Steve Soto of the Left Coaster Endorses Clinton

[wyldwolf]

after concluding that Al Gore is not going to enter the race, I used the same criteria to determine whom I will be supporting in 2008. I’ve thought about which of the Top Three candidates can:

·Most capably deal with the biases of the corporate media;
·Most capably fight the right wing smear machine;
·Ruthlessly battle the GOP’s likely 2008 campaign tactics;
·Obtain the nomination and,
·Most importantly, step into the job in January 2009.

After looking at these factors and knowing that the problems any Democrat will face in January 2009 are even more challenging than those faced in January 2005, I will be supporting Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

As evidenced by her demeanor on the campaign trail, and the debate performances, she is an extremely capable campaigner and debater, possessing a command of the facts and a sober, realistic assessment of the world as it is now. It is not a world many of us like, and she and other Democrats have made some of the decisions that have led us to where we are now, thereby legitimately making her judgment an issue. These concerns to me are valid, even more so than other concerns about Mark Penn, and the meritocracy argument of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton progression, which was more relevant in 2000 than it is now given the wholly derelict Bush 43 presidency.

When I move beyond the not-to-be-discounted feelings and emotion against Hillary amongst the base and netroots community stemming largely from her 2002 vote on the use of force authorization and her unwillingness to apologize for it, I find myself back where I was at a similar point in 2003: Among the Top Three, Hillary is 1) electable; 2) the most capable in national security and foreign policy; 3) the most able to address the GOP negligence and abdication of responsibility here at home; and 4) the most able to do the job from the first day in office in January 2009. And she is surrounded with an A-List campaign team that has already demonstrated they will avoid some of the same problems that afflicted the Kerry effort in 2004. She and her team have already demonstrated that they will take no prisoners in dealing with the GOP, will hold the media accountable, and have the requisite toughness and yes, ruthlessness for what is ahead. After 2004, this is critical for me.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010713.php

[Larkspur]

1. Hillary's a corporate whore and supported Bush's Iraq war

I will not support Hillary period.

[wyldwolf]

2. We'll make sure you name is off the guest list.

[SaveElmer]

7. "Progressabots": Hillary's a corporate whore...*bzzzt*...She's a neocon...*bzzzt*..

Repub-Lite *bzzzt*...Cold hearted...*bzzzt*...warmonger...*bzzzt*...

[Mojorabbit]

3. Does anyone here

really make their decision on who they vote for by looking at who endorses them? I never have understood this. I can see if unions do etc, but pundits or other politicians? It makes no sense to me.

[featherman]

4. While I have not reached his conclusion, I wholehearted agree that

our 2008 candidate certainly needs to :

"Most capably deal with the biases of the corporate media;
·Most capably fight the right wing smear machine;
·Ruthlessly battle the GOP’s likely 2008 campaign tactics;

Our Constitution, our country, and the world cannot afford repeats of the often inept 2000 and 2004 campaigns in the face of smear and media bias. Political ruthlessness will be a necessity in 2008 when winning back the Presidency from tyranny is everything.

[TeamJordan23]

5. Wow. Are we going to start putting who all bloggers are gonna endorse? Geez. Who is this person? nm

[Forkboy]

9. BREAKING: Mickey to endorse Pluto!

See,the point isn't the actual endorser.It could be Podunk Pete.Most people could care less about endorsements as a whole,and could really care less about these low level near unknowns.But the strategy,and I see a couple Obama people are picking up on it to,is to awe with quantity,giving the impression that everyone on the planet is endorsing the candidate and furthering that sense of "inevitability".

Everyday you see posts "X endorses so and so" and while the names don't stick the sheer number of them does.The impression created is meant to influence you,the voter,to be part of the "in" crowd,the winners (polls are quite often touted for the same reason).And a lot of people just read the subject header,which makes it even more effective.All you have to do is find any ole Chumley with a blog and an agreeable word.

It's not technically spamming,but it's same concept,and for the same reason.Sell your product.

And,of course,in some cases supporters are just genuinely excited to see that Podunk Pete did,indeed,endorse their candidate. :)

[maximusveritas]

6. I figured that guy was a Hillary supporter

He has a history of pushing attacks on Obama. Good to hear he's finally making his allegiance public.

[Alamom]

8. k&r

[Peregrine Took]

10. Peanut butter to endorse jelly....pass it on!