home

Byrd Endorses Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:47:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Robert Byrd endorses Barack Obama:

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., endorsed Barack Obama for president shortly after noon today, focusing on his hope to end the Iraq War. "As people all across this great nation know, I have been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Bush administration's misguided war in Iraq and its saber rattling around the globe," Byrd said. He said he had "no intention of involving myself in the Democratic campaign for President in the midst of West Virginia's primary election. But the stakes this November could not be higher."

Byrd praised both Obama and Hillary Clinton, saying their "integrity, honor, love for this country and strong belief in our Constitution I deeply respect...

That's a Super Delegate for Obama, who is the likely nominee. I doubt that makes West Virginia competitive for Obama in the Fall.

By Big Tent Democrat

< SUSA Polls, OR: Obama By 13; KY: Clinton By 31 | Some Good Advice For Dems And Barack Obama >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Byrd Endorses Obama | 143 comments (143 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Not much on loyalty on who won his state. (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Saul on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:49:32 PM EST


    A Byrd in the hand. . . (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    is worth two Bushes, so good for Obama.

    It's worth a superdelegate (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:04:58 PM EST
    but since I think Obama has this pretty much wrapped up, it is not worth much.

    Nice to have no doubt.

    Parent

    Frankly. . . (none / 0) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:10:44 PM EST
    I think it's a good endorsement for voters who value principle and congressional oversight -- two areas in which Byrd is strong.  I agree with you about the value of the endorsement in the primary, but if Byrd is seriously pulling for Obama come November it could actually help him some in coal country.

    Parent
    I doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Won't make a difference in WV (none / 0) (#59)
    by stefystef on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    it's going Red in November.

    Parent
    Not if Hill is our nominee. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:29:56 PM EST


    Parent
    That's a pretty absurd endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Regency on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:52:02 PM EST
    It makes no sense. If I lived in WV I'd be a bit infuriated. They didn't vote for that guy to the tune of a 41% loss. What is Byrd thinking?

    Forget I asked.

    He liked Obama's re-recorded (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:54:01 PM EST
    speech at Federal Plaza.

    Parent
    Super-ds are supposed to go with their (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    state as per Obama's camp. Except when they go for him. In which case, even a 40 pt loss in your state means you should endorse him anyway.

    Parent
    He certainly underscored Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:57:58 PM EST
    opinion of the value of the people of WV.

    Parent
    It makes all the sense in the world (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:01:08 PM EST
    Byrd is  a dirty energy guy. WV is a huge coal state: Appalachian Voices, Clean River Mountain Watch, all very populist Democrats are against coal, but bigbiz pays to keep the Resource Curse in congress. Thats why she gets the votes, while he gets the superdelegate. Coal, clean coal, whatever...

    Obama is just words when it comes to clean energy to prevent climate change. There are actually big differences between a real Democrat and the Republican wannabe Obama in energy policy. ...suprise, suprise!

    Parent

    Call me a cynic (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    and I'm not saying this is a totally self-serving endorsement, but Byrd could be thinking legacy and historical record.
    Endorsing Obama helps diminish the import of Byrd's youthful KKK membership.

    That he waited until after the WV primary is telling, IMO.

    Parent

    We'll see in KY tomorrow (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    whether the combined effects of Byrd's and Edwards' endorsements do Obama a lick of good when it comes to real live voters.

    My guess: No.

    It won't make any difference (2.00 / 0) (#7)
    by HelenK on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:55:14 PM EST
    and even Hillary couldn't win KY in the general, so none of this matters.

    Parent
    Um, how do you know that? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    Bill Clinton did.

    Parent
    Twice. n/t (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:57:51 PM EST


    Parent
    The issue (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:01:09 PM EST
    is whether the type of voters one encounters in KY -- which can be found throughout a number of states in the region -- can be moved to Obama by endorsements.

    You see, those type of voters will be voting in the GE, and will be the swing voters in a number of swing states.

    Parent

    Us hillbillies (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:23:46 PM EST
    are not much on taking other people's recommendations.  In fact, they sort of set our teeth on edge.

    Parent
    I think she can't either (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:03:42 PM EST
    But neither can Obama win Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina. west Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, etc.

    See? NOW, finally, we are beginning to deal in realities.

    Here's the thing. I think Obama WILL win Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada.

    I do not think he has to win PA and MI. I hope he can win Ohio but that looks bleak to me.

    But he can get to 270, but not by much.

    this is a 51-49 election.

    Parent

    Correcxtion (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:05:50 PM EST
    He HAS to win PA and Mi.MUST MUST win them.

    Parent
    Good thing (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:55:47 PM EST
    you corrected yourself because you were giving up 38 electoral votes for the 'glory' of getting 26.

    Hillary Clinton can win W VA.  The current polls show it.  The current polls also show her winning NM.

    Head to head against McCain I think Hillary will make him look like a fool. Even the MSM won't be able to bail him out.

    Missing in the optimistic Obama scenarios is his total lack of support in rural areas where Hillary neutralizes McCain and Obama trails both by 7 points. Photos of Obama on a tractor will only make it worse. Reminds me of those photos of Dewey, with impeccably trimmed mustache, standing in a barnyard.

    If a Democrat can neutralize the rural vote it's game set and match.

    Parent

    Obama on a tractor = Dukakis in a tank (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:13:17 PM EST
    and Kerry in a hunting outfit.
    ROFL

    Parent
    You would think Obama ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Inky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:39:03 PM EST
    would be doing better with rural voters, since his father was an unprepossessing rural goatherd until JFK airlifted him away to college.

    Oh wait ... never mind.

    Parent

    If Obama wins Colorado, New Mexico, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM EST
    Iowa and Nevada but doesn't win PA and MI he will lose 233/305. Even if he wins Ohio he loses 253/285.

    Parent
    I corrected my typo (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Typo or is your ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    subconscious aware of a truth you are having difficultly grasping?

    Parent
    things will not remain static until November (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:48:44 PM EST
    Most of the country has no idea who Obama is, apart from a vague sketch of promises of "change" - if he's benefiting in polls because of anti-incumbent sentiment (as in anti-Bush) today, that doesn't mean it will stay that way.  In fact, it's only when the stronger competitor (Hillary) is ruled out that this will begin with in earnest.  But the masses have already begun spreading the word.  The more people hear about Obama, what he has done and said, I believe the more they will be drawn toward McCain.  We've seen it among staunch Democrats, some of us were turned off early, but even as the primary has progressed we have seen this trend, so surely we will see more of this among swing voters.

    It bugs me when people act like things will remain static until November.  I think they will change significantly, and not for the better as far as Obama is concerned.

    Parent

    PA (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:04:38 PM EST
    will be an interesting nut to crack.  It was a close call with Kerry.  He went all out to win PA.  I remember how wild it was in the run up to the election.

    There's certainly some segment of the conservative Republican base there that's not thrilled with McCain, though. I have family/friends who live in central PA and they are constantly moaning about him.  But I don't see them switching to Obama or sitting home.  I could see them voting for Clinton if given the opportunity.

    I could potentially see McCain peel away some support from Obama that Kerry managed to hold, particularly in some of the Philly suburban counties where Clinton did well.  Margins in the Philly suburbs help offset the T in the center of the state.

    But it's really hard for me to imagine with Casey, Rendell, and Clinton going all out for Obama how he could lose PA.  I think it could be a nail-biter, though.

    Parent

    If Hillary drops out (none / 0) (#110)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:10:40 PM EST
    and campaigns for Obama, she'll be an another endorser.  Maybe the most important endorser but just an endorser never the less.


    Parent
    Hm (none / 0) (#131)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:03:45 PM EST
    Well, there are endorsers and there are folks who actually have a ground operation that they can deploy.  I'm putting Casey, Clinton, and Rendell in the latter category.

    I'm not saying it's going to be easy for Obama, but I really have a hard time believing Rendell et al. will let PA slip through Dem hands.  The state hasn't swung Repub since 1988.

    MI, OH, and FL are entirely another matter with a different mix of things going on.

    Parent

    I sure hope Hillary doesn't go "all out" (none / 0) (#133)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    He's trashed her husband's legacy, he's trashed her - and she's supposed to go all out?  Let the people who didn't go all out for her go all out for Obama.

    She can go back to the Senate and show them how to really run the country.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:04:44 PM EST
    I doubt she'll do that.  She's a loyal Dem through and through.  I think she'll work hard to elect Obama if she can't secure the nomination.

    I'm not sure that her most ardent supporters are going to much like the sight of that, but I think it's what she'll do.  She thinks this is the most critical election of our lifetimes.

    Parent

    We can agree to disagree (none / 0) (#142)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:31:48 PM EST
    She's got integrity.

    That would prevent her from turning into a shill for someone like Obama.


    Parent

    Without Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#143)
    by gandy007 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:59:26 PM EST
    busting his butt for Kerry there, I don't think he would have made it in Pa.

    Isn't it great how grateful politicians can be.

    Parent

    I live in Iowa (4.00 / 0) (#52)
    by rnibs on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    and I don't think he can win Iowa.  I know the polls, but I know a number of life-long Dems who won't vote for him.  I know it takes a few thousand for him to lose the state, but I feel it's likely they are there.  

    For the record, I don't think she can win it either, but I find it strange that the Obama campaign thinks they can win it.  Despite their constantly stated love for Iowa.  

    It's going to be a squeaker, but I don't think he'll make it.  Lots of people who won't work for the campaign who normally would.

    My feeling/opinion though.  I'm probably wrong and the polls may be right.

    Parent

    BTD so how do you feel about electoral-vote.coms (none / 0) (#32)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    ugly picture of Obama's less than stellar chances against McCain, ev by ev, compared to hers?
    She gets way over 270 ev's easily, for weeks at a time...

    Why don't we talk about that?

    Parent

    51 / 49? (none / 0) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:12:58 PM EST
    Even if the electoral vote is quite close, I would foresee Obama racking up large victories in some of the states he does carry.  I think the popular vote will be less close than the electoral college if Obama is the eventual victor.

    Parent
    53-47? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    What is your expectation Lar?

    Parent
    No idea. (none / 0) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    Unlike everyone else in blog land, I'm not much for prognostication.   But I'll bet, if it's Obama, that he runs ahead in the popular vote compared to the electoral vote.

    I'm hoping for a Democratic blow-out in November based on how lousy a candidate McCain is and the self-immolation of the Republican party.  But I could also imagine them eeking out a win with a nasty campaign.

    If I were forced to bet, I'd guess the Democrat will get betwen 57 and and 60 percent of the popular vote.

    Parent

    Whoa (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST
    No effing way imo can either party get more than 54 in a Presidential election anymore.

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:02:55 PM EST
    Have to agree with BTD on this one. 60% pop votes for Harding, Roosevelt (1936 only), LBJ (largest percentage ever) and I believe Reagan came close in '84.

    A rare occurance no matter how terrible the other party or how revered the candidate.

    Parent

    I think you're wrong. (none / 0) (#82)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    People are fleeing the Republican Party in droves, neither the economy nor Iraq are going to get better over the summer, and McCain is a lousy candidate.  If the Democrats run a tough campaign they may well be able to obliterate the Republicans (for this year), at least on the Presidential level.

    Compare the primary turnout for both parties this year.

    I'm not saying it will happen -- I don't want to claim that I think I have any particular insight.  However, I'd say the odds favor a Democratic blowout this year.

    Parent

    You think McCain is a lousy candidate? (4.00 / 0) (#87)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:54:07 PM EST
    Really? Compared to Bush? Compared to Dole, or Bush I? I think he compares favorably to Reagan, and I know from personal experience that he has tremendous respect and affection from large numbers of Democrats. The ONLY reason this election might not be a cakewalk for McCain is that W. has been so bad for the GOP.

    Parent
    Yes, I think he's a lousy candidate. (none / 0) (#100)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    All that really ought to be needed is the picture of him hugging Bush and the tape of him saying "I don't really know very much about the economy" to create a historical whumping.

    But added to that is the fact that he's gaffe prone, has anger management problems, and is extremely vulnerable on his so-called straight talkism.  He's on the wrong side of two of the biggest issues Americans care about -- Iraq and the economy.  And he's looking tired and, frankly, not entirely well.

    The Dems could fumble the campaign or McCain could suddenly start firing on all cylinders, but more likely he'll just continue to bumble along, alienating liberals and conservative alternatively and having to apologize for statements made by his supporters.

    Parent

    Ok, let's look at the positives. (4.00 / 0) (#104)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:04:40 PM EST
    He plays the media like a fiddle. He has a reputation for being innovative, which is one of his biggest selling points.
    The fact he's talking up global warming and green initiatives is shows a very smart campaign.
    Also, his proposal to institute the "taking of the questions" here, as the PM does in Britain, is brilliant, IMO---it is something which I have wished for specifically which I thought would improve the functioning of the Presidency enormously.
    Hugging Bush? Do you think that will matter if we have a candidate who lauds everything Republican, as Obama does? I do not.

    Parent
    I Agree (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:14:55 PM EST
    Although it is always dangerous to take winning for granted. All bets are off if Bush invades Iran, though.

    Parent
    Obama is no better on the Economy (none / 0) (#118)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:19:37 PM EST
    He was always last to release major policy proposals after Hillary or Edwards. And that includes Economic proposals.
    Obama hasn't led on the Economy with solutions. He has followed.

    Parent
    Beware of the low turn out to Republican primaries (none / 0) (#97)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:00:40 PM EST
    IMO and having worked for that party in the past and having many friends and associates who are part of its base, the low turnout is more a reflection of lackluster candidates than disillusionment with the Party itself. (Remember "What's wrong with Kansas?") What we must understand is that once the candidates on both parties are decided who can mobilize the biggest portion of its base will be the one that will profit from Independent Votes.  Republicans have ample ammunition for the GE to use against both Clinton and Obama, again IMO the Democratic party must decide who can better handle the attacks.  McBush is a media darling much more so and for longer than Obama so the things that helped him cripple the Hillary campaign with the help of the DNC will not come into play in the GE.

