Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

First a little about Paul Williams, who endorsed Hillary today:

Paul Williams Endorses Senator Clinton
Eagle Academy Co-Founder and past president of the New York Chapter of 100 Black Men, Inc.

Paul T. Williams, Jr. today announced his endorsement and enthusiastic support for Senator Hillary Clinton's candidacy for President of the United States. Williams will chair the urban agenda working group for the campaign.

"Hillary Clinton has demonstrated outstanding leadership abilities," said Williams, former president of the New York Chapter of 100 Black Men and co-founder of the Eagle Academy for Young Men. "She has a record of years of commitment to issues I care about and I have learned over time that we share the philosophy that people really count! She understands that many of the problems we face can be solved by supporting people of good will, who are trying to make a difference in society," he added.

"I am honored to receive the endorsement of my friend Paul Williams," said Clinton. "I worked with Paul when he served as president of the New York Chapter of 100 Black Men and worked with them to establish the Eagle Academy for Young Men in the South Bronx," she added. The Eagle Academy, a high school for minority men whose principles are built on a set of mentoring relationships between students and successful minority men, is being replicated across the nation.

Williams is president of Toussaint Capital Partners LLC, a minority owned investment bank on Wall Street. An attorney by background, he is also working on a development project which has plans for an innovative hotel/residential development in Harlem, NY.

"Through the urban agenda working group, I hope not only to identify great initiatives to replicate regionally or nationally, such as the Eagle Academy, but to also stimulate creative approaches to support these initiatives financially," Williams said.


California Senator Dianne Feinstein Endorses Hillary Clinton

The Clinton Campaign announced today the endorsement of California senior Senator Dianne Feinstein, demonstrating Hillary's growing support in the Golden State.

"This is a very special moment for me because I have the opportunity to endorse the campaign of a U.S. Senator who I believe will be the first female President of the United States," Senator Feinstein said. "Hillary Clinton, I believe, has the experience, the heart, and the strength to be a great American President. There has been no election for President where change is as defined and necessary as this one. The question is who is best equipped to lead that change. I believe it is Hillary."

As California's senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein has built a reputation as an independent voice, working with both Democrats and Republicans to find common-sense solutions to the problems facing California and the nation.

Since her election to the Senate in 1992, Senator Feinstein has worked in a bipartisan way to build a significant record of legislative accomplishments helping strengthen the nation's security both here and abroad, combat crime and violence, battle cancer, and protect natural resources in California and across the country.

In the 110th Congress, Senator Feinstein assumed the Chairmanship of the Rules and Administration Committee, where she oversees ethics, campaign and election reform. Senator Feinstein also serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she is the Chairman of the Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security Subcommittee. And she is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Select Committee on Intelligence.

"Dianne and I have fought side by side in the Senate to expand stem cell research, to take care of our veterans when they return home and to stop the privatization of Social Security," Clinton said. "Dianne is such a respected voice in the Senate, I'm honored to have her support as we work together to bring the war in Iraq to an end and deliver the change this country wants."

MY FAVORITE:

Steve Soto, who writes for - and founded - the The Left Coaster blog and is a prominent voice in the progressive blogosphere, endorsed Hillary today:

I waited until late August 2003 before I endorsed a Democratic candidate for president, as I was holding out to see if Al Gore was going to enter the race. When I reached a point where it was clear to me that Gore would not be running, I focused my consideration on the candidates in the race at that time. I watched with respect the efforts and accomplishments of the Dean campaign, how they were running against the party and the media, and bringing new and energized supporters into the process, and then considered that against who in the field at that time was the most able to actually win the nomination, deal with the media effectively and fight them to a draw, and fight the Rove machine and win the election. But I also went a step further in my analysis and envisioned which of the candidates in January 2005 could step into the post-9/11 toxic dump George W. Bush had created and begin to undo the damage. Back in August 2003, I made the unpopular choice of John Kerry over Howard Dean, and continued to offer praise, suggestions, and criticism when his campaign screwed up, and there were plenty of opportunities for me to criticize as the campaign went forward. But I thought he was the best candidate to survive the nomination process, the best candidate to deal with the corporate media's attacks, the best candidate to counterpunch against the Rove machine, and the best candidate to step into the job and hit the ground running in January 2005.

Now in late July 2007, 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;
Most 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.

But 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.

This leaves me with the 2002 authorization resolution and her judgment in voting for it. I could write paragraphs, and have, about how I feel about this war and how much I want us to get our Guard and reserve home and forces redeployed to fighting a real war against terrorists. No matter how I feel about the war and her vote in 2002, I am not willing to disqualify her because of that, and overlook her capabilities and readiness to do the job relative to her Top Tier competitors. To me, Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic candidate for president and is clearly light years ahead of the cast of sitcom characters running for the GOP.

As I did in the last election, my support does not mean The Left Coaster will be a Hillary blog, as this is a group effort here, and I expect my fellow editors to make their own choices and express them. I also expect that my decision may generate some debate here amongst our community, which I value a great deal. As I did the last time, my support does not translate into rubber-stamping support for everything she and her campaign team does, and I will be offering my thoughts along the way.

But Hillary Clinton will have my support in 2008.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 10713.php

Hillary leads all other candidates in number of endorsements and the endorsements keep coming in.  Now there are folks who will say endorsements aren't that important.  I tend to disagree.  When a highly-respected blogger like Steve Soto (The Left Coaster), for instance, endorses Hillary Clinton for President, then it is not a stretch to say that Hillary is finally being seen as the strong candidate she really is.

What a validation of her capabilities!

Tags: Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Left Coaster, Paul Williams, Steve Soto (all tags)

Comments

27 Comments

Re: Hillary: 3 Incredible New Endorsements

Hillary is rocking!!!!!!!!!!

And leading by even wider margins in all three new polls published today.

by Regan 2007-07-25 03:10PM | 0 recs
by icebergslim 2007-07-25 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: 3 Incredible New Endorsements

"Al Gore endorsed Dean and it did not help."


National:
(search for Gore)

Iowa:

In NH, Dean held ground despite an onslaught of attacks on him throughout December 2003.


by NuevoLiberal 2007-07-25 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

"When a highly-respected blogger like Steve Soto (The Left Coaster), for instance, endorses Hillary Clinton for President, then it is not a stretch to say that Hillary is finally being seen as the strong candidate she really is."

Please explain the logic there.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-25 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Regan, I'm asking you a question because I want to know how you made the connection that a respected blogger endorsing Hillary means she is finally being seen as the strong candidate that she really is.  

Not answering gives off the idea that you were spinning crap, throwing sugar on it and calling it candy.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-25 03:43PM | 0 recs
Make sure those endorsement bring,

foot soldiers WITH THEM.

by icebergslim 2007-07-25 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Make sure those endorsement bring,

How big is Obama and Edwards residual force in Iraq going to be and what are they basing that number on?

by world dictator 2007-07-25 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

I am glad Hillary will finally have a chance to take Obama on and PROVE to the country that he just ain't ready to be Pres.  

Her team has played this one brilliantly.

Get out your resume Hillary.  Kick ass.

by Regan 2007-07-25 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

"America needs a President with the strength and experience to end this war. I will be that President." (Hillary Clinton)

she certaily did have the strenght and experience to
help start it.

by nevadadem 2007-07-25 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

"I am glad Hillary will finally have a chance to take Obama on and PROVE to the country that he just ain't ready to be Pres.  "

1. Did these three endorsements change that?  Or is your comment to your own diary completely unrelated? The polls showing big leads meant nothing to you?  

2. Does that mean if Obama is nominated you would vote for Romney or Giulliani?  You said Obama isn't ready to be president, IE you are voting based on experience.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-25 03:20PM | 0 recs
CNN

Did you see the CNN coverage ? It's terrible news for Obama. They flashed five dictators' photos across the screen, then invited foreign policy experts to 'teach' the audience the difference of engagement/doing ground workd and 'get out of gate to meet these dictators.'.

Sweet. I love the last endorsement.

by areyouready 2007-07-25 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

This site really really sucks.

How do i delete this account?

by brooklynbadboy 2007-07-25 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Yeah, it has gone down.  These posters who post NOTHING and bring NOTHING TO THE TABLE.  The moderators have not been quick enough to disable alot of bogus accounts.  Oh, well.

by icebergslim 2007-07-25 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Icebergslim is a woman, not a man.  But I agree with the rest of your post.  

by georgep 2007-07-25 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/

by DoIT 2007-07-25 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Here's the fundamental mistake that anyone who is part of the progressive movement or netroots makes when they say things like "most importantly Hillary steps in on day one and is ready for president."

First off, running a White House is all about a) your chief of staff and b) the rest of your staff - not just the candidate at all.  I am not at all impressed with the ideology of the team around Clinton, but I think they could run a decent White House.

But not necessarily moreso than what Edwards or Obama would have.  

The second thing, is that the focus on day one or the White House from January 2009 to November 2012 is NOT THE ISSUE.  The more important thing, at a time when it seems ever more likely each day is what will be best for the progressive movement longer-term.  It is definitely not Hillary Clinton.  

Regardless of whether or not you think Obama or Edwards can win (I think either can), I think it's a pretty spurious argument to say at this point in time that Hillary is better set-up to win.  Explain the electoral math to me - she is the least likely to change the map.  Obama maybe could, Edwards can and will - both are leaps and bounds ahead of Clinton on this ability.

Winning in 2008 is something any of them can and probably will do.  It's the things along the way and the next 8 years that will be critical to the progressive movement.  2008 is our electoral coming-out party, and we are at a point politically in this country where we are make-or-break for the next 15-30 years - do we build a progressive nation with the principles of American liberalism underpinning our politics and public institutions or will be slog along under the conservative ideological dominance?  

by Peter from WI 2007-07-25 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Maybe you are missing things.  The media is conflicted over who to side with in the rambussle.  You Clinton people are putting so much into Obama losing big over this little thing, It makes me wonder how worried you must really be about him, and I wonder how disappointed you will be when nothing really happens.  

"Last, I don't give an F about the longterm "health" of the whatever-whatever progressive movement you wrote about."

This shows a lack of foresight and a major sense or recklessness for the future.  Not by who you support, but by the fact that you don't care at all about the possible ramifications of nominating different candidates.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-25 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Silly person.  This is a primary.  Of course Democrats will find lots of flaws to point out about Hillary, mainly that the Repubs want to campaign against her.

The endorsements are nice but not significant in the long run.

Hillary will not win the nomination.  So stop attacking Edwards and Obama.

by pioneer111 2007-07-25 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

I'm not prepared to concede who is going to get the nomination at this point at all.

I agree that endorsements are nice.  They allow for a news story and give an impression of momentum.  And they may bring additional resources to the campaign as you say.

Nonetheless, I feel that Edwards still has an excellent chance of getting the nomination.  So the primary continues. And each candidate will get more endorsements as we go along.  

by pioneer111 2007-07-26 03:21PM | 0 recs
by lonnette33 2007-07-25 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

bebe, you back here?

by icebergslim 2007-07-25 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Excellent article lonnette33. Thanks!

by DoIT 2007-07-25 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements
Leading in 34 states means nothing if she looses Iowa and NH to Obama.
I don't see how any front runner recovers from those twin loses.
So yes the Clinton people are very worried about Obama and rightfully so.
You don't see then attacking Kucinich.
by joachim 2007-07-25 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Incredible? You have got be kidding! Ask any American if they have ever heard of these people. No one has.

Incredible is Al Gore and we know where that endorsement is going.

by lafinur 2007-07-25 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Folks in the biggest state of the union (California) and most people in the country will disagree with you about Dianne Feinstein.  To say that nobody has ever heard of her seems like hugely understating reality.  

by georgep 2007-07-26 07:16AM | 0 recs
Steve Soto is wrong

to say that progressives dislike Hillary primarily because she voted for the war.

I didn't support Bill Clinton in the 1992 primaries, and I have never thought the Clintons did enough on the issues that matter most to me.

Hillary would do the least to enact real progressive change on a number of fronts (health care, environment, labor law), and the corporate lobbyists who are bankrolling her campaign know it.

Dianne Feinstein is similar to Hillary--other people think she is "liberal," but she pretty much votes how the corporate interests want.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-25 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary: Three Incredible New Endorsements

Dianne Feinstein's endorsement is big for California.  Of course, I don't see a problem for Hillary in Cali, but the more delegates she gets out of that state, the better.   Of course, this pads her lead in Super-Delegates, which not only give another boost in the delegate count, but Super-Delegates usually work very hard for their choice in their states, work that can't be bought with operatives because of the name factor these people carry in their states.  

by georgep 2007-07-26 07:15AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------