Steve was simply trying not to piss off those of his supporters who feel passionately about Hillary and didn't think that, in supporting Novick, they were purchasing diatribes against their favored Presidential candidate.
Wow... Well that certainly is a creative attempt to explain why Steve praised Hillary and openly cast doubt on Obama, all in the name of ostensibly "endorsing" Obama.
You work inside the beltway, right? Can you think of a single example of a more tepid endorsement? Ever? Set aside Jeff Merkley's ringing endorsement of Obama and just try to think of any endorsement that was more back-handed than Steve Novick's.
I've tried. I can't think of any. Even after all of the bad blood and charged rhetoric between them, Mitt Romney's endorsement of John McCain was veritably ringing in comparison to Steve Novick's "endorsement" of Obama. And Steve didn't lose a bitter election to Obama!
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 25, 2008 7:54:50 PM
what's more interesting, IMO, is how Merkley's endorsement is all about how he's just like Obams, sort of how he was just like Edwards. By contrast, Novick examined their respective policies (which is why I suspect he was kind to Hillary in places, not because it's a safe political pander, but because like many, he likes things about both and is troubled by things about both.)
But that's been the pattern: Merkley is bio and past achievements; novick is policy and a look ahead.
Posted by: Sarah Lane | Feb 25, 2008 8:23:13 PM
Now, that was a good endorsement! I'm still an undecided voter here, but I appreciate Merkley's outlook on Obama. A big reason I supported Edwards so forcefully was because of his focus on poverty issues. I hope an Obama presidency will work hard to alleviate poverty in the upper midwest and southern states in particular. Those states are really struggling.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Feb 25, 2008 8:29:50 PM
Next thing, Jeff will tell us that Obama's father was a Kenyan millworker.
Posted by: bdunn | Feb 25, 2008 8:39:27 PM
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Feb 25, 2008 6:58:36 PM I suspect Steve was simply trying not to piss off those of his supporters who feel passionately about Hillary
Man am I glad that we have Steve Novick in the race because he speaks truth to power and will always fight the good fight regardless of the consequences.... Oh wait never mind.
At least Merkley had a positive reason for endorsing Obama, their similar world view that emphasizes the grassroots. Novick endorsed the person he thinks understands the problems we face the least, supports bad health care, and is going to disappoint him. I don't know about you but I would never endorse in a race I felt as tepid as Novick says he is. I only endorse candidates I believe in and usually I don't hit them in the face with a frying pan first. I mean he repeats all the bogus Clinton attacks on Obama from health care to Reagan. With friends like these who needs enemies?
Posted by: DeanOR | Feb 25, 2008 8:57:44 PM
There is nothing "strange" about Novick's description of his thoughtful decision process between Clinton and Obama. I think it is the best discussion I've seen on the subject.
Posted by: Miles | Feb 25, 2008 8:59:04 PM
Novick's endorsement is exactly what I expect from him: thoughtful, balanced, reasoned, and honest. I agree with Jenni, I have much the same thoughts and fears about Obama that Novick does. Novick appears to be trying to explain his thought process to us, not trying to court Obama.
Merkley's endorsement is the standard sycophantic response of a guy who is listening too much to his advisors. I mean seriously: That's the reason I'm running for U.S. Senate – to put that kind of power back into the hands of everyday Oregonians again. I like Jeff a lot, but he needs to stop listening to his consultants and start being himself.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2008 9:15:14 PM
Novick not once but twice referred to Hillary in terms of her becoming "a great President." Obama got referred to in terms of how me might disappoint Steve.
That's thoughtful, balanced, reasoned? In an alleged endorsement for Obama?
If I weren't a recovering addict I'd ask you for some of whatever you are smoking, Miles.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Feb 25, 2008 9:23:25 PM
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
It's pointless to try to engage with Kevin on this subject.
He professes not to understand that there might be more value in a reasoned analysis that recognizes the strengths of competitor A but still finds more value in the strengths of competitor B.
He professes not to understand that there's a difference between endorsement and flattery.
Steve understands that difference.
Posted by: Dylan | Feb 25, 2008 9:25:20 PM
Wow! I didn't know Merkley was in charge of the Oregon for Edwards campaign. I may have to give him a second look...OK, I'm done. While I admire this about him, I still don't see what he brings to the table that is at all or unique or exciting about him that will allow him to beat Gordon Smith.
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Feb 25, 2008 9:45:22 PM
Kari, the only way to stop all this bickering is to quit posting articles about Oregon politics.
Welcome everyone to Blue Botswana.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2008 9:47:43 PM
Hmmm...
Competitor B (Obama): "disappointment" + recitation of Clinton talking points.
Competitor A (Clinton): "a great President" + heavily quoted glowing NYT piece on Clinton.
Which seems most consistent with still finds more value in the strengths of as Stephanie so creatively put it?
Posted by: Opinionated | Feb 25, 2008 10:07:10 PM
Watch this Hillary-ous segment by Tina Fey on SNL -"Bitch is the new Black"
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Feb 25, 2008 10:11:45 PM
You know, I usually try to stay out of this stuff. But why is it that I see the same ole people carping on Novick as always? It's getting frustrating.
