“To those of you that supported my campaign, thank you. We could not have waged the ideas based campaign and raised over $15M without you. Unfortunately, we do have a debt to retire and I am grateful for your support.” — Chris Dodd
I find it funny that the old Dodd campaign wants people to donate to their nonexistant campaign.
It’s right on their website’s homepage, “help retire the campaign’s debt.” Why would someone contribute money to a dead campaign, what motivation is there?
This also begs the question of how much the Dodd campaign was left in debt. It certainly reveals that they outspent their means. And honestly for what?– 0% in the Iowa caucus?
I don’t like picking on Sen. Chris Dodd, after all, he did endorse Obama, but when I see a plea on his main webpage for campaign donations long after his long-shot bid for the presidency has ended, it makes you wonder who is actually going to contribute, and how much they were in the hole towards the end of it.
I’m going to forecast some Senate races in 2008. These are obviously extremely preliminary, but early polling data can give us a rough estimate over what to expect in the fall. And I decided to be gutsy and not lump them into “Democratic favored” or “leans” categories…
I’ll keep up with Senate race predictions on my new “Senate Races” section.
Stevens (R-AK), Sessions (R-AL), Chambliss (R-GA), McConnell (R-KY), Wicker (R-MS), Dole (R-NC), Inhofe (R-OK), Graham (R-SC), Alexander (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Roberts (R-KA), Cochran (R-MS), Enzi (R-WY), Barrasso (R-WY)
Democratic Takeover: Close races but are currently trending Democratic takeover (4 seats)
Norm Coleman (R-MN) to Al Franken, John Sununu (R-NH) to Jeanne Shaheen, Pete Dominici (R-NM) to Tom Udell, Open Seat to Mark Warner (D-VA)
Republican Takeover (1 seat)
Mary Landreau (D-LA) to John Kennedy
Too Close: Close races with no clear front-runner (3 seats)
Bob Schaffer vs. Tom Udall- Colorado, Gordon Smith (R-OR) vs. No Clear Challanger, Susan Collins (R-ME) vs. Tom Allen
I put in the “too close” category because there are truly a few races that will be very close in November, or at least they’re trending that way right now. Republicans Smith, Collins, Sununu and Coleman are vulnerable while Democrats have their eyes on open seats in Virginia & Colorado. If everything goes as planned for the Democrats, they could walk away with a net gain of 5 seats in November, giving them a 56-44 majority in the Senate. It currently looks like, unfortunately, Mary Landreau (D-LA) will lose her seat. In the after math of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of New Orleans residents fled Louisiana, depressing the city’s Democratic electorate. Landreau squeaked by in 2002 (before Katrina). Now it looks like without the base that elected her, she will be unable to win in November. That’s the only bad news for Democrats–and the only reason she is vulnerable is because of the political implications of a natural disaster. Republicans are certainly going to be on the defensive this year.
Once again, this is where I stand as of right now. I’ll post more in depth info about some of these races and new predictions as the year progresses. Public opinion changes, events happen, controversies erupt: you never know what can swing an election.
When I was 15, humorists like Al Franken and Bill Maher spurred my interest in politics and shaped my liberal ideals.
Now Franken, formerly a Saturday Night Live actor and host of liberal Air America Radio, is running to defeat Norm Coleman (R-MN) in 2008. His Minnesota campaign has come on great success, matching Coleman and the RNC in fund raising dollars and rising to the top of the Democratc primary field.
Two people now remain for the Democratic Party nomination (known as the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party (DFL) in MN): Franken and Jack Nelson-Pallemeyer, a professor at the University of St. Thomas. On March 10th, Franken’s top Democratic opponent, trial lawyer Mike Ciresi, dropped out of the race, allowing Franken to focus his energy and step up his campaign against Republican Coleman.
One of the greatest hurdles to his campaign have been questions over Franken’s seriousness: is Franken actually serious about running? In the past he has wrote books criticizing far right ideologues such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, and he has wrote extensively about the bias and simple absurdity of the Fox News Channel. An iconic liberal humorist, is Franken actually running to become a United States Senator in 2008?
