Kerry goes for Obama

To add my two cents to this article, it's interesting to see the break-down of those who supported each of the Democratic front-runners. Obama seems to be preferred by independents, and it's interesting to see how women will continue to choose between him and Hillary. He enjoyed their support in Iowa, but they switched back to Hillary in New Hampshire. Check http://www.projectweightloss.com/ for an interesting and somewhat unusual survey of the characteristics of each of the Democratic candidates' supporters.

Just wait, John. If I'm the nominee, I will not forget this! You'll wish you were back in 'Nam. Or worse, back in the '04 election!

Oooh, poor Obama. Talk about a kiss of death. Why didn't Kerry just poison him? It would've been less painful.

ugh! hilary & edwards must be doing handsrpings this morning! what a kiss of death!

Maybe Hillary can get Dukakis to support her. And possibly Jimmy Carter. Then they'd have a trifecta of losers.

It would be nice if reporters could give the readers some insights into the reason why some/union would endorse a particular candidates.

It does not help the readers to make up their mind by simply stating who endorses whom. Do I case about Oprah Winfrey's endorsement? NOPE! NOPE! NOPE! John Kerry's endorsement? Maybe if he could articulate his rationale for such endorsement. I don't care about freshness in a person; I care about whether he has enough track record to show me that he could get things done the right way.

So far, I am still waiting for Obama to convince me. I am an independent voter.

Some time ago, I heard Joe Biden say that if he had to pick between his good friend John Kerry for president or Hillary Clinton he would have to choose Hillary. I felt at the time it was such a punch in the gut for Kerry. Now I see that Kerry has done the same by choosing Obama over Edwards. These are such honorable fellows aren't they?

I truly hope this is not the kiss of death for Obama.

I wouldn't even want an endorsement from Kerry.

Strange that your spell-check didn't pick up on the incorrectly spelled word ...
(announced)/ (annoucned)
in the fourth paragraph; third to the last word. Just though I'd bring in to your attention. Cheers

Kerry is nice. Al Gore would be better.

Looks like the KISS of death. Just put a lot of votes in Clinton's column. All we need now is for Al Gore to join him. How about Jesse? Another one would be Clarance Page.

Since it's the Tribune, the article contains errors.

"Kerry ... announced his own candidacy four years ago on an aircraft carrier off Charleston."

Mr. Bendavid, the Chicago Tribune (which you presumably read) reported on 9-3-2003 that Kerry announced his candidacy IN FRONT OF, not on the aircraft carrier. Kerry used the aircraft carrier as a campaign photo backdrop.

Kerry...now there's a winner.

Regardless of this endorsement, the fact remains that Obama promised us “change” in Illinois too -- but failed to deliver anything. He has NEVER inititated or supported the kind of fundamental changes that would improve our lives or rid Illinois of the politics as usual that has crippled it. On the contrary, he has supported, and benefited politically and financially from our corrupt system here.

The media has an obligation to provide a more insightful and meaningful exploration of Obama's record -- or rather lack of a record – on the issue of “change” in Chicago and Illinois.

This guy is a con man, folks.

Hmmm. While I agree with the endorsement, I am not sure this is good for the Obama campaign.

Well there it is. Now I can make up my mind now that John Kerry has spoken. My vote was hinging on what John said. I can sleep peacefully now.

Obama is a mirage in the desert. America is thirsty to be sure, and Obama looks like water. But the closer you get, you realize he's nothing but sand.

I pose this question to the Kerry haters.

Why is it none of the Repugnant candidates are asking for Boy George's endorsement?

If Kerry had been elected 4 years ago,this country and the world for that matter,would be a hell of a lot better off.

Not that backing by Kerry particularly means anything, but it make me very glad that Kerry was never elected president.

Kerry endorses a guy who brings nothing to the table for people longing for a change in the status quo. Especially at a time when democrats are poised to make a difference.

If Kerry cannot let go of his bitterness toward Hillary for the betterment of his country then he very much deserved his loss to Bush in '04. His judgement with this endorsement shows how much of a leader he is not.

Wow, I can't think of a worse endorsement for Obama to pick up... he wants to be the candidate of change but he has an old-school, silver-spoon fed Senator who already lost a presidential election (to an unpopular incumbent, nonetheless) in his corner.

