Hillary Still Gaining Ohio Endorsements

According to the cable news shows and some polls today, Obama has the Democratic nomination all but sewn up.

As we wrote earlier, two polls in Ohio show Hillary with a ten point lead.

She's also picking up endorsements. Today, she was endorsed by the Akron Beacon Journal even though it recognized Barack Obama seems to be the party's favorite.

Many Ohioans surely will join the chant ''Yes, we can!'' in the coming days. They may do so thinking about ''electability.'' This editorial page has in mind the question of which candidate would make the stronger president, which candidate is more prepared for all the Oval Office presents its occupant, and the many challenges before the country at home and abroad.

We recommend a vote for Hillary Clinton in the March 4 presidential primary.

She also received the endorsement today of a dozen Cleveland officals and community leaders , adding to more than 20 who have previously endorsed her.


There are a lot of Hillary supporters who read this site. The best thing they can do for her is send her money so she can continue to compete in the ad war in Ohio and Texas.

We saw in New Hampshire how far off polls can be. When she was ahead in the national polls, her opponents said they don't count, only state polls count. Well, she's ahead in Ohio and holding her own in Texas. She's done her part, now it's up to voters and her supporters.

The media and her opponents count her out at their peril. They could well end up with egg on their faces, just like after New Hampshire. It's not over.

< Q-Poll OH: Clinton Up 11; ARG Clinton Up By 10. | Ashcroft to Testify About No-Bid Contract >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    SUSA (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:40:30 PM EST
    Doesn't the new SUSA Texas poll come out tonight? Does anyone know when?

    10 CT/11 EST (none / 0) (#8)
    by Shawn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    Site isn't loading (none / 0) (#21)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    But the results were linked by the lucky few who were able to squeeze a pageload out of surveyusa.com. :)

    Anyway, they have cleverly written the URL to give away the results. Obama is up by 4 in Texas (49/45).


    External media (none / 0) (#24)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:15:09 PM EST
    Here's a CBS report on the poll. In case it matters, "SurveyUSA polled 704 Texans who have already voted or said they are likely to vote".

    Is it off-topic to say I love you? (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:41:19 PM EST
    What also seemed to get lost in the whole Very Important Photo Kerfuffle today is the endorsement by a large group of retired military folks.  Not just an endorsement, really, but a clear message to anyone who was listening (and, let's face it, that's not a lot in the blogosphere) that the a good deal of folks in the military know that Clinton has their best interests in mind.

    My Lord, anyone who has seen or read Black Hawk Down knows what an uphill battle getting military men to endorse Clinton has been.  She got into the senate and she won them over.  Why don't the media folk ever talk about HER ability to unite folks?

    Someone around here (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:46:49 PM EST
    had the long list of the military endorsements.  I wish...that the sky would open, the light would shine...and someone would post that list of endorsements!!!! ;-).

    military endorsements (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:46:06 PM EST

    It was announced at her speech today.

    There is an Obama! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:47:20 PM EST
    (see my post above.)

    Watched the foreigh policy address (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:49:16 PM EST
    on c-span.  It was really good.  Substantive like always.  Frankly, I get inspired by that kind of speech.  The support of the military brass was impressive as well.

    C-Span will re-broadcast her speech (none / 0) (#47)
    by jen on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    at 12:28 pm Eastern Time. The link to livestream C-Span HERE.

    My Clarkie friends who saw the speech earlier said General Clark gave a fabulous introduction. ;)


    And yet, the media coverage I saw (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:59:05 PM EST
    of her speech said that with her were "half a dozen retired generals." Guess AP didn't get that list, or it might have mentioned a bit more support than that. (Hmm, was AP dissing decorated veterans?)

    HRC should do as many personal appearances as poss (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:47:34 PM EST
    She's stronger in that medium-venue or small-venue setting.

    Obama's good in a stadium-sized venue. Why? He's more impressive when yelling. WHen he "explains" things using the indoor-voice, he has a Kerryesque tendency tends to nitpick, over-explain and split hairs.

