LIVING POLITICS
Howard Fineman
Friends in High Places
Endorsements matter. Just ask McCain and Obama.
The conventional wisdom always says that endorsements don't matter. Well, it's wrong. Sen. John McCain wouldn't have won the GOP Florida primary without them, and the Democratic race wouldn't be where it is—with Sen. Barack Obama poised to take the lead—had not one endorsement gone sour (Bill Clinton's of his wife, Hillary) and another fanned a fire (the Kennedy clan's of Obama). Looking back, it may be that Mike Huckabee's 15 minutes of fame came courtesy of Chuck Norris. Wednesday McCain gets an extra day of great publicity as former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani endorses him. And the big question on the Democratic side is whom John Edwards will support now that he's dropping out of the race.
I'm told that Edwards's decision was very closely held, meaning he and his wife alone knew the score. As of Tuesday morning he still had an ambitious schedule planned in the Super Tuesday states. But Tuesday afternoon he notified his staff that he wanted to go to New Orleans instead. Everyone knew what that meant. That devastated city was where Edwards had begun his campaign in the name of the poor and forgotten. Now he would return to say that his campaign had failed, but that the cause lived on. As for his endorsement plans, they remain unclear. His representatives had been reaching out to Obama's high command for weeks, but I am told that they rebuffed him. A top aide to Edwards cautioned not to assume that Edwards would endorse Obama. "He's gained a lot of respect for Hillary, for her toughness in all that she has been through." That could just be a negotiating ploy on Edwards's part. We'll see.
If the 2008 campaign has proved anything so far, it is that endorsements do matter. In fact, they may well matter more than they have in decades. Voters are too busy, distracted and ideologically confused to make fateful political decisions on their own. They are looking for guidance. And now the race is entering a phase—Super-Duper-Mega-Tsunami Tuesday—when endorsements may prove indispensible.
With 22 states holding primaries and caucuses, no grass-roots organization, including Obama's superb one, can make things happen entirely from the ground up. And "earned" media coverage and paid advertising can carry you only so far. You need what amounts to a franchise operation, which is what an endorsement is, or can be.
You also need character witnesses. Unlike the early, intimate campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, voters can't examine the candidates up close, like a piece of fruit in the market. And with a resurgence of ethnic-identity politics, especially on the Democratic side, candidates need endorsers to give them entrée across social borders.
In our ever more celebrity-obsessed culture, why wouldn't political endorsements matter?
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: GaryInManassas @ 02/02/2008 9:16:30 AM
Comment: Senator and President Clinton have been pushing on the experience factor lately. President Clinton, made a hit on Senator Obamas lack of experience. Edwards doesn???t have a huge resume of experience in the federal government either. Lets be real about Senator Clinton too. She is a one term Senator who held no other elected office. what experience is she touting? her time as First Lady should not factor into this equation- it wasnt elected and doesnt give her experience other than by some sort of White House osmosis. So the question remains ??? is experience an issue?
Senator Obamas home state of Illinois is particularly good at electing inexperienced nobodies as president???perhaps youve heard of Abraham Lincoln?
Lets think about this for a minute??? does anyone really have experience being president, before actually BEING a president?
Senators Obamas and Edwards have more foreign policy experience than that of, Governors turned Presidents???and out of the last five presidents, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all governors.
The last senator to make the jump to the White House had only one term under his belt before winning the Democratic primary. In the general election, he was called unelectable because of one of his inherent characteristics; the country wasnt ready for such a man to be president, his detractors said. Yet in spite of this, John F. Kennedy went on to become one of the most beloved presidents in recent history.
Senators who have experience often seem out of touch with real people. The bubble of the Senate makes the world a very different place- especially when it comes to connection and speaking. Senators tend to bloviate- debate is the essence of the Senate. Senators also have a sense of entitlement that seems to come from being in our version of The House of Lords. I once heard that there are 100 people who want to be President that you can locate quickly- the members of the US Senate.
Is experience something to consider: lets take a look back at some of the past presidents:
James Buchanan: 29 years
Gerald Ford: 25 years
George H.W. Bush: 17 years
Richard Nixon: 14 years
Bill Clinton: 12 years
Ronald Reagan: 8 years
George W. Bush: 7 years
Abraham Lincoln: 2 years
George Washington: 0 years
Dwight Eisenhower: 0 years
James Buchanan, who had 29 years of service as a representative, senator, ambassador and Secretary of State, is arguably the worst president in the US history. While Abraham Lincoln with only 2 years experience in the federal government is considered a national icon and, with George Washington, one of the most venerated leaders in our nations history. Going by this list, it is difficult to say that more experience is better.
Havent we learned in the past 7 years that you really don???t need experience to become president? I dont think Bush is a disastrous president because he has little experience compared to other previous presidents??? hes just awfully stupid.
Posted By: GaryInManassas @ 02/02/2008 9:13:21 AM
Comment: Senator and President Clinton have been pushing on the experience factor lately. President Clinton, made a hit on Senator Obama???s ???lack of experience.Edwards doesn???t have a huge resume of experience in the federal government either. Let???s be real about Senator Clinton too. She is a one term Senator who held no other elected office. what experience is she touting? her time as First Lady should not factor into this equation- it wasn???t elected and doesn???t give her experience other than by some sort of White House osmosis. So the question remains ??? is ???experience??? an issue?
Senator Obama???s home state of Illinois is particularly good at electing inexperienced nobodies as president???perhaps you???ve heard of Abraham Lincoln?
Let???s think about this for a minute??? does anyone really have experience being president, before actually BEING a president?
Senators Obama???s and Edwards??? have more foreign policy experience than that of, Governors turned Presidents???and out of the last five presidents, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all governors.
The last senator to make the jump to the White House had only one term under his belt before winning the Democratic primary. In the general election, he was called unelectable because of one of his inherent characteristics; the country wasn???t ready for such a man to be president, his detractors said. Yet in spite of this, John F. Kennedy went on to become one of the most beloved presidents in recent history.
Senators who have ???experience??? often seem out of touch with real people. The bubble of the Senate makes the world a very different place- especially when it comes to connection and speaking. Senators tend to bloviate- debate is the essence of the Senate. Senators also have a sense of entitlement??? that seems to come from being in our version of ???The House of Lords???. I once heard that there are 100 people who want to be President that you can locate quickly- the members of the US Senate.
Is experience something to consider: lets take a look back at some of the past presidents:
James Buchanan: 29 years
Gerald Ford: 25 years
George H.W. Bush: 17 years
Richard Nixon: 14 years
Bill Clinton: 12 years
Ronald Reagan: 8 years
George W. Bush: 7 years
Abraham Lincoln: 2 years
George Washington: 0 years
Dwight Eisenhower: 0 years
James Buchanan, who had 29 years of service as a representative, senator, ambassador and Secretary of State, is arguably the worst president in the US history. While Abraham Lincoln with only 2 years experience in the federal government is considered a national icon and, with George Washington, one of the most venerated leaders in our nation???s history. Going by this list, it is difficult to say that more experience is better.
Haven???t we learned in the past 7 years that you really don???t need experience to become president? I don???t think Bush is a disastrous president because he has little experience compared to other previous presidents??? he??
Posted By: GaryInManassas @ 02/02/2008 8:53:41 AM
Comment: So, your argument for experienced Presidents is based on what information? I am curious and would like to know. I would like to see a report on the experience of our past Presidents and the performance of the country. Good point. How long was Bill Clinton in Washington before he was elected President?