Maria Shriver Endorses Obama
Must be fun in the Mansion tonight.
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN)—California first lady Maria Shriver on Sunday endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president, becoming the latest member of the Kennedy clan to line up behind the senator from Illinois.
Shriver, the wife of California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, told supporters at an Obama rally in Los Angeles that the state was “at the epicenter of change.” California’s primary is the largest of about two dozen contests scheduled for this week’s Super Tuesday contest.
Kinda like the home of James Carville and Mary Matalin?
Posted by Gregory on February 03, 2008 at 2257 hrs
Each chose their Party’s most liberal possible candidate, that’s all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2008 at 2319 hrs
I am a black person and I will not be voting for Senator Obama. Senator Obama is only recieving endorsement out of sympathy and not because of knowledge. I am very upset that so many people are ganging-up on Senator Hillary Clinton. Their endorsement does not ring true and does not seems honest. I hope the American people make the right decision and vote for Senator Clinton as she is the right person for the presidency. Obama is not the uniter as he cliam to be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 0349 hrs
The problem isn’t really with the choices we’ve been given, its that the American people are too consciously uninformed to actually pick a good candidate year after year. When everything hits the curb not to long from now, less than 5% of the public will have any context for WHY. Few understand the way our debt-based, fiat monetary system works, and how it is rapidly moving all the nations wealth into the hands of international bankers and the Chinese. A child born today begins life $40,000 in debt, less than 1% of Americans own their home, less than 2% own the car they drive. Electing a Democrat will not solve the underlying problem, which is that we cannot sustain our standard of living by BORROWING, or simply printing new money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 0459 hrs
I don’t care how “brilliant” (Oprah’s word for Obama) or well-spoken any candidate for public office is, neither qualities are necessarily sufficient qualifications for any job much less the highest office in the land. I am 51 years old and recall teachers who were brilliant, but could not teach; supervisors and managers who were brilliant and well-spoken, but could not manage or lead. I have also witnessed extremely talented people be promoted too soon in their careers and flop, when if they had only taken a few more years to gain more hands-on experience rather than being in such a hurry to get to the top they might have succeeded instead of failing or had a faster learning curve. There’s a reason people work their way to the top, one rung at a time rather than skipping steps. There are valuable lessons to be learned along the way - both good and bad. Obama is skipping steps. Please, support Hillary Clinton! She is right for our country now. Obama may be right in another 8-10 years, but I do not believe he has sufficient experience to take on the position of President of the United States right now. Hillary Clinton is the best choice for President!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 0943 hrs
How do these people actually gauge who to endorse for the public to vote for? I am guessing that for this case it’s a sympathy vote. They probably felt that obama must be going through what the governator went through in his campaign being the underdog and outsider years back.
Posted by Shiela on February 04, 2008 at 1000 hrs
There isn’t any one to vote for this election that will do what needs to be done. Hillary will kill all the small businesses in this country (and is just a downright evil person) and Obama lacks experience.
The Republicans are no better - McCain is so liberal he makes Hillary look conservative and Romney follows a very odd religion.
Oh and remember, i before e except after c…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 1023 hrs
I think Obama is a fine candidate. What his resume lacks in terms of experience, the man himself makes up for in charisma. I believe he’s as qualified as many former presidents, including the current one. But his personality and leadership style are the things people are recognizing.
Clinton has experience. Unfortunately, her history and personality are working against her, and would work against her even more in a general election. I don’t believe John McCain would beat her, but let’s face it—she’s a divisive figure, and our country doesn’t need that right now. Not after Bush.
McCain has a lot going for him. He’s experienced, he appeals to moderate voters, he’s not overly partisan. But he has a few negatives, too. He isn’t liked by the Republican base, he’s boring and he’s too old.
What I’m really hoping to see is Obama run against McCain. The senator from Illinois would win handily. The nation would have an inspirational leader.
Posted by scott on February 04, 2008 at 1025 hrs
Must be fun in the Mansion tonight.
Competition can make a marriage lively. My wife and I are pretty close politically so I have no idea what that would be like but we compete at board and card games.
Nothing like taking your spouse down with a reverse counter-spell at stealing her armor.
Posted by Brian on February 04, 2008 at 1226 hrs
You are entitled to your opinion Scott, but get the facts straight. Bush has an MBA, and was the governor of Texas. I’d say that gives him more experience and knowledge than someone who hasn’t even served a half of term in the Senate.
Charisma doesn’t mean you will be a good President. Bill had tons of charisma and he was the worst one we’ve had in awhile. And before you go off on your rant - you have to tell me one thing he actually did. Sitting in office while the economy was on the uptick doesn’t count. Contrary to what people think - the President has very little to do with how the economy is at any particular time.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 1236 hrs
Watched bits of news this weekend concerning democratic candidates. Some made a sensation about Bill Clinton courting Blacks; others rallied around speeches given in California about Obama; his wife, Oprah and Kennedys. I loved and respected John F. and Bobby Kennedy, and it broke my heart when they and John Jr. died so tragically. But, I just don’t get why these news reports belittle Clinton for his appearances at black gatherings, and why they made a big deal about a split in the California Governor’s home. There’s been a political split there for years, duh! Oprah has been friends with the Kennedy family for years, especially with Maria during college days, and there’s no big mention when Obama courts the Latino and White voters. Can’t your just get real. I guess the only place to get real facts instead of gossip stuff is on BBC World news and PBS world news. By the way…. How about those NY Giants!!!!! Best Super Bowl in years!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 1241 hrs
Bill, let’s go point by point. That MBA doesn’t really impress me that much. All he did with that was drive half a dozen or so businesses into the ground and barely avoid SEC disclosure problems with Harken Energy. As to being Texas governor, the office has practically no constitutionally-mandated powers; the veto and the bully pulpit are pretty much the Texas governor has.
I’m sorry, but calling Clinton the worst president we’ve had in a while is just crazy. I’d put him in the middle of the pack historically, but the one currently holding the office is arguably the worst ever. Oh, you want one thing he did? Even if you’re not going to count “sitting in office” during the longest sustained economic growth in history (if you want to call that just an “uptick”), more than 22 million jobs created, and leaving a huge surplus for the current occupant to squander, as a conservative you ought to like one that a liberal like me doesn’t like. How about the 1996 welfare reform bill?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 1436 hrs
That’s ok if you don’t care for the MBA, but the point was that GW Bush had more experience than Obama when he was a candidate.
And correct me if I’m in error - but wasn’t the welfare reform item #3 on the Contract with America? Which I really don’t remember Clinton writing. Yes he signed the bill - but that doesn’t count as really doing anything, since all you are giving Bush credit for being a governor is deciding whether or not to sign or not sign a bill.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 1618 hrs
GW Bush had more experience than Obama when he was a candidate.
Nit picky at best. It’s obviously true that neither of them have an overly impressive resume for the job compared to a lot of other candidates.
Yes he signed the bill - but that doesn’t count as really doing anything,
He did more than just sign it. Candidate Clinton campaigned on ending welfare “as we know it.” This isn’t something he signed grudgingly at the behest of Newt Gingrich.
Posted by scott on February 04, 2008 at 1623 hrs
You only took half of my statement on signing the bill. Since apc didn’t give Bush any credit for signing bills, you can’t then therefore assign credit to Clinton. Let’s keep things consistent here.
Even so, Clinton campaigned for a bill that someone else created. 8 years and that was his major accomplishment. he campaigned for Hillary’s health care bill too, but he didn’t even get to sign that. (thank goodness)
You may not like Bush, but at least he had ideas and made them happen. While Clinton did nothing - the terrorists grew stronger. At least Bush had the guts to do something about it.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 1657 hrs
Yes, they both signed bills. But Clinton gets to take a little more credit for welfare reform than that, seeing as he actually made it a campaign promise and didn’t really wait for the Newt congress to start taking action. He can fairly take credit as having had a leadership role in it.
The point about governor Bush is that the Texas governorship is an extremely weak one by virtue of the Texas constitution.
The fact that both governor Bush and president Clinton both signed bills doesn’t make either of the two previous statements untrue, as far as I can see.
Posted by scott on February 04, 2008 at 1709 hrs
You’ve also completely ignored my point about taking what should have been a strong point for a business career, an MBA, and leaving behind a string of failed businesses that even his father’s friends often couldn’t bail out of failing situations or bankruptcy.
What measure of success George Bush had as Texas governor was due to a man named Bob Bullock, who served in a number of posts, notably lieutenant governor, which is the post with real power here in Texas. For whatever reason, Bullock (a Democrat, by the way) took a shine to W, and shepherded him through his term and a half as governor, which gave him the patina of success he needed to run for president.
As far as giving credit for signing bills, why give credit for signing something that’s enormously popular?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2008 at 1747 hrs
Not only does politics divide people it divides a family as well. Gov. Arnold’s supporting McCain but his wife’s endorsing a different candidate (Obama). I think Obama’s trying to earn sympathy and getting these women to speak and vouch for his character is one strategy to achieve that.
Posted by Estela on February 05, 2008 at 1018 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 109
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 03:48 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).