    Parent
    McCain is a media darling? (none / 0) (#136)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:35:28 PM EST
    I am not seeing that.  Obama is getting better press than Bush got in 2000.

    Parent
    AX got to the Media Matters (none / 0) (#138)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    archives or any other of the other media watchdog sites, and you will see how the whole McCain mystique, you know he not right wing he is truly a maverick is a MSM creation that is not sustained by his voting record or the facts.  Yes, he is and will continue to be a Media darling and watch Tweety and MSNBC during the GE.

    Parent
    not according to (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    electoral-vote.com

    It varies  but at times she could win both, not just WV. Clinton 291 electoral votes to     McCain 247 (need 270 to become President: see how well Obama does.....)

    Parent

    O.K. Then Let's Not Count Obama's Wins (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    in red states where he has no chance to win. I'm all for that strategy because Hillary would be the nominee using that formula.

    Parent
    95% of his delegates are from little red states (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:13:15 PM EST
    we won't win in November.

    How screwedup is our primary system that it allows that????

    He cleverly gamed the dumb delegate system to rack up huge numbers of completly irrelevant delegates and gain the nom yet be totally unable to win the states that matter, to win in Novemeber.

    Parent

    he has 95% of the SDs in red (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:16:37 PM EST
    states, not 95% of his total SDs

    Parent
    I read that to mean 95% of Obamas lead....hmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    The most striking feature is the shut-out in the north-central part of the country.

      Obama's superdelegate lead would not be possible without the strong support of superdelegates in states that Don't Count because they're small, red states, many with caucuses.

    In the Intermountain West: MT, UT, ID, WY  Obama 13, Clinton 1.
    In the Plains: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK  Obama 27, Clinton 2.

    For both regions together, that's 95% of superdelegates for Obama.

    So... what does that mean to you?

    Parent

    $$ over votes (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by davnee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:37:13 PM EST
    Perhaps the supers in the deep red states recognize that having Clinton or Obama on the ticket will have minimal effect on their electoral prospects, as in they won't get that many votes either way, but Obama comes with access to his wallet and his list of young voters.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    will be much more damaging in this red state than Hillary. The ones that took his endorsement are going to probably lose their seats unless they throw him under the bus and run over him.

    Parent
    I'm not sure that matters. (none / 0) (#9)
    by sweetthings on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:56:23 PM EST
    For better or worse, real live voters have pretty much had all the say they're going to have in this contest.

    It's up to the Supers now.

    Parent

    no they havent finished. (none / 0) (#43)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    Are you one of his 400 strong bloggerassault vehicles he sent out to be "nice" to Hillary supporters and brainwash us too?

    It is over on June 3. Then and only then the Supers are supposed to break the tie. 17 million for him, 17 million for her. Thats the ROOLZ.

    Parent

    Uh, no. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sweetthings on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    I'm not saying it's over. I'm saying that 'real, live voters' have had just about all the influence they are going to have. (particularly given that demographics has been destiny for this entire primary) There just aren't that many pledged delegates left to win, and after tomorrow there will be even fewer.

    It's all about the Supers now.

    Parent

    but Obama explains away KY -- (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:33:31 PM EST
    "they don't know me there." It's all their fault! Similar blaming is found in his "bitter" remarks.
    Obama is an elitist and that's all he'll ever be. He doesn't have the ability nor interest to connect with the white working class. Hmm...shades of Wright.
    Of course the black working class is voting for Obama - although he voted for Bush's energy bill that gave huge tax breaks to the oil companies - and voted against capping credit card interest rates.

    Parent
    However one of the things supers must consider (none / 0) (#130)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    is electability. That includes data they simply wont have till we finish voting, June 3.

    If Obama still loses Kentucky even with Edwards propping him uop, supers shopuld realise there is no saving him from a 50 point loss of the WH in the GE.

    He has been losing 237 to 290 for McCain. You need 270 to win the WH.

    If Obama continues his slide, (he'd projected a 7 point win in IN, lost it by 2) if she wins in the popular vote, by law, the Supers MUST consider all factors in weighing their decision.

    Despite Obama's campaign trying to tell you that Supers have to follow delegates (except if they break for Obama, like MA which Clinton won decisively, with Kerry and Kennedy endorsing Obama)

    This is a coup by superdelegate to select the one who can't win the average Joe.

    Parent

    Well, I'm glad he didn't go the Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    route of calling Clinton dishonorable. And really, I'm sure Byrd wants to make up for some of the big mistakes he made in the past.

    agree on the Kennedy part (none / 0) (#134)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    but he could stand to make up for mistakes toward women, too - particularly when the vast majority of his constituents chose her

    Parent
    Well yes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:56:26 PM EST

    It certainly helps Byrd to bury his KKK past.

