MoveOn Endorses Obama

Today Barack Obama earned the endorsement of MoveOn, one of the largest grassroots membership organizations in the United States, after clobbering Hillary Clinton by 40 percent in Internet balloting. Obama led the final tally 70.4% to 29.6%, clearing the supermajority required for the endorsement. MoveOn, which has never endorsed a presidential candidate before, boasts that it has 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states. The group has over half a million members in California alone – roughly one out of ten primary voters in Tuesday's largest state.

"We've learned that the key to achieving change in Washington without compromising core values is having a galvanized electorate to back you up," said Executive Director Eli Pariser, "and Barack Obama has our members 'fired up and ready to go' on that front."

Obama welcomed the endorsement on Friday. "In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war – a war I also opposed from the start – to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change," he said in a statement. "I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead," he added.

Organizers said they would "immediately" begin mobilizing on behalf of Obama, leading turnout programs and phone-banking members of MoveOn in targeted states. The group made seven million "GOTV" calls for Democrats in the mid-term elections, and it has an extensive voter file database.

The decisive victory shows that Obama is consolidating support from the netroots in the wake of John Edwards' withdrawal. Obama also won the Edwards vote in Thursday's Daily Kos reader poll. He bounced 35 points to reach an all-time high of 71 percent, while Clinton held steady at 11 percent. If Super Tuesday is a tie and both campaigns brace for a protracted delegate hunt, Obama could draw fundraising, volunteers and advocacy from a united front of MoveOn, netroots activists and bloggers.

Matthew Smith, an Ohio MoveOn member who voted for Obama yesterday, said he was excited by the Obama's "ability to draw people to him, to energize people who generally don't vote [and] to create an atmosphere of long-overdue possibility."

Comments (71)

1. Great vote of confidence that progressives are uniting behind Barack!

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/01/2008 @ 11:47am

2. Yeah, apparently I voted three times for Obama and once for Hillary according to four emails I received from Move on. I wouldn't trust the results, though i wish we could. Check out The Clinton Collection [hillarydivides.com]

   Posted by indep2008 at 02/01/2008 @ 11:57am

3. In addition to MoveOn.org's endorsement, there is a news report(TalkingPointsMemo and First Read are sources.) that the Transportation Workers Union and the California SEIU will endorse Obama today. Previously, TWU and CA SEIU had endorsed Edwards.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/01/2008 @ 12:00pm

4. I'll try and stay optimistic as to whether any of this really matters.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 12:14pm

5. Indep2008: it was actually a very secure system. TrapperJohn over at DailyKos had the same thing happen, and talked with the Internet folk at MoveOn.org. In fact, it was that he had (stupidly) forwarded the notification e-mail to friends/colleagues and they had, not knowing that the link in the e-mail was to TrapperJohn's UNIQUE vote and not to a general voting page, "changed" his vote by voting again. Did you forward the e-mail or change your vote? Here's the link to TrapperJohn's post: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/134022/566/453/447029

   Posted by eustiscg at 02/01/2008 @ 12:15pm

6. May the big mo' hold straight thru Tues. Edwards seems to have called it right several weeks ago, that whoever withdrew, he or Obama, the other would get most of his supporters. Looks that way.

   Now if only a miracle would happen & Obama won as big on Tues & knocked her imperial majesty out of the race. Then the Dems could concentrate on hanging Cheney/Bush around the neck of the GOP, including all the Congressional & senate races.

   Meanwhile, the House can start paying attention to accountability hearings NOW, with the emphasis on impeachable offenses. Let there be no doubt about what the next president can get away, no matter who it is.

   Posted by sloper at 02/01/2008 @ 12:15pm

7. Okay, I'll be REALLY surprised if FRANKGRITS shows up on this thread (or sticks to the topic).

   He CANNOT spin this. Move On was CREATED for Bill Clinton, and for their members to reject Hillary 70-30 is a major slap in the face.

   Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 12:24pm

8. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 12:24pm

   It's been infiltrated by Republicans that want to run again Obama because he is the only one they can beat MASK!.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/01/2008 @ 12:52pm

9. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 12:24pm

   like the name says,

   "move on."

   please.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:54pm

10. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/01/2008 @ 12:52pm

    you beat frank to the spin.

    your "tops".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:55pm

11. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/01/2008 @ 12:52pm

    Naw, even FRANK's not that craaa..........Hmmmmm????

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 12:56pm

12. Keynote speech, Democratic National Convention -- July 2004 -- Illinois Senatorial candidate Barack H. Obama:

    '...It is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: "E pluribus unum," out of many, one. Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's ... not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?...'

    'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/01/2008 @ 1:00pm

13. 70-30 eh? Wow. That's a pretty hefty statement.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/01/2008 @ 1:05pm

14. Posted by SLOPER 02/01/2008 @ 12:15pm

    I was with you a few years ago, but impeachment is not going to happen, and with less than a year to go I am not sure I think it even should at this point. That ship has sailed. Bush is just going to have to slink away with his 27% approval rating and a recession to clean up.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:06pm

15. Frank can spin anything MASK. Never fault him on that.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:10pm

16. impeachments have lasted around six weeks. plenty of time between now and January. but, yes, unlikely. Bush and his gang may not escape reckoning. with a democrat justice dept. it's a whole new ball game.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 1:11pm

17. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/01/2008 @ 1:10pm

    How does he spin....ANN COULTER supporting his gal, Hilly?

    hmmmmm? [youtube.com]

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 1:15pm

18. Most of the pundits are giving Hilary the debate last night by a large margin.

    She lost it on Iraq. Obama's being, "Right on Day One," was a good shot at her character. He floundered a bit on health care, but the Iraq bit combined with her cheap plug at the end had her on the losing end for me.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/01/2008 @ 1:22pm

19. "Hillary floored me last night..." Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2008 @ 1:10pm

    What a stunning visual, and a cunning stunt!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 1:28pm

20. I pretty much agree SRJ. I thought the debate was pretty even up until the Iraq question. They both had some pretty good one-liners (not that it matters) and I thought we actually got to hear a bit more detail about their plans.

    All in all, I don't really see how either of them gained or lost from the debate.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/01/2008 @ 1:29pm

21. On the democratic side, the far left MoveOn has endorsed Obama. The extremes are going Romney and Obama. The center stays with McCain and Hillary. Interesting.

    ~Frank Grits @ 1:07pm

    Dude, that is sooo exxxtreme.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:31pm

22. What a stunning visual, and a cunning stunt!----Posted by MATTMAN 02/01/2008 @ 1:28pm

    Say THAT five times fast!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 1:33pm

23. All in all, I don't really see how either of them gained or lost from the debate.

    ~The Cat @ 1:29pm

    I think the commentator John King summed it up nicely when he said that Obama just needs to be competitive on Super Tuesday --stay within the 60-40 margin-- and let his growing momentum carry him up the rest of the way. Sounds about right to me.

    Carl Bernstein has had some great lines of observation as well. Immediately after the debate he opened by stating that Hillary did extremely well.....(I'm thinkin' "don't even tell me she 'won' the debate").....and then he pulls out the "She'd make a great secretary of HHS". That got a burst of laughter out of me :D

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:38pm

24. Say THAT five times fast!

    heheh

    ~Maskot @ 1:33pm

    I think the joke was pretty clearly implied. Let's drop that one though.

    Really bad visuals.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:40pm

25. Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/01/2008 @ 1:40pm

    Hey, she's not that un-attractive a woman. I'm honest enough to admit that.

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 1:43pm

26. Half of their members are pro Hillary anyway.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2008 @ 1:17pm

    Apparently not. Considering Hillary only got 28%. That less than half Frank. 70% more than half. So no half their members don't support Hillary.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:45pm

27. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/01/2008 @ 1:10pm

    mask still taking shots behind my back? What's he getting his message out by carrier pigeon?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2008 @ 1:14pm

    He gets his opinions out in public like everyone else..

    No, it is not behind your back, he does it out in the open along with the other posters her...and if you think its behind your back, its because you turned away 180 degrees from the conversations and have become a boring lecturing schill for a one sided point of view...

    ...and as a result you have a hard time understanding that many on the left, middle, and right have placed Hillary and company,...

    on the ignore list....

    maybe someone could pass this onto Frank....I am on his ignore list along with most of you here...

    Posted by JOMAMMA 02/01/2008 @ 1:45pm

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:48pm

28. Posted by JOMAMMA 02/01/2008 @ 1:45pm

    I am in agreement with you on this point!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 1:56pm

29. Hey, she's not that un-attractive a woman. I'm honest enough to admit that.

    ~Maskot @ 1:43pm

    Whoa........, Duuude?!?!

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 2:07pm

30. Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/01/2008 @ 2:07pm

    She's not. She's almost 61 years old, but not obese and has a decent if strained smile.

    If I was a guy in my 60s...or 70s....or 80s...and single...and if she was some unknown corporate lawyer from Chicago...and had a decent personality....and a calmer demeanor....and

    Okay, let me get back to you on this....

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 2:14pm

31. Question to Frank:

    Why? Why this undeserved total devotion to candidate that doesn't in slightest deserve it? How can anyone even remotely close to a progressive vote for anyone who was WalMart's Board!?? How???

    Posted by DaCraftyB at 02/01/2008 @ 2:16pm

32. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2008 @ 1:14pm

    FRANKGRITS,

    If you like centrist Republican-lite policies so much, why not BE a Republican?

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/01/2008 @ 2:17pm

33. "If I was a guy in my 60s...or 70s....or 80s...and single...and if she was some unknown corporate lawyer from Chicago...and had a decent personality....and a calmer demeanor....and"

    Yeah exactly if she was someone totally different!!

    Posted by DaCraftyB at 02/01/2008 @ 2:17pm

34. Posted by DACRAFTYB 02/01/2008 @ 2:16pm

    Because Frank read her autobiography or biography something and everyone knows that that is the ultimate and undeniable truth about everyone. When I write my biography, I'm going to put in the total truths about when I wrestled a bear, Jump the Grand Canyon on my schwin and learned to fly.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/01/2008 @ 2:20pm

35. I supported Obama in the MoveOn poll but opposed endorsing a candidate. Neither candidate will implement my core beliefs, which are close to MoveOn's, and I value an independent permanent loyal opposition within the penumbra of the Democratic Party banner. I'll vote for Obama in the New York Primary and any Democrat in the General Election, but I will not confuse that vote with reality.

    Posted by JFHill at 02/01/2008 @ 2:24pm

36. Ann Coulter attractive? Barney Fife in a dress

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 2:25pm

37. An autobiography?? That's it? That's sad.

    Posted by DaCraftyB at 02/01/2008 @ 2:27pm

38. indep2008, while i don't trust the clinton's i must say that your site offered little in the way of details for me to make a good assessment of the things Hillary has said. you see, none of the alleged quotes attributed to her were given in any discernable context of the conversation she was having. i can see, though, that she, to a large degree is a "collectivist" which is something feared by Libertarians and uninformed Republicans, as is Socialism but the fact is we're already there and none the worse for it as a nation. it's a very Christ like position but don't tell the Christians on the Right side of the isle that, they tend to live in a state of denial.

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 02/01/2008 @ 2:31pm

39. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Lucem%20ferre

    Lucifer

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 2:33pm

40. ferre, ferro, tuli, latum

    see I remember.

    good post.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 2:35pm

41. No, it is not behind your back, he does it out in the open along with the other posters her...and if you think its behind your back, its because you turned away 180 degrees from the conversations and have become a boring lecturing schill for a one sided point of view...

    Reminds me of a bit from The Hitchiker's Guid to the Galaxy. It was about how a towel could protect from a certain ferocious animal by you using it to cover your eyes. It seems the monster was so staggeringly stupid that it thought that if you couldn't see it, it couldn't see you.

    Posted by brunowe at 02/01/2008 @ 2:39pm

42. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/01/2008 @ 2:20pm

    Yes, I love that. Somebody questions Hillary, FRANK refers them to "Living History" (her auto-bio) as if it's an objective political or psychohistoric analysis of her.

    What does he say if he questions Obama and we say "Read 'Dreams of My Father' FRANK...that'll put your mind at ease!"???

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 2:40pm

43. Posted by BRUNOWE 02/01/2008 @ 2:39pm

    That would be the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 2:43pm

44. Thank you Mask! My opinion of you has been greatly improved over the last few years. 42 my friend.

    Posted by DaCraftyB at 02/01/2008 @ 2:46pm

45. Ann Coulter on why she supports Romney -- anncoulter.com 16 January 2008:

    '...Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper." I've looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion. When running for office in Massachusetts -- or, for short, "the Soviet Union" -- Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to change laws on abortion.

    Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- whom he came closer to beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.

    Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life -- a group I trust more than the editorial board of The New York Times. Romney's Democratic opponents always won the endorsements of the very same pro-choice groups now attacking him as a "flip-flopper."

    After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."

    Pro-abortion groups like the Republican Majority for Choice -- the evil doppelganger to my own group, Democratic Majority for Life -- are now running videos attacking Romney for "flip-flopping" on abortion.

    Of all the Republican candidates for president, Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the only ones who had to be elected in pro-choice districts. Romney governed as a pro-lifer and has been viciously attacked by pro-abortion groups.

    By contrast, Giuliani cleverly avoids the heinous "flip-flopper" label by continuing to embrace baby-killing. (Rudy flip-flops only on trivial matters like illegal immigration and his own marital vows.)

    And, of course, Romney is a Mormon. Even a loser Mormon like Sen. Harry Reid claims to be pro-life. So having a candidate with a wacky religion isn't all bad.

    At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican -- a high-IQ, articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican. Of the top five Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn't dumped his first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) -- except Huckabee. And unlike Huckabee, Romney doesn't have a son who hanged a dog at summer camp. So there won't be any intern issues and there won't be any Billy Carter issues.

    It's also possible that Romney will turn out to be a conservative Republican -- at least more conservative than he was as governor of Massachusetts. Whatever problems Romney's Mormonism gives voters, remember: Bill Clinton came in third in heavily Mormon Utah in 1992....'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/01/2008 @ 2:51pm

46. Posted by DACRAFTYB 02/01/2008 @ 2:46pm

    Well, don't worry...I'm sure eventually I'll say something that will shoot it back down!

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 2:51pm

47. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude. (Ann Coulter via HL)-----Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 02/01/2008 @ 2:51

    So Romney can LIE and propose an agenda totally anathema to the Right (and some of the Left) in order to win an election...

    and she thinks she's COMPLIMENTING him?!?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 2:54pm

48. Romney is their best bet, to be a tomato can. there will be a bloodbath for repubs, white house, congress, dogcatcher....

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 2:58pm

49. "Bush and his gang may not escape reckoning. with a democrat justice dept. it's a whole new ball game." Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/01/2008 @ 1:11pm

    Alas, the People's reps have already passed legislation absolving this admin's members from most offenses in connection with the "war on terror." And rest assured that like his daddy, W will be generously spreading around the pardons under the Xmas tree ... including one for Scooter Libby who's still an unpardoned convicted felon, albeit one who hasn't had to spend a second behind bars (much too cruel & unusual).

    Posted by sloper at 02/01/2008 @ 3:06pm

50. Say THAT five times fast!

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 1:33p

    yeah.

    hey mattman, ¿was that intentional?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 3:15pm

51. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 2:51pm Well, don't worry...I'm sure eventually I'll say something that will shoot it back down!

    I'm not sure, the scary thing is....I'm agreeing with you more and more.

    I have a question, what do the repubs have against McCain? Is it just campaign finance reform? I'm just a little perplexed as to why these fascist fools are backing the REAL empty suit in this race.

    Posted by DaCraftyB at 02/01/2008 @ 3:15pm

52. "Obama welcomed the endorsement on Friday. "In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war – a war I also opposed from the start – to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change," he said in a statement. "I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead," he added."

    "Progressive ... most progressive. Obewan has ..." Larry, from "An evening with the Smurfs."

    "Everything is going as I have forseen ..." John boy, from the "Waltons Movie".

    Posted by V at 02/01/2008 @ 3:16pm

53. I voted for the Obama endorsement and I'm pleased it received a resounding super majority.

    Posted by poet128 at 02/01/2008 @ 3:36pm

54. Posted by DACRAFTYB 02/01/2008 @ 3:15pm

    Quite simple...First, Romney's all that's left. Period. His problem is that Religious Righties (like our local LVLIBERTY) don't trust Mormons and won't vote for him...thus "his vote" is split with Mike Huckleberry Hound.

    Second, as for McCain....McCain-Feingold just a piece of the puzzle. He fought TOO hard against Bush (their guy) in 2000...the Media "likes him"...he opposed the 2001 tax cuts...but mostly he not only snubbed guys like Limbaugh but called out idiots like Robertson and Falwell.

    McCain's no liberal of course. But he's not a suck-up to people who DEMAND to be sucked up to and he's not "pure enough" to people who demand purity.

    BTW, the "Purity League" doesn't just exist on the Right!

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 3:37pm

55. Fox News Style Press Release

    Folks here are the hard numbers, hardly the resounding endorsement they claim:

    Total Members: 3,200,000 Total votes: 280, 528 Total Members not voting: 2,919,472 Obama: 197,444 Clinton: 83,084

    Percentage of members voting for Obama: 197,444 / 3,200,000 = 6.1 % Percentage of members voting for Clinton: 83,084 / 3,200,000 = 2.5 % Percentage of members NOT voting: 2,919,472 / 3,200,000 = 91.2 %

    They think it is sufficient to endorse Obama when 91% of the organization clearly was not interesting in voting. Perhaps these number could have been included in the press release.

    How does this qualify as a 'resounding vote'? Either their membership numbers are grossly exaggerated, their didn't offer enough voting options in your poll, or they clearly not following the will of your membership.

    Posted by ychawla at 02/01/2008 @ 4:22pm

56. Posted by SLOPER 02/01/2008 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person

    Bush can only pardon one who is convicted.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 5:12pm

57. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 3:37pm Quite simple...First, Romney's all that's left. Period. His problem is that Religious Righties (like our local LVLIBERTY) don't trust Mormons and won't vote for him...thus "his vote" is split with Mike Huckleberry Hound.

    Second, as for McCain....McCain-Feingold just a piece of the puzzle. He fought TOO hard against Bush (their guy) in 2000...the Media "likes him"...he opposed the 2001 tax cuts...but mostly he not only snubbed guys like Limbaugh but called out idiots like Robertson and Falwell.

    McCain's no liberal of course. But he's not a suck-up to people who DEMAND to be sucked up to and he's not "pure enough" to people who demand purity.

    BTW, the "Purity League" doesn't just exist on the Right!

    Well said Mask. Thanks, having grown up in an evangelical household, I can't possibly believe the religious right would vote for a mormon. As a kid we were all taught that mormonism was a cult, and that they worshipped Satan, and no I'm not exagerrating. That's exactly what we were taught.

    So to the Echo Chamber I say this: Throw McCain under the bus again! Please give us a race between Obama and the chief of all empty suites! Please please please. I'd love to see all your religious fanatics stay home. It would be a great day.

    Posted by DaCraftyB at 02/01/2008 @ 5:16pm

58. having grown up in an evangelical household, I can't possibly believe the religious right would vote for a mormon. As a kid we were all taught that mormonism was a cult, and that they worshipped Satan, and no I'm not exagerrating. That's exactly what we were taught.

    you have to be taught to hate, you have to be carefully taught.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 5:49pm

59. I love the enthusiasm of the all the netizen participation.

    However, this voting machine allowed everyone in my family to vote several times... I know that my daughter voted 12 times for Obama... LOL!!!

    So, I think this endorsement speaks for itself.

    Go Democrats Go!

    Posted by randymk1 at 02/01/2008 @ 6:30pm

60. Exactly, and everyone I grew up with was very, very, carefully taught. It's taken me years to "de-program" myself from all that garbage.

    I'm surprised the "right" doesn't understand what they're getting themselves into by supporting Mitt.

    Posted by DaCraftyB at 02/01/2008 @ 6:34pm

61. LA TIMES ENDORSES OBAMA!

    LA Times Barack Obama for Democratic nominee

    Endorsements for president 2008 February 3, 2008

    Democrats preparing to vote in Tuesday's California primary can mark their ballots with confidence, knowing that either candidate would make a strong nominee and, if elected, a groundbreaking leader and capable president. But just because the ballot features two strong candidates does not mean that it is difficult to choose between them. We urge voters to make the most of this historic moment by choosing the Democrat most focused on steering the nation toward constructive change: We strongly endorse Barack Obama.

    The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge on foreign relations and on this nation's particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He's a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate.

    On policy, Obama and his rival Democratic candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, are a hairsbreadth apart. Both vow to pull troops from Iraq. Both are committed to healthcare reform. Both offer candid critiques of the failed George W. Bush presidency, its blustering adventurism, its alienating stance toward other countries and its cavalier disregard for sacred American values such as individual liberty and due process of law.

    With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues, we look to their abilities and potential as leaders, and their record of action in service of their stated ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public servant whose election would provide familiarity and, most important, competence in the White House, when for seven years it has been lacking. But experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

    Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war. At last week's debate and in previous such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for abusing the authority she helped to give him, and she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn't face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right.

    Obama demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat posed to the nation, and would not shrink from military action where it is warranted. He does not oppose all wars, he has famously stated, but rather "dumb wars." He also has the edge in economic policy, less because of particular planks in his platform than because of his understanding that some liberal orthodoxies developed during the last 40 years have been overtaken by history. He offers leadership on education, technology policy and environmental protection unfettered by the positions of previous administrations.

    By contrast, Clinton's return to the White House that she occupied for eight years as first lady would resurrect some of the triumph and argument of that era. Yes, Bill Clinton's presidency was a period of growth and opportunity, and Democrats are justly nostalgic for it. But it also was a time of withering political fire, as the former president's recent comments on the campaign trail reminded the nation. Hillary Clinton's election also would drag into a third decade the post-Reagan political duel between two families, the Bushes and the Clintons. Obama is correct: It is time to turn the page.

    An Obama presidency would present, as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent, born in the nation's youngest state, with a childhood spent partly in Asia, among Muslims. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama's mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama's life story in preparing a president to understand the American character. His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.

    In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/01/2008 @ 6:46pm

62. This is an absolute crock! a. Why did MoveOn not include Edwards? He suspended, not ended his campaign. b. Why was there not a wider window of polling (say one week)? c. Why did you allow people to vote early and vote often? The Obama kids have nothing but time on their hands in the midst of a big snowstorm. GIVE US A BREAK! Obama's Wifey was a Walmart lawyer too--TreeHouse Foods ring a bell?

    Posted by Ben There at 02/01/2008 @ 10:02pm

63. Why did MoveOn not include Edwards? He suspended, not ended his campaign.-----Posted by BEN THERE 02/01/2008 @ 10:02pm

    I'm sorry, you think John Edwards is going to win the Democratic nomination and therefore needing an endorsement by Move On members for a primary battle he's not participating in!?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 10:52pm

64. He suspended, not ended his campaign.

    this is just not true. get your head out of the clouds and join us, and Edwards, in the real world.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 08:41am

65. "Bush can only pardon one who is convicted." Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/01/2008 @ 5:12pm

    G.Ford, the president no one voted for, pardoned RMNixon, the president who resigned, unconvicted & unimpeached, but about to be. There were some in the Irangate arms scandal who were not yet convicted, but who were pardoned by GHWBush.

    Posted by sloper at 02/02/2008 @ 08:45am

66. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=sloper

    you're right, and I'm wrong. the pardon power seems unlimited, except by politics.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 09:26am

67. Like the rest of the media, you just repeat what MoveOn says. But MoveOn has a history of a lack of integrity.

    You repeat MoveOn's claim that the Obama endorsement was approved by 70% of MoveOn's membership. Do the numbers. MoveOn claims 3.2 million members, and 197,444 votes to endorse Obama. That's 6.2%, not 70%.

    As they have done in the past, they came up with a way to try to rig a poll for a preordained result. They claim they require a 2/3 vote to give an endorsement. But they knew there was no way they could get that.

    So how do you do that? They provide only one alternative to their decision - Hillary Clinton, whom they know is not that popular among their members. What about MoveOn members who favor Ron Paul? Not allowed to vote. Favor Cynthia McKinney? Not allowed to vote? Favor Mike Gravel? Not allowed to vote? Favor Ralph Nader? Not allowed to vote. Favor someone else? Not allowed to vote. Favor no endorsement? Not allowed to vote.

    Many MoveOn members were effectively not allowed to vote. In fact, 91% of MoveOn members did not vote. Because MoveOn didn't count, we don't know how many of those didn't vote because they favored another option, how many didn't get to their email before the very short time frame to vote, or something else.

    See MoveOn's 6.2% Landslide [tinyurl.com] for more analysis.

    Posted by BillSamuel at 02/02/2008 @ 1:20pm

68. Democrats are exactly the same as most Republicans these days. Bought & paid for.

    Obama's beautiful mansion bought & paid for by his biggest contributor mafia-tied real estate developer

    Chicago "slum landlord" federally indicted Antoin "Tony" Rezko. The lot is just 1 away from Rezko's own.

    Clinton has been caught so many times with her hand in the cookie jar ( Insider commodity trading, Walmart Union Busting)

    Do people honestly see a woman &/or a man of mixed race & think somehow that equals the right path for America?

    Maybe someday & some candidate, but it sure as hell isnt these two. They are both as crooked as the day as long.

    People are becoming borderline retarded taking the political choices of their friends & not investigating if there is anybody who will offer real change & isnt bought & paid for by corporations.

    I just wanted to add to for people who are not aware Ron Paul supports:

    People who make money by tips should be allowed to keep them untaxed.

    Getting rid of the IRS & possibly switching to a sales tax that brings illegal aliens & corporate | individual tax cheats (who exploit tax loopholes) into the tax system.

    Getting rid of corporate lobbying system that buys & pays politicians.

    Revaluing our devalued dollar, by going back to having the dollar be backed by something of value (Gold like before 1974) Why? Because right now....we just print more money when we need it....making the dollar worth less & less. That means when you buy something with your paycheck.. it doesnt go very far....because companies don't value your dollar very much in comparison to other countries money.

    Making a foreign policy that makes a very strong military to defend America, without telling other countries how they have to live (Which only makes them hate us).

    Making the government much smaller which allows the taxes to go down even further.

    Getting the government out of our private lives, by telling us what to do & issuing 'sneek peek' warrants that allow the govt to go into your home without your permission | take a look & leave.

    Democrats are the same as most Republicans....do not be misled.

    Investigate Ron Pauls voting record. He stands now where he stood when he first took office as a congressman. All the others give typical election year opinion changing mamby pamby ness.

    Telling you what you want to hear.

    I can't believe American citizens have become so ignorant not to notice what is happening during these debates.

    There is no doubt that if "Ron Paul" is NOT a threat to monied interests in this country (in receiving their tax sponsored corporate welfare.....why would they decide to exclude him?

    Obviously he is a threat to their free money & ability to then spend it with lobbyists to pass even more legistlation that benefits them directly.

    If Ron Paul has such a low amount of support, why did the mainstream media have no problem pushing someone with no support

    (Guiliani was supposedly a wrap for the Republican nomination, with no support the media pushed him like crazy !)

    Posted by medialv at 02/03/2008 @ 12:11am

69. I'm with you, my dear bro Barack,

    sheltered under your wings;

    don't let the snow your mettle crack,

    you're the new king of kings.

    But wait! What is it that I hear?

    A voice below the reef

    of yonder Island of the Dead:

    "Yo, soulmate, where's the beef?"

    Posted by chinpoko at 02/03/2008 @ 03:00am

70. oops, correction:

    "of Island of the Dead, I fear:"

    Posted by chinpoko at 02/03/2008 @ 03:26am

71. OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR MINORITIES! **Ms. Obama, vice-president at the Univ Chicago Hosp, a hospital that charges uninsured minorities 5.4 times as much for drugs isn't enough cold hearted corp experience. Plus she caused hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs she said to be more efficient. 05, she was elected to the BOD Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, for that, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiary, in Nov announced closing its La Junta, Colo. plant, that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic, big blow to a rural town with only 9,500 residents. The jobs paid a starting wage of $11 an hour, good pay for the area. Companies that pay top execs like MICHELLE OBAMA tens of millions a year while squeezing the little guys off the production line destroying middle-class America. Also raises the question not about corporate values but about Mr. Obama's own values. Specifically, while Obama bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, Michelle, make $45,000 a year serving on the board of Chicago company that pays executives a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in economically deprived areas? The companys No. 1 customer is Wal-Mart???

    In 2005, Texas-based Dean Foods Co. spun off its processed-food subsidiary into an independent company, Elected to BOD in June 6 Michelle Obama, receives $30,000 a year plus $1,500 per board or committee meeting she attends. That totaled $45,000 in 2005, according to Mr. Obama's Senate ethics disclosure. Ms. Obama got 7,500 stock options this year, company filings show. At the current price of TreeHouse stock, she has a paper profit of about $60,000 on the options.

    Posted by jojo62 at 02/03/2008 @ 10:50am