I don't really care about Jeff Merkley's political odyssey of Presidential preference.

As a diehard Edwards supporter, I'm struggling more with my own path right now.

I am not at all surprised by Steve's choice. I can't join him there yet, though. I am working on it.

that assessment of the two candidates is very close to how I view them, and why I choose Obama as well. I think there is the value of transcendance in his campaign. In Wisconsin he urges folks to remember that the president is not a miracle worker or a wizard, working alone and achieving merely by presence. He's right of course; we get the government we settle for, if not the one we demand. Obama's candidacy is fomenting the involvement and engagement with the process tahr can make hat happen.

Good choice, Steve. And I was going to compliment the BlueO editors for Timely posting, but...

Stephanie, I hope you take your time making your choice, but you must choose wisely, for while the true Grail will bring you life, the false Grail will take it from you....it sounds like I've heard that advice from someone before

I'm not even sure I understand Brian's statement above about Jeff Merkley - but he was the chair of the Oregon for Edwards committee.

I, too, was an Edwards supporter, although kind of in the "wait and see" camp. However, knowing that Edwards needed Iowa to keep trucking, Senator Obama had me convinced on January 3rd. He proved that he can truly unite the country and mobilize multitudes of first-time voters.

Hey Betty , about empty rhetoric: In Andrew Simon's post on 2/17 "New Rasmussen Poll..." http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/new-rasmussen-r.html read Tracy Phillips' comments about HRC & BHO's Seante performance & voting records. This was the clincher for me.

The "experience" sword cuts multiple ways. For example, the Shrub didn't have much experience in foreign policy either. Yet he managed to make a complete clusterfuck of America's foreign policy.

I agree with Ignatius in that actual direct experience is often over-rated, frequently vastly so. Much, much more important, in my view, is a track record of well-reasoned conclussions in response to new information. An example would be Obama's near-prophetic analysis of what would result if the Shrub went ahead with his then-proposed Iraq War.

IMHO the situation with a legislature is fundamentally different from a presidency. I think it something less than coincidence that legislators rarily get elected President, while their Gubernatorial peers much more often do get elected Prez. Very different skill sets are required and in a legislature direct experience functioning within a legislature can be very valuable.

the reason congresspeople are rarely made President is generally attributed to their record of votes, which offer all manner of opportunity for distortion and framing.

I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe that he has the self-confidence to base his Presidency on hope, rather than fear.

Ironic...

And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I'd rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

What a tepid endorsement. Particularly when compared to how glowingly he spoke of Hillary...

Rarely have I read anything so impressive about an American politician. I felt completely at home with that Hillary Clinton. She's read the same history I have. (Since she's a bit older than I am, she directly experienced more of it too.) She's come to the same conclusions. She knows this stuff. She could be a great President.

I know the press release says that he's endorsing Obama, but his words say otherwise.

Hillary is "impressive."

Obama might end in "disappointment."

Hillary "would make a great president."

Obama might end in "disappointment."

He felt "completely at home with that Hillary Clinton."

Obama might end up in "disappointment."

Oh wait... I get it now. Novick's trying to be on both sides of the issue.

Gee, don't we already have a Senator who tries to be on both sides of an issue?

kev, you and Kari gotta stop skimming and start reading. Steve's point is that contrary to the CW, it's really Clinton who's all talk. What she says is what Steve likes; it's what she'll do that he's worried about. Plain hope doesn't get the job done by itself...but we know fear doesn't, and that's what Hillary's been peddling.

At least Merkley had a positive reason for endorsing Obama. Novick endorsed the person he thinks understands the problems we face the least, supports bad health care, and is going to disappoint him. I don't know about you but I only endorse candidates I believe in and usually I don't hit them in the face with a frying pan first. I mean he repeats all the bogus Clinton attacks on Obama from health care to Reagan. With friends like these who needs enemies?

Steve's point is that contrary to the CW, it's really Clinton who's all talk. What she says is what Steve likes; it's what she'll do that he's worried about.

So you're saying that when Steve Novick said "She could be a great President" he meant to say that she's all talk?

And you seriously think that's a believable explanation?

Really?

I mean he repeats all the bogus Clinton attacks on Obama from health care to Reagan. With friends like these who needs enemies?

Exactly.

It's like Steve was making an anti-endorsement of Obama. Otherwise why would he have praised Hillary and denigrated Obama?

I'm sorry but it just feels like he's trying to be on both sides at the same time. If Hillary wins then he can point to his high praise of her and his denigration of Obama. If Obama wins then he can point to the bare technicality that he'd "endorsed" him while the race was still up for grabs and hope nobody remembers any of the details.

Haven't we had our fill of politicians who hedge their bets so that no matter what happens they've got plausible deniability to fall back on?

Kevin: I was surprised by this comment as well:

And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I'd rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

Wait a minute, isn't disappointment the same whether it's by new or old ways? I just didn't get that. It wasn't a glowing endorsement IMO.

I will admit, I would have a really hard time writing an endorsement piece. I am still not sold on either Obama or Hillary, and will refrain from endorsing anyone until I've firmly made my decision.

Count me in as another (former?) Edwards supporter who is still on the fence. I go back and forth between the two of them, Clinton and Obama, and just when I think that I've chosen one, they do something that sours me to them. I'm getting close to being resigned to being hopelessly undecided between them.

I'll support whichever one wins the nomination, the phrase "President McCain" sends shivers down my spine and quite literally jolted me out of a dream I had one night. Either one would be an improvement over the disaster of a "leader" we've had for the last 7 years, and McCain would just me more of the same.

no Sarah, there are always variations in how emotion plays on our lives. is every happiness you've experienced the same? i feel quite different depending on if i'm happy to find a bathroom (at last) or i see one of my sons again (at last).

you miss the point of Steve's wordplay. we know what we'll get with Hillary; that is much of her appeal, after all. with Obama, we know we won't get that, and we know we'll get an attempt to do a different type of politics -- his appeal. what will that mean? what will the results be? will the world be saved, or will new disasters strike that simply overwhelm? or will too many politicians and too many citizens cling to old ways and stop this opportunity for progress?

if we reach the end of 4 (or 8) years of an Obama presidency and look back in disappointment, it won't be the same disappointment we suffered under Bill, and surely not the same we'd suffer (possibly) under Hillary. if nothing else, if there is disappointment at the end of his presidency (and it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen, but that's another story), it will be the disappointment that comes from trying a new way to do politics and not that of 90s-era politics.

(and i'm sure both Obama and Hillary will find a way to persevere until you declare....jk)

I almost forgot to pass this along...

Where my family lives in Texas they've had Saturday and Sunday early voting because of the high turnout (there has been long lines at my home town's voting location, which typically only happens sometimes on Election Day itself).

So yesterday my family filled the car and headed to the county building to vote. My nephew, who is 5, got all excited when he heard they were going to vote. He yelled loud and proud: "I'm voting for Barack Obama!"

The entire time they were there, he was telling everyone he was voting today (mom explained to him ahead of time that they could get in trouble if he talked about who he wanted to vote for while they were there).

He got disappointed when he didn't get a sheet showing him he voted. Although he was excited about helping the family learn how to use the voting machines (my parents weren't too comfortable asking a Republican how to vote on the machines).

I just thought it was so cute that my nephew was running around saying he was voting for Obama. It's not like he got that from the house - everyone there are Hillary supporters.

It's great to see little kids so excited about voting. When my parents started voting in the early 90s, they took us with them, and they continue that now with my nieces and nephews. And Abby always watches us vote our ballots. Nothing like getting kids excited about candidates and voting early so they'll want to vote when they're 18.

if we reach the end of 4 (or 8) years of an Obama presidency and look back in disappointment, it won't be the same disappointment we suffered under Bill, and surely not the same we'd suffer (possibly) under Hillary. if nothing else, if there is disappointment at the end of his presidency (and it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen, but that's another story), it will be the disappointment that comes from trying a new way to do politics and not that of 90s-era politics.

I can sum up how the disappointment is qualitatively different, with an old saying:

"Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved before."

Or perhaps the Maryland Lotto: You Gotta Play to Win.

Oh, and for you stalwart Merkley defending regulars (you know who you are)--you DO realize your argument boils down to "Steve endorsed Barack, but Jeff endorses him more!", right? Especially given its followup nature to Novick's endorsement, it sounds remarkably like one-upmanship on the level of "infinity plus one."

it sounds remarkably like one-upmanship on the level of "infinity plus one."

I'll turn the vote up to eleven!

Bitch is the new black! I loved it. It was hilarious. And no, I still haven't made up my mind.

Bitch is the new black! I loved it. It was hilarious.

I don't know. As a humor piece it seemed a mite tepid. Certainly not as sarcastic as this A. Whitney Brown "Weekend Update" commentary from 1986. And Fey sort of had to skirt the whole Iraq war vote thing as a reason at least some people don't support Clinton(s). Two heads may be better than one, but not if they're competent at doing the wrong things.

Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 25, 2008 11:24:39 PM Oh, and for you stalwart Merkley defending regulars (you know who you are)--you DO realize your argument boils down to "Steve endorsed Barack, but Jeff endorses him more!", right?

You mean like how you keep saying that Merkley is progressive but Novick is more progressive?

Were you born without the capacity to understand irony?

Jeff endorsed Obama. Period. Steve sent out an endorsement of somebody and then, unlike Jeff, proceeded to pump it everywhere he could.

"You mean like how you keep saying that Merkley is progressive but Novick is more progressive?"

No--given that you CAN actually be more progressive than another candidate. But you can't endorse -more- than someone else; you either are endorsing, or you're not. Both men are endorsing Barack Obama for President, the Merkley campaign's witless attempts to claim otherwise notwithstanding.

One endorsed Obama in no uncertain terms and the other did his best to cover his bets so that no matter who wins the nomination he can point back to either high praise for Hillary or an Obama endorsement, even if the endorsement appears to be nothing more than a technicality. A classic example of the very long political tradition of "plausible deniability." And of course if Ralph Nader somehow pulls off the impossible, Steve can point back to both a prior statement in support of Nader AND a wishy-washy faux endorsement as evidence that he was behind Nader all along.

Isn't Gordo known for trying to play all sides of an issue too?

Just not working for you, Kev. Take a nap until the next witless dispatch from Merkley oppo research gets faxed to you...