Please read his entire statement. Reading through it sounded very much like my own thought process in supporting Obama - and the very same thing I've heard from other Edwards supporters now for Obama.
It lists some reasons why Clinton would make a great President. And then there's the "but."
But Barack Obama has been willing to take risks. He did, in fact, oppose the war from the beginning. No, he wasn't in or even running for the Senate in 2002, but I bet he was already thinking about it. He recently made some dangerously sensible remarks about Iran, "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior." He's been willing to risk the Republican battle-cry of "no new taxes" by emphasizing the need to start applying the Social Security tax to incomes above $100,000 (though perhaps with a sort of doughnut hole for incomes below $200,000.)Finally, I think the very fact that he has inspired such an impassioned following increases the likelihood that he will take the risks that have to be taken. People from cross-sections of society that have been disillusioned by conventional politics are inspiring by his campaign. Leaders respond to their followers. If Obama's elected, he'll know that millions of voters are counting on him, not just to do a decent job, but to make a big, thumping difference. He won’t want to let them down.
...
I'm voting for Barack Obama largely because I wonder whether Hillary Clinton is willing to take the political risks she'd need to take to act on what she knows.
There are several paragraphs listing reasons why, even though Hillary could make a great president, Novick disagrees with her and why Obama would be better.
I think his statement was a great example of the thought process behind selecting a candidate and weighing the positives and negatives of each candidate.
I think it's great that Merkley and the Oregon for Edwards team have endorsed Obama. As an Edwards supporter myself, I'm excited to see they're supporting him for many of the reasons why I'm voting for Obama. I'm glad to have them on board - that means more votes for Obama, more supporters for Obama, etc. I'm not going to bash a member of the team - I look forward to working with all Oregonians for Obama to take the White House in November. And that's regardless of our choice of candidates for other positions.
Posted by: petrichor | Feb 25, 2008 11:19:19 PM
this is just silliness, kari. it's getting so old. anyway...
the dem nomination is very simple now. both obama and hillary have made compromises against their progressive base in order to gain favor with different parts of the establishment:
obama has our back on the war ans foreign policy but is going to be willing to sell us out on economic policy.
hillary has actually staked out some quite populist positions economically, but she has long since sold us out on foreign policy.
on other issues it's a wash.
that is the choice, bend over, it's coming one way or the other. in this case, i am going to bend over for being sold out economically, even though it's probably going to directly hurt me personally (health insurance issues and all) a bit more than if i voted to sell myself out on war. oh well.
anyway, i think novick's endorsement captures this sentiment pretty well. i am tempted to vote for hillary, i think she is really great in many ways, but in the end i just cannot do it.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 25, 2008 11:46:21 PM
There is nothing "strange" about Novick's description of his thoughtful decision process between Clinton and Obama. I think it is the best discussion I've seen on the subject.
Which is precisely why bdunn and Kevin are working overtime to make it seem otherwise.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 26, 2008 12:19:10 AM
Kari, the only way to stop all this bickering is to quit posting articles about Oregon politics. Welcome everyone to Blue Botswana.
Ha! I did try a post about Alabama last night.... :)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 26, 2008 12:22:58 AM
Come on, Kari, be proud of your bias. Own it! That's what the rest of us do.
Funny. That's what I've been trying to do for months - but it seems that people don't listen! I've never pretended to be otherwise. When I post over my own name, I'm giving you exactly my opinions.
You should check in with some of your friends, though, who seem to want me to be the only blogger in Oregon without an opinion. Truly weird stuff.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 26, 2008 12:28:10 AM
Just one day without Jeff Merkley being hailed for something. Please! That's all I ask.
Funny. Since January 1, there have been 255 posts on BlueOregon. Of those, exactly seven mentioned Merkley in the headline. Eleven mentioned Novick. A grand total of 27 mentioned Merkley, Novick, Smith, or the Senate race.
Obviously, the mere mention of a name isn't a positive post - and certainly my three posts on the Novick/PDA mess were quite critical...
But the point remains: 89.4% of the posts since January 1st have concerned topics other than the Senate race.
You were saying?
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Feb 26, 2008 2:57:32 AM
BDunn, Kevin,
Please don't misconstrue my statement. I'm not giving credit to EITHER Merkley or Novick on the Obama issue. Both are Edwards people who are little late coming to the table, though I will concede that better late than never.
I can't read Steve's mind as to why he said such nice things about Hillary Clinton (she who is imploding on a daily basis). What I can do is speculate that he has a legitimate reason not to piss off her supporters by adding insult to injury. That's not an issue of tactics, that's a sense of decency -- when passions are running this high, people don't need a Senate candidate to slam their favored Presidential candidate when he acknowledges that he's backing her opponent. If Novick came out in favor of Hillary right now, I'd be livid ... unless he said something nice about Barack.
I find it strange that either side would try to score political points about these endorsements, given that they are both Edwards people. Apparently, neither Merkley nor Novick appreciate Barack half as much as I and so many others do (see the piece called "The Natural" in last month's portion of my blog, "Empathic Rationalist," for the reasons why I think that Barack is just what this nation needs). To quote the "great" Hillary Clinton (sarcasm folks, sarcasm), "shame on" the Merkely folks for trying to turn this into yet another opportunity to slam Novick when both of these candidates have essentially the same record on this Edwards/Obama/Clinton issue.