With absolutely certainty, the answer is a resounding “yes.” Al Franken has serious plans to end the war in Iraq, bring health care to all Americans, fund our public schools and initiate a massive Apollo-like energy program to start a new era of alternative energy. His campaign has laid out detailed plans at his website.
A recent poll by Rasmussen had Franken leading slightly in a head-to-head match up against Coleman, 49-46 (3% difference). There is still time to grow his lead, but so far Franken is the only Democrat to beat Coleman in the fall.
Building a Democratic majority in the Senate is going to require that we run candidates with a decent chance of winning in November, and that means securing seats in liberal states such as Minnesota. Al Franken looks to be the man to do it; he is indeed a serious contender for the United States Senate.
I can’t say I’m a huge fan of Mike Gravel. Ever since the first Democratic presidential debate last March, his rants against the establishment have aggravated many voters and distanced him from the mainstream.
It’s no wonder this guy has been excluded from the debates; he’s the longest of the long shot, an elder statesmen trying to make a comeback against impossible odds. And honestly, I wish he would have just retired and maintained his dignity.
But as much as I disagree with his presidential run, I appreciate his service as the senator from Alaska. He worked to release the Pentagon Papers, and has long been a staunch advocate for direct democracy.
He’s a liberal–a decent one at that.
But when I see this interview, posted on his website, criticizing other Democrats, I lost respect for a man I once considered to be a respectable, crazy old man.
Here’s the part that I take issue with:
Q: So then what do you make of Obama’s promise of change and all the rhetoric that’s been going on in this campaign? A: Foolish. Foolish. Dangerous, dangerous. Because he doesn’t even recognize that he can’t deliver. That’s dangerous. I would rather Hillary, at least she recognizes what she’s talking about. He doesn’t Q: Edwards? A: Edwards, he probably knows better what he’s talking about than Obama. Obama of the three is most dangerous. Because he raises greater expectations of the youth, that he can’t deliver. The worst thing a leader can do is raise the expectations, and they don’t happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that’s what he’s doing. And it’s youth that line up that have a reason to hear what he’s saying.
This is exactly what is wrong with politics today. Saying we can’t get things done. The can’t do, won’t do, won’t even try to do attitude. What breeds cynicism more: nurturing the attitude that we can’t do something, or failing to do something and trying again? A least in the later were making progress through discussion.
What I don’t think Mike Gravel understands is that Barack Obama is pushing for a new age of politics–one that bases itself upon bipartisan negotiation and progress. You have to raise expectations to demand things out of your leaders. And you can’t say, “oh well we can’t promise things because we might not deliver them.” Gravel should know himself as an advocate of direct democracy, the purpose of government is to serve the people. And when leaders make promises to the people and don’t deliver for illegitimate reasons, they should be kicked out of office.
Energizing and revitalizing the younger generation out of apathy does not breed cynicism. It breeds awareness of the problems that we face as a nation today. Obama has done so much to inspire youth to care about politics today. To say that he is de facto breeding cynicism based on the presumption that he can’t deliver seems unrealistic, if not anti-democratic.
I expect more of Sen. Gravel. For a man who advocates against the establishment, he sure knows how to play the Washington game.
* Feel free to apply the name “Mike” to Mike Huckabee as well. I’ll spare you my evangelical conservative rant, however the statement is accurate in that instance as well.
Hillary Clinton’s website currently says, “Keep the momentum going!” Her 3% victory gives her campaign the right to claim that she’s building momentum. But is it?
I would say (as once released in a memo by Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn following Obama’s Iowa victory) “Where’s the bounce?” Where is Hillary’s bounce after winning New Hampshire?
Barack Obama was endorsed by the Nevada SEIU and the major Culinary Workers Union that represents over 60,000 union members. Next Saturday, they will surely be a force in Nevada’s democratic primary. As it stands, they’re one of the major political aparatuses in the state of Nevada, and with their ground support working in conjunction with Obama’s all ready impressive Nevada field operation, I see a serious race building up in the nation’s first western caucus.
And today Obama was endorsed by former Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). A huge endorsement that lends the Obama campaign the support of more establishment Democrats. Adding to Kerry was the endorsement of South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, and Rep. George Miller of California. Says MSNBC’s Chuck Todd:
California congressman George Miller (D) is also backing Obama’s presidential campaign. This is perhaps the closest thing to getting a Nancy Pelosi endorsement as you can come without actually getting it. Miller is incredibly close with her politically. He wouldn’t be doing this without her consent of sorts.
Tons of endorsements following his New Hampshire loss: unions, senators and a representative with a close connection to the Speaker of the House. But where are Hillary’s endorsements? Where’s her bounce?
Certainly not in the fund raising battle. In the first 8 days of this month, Obama raised $8 million dollars compared with Hillary’s $3 million. The morning after his loss in New Hampshire, he received $500,000 in contributions online.
And lets be honest, no one in the press wants to see Hillary win. No one wants to report that the establishment candidate trumped the little guy. It’s no wonder they hyped the polls and coverage in the days leading up to New Hampshire… it’s just not a good story.
And in the realm of poll numbers- traditionally after a victory in an early state, your candidate makes gains. Hillary’s win may have slowed Obama’s momentum, but it certainly has not killed it. He is still leading by wide margins in South Carolina and his field operation in Nevada is growing stronger. (Still no polls out of Nevada yet).
Insider Advantage, Jan. 9, 2007 Obama 40% Clinton 33%
Rasmussen, Jan. 9, 2007 Obama 42% Clinton 30%
Honestly, Hillary will have to destroy him with win after win to kill his momentum. She can claim she has it, but in reality, she has neither the poll numbers, nor the endorsements, nor the finances to demonstrate it. Obama is a runaway train in the Democratic party; he’s emblematic of a movement and I don’t know if the Clinton’s can stop it.
Wow, did Hillary get angry with Obama and Edwards. It was fairly clear early on that she was upset over the Iowa result, but I really never expected her to lash out on the definition of change like that. Yeesh.
Anyway, here are my comments throughout the debate:
9:15: Gibson continually interrupts Obama as he is discussing how our shift in attention from Pakistan to Iraq has lead to turmoil in the region. 9:24: Richardson blah blah blah on nuclear terrorism, my mind wanders when he talks. 9:32: The issue is health care, why is Hillary attacking Obama on his vote to fund troops in Iraq? 9:34: Edwards: “forces of the status quo” Ouch for Hillary, just ouch. 9:37: Clinton gets pissed at Edwards, unbelievable. She’s talking about how her 35 years in service have “worked toward change.” I don’t think she understands the concept. 9:39: Richardson says “what’s wrong with experience?” Oh Bill, experience is your life. Maybe that’s why you’re polling at 5%. 9:41: Question over change, Edwards now struggling to redeem himself from looking too over the top. Or perhaps a brilliant strategy? I don’t know. 9:50: Clinton “that hurts my feelings.” Oh my gosh, she shows her human side! What’s with Obama’s “you’re likable enough” moment? 9:52: Clinton: “In 2000 we elected a president we wanted to have a beer with.” Wow, she just compared the front runner with Bush, that can’t be good. That whole image of change was just compared to Bush, I think that can back fire. 10:00: Clinton: “I am the agent of change” What??? No you’re not, if establishment had a name, she’d be named Hillary. 10:07: Edwards on the Patients Bill of Rights… nice stump speech incorporation. 10:09: Same with Obama, more stump speech. 10:15: Hillary’s “reality check” moment. 10:16: Obama should address Hillary’s accusation about his NH co-chair being a lobbyist. That’s probably a distortion of facts. 10:17: STOP BEING NOSTALGIC ABOUT THE CLINTON YEARS, we want to look to the future, not the past! 10:21: “Words inspire.” I love it Obama. “Words are power”. 10:29: Gibson asks question to Edwards, Hillary interrupts to talk about tax cuts. 10:32: Obama: “We have to get back to a bottom up economic growth system for middle class families.” 10:33: Richardson goes off topic, talks about education and art?? 10:35: Hillary attacks Republicans. Tries to be above the fray when she’s been negative all night. Doesn’t answer Gibson’s question about your “worst debate moment which you’d want to take back.” I think everyone knows hers is the illegal immigrant licenses question. I wonder why she so humorously decided not to respond. Has she clarified her position? 10:37: Obama talks about the Republicans and ending their policies of fear. Good job, stay about the fray. Nice end.
Bill Richardson: Didn’t really stand out. Whenever I listen to him my mind wanders. He lacks enthusiasm, he lacks some energy and he’s too centric on his resume. He personifies the typical “experience” candidate which unfortunately, is not what were looking for right now.
John Edwards: Good decision sticking with Obama and attacking Clinton, though I thought in attacking Hillary he risked a backlash against himself. Overall, good night for John.
Barack Obama: I think he won tonight’s debate. He didn’t make any policy errors, he remained calm and had a few good lines. He didn’t gravitate to the extreme of being docile (like Richardson) or being over the top (like Edwards). He acted, well, presidential.
Hillary Clinton: She looked pissed. She had a moment which is going to be aired again and again and again. Voters will wonder whether she can handle stress under fire. She did have a few good moments where she showed her “human” side, but overall I don’t think those will be the clips that make the morning news.
Side note here: Just moments after the debate, Hillary Clinton’s people posted two videos that seemingly contradict one another on Obama’s single payer health system. I find it funny that Clinton vowed not to go negative in New Hampshire but they’re willing to try to dig up muck.
Hillary’s “Moment”:
According to Political Wire, here are what the pundits have said about tonight’s debate:
Chuck Todd: “The focus on this debate for so many in New Hampshire and the media was twofold — how would Obama handle being the frontrunner and how would Clinton handle be the challenger. Well, thanks to a subdued format, Obama seemed to pass his test with flying colors… I’m not sure David Axelrod could have scripted this debate better if he did it himself.”
Rick Klein: “Edwards may have turned in the strongest pure performance. But that will be overshadowed by a couple of stand-out Clinton moments. She let it all out tonight — the entire book on Obama. But she opened the book on herself with those flashes of anger. New Hampshire voters don’t like candidates who feel entitled to nominations — they get to decide, things are not foreordained and candidates are not inevitable. Sen. Clinton had some moments tonight she’ll want to take back.”
Chris Cilliza: “The challenge Clinton faced in tonight’s debate — and the challenge she faces in the New Hampshire primary more broadly — is that Edwards clearly believes his path to the nomination requires bouncing out Clinton to create a one on one race with Obama over who is the true change agent in the field.”
Marc Ambinder: “Iowa victor Obama had a target on his back, but he’s acquired a Kevlar vest as a front runner. Like Clinton tonight, he was unflappable.”
And if the politicos can’t convince you that Obama won last night than maybe Frank Lutz and his focus group can give us some insight:
Historic. A junior Senator of African descent has won the Iowa caucus. Really, not only did he win it, he crushed his opponents big time. Iowa, a state which has never elected an African American to office, has elevated Senator Obama to front runner status.
Final Iowa Caucus Results: Sen. Barack Obama 38% Fmr. Sen. John Edwards 30% Sen. Hillary Clinton 29%
It’s a political earthquake to the likes of which this country has never seen. Lets look at the breaking news as Obama emerges victorious Thursday night: MSNBC (1 min).
CNN: (40 sec)
CNN’s breakdown of what demographics went for who is available here.
Here are some things that I noticed:
Youth came out in tremendous numbers to support Obama. In the counties of Iowa State University and the University of Iowa, Obama won in a landslide. CNN reports that 57% of voters between the ages of 17 and 35 voted Obama. Unprecedented for that generation to turn out in such large numbers… a generation which in 2004 only 14% voted in the general election. I think this speaks to the quality of Senator Obama’s message, his call to change, his appeal of newness, his exciting and engaging personality, that excites so many youth.
Men and women both went for Obama. Women–a demographic heavily courted by the Clinton campaign broke for Obama 35%, compared with Clinton’s 30%.
The wealthy and the poor broke for Obama. He won over caucus-goers who earn less than $50k a year by 34%, and those over $50k a year by 36%. Particularly interesting: 41% of those earning $100k a year + caucused for Obama. John Edwards, who’s entire message has been to fight poverty, was dealt a major blow. His central campaign theme fell upon def ears in many of these precincts: only 19% of those earning under $50k a year voted Edwards, and among the even poorer–less than $15k a year, Edwards lost with only 17%.
51% of Obama’s supporters caucused for him because they find him most likely to bring about change. John Edwards, who’s been echoing the same theme, only had it resonate with 20% of his caucus-goers. Hillary Clinton, who in recent days also harped on the change message, got 19% of Iowa Democrats caucusing for change.
In the experience question, the lines couldn’t be more definite: 5% of Obama’s supporters caucused for experience, compared with 49% of Clinton’s supporters who caucused for her experience qualities.
Obama and Clinton equally won over union households, 30% apiece. A big upset to Edwards, who counted on union endorsements to put him over the top, received 24% of their support.
What does this mean? Well unprecedented turn out– approx. 230,000 people, nearly double 2004. 20% more independents voted in the Democratic caucus, most of whom went to Barack Obama.
I think this is it for John Edwards. This is the best he’s going to do. A second place showing is not enough to catapult him into New Hampshire where he does not have the ground organization or the fund raising reservoirs to compete with Obama and Clinton.
Now Obama has a huge fund raising and psychological advantage. On the fund raising side he’s going to raise millions within the next few days, and Clinton’s Silicon Valley supporters are going to be edgy, soon flooding her offices with calls expressing concern and anxiety over Obama’s feat. Psychologically, Obama has this huge lead in Iowa, which may very well resonate with New Hampshire voters when they read the headlines this morning.
But I’d like to focus specifically on John Edwards. He appeared on Larry King last night and had an interesting, yet hypocritical, spin to his second (nearly third) place showing. He said the Obama campaign won because they outspent him by millions and millions of dollars in advertising (nearly $9 million) and yet he beat the Clinton campaign who, as he said, also spent millions and millions of dollars ($7 million). He pointed to how little advertising he’s been doing in recent weeks, and his second place showing as a sign of momentum.
I say baloney. Edwards has been camped out in Iowa for the past 4 years, it’s devastating to his campaign that he did not capture the first place victory that they were dependent upon to bounce him into New Hampshire. It’s a equally devastating that the Clinton camp spent $7 million dollars in advertising–in the end, equal to Edwards’ time spent in Iowa. How hypocritical to suggest that one person spends millions, but hey, I beat the other person who spent millions as well, and point to the millions that person spent as a burden you’ve overcome. You can’t take two people who’ve spent millions, lose to one, win to the other, and say that spending millions is a burden you’ve overcome.
But enough about John Edwards, I think his economic populism will certainly not be able to turn out the massive amounts of independents to win in NH, nor will it appeal to the libertarianism of New Hampshire voters. I predict that after New Hampshire he’ll become increasingly irrelevant. (Thinking back to his 4th place finish in 2004).
Let’s begin to look at New Hampshire, at least initially. Polling there shows a tight race, like Iowa. Edwards attempted to spin it tonight on Larry King as still a three way race, but polls show a different story. This will be a Clinton-Obama show down.
The big question, can an Obama Iowa victory be the “umph” he needs to win New Hampshire? Well, he certainly has a catapult.
Franklin-Pierce, Jan. 1, 2008 Clinton 32% Obama 28%
CNN/WMUR, Dec. 30, 2007 Clinton 33% Obama 31%
American Research Group, Dec. 30, 2007 Clinton 31% Obama 27%
Obama clearly within shooting range of Clinton in all these polls. I think within the next few days we’ll see some interesting new numbers come out of New Hampshire that show some kind of bounce. Of course he’ll still have to invest millions into the state and campaign hard, but hey, Hillary looks beatable, and independents may realize he’s their guy.
Equally bad for the Clinton camp: both her electability and inevitability arguments have been destroyed. Clinton is no longer seen as the most electable Democrat, and her aura of inevitability, that shield that we saw in earlier debates, has been punctured.
Of final notes in terms of political repercussions. Biden and Dodd drop out, Gravel, despite MSNBC’s report that he dropped out, is actually still in. Kucinich is to compete in New Hampshire. Earlier reports of deal making between Richardson and Obama and Biden and Obama have been publicly denounced, but were privately encouraged. Reports Political Wire: “Multiple reports — such as this one from The Hotline — confirming that Biden and Richardson backers are being urged to support Obama.” And this video from David Gregory.
