Thursday, January 10, 2008

Political Bloggging - Kerry, Richardson and Unions

Breaking news this morning and it cuts both ways for the two leading Democratic candidates. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry will be endorsing Barack Obama in his bid for the presidency. MSNBC reported the Associated Press story only moments ago. The Massachusetts Senator is a welcomed addition to the union endorsements that Obama garnered yesterday and the night of the New Hampshire primary, where he lost to Clinton by 2%.

The other developing story is that Governor Bill Richardson is expected to be dropping out of the race. Richardson was, "a former congressman, secretary of Energy and U.N. ambassador, Richardson presented himself as an experienced problem-solver with impeccable international credentials" as reported by Nicholas Riccardi from the Los Angeles Times. In a race where it has been about change v. experience, he was the real beef. If he bows out of the race it might lead some to speculate if his votes will flow to Clinton, who has tried to precariously position herself as the candidate for both change and experience. No word yet if he'll endorse either candidate, but if he does expect Nevada to be shaken up. The endorsement by a Latino governor of a Southwestern state will surely influence a southwestern state primary. Or, does the fact that in Iowa Richardson's caucus-goers defected to Obama's camp on second and third rounds make the annoncement a boon for the Senator from Illinois?

Finally, don't forget Intrade.

Forgetting the fiasco of New Hampshire, Intrade is almost always right. Right now Obama is projected to win both Nevada (65% certain) and South Carolina (75% certain). No new polls yet out from Nevada, so most of this must be coming from union endorsements.


Hellernot said...

I don’t get this whole “change” thing. What does that mean “change”? I guess “change” could mean Communism or really any number of things.
I suppose higher taxes, surrender in the ME, social health care, and a driver license for each illegal would be “change.” But if that’s the case then what’s the difference between the Democratic Candidates? Does it really matter?
And now they’ve even got the Republicans doing it---what in the world do THEY want to change?
OK look---I understand that we’re all passengers on this train hell bound for socialism but do we actually have to speed it up?

The Catholic Atheist said...


Come off it. We're not heading toward socialism (unless you vote Edwards or Gravel).

Change I think is pretty narrow here, at least for Clinton.

For Obama I think he might mean something different. Something more akin to a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize politics.

We shall see. Keep reading, keep writing.

Hellernot said...

Come on---"a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize politics"?.
Don't you see how scary that sounds?
You mean we cant vote anymore or maybe only property owners---say,