Would you all prefer if, like some around here do for Merkley, I simply defended Novick 100% of the time? Those people act like paid operatives. I support Novick out of my own free will and because I respect him so much. He and Barack give me hope for America. Hillary? You've got to be kidding.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Feb 26, 2008 4:38:23 AM
BDunn, Kevin,
Permit me to add one more point. My wife -- another Obama supporter from the beginning of the campaign -- thought Steve's endorsement was brilliant. She said that it showed that he's no Obamamaniac, he "gets" Hillary, and he's still supporting Barack. Consequently, she suggests, his message is more likely to persuade those who would otherwise be on the fence or even supportive of Hillary.
Perhaps she's right. Perhaps Steve sent the right message to bring the party together and convert those who might otherwise be skeptical about Barack. Perhaps, in short, my speculation that Steve is trying not to "add insult to injury" is off-base.
My problem is that I am just too far down the road in favor of Barack AND against the Clintons to prefer such a measured response. While a lifelong Democrat, and a progressive one at that, I may well cast my first GOP vote in 30 years of voting if Hillary were to get the nomination. That's how strongly I feel that her candidacy -- which would potentially mean 28 years of Bush/Clinton, even assuming Jeb loses in 2016 -- would be the worst thing that could happen to my Party. In any event, we thankfully won't have to worry about her winning. And it may be that Steve is smart in thinking that Job 1 is to convert my analogues on the Hillary-side who are considering not voting for Barack but might be persuaded if a fellow-traveler who gets Hillary explains the case for her opponent.
Frankly, the only way to really know what Steve is thinking is to ask him.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 26, 2008 8:10:58 AM
I find it strange that either side would try to score political points about these endorsements, given that they are both Edwards people.
Given the fact that the Novick campaign has crowed about this "endorsement" on several national blogs while the Merkley campaign hasn't done so anywhere but their own website... It's clear that Team Novick is trying very, very hard to score political points with this. Indeed, he seems much more interested in scoring political points than he does in Obama, whom he ostensibly just endorsed for President.
Frankly, taking it all into consideration it seems to me that scoring political points is really the point of this exercise for the Novick campaign. It certainly isn't an "endorsement" which will elicit enthusiasm for Obama among undecided Oregonians.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 26, 2008 8:13:03 AM
Consequently, she suggests, his message is more likely to persuade those who would otherwise be on the fence or even supportive of Hillary.
By twice using "a great President" in context of Hillary and twice using "disappointment" in context of Obama?
Really?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Feb 26, 2008 8:26:25 AM
Kevin, this is so weak.
Steve gave us a reasoned analysis of why he was choosing to vote for Obama. It was personal in tone and respectful of both candidates for their respective good qualities, and respectful of John Edwards for the issues he brought to the fore.
He did not simply dust off his endorsement of Edwards and do a global search and replace of Edwards --> Obama, John --> Barack, and North Carolina --> illinois.
To read Merkley's Obama endorsement is as if the whole Edwards campaign never existed. It is obliterated from history as Merkley bravely moves on.
Steve acknowledges and respects the Edwards issues that Merkley claimed to be animated by, back in the day when Merkley was, you know, a cochair of the Edwards Oregon campaign. Merkley just sold John Edwards out completely.
I was an Edwards supporter. So were lots of people in Oregon. Many of them were ardent Merkley supporters as well. For example -- Sarah Lane, tell me the truth, does it please you to see Jeff Merkley pretending in his Obama endorsement that John Edwards never existed?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Feb 26, 2008 8:43:19 AM
Ok, this is really getting frustrating.
So here are the two times he uses the word "great":
She could be a great President.So why am I voting for Barack Obama?
I’m voting for Barack Obama largely because I wonder whether Hillary Clinton is willing to take the political risks she’d need to take to act on what she knows.
She COULD be a great president. He didn't say would, he said could.
But if Hillary Clinton becomes our party’s nominee, I’ll support her. And if she becomes President, I will do whatever I can to help her become a great President.
He's saying if she wins the nominee and then becomes President, he'll do everything he can to help make her a great President. Exactly. It's what we should all do - work for, fight for, and then make sure that the Dem who becomes President is a great President.
And where are the two times he uses disappointment?
I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe that he has the self-confidence to base his Presidency on hope, rather than fear. And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I’d rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.
He's talking about hope. And as we all know, hope isn't guaranteed. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. And when you lose, you're disappointed. But did he say he was disappointed at or with Obama? No.
I'm getting really tired of this crap of pulling out a word here or a word there and trying to make more of it than it is. His statement is an honest explanation of why Clinton is a good candidate, but why Obama is better. Yes, he praises Clinton. But then he goes on to say that even with all of that, Obama is still the better candidate.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Randy2 | Feb 25, 2008 3:00:48 PM
Somebody should edit his material, not just spell-check:
"...Both of us come from the grassroots, where real change is sewn:"
I think he meant "sown"
R