    Abdul, I think you're onto something. (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    In her WV victory speech, Clinton took time to pay respect to the venerable Senator Byrd.

    Then in the post-speech analysis, Rove pointedly impugned the honor of Byrd, WV, and Senator Clinton by saying that WV had a significant history of KKK activity and that Byrd had been a member of the KKK when he was younger.

    At the time, I cringed and thought, holy crap how is Byrd going to remedy that? Well, now we know. How very gallant of Byrd to throw Clinton under the bus to save his own ex-KKK ass.

    Obama owes a debt of gratitude to Karl Rove for this particular endorsement. A fruit-basket is definitely in order.

    Parent

    If you know Byrd (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CCinNC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:37:03 PM EST
    you know he doesn't shy away from his past.  He has apologized repeatedly and said he will continue to do so.  He's also a courageous man.

    Parent
    Absolution/Indulgences (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:53:08 PM EST
    I guess the great Obama is now offering absolution from past sins with endorsements.  Reminds me of an old Chad Mitchel Trio song about the Pope absolving the Jews of killing Christ.  Great song, cannot remember the title.  But something like " we're free, we're free, the Vatican says we're free...."

    Parent
    old men making up for their pasts (none / 0) (#83)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:52:10 PM EST
    Byrd, Kennedy... Too bad they don't make up for their sexist pasts, too.

    Parent
    In many ways, all these (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    endorsements can really backfire.

    If they don't seem to move a single vote, then the question becomes, what can possibly be done to make Obama seem attractive, if all the King's men and all the King's horses can't put together a broadly attractive candidate again? What could Party "unity" at the convention do to improve his prospects?

    Did Byrd campaign in KY for Obama (none / 0) (#16)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    to put some weight behind this punch? Or, was it just convenient for him today?

    I bet there's a spreadsheet for which SD's are to go public, and when.


    Parent

    I doubt Byrd is physically capable of (none / 0) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    campaining.

    Parent
    So, it's a pretty empty endorsement (none / 0) (#24)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:06:07 PM EST


    Parent
    JCG...I think most of them are, but I have to say (none / 0) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    I am disappointed in Sen. Byrd.

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    it's all situational.  

    The Edwards endorsement and now the Byrd endorsement are two fold:

    Attempt to hold down the margin in Kentucky and to blunt the West Virginia win.

    Parent

    more proof - (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:59:29 PM EST
    Obama never had a 50-state strategy. He first began calling for Hillary to GET OUT on Feb. 20 and news headlines began reflecting the same meme - "Hillary has no chance,etc." Apparently Obama didn't imagine the primary lasting through OH, TX, PA, WV, KY...
    Also, even before Wright (3/13) and "bitter" (4/11) and WrightII (4/28) - Obama wasn't campaigning in small towns outside the first 4 states.

    Parent
    I would wager that if Obama is elected (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:59 PM EST
    the next "highway to nowhere" will be in WV  :-)

    Parent
    Living in Alabama, I can tell you (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by prittfumes on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:54:25 PM EST
    despite the polls, despite endorsements, despite MSNBC, despite everything, he will not be elected.

    Parent
    Living in Texas, I heartily agree (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:06:05 PM EST
    that he'll have his head handed to him in November.

    Unless they convince McCain to drop out  :-)


    Parent

    There may have been backlash (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:57:42 PM EST
    on Byrd if he hadn't endorsed Obama...given that Byrd was once a member of the KKK.

    Regardless, I don't think any of these folks endorse for principled reasons.  They're just schmoozing with the presumptive nominee.

    And for some of that Obama cash? (none / 0) (#19)
    by abfabdem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    I am really interested to know how much Obama's big bag of dollars has influenced the super D's?  Are their votes literally being bought?  Can someone 'splain this to me, Lucy?

    Parent
    Last I Heard Over One Million Dollars Has Been (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    disbursed amongst SD's.

    Parent
    It is all posted (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:28:02 PM EST
    on the internet.

    Parent
    Well, Byrd don't need cash. (none / 0) (#29)
    by liminal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    He could run against Jesus Christ, the son of god, and beat him in a landslide in West Virginia.

    Parent
    So Byrd spits in the face of the voters. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:07:07 PM EST


    The voters never mattered (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    That much really.


    Parent
    I am disappointed that Byrd (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:08:14 PM EST
    and Rockefeller did not go with their state's voters.  On another note, MSNBC is reporting Patty Solis Doyle is in negotiations to join the Obama campaign!  Weird.

    Personally I'm getting excited by the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:09:30 PM EST
    possibility that Obama loses to McCain by historic margins.

    Parent
    LOL. (none / 0) (#34)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:10:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Thank you Sir, (none / 0) (#135)
    by jondee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:34:12 PM EST
    may I have another?