    I don't think that's necessarily a BAD quality, but he looks smaller, confused, ill-prepared. It just plays starkly against the Yelling Visionary w/ cheering fans media clip that the shallow and easily impress confuse with a growing movement behind a true visionary, like MLK inspired. But Dr. King and other visionaries that had fire in the belly about promoting human rights.

    Not fire in the belly about leapfrogging magically into a great political office. Again, BO hasn't specified what he'll unify the anti-Constitution, anti=rights, anti-peace Repugs to do, nor how he'll get these rubber-stampy locksteppers to assist him in doing so.

    If he sincerely believed he'd be changing politics, and were committed to change, he'd spend less time being personally offended and miffed at the slightest whiff of criticism -- which he is WAY too often.

    When talking about MLKJ, (none / 0) (#49)
    by mg7505 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:41:32 PM EST
    let's not forget Ella Baker. The strong, determined woman who gets things done while yelling men get the lion's share of the credit.

    Note for those who might take the above too seriously: I do NOT mean to belittle MLKJ or explicitly compare any historical figures to either of these candidates. But read up on Ella Baker if you haven't already!


    I will! I had the honor of seeing ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:16:00 PM EST
    ... Coretta Scott-King speak not so long before she died. Not a thundering speaker like Dr. King (that I only know from film) but closer to very soft spoken but no less inspiring pro-human rights* figures like Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, who I've also seen in person.

    *this isn't to claim that Obama isn't pro-human rights. I believe that he is. IMO his followers are taking certain superficial style elements -- like an excellent ability to move a crowd -- applied towards obtaining a political office as being equal to lifelong champions of human rights and the downtrodden before personal glory.

    I can't read his personal motives or mind, of course. However, in the absence of details on how he intends to accomplish this makeover of politics when he can't run a campaign without resorting almost daily to the tactics he vows to make obsolete, I remain suspicious of his motives.

    Also, Dr. King, Mrs. Scott-King, Mr. Mandela and the Dalai Lama were also perceived, within their own lands, as being "divisive", "militant", even criminals. They agitated and promised to bring more of that, rather than promote Unity in the face of egregious injustice.


    thanks (none / 0) (#55)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:16:10 PM EST
    I had never heard of her.

    The Laredo Times (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    also endorsed Sen Clinton in TX.  

    the more nasty and gloating Obama's supporters (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:19:02 PM EST
    are the less likely I will throw my support to them this fall....

    Key line from SUSA (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:20:33 PM EST
    "Of them, 704 were determined by SurveyUSA to have already voted in the 03/04/08 Democratic Primary, or to be likely to vote on or before Election Day. Of the 25% of respondents who have already voted, it's Clinton 51%, Obama 46%."

    So, Obama's support comes from their (typically  accurate) projection of likely voters. Clinton has a good lead among the 25% who already voted.

    Texas doesn't count anyway. (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:13:00 PM EST
    I'm really looking forward to the end of "X state doesn't count" meme.

    Who says? Link? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:19:59 PM EST
    Since you're from the Obama camp, that's amazing to hear (as it certainly is the opposite of the Clinton camp message).

    Here's the link (none / 0) (#33)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:22:17 PM EST
    A variation on the usual X state doesn't matter meme.

    I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are.

    So do you really believe (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:23:13 PM EST
    that Texas actually matters in the general. Do you really, really believe that?

    Telling a state that "they don't matter" (none / 0) (#39)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:28:36 PM EST
    is a slap in the face to those voters. And it's bad political strategy. Abandoning Texas (or any other state) hurts other Democrats on the ticket, and it also means that we're not using our record fundraising to force Republicans to drain resources defending a "red" state.

    So I assume you're for (none / 0) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30:30 PM EST
    seating Florida delegates, you know, the delegates of a state the Democrats have a snowball's chance of winning? NO?  But Texas, a state that's RED RED RED -- can't say that state doesn't matter much in the general (even while seating delegates).

    My, my, my.


    If you read my past comments (none / 0) (#46)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:36:05 PM EST
    I've come out twice in favor of seating their delegates, but penalizing them 50%, as a compromise for breaking the agreed upon rules while recognizing that some people came out to vote. It's identical to what the Republican party did with their rule breaking states, and it's a fair compromise for everyone, even though it hurts my candidate of choice.

    Florida is Red (none / 0) (#52)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:54:35 PM EST
    Florida is a myth, I'm sorry but its not going Blue any time soon.

    You do (none / 0) (#36)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:27:14 PM EST
    understand she is talking about the general, right? And you do know how many times a democrat has carried Texas in the general in history, right?

    She happens to be right.


    Oh, because Texas is a red state (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:48 PM EST
    Well, I can't fix that from Wisconsin. Sorry -- it's a dirty job, but Texas Dems have to do it.

    She is clearly still in it (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:53:17 PM EST
    News like this is probably good for her campaign coffers too.

    "Gaining endorsements" (none / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    Are we to assume that Obama isn't gaining any endorsements in Ohio.
    Since Hillary was twenty points ahead in Ohio a couple weeks ago, I would hope that she'd get a few endorsements.

    If you know otherwise, then you post them (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:00:22 PM EST
    here, so that such assumptions are not made.

    Novakula + nameless Concern Trolls liked OB today (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:05 PM EST
    ... so much that they combined in this unified RW / PrObama unity coalition demanding that HRC back out of the race immediately, before she destroys the party.

    Maybe Mitt Romney can discuss that with the One Party Coalition. He's alleged to be returning to the race now that St. McCain is having troubles and Huckabee is, well, running on a platform to return not some much to being ruled by the bible as to biblical times.


    I'm positive Jeralyn didn't mean (none / 0) (#53)
    by along on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:04:13 PM EST
    "gaining" as in outpacing Obama. She just meant picking up some endorsements.

    As for Obama, he picked up two today:

    Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory (who is also a superdelegate)

    and Former Cleveland mayor Michael R. White, who is switching from Clinton to Obama.


    I sure hope the Texans are as smart as the folks (none / 0) (#12)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:55:47 PM EST
    in Ohio seem to be :-).....but the trend still continues that the registered democrats still prefer Hillary...Gee thanks DNC for ignoring your membership....sorta like Bush ignoring us for the last 7 yrs....

    Well she supposedly has the support of Ellen now (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:58:39 PM EST
    and that's pretty cool.  

    Cleveland Plain Dealer... (none / 0) (#17)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:04:45 PM EST
    ...endorsed Obama a week or two ago.

    SUSA has Obama up by 4 in TX.  Will wait to see what their next poll for OH says.

    Up by 4 but (none / 0) (#20)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:09:11 PM EST
    with a margin of error of +/- 3.8%

    New Thread on SUSA Texas poll (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30:13 PM EST
    here, please use that to discuss Texas, this is an Ohio thread.

    Hooray, (none / 0) (#23)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:14:54 PM EST
    they're tied within the margin of error.  Some of us like you coming here so we can see how nasty a gloating winner can be.  You could have even more fun if your waited to gloat on Mar 4th, then someone might care.

    Should that be taken as an invitation to gloat? (none / 0) (#27)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:19:08 PM EST
    Because gloating is quite nasty. While I'm looking forward to Obama wrapping it up, we're all (or mostly all) Democrats. I certainly hope both candidates' supporters will get past the competition and focus on what's important in November, regardless of who wins the nomination.

    Perhaps we'll see a lack of gloating from the winners and hearty congratulations from the losers.


    I know what you mean (none / 0) (#31)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21:07 PM EST
    as I'm still waiting to hear Obama's congratulations about several states. . . .

    Gloating never gets anyone congratulations (none / 0) (#35)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:23:41 PM EST
    even if they were to vote for your candidate in the GE.  

    let me tell you something. obama needs our (none / 0) (#45)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:34:40 PM EST
    votes in the general. so far his supporters in general have not acted like they cared about our vote. it was trash hillary and trash anyone who disagreed with them. i am talking about the ardent supporters and not the ones supporting obama who post here.

    you come on here with rude comments to us and then EXPECT US TO SUPPORT OBAMA? REALLY? i suggest that YOU start acting like a democrat and work to unite the party.


    come on (none / 0) (#57)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:03:01 AM EST
    There is no question that some Obama supporters have done a lot of trashing of Clinton and Clinton supporters.

    But I have seen the exact same thing from Clinton supporters all over the internets, and I can point to numerous examples just on this blog.

    Both sides have been overly partisan.  And both sides have attacked and trashed both their nominee's opponent and his/her supporters.


    Sure go ahead (none / 0) (#48)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:40:32 PM EST
    if you're idiot enough to do that now.  It was a reply to the nasty gloat of tangerine above.

    Take you unity pony and shove ...


    Your attitude (none / 0) (#25)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:16:19 PM EST
    exemplifies why I don't and will not vote for Obama, in any election... somehow standing on the same side of an issue as you sounds utterly repugnant.

    And TX is still a week away. Let's see what happens then.

    BTW: will Obama drop out if he loses Texas? You promise?

    dropping out... (none / 0) (#58)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:04:59 AM EST
    BTW: will Obama drop out if he loses Texas? You promise?
    Come on.

    If you really think that Obama and Clinton are in similar positions right now, I am not sure what to tell you.

    If Hillary loses Texas she is in BIG trouble in this  race, and it becomes almost mathematically impossible for her to win.

    Obama could lose Texas, and still be the front runner.

    The two situations are not anything alike.


    The discourse hasn't plumbed absolute bottom UNTIL (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:19:45 PM EST
    If you thought the NASCAR-speedy Drudge to News Prime rapid rise of totally unproven, unsupported, hysterical anti-HRC claptrap was bad, you didn't hang on long enough for late night news.

    Surprisingly accepted without correction or skepticism by CNN's normally more reliable Silver Fox, Anderson Kewper.

    • Candy Crowley repeating the unproven assumption of a guilty HRC campaign smearing Obama.

    • Psychic Friend and professional mentalist Gloria Borgia -- I mean Borger -- complains that HRC is "off message" and all over the place, sloppily, desperately, with her messages. Why? Because HRC is prsenting her personal qualities, experience as a Senator and what she hopes to bring to the office as a Commander in Chief. Which, of course, NONE OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES IS DOING ... except oh wait: all of them are.

    • David Gergen saying, "As Matt Drudge said ... " as his springboard for unsupported anti HRC slam.

    I mean, OH COME ONNNN!

    This kind of poor winnership (none / 0) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21:21 PM EST
    reminds me of Republicans!  No wonder I think of Obama as just like McCain!

    Comparing anyone to a Republican (none / 0) (#51)
    by mg7505 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:46:56 PM EST
    is a bit harsh :-), but I wonder if the old adage will hold true in November: voters prefer the real Republican/McCain instead of Republican/McCain lite.

    Yea... (none / 0) (#59)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:05:31 AM EST
    89% progressive rating vs. 6% progressive rating are kinda' similar.

    Or something like that.


    Bad on CNN (none / 0) (#37)
    by jpete on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:27:42 PM EST
    CNN this evening used the loser term "hanging onto" to describe HRC's 10 point lead in Ohio.

    I sure hope she nails him (none / 0) (#38)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    in the upcoming debate.....What has she got to lose.....He is such an easy target....but then the commentators try to nail her back for daring to touch their "golden boy"....it is so disgusting to watch which is why I want her to really go after him...

    New thread on Texas is up (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:32:00 PM EST
    here. Can we keep this one to Ohio? Thanks.

    Yes, it's a reality distortion field (none / 0) (#50)
    by Meurs on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:43:27 PM EST
    in here sometimes.

    more of that unifying talk... (none / 0) (#56)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:20:48 PM EST
    Funny how it just sounds like a college frat boy touting his football team, i.e. "Your team s*cks"!"