By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, January 21, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Over the weekend, former Senator Jean Carnahan joined current Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill and announced her endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President. Labels: Endorsements, Obama, Presidential_Primaries"While I know and admire all the Democrats running for president, I am convinced that Barack Obama is the candidate best able to unite our nation and restore our moral leadership in the world," said Carnahan. "As president, he will be a strong voice and a powerful force for change during this critical time in our nation's history. Barack Obama is an inspirational leader, who embodies the ideals of our democracy and the hopes of a new century. I heartily endorse him for president of the United States."
Jean Carnahan was the first woman to serve as a United States Senator from Missouri, serving from 2001-2002. Carnahan joins her son, Congressman Russ Carnahan, Congressman Lacy Clay, Senator McCaskill, State Auditor Susan Montee, St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley and several other current and former Missouri elected officials who have endorsed Obama.
24 Comments:
Jean's late husband Gov Mel Carnahan was the first Gov. to endorse Bill Clinton's bid for President in 1992 hmmm seems things not the same since his death for Missouri or the Nation. Keep the Fire Burning what has happened? I'm sticking with the Clinton's seems they know what it takes.
1/21/2008 4:49 AM
I think it says a lot to have both women US Senators endorse Obama. He's obviously the best candidate.
1/21/2008 6:47 AM
I am thoroughly disgusted to see McCaskill and Carnahan both deserting Hillary. Women's groups in this state pulled through for those two, and they seem to have forgotten. Well, we won't forget this act on their parts.
1/21/2008 10:38 AM
punditorparody--
Carnahan is not currently a Senator.
1/21/2008 10:39 AM
So just because they are women means they should endorse only women? In Hillary's words 'The remnants of sexism are still alive'.
1/21/2008 10:48 AM
No, but they should be cognizant of the fact that they only attained their positions because women stuck together and broke through the walls preventing us from participating in our government. Men have run this country from inception for no reason other than that historically they have run and owned everything. Women will never break through these barriers if we wait until men say "sure, go ahead." This is not sexism, it is realism. When the suffragists went to jail for trying to win the right to vote, it was because they felt women should have a voice. To tell women that they should silence their voices or else they are sexist is a step backwards, not forwards.
1/21/2008 11:05 AM
Anonymous, it still doesn't mean that they should endorse Hillary
Don't the same women's groups who supported Carnahan and McCaskill want to also support the idea of free thought, not supporting Hillary because of gender?
1/21/2008 11:24 AM
I saw this on-line at stl.com---but was it in the Sunday paper---I must have missed it. Obama was on the front page of the pd today. In their series of candidate profiles, they managed to have him playing poker and smoking cigarettes on the front page, before they talked about issues on the inside of the paper.
1/21/2008 12:01 PM
Women's groups want to support the equalization of men and women's voices in our government. Don't you find it ironic that our government required Iraq to allow 25% of their assembly to be women when we have far less than that here at home?
Carnahan and McCaskill can do whatever they want. They just need to be aware that they create the feelings I've voiced when they do, and that there are those who will consider this should either run for office in the future. They have the right to their opinions, I have the right to mine. Many of their supporters, whether they want to admit it or not, supported them because they were women. Those supporters now know to look elsewhere for those who will help us break the gender barrier in our government.
1/21/2008 12:39 PM
You are either with Hillary or against Hillary. There is no such thing as supporting another candidate or being neutral. It's not about Obama or Edwards. It's all about Hillary. It's her turn. It's a matter of genetic code, women must unite around Hillary. Endorsements for Obama by superdelegates Jean Carnahan, Claire McCaskill, and Susan Montee can mean only one thing. They are not really women. This, of course, opens up a can of worms regarding the party's affirmative action plan.
1/21/2008 1:42 PM
Look, my candidate represents every one that looks and acts like me.
My candidate represent puppys, kittens and rainbows.
The other candidates are unelectable and every one that looks and acts like me who likes them, smells like poo.
________________________________
Keep it real folks... your candidate will win if you find people to vote and get then out of their houses on election day.
Saying negative things dosen't get you any freinds and it makes your candidate look bad by proxy.
More love less thug!
1/21/2008 2:26 PM
Anonymous 12:39----I supported Jean Carnahan because I thought she was better than John Ashcroft. I supported McCaskill because she was so much better than Jim Talent.
I support Obam because Hillary is married to a lying sack of crap, and a lot of the experience she brags about amounts to covering up her husband's bimbo eruptions, even when it meant demeaning women he raped. As a feminist---Obama has more quality experience----and he does not have to be embarrassed by Michelle being a sickening liar like Bill is.
1/21/2008 3:48 PM
So women are judged by the man they married. What progress. Just like for the last two thousand years while we were considered property our social status and opportunities in life were governed by the man our father married us off to. She isn't Bill, Kjoe.
1/21/2008 4:19 PM
Yes, she is Bill. Don't forget how many of the lesser-known Clinton scandals were orchestrated by Hillary. She is vile and calculating and cannot be trusted.
1/21/2008 5:16 PM
women should not be judged by the men they are married to---but it is fair that they should have to answer for the specific things they choose to do on behalf of their husbands.
1/21/2008 5:23 PM
Hillary Clinton (with the help of others perhaps) has chosen to make her husband a huge part of her campaign. This makes her spouse more of an issue than perhaps other candidates' spouses.
1/21/2008 9:01 PM
What I don't like about this declaration was what I heard afterwards....that she is not against Clinton nor deserting her, but she is backing Obama. BUT if he should fail to get the nomination, then she would support Clinton.
How much more two-faced, flip flop can we get? Hell yeah, any politician can choose sides for what might be a winner, but it takes a leader, a true leader to choose a side for the entire trip...win or loose.
My admiration of JC has greatly deminished.
1/21/2008 9:08 PM
Well what else could she do, back the Republican? I mean, come on! This is how the team plays the game!
1/21/2008 9:23 PM
As a note...when referring to one who was a Senator, they are always Senator. Pundit was correct.
Some of you present a very entitled point of view. Just because women groups helped Claire and Jean in their campaigns does not mean they "owe" anything to every other woman candidate who runs for a public office.
I'm a woman and I believe that they are not deserting Hillary, rather, they are endorsing who they believe will best President.
Finally, I hope that NO woman or man purely votes for a candidate because of their gender. They should vote for the candidate, their policy views etc. Same goes for candidates of race.
1/22/2008 6:35 AM
Exactly. When it comes to the policy of advancing women in government, McCaskill and Carnahan aren't prioritizing that, so in future bids for public office those who do see that as a priority can and will consider whether to support these two. It IS about policy.
1/22/2008 10:31 AM
I'm an Afrikan who happens to live in Amerikkka. I take issue with Billary in the same way on the same issue that I have with the Bush Klan! They have something in common, THE ROAD TO POWER! Along with that is everything and everybody they screwed with no grease to get there. That is enough reason to vote against Billary Bush.
Now, I have had disagreement with Obama concerning his voting for the juvenile crime bill. Billary voted for it also.
That being my only issue with Obama, I can support him on the strength that he does not have the other gutter thug tactics in his past as the Clintons do and yes it is both of them in that Hillary orchestrated most of the maheim and Bill would become first man.
When they asked Obama to address the Democratic National Convention in 2004, they wanted to use him to get blacks to vote. They had no idea that they would have to run against him in 2008.
Check out Chris Rock in Head of State!
1/22/2008 11:23 AM
Well, it's true Obama doesn't have much of a past. If he is elected, we'll see what he's made of in the most public, impactful position we have to offer as a country.
1/22/2008 12:48 PM
Obama is experienced
3 years in the US senate
8 years in the Illinois seanate
Constitutional lawyer... Unlike Bush, Obama knows what the constitution is all about.
1/22/2008 2:13 PM
Obama is the man. His experience is judicial, not scum bucket!
1/22/2008 5:19 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home