    The prospect another trillion or so down the bloody, M.E rabbit hole; even higher food and fuel prices; more foreclosures; more street crime and despair: the prospect is all enough to warms the cockles of anyone's masochistic, Judeo-Christian heart.

    Bring on McCain. We'll show those Obama miscreants.

    Parent

    Same here. (none / 0) (#137)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:39:52 PM EST
    I am seeing a small win for McCain though.
    Still, I don't want Obama.

    Parent
    Anything from the Obama News Network (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by stefystef on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:36:57 PM EST
    needs to be really taken with a grain of salt.

    But if that is true, that's a darn shame because Dolye was the one who screwed up the campaign early on and had to be demoted because she didn't know what she was doing.

    From the New Republic.  Conservative, I know, but interesting analysis:

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f7a4a380-c4a4-4f84-b653-f252e8569915

    Made some good points, especially about the people around her.

    Parent

    the question is (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    why would they want her?

    Parent
    Hey, I'm sure her advice is at least (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:42 PM EST
    as good as Kerry's or Daschle's.

    Parent
    that was my reaction (none / 0) (#45)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    didn't she screw up!?

    Parent
    they may not really want her (none / 0) (#76)
    by kimsaw on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    but its a good advertisement for the Obama campaign. A loyalist from Hillaryland moves to Obama as Clinton fights on. Raised eyebrows and smirks from Axelrod in one convenient swipe.

    Parent
    Eh (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    No one cares.

    Parent
    Isn't there some type of (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:08:07 PM EST
    anti-competition clause for campaign consultants?

    Parent
    BTD why would he want Solis Doyle? (none / 0) (#132)
    by bodhcatha on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:19:22 PM EST
    The same reason he wants all the useless endorsements he can get.  For the PR value and humiliating Hillary.  Scum.

    Parent
    Things For Clinton Have Gotten Better Since (none / 0) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    Doyle left, so obama is welcome to her.

    Parent
    news yesterday WaPo or NYT (?) (none / 0) (#125)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:37:58 PM EST
    the money people in both campaigns are coordinating.

    Parent
    I hope she does (none / 0) (#145)
    by gandy007 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:08:04 PM EST
    If she does as good a job for Obama as she did for Clinton, his ship will sink even faster.

    Parent
    Shame on him! (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by vicsan on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:10:03 PM EST
    His state voted overwhelmingly for Hillary and Obama didn't even hit 100,000 votes! I hate the Democratic Party now. I DETEST IT. It's now VERY obvious what they're doing....it's a COUP to get rid of the Clintons. SHAME ON ROBERT BYRD! Shame, shame, shame on him.

    I know how you feel (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:55:37 PM EST
    I feel like I wasted all this time and money and effort on a lie.

    It used to bug me when people said, both parties are the same.

    I'd say, but no, you are wrong.  And recite all our progressive principles I thought we stood for.  When it was only some of the people stood for them, and we mean nothing to the party.

    What a fool I was.


    Parent

    People don't turn out to vote (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    when they already have a nominee....

    Parent
    It is hard... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:28:45 PM EST
    ...to swallow the pill of not having your preferred candidate win a primary, but this:

    I hate the Democratic Party now. I DETEST IT. It's now VERY obvious what they're doing....it's a COUP to get rid of the Clintons.

     ...is absurd.  Any complaint about the party nomination rules can be laid at the feet of President Clinton and Terry McAuliffe.

     Describing Obama's likely win as a "coup" is just silly.    

    Parent

    I don't think he had a choice (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:11:43 PM EST
    Byrd has been trying to live down his KKK membership for decades. He has to endorse Obama, because if he doesn't he will be reinforcing the belief that he is a racist. He isn't. He was, but people can change. This endorsement is really highlighting who supports Obama because of his race, though. The people who like Obama because of the symbolism of having a black President are holding this up as a tribute to how we've moved beyond racism. Obama supporters who don't think that way don't seem to particularly care.

    Doesn't make sense to me (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    At his age, what's the point? Does he even have one more term in him? That KKK membership hasn't hurt him so far, so why would he draw attention to it through an endorsement?

    Parent
    It is cathartic (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    Among people I know, I've noticed some who want to make really really sure you know they support the black candidate.  Their tone reminds me of white people who just have to let you know how funny they find Chris Rock.  It's like, by voting for Obama, you get yourself a lifetime pass from being accused of racism.

    A related phenomenon is the way some people seem to believe that electing Obama will enable America to apologize to the world for everything and wipe the slate clean.  Electing Hillary wouldn't be enough of an apology, it seems.

    I am hardly claiming that these are the major reasons why people support Obama, but they are out there.  Go down to the river and wash your sins away.

    Parent

    Amen, brother. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by prittfumes on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:08:20 PM EST


    Parent
    One of the hidden motivations (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:13:56 PM EST
    Impossible to track, easy to suggest.

    Offensive to everyone but certainly true to some degree though we'll never know how much.


    Parent

    He isn't trying to protect his seat (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    He doesn't need to. He has one of the most secure seats in Congress. It's about legacy at this point. He regrets his past association with the KKK and wants to be known as a man who made mistakes in his youth, but grew beyond them. Not endorsing Obama at this point would tarnish that reputation among many.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    Byrd is a straight shooter who does not mince words. He said that he is endorsing Obama because he appears to be a better choice to end the war.

    Why would you think that Byrd was lying about why he is endorsing Obama?

    It is one thing to disagree as to Obama will end the war any sooner than Hillary, but to think that his reason for endorsing Obama is to show he is not a racist is rather silly, imo.

    Parent

    Squeaky, Byrd is a briliant tactician. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:10:59 PM EST
    His motives are more complex than his stated reason for endorsing Obama. This doesn't imply dishonesty.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:35:35 PM EST
    But he doesn't need tactics as regards his renouncing the kkk. That is silly imo. His biggest issue has been the Iraq war. Why would he trivialize that position by an insincere endorsement?

    I think that there is an appearance, ever so slight, that Obama will end the war sooner even though Obama and Hillary have virtually identical campaign rhetoric and voting records. Obama's anti war speech, FWIW, tips the scale, even if ever so slightly. In that the endorsement makes sense.

    Parent

    I trust Hillary on Iraq - not Obama (none / 0) (#127)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:42:16 PM EST
    Obama really IS a fairy tale on Iraq, flip flopping back and forth.


    Parent
    Hilarious (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:54:14 PM EST
    Both are identical regarding the Iraq war and the WOT. There is no flip flopping on either ones part, unless you consider that neither is going to leave Iraq anytime soon.  That is the big fairy tale, and you seem to have swallowed it whole.

    Parent
    Obama's record is a double flip flop (none / 0) (#140)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:13:00 PM EST
    He opposed the war when he couldn't vote - he voted to fund it when he could vote - then switched to opposing war funding after he became a presidential candidate. Another Obama lie is his claim he was "always against the war."

    On the campaign trail during his 2004 campaign, he railed against Congress funding the war. But a few months later he was standing with Republicans in the Senate - voting to fund the war.
    Obama is a fairy tale on the war and I have no reason to trust him!

    Parent

    Same As Hillary (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    Except Obama, at least made one antiwar speech. You are foolish to trust Hillary, we are going to be in Iraq for a long time whether or not the Iraqis approve. 4 permanent bases that have self contained "cities" for 15,000 troops all surrounding the oil fields. The largest embassy in the world, and at least 60,000 troops to control our new mid east territory. That is Hillary's plan and Obama's plan.

    And of course both have promised to focus on Afghanistan.

    There is no candidate in the running that is calling for unconditional withdrawal, aka total withdrawal from Iraq. You have been conned, or maybe you are into the WOT and trying to control mid east oil.

    Parent

    Disagree (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by nell on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:16:15 PM EST
    If it was only the Iraq War that compelled him, he should have endorsed before the WV primary. Nothing has changed between the beginning of the primaries and now to justify an endorsement on that basis; indeed, the only significant thing that has happened since is that his state went to Clinton in a landslide.

    I happen to agree with Bill Clinton, Obama's stance on the Iraq War is a fairy tale. One speech made before he was a Senator that was so unimportant at the time that he had to reenact it to get a recording for the primary does not an anti-war hero make. Byrd is smart enough to know the difference. While the Iraq War stuff may have something to do with it, though I personally believe not all that much or he would have had Byrd's endorsement awhile back, I do think it has more to do with Byrd's own history. Did you really expect him to bring his personal history into this and say I was once a member of the KKK and I now have the opportunity in a small way to atone for my sin and show people how much I have changed? Of course not.

    Perhaps the Iraq War was a more significant factor than I choose to believe, but I don't think it was the deciding factor. I think Byrd knew all along that if it came down to it, he was going to go with Obama, and I do not think he ever felt like he had another choice.

    But superdelegates can vote however they want, that is their choice. It is also my choice to remember how they voted and hold them accountable when I have the chance to contribute, volunteer, or vote for any of them.

    Parent

    In another thread, there was a link to (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:40:44 PM EST
    what Obama had to say in one of his books about meeting Senator Byrd, the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress, Senator Byrd's past and present, etc.  Perhaps Senator Byrd is acknowledging Obama got it right in that passage.  

    Parent
    Right on! (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by camellia on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:24:58 PM EST
    How old is Byrd now?  Do you think he really really plans to run for another 6-year Senate term?   I have no idea why he did this (endorse Obams, I mean), but he  truly doesnt care about being re-elected.

