January 29th, 2008
08:07 PM ET

Top Democrats turn their backs on Clinton?


Sen. Barack Obama shakes hands with Sen. John Kerry at the College of Charleston in South Carolina January 2008. Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Senator Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday got a lot of people talking about what effect the backing of one of the Senate's most senior Democrats would have on Obama's campaign. Will the young senator from Illinois inherit the Kennedy mystique that was the late president's?

It's also worth noting that Kennedy is far from the only member of the Democratic establishment who has decided to support Obama over Hillary Clinton.

The list is pretty impressive, powerful names like Senators John Kerry, Patrick Leahy and Kent Conrad, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and California Congressman George Miller.

It's interesting that they would turn their backs on Hillary, the wife of one of the party's most popular figures, and a key player in the party herself. But, a piece in "The Politico" today describes how Washington's liberal establishment has joined together around the view that Former President Bill Clinton is tarnishing his legacy and hurting his wife's presidential prospects in the process.

They point out how Clinton spent so much time as the dominant personality in the Democratic Party that it makes it easy to forget that lots of Democrats never liked him all that much. And, it seems like a lot of this anti-Clinton sentiment has resurfaced in Washington, where some see Clinton's campaigning to be inappropriate and even offensive.

Here’s my question to you: Why are so many powerful Democratic leaders turning their backs on Hillary Clinton and endorsing Barack Obama?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Kim writes:
I hope they're supporting him because they are finally beginning to act like leaders and do what's right for the people of this country. Senator Obama is our best chance to make real changes in the way Washington operates.

Barbara writes:
It's obvious to most of us that Bill is "back-dooring" his way into terms 3 and 4. There is no way he can ever step aside in the West Wing and allow his wife to lead. His ego is too big, and women are a toy for him, even his wife. He is, after all, Slick Willy.

Mary writes:
Gee Jack. You fail to mention all the senators who have endorsed Hillary, but that's par for the course. Perhaps that's why Obama is getting endorsements from big Democrats. Media bias. Dems see that Obama is the media darling and want to join in the love fest. AND I think resentment toward Bill has had an impact. After all he led us for eight years to prosperity and relative peace. Go figure.

Candy writes:
It's not necessarily "turning their backs" on Hillary. We have two very interesting choices, one who has been entrenched in the national political scene for a long time and the other a newbie. One's a policy-wonk, the other a visionary. It's amazing that we actually have a real choice. That's far different than turning their backs on one or the other, it's exercising that choice.

Fred writes:
Jack, The best thing that could happen in this campaign would be for you to just shut up. When you learn to report the facts instead of nit-picking to arouse people, we will all be better off.

Adam from Newfoundland writes:
Because they actually know what the meaning of the word "is" is!

Ron writes:
I asked my wife your question. She said it is because Hillary is a ninny. Trust me, my wife is always right.

Filed under: Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton
soundoff (202 Responses)
  1. Helen

    Why does it matter to anyone with a brain who endorses who? Can't people think for themselves anymore? I think part of the problem is that in years past the media, both TV and written was supposed to remain neutral except for editorials that were clearly marked. Now every TV newsperson, reporters and writers have an opinion.
    It is hard to get the facts when everyone has someone to support. Is this process
    any better than a smoked filled back room? I think Barack will be a good contender when he is more seasoned. Where are his programs? What does he have except
    retoric about bringing everyone together again. Didn't we hear this from Bush
    7 years ago – A uniter, not a divider – with no programs available for judgement.
    Please – not again.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  2. Judy

    In a word, Electability. The atmosphere of divisiveness will weigh heavily on the party after the primaries, and the republicans will pounce. The Washington insiders know this and are now throwing their weight behind the charismatic Obama.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  3. Luanne

    The answer is simple. The Clintons represent the politics of the past.

    Heavyweights in the Democratic party recognize that we are on the cusp of change – that real change is needed to propel the nation forward. We as democrats not only face the very real possibility of capturing the Whitehouse, but after seven years of secrecy, deceit, lies, and dishonor, we have arrived at a point as a nation where we are hungry again for the things that once made us the greatest democracy on earth: a willingness to sacrifice for a greater good, and the idea that we are one people and one nation under god.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  4. LCB

    Jack, Obama preaches of change and hope and yet he welcomes all the old seasoned politicians to stand with him. The same politicians that have lost their own bid for the White House. Then says its to show he has experience...duh. Experience is something you get by actually working, not by endorsements.

    Oh, I am sorry about your question, simple Obama is a rookie and easy to manipulate. Just like Bush, inexperienced, filled with "hope" and the desire for "change". Gosh, here we go again...

    January 29, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  5. Patricia

    Because if,(God Forbid); the Republicans get a majority in either the House or the Senate, they will treat this country to "The Impeachment of The Clintons, Part Duex". And No One Wants To Go Through That Again.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  6. Michael Brindisi

    Let me see if I have it right.
    Ted Kennedy backs Hillary until her husband says something Ted doesn't like and then he drops her and endorses the young passionate guy. His endorsement is a joke.
    The problem is most Americans think it's all a joke...a beauty contest...all about popularity. How about issues and experience. Who would you rather have as an ambassador around the world Bill Clinton or Ophray.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  7. Allan

    I don't know, if they are positioning themselves for Cabinet positions they better be careful. Obama might win the primary, but will get killed by the right wing "swiftboaters". Hillary has been investigated more than anyone on earth by the Right Wing Nuts and there is nothing more to come out.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  8. marcus


    January 29, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  9. TLC

    Because they want to win in November. If Hillary gets the nomination then whoever the republicans nominate will win the election. The Clinton's had their chance and people who open their eyes see thru them. It is amazing to me how she has gotten this far as neither she nor her husband care for people at all.

    TLC from Texas

    January 29, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  10. Jon S

    The reason for this Jack is simple, Hilary Clinton is not running a campaign, it's Bill Clinton who is running it. Hilary is just there for pictures you might say. Hilary has a sort of virtual representation, and Barack is taking it upon himself to "Change" the American people. Barack is a stern and well respected person and Hilary is just using the same rhetoric that people are sick of.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  11. Josie

    I truly believe that most of the big endorsements that Obama has received are more of anti-Clinton backlash. I don't believe that they are against Hillary but Bill. Hillary Clinton was an established candiate with a sure shot of going all the way. Win Obama won in Iowa and finished a close second in New Hampshire he tapped into that part of the Democratic party that wanted to stop Bill Clinton from being able to boast about getting the Dems back into Whitehouse. Once again Bill is costing Hillary embarassment. If she loses it will be because of him.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:29 pm |

    Historically, I have been a supporter of Bill Clinton through his 8 years as President and afterwards. I am very dismayed and angry about his inappropriate attacks on Senator Barack Obama. This is not fitting behavior for a former President of the United States. It appears that Bill Clinton is so focused on returning to the White House, via Hillary's bid for President, that he will stop at nothing to ensure her election, including telling lies, and using attack dog tactics.
    This behavior diminishes his credability as a statesman, and lately has caused me to wonder if some of the negative stories about him that proliferated during his presidency are true? I now wonder if we are getting a glimpse of who Bill and Hillary really are?
    This saddens me greatly.

    Cherie Traylor

    January 29, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  13. Tom Scarff

    The reason that there are so many of the more powerful Democrats in Congress deciding to promote and endorse Barack Obama is obvious. They view him as the most likely next President.
    These guys, and ladies, are no dummies and they don't go out of there way to help anyone who is not capable of helping them. Quid pro Quo, very simple.
    One exception to this may well be Ted Kennedy who, for all of his downfalls, is probably the one Senator that doesn't have anything to loose or to gain by going with Barack. He has been close to the Clintons over the years but he probably has a high regard for the youth and independence of Obama. He has been completly turned off by Bill Clinton's barrage and "Tom Cruise" like antics and he piggy-backed his neice Caroline's endorsement, making it a truly family affair.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  14. rodney

    It is so amazing how you people are being brain washed by the media. They report to you how they want you to think and thats what you do. The clintons are blamed for everything from weather problems of global warming to beating up on poor Barak. You people are giving this guy an absolute free pass on all the issues. You don't even seem concerned about the qualifications of being the leader of the free world, a superpower. Your just going with how he makes you FEEL. I have never seen such an easy run for the white house everyone else has had to do their time and pay a price. This guy is.... a fairytell he's got all of you spell bound with his looks and smile. Hell he could be the antichrist and you wouldn't know it because you don't stop long enough to really judge the man. All you hear is hope with a MLK want a be oritor and your hooked. Start asking tough questions and stop being taken with this guys charisma and style. At the end of the day he is no JFK and the republicans will eat him alive when all this hype is over. If you guys spent nearly the time really looking at this guy than you do blaming the clintons it would be a good day. Bill Clinton is not the enemy, what happen to frustration with the republicans and their policies. I have the feeling that if he took all of your suggestions that you would still find a reason to hate the clintons. They are questioned no matter what they say or do, it's disected and analyzed to death until they spin into something bad. The media took clips of clinton statement to make it sound racist because thats what they do. This is not a perfect process and no political campaign is. This is a contest and people are in it to win. ITS NOT PERSONAL they don't hate Barak this is just typical politics and if poor old barak can't handle this, then he dam sure aint ready for the republican machine and bin laden and all the worlds problems falling his shoulders from day one. I would see his charisma and style then, when he starts aging three times over in just the first year of office. Come out of fantasy land and get real. Hillary is already playing varsity barak needs more time and go through the process just like everybody else, he aint no body special and he is no JFK.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  15. Michael Weber

    I think this country is hungry for a real change and that has been a consistent and upbeat theme in the Obama campaign, until Bill and Hillary tried to pull him into the mud. However, I think it goes deeper, a lot of people like the Clinton's, but, a large portion of the electorate doesn't. And I think democrats remember how the Republicans almost brought the country to a stand still during Bill Clinton's last term in office. I have heard people who want change say they will vote Republican rather than vote for Hillary. I think she and Bill have too much baggage.

    mike from MN

    January 29, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  16. Vinnie Vino

    They are closet Republicans, I think just like people are tried of W they are just as sick of the Clintons and are wishing them away.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  17. Michael Lorton, Virginia

    The reason is what Kennedy said; "I smell change in the air."

    January 29, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  18. George

    The clintons began to act like divisive Republicans and appeared to be in a state of desperation. We've had enough of divisiveness and desperation in the presidency. Just last night the president seemed to take pleasure in making them shout on one side and frown on the other, smirking his way through a practically meaningless plan for his last year in office, getting his last licks in with the only tool he has left;a veto of anything that doesn't meet his petulant demands.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  19. Terry

    Endorsements are not what they used to be, more voters are starting to think for themselves. As far as powerful democrats endorcing Obama, I think everyone has had enough of the whining Clintons.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  20. Steve

    Bandwagon, Jack. Everyone seems to be jumping on it. The Democrats are abandoning a tough, savy leader like Mrs. Clinton for the sake of poliical correctness. Mr. Obama is the darling for now. However, he has no substance and the Republicans will eat him alive if he wins the nomination. Just watch.

    The Democrats are commiting political suicide, again.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  21. Jayne

    Every so often a person comes along with that magical quality you can't adequately put words to. The "it" factor. It transcends business as usual and makes you believe greater things are possible. It brings the best out of people and, ultimately, creates a positive, "can do" atmosphere. Obama has the "it" factor and his colleagues are just awakening to what the public has seen since the last Democratic convention.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  22. dave

    Hi Jack!

    Kerry and Kennedy- in addition to their endorsements if they can teach Obama their secrets to winning the Presidency, then I think Hillary needs to start writing her acceptance speech now.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  23. William

    It shouldn't matter who is endorsing whom. What should matter is you chose the candidate that you feel represents your views. When it comes time to vote you will be the only one in the voters box, so forget what everyone else is saying and decide who you think is the best choice for you.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  24. Gloria

    I think they are turning their backs on Hillary Clinton because they realize that they will be unable to influence her. She will make decisions herself and not bow down to these powerful democrats. They stand a much better chance of running things their way with Barack Obama, oh, and by the way you medfia people have no chance at influencing my vote with your picks in both the Democratic and Republican choices. The media, Republicans and some Democrats have always tried their best to put the Clintons down. I do not understand how you can call the Clintons a dynasty either, there is really only the three of them compared to the Kennedy's and another thing, Ted Kennedy is NO Jack Kennedy.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  25. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    It seems as though everyone in the democratic party has become a petty backstabber. Instead of banding together and backing a candidate who can win,they are trying to make sure that whoever the republicans eventually nominate will be the next president. As Will Rogers once said "I do not belong to an organized political party,I'm a Democrat".

    January 29, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  26. Melanie


    It has to do with vision versus the to-do- list. Senator Obama recognizes the big picture. Senator Clinton only sees the line item. Senator Obama not only sees the line item but he understands how the line item works to bring about the big picture. The vision that he has for the country. Senator Clinton is for all intents and purposes myopic. She doesn't seem to understand how to intergrate the line-item into the whole. Senator Obama does. That is why the Democratic leadership is backing Obama..

    January 29, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  27. Ralph

    Bill Clinton was a moderate. Some Democrats even called him a Republican. Many of these Democratic senators and representatives are very Liberal. Because they are Democratics they like to get-together in a circle and shoot each other. They do not understand that their job is to clean-up after the Republicans and run the economy right, instead they just want to spend, spend, spend.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  28. Sara

    Simple Jack, it's called self preservation. Obama and Edwards is the future. The Clinton's are the past. Hooking your ride to the car moving forward is something even a crusty politician can figure out.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  29. Billy

    Are they mentally challenged? Might I suggest they take a look at this campaign from the cheap (middle class ) seats! Initially, I believed that Obama was the change agent he professes but after witnessing his inexperienced antics during the last debate, I have given him a more thorough examination. These recent senior democratic endorsements removed the primary reason I was voting for Obama. Now, he has recruited help from the 'old' democratic politics and is not worthy of my vote. I will now vote for Clinton because I believe she will do the best job and she has (displayed) the necessary experience to hit the ground running. Obama would spend his first term networking and paying back those who have recently came out to endorse him – big, big, mistake on his part.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  30. Karl in SF

    Jack, your lead in has covered a lot of it and Bill has done a lot more harm then good to the party, himself and Hillary's campaign. The Democrats backing Obama realize that, though they have been part of the problem for decades, the American people demand a big change. Hilary looks like a rerun of Bill and as such more same old same old. She didn't talk change until Obama got the ball rolling. A lot of people don't follow the endorsements, but a lot do and these endorsers do have a faithful following. There is the Super Tuesday marathon and time for things to change, but Obama has a record of bringing people together and these old timers know it.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  31. Tina

    Stuff happens!!

    January 29, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  32. Monty

    As Forrest Gump put so well "Stupid is is Stupid does". Look at what a mess these idiots have allowed to pass with W. Now were supposed to listen to them and vote for a candidate that has little practical experience in one of the direst times in our history. The Clintons straightened out this mess once I think they can do it again if they have the opportunity. Its ridiculous how Obama can get by with any attack at all and no one seems to care but let the Clintons say something about Obama and all hell breaks loose. Makes me wonder is the media and the democratic establishment that afraid of a female running this country? Or was it Nancy Pelosi and her ultimate goof "Impeachment is off the table"?

    January 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  33. Deborah

    I think the democratic big wigs are embarassed by the repulsive antics by the Clinton pair. The more they down grade Obama the smaller they look. Hillary
    seems to be a very spiteful, angry, human being. One cant help but wonder who she will scorn and bully in foreign affair relations.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  34. Karen P

    Because the Democrats know the Clintons as the snakes they really are. Because like most the rest of the country, we are tired of listening and watching the Clinton escapades. Because someone has to protect White House pages from Bill in the White House again. Because a 3rd term of any Clinton in office again is TOO much. Because Barack Obama is THE only candidate who has PROVEN to be able to unite the county. The country is only split between Hillary and Barack is due to the lies of the Clintons and playing race and gender cards. Because those Democrats have worked with both and know Barack Obama is the only one who can bring America back to a sense of dignity.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  35. Jenny from New York

    They're not turning their backs on Hillary Clinton. They're turning their backs on BILL Clinton. It looks like Bill's running for his own legacy and many prominent Democrats don't like his win-at-all-costs tactics. Hillary would've been better off running on her own merits rather than as "Bill Clinton's wife." She can't do that while claiming to be "the change agent." Oh wait-it's BILL that called her that.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  36. Beverley


    Billary still has more endorsements than Obama , more super delegates, and most of America has yet to vote! Billary has the perception of experience , the dirty tricks play book and the tear ducts! Obama better watch his back!

    January 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  37. Ben

    It seems the more they know her the faster they run away. That seems to be the case since the beginning of this race.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  38. Samantha from Arkansas

    Frankly, the only Kennedy endorsement that meant anything to me personally was that of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. That being said, I do think it speaks to the stirrings in the Democratic Party when the so-called "movers and shakers" prefer change (and yes, Senator Obama ran on that ideal first – before everyone, including Republicans, picked up on it).

    Senator Clinton thought she was the Anointed One before Iowa, where she got a rude wakeup call then pulled out Bulldog Bill to be her "voice." Once the big wigs of the Democratic Party thought that somebody else had a chance, they started paying attention.

    I think we need somebody in the White House who isn't beaten down with jaded, pessimistic, and negative attitudes. For those who say Senator Obama doesn't have enough experience, I say look where experience has got us so far. He's proven that he's more than able to handle whatever is thrown at him, and still have his dignity intact. I'm 34 years old, and this is the first election where I'm not voting the lesser of 2 evils, but rather for a particular candidate. Thank God that we finally have someone that inspires us, and I hope that the rest of the United States can emerge from their coma of disenchantment to vote for true hope and change.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  39. Jonathan

    It's another distraction from the fact that it's just a choice of which face they want to put on the same policies.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  40. Chrissy

    I don't think Bill Clinton said anything wrong. CNN reported it first about Jessie Jackson. So if the Kennedy"s want to be mad at that and take it out of tex like the press did o well. At least Hillary is not crying about it. I don't even want to see Obama win the primary, the Rep. will chew him up and spit him out, he won't know what to do. The press will be where??????

    January 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  41. Andrew

    Its simple... Control the narrative. If the Dems pick Hillary they are going to have a hard time convincing the average American to vote for her when the Republicans start to rip her apart. However, you turn Obama into JFK and he's unbeatable.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  42. Corey

    Democrats turning their backs? Hmm. It'd be one thing for Obama to get an endorsement from an everyday congressman, another to get one from the Clintons' good friends over in the Kerry family. . Sounds like everyone is turning their back on Clinton?

    January 29, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  43. Brian Nancoo - Trinidad

    You can delve into a complex answer or a simple one. The simple one is based on understanding basic human behaviour. I'm leaning towards basic human behaviour, such as: The Obama endorsers have been waiting a long time to stick it to Hilary and Bill and not look bad in the process. The Old-Boy's club, as the Senate is usually referred to, can't stomach a woman President. They have a better chance forwarding their own If-I-Were-President agenda with Obama because of his inexperience. They have been promised something big.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  44. Dave Brooklyn, NY

    The Clintons, both of them, are becoming obnoxious, and if they got in for another 8 years they would be intolerable, even to the most democratic democrats.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  45. Louis

    Jack, instead of these lawmakers turning their backs on Hillary, its really about Hillary AND Bill turning their backs on these lawmakers. Over the past week you had the Clintons campaigning really negative with these racially charged attacks towards Barack Obama and many of these lawmakers were either enraged or excessively worried about the impact this would have in the general election. Shame on them both. I dont blame these lawmakers for wanting to endorse Barack Obama. Of course there is another part of these endorsements other than a anti-Hillary and Bill sentiment. I was watching PBS last night and many of these commentators talked a great deal about how proundly inspirational of a candidate Barack Obama is and the magnetic effect he has with young people, who hardly ever participates in the election process, to go out and vote. Even Mike Huckabee warned his fellow candidates in the Republican New Hampshire debate that you cant just be against an idea or candidate to mobilize your party's voters, but rather you and your people have to be FOR something. The only thing Bill and Hillary know how to do is to use these search and destroy tactics with Barack Obama. Boy I'll tell you Jack if I were a kindergarten teacher and Bill and Hillary were my students, I'd send them both to sit and face a corner of the classroom to make them both think about how their disgraceful behavior is effecting us all.

    January 29, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  46. suzie from Atlanta, GA

    The Democratic Party has not turned their back on Clinton. Far from it, she leads in Super Delegates, who are party Big Wigs who are supporting HER.
    The media ran with this racist story because it was fun, but black supporters of Clinton, who were with Bill when he supposedly made all those " racial attacks" said the media distorted his words, cherry picking the statements, and cutting out the context, and I heard this this morning on CNN.
    As far as Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin spent SIX months "negotiating" with Kennedy for that support. I don't know why they "negotiated" or what, but i sure hope it wasn't our Border Security.
    I am supporting Clinton because she is the best candidate, for her health care plan, her stand on the economy and her fight for the little guy, with lower taxes for the middle and lower tax brackets, and higher taxes for the rich. I am not voting for a "friend" or a "cheerleader". I am voting for a President, who will not "negotiate" on her stand on the issues.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  47. Ken KS

    Some people are going to surprise the pundits, CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC and NBC. They are going to show they can think for themselves and maybe prove you folks wrong. Hillary will be strong willed and not to be manipulated by anyone except her Corporate America contributors. I think the Republicans would rejoice and hope Obama wins. They have precedence on their side. Al Smith, a Catholic ran against Hoover in 1928 and was slaughtered in a landslide. That's what will happen to Obama 80 years later, because Karl Rove is still lurking behind the Republican dirty tricks scene. Look for four more years of Bush-Cheney when McCain-Ronmey or Romney-McCain win. More Reagonomics. Sigh.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  48. Ed

    It's simple we are all very weary of the crash and burn politics of the Clintons. I am a liflong Democrat but I've decided if Hillary is the nominee i won't vote for her. I don't want to win that bad. They are the devisive duo. They need to check their watches, their kind of politics are a decade or two late. Bil and Hil go home.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  49. Theresa

    Because they have forgotten what long memories we women have...A year from now President Hillary will not be amused.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  50. Tyler N

    With it looking more and more likely that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, the Democrats are coming together to support the candidate they feel will have the best shot beating McCain in November. There is no doubt that McCain will be running on national security, and if Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate, McCain will be more than happy to take her to task over her varying stance on the war, and the Democrats fear that we will have to endure four more years of Republican debauchery. On the other hand, ask a Republican strategist about an Obama-McCain race and watch the sweat trickle, and the trembles start.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  51. Ron

    Maybe it is the smug look on her face. Perhaps her bad attitude or her huge ego. It could even be that all the dishonest things she has said so far have shown her true colors.

    Most likely though, it is because they know that without Billy Boy lying for her, Hillary Clinton is a big fat ZERO. Iowa proved that. In other words, they want someone who can stand on their own two feet. That would be Obama.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  52. earl illingsworth

    They all recently had an epiphany. The action of former President Clinton's behavior, paints a clear picture of how the White House will be Run, if the dynamic duel, gets elected! The V.P.'s job will be relegated to ZIP! Our founding fathers, and the constitution will be rendered impotent. The entire countries eye's have been opened up, from Joe sixpack, to CEO's that realize something smells fowl. These few stalwart Dem's certainly aren't going to let that happen. Let's hope it isn't to late for others to get on board the "Obama Train", before it leaves the station!!!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  53. Barbara in Ohio

    Politics of the past 35 years just may be the reason & Barack Obama, has giving them the courage to stand up for what they know is right & just for the people of the United States.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  54. Ron

    I asked my wife your question. She said it is because Hillary is a ninny. Trust me, my wife is always right.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  55. Ann

    Hillary can thank Bill for that. There is no room for two Presidents in the White House and the way that Bill has been speaking, that is what we will get. Hillary is supposed to be strong, so why would she need him to fight her battles? If she can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
  56. Raul Zamudio

    Obama is able to reach across party lines, for one; and he is also able to motivate a broad demographic sector to particapte in the democratic procees incluing class, race and yes, Hillary, gender. I cringe in just thinking that Bill, who lied right in the face of every American could be back in the White House. What he did is not a neo-con conspiracy; no one put a gun to his head regarding Moncia or the lies that came after.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  57. Kevin, Illinois

    People are tired of Hillary and Bill Clinton. All their illegal activities, unethichal practices and tearing people apart. Vote Obama

    January 29, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  58. Ravi Bosco

    It is not a mere choice between Obama and Clinton. It is to their credit, that in spite of their long political career, they see idealism as having a unique place over pragmatism. They value 'personal power' which comes with authenticity and integrity above 'positional power' which comes from your bio-data. It's a choice between a leader who can be effective and a manager who can be efficient. After all for pragmatism, "what works is right" whereas according to idealism, "what is right, works".

    January 29, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  59. Dianna Flower Mound, Texas

    They are turning their back on Hillary because she can't win against McCain. The Clintons come across as being entitled to the whitehouse, we don't need another family dynasty ruling our country this is a democracy not a monarchy!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  60. Brian, Kentucky

    It seems that not only are Democrats experiencing discomfort with Bill Clinton's campaigning, but they are questioning Hillary's ability to win a general election against the likes of John McCain. What makes this year fascinating is that even if Hillary can win a majority of registered Democrats over Obama, it doesn't mean that she would be more successful in the general election.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  61. Victoria Balfour

    They are turning their backs on Hillary and endorsing Obama because he is the better candidate !

    January 29, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  62. bill hopen

    I truely think good politicians recognize greatness when they see it, they see history, they see the future, they see a "kennedy phenomenon" in this young leader Obama, who motivates and incorporates the youngest generation into the political process (as democrats) while also holding well with the traditional constituancy of the democratic party.

    and duh....its time for a change, they know Hillery and Bill would be easier to defeat. there is a large sector of american conservatives and republicans who would never never cross over vote them back to the white house

    January 29, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  63. travis

    simple clintons gonna win and thay will do what ever to make her look bad

    January 29, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  64. Andrea in MN

    The issues the United States is facing with the departure of the worst President in history are huge, and will not be solved with the same old divisive bickering native to Washington politics. I think our policy makers know they have a large task looming ahead of them, and will be looking for a spirit of optimism and compromise. Barack Obama speaks of uniting the country and solving problems as AMERICANS, not as Democrats or Republicans.
    As a college student, Caroline Kennedy's endorsement meant a lot to me, because she said it was her children's interest and passion for Obama that made her take notice. I have great admiration for JFK, he motivated and empowered our country in a time of need and transition. I have always wanted to be inspired by a politician in my time the way JFK inspired Americans in his. Jack, I have found my inspiration in Barack Obama.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  65. Carolyn Grace

    That's easy Jack, it's about the past, versus the future. You can
    figure out the rest.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  66. Pat Juarez

    Jack: The Clintons are part of the 'old regimes', they are part of the way things have been done for so many years. Some of the folks in Congress see a chance for a new start, some have been waiting for a 'spark', maybe, just maybe, Barack Obama is that spark.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  67. Shawn from Portland, OR

    Maybe we shouldn't have the gut reaction that people are turning away from Hillary Clinton because she (or her husband) has done anything wrong. Perhaps, it's just that Senator Obama is doing something very right.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  68. Mitch

    All of these aging democrats are hungry for something new and are sensing new blood being brought into their party by electing Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton is of a distant era in politics and practices many of the traditional principles. Democrats want to be on the cutting edge of politics and Barack Obama is the closest person to fitting that mold.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  69. Lou

    Jack! You should be ashamed to be so one-sided in this question. Do you have any idea how many very significant endorsements Senator Clinton has? More than Obama in the Senate, more than Obama in the House, more among Governors, and on and on. This swooning over Ted Kennedy's nod among media talking heads is just an extension of the fixation on celebrity that everyone claims to abhor. Whatever happened to journalism?

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  70. Mallory

    I think many people are turning their backs on Clinton because her husband is taking too strong of a voice in her campaign. She needs to take control again. I was a Hilary supporter, but I want to see her running her own campaign.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  71. Nick

    I'm confused with who's running Bill or Hillary. Hillary lost control of her campaign and Democrats are noticing.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  72. Candy

    It's not necessarily "turning their backs" on Hillary. We have two very interesting choices, one who has been entrenched in the national political scene for a long time and the other a newbie. One's a policy-wonk the other a visionary. It's amazing that we actually have a real choice. That's far different than turning their backs on one or the other, it's exercising that choice.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  73. Becky

    The old guard is championing Obama because they know that he will be beholding to them.....they will tell him what to do .....when to do it...and how to do it...."change" from Obama....nope...just more of the old man's club of the US Senate.......

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  74. Elease

    I don't think anyone is turning their backs on any of the candidates. I think they are just expressing their opinion on who is the best candidate to win in November and lead this nation.

    We are so ready for a change in government, tone and focus in this country. Hillary seems to me to speak to the same old system, boys and message.

    Minneapolis, MN

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  75. Corey, Maryland

    The powerful Democratic leaders throughout this country are starting to realize that Hillary has no chance at winning the general election. Not only is Barack Obama the better candidate but he also is the only one that can win the general election by a landslide.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  76. Jack

    Along comes a young man with a beautiful speach and we are so wanting
    to believe and be inspired we follow him like the pied piper or Jim Jones.
    Let's pray he is as good as his oratory ability.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  77. Daniel in KY

    Read this one Jack, its simple, with Obama they have a canidate they can push around in the white house

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  78. Doni

    Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States Democratic party,
    The reason so many high level political figures are "turning their backs" on Sen. Clinton is not an inexplicable reason, it's just that they believe that Barack Obama actually is the best candidate for the democratic party. Now, maybe people will actually look at his blueprint, available on his website, to actually see where he stands. As you can see, alot of high level politicians have done so already.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  79. Gabriel

    It's because they all have huge egos. If Obama wins they can say that he won because they endorsed him. If Hillary wins they would not get any credit.

    P.S-Just a whole bunch of losers that desperately wanted to be President but never could endorse him: John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, LOSERS!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  80. Janet Carpenter

    Because she's a woman and it's still a man's world. Smell the coffee Jack!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  81. Orlando

    In part it's Bill and the realization how easy it will be the Republicans to make Bill–i.e. Billary–the campaign issue in the general election. Take a moment, close your eyes, and consider the campaign ads. Why should the Democrat deliver an easy victory or the Republicans? I

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  82. Debi, Indiana

    I think that people are figuring out that Hillary, no matter how good she could be as our president still representsand was a part of the last 7years of the worst leadership our country has ever had. She may have the experience, but we are thinking that the experience she has is what has got us into this mess.

    Obama represents change in all the way that Hillary does not, because of same ole thing is what we need to get rid of.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  83. Marty

    It's all about POWER, Jack, just like most things in Washington. If Hillary (or Billary) wins, then the Clintons are the 800-pound gorilla for the next 4 or 8 years. But if Barack Obama wins with Ted Kennedy's backing, then Ted Kennedy is the big magilla. Hillary would owe nothing to Kennedy and the others, but Barack will owe them everything.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  84. C.Garcia

    In the past few days, "BILLARY" have shown their true colors. The country (both Democrats and Republicans) are tired of the negativity and the politics as usual ideology of "old" Washington. Barack Obama stands for the future and symbolizes the change that Americans are ready for. Democrats know that Obama has something Hillary doesn't-integrity.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  85. Bob Harrison

    Perhaps the support stems from bonafide recognition that Obama best represents the future of the party and less so concerns about Clinton campaign strategies.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  86. Nan

    The obvious difference between the two canidates (aside from the superficial gender and race items) is their ability, or lack there of, to unite. Obama wins hands down and the Dems know that's what we need now and asthe future pres.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  87. EVELYN

    Simply because the old boys club can't stand the thought of a very smart women being their president.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  88. Larry Dornhoff

    Many powerful Democrats are supporting Obama over Clinton
    because they think he has a better chance to win in November.
    It's as simple as that.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  89. Laura

    The simple answer is that there is a split in the party and a fear that a woman can't win. Kerry snubbed Edwards, so it isn't just about Clinton. A difference within the party isn't unreasonable, but this divisive endorsing practice is going to be a mistake in the long run as it makes the whole party look weak. It is internal instability, or perhaps it is a nod to the idea of a black leader since it's fairly unlikely that Obama will win (i.e. CA, NY, etc).

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  90. Kim

    I hope they're supporting him because they are finally beginning to ACT like leaders and do what's right for the people of this country. Senator Obama is our best chance to make real changes in the way Washington operates.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  91. anne nevid

    It appears that, like me, the Democrat hoi polloi do not want another Dynasty in the White House. Also, Hillary is a very polarizing figure and just perhaps not as winnable as Mr. Obama.

    We want a 180 degree change from the Bush family and the Clintons are not that change.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  92. Steve

    Maybe people have figured out that we need a new name in the White House. After all, we had 4 years of Poppy Bush, 8 years of Bill Clinton and 8 years of Junior Bush. After 20 years of two families running our country, we definitely need a change!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  93. Aldin

    It is because they have a hunch that the Clinton camp is not very straight forward with the whole political feud between the Obama and Clinton camps. The democratic voters realized that the Clintons have been attacking Obama indirectly from the start, until Obama realized it and defended himself. That is why the voters are turning to Barrack.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  94. Kejera

    Its simple really. As a nation we need to heal and move forward. Obama is a figure that shakes the power structure in this country down to its core. We all know it even if we don't talk about it. This is a new era, so we need a new kind of leader.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  95. Bob W.

    They are turning their backs on Hillary because Bill's forceful and inappropriate campaigning has brought the realization that if Hillary is elected, she will just be a surrogate for Bill's third term. He continually talks about what "we are going to do".

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  96. Erik in Maine

    ...because Obama can win in November. You need independents to win the general election. Hillary has no appeal to independents.

    Simple question; What state would Hillary win in 2008 that Gore didn't win in 2000?

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  97. Ro

    The Clintons took a page of Rovian tactics and attacked Obama, neocon mirror imagery. With all the baggage the Clintons are carrying, they have their hands full as they run a Co-Presidential campaign. Thankfully, Obama has not lowered himself to the same tactics or we would be watching a rerun straight out of the 90's. Of course, it is always possible that Ted and Caroline just recognize something of their loved one's spirit in Obama (gasp.)

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  98. Ken Kyser Jr

    I, for one have not turned my back on my parties leader, Presdient Clinton. Senator Obama turned his back on Florida's democratic choice for president last night at The State Of The Union Address. Not a good move on Senator Obama's behalf.

    Ken Kyser, Jr.
    Panama City, Florida.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  99. Terri G

    Guess what? No matter WHAT you guys say, I'm voting for Hillary. I don't care who does or does not endorse her. She's tougher than Obama, doesn't whine when challenged and can articulate exactly how she'll accomplish her goals for America.

    It's simple, she's smarter, tougher and can weather anything anyone throws at her.

    Imagine that, making my own decision. How American of me!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  100. Tommy Allen

    I think top democrats have begun to realize the implications of Bill Clinton's negatives in the general election. While he is popular, the situations surrounding his impeachment are still a highly visible issue to most Americans. The fact that he has been insensitive and sometimes even dishonest does not bode well for his wife... who is already polarizing in her own right. In short they know he may turn off voters in the general election if he continues with his Rove-ish politics.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  101. Elizabeth

    An endorsement of Senator Obama is not a vote against Senator Clinton any more than choosing two scoops of ice cream is a vote against one scoop. She is good; he is better. I wish her well; I wish him the Presidency.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  102. Greg from PA

    Both Obama and Clinton speak of change. In Obama, they see hope, an attempt to run an honest campaign and a chance to unify both the Democratic party and America. In Clinton, they see mud-slinging, promise breaking, continuation of the dirty tactics of politics from the past and a candidacy that would galvinize the Republican conservative base and divide America. They want a candidate with experience as a decent, intelligent and talented person, not as an underhanded politician.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  103. Anne

    Do not forget that Hillary has a low "likability" rating, especially in the mid-west.

    I don't believe that she'd get elected if nobody was running against her in the primary. It's not because she's a woman, but because she's Hillary Clinton.
    It has been a HUGE mistake to have Bill on center stage. Like lots of Washingtonians, seeing the negative Clinton campaign made me nauseous.

    The democrats will back the person they believe can win.

    New York

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  104. Barbara Ruff

    The reason so many powerful Washiongton D C Demos are backing Obama is that they see him as young and possibly easier to sway the the policially savey Clinton. Edwards is still my choice.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  105. Robert


    Its makes no difference which democratic power weasel supports Obama or Hillary.

    It is the American People that makes the decision. Vote vote vote vote!!!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  106. James V

    Democrats are notorious for switching their opinions around to match whatever fad is washing over America. Right now, that fad is Barack Obama and his empty promise of "change." The Democrats see that Hillary Clinton will have a much more difficult time beating her opponents than Barack Obama would, so they want to put him in the White House. It's not too big of a change, since both Clinton and Obama are nearly identical on the issues anyway.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  107. Phil Hamel

    When the junior Senator from Massachusetts ran for the presidency four years ago, Former President and Senator Clinton kept an exceptionally low profile and for all practical purposes did nothing to support the party ticket. It hurt! The suspicion at the time was that they wanted a Bush re-election to set the stage for a "Hilary For President" possibility in 2008. A stretch of the imagination? I think not! .. and people wonder why the senior Democrats are backing the gentleman from Illinois???? Politics is an interesting lifestyle!!! ... and there's seldom a road that doesn't have a turn!!!!!!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  108. Gerald

    Why. It's simple. Americans are coming to realize that dynasties are not good for this country. After seeing the result of the Bush dynasty, a Clinton dynasty is out of the question. "No Clinton dynasty" is the watchword of this campaign.

    Sumter, SC

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  109. Robert

    Former Bill Clinton seems to have the voice and speaking over Hillary. She needs to grow a pair of lungs and get her voice back.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  110. Jeff W.

    Hillary Clinton made an absolutely critical error when she allowed her husband to serve as her attack dog. Along with damaging Bill's reputation as an elder statesman, it also caused many voters to ask themselves, "Can Hillary Clinton fight her own battles?" Her lack of a concrete answer explains why people are abandoning her campaign in droves.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  111. Steve

    They are making the same stupid mistake that led to the weakest possible candidate last time (Kerry). By having the ultra liberal wing of the democratic party support Obama, they are just going to alienate the independents they need in the general election. And how does someone who is backed by the liberal elite, and now beholden to Ted Kennedy exactly represent change.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  112. H.L.

    It's pretty simple why top Democrats are turning their backs on HRC: she is the only Democrat who gives the Republicans a chance to win the White House. Barack Obama gives the party a chance to win the election and sweep Democrats into Congress who will actually change things. HRC gives the party either a loss or a presidency with the kind of partisanship we've had the last 16 years. Pretty easy choice isn't it?

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  113. Arlene

    Not many people want a Clinton/Clinton presidency with the vice-president a distant third in the hierarchy.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  114. John Onyango

    Top Democrats are tired of Billary calling Obama a Kid, a fairy tale, he won because Jesse Jackson won, any smart person whether Democrat or Republican will turn their back and support another candidate, Hillary letting Bill do her dirty work has not only messed up her reputation, but might mess up her chances too, remember Sen Allen, all he said was Macaca, where is he now.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  115. Tonja K

    I'll tell you what they see in Senator Barack Obama that they don't see in Senator Clinton. CHARACTER. It's as simple as that.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  116. Tim Omassey California

    For the same reason why I went down to the registrars's office and pulled my absentee ballot and revoted for Obama instead of Hillary...
    1)this last debate- her performance
    2) the ugly race baiting by Bill – Uh... HIS performance!


    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  117. Deanna

    I voted for Bill Clinton and think he was a good president. However, I do remember how much the government went to a standstill because of the divisiveness and pure hatred of the Clintons. I think Democratic leaders realize it is not enough to win the election. It is time for real action to happen. Nothing will mobilize the Republicans like a Hillary election.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  118. Ryan P Waldon

    Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton???
    maybe in 8 years, Jeb (Bush) can run.
    By then Chelsea should be old enough to take after him. (JB)

    January 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  119. John Markarian

    ...because we have just suffered through 8 years of untethered, irresponsible, immune power behind the throne in the form of Cheney, Rove etc... and the thought of Bill Clinton running amuck without the tempering threat of impeachment is too much to comprehend.

    No more two-headed monsters, please.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  120. JimF

    If Obama is a force for change, why do the people that brought us the same-old politics like him so much?

    Can you name one, single example where Obama in over a decade in politics fought for and brought about change? Just one? He has a track record - sort of.

    I think Obama's 130 "present" votes, and general obeisance to the political powers in Illinois make the old school feel comfortable that they can control him.

    - jim, los altos, ca

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  121. Kim

    Because anyone with a clue knows better than to endorse HIlary Clinton. She (and Bill) are showing their true colors as manipulative, selfish politicians, willing to use gender and race to win. Hilary's song-and-dance in Florida today exemplifies her shameless attempt to win at any cost yet again, and her campaign's comments that Obama's win in South Carolina being simply due to race were disgusting.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  122. Andrew Bell

    I'm looking for a candidate strong enough to stand on his/her own two feet. Last time I checked the Constitution, there's room for only one president. I don't want a "de facto" third term for Bill Clinton and perhaps those powerful Democratic leaders turning their backs on Billary don't either. Andrew Bell, San Diego, CA

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  123. getsteppin

    Jack- The people are 1.) getting sick of BIG MOUTHED LIARERS in politics
    2.) people are sick of THE CLINTONS

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  124. Lindsay

    After watching Obama's juvenile snub of Hillary last night I'm wondering the same thing. Obama should grow up, then consider running for President.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  125. WIll (West Palm Beach, FL)

    I have always seen Hillary as a rogue Democrat, and I feel like the upper echelon of Democrats see her the same way, someone who wouldn’t even consider the advice to the party in certain issues if elected. In Barack Obama, they see a candidate who is strong minded but not stubborn, someone who isn’t afraid to ask for help, and not just from her rock star husband. Hillary and Bill remind me of Dick Cheney and President Bush. If Hillary is elected, I get the feeling our President would be a puppet for at least another 4 years.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  126. Jim Stayton

    We've had enough of his slippery dealings. We had eight years of one scandal after another.
    I remember John Kennedy, and Billery is no Jack Kennedy.
    Obama is our last hope to save the country.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  127. Mary Marquardt

    I think they are realizing that there are a lot of Democrats out there who will not support Hillary for President in November. They don't want to be associated with her. I am a long time Democrat, but I will not vote for her.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  128. Stephanie from California

    No more Bushes, No more Clintons.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  129. bnthdntht

    John McCain, they all think they can work with him.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  130. Larry Clark, Tacoma, WA

    Jack, I believe the reason a lot of Dems are turning their back on Clinton is because they, as well as the American people, realize it is time for change in American Politics. The same old stuff surfacing with the smear tactics is just too draining on the public and our image in the World., and we all know Barrack Obama is the voice of reason in getting this ship turned around, and people are listening.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  131. Alex, L.A.

    It's a repudiation of the Clintons' divisive, Rove-ian campaigning and an embrace of Obama's message of change and hope, but it's also political calculus. Hillary Clinton is the candidate the Republicans are salivating over facing in the fall. She would motivate their base, help with fundraising and Congressional races and allow them to refight the 90s instead of dealing with Bush Jr.'s legacy. South Carolina's landslide victory for Obama allows the Democratic leadership to speak from their hearts and do what's best for the party.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  132. First time voter

    I think that many politicians are endorsing Barack Obama, simply because he stands for change in Washington. They are tired of the Clintons, as are the rest of us... I have lived my entire life under either the Bush or the Clinton administration and I refuse to let the back of every textbook read Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. This represents no change whatsoever and the politicians realize it. Now when will the rest of America wake up and realize it?

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  133. James

    I am an Independent. I like Obama's message of bringing people together; Democrats, Republicans, Independents. Have you ever felt inspired that we, as a nation, can accomplish anything. That is how I feel now!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  134. Phyllis Hancock

    I was shocked that Ted Kennedy did not stay neutral during the primary. I suspect that he could not do this because he feared that Obama might loose on Super Tuesday. Why would Kennedy fear this happening? Simple. Unlike his brothers, Jack and Bobby, Ted never got a shot at being president. Now, when Obama becomes president, Kennedy can then become "president in disguise". Obama has practically no experience. He will need a mentor. It is obvious that Kennedy plans on being his mentor. This explains why Kennedy said that Obama will be ready on day one !

    The media has enjoyed asking who will run the White House? Hillary or Bill
    Now they can ask will it be Obama or Ted Kennedy.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  135. Brian Ampolsk

    I was a college freshman when JFK was elected. I well remember the soaring rhetoric and the big ideas... the vision that made us for three short years a nation of optimists. I also remember that someone (but I don't remember who) said disdainfully "A democratic year, and they nominate a Catholic". Well, the Catholic won. But, he was not the Catholic President, but the President who happened to be Catholic. Barack Obama's appeal is similar. Beyond the soaring rhetoric and the vision to make us believe again, is not the first Black President... but a President who happens to be Black. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were beyond all this, as in 1960 we finally got beyond JFK's religion. Obama is the natural heir to the Kennedy legacy which, in spite of the nay sayers, remains a powerful one. No one since JFK has created the lofty expectations that Obama is now creating. I believe he IS the next President of the United States, and I am thrilled by the prospect.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  136. Andrew Alcott - High School student in Rochester, New York.

    Well Jack... It's quite simple, The Democratic Response to the State of the Union Address stressed Unity over division. The Democrats are ready to look past Clinton-era partisanship. Major Democrats are realizing Obama is the answer. Billary has shown time and time again that they will ignore the Right and in some cases the Left to push through their own personal agenda. This type of politics will no longer work in Washington.

    I love how the Clinton supporters are trying to paint Obama as the next George Bush, when in fact George Bush was the next Bill Clinton.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  137. Ryan Colclasure, Champaign IL

    Hi Jack,

    It comes down to this: Our international status as good Americans, and indeed the way in which we see ourselves, has been so brutally discraced by the Bush administration that only a leader we can fully believe in and get behind will do. Obama instills that confidence, in him and us.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  138. Marsha West

    I've always been a supporter of former President Clinton. I hadn't made up my mind where to put my primary vote (State of Washington), but I was really turned off by the behavior of President Clinton in the South Carolina primary.

    I felt he deliberately distorted Obama's positions by choosing words out of context - and his condescending attitude and subtle reminders about Obama's race - made me feel that he would have much too much influence and power in a Hillary Clinton presidency.

    When Caroline & Ted Kennedy expressed their confidence in Obama that made a great impression on me because I think Ted Kennedy is one of our greatest statesmen. I've always regretted that his youthful indescretions made it impossible for him to be president because I've always thought he could have been a great president.

    So I'm going with Obama. We need a dose of idealism, God knows. I'm 70 years old and for the first time in decades I'm feeling that maybe it's not too late for us to realize the dreams of the 60's.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  139. Blan Tadasa

    The top democrats are supporting Barrack instead of Hillary because Clintons are yesterdays and Obama is tommorows. They don't want to be on the wrong bus.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  140. Mike

    Simply put, "Their scared." Lets face it. It doesn't matter what you think of Bill Clinton. He was and still is a very popular man and President. If he were not campaigning for his wife then the question would be, "Where is Bill and why is he with all his star power not out their for his wife." When asking questions such as the one that has been asked today it is simply the media playing into the hands of the other candidates in an attempt to downplay a person, in this case Mrs. Clinton, who has a very very real shot at being our next President. P.S. I would like to add I am a Rudy fan myself but did vote for Bill Clinton. I do hope to see a general election with Hill on one side and Rudy on the other. Go New England!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  141. Mark C. Eades

    The reason so many powerful Democratic leaders are turning their backs on Hillary Clinton and endorsing Barack Obama is because the Clintons have been waging an ugly, vicious, and divisive campaign against Obama that threatens to wreck the party's hopes for November; because they don't feel good about the idea of a Clinton co-presidency even if they win in November; and because they see in Barack Obama an opportunity to broaden the party's base and take the country in an exciting new direction.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  142. Donavan - Texas

    The Democratic leadership is not so disillusioned to believe that Hillary Clinton can somehow step into some mystical time machine and take us on a whimsical ride back to 1992. They see this as it is, a Bill Clinton 3rd term. That will only mobilize the Republicans in a way that threatens November. This country is a much different place than 1992. It’s time for us to move forward, not go backwards.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  143. Robert Willett

    The Clintons were once great, but now out of style. Barack Obama is a young candidate who remembers neither Watergate nor Woodstock. Hillary has too many negatives and does not connect well with those who don't like her already. She draws no new voters into the fold–in part due to Bill's baggage. Time to Rock with Barack!!!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  144. Monis Ronald

    Peope are endorsing Obama because he is the future of the democratic party. We do not want to go back of the slash and burns of the 90s and gets nothing done. We need someone who will bring the country together and who has a vision and Obama has all the ingredients to make it happen. It's the fierce urgency of now, not ambition of having a family running a country. We love you Obama.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  145. Dariel

    BILLARY CLINTON would be difficult to negotiate with. If elected, there will be two powerful people calling the shots with twice the leverage from their respective supporters'.
    The fact that some voters may like Hillary, but not Bill, may well have pushed the borderline Hillary supporters towards Obama or elseware.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  146. Maria Houser Conzemius

    So many top Democrats have turned their backs on Sen. Hillary Clinton because they are sexist. Most of them are male, and Sen. Barack Obama is young, fit, vigorous, and reflects back to progressive white males the image that they would like to see in themselves. They are ready to look at their racism, but not at their sexism.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  147. Meg Taylor

    This is simply part of the Washington political game. The Clintons did not openly and/or consistantly support most these Democratic candidates when needed so now it's payback time. Sadly, most of the public will buy into the "support" game.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  148. Jesse from Kansas

    Simply put, the seasoned veterans within the Democratic Party see an incredibly inexperienced but malleable figurehead in Barack Obama - one with a message just inspirational and universal enough to win widespread support, but one without enough of a developed resume or stances on issues to stand on his own two feet. The likes of Kennedy and Kerry know that their so-called influence wouldn't find much traction in a Clinton Administration, so they've thrown their ultimately meaningless support behind Obama in hopes of becoming powerful voices in his administration.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  149. Noel

    in one sentence ' Obama is a new flame and a hope for new generation

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  150. Linda

    This is easy. Americans long for the days of civility, good manners, grace and polite society. The Clintons are very rough around the edges. We were all tired of the back-room, seedy, distasteful ugliness that seemed to go on during the Bill Clinton years. Why breathe life into it by electing HRC as president. The Clintons should just go quietly into the night and perhaps we can forgive them all that unpleasantness. We might forgive but heavens folks let's not forget.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  151. Colleen

    I was pro Hillary Clinton until I read the book "Audacity of Hope".

    I vote the person, not the gender, race or party. If I had not decided to support Senator Obama last spring, I would support him now.

    Bill Clinton is in a very precarious position. As a spouse he should stump for his wife; as a former president – he is being very unpresidential.

    His actions have implied that the presidency would be a co-presidency or he would be serving an unofficial 3rd term. Had he stayed out of the campaign, I believe that more people would have thought that she would actually be the president, if elected.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  152. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    I think the best two people to answer that question is the Clintons. But what we do know is that those powerful people who have endorsed Obama, have stated Obama is prepared, he has the necessary judgment, he has the ability to unify and energizes the American people, both young and old, he's brilliant, he is the change America needs.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  153. w

    The reason so many top Democrats are turning their backs on Hillary Clinton is because their male egos will not allow them to support a woman for president, and because they are jealous of her intelligence.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  154. Sarah Robinson

    Democrats are turning their backs on the Clintons, because they "know" Hillary Clinton can't beat the Republican candidates. It wasn't too long ago we had the "other" Clinton in office and along with no deficeit and a better economy, we also had a great deal of "scandal". Don't think for "one" minute, the Republicans aren't going to remind America, of this. Barack Obama has no baggage, he doesn't owe a bunch of favors to people and he's a Uniter. The choice is clear!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  155. Michael from Frederick MD


    The reason they claim is to maintain party unity, and that they are inspired by Obama's message. In truth; they have identified a winner, one who they think can win the general and one who can bring the party together. In short they all want a winner. This is what America is about; winning. It tells me more about those leaders than Obama or even the Clintons.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  156. Michael Saitta

    It's all about power. Power among some not very nice people. If Clinton wins the power of the presidency stays with her because her Washington roots are strong. If Obama wins, he has no strong Washington base therefore the people he is obligated to will extract their due. Already the rumor is Edwards as Attorney General if he throws his weight behind Obama. Imagine what kerry or Kennedy will demand? This whole thing about change is such a sham with a cast of characters like the above.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  157. Tom Nothern

    Because many powerful Democrats share the feelings of those of us who voted twice for Bill Clinton.... to us, the thought of Bill Clinton lurking in the White House is frightening.
    Tom, Thousand Oaks, CA

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  158. Paul H

    The strong support for the Clintons has come from a party that had not enjoyed much presidential success since FDR was re-elected to office. Clinton got my vote twice and seemed to be a much better choice than either the first Bush or Dole.

    We now have a choice between an inspiring person of obvious intelligence and an equally intelligent person who would return us to a time of rancor and sleaze. As positive economically as it was, the Clinton administration was hardly a period of uplifting moral clarity.

    We have had Bush 41 and 43. We do not need a Clinton 42 and 44.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  159. Chris

    The reason they are turning their backs on her is because they're afraid of "Big Bad Hillary." They know she is a powerful woman and they are scared of her. She will be one of the best Presidents ever and they will eat their words.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  160. Gene

    Two words: Clintons Fatigue.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  161. gus

    mr cafferty
    we already had 8 years of Clintons with bitter sweet expreince . we also already will have 20years of Bush family.
    So it is about time America welcome change for its good and welcome new candidate with fresh ideas. In the nutshell a new democrat face with fresh ideas
    will be better than what we had in last 7 years.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  162. P. B. Minton

    The media is making a big deal of the Kennedy endorsement, but this is the first positive notice of Ted K. they've every made. His reputation is of a super-liberal old guard wanna be who messed it up years ago. He probably thinks Obama will let him put his fingers in the pie and he knows Hillary has better sense. You media chauvinists don't want a woman in power and resent the rock star popularity of Bill Clinton. You have distorted everything they have tried to say so far but I bet you can't destroy them. Bill's words were taken out of context and Hillary's praise of Lyndon Johnson was not a slam at Dr. King – Johnson did a brave thing. He knew it would ruin the Democratic Party in the south but he did it anyway. He deserves the credit along with Dr. King but has received little.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  163. Rosemary Bishop

    Women of the World Unite.

    It is obvious that once again all the men are ganging up on the woman candidate.
    They use the excuse that Bill Clinton was "bad." He was no worse than McCann and Romney calling each other Liberals. In the debates John Edwards ganged up on Hilary until she won Massachusetts. Where are all the women who have had to fight an unequal playing field in the workplace? They should understand.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  164. Laura

    Because she's a woman. They know they can contain and control Obama, but nobody can shut down an "uppity" woman.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  165. Bruce Marshall

    Jack so many powerful Democratic leaders are turning their backs on Hillary Clinton because they like most of us in the United States are sick of what 20 plus years of Bush's and Clinton's and it is time for a fresh new start and let's hope if he gets in he can do something about the dead wood in Washington. I think people see something in Obama ( hope )

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  166. Douglas from TX

    Hillary is a schemer. She is trying to use the power her husband once had within the party as leverage for her campaign and it is backfiring. Obama is the real voice for change and will make a much better president.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  167. Jerry Harrison

    Jack after TWO DECADES of Bush-Clinton-Bush isn't it time to make a change. I worked on Bobby Kennedy's campaign, (purchased the tv and radio advertising) when he ran for the Senate and Bobby would often tell me ...'Tis not to late to seek a newer world' (Tennyson)...that was (1966) Forty one years ago.

    The baby boomer generation is running out 'of decades to wait. Waiting for some sense in health care, SS, medicine...this is not asking too much from our elected politicians and the few that are enlightened are indeed...starting to see the light.
    Jerry Harrison

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  168. Mona


    The politicians who are coming out in support are all well-established in their own right. They don't have to worry about the wrath of the machine. Once Obama gets the nomination–they'll all jump on.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  169. Jules

    I disagree, Clinton was President, now his wife is leading the Polls. Bill was great in South Carolina deflecting the loss on him than Hillary, even CNN reported that they were thinking of Skipping South Carolina. Bill hasn't said anything that would affect his legacy. Hillary is protected under the President's armor and they know it...

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  170. Janice

    Because men AND women cannot abide a brilliant, accomplished successful woman who can run rings around all of them - including the so-called inquisitors in the media.

    Also, yes Jack as you say, the Democratic establishment never really did like a governor from Arkansas and they are exacting their revenge. As usual, it is the woman - and our country - who pay the price.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  171. Jim Blevins

    I don't really think that most people are turning their backs on Clinton, Ted Kennedy was very complimentary of her. For me, the root of the problem is Bush - he has so sullied the image of America that a whole new America is needed. Actually, a return to the American ideals of the 60's. It is more important that America stand for good than anything else - Obama is new and fresh and represents that. One of America's ideals that is seldom mentioned anymore - "Give me liberty or give me death".

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  172. Richard Jarzynka

    Obama operatives have stealthily spread the rumor that Bill may not be entirely trustworthy.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  173. Joe Alewine

    It's important to remember that the Clintons bucked the established Democratic playbook on their way to the White House. And while that playbook was successful in getting them elected, it fractured the Democratic party and resulted in the subsequent control of the government by the Republicans. It's not hard to imagine Democrats holding a grudge on the Clintons for mucking things up so badly and wanting to ensure that doesn't happen again.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  174. Nick M

    Initially Clinton was the default candidate but,has more voters learn more about Obama they see him as the fresh air.They do not want to go back to a malodorous Clinton White House.If she gets the nomination she get trashed !

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  175. Philip from Boston

    The most likely reason negative is that the South Carolina campaign reminded Democratic leaders that if anything can re-energize the moribund Republican field, it is the prospect of a Clintonian dual presidency.

    The most likely positive reason is the possibility that Obama may indeed be starting to "ride a wave" of change: change away from the disastrous Bush presidency, change away (apparently) from politics as usual.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  176. Rob

    Jack, Hillary Clinton is just too divisive and no one understands that better than the Democratic leaders who have worked with her. It's interesting to see that someone who is supposed to such such a well organized political network is fast losing the support of the leaders of her own party.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  177. Phil E.

    Its obvious why Democratic leaders are endorsing Obama. They look to the national election and see that Obama vs. any republican candidate is a sure thing on the other hand Hillary vs. any other republican is anything but that because Hillary is a polarizing figure in our country not a uniter like Obama. People either hate her or love her. How many people do you know have strong feelings against Obama? There it is. If Obama is beaten by Hillary in the primaries many of the Obama supporters will either turn to Bloomberg who mark my word will run if Hillary is nominated or God forbid McCain/Romney. Which will all mean a victory for the the rule with Fear Republicans.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  178. Karen

    Frankly, I think the whole bit is ridiculous. First of all, the Democratic establishment, i.e. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the like have been in congress FOREVER. If they see Obama as the CHANGE candidate then they should recognize his first move would and should be to quash them. Are these not the same people who have been part of the problem for ALL of this time? As to why they have turned against Hillary in support of Barak, who knows and who cares. What America needs to see are candidates who come forward with solid solutions instead of inspirational messages that only identify the problem.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  179. Devin

    Jack, it's just like Iowa. When people get to know Obama, and realize he can win there’s is really no other rational decision than supporting him.

    Of course, that’s also the problem. Too few people know Barack Obama right now.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  180. Kate Hutson

    Because the Clintons represent business as usual in Washington, and thinking Democrats are tired of getting the business from Bill.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  181. charlotte v

    for one not ALL of the top democrats are turning their backs against Hillary; but the fact that some are is a reflection of her willingness to change the status quo and Obama is young and palpable. The power brokers want someone that they can control and we all know that Hillary listens to the people, her record speaks for that.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  182. Pat

    One minute you see Hillary in ANGRY mode, the next with the teary eyes and the inability to shut her husband up.... being a menopausal woman myself .... this is NOT what I want to see in the White House! So many people are turned off by their campaign tactics and the drama they pose. As I listen to Bill Clinton he keeps talking about all he's done. Is HE running for president as a duo with his wife? Is she not strong enough to do things on her own? Is she running on her HUSBAND's experience? Hillary comes off as a cold person and when she does warm up to people it's for a photo op.

    Along with many many thousands of other Democrats – if the Clinton's win the Democrat nomination then we'll all switch to being republicans. The Clinton's had their day. We don't want that kind of drama or politics back in the White House again. Time for hope and for moving forward and a desperate time for Change!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  183. Dexter Hendrix

    It is interesting that many top Democrats and top Republicans are backing Obama.

    Democrats are backig him because he is eloquent and shares, like Teddy Kennedy, a more "left of the middle" position on most campaign issues. Democrats know Hillary will drive results, which is more centrist, Obama will drive "Why can't we just all get along?"...which, being inexperienced, will make him easy to manage.

    The Repubicans? They believe the only shot at winning the presidency is going against Obama, not because of race, but because I would rather vote Republican than have a "talker" in office in the middle of a war. Aren't we almost finished with a president that came in with zip experience?

    Let Obama get some grey hair and he'll have my vote.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  184. Steve M

    Many of the Dem leadership (specifically Leahy, Kennedy) are breaking to Obama quite simply because they have seen his numbers which are very clear – gaining independents and republicans and they know he has the best shot at increasing the Dem party numbers- in the 80's it was the Reagan Democrats. In 2009-2012 it will be the Obama Republicans. Hillary has 50-55% of the US electorate who will never vote for her no matter what. That doesn't bode well in the general or for getting any substantial legislation passed.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  185. Elie H.

    Jack, I'm 20 years old and I went to American University and waited countless hours in a mile long line to watch the Kennedy endorsement. I didn't do it because I had to, I did it because of his message of hope and writing a new chapter in our history is that powerful. I finally found a reason to vote! If that's not a reason to endorse Obama then I don't know what is.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  186. CARL

    Obama cannot win. America will not vote him in. Hillary has the best chance of winning.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  187. Michelle

    The reason the good ole established democrats are turning their backs on the Clintons is because they have NEVER been on the side of the Clintons. Even after all this time, they are still upset that an upstart from a small town in Arkansas enjoys so much more public support than they ever will.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  188. Stanley in Little Rock, AR

    Are you suprised at that? It is obvious that they are passing the message to Bill that the days of aggressive and party-opponent attacking campaign strategies just won't cut it this time. It may have helped him when he campaigned as a governor in Arkansas and then president.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  189. theresa

    I believe all the powercrats are jocking for power and position. They are like sharks, they can smell for miles.They want to be in a cabinet position or have a voice. Obama is easy pickings and Hillary is a little harder to sway, she is of deeper convictions. He's a newbie, she's been there.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  190. Mrs. Noel M. Edwards-Brown

    Actually, I have always considered myself a Kennedy Democrat (Bobby that is). I was a strong Clinton supporter but frankly Bill's recent attitude and attacks on Obama scared the heck out of me. I think the Clintons method of campaigning was shameful and undemocratic. As a woman, I wanted to see Hillary Clinton stand completely on her own.... and SHE DID NOT!

    So today I voted for Barack Obama in the "It Doesn't Count" Florida Primary because Caroline, Ted, and Patrick Kennedy and John Kerry endorsed him made me more confident in my vote.


    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  191. Justin

    It should be obvious, you're dealing with the "Old Boys Club". It doesn't make any difference whether they're DEM"s or REP"S, they don't want to share power and women are in the MAJORITY!

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  192. janet

    Jack –

    Who cares what the old Washington Democratic establishment like Ted Kennedy and others think about Hillary and her campaign. That's what's wrong now they've been in charge too long and Obama, if elected, will become beholden to all of them. I also think there's a bit of "male chavenism" surfacing with Obama as well as the old geezers in Congress. They can't stand to see a female get elected as president.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  193. Shey from Ohio

    As I’ve stated previously, the Clinton’s true nature is now becoming more evident, not only to the general populace of America, but also to the Republican and Democratic parties respectively. No one should be surprised by anyone turning away from the Clintons…who would support such overtly racial and personal attacks on anyone in our nations capital from someone inside our nations capital?

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  194. E. Pardini


    The endorsements for Obama are more a result, I believe, of the power of Obama's message, the manner in which he delivers his message, and his focus on connecting with our higher consciousness. Obama is a supreme communicator. He is gifted. It is difficult to take your eyes off of him when he speaks. Every time he faces the American people to deliver a message, it is a blessed event. The powers that be in our government are coming around to the fact that someone like Obama is rare and doesn't come around very often.

    E. Pardini

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  195. Katie from SC

    I do not really understand why top democrats are endorcing Obama. I think maybe they would like to see a fresh new face in office, or they do not like that Bill Clinton supposively "crossed the line". But why does it matter anyway? Yes, they are top democrats, but their opinion does not matter to me. These people do not know who could run our country more than we do. I am going to vote for who I think would be the best president, not who Ted Kennedy endorced.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  196. Marisa Souza

    Powerful democratic leaders can turn their backs on Hillary Clinton and endorse Barack Obama until the cows come home but let's not forget that a lot of those endorsements are just a bunch of hooey to the average American voter. Those of us who support Hillary Clinton are in it for the long haul because we believe in her and her message. We couldn't care less whether Edward Kennedy, Scarlett Johanson, or Bugs Bunny endorses Obama. Come February 5th, when millions upon millions of us cast our votes for Hillary, I'm certain we'lls see that all this Obama-endorsement hype was just that: hype.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  197. Sue


    The liberal establishment has backed losing candidates for 27 years. The only
    successful democratic candidate during that time was Bill Clinton. See a pattern here? If that group takes over the party again, we will have the same string of losing candidates. The country as a whole is more in tune with Bill Clinton's way of governing (moderate with some brains). My suspicion is the old crowd thinks Obama will have the deer in headlights problem and he will have to depend on them. to come to the rescue. Hillary Clinton will go against the grain on some issues and that is as it should be.


    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  198. Barbara Certo

    I feel as though many powerful Democrats are turning their backs on Hillary and endorsing Obama because he is the new guy on the block. He can probably be manipulated more easily and led in the direction these powerful Democrats prefer he go.

    Bill Clinton has only had a derogatory impact on the media, not on anyone with intelligence. He has every right to campaign for his wife. It's quite apparent there are many people who want him to quit his campaigning. O'Bama's whining is not a very professional response for someone who's wanting to become the leader of the United States.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  199. Mike

    The liberal establishment is turning away from Billary out of both disgust and despair.

    Disgust because of the transparent attempts of Bill to inject race into the campaign and marginalize Obama as the "black candidate." Its shockingly slimy.

    Despair, because the "coronation" of Hillary is not happening, and the once beloved Clintons are increasingly looking like tawdry relics from the past, grasping at power, a little sad and worst of all, very beatable.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  200. Chris

    The answer is simple. Bill is not running for President, Hillary is. He needs to back off and let 'her' run. Also the Dems aren't stupid. Most of them know that Hillary is too divisive a figure to win a general election. The same can't be said of Obama. He inspires people, Hillary doesn't. Everything she does is calculated. She is not genuine at all.
    Chris B.
    Newtown, PA

    January 29, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  201. Cheryl

    Jack, Bill Clinton pulled the wool over peoples eyes for a long time (especially black people) he can not fathom a black man winning over his wife. He's showing that when /if everything is equal, he will play the race card. In other words, he'll do anything to win. Make no mistake, if she wins, he'll be running the country once again.


    A former Clinton supporter.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  202. Dorothy Gilmer

    Only the media would blame BILL Clinton for this. It's about Obama, of course. People are turning to him because they like HIM, not because Bill Clinton is campaigning for his wife. What a stupid conclusion–but then, that's the media.

    January 29, 2008 at 4:21 pm |