Democrats: Major Endorsements Yet To Be Won

"Sen. Ted Kennedy -- an endorsement that matters in Iowa and New Hampshire for Dems."

I'd guess the chances of Kennedy going with Senator Clinton have to be close to 100%, unless he declines to endorse anyone at all.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 11:42 AM

On the October 14,2007 edition of the Chris Matthews Show, New York magazine feature writer John Heileman made this claim:

Mr. HEILEMANN: A guy I spent a lot of time with last year, Al Gore, before his movie came out and right on the cusp of it, just won the Nobel Prize. And there's going to be a lot of people who are going to want to get him into this race. There always have been. It is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. And he is going to endorse Barack Obama.
MATTHEWS: When?

Mr. HEILEMANN: Six weeks.

Whoa! Hold the presses. Is it true? Is Heileman correct?

P.S. Here's a link to the transcript: http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/transcript/index.php

Posted by Cinderella Ferret | November 1, 2007 11:50 AM

The Iowa UAW definitely does NOT have 85,000 members. If you count retirees, it is around 30,000.

Posted by Anonymous | November 1, 2007 11:53 AM

Pelosi -- don't be surprised to see this one combined with every democratic female member of the senate and several female governors as part of a super-feminist endorsement for HRC.

MoveOn -- could engineer a late infusion of cash for Edwards or Obama.

Jimmy Carter -- good for a nice late momentum-building earned-media hit

Jim Clyburn -- a much-overrated endorsement, but one the media pays attention to in order to get a read on subterranean buzz in South Carolina

Carol Shea-Porter -- a much-underrated endorsement in New Hampshire. She commands one of the few influential grassroots networks in NH independent of the Shaheen Machine.

Posted by dry_fish | November 1, 2007 12:29 PM

Good additions, dry_fish. But I'd say Pelosi and Clyburn probably won't endorse until after IA and NH play out. Probably the same for Carter.

Shea-Porter would be a helluva get for anyone. I'd take her over Shaheen any day of the week.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 12:38 PM

Shaheen and Tom Harkin are "virtually" taken (spouses are both on-board w/Clinton). I'd 2nd the Clyburn mention too.

CSP is pledging to stay neutral and has a helluva grassroots operation, but even so, her endorsement would still come 2nd to NH Governor John Lynch (reelected w/74% of the vote last year). Don't underestimate how important his popularity was in turning NH blue in 2006. Most Granite Staters doubt he will endorse, but if he did it would alter the NH political landscape.

I'd also add (1) Sen. Patrick Leahy - beloved by civil libertarians, attorneys and NH Upper Valley Dems, and (2) Sen. Russ Feingold - a progressive midwestern populuar with IA & NH Dems.

Posted by KG | November 1, 2007 12:59 PM

FWIW, I think that outside of the NH specific figures named above, a lot of the crucial endorsement action is going to take place after NH.

If a non-Clinton candidate can humble her in IA and/or NH, that could open up the floodgates for folks who don't want to stand with Clinton, but who also don't want to oppose her if she's inevitable.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 1:03 PM

"Shaheen and Tom Harkin are "virtually" taken (spouses are both on-board w/Clinton)."

How long has this kind of weird spousal endorsement to preserve plausible deniability been around?

Did Tom and Christie Vilsack invent the idea, or does it go further back than that?

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 1:06 PM

You're probably right about Clyburn (and Carter). Clyburn has the luxury of waiting until the media shifts its attention to South Carolina, and one reason Carter is such a Gore-ite is that he doesn't think much of the current Democratic field (especially Hillary Clinton).

With Pelosi, I figure that a combination of sufficient pressure from the Clinton Camp (who'll be worried about the inadvertent conspicuousness of a non-endorsement from the first woman Speaker of the House), the heavy Beltway CW that Clinton has the nomination locked-up, and her past looseness with endorsements (Murtha, Gephardt), will squeeze an endorsement from her.

Posted by dry_fish | November 1, 2007 1:08 PM

I generally agree with your rankings, but would put Ted Kennedy further down on the list. I don't think he has the kind of sway over democratic voters he once did. Russ Feingold was a good addition above, but I seriously doubt whether endorsements matter that much.

Posted by Ryan | November 1, 2007 1:10 PM

"one reason Carter is such a Gore-ite is that he doesn't think much of the current Democratic field (especially Hillary Clinton)."

As an Edwards partisan, my fantasy is that after Edwards wins IA and/or NH, Gore and Carter seize the moment of Clinton non-inevitability to jointly endorse Edwards.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 1:12 PM

Good catches on Lynch, Culver, and Feingold. Culver has strong staff-level connections to Edwards, and Feingold has indications of leaning toward Obama. Any idea on Lynch's direction?

Posted by dry_fish | November 1, 2007 1:14 PM

"I generally agree with your rankings, but would put Ted Kennedy further down on the list. I don't think he has the kind of sway over democratic voters he once did."

I don't think Kerry would've won in '04 without him.

That said, Kennedy would be of far less use to Clinton in '08 than he was to Kerry in '04.

Getting more establishment vouchers doesn't really help Clinton at this point. Democratic voters already understand she's the preferred candidate of the Beltway.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 1:15 PM

I'd also have Kennedy ahead of Kerry - in fact, I'd have both Feingold and Leahy ahead of him - he's to Dems what Larry Craig is to the GOP (i.e., "just stay away"). Culver, Lynch and Clyburn seem to be the "glaring" omissions, assuming one puts a premium on endorsements.

Lynch and Richardson are friends. His inner-circle from past campaigns is pretty evenly split between Clinton and Obama. He's so non-partisan that, like Culver, I expect he won't endorse ... if he did, however, he and Culver would be 2(a) and 2(b) on Ambers list, just ahead of Kennedy and Clyburn (also omitted).

Posted by KG | November 1, 2007 1:32 PM

I'm an Iowa Democrat, and while Culver and Harkin have both said they won't endorse, one never knows for sure.

But, other than those mentioned in the post, here is my sense of endorsements that could move votes here:

The Des Moines Register -- Their endorsement usually has a major influence on late momentum on the Democratic side.

Lt. Gov. Patty Judge -- The extremely charismatic lieutenant governor is the best campaigner in the state.

Rep. Dave Loebsack -- Very much a Mr. Clean whose endorsement would be seen as coming from conviction rather than (like Vilsack's) calculation.

Mark Warner -- Warner was gaining some major traction among insiders before he ended his campaign, and if he endorsed, his perspective, as a southerner seeking a Senate seat, would be taken seriously regarding electability.

Posted by John Z. | November 1, 2007 1:46 PM

Culinary (UNITE-HERE 226) is mostly done with contract negotiations but there is likely to be a strike against the lone holdout, Tropicana. It has said it will make its own endorsement in December, meaning after contract negotiations were done, but there's some talk locally that it'll be sooner. Its important to note that of the 60,000 members only about 1/3 are registered Democrats. Also, important to remember that if Culinary doesn't follow the national UNITE-HERE endorsement, the Reno local of the same union could go a different direction, too.

The other one you missed is Nevada SEIU.

Posted by Gus | November 1, 2007 2:11 PM

Colin Powell?

Posted by JC | November 1, 2007 3:39 PM

Jim Webb: He would be tremendous asset for Obama among conservative Democrat and Independent Republican Leaning White men in New Hampshire.

Posted by Dawn Deskins | November 1, 2007 5:00 PM

Cobert?

Seriously: whoever can claim the mantle as the leader in African-American community in South Carolina. This represents a plurarity, or at least a decisive minority, of South Carolina Democratic primary voters, and may carry over to future primaries if the race is still close after SC.

Posted by Kenny | November 1, 2007 10:04 PM

Oh, I guess my point was already made with the Clyburn postings above

Posted by Kenny | November 1, 2007 10:06 PM

John Z - interesting comments from an Iowan about Mark Warner.

There's some speculation Warner has been with Obama since he announced his own non-candidacy. Obama made an early stop to Virginia after his Illinois announcement, and publicly met with the Warner and the current governor. From the account I read, Obama kind of hinted that he only got into the race when Warner dropped.

Warner didn't formally endorse then or since - like the governor has - but he hasn't done anything to stop the occassional media speculation that he's an Obama guy, either.

Posted by Paul | November 1, 2007 11:57 PM

i don't know where you get that HRC has a shot at the region 4 endorsement. it's down to obama and edwards, and the region 4 HQ is in IL.

Posted by joe | November 2, 2007 12:15 AM

SEIU Local 1107 in Nevada has not endorsed yet.

Posted by Tailspinterry | November 2, 2007 5:02 PM

I understand that you are very busy working on a mountain of issues that are important to you and your primary constituency in Massachusetts, and I cannot expect that this letter will reach you directly. But I hope that whoever may read this letter on your behalf will convey to you it’s primary request and a synopsis of my motivation for sending it at this time.

Before making my request, I would like to thank you for all the work you've done for our country over the last 30 years. 　In recent times, you've been one of the only prominent voices that consistently speak up for the rights and dignity of the average American. I support you and all the work you’ve done over the years.

But even though you are very busy, I would like to add one more item to the list of things you are currently working on that I think can be of great importance to citizens of the United States, as well as to citizens of other countries around the world. I don’t know if your office may have received similar requests already, but I am sure I am not the only American hoping for your help on this one.

I would like ask you on behalf of all progressively minded Americans, and myself, to support and publicly endorse Senator Obama’s candidacy for Presidency of the United States. If you may agree, I hope you do it soon- because I feel we may be running out of time.

I strongly believe, as do others, that we are now at a crucial junction in our country’s history. On one side, we have a chance to move forward in terms of unity, cooperation and mutual respect. On the other, we have the chance to continue on the same divisive, and recently imperialistic, path that has left us uncomfortably close to a state of moral bankruptcy. It is my sincere belief that Sen. Obama is the candidate best suited to help us navigate the challenges that lie ahead and move the country forward- in a positive direction.

It is without doubt that we have not had a President that could effectively bring the country together since the presidency of your late brother, John F. Kennedy. In these times of war and uncertainty, I think it is also worth remembering that during the Cuban Missile Crisis there were a number of voices in then President Kennedy’s cabinet that pushed for a war which could have easily led to the end of civilization, at least as we know it. Fortunately one　not so “deeply experienced” man with the right combination of reason, common sense, and sufficient independence of character, lead us away from the brink of war and potential Armageddon. Of course I hope we do not find ourselves in a dilemma of similar gravity during the term of the next President, but if we do, I feel Sen. Obama has the character, if not experience, to help carry us through.

It has been said that your support was instrumental in helping Sen. Kerry to win Iowa and eventually the democratic nomination in 2004. Alas, Senator Kerry did not win the election. Right now we are heading for a situation in which Sen. Clinton wins the democratic nomination but miraculously loses the presidency. This, in my opinion, would be a great tragedy.

For the sake the country and millions of Americans who are at the moment without voice, but not without hope, would you please endorse Barrack Obama for President, thank you.

Sincerely Yours

Godfrey Alleyne

Posted by Godfrey Alleyne | November 27, 2007 12:09 PM

Dear Senator Kennedy,