More Iowa drama today: Biden and Richardson are considering endorsing Senator Barack Obama. No, they’re not dropping out, but they’re playing their cards.
Both Biden and Richardson are competing for a 4th place finish in Iowa: Biden’s RCP average is 5.4%, Richardson’s is 5.2%.
In order to win delegates in Iowa, a candidate must survive the first round elimination to be “viable.” This means that more than 15% of the room needs to support a perticular candidate. This does not bode well for second and third tier candidates, as they’re often less likely to garner enough support in individual precincts.
A source close to the Biden campaign described a possible arrangement, now under discussion between the two camps, that could apply to certain precincts where Biden can’t meet the 15 percent viability threshold, but where he is backed by local officials with the clout to move Biden supporters to Obama. In return, Biden could capture some of Obama’s overflow in precincts where the Illinois senator has more than enough support to win.
Gov. Bill Richardson’s campaign is expected to direct its supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday’s caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico governor’s organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they have not reached the 15 percent threshold for viability.
But why not endorsements for Edwards or Clinton? Perhaps because they see Edwards as the weaker candidate, and Clinton as too strong to beat in New Hampshire. (If they honestly believe they have a chance.)
However there is no guarantee that either deal will transpire until each candidate publically announces their support.
I feel as though I spent a considerable amount of space giving credit to the DMR poll, which as I outlined below, feel was significant. With that said, there are several other indicators that paint a different picture in Iowa.
Polling Data Strategic Vision, Jan. 1, 2008 Obama 32% Edwards 29% Clinton 27%
Des Moines Register, Jan. 1, 2008 Obama 32% Clinton 25% Edwards 24%
CNN/ Opinion Research Corp., Jan. 1, 2008 Clinton 33% Obama 31% Edwards 22%
Analysis: It’s all over the place. Whoever you’re for, congratulations because they’re doing well. Above is a chart from Wikipedia monitoring all the data averaging it into linear regression. Real Clear Politics did the same thing and came up with (for Iowa only) Clinton averaging only 1.1% overall. Obama has clearly been gaining, as has Edwards at the expense of Hillary Clinton. As you see on the graph above, the number of undecideds have also come down as we approach the caucus. It’s interesting how more undecideds turned to Edwards and Obama than Clinton.
Campaign Finances 2.3 million Iowans $40 million spent in political advertising = $150-$200/caucus-goer in Iowa
Without a doubt, the front runners are digging deep into campaign warchests. CNN reports that Barack Obama leads the field in spending for Iowa:
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois far outpaces any other candidate when it comes to ad spending in Iowa, having spent more than $9 million on close to 11,000 spots. That’s about $2 million more than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has spent ($7.2 million), and about three times the amount that former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has shelled out ($3.2 million). Clinton has aired close to 8,000 spots while Edwards has aired 3,700.
Analysis: Both Clinton and Obama have spent millions on advertising: Obama just $2 million more than Clinton. Edwards on the other hand has only spent $3.2 million in advertising, suggesting that he is expecting traditional caucus-goers to bring him to victory. In spending $6 million less than other candidates, Edwards hasn’t been appealing to independents, or new demographics as Obama; Edwards’ support comes from those who propped him up in ‘04, and his lack of advertising suggests a reliance on ground infrastructure and retail politics over visibility.
Endorsements Who has the most endorsements? Well, Edwards secured the endorsement of Mari Culver, the first lady of Iowa. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all secured the endorsements of Iowa’s three congressmen, respectively. And yesterday, Dennis Kucinich released this statement: Kucinich Urges Supporters to Back Obama on Second Iowa Ballot
For Immediate Release — Tuesday, January 01, 2008
DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Sen. Barack Obama. “This is obviously an ‘Iowa-only’ recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.
“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change.”
Kucinich’s endorsement may mean little, but in a race that is a virtual three way tie, a 1% gain may be crucial. Of course people are free to make up their own mind and chose independently without anyone demanding caucasers support any one person, but Kucinich’s following is unique in that they’re all very loyal and committed to Kucinich’s ideals.
When I was 15, humorists like Al Franken and Bill Maher spurred my interest in politics and shaped my liberal ideals.
