Casey's Endorsement Of Obama

Sen. Bob Casey's endorsement of Barack Obama is obviously a shock to Sen. Clinton's campaign. (I'd note that Obama has picked up a total of three superdelegates since last week, to Clinton's zero).

Casey is a freshman Senator; his father, former governor Bob Casey Sr., was so popular among white working class Dems that pundits have named an entire class of voters in his honor: the Casey Democrats who live in the inner suburbs of Pennsylvania's cities, who are wary of liberal social views but very sensitive to economic conditions.

Obama begins a six-day bus tour in Pittsburgh today.

Comments

Does this mean that Richardson will no longer be Judas as a better candidate has emerged?

Or do Hillbilly need a new label?

Posted by D | March 28, 2008 9:50 AM

Maybe Bill shouldn't have banned Pappa Casey from speaking at the '92 convention because of his pro-life views. Ouch.

Posted by NHCt | March 28, 2008 9:54 AM

Naw.... Pappa Casey was banned because he is pro life, liberty and happiness.

Posted by D | March 28, 2008 9:56 AM

This isn't a shock to the Clintons at all.

There's no love lost between the Casey family and the Clintons as well as Ed Rendell.

Posted by JoeCHI | March 28, 2008 9:57 AM

Given Leahy's comments this morning, it's clear we should be bracing for a flood. Expect a few more senators to follow Leahy's lead today or over the weekend.

Posted by Bill | March 28, 2008 10:00 AM

I hear the rumble of snow coming down the mountain! Watch out, Biden is next!

Posted by phily dog | March 28, 2008 10:00 AM

YAY!!!!

Posted by Kristen | March 28, 2008 10:09 AM

the bus is leaving the terminal --

onto November

Posted by alison | March 28, 2008 10:11 AM

If it's within 10 points in Penn, Hillary will get extraordinary pressure to drop out. She needs that state by 20 to make this possible.

Thank you Bob Casey, you may have just saved us the November election.

Posted by Chris | March 28, 2008 10:14 AM

Senator Leahy: Clinton “Ought to Withdraw and She Ought to Be Backing Senator Obama."

This is quickly snowballing to an end. The party is turning against her.

Posted by Jack | March 28, 2008 10:16 AM

OT, but in the past few days I've found jokes about "sniper fire" to be pretty effective in neutralizing Clinton supporters. It works like a champ.

Posted by Jake | March 28, 2008 10:18 AM

If the tables were turned, Hillbilly would let OBammBamm ride with her on her bus as VP candidate.... as long as he rides in the back of the bus.

Posted by D | March 28, 2008 10:20 AM

With the numbers the way they are, and the MI and FL situations, Obama is so in the driver's seat it's not even funny. We know this, but let's remember it, and repeat it. Please. Before the Clintons embarrass themselves, the Party, or Obama even more than they've already done.

Anyone noticed how Obama's not panicking about PA (down 15), NC (where HRC might "keep it close"), or IN (probably leans HRC & is Bayh country)? Why? Well, no matter what happens in those states - even if HRC wins all three, which is unlikely - she will not overtake him in three areas, that we all know about:

1) Pledged Delegates
2) States Won
3) Popular Vote

Folks, all Obama has to do is hang onto these 3 leads and keep adding Supers here and there. Honestly, that's all he has to do, and it's almost going to do itself. We all know this, but it's helpful to keep thinking and talking about it, before Bill Clinton tricks everyone into believing otherwise.

And speaking of the Clintons, what do they have to do to sew up the nomination? Well, they need to start by blowing out Obama in PA and treating it like it's Iowa. They're hyping it enough, but with the bus tour with Casey and his Hardball appearance on Wed., I'm guessing Obama will close the gap a little in PA. Even if he doesn't, though, HRC still needs convincing wins FROM HERE ON OUT to even make the case to Supers that Obama should not have the nomination IN SPITE OF the three leads I mentioned above. Now, running the table in convincing fashion is practically impossible for HRC. Short of some kind of photo of Obama doing coke off of a burning American Flag in a Madrassa with Jeremiah Wright, this is not going to happen.

But EVEN IF she did find a way to really trounce Obama from here on out, she would STILL have to convince Supers (politicians and those who think like them) to overturn the 3 Obama wins listed above, and alienate the "Obama coalition" (Starbucks Democrats & African Americans). Now why (in the fuck) would any Super in their right mind want to do this, only to get HRC as the nominee in return - who is a guaranteed ticket-drag all over the country?

If I can put this all together, and you can put this all together, why can't Hillaryland? Is it ego? Do they have something on Obama? Are they just trying to erase their debt before dropping out?

Seriously, why is she still in this thing?

Posted by NOLaDem | March 28, 2008 10:22 AM

@ NOLA

Be sure to read the piece in TIME about Hillary and why she is staying in. Ego is the kindest way to describe it. They are apparently convinced Obama cannot win the GE and that she is the only way the Democratic party can win and that is why she is staying. To "save" us from ourselves I guess.

Urgh.

Posted by benjamin | March 28, 2008 10:31 AM

Quick trip down memory lane ... remember that the Clintons mistreated Casey's father in 1992 and worked to keep him from speaking at the party convention because of his pro-life views and despite the fact that he was a popular big-state governor who was a true friend of working families.

Posted by JQ | March 28, 2008 10:46 AM

I hear the same about Biden.

Just to recap Obama's Senators/Former Senators/Big Dogs:

1) Kennedy (MA)
2) Leahy (VT)
3) Dodd (CT)
4) Kerry (MA)
5) McCaskill (MO)
6) Durbin (IL)
7) Rockefeller (WV)
8) Johnson (SD)
9) Dorgan (ND)
10) Daschle (SD)
11) Conrad (ND)
12) Chafee (RI)
13) Richardson (NM)
14) Casey (PA)

I know I'm forgetting somebody. I left of Governors purposefully (save Richardson). Anyway, it's, frankly, a much more genuine/impressive list than HRC's list of Senators. I could have provided them, but the payoff is awfully limited (you can see them at thehill.com). They look obligated or....well....obligated to support her. And most endorsed early. When she was inevitable.

Obama's are different. They didn't have to - they wanted to. Some early, some late, but all genuine. Well, maybe Durbin had to, but he wanted to anyway.

Bottom line: folks like Casey (Reagan Democrat) and Biden (Sage/Elder) and statements like that of Leahy (cut it out HRC!) are exactly what will end this thing. And the media. The media wants HRC out so bad it can barely stand it........which is great.

Only question is - will the tidal wave come before April 22nd, or will these folks allow HRC to claim victory in PA? I can see it happening either way.

Posted by Dover | March 28, 2008 10:48 AM

Leahy and Dodd are up-front about it, and Reid and Pelosi have all but said it: time to think about an exit strategy, HillDog.

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 10:50 AM

It's important to note that Senator Casey's support is not yet as strong as his father's support (it took the Governor years to build that support and the Senator is on his journey to accomplish that). There is a counter argument that Senator Clinton receives a great deal of support from the base area where Senator Casey does, Northeastern Penna- NEPA-(as example, I offer the turnout at her visits, which isn't the easiest thing to produce when you aren't bringing people up from SEPA). While any endorsement helps, I'm not sure that Casey Democrats are Bob Casey Jr Democrats quite yet.

Rendellicans, on the other hand, who may still registered as Democrats, should be Senator Obama's target audience. These Rendellicans, first dubbed such after former Mayor Rendell targeted them to register in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in 2002, are independent minded and typically have a higher level of education and higher level of income- types who have been voting for Senator Obama in past primaries. It will be interesting to look at the polling on April 22 to see if Rendell's support of Senator Clinton helped peel off support from Senator Obama's previous wheelhouse.

(And this is coming from a McCain man).

Posted by annon | March 28, 2008 10:55 AM

Dover - you're forgetting to mention the fairly transparent unofficial Obama support from the likes of:

1) Nancy Pelosi
2) Harry Reid
3) Rahm Emmanuel
4) Jimmy Carter
5) Al Gore

In the case of Pelosi/Reid, they would probably be softly supporting whichever candidate had the delegate lead, can build the party, help Dems cement their majority, and was playing by the rules, which just happens to be Obama in all of the above.

With others, we can treat their non-endorsement (even the smallest hint when she was "inevitable") of the Clinton dynasty as a tacit endorsement of Obama, or AnyoneButHillary.

**Let me know who I'M forgetting**

Posted by PHILA | March 28, 2008 10:58 AM

Would like to get a complete tally of which Senators Endorse Obama and if any support Clinton? I know a few do, but who are they?

Also, I hope it is not lost on anyone that all of the former candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008 who have made an endorsement have all endorsed Obama: Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich.

Posted by philly dog | March 28, 2008 11:26 AM

@ Dover:

I can also see the tidal wave, and can see it going either way (Before/After April 22nd).

Argument(s) for BEFORE: Maybe we can win PA for Obama, which would slam the door. Or we could build enough opposition to HRC to make it seem like giving her money is like throwing it away. Or we could make her margin of victory so small that it's like a moral victory for Obama. We just garnish as many delegates as we can. Even if he doesn't win with the tidal wave of supers, this will build the call among the American people (and the media) for her to stop the charade. And that's what we call her victory speech - a charade in light of the number of states won, popular vote, and pledged delegates. And her donors might get fired up, but they're mostly tapped out, so let them give that last dime & we'll end it between PA and IN/NC.

Arguments for AFTER: She's going to win PA no matter what. And she'll treat it like the second coming of Christ no matter what. So what we need to do is steadily diminish the PA win by talking about how she can't win this thing in the long run, and that she's damaging the party (and the country), and helping John McCain. We don't do it now, because then she can play the victim card. She would win PA, in spite of all the forces trying to "push her out/hold her down." Then her donors would get fired up again. Let's face it, her supporters may be in Neverland, but they're rabid. Finally, we don't want it to look like Obama tried super-duper hard in PA and then lost.

This is just my take - I'm far from the smartest commenter here. let me know what you think.

Posted by Lebowski | March 28, 2008 11:39 AM

This is quickly snowballing to an end. The party is turning against her.

About time too, while Obama's still got kneecaps and still maintains some optimism in the face of such nasty stuff. I liked Hillary much better before I knew what a conniving "me first! me first!" entity Billary turned out to be.

That's been the one real benefit of all this grundge of late: it's shown us what's beneath the surface of an inveterate politician who doesn't know when to say "Uncle". As in Uncle Sam.

Posted by James Lawrence | March 28, 2008 11:48 AM

Philly, I think it makes sense that all of the former candidates have endorsed the not-Hillary candidate. It has been clear for several years that Clinton was running in 2008, and it has been clear for at least two or three years she would be the overwhelming frontrunner.

So if you are getting into a race against an overwhelming favorite, I think this means you have significant differences with that front-runner. Had she won Iowa and New Hampshire and run away with the nomination, they would have all fallen in line. But now that there is another serious alternative, they are showing again that they were not happy with her as the standard-bearer for the party.

Posted by Curtis | March 28, 2008 11:50 AM

Didn't James Carville manage Casey Sr.'s campaign?

Posted by Naveen | March 28, 2008 12:04 PM

>>Bottom line: folks like Casey (Reagan Democrat) and Biden (Sage/Elder) and statements like that of Leahy (cut it out HRC!) are exactly what will end this thing. And the media. The media wants HRC out so bad it can barely stand it........which is great.
Posted by Dover | March 28, 2008 10:48 AM

I disagree, I think the media prefers that this keeps on going.
It's got everyone riled up and reading/watching/listening, prior to the more standard red/blue riling up they'll have in the runup to the general election.

Posted by rolaids | March 28, 2008 12:06 PM

PhillyDog, from Politico's superdelegate tally, and not including Obama and Clinton for themselves:

Obama 12: Dodd CT, Durbin IL, Kennedy MA, Kerry MA, Nelson Neb, Conrad ND, Dorgan ND, Casey PA, Johnson SD, Leahy VT, Rockefeller WV, Feingold WI

Clinton 14ish: Lincoln AK, Pryor AK, Boxer CA, Feinstein CA, (Nelson FL), Inouye HA, Bayh IN, Mikulski MD, (Stabenow MI), Mendez NJ, Schumer NY, Whitehouse RI, (Cantwell WA), Murray WA
Parens indicate FL and MI, which may or may not count (probably will), and Cantwell who is endorsing either Clinton or the pledged delegate winner, and those aren't the same person.

Undeclared 20: Harkin IA, Akaka HA, Biden Del, Carper Del, Salazar CO, Landrieu LA, Cardin MD, (Levin MI), Klobucher Minn, Baucus Mont, Tester Mont, Reid Nev, Lautenburg NJ, Bingaman NM, Brown OH, Wyden OR, Reed RI, Byrd WV, Kohl WI

Posted by Deborah | March 28, 2008 12:09 PM

Deborah - thanks for setting me straight with the Senators. Still, an almost even split between Clinton and Obama among their colleagues is not a bad showing for a guy who has been part of the club for just a couple of years.

And to add to Rolaids comment, if there is one thing I DO know about all of this it's that the media does not want Hillary out of the race. Ratings are boffo!

Posted by philly dog | March 28, 2008 1:18 PM

PHILA, speaking as a one of Rahm's constituents, don't be sure he's tacitly endorsing Obama. From everything I've heard, he's genuinely torn. One pol put it - "he'll hide under his desk until the convention's over."

Yes, Rahm's good friends with Obama, but the Clintons go much deeper. If he came out for Obama, Carville would have to come up with something far stronger than "Judas."

I really do think Emanuel will stay neutral until the GE.

Posted by Judy | March 28, 2008 1:33 PM

Perhaps Rahm can play the role of Brutus.

Et tu, Rahm?

I think that analogy puts Clinton into a more appropriate perspective - Caesar.

Posted by philly dog | March 28, 2008 1:46 PM

Actions Speak Better than Words

Before the negative press regarding Mr. Wright, Mr Obama had on numerous occasions declared Mr. Wright as his mentor and spiritual teacher for the past 20 years and even went so far as to include Mr. Wright in his election staff, these are the actions of Mr. Obama. When the press found out about the Hitleresque personality of Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama’s staff writers immediately created a rebuttal of hyperbole that amazingly some people actually believed.

It is interesting to note, as soon the public became aware of the Obama/Wright connection, following a phone call to Mr. Wright from Mr. Obama, Mr. Wright was instantly silenced and retired. Is there something more we are not supposed to hear?

But regardless what Mr. Obama and his staff replied, and that Mr. Wright has been silenced, for now, Mr. Obama cannot retract his clear public proclamation that Mr. Wright has been Mr. Obama’s mentor and spiritual teacher for over 20 YEARS. And that up to recent negative press, Mr. Wright was on Mr. Obama’s Spiritual Advisor Committee campaign team. Mr. Obama cannot make excuses regarding this or deny it. And to downplay the violent rhetoric of Mr. Wright is like trying to make excuses for Hitler. Hitler and Mr. Wright both convey hateful and paranoid messages that should send shivers through the average American. Never would I expect to see in my lifetime a man of such evil taking the pulpit on National Television and professing extreme hate and implied violence that has direct implications for almost every white, Jew, non-Christian, Christians of other faiths, government officials, peoples from other countries and so on. Didn’t Hitler do this too?

If you make the choice to listen and learn from a so called spiritual mentor every week over 20 years, do you expect me or any other rational being to believe that you wouldn’t be or want to be influenced by their ideas? And what does that say of your personal integrity if you chose American hating Mr. Wright as your mentor in life?

Action is the real measure of a person, not their words. We know who Mr. Obama is by his life and choices, not the words he spins. And we can only imagine the amount of hatred Mr. Obama will unleash once he achieves ultimate power.

And also consider recent announcement that the chief of the firm involved in the State Department’s passport breach is one of Obama’s adviser. (And why is this not being discussed?) And that Obama has been caught lying about Rezko, regarding the amount of money Rezko gave him, and that Obama still hasn’t come clean about his Rezko land deal. Or further, how Michelle Obama makes a phenomenal $317.000 a month at a hospital in Chicago that is famous for turning away the poor, especially the black poor. And Michelle Obama’s separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. And Michelle Obama’s statement she “has never been proud to be an AMERICAN in her adult life".

And today, the criminal indictment of Mr. Obama’s super delegate the governor of Puerto Rico.

And for those who don’t know that Obama campaign was originally funded by the Food for Oil Program in Iraq, I suggest you read the following article:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html

If Obama were to become president, what would stop Mr. Obama from appointing Mr. Wright to his cabinet? And after Mr. Wright’s appointment, if anyone complained no doubt they would be called racist. And it seems as if this strategy - that it is racist to criticize a black man - is already in effect as Mr. Obama can do anything corrupt with minimal impunity by the public or the press.

But if Hillary so much as sneezes, she is taken through the laundry and hung out to dry and then beaten some more. Such an obvious bias treatment towards Mr. Obama because of his race is racial discrimination. And I believe another reason why Mrs. Clinton is unfairly criticized to such an extreme is because a handful of powerful men in the media can’t stand the idea of a woman for president – likely a libido thing.

We should have as our country’s leader someone with wisdom and knowledge, whose goal is the selfless betterment of the world. We should not elect someone with a personal agenda for personal power or select them because of the fashionably of their race or the preference for a gender.

With all the red lights in Mr. Obama’s resume, and all the hyperbole that he spins that keeps us from knowing the real Mr. Obama, are you sure this is the person best to lead our country? Should we gamble away the American future to a man who associates with and is taught by men who hate this country and its people?

Posted by Richard Williams | March 28, 2008 2:00 PM

The Classy Clintons are now trying to spin this as Casey's revenge for what WJC did to his father at the convention in 1992. It must be so pleasant for these SDs to not only make a difficult decision, but to know ahead of time the Clintons will start throwing daggers as soon as it happens.

Posted by evie | March 28, 2008 2:16 PM

Can anyone think of anything nasty the Obama campaign has said about any SD supporting Clinton? Anyone? Buehler? Anyone?

Posted by philly dog | March 28, 2008 2:22 PM

Casey Sr. was not prohibited from speaking at the Dem Convention because he was Pro Life, he was not allowed to speak because he refused to endorse the ticked of Clinton-Gore the party's nominees that year. The reason he wouldn't emdorse the ticket was because the party platform included the pro-life plank. The last I heard Casey Jr. is pro life so I guess Obama is doing another one of his wink-wink things.

Posted by Peggy Leavy | March 28, 2008 2:46 PM

Casey Sr. was not prohibited from speaking at the Dem Convention because he was Pro Life, he was not allowed to speak because he refused to endorse the ticked of Clinton-Gore the party's nominees that year. The reason he wouldn't emdorse the ticket was because the party platform included the pro-life plank. The last I heard Casey Jr. is pro life so I guess Obama is doing another one of his wink-wink things.

Posted by Peggy Leavy | March 28, 2008 2:46 PM

It's not a "wink wink" thing. Obama is strongly pro-choice. He's got a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. It may just be that Casey Jr. isn't as staunchly pro-choice as his father and/or, as should be the case for anyone, he realizes that the vast catalog of issues on which he agrees with Obama is more important than this one issue where he (and most Democrats) disagree.

Posted by TH | March 28, 2008 2:57 PM

Off-topic, but isn't it about time for Atlantic or whomever provides the software for this comment section to add "Obama" to the dictionary? At this point his name should probably lose the dotted red underline.

Posted by TH | March 28, 2008 3:04 PM

Richard Williams is a troll.

Posted by Troll Patrol | March 28, 2008 3:41 PM

Actually, Richard Williams is the eccentric father of tennis pros Serena and Venus Williams. Interesting that he doesn't support Obama.

Posted by bigNowhere | March 29, 2008 1:36 AM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 29, 2008 5:46 PM