Denise Ross at her HogHouse Blog has a post concerning SD US Senator Tim Johnson endorsing Obama in the Democratic Presidential primary. She has there a comment from the Mitchell Daily Republic:
Sen. Tim Johnson's endorsement of Barack Obama for president is a signal that the two-term senator has no intention of fading away.
This from the Mitchell Daily Republic:
Johnson said he chose Obama because the candidate "makes sense in that he's bipartisan and insists on bridging the differences between parties."
http://www.hoghouseblog.com/2008/01/10/why-johnson-endorsed-obama/#comments
http://snipurl.com/1x7hb
Now, I suppose I could have dragged out my deadtree copy of the Mitchell Daily Republic, but Denise had the quote and this gives me an excuse to provide a link to her excellent blog New Window LINK to HogHouse Blog
And, since I made a comment on the post there, I am going to copy it below:
Doug Wiken said,
on January 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I don't understand what gap there is that needs to be bridged that requires Obama or Johnson. They have supported Bush idiocy in Iraq.
Democrats need an "unbridger" candidate…one who separates politics from corporation contributions.
A Johnson endorsement is in the same neighborhood as a Lieberman endorsement. I doubt that the selection will still be in doubt by the time the SD primary comes around.
If Obama gets the nomination, and is elected President, Daschle as an early endorser might be in line for an administration position. Unless that might help Johnson, I'm not sure why he is endorsing anybody at this time. It doesn't really look like good politics to me, partisan or otherwise.
YMMV. Interesting circus. No need to send in the clowns.
The idea of reconcilation and "bridges" passes right over the question of "Bridge to What?'. This bridge to reconciliation with Republicans and their disastrous economic and war policies is another "Bridge to No where"... a bridge to election and economic disaster for everyday Democrats and Republicans who are unrich and watching what they do have disappear in a sea of Bush red ink.
And after getting along with Reagan, Bush,Sr., Bush,Jr., a Republican majority, and a whole raft of corporate special interests, the US has the greatest mal-distribution of wealth since the Hoover Depression. Is more of this what Tim Johnson wants? Is even greater economic imbalance what Obama wants?
I can't believe Democrats who are concerned about the economy want more trickle-down economics. It is time instead for "geyser-up" economics.
Denise thinks this endorsement by Johnson of Obama indicates Johnson will certainly run. It appears to me it is instead one more reason in addition to Johnson's support of the Bush war in Iraq that Johnson should not run for re-election..unless he wants to do it on the Republican ticket. He, Lieberman and others have done terrible damage to the USA in multiple ways and the seem unrepentant about their errors or their willful expedience that has resulted in over 3,000 US military dying in Iraq and something like 150,000 to 230,000 Iraqis being killed and also turned a bustling economy with a treasury balance into a near depression and trillions of debt.
Unfortunately, what would replace Johnson? We don't need another Thune or another Herseth-Sandlin for that matter. It is a real quandary.
***Stay tuned...it really is a circus with more than enough clowns--- Doug Wiken
Recent Comments