As a lifelong Democrat who hasn't gotten to vote for a nominee yet I am angry that my choices will likely be widdled down to two after only 2 states get their say. Personally, I don't think either Obama or Clinton is qualified to be President (Hillary claims 35 years experience, but I don't think atrtending state dinners as First Lady qualifies as foreign policy experience) and I'm not sure I'll be able to vote for either of them in a general election (for the record, I supported Gov Richardson from the start).

What a shame... it seems that the DNC still does not realize what kind of candidate we need to win a general election. Looks like it's time for a serious third party candidate.

I see that KetchupBoy, I mean.....John Kerry, has just endorsed Barack Yomama.......

Unless of course he decides to unendorse him........

or throw him away......

unless he decides to not throw him away.....

or maybe he'll just mount him on his office wall.......

until he decides to unmount him.......

Can you get a purple heart for that ???

Maybe he'll just wear a chestful of Yomama bumper stickers instead....

Unless he decides not to.......

Maybe he can get Joan Baez and Jane Fonda to endorse his endorsement.....

Unless he decides not to.....

I wonder what his old running mate John Edwards thinks about this ???

Maybe Edwards can put both Kerry and Obama in an ambulance.....and chase it.

Wow, thanks John! I didn't think there was anyone involved in this election that was more divisive and more polarizing than me... but then you showed up and supported the one guy that could have united people in a non-partisan way. Thanks for insuring that the nomination goes to me... I owe you one.

Sincerely,

Hillary

Who is Tony Rezko and Emil Johnes endorsing?

Oh god, some of you have been in the game too long. If Obama had gone to extinuating circumstances to get Kerry's vote then maybe you could call it a kiss of death. Otherwise, it just shows that Obama can pick up people who can support him. He's also had the support of many republicans. There is even a group dedicated to it called "republicans for obama". Come on people and stop being so divisive.

It seems that John Kerry and other Democrats do not want Bill and Hillary Clinton back in power. Maybe they have memories of having to back them in the 1990's through all the lies, high level suicide of Vince Foster, scandals, so called right wing conspiracies and finally an impeachment trial. Could it be that some Democrats want a fresh face that does not carry all that baggage.

Bobby Iron,

I'd rather have the illusion of water with Obama than the certainty of having my head shoved in the toilet by Hillary Rodham Clinton (btw, when did she re-drop her maiden name?)

Obama's Senate Homeland Security Committee to Discuss "The Stifling of Dissent Act" of 2008

And where will Barack Obama be when the Senate reconvenes on January 22nd? He sits on the Homeland Security Committee that will be discussing the "Homegrown Terrorism Act" which is nothing more than a burning of our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.

Perhaps Mr. Obama should suspend his "campaigning" and have the cameras follow him into the Senate where he can prove to the American people that he has every intention, if elected POTUS, to "PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC".

Thanks to Jane Harman (D-CA), the House already passed this rotten infringement of our First Amendment rights by a vote of 404-6 and unless Sen. Obama shows up to fight it (along with Clinton and McCain AND), we will know NONE of them deserve our vote.

Here's a video on the current situation we are facing:

http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=197342

I watched the first hearing in the House Intelligence Committee with Jane Harman where a representative from the Simon Wiesenthal Center did a Power Point showing the website of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" as an example of an organization that is a "national security threat" because they are using "force" (look up the definition of "force") to convince millions of Americans to question the 9/11 Commission Report's findings. The video link to this hearing can be found in the middle of this article:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7339

Consider that WTC 7 fell to the ground on 9/11 at free fall speed into dust! at 5:20 pm that day and WAS NEVER HIT BY A PLANE...and not a word about it in the final report! (To mention but one of the MANY discrepancies).

If you check ae911truth.org/ and watch the presentation video by Richard Gage you'll understand why the Congress wants to shut these people up.

When the Senate passes this legislation (and they most certainly will without a major lobbying effort against it by the American People), and Bush signs it into law, you might as well take a piece of duct tape and put it across your mouth, and stay off the Internet, lest you write something too "forceful".

It is very clear now that Ari Fleischer meant it the day after 9/11 when he said, "You'd better watch what you SAY and watch what you DO." In a few months even this post could land me in prison. Think about it.

The comment posted by Jeff Jacobs is one of the best comments I have ever seen here at the swamp. THe Swamp writers give Obama a pass for some strange reason. He says he stands for change but never did anything to change the awful political climate here in IL. He has enough chinks in his armor that would leave a rational person to question him, but for some reason the swamp "journalists" have no intention of exploring them. HEre are a few. His constant "present" votes on any kind of controversial issue. His ties to Rezko which are much deeper than he is disclosing. His highly unethical use of his PAC fund cash. HIs busing in college students from IL to skew the vote in Iowa. His voting record in IL. His lack of doing anything as a Senator to help IL and the fact that sense elected he has concentrated on writing a book and running for president. Most of all his claim to be a graet leader with outstanding judgment, even though he endorses peole like Stroger/Blagoevich etc. I ask again. Why is he not being vetted like other candidates? THe Swamp is doibng us a disservice by being a cheerleader and not giving us the facts. Journalists are suppose to be a connection between us and the pols. They are suppose to give us the info and let us deceide. They are not suppose to frame everyhting in order to support a certain candidate. How they get away with this is beyond me? There are a few REAL journalists out there in Chicago. Lynn Sweet and John Kass take an objective view of Obama when they write about him. Frank James is a joke.

Right on Harley Rider-I laughed til I didn't laugh.

My friends (a la McCain)look at OBAMA - really look. What do you see? Then hear Obama-really hear? What do you hear? You see an angry looking man. You hear an admitted "seasoned politician" (but he claims only the others are) who can DELIVER the speeches of others but can not put together one passionate statement in a debate.

He is going to give the American people change. Really? It was the American people who gave him change in the last congressional elections allowing him to get his seat in the Senate. So he promises he will give the American people what they have already done for themselves. Now that's the ultimate spin.

Now Illinois gave him a chance to be their senator and represent them. Apparently, that was not good enough for him-he's abandoning the job after one year. He thinks he should be President-apparently because he's already done so much for Illinois that it's time to spread his skill(?) to the national level. Gratitude? Obligation?-no room for that here. Doesn't this sound like a fairytale to you?

Flipper and Flopper now a pair.

Kerry used to think Edwards was a strong candidate for President (if Kerry died). Suddenly, he's not such a good candidate? Do you believe it? Or is there something in the endorsement for Kerry? There's certainly nothing in it for Obama other than hanging with the same ilk.

Everyone is getting behind Obama because he represents an American spirit we haven’t seen in a long time - leaders with integrity. Obama has other well-known backers such as Clooney, Jessica Biel, Kate Walsh and Scarlett Johansson. On the other hand, the Clintons'' sour-grapes reaction after the Iowa caucus was disappointing (their negative attacks on Edwards and Obama were misleading at best. Not according to me, but according to fact-checkers who are following the campaign.) Initially I was a Clinton supporter but quickly saw that she was less than honest.

I can no longer get behind someone who puts politics first and leadership second (including saying anything to sway people against your opponents). People from all backgrounds love Obama because he’s more of a leader than a politician and has resisted returning the negativity.

Thanks John Kerry!

Obama is doing on-the-job training--SCARY!

[quote]
Kerry used the aircraft carrier as a campaign photo backdrop.

Posted by: Bruce | January 10, 2008 11:31 AM
[/quote]

Oh PLEASE talk about using aircraft carriers for photo ops - I want to see if you're man enough to admit about Shrub's usage of the U.S.S. "Mission Accomplished". Which isn't any different than how he's been giving speeches to captive audiences on military bases the last 7 years; pResident Doogie Howser has been talking in front of friendly military audiences - WHO AREN'T ALLOWED TO ASK ANY HARD QUESTIONS! In fact, it's been exposed that on more than one occassion that a question came from a PLANTED PERSON in a military audience.

Why is it whenever Obama gets a major endorsement the media must always ask, "Will---endorsement help/hurt Obama?" Why is it this same question is not asked of Hillary Clinton, ever? I think it needs to stop of Obama. Let the endorsements come as they may and drop the framing of them to the American people.