    Parent
    Java, Rove drew attention to it first. (none / 0) (#68)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:32:54 PM EST
    See video link below.

    Parent
    So, I guess it's ok (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:15:54 PM EST
    for SD's to vote their conscience after all.  Good news.  

    Truer words... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    Turkana:

    If you read the Clinton bloggers, you will find many strong and valid arguments about why this race really isn't over. Or why it really shouldn't be over. If this was a truly democratic process. Which it isn't. As Big Tent Democrat has pointed out, the process wasn't designed to be truly democratic. And the Obama bloggers have spent much of the past few months bringing the shrill in a very big way over the possibility that party insiders and superdelegates would decide the race. For Clinton, anyway. Because the party insiders and superdelegates are deciding the race. For Obama. And the shrillosphere is okay with that. Because to some people it hasn't ever been about fairness or democracy, it's been about their guy winning. And the party insiders and superdelegates are declaring it over. The corporate media have already declared it over. And the pale reflection of the corporate media that is the Shrillosphere of Change long ago declared it over. The arguments don't matter. The popular vote doesn't matter. Florida and Michigan don't matter. Anything that might in any way call into question the validity or rectitude of the only acceptable outcome doesn't matter. It is over.

    What the party insiders do is Right and Just and True as long as it's not your candidate on the losing end.  Some progressive movement we have here.

    It's not (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:27:55 PM EST
    a movement. A true movement is based on issues. That's why I won't have a problem with Obama losing in Nov.

    Parent
    Issues are so passe' (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:18:45 PM EST
    you know, like the working class. /snark.

    Parent
    Kennedys are getting "their president" (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:08:26 PM EST
    The Washington establishment of Kennedys and Kerrys couldn't control outsiders Carter and Clinton. Those hicks from the sticks!
    But insider Obama will be indebted to them - and the corporate media.
    I lost so much respect for the Kennedys for going along with Obama's LIE that their family had brought Obama's father to America.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:21:57 PM EST
    If one was inclined to do so one could have easily picked up the scent of self-serving hypocrisy on progressive blogs, and then predicted this.

    Timing: why did Byrd endorse BO now? (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    I think Byrd has just given the people of Kentucky permission to vote their conscience without fear of being called racists.

    How so? (none / 0) (#112)
    by nell on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:11:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Nell, as stated upsream: (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:20:56 PM EST
    Byrd is saying, 'Look, I'm endorsing Obama; I'm living proof that WV has evolved beyond it's association with the beliefs of the KKK. The people of West Virginia are free to vote for whomever they please [voting for Clinton doesn't mean that we are racist]'. That message also extends to the people of KY.

    Parent
    Video: Rove corners Byrd. (none / 0) (#64)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    Further to my post upstream. Here's the video link where Rove ensures that Byrd will have no choice but to endorse Obama.

    Note that Rove prefaces his disparaging KKK remarks by saying: "I love WV, I think it's a really neat state, with a lot of really neat people, so I don't say this in a disparaging way. But remember....".

    Maybe it time for Byrd to be voted out. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Saul on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    If he doesn't care who his state voted for to be the next president.

    SD's guidelines are independent (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:58:20 PM EST
    judgment based on who they believe stands the best chance of winning the GE.

    Byrd should be voted out for lack of judgment, not for making the decision based on the intent of the SD's.

    I know I will be looking at every Democratic representative, governor, and senator on my ballot for what kind of SD they would be from now until the dems change this process.


    Parent

    Maybe Byrd has outsmarted Rove. (none / 0) (#85)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    On second thought, Byrd's endorsement of Obama doesn't just absolve Byrd of his KKK past. By extension, Byrd's endorsement counteracts the Rovian claim that West Virginians voted for Clinton because they are racist.

    Byrd is saying, 'Look, I'm endorsing Obama; I'm living proof that WV has evolved beyond it's association with the beliefs of the KKK. The people of West Virginia are free to vote for whomever they please'.

    That's a good thing!

    Parent

    A deal, maybe? (none / 0) (#75)
    by santarita on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    I believe that Sen. Byrd has been Hillary's mentor in the Senate.  Given that he is one of the most honorable Senators, I think that he didn't throw Hillary under the bus.  What ever backroom negotiations are going on, this endorsement fits in somehow.

    Santarita, see above. (none / 0) (#88)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:54:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Not solid enough reasoning (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    he's not going to make a decision that bad for the country just to send a subliminal message to the world he's sorry for his KKK days.


    Parent
    Java, that's not what I said. (none / 0) (#101)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:02:25 PM EST


    Parent
    This is a reason for Hillary to take it to (none / 0) (#92)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:58:05 PM EST
    the convention, IMO.

    How? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Emma on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:49:58 PM EST
    How is this a reason to take it to the convention?

    Parent
    Byrd Endorses Obama | 143 comments (143 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment