Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bill Clinton backing Romanoff in Colorado Senate race



Former President Bill Clinton endorsed former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in the Colorado Senate race today. AP Photo/Brian Chilson

Bill Clinton endorsed former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff's (D) Colorado Senate candidacy, a move that puts him squarely at odds with the White House, which is backing appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D).

"Andrew brings to this race both an extraordinary record of public service and an extraordinary capacity to lead," Clinton wrote in a letter distributed today. "I believe that those assets, as well as his deep commitment to Colorado, give him the best chance to hold this seat in November."

Romanoff has been waging an underfunded (and trailing) bid against the incumbent senator, who was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter (D) last year to fill the seat of former Sen. Ken Salazar (D), who now heads the Department of the Interior.

A source close to Clinton insisted the endorsement had everything to do with the fact that Romanoff endorsed then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential bid and nothing to do with opposing the White House's chosen candidate.

And, Bennet's campaign worked hard in the immediate aftermath of the Clinton endorsement to play up the loyalty storyline. "The Clintons are known for their loyalty, so this doesn't come as a huge surprise," Bennet spokesperson Trevor Kincaid said. "Michael certainly doesn't begrudge President Clinton the chance to thank a long time friend."

The Denver Post reported that the former President isn't expected to do anything -- fundraisers etc. -- to benefit Romanoff aside from the letter he sent today.

Still, the positive media attention garnered by the Clinton endorsement should benefit Romanoff and you can bet that the letter from the former president will be quoted in television ads run by the challenger in advance of the state's Aug. 10 primary.

Viewed more broadly, the Romanoff endorsement fits into, for lack of a better phrase, the "Bill Clinton loyalty tour" in which he has repeatedly waded into Democratic primaries featuring candidate who backed his wife in 2008.

The best example is in Florida where Bill Clinton has held about half a dozen fundraisers for Florida Senate candidate and Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), a strong backer of his wife's in 2008. (Clinton penned a fundraising letter on Meek's behalf late last week.)

In the Maine governor's race, Clinton endorsed state Senate president Libby Mitchell (D) in March. Mitchell, who endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2008, went on to win the primary earlier this month and will face Paul LePage (R) in the fall.

In Rhode Island, Clinton is behind state Treasurer Frank Caprio who faces state Attorney General Patrick Lynch in the Democratic gubernatorial primary set for Sept. 14.

And, in New York, Bill Clinton was a stalwart behind appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand even as she beat back a series of serious (and not so serious) primary challengers. Gillibrand was an early endorser of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and was appointed by Gov. David Paterson (D) to fill the vacancy created by Clinton's ascension to Secretary of State.

While the Clintons and the Obama White House have made nice since the 2008 primary (finally) ended -- and Bill Clinton recently praised President Obama in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer -- it's clear that the former president has a long memory for those who were with his wife (and he) during that campaign.

And, given his record of success in primaries to date -- see Blanche Lincoln and the Pennsylvania 12 special election -- a Clinton endorsement is a major "get" for candidates these days.

-- Felicia Sonmez

By The Fix  |  June 29, 2010; 5:23 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mark Kirk tries to push the "reset" button
Next: Mark Kirk attacks Alexi Giannoulias on Broadway Bank

Comments

"Better watch it when/if Mr. Elway decides to run. He may pick Idaho"

TheBabeNemo

Elway would certainly like to run in Colorado, I think. Back when Republicans were getting ready for redistricting in 2001 (and they controlled everything at the time), there was talk of drawing the new 7th for Elway. Doing so might have come at the expense of the 6th, which would have been made slightly less Republican. Douglas County (pretty solidly Republican and growing very rapidly) would probably have gone into the 7th in that case, and if not for Tom Tancredo's underperformance in 1998 and 2000, probably would have been put in the 7th anyway.

Posted by: joeyjoejoe | June 30, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

isn`t romanoff a russian name.

Posted by: SISSD1 | June 30, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

I was thinking: If former Post publisher Katherine Graham were alive, how many Fix columns would bring a smile to her face? That should be the standard strived for before the first word of any Fix column is typed, i.e., what would Mrs. Graham think?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 30, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse

dd, agreed. Weingarten's column was insightful although his account of the Jackson incident was clearly told from "writer's" now editor's (he was promoted at WashPo following the incident thus causing even more controvery) point of view.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 30, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse


Nothing is off the record in Wash D.C., even if they invoke the words. Same with reporters. And specially not in wartime.

The insults and comments McChrystal threw around like beach balls were too overwhelming. He made more than one mistake. The minute he opened his mouth for the first insult, thinking it was off the record, his conscience probably told him it wasn't. He was all powerful??????

These reporters' relationships with someone they are embedded with for a month are not blood oaths and everyone playing the game should know it. Even a 4 star general.

Rolling Stone is (always has been) the "hippie magazine" don't forget. Even if Hastings said "sure it's off the record"....it would not be.
Rolling Stone, like WaPo, "break real big stories".

McChrystal should have been thinking, instead of throwing insults...."uh oh, Rolling Stone, better keep it low keyed".


Posted by: TheBabeNemo | June 30, 2010 12:39 AM | Report abuse

What happened to the boycott ??


All you guys said you were adhering to the boycott ???


Did you quit ???


.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 30, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

From Weingarten's chat
---------------
Gene Weingarten writes:

Good question, and a good forum to discuss the Highbrow Poll. In between the time the poll was written and now, aides to McChrystal told the media that the reporter had violated an implicit "off-the-record" understanding. The reporter denies this, and his editors point, quite reasonably, to the suspicious week-long delay in between the blockbuster and the countercharge.

Had there been a clear promise of anonymity for these sessions, then the writer had no business including any of those comments; if you violate an off-the-record understanding, it must be the end of the world -- something you cannot ethically withhold, and you must, in writing about it, write also about your betrayal and your reasons for doing so. (A case in point: When Jesse Jackson used "Hymietown" to describe NYC, a writer who understood that Jackson meant it off the record, to black reporters, felt it was something deeply significant about the candidate that needed to be aired; the story gave full context.)

I don't think this merited that sort of end-of-the-world scenario. I also doubt that there was a clear off-the-record understanding, though McChrystal and his aides may have ASSUMED there was, ironically, BECAUSE of the incendiary nature of what they were saying.

The big question, then: Was the reporter obligated to withhold this stuff, for any reason? Big answer: Absent an explicit off-the-record understanding, of course not. This was a deeply unhealthy relationship between the military leaders and their civilian commanders. The reporter, in my mind, would have been derelict to ignore it. This is not about gossip, it is about a deep fracture of trust and respect. The public needed to know.

What about the issue of whether a beat reporter would have written this story. ... that's more complicated. The easy answer is, I would hope so, for the reasons above. It's a big story and a reporter who refused to see that, or failed to see that, is a reporter who has been co-opted by his job.

In many smaller ways, though, beat reporters do have a harder time finding fault; you need your subjects to like you, or at least to respect you. If any journalists contests that there is an issue here, ask them if they have ever heard of the term "beat sweetener." Marjorie Williams taught me that term. It's when you write a light profile, or a feature story, about a person or people you cover, not because it's a story that must be written but because, you know, it's true, and reasonably interesting, and, um, well, your sources are not going to dislike the publicity at all.
--------------------

We need more people in journalism like him.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 29, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Interesting, the Post keeps putting these Mark Kirk misstates his miliatry record stories out there regularly but Blumenthal running for Senate does virtually the same thing but the Post drops that issue after a few brief stories. The only difference? An R after Kirk's name and a D after Blumenthal's name.

==

A lie as well as a whine.

Blumenthal "misspoke" in a trimmed-down quote taken out of  context and told the truth many times in more complete and untrimmed statements, yet CC carried *six* *consecutive* *hyperventilating* *posts* and milked it like water from a stone.  In the end there was nothing there, and Blumenthal maintains a solid lead and all that work wasted.

Kirk has been exposed in a succession of new revelations, one after another, and they get scant mention here, mostly talking about how he needs to get past them and get back "on message," whatever betrayal of the public trust that message might be, and mostly calling them "misrememberings" or something like that, pish posh, nothing to see here, grand guy, Kirk, Republican, LOVE the SUIT.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 29, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

i think it is great he is loyal and not throwing people under the bus. check out my Bill Clinton blog
http://adugan-billclintonblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: duganal | June 29, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile - the Rev. Wright is back -


Everyone must realize that Obama brought his children to be taught by Rev. Wright, week after week, year after year.

That point goes directly to the judgement of Obama - and the judgement he has right now.

This issue is important - to bring your child to a racist week after week, year after year show such little judgement and such little common decency, it must be discussed.

I don't believe for one minute that Obama does not believe what Rev. Wright believes - one has to be going to his sermons and never, ever listening to not know what Rev. Wright said. That is not possible.

This tells us a great deal about Obama - ignore it at your peril.

.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 29, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


If you want to make a rule about "spamming" fine - define it and tell everyone what it is.

But don't start off by enforcing a rule which no one knows - and no what knows what the definition is.

And - please don't tell anyone that what drinl does isn't spamming.

Or Noacoler.

And broadwayjoe attacks any person who does not agree with him - is that spamming ???

I am sorry - but the standard was set on this blog during the 2008 campaign - the Obama people had 5 people on this blog every shift - attacking every person with an opposing view.

That is not spamming ???


That is spamming by an entire group.

And broadwayjoe, ddawd, and others were around then -

This is like a gang - protecting its territory.


Seriously - if you want a spamming rule - make the spamming rule and define it.

So everyone knows what the rules are and that they can follow it.

However, I would guess most people are concerned about the uncivil attacks.

And again, Broadwayjoe and ddawd, leichtman, fairlington and others are at the center of a constant stream of attacks.

I don't know what to tell you - but the constant stream of attacks from this gang is the major problem - and that is the cause of much of the push-back on this blog.


.

Posted by: LaserLight | June 29, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

It is said that "no one works a room" better than Bill Clinton.

But in Colorado, I think it's going to be Bennet.

Better watch it when/if Mr. Elway decides to run. He may pick Idaho.

Everyone in Colorado is waiting for that announcement, but I am not sure if he is for it. They re-districted for him and called the district #7. Now if that is not a message, I don't know what is.

And plus, as a personal plug. Mr. Elway has made nice nice with the Broncos and looks like he is coming back in an executive or coaching position. Isn't that special???

((((BTW, can we all just get along)))

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | June 29, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

3. ChrisFox/Noa: The comparison between you and 37th is based on your desire to return repeatedly under other names despite being banned. I continue to be baffled as to why you spend so much time getting back to a blog you disdain so much but that's another conversation.


Ped. 37th. Yeah. Same thing.

Why spend every waking minute chasing your first friend. Did the other one spring a leak? Buy a patch kit and go away.

Posted by: Moonbat | June 29, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

You libs are a joke.

Can't even pull off a proper boycott

we are laughing at your incompetence

we are crying for obunglers incompetence.

Must run in the family.

Posted by: Moonbat | June 29, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

You've been banned twice as many times as I have, zouk. Crow away.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 29, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

What sort of loser trolls internet blogs all day and night, cutting and pasting, spamming, lurking and begging others to leave one site and visit another?
And what poor pathetics would follow the lead of such a loser?

..............

Welcome to the moonbat mutual admiration society. Did you hear there is a boycott on?
Founding members drivl, Ped , ddunce, Baghdad bj and mad Madge. Oh and loud and dumb.
Hahahahahaha

Posted by: Moonbat | June 29, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

... But wait! What if someone comes by and wants to know about [Nimrata Kaur Randhawa]? What should we say? GO [Nimrata]?

Posted by: Brigade | June 29, 2010 7:12 PM
_____________

Edited for accuracy... No prob.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 29, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, I'm not giving you a course in basic genetics as a series of blog entries.

Characteristics that are constant in populations across time and range represent established equillibria. That's a fact.

The genetic predisposition toward alcoholism doesn't prevent reproduction to anywhere near the extent that homosexuality does, yet the gene is attenuated quickly over time anyway; the Chinese, having alcohol for 5000 years, have very few alcholics; Scandinavians, a fifth that time, are loaded with them. Lotta tall blond men in drunk tanks.

Sometimes a clearly survivial-negative gene persists because it's linked to an advantage against and even more survival-postive condition, such as the fatal reaction to fava bean carbohydrates that persists because it confers malaria resistance.

This is all 101 stuff, and it's obvious that you don't understand it at all. You think of genetic as some sort of market competition, typical American warped outlook.

If one twin is gay and the other isn't, is the gay twin at an evolutionary disadvantage? No, he's at advantage, because he can care for his brother's children and his genes get passed on anyway.

Go read a book once in a while. You're disgustingly ignorant.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 29, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

And what poor pathetics would follow the lead of such a loser?

Ped drivl. Ddunce Baghdad bj. Mad Madge


You know. The regular moonbats.

Always lurking. Watching Waiting.

Posted by: Moonbat | June 29, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

All that genetics stuff makes my ears perk up. I had to ask, even if it meant defying drindl. Don't tell her.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 29, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, seems like 37th has entered his refractory period. Care to provide cliff notes on the genetics/homosexuality thing?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 29, 2010 7:25 PM
----

Hell, I don't even remember how we got off on this subject. Someone must have called me a dirty name.

Posted by: Brigade | June 29, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, seems like 37th has entered his refractory period. Care to provide cliff notes on the genetics/homosexuality thing?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 29, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

It's a deeply equilibrated aspect of human normality.

What about that is so hard to understand? Your prejudices don't allow you to reason about it at all. Which is pathetic and cognitively crippling.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 29, 2010 7:16 PM
----

Uh, according to whom?

Posted by: Brigade | June 29, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Gee Brigade you can't even understand it when it's expained to you. Homosexuality is not a genetic abnormality nor a disadvantage linked to an advantage a la favism linked to malaria resistance. It's a deeply equilibrated aspect of human normality.

What about that is so hard to understand? Your prejudices don't allow you to reason about it at all. Which is pathetic and cognitively crippling.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 29, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Patriots dd, d, noa, et al., tell me when the boycott is off. In the meantime, you robo-trolls have the blog to yourselves. Just bumblingberry/brigade/zouk and heatwave/37 talking to each other.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 29, 2010 7:02 PM
----

Yes, by all means, don't do ANYTHING until you get permission from Drindl. All six of you. She'll be back from the soup kitchen any minute now. But wait! What if someone comes by and wants to know about Nikki Haley? What should we say? GO NIKKI???

Posted by: Brigade | June 29, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Threadjack. As Noacoler often waits until the wee hours of the morning to respond to
posts, it becomes necessary to either ignore them or respond in a later post.
---------------------------------------

Noacoler wrote,
"OK, as promised. The reason that homosexuality doesn't die out by reproductive attrition could not be more obvious to anyone lest that someone is as much an idiot as Brigade. For ~5% of the population to be homosexual is fundamental to the definition of humanity and can no more be bred out than we can start being born with both arms on one side. It is deeply and firmly established in the genome. The fact that some societies, apparently originating with nomadic Sephardics, cannot force it away by discrimination shows that is it not something passed around in some families but not others, like alcoholism.

The origin? Probably the hundreds of thousands of years we spent as hunter-gatherers, when there was obviously an advantage (that's right Brigade A-D-V-A-N-T-A-G-E, so S*CK IT UP) to having some males not reproducing, or not joining the hunt. I'm speculating in this paragraph but not in the last one.

And while homosexuality is clearly not linked to a single gene or to a gene cluster, the disposition is probably expressed in the uterine environment."

-------------------------------------

I expected a more substantive response. An earlier poster provided a link to a theory that, while amounting to little more than educated guesswork, was at least sprinkled with scientific terminology about X and Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA.

Noacoler's explanation is on the level of "God made gays the way they are; it's part of the natural order" (fundamental to the definition of humanity, is how he puts it). While that may be true, it's not very Darwinistic. The gene for homosexuality is "deeply and firmly established" in the human genome, we are told. But just how did this come about? Such a development, which works against rather than in support of reproductive efficiency, certainly cannot be called "neutral"---bi-sexuality, maybe; homosexuality, hardly. No reason is given why natural selection should favor or even allow such a state other than some blather about hunter-gatherers and a feeble attempt to somehow equate the condition with being bipedal.

I thought we might see evