Posted by Andrew Green, Baltimore Sun, at 2:20 pm CDT
The governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley, today endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in the Democratic Party's campaign for the 2008 presidential nomination.
"It is going to take a strong leader to reverse the catastrophic blunders of the Bush years and put our nation on a course that faces the opportunities of our immediate future," O'Malley said, standing alongside Clinton in Annapolos. "We are in immediate need of a strong leader of intelligence, of insight, of toughness and understanding. … Standing with me today is that leader, Hillary Rodham Clinton."
See the Sun's story:
Clinton wins O'Malley's support
Candidate can 'reverse the catastrophic blunders
of the Bush years,' he says
By Andrew A. Green
Sun reporter
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president this morning, saying she will erase a "leadership deficit" that has existed under President Bush.
The two Democrats appeared together this morning at City Dock in Annapolis, where hundreds of supporters and passers-by gathered to watch the endorsement. O'Malley is the second sitting governor to endorse Clinton in the early stages of the Democratic nomination process, joining New Jersey's Jon S. Corzine.
"It is going to take a strong leader to reverse the catastrophic blunders of the Bush years and put our nation on a course that faces the opportunities of our immediate future," O'Malley said. "We are in immediate need of a strong leader of intelligence, of insight, of toughness and understanding. … Standing with me today is that leader, Hillary Rodham Clinton."
Clinton said she has known and admired O'Malley since he became mayor of Baltimore seven years ago. She said she was grateful for his support and admires his determination to face the state's difficult problems. In particular, she said, one of his greatest achievements was to restore hope to Baltimore, where O'Malley's slogan was "Believe."
"Yes, we need to close this deficit of leadership, and I intend to do that as the next president. And we need to have good policy to transform Americans' hopes and dreams into reality," Clinton said. "But we also have to convince Americans again to believe."
The governor's endorsement is hardly a surprise -- when speaking in the abstract about the next president, O'Malley has been known to use the pronoun "she" -- but solidifies Clinton's position in the race for Maryland's delegates to the Democratic National Convention in 2008.
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski has signed on as a national co-chairwoman of the Clinton campaign, and O'Malley's backing gives the New York senator the support of the two most powerful statewide Democratic organizations in Maryland.
"The people of Maryland know Hillary Clinton ... and they know she has the experience to be the next president," said Wayne Rogers, a former Maryland Democratic Party chairman who is backing the New York senator. "Hillary Clinton clearly believes the state of Maryland is important, and ... she is coming to Maryland to be endorsed by the governor."
Both parties' nomination contests are as wide open as they have ever been in decades, and the campaigns have started at a much faster pace than usual.
Maryland has not traditionally played a major role in the nomination process, and even with the state's recent decision to move its primaries up to February, the contests could well be all but decided by the time voters here go to the polls.
But that hasn't dampened candidates' interest in the state. Former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. was recently named the Mid-Atlantic chairman for Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani's presidential campaign. Josh Rales, the millionaire former Senate candidate, held a big-dollar fundraiser for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and Democratic sources say the Clinton campaign has approached Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon about an endorsement.
Former Sen. John Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, also has strong backers in Maryland -- including state Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller.
The Clinton campaign has long sought to convey a sense of inevitability about the senator's prospects for the nomination, but that effort has been upset recently by Obama's strong fundraising, said Thomas F. Schaller, a political science professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and author of a book on national campaign strategy for Democratic presidential candidates.
Clinton raised $26 million in the first quarter of the year -- a record for that period -- but Obama was close behind with about $25 million.
"Among the early primary resources in any party are money and endorsements, so she can continue to try to make the case for her inevitability or front-runner status by filling the tote board with endorsements," Schaller said.
O'Malley's endorsement shows what an advantage Clinton's long years in the national spotlight provide as she tries to do that.
In 1999, the senator's husband, then-President Bill Clinton, brought O'Malley, then a newly elected Baltimore mayor, on a peacemaking trip to Ireland. The Clintons also both held campaign events for O'Malley in the waning days of last year's governor's race. The former president also appeared in a television ad for O'Malley.
O'Malley has been complimentary toward the other major candidates for the Democratic nomination, but he has not been coy about his leanings.
"I'm very much inclined to support Senator Clinton," O'Malley said during a March appearance on The Politics Program with Mark Plotkin on Washington Post Radio. "I've been very impressed with Senator Clinton. I think she's been a terrific senator and would be a wonderful president of the United States."
O'Malley has not had a perfect eye for picking presidential winners. In late 2003, he endorsed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who was then a front-runner for the Democratic nomination. But Dean's losses in Iowa and New Hampshire -- plus an infamous whoop caught on tape after the Iowa caucus -- effectively knocked him out of contention by the time Marylanders voted in March 2004.
"Martin O'Malley is 0-for-1 on presidential endorsements," said Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Howard Dean didn't work out so well last time, so after Dean's scream, maybe he wanted to go with someone a little more calculating this time."
O'Malley's support for Dean didn't hurt him in the end. Despite picking the losing candidate, he still received a coveted speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention that nominated Democrat John F. Kerry.
Andrew Green reports for the Baltimore Sun, a Tribune Co. newspaper.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
What is so sad and frustrating is the extent to which George Bush has sought to gut essentially everything Bill Clinton put into place. This was NOT what Mr. Bush campaigned on, and it is not what the country voted for. In 2000, both candidates sought to maintain the prosperity brought on by the tech boom, and neither candidate offered radical change in their agenda. I believe I remember hearing something about "compassionate conservatism" and a humble foreign policy predicated on eschewing nation-building, what the heck ever happened to that?
Instead, the minute President Bush took office he started undoing everything that had been accomplished in the previous 8 years. Anything Clinton was suspect (and please remember, people, William Jefferson Clinton was no "liberal." He was aggressively centrist in his 3rd way political program, and was at best just left of center), including said administration's focus on Al Qaeda and warnings that that entity would be the greatest threat to American peace and prosperity. Of course, Mr. Bush ignored that advice because, apparently, if Clinton said it or did it, the opposite words or actions are necessarily superior.
Its time to stop lurching from one extreme to the other (though I would argue again the Clinton's position was essentially centrist, making Bush's dramatic jolt to the far-right all the more disturbing). Are there no centrists left? Barack Obama is most likely the most centrist Democrat, with Hillary flanking him to the right. Mitt Romney is most likely the most centrist Republican running, yet he is charging away from the very policies that make him appealing to the center faster than you can say Pat Robertson, damaging any hope he may have in the general election if he wins the GOP nomination.
Much buzz has come lately about Ron Paul, but let's not forget that in a crowded field of right-wing candidates, Dr. Paul is off the charts to the right, light years away from the center of American politics. I like his illustration of the problems facing America and his candid disagreement with not only the execution but the PHILOSOPHY of the Iraq War. I just don't necessarily agree with his solutions, though at least he has the guts to run as a Republican genuinely opposed to Bushism. I hope he gains traction to help balance the now-adrift Republican Party.
Posted by: Bryan | May 9, 2007 3:17 PM
What is so sad and frustrating is the extent to which George Bush has sought to gut essentially everything Bill Clinton put into place. This was NOT what Mr. Bush campaigned on, and it is not what the country voted for. In 2000, both candidates sought to maintain the prosperity brought on by the tech boom, and neither candidate offered radical change in their agenda. I believe I remember hearing something about "compassionate conservatism" and a humble foreign policy predicated on eschewing nation-building, what the heck ever happened to that?
Instead, the minute President Bush took office he started undoing everything that had been accomplished in the previous 8 years. Anything Clinton was suspect (and please remember, people, William Jefferson Clinton was no "liberal." He was aggressively centrist in his 3rd way political program, and was at best just left of center), including said administration's focus on Al Qaeda and warnings that that entity would be the greatest threat to American peace and prosperity. Of course, Mr. Bush ignored that advice because, apparently, if Clinton said it or did it, the opposite words or actions are necessarily superior.
Its time to stop lurching from one extreme to the other (though I would argue again the Clinton's position was essentially centrist, making Bush's dramatic jolt to the far-right all the more disturbing). Are there no centrists left? Barack Obama is most likely the most centrist Democrat, with Hillary flanking him to the right. Mitt Romney is most likely the most centrist Republican running, yet he is charging away from the very policies that make him appealing to the center faster than you can say Pat Robertson, damaging any hope he may have in the general election if he wins the GOP nomination.
Much buzz has come lately about Ron Paul, but let's not forget that in a crowded field of right-wing candidates, Dr. Paul is off the charts to the right, light years away from the center of American politics. I like his illustration of the problems facing America and his candid disagreement with not only the execution but the PHILOSOPHY of the Iraq War. I just don't necessarily agree with his solutions, though at least he has the guts to run as a Republican genuinely opposed to Bushism. I hope he gains traction to help balance the now-adrift Republican Party.
Posted by: Bryan | May 9, 2007 3:17 PM
1. The stock market at an all time high.
2. Unemployment at an all time low.
3. A brutal dictator removed from power and democracy brought to the middle east.
4. More than six years without another successful terrorist attack on the U.S.
5. Tax cuts for working families
6. The Federal budget Deficit cut in half.
So other than taking too long to mop up after the Iraq war, just what is there for Hillary to reverse?
Posted by: bob | May 9, 2007 3:33 PM
Yeah bob, everything has been just dandy under the Neocons rule as W.'s 28% approval rating shows.
I'll take anyone who isn't a Republican in 08 and I think the poll numbers support my opinion.
Posted by: Nicole | May 9, 2007 3:56 PM
Haha I love it when people like bob brag about how we haven't been attacked since 9/11. This president let 9/11 happen! He and Condi were warned repeatedly and did nothing. And this president caused the budget deficit! Plus the cost of the Iraq war isn't included in the budget, so 'cutting the deficit in half' means nothing. And working families did not get tax cuts, please. And how about the wage gap between the rich and the poor? The millions of uninsured? Our children not getting quality education? Our environment being destroyed? All of this was on the right track under President Clinton. Oh and abortions went down under President Clinton, too, something a 'real' strong economy tends to make happen.
Posted by: Paul | May 9, 2007 4:04 PM
6. The Federal budget Deficit cut in half.
There was NO federal budget deficit when Bush took office, there was a surplus. Bush created the deficit.
Posted by: Tony | May 9, 2007 4:06 PM
6. The Federal budget Deficit cut in half.
In the fiscal year ending September 2000 - the last complete fiscal before Clinton left office - there was a budget SURPLUS.
How can cutting the budget deficit in half be an accomplishment of Bush when it was Bush that created the deficit in the first place.
4. More than six years without another successful terrorist attack on the U.S.
You people act like this was an every day occurence before. We went approx 50 years without an attack on US soil after Pearl Harbor. Do you want to give credit for all of FDR's policies for keeping America safe for that long.
You Bush supporters have no proof that any of Bush's policies that were put into place after 9/11 have directly resulted in preventing another 9/11 attack.
Posted by: Richard S. | May 9, 2007 4:08 PM
I agree that saying there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11 on American soil does not mean they were prevented by Bush's policies. But it annoys me when people try to blame Bush, or Clinton for that matter, for 9/11. I tend to believe that the terrorists who planned, recruited and premeditated for multiple years, then intentionally murdered 3000 Americans are 99.999% responsible for 9/11. The Gov't is not your insurer. They do everything they can to prevent terrorist attacks, but they have to be right every time, while the terrorists have to be right only once to be successful.
Posted by: Herbie H. | May 9, 2007 5:36 PM
Hillary is right about reversing the Bush disaster years except for one thing; Obama is most qualified for the job.
Posted by: RomanB | May 9, 2007 6:37 PM
1. The stock market at an all time high.
So what? http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20061011
2. Unemployment at an all time low.
The unemployment rate right now is 4.7%. The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969.
3. A brutal dictator removed from power and democracy brought to the middle east.
Democracy? While Christians are still being killed?
4. More than six years without another successful terrorist attack on the U.S.
Not actually creditable to chimpy mcflightsuit.
5. Tax cuts for working families
Yeah, we got $300. About a weeks worth of groceries. How'd you do?
6. The Federal budget Deficit cut in half.
He inherited a surplus. He is cutting HIS deficit in half, if that.
Lamer.
Posted by: snitramc | May 9, 2007 7:29 PM
Snitramc, as usual you are a lying, clueless Lefty Loon:
1. Unemployment is 4.5, not 4.7
2. When Clintoon left office in January 2001, unemployment was rising and the stock market had crashed.
3. Familes got more than $300. This is what the Bush tax cuts did for working families: 2001, just about everyone received a minimum $300 return, those with children, got more. IN 2002, workiing families with kids received more money back. Meanwhile, Bush doubled the deductions on children from $500 to $1,000 and ended the marriage penalty tax and cut the tax rate from 28 percent to 25 percent and those making less than 20,000 were REMOVED from the Federal income tax rolls.
4. By the time Bush became president, the budget surpluses already were vanishing due to the stock market crash and souring economy.
5. Bush has done much to prevent terrorist attacks in this country.
6. As usual, the Loony Lefties love murderous dictators. Probably the same reason why you folks love abortions: You hate people and want people killed.
Posted by: John D | May 9, 2007 8:20 PM
9/11 happened on Bush's Watch
"where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me"
Bin Laden still on the loose
"where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me"
No WMDs in Iraq
"where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me"
Record Federal deficit
"where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me"
Quagmire, Civil War in Iraq, no end in sight
"where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me"
Katrina response
"where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me"
Borders not secure
"where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me"
Deplorable conditions at Walter Reed
"where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me"
Too bad he cant run for a 3rd term, eh NeoCons?
Posted by: Smirky McFlightsuit | May 9, 2007 8:26 PM
Snitramc, as usual you are a lying, clueless Lefty Loon:
Posted by: John D | May 9, 2007 8:20:48 PM
Classy, really classy John. 4.5% or 4.7% it doesn't really matter as these are hardly 'historic lows' in unemployment. Maybe you should look into that before you start running off at the again. Have a good one bible thumper!
Posted by: jj | May 9, 2007 10:28 PM
So some lefty Governor decides to support Hillary...WOW!
Let's get the facts straight!
Hillary could not protect a Boy Scout Troop while they cross a wooden bridge!
Her perverted (Monica and all the other babes) husband could NOT defend this country for eight years!
The United States Of America was attacked at home and abroad during his failed administration Seven Times!
And,of course 9/11 was planned for Three Years under his and his administrations Nose!
THANK-YOU....B.J. Clinton- Mr.Poll Watcher...
There is more,but his boy,Sandy Burger stole the MEMO'S and TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS from THE NATIONAL
ARCHIVES!!!---And Destroyed Them!
Hillary...If we reverse,we'll all be DEAD by your hand...and BJ's!
ANY REPUBLICAN...IN 2008!
Paulo
P.S. And Sandy Burgler got a lighter sentance than Paris Hilton!
Posted by: Paulo | May 10, 2007 12:51 AM
"4. By the time Bush became president, the budget surpluses already were vanishing due to the stock market crash and souring economy."
Another Johnny D lie. What a shock.
That simply has no basis in Historical fact Johnny. Don't believe me? How about the Bush Administration?
From "A citizens guide to the Federal Budget FY2002".
"In 1998 the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999 the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion. As a result of these surpluses the federal debt held by the public has been reduce from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to 3.4 trillion at the end of 2000 and to an estimated 3.2 trillion at the end of 2001. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/pdf/guide.pdf
Sorry Johnny, this deficit is GWB's baby.
Posted by: Tony | May 10, 2007 6:21 AM
6. As usual, the Loony Lefties love murderous dictators. Probably the same reason why you folks love abortions: You hate people and want people killed.
Posted by: John D | May 9, 2007 8:20:48 PM
John Dear:
I generally take issue with your facts because I feel they are found in dubious places. You know, sites that omit or distort facts that don't promote the right wing agenda. Of course, you feel the same about what I say.
BUT, I must comment on # 6. The US has always cozied up to dictators for a variety of reasons-muderous or not. Let's face it. Reagan supported anyone who was not a "commie" no matter what other affiliation they had. Exhibit A-Osama Bin Laden. Also, if you are anti-abortion but pro death penalty- it's hypocracy. Plain and simple. If you support anti-abortionists who kill and maim people who work in clinics-you are supporting murder. No rationization.
Posted by: Catherine | May 10, 2007 7:21 AM
Well put, Catherine and others.
And John D, let's take a look at #5. Not only have most of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission been ignored (along with the Iraq Commission, for that matter -- both bi-lateral), how's this beaut:
Sen Frank Lautenberg of NJ just had to introduce legislation on the Hill which would prevent individuals on the terror watchlist from purchasing firearms.
Is the NRA that powerful and is DHS that stupid? Can no one connect the dots in DC?
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | May 10, 2007 8:40 AM
Link about 2000 stock market crash. In fact, before Bushy became president, NASDAQ already lost more than 40 percent of its value in LESS than ONE Year!!! The stock market crash, recession that began in 2000 and Sept. 11, 2001 all were main causes of increasing budget deficits.
And Catherine, dear, regarding the points above the abortion comment, all that info is verfied and accurate: historically low unemployment, tax cuts for all, stock market over 13,000 today.
http://www.marketvolume.com/info/stock_market_trading/stock_market_crashes.asp
Posted by: John D | May 10, 2007 4:33 PM
"The stock market crash, recession that began in 2000 and Sept. 11, 2001 all were main causes of increasing budget deficits."
So then Johnny, President Bush was lying in the posted? It was produced AFTER the stock market crash and recession that you claim led to the deficits, yet Bush was still saying that the surpluses could remain for "many years".
Posted by: Tony | May 11, 2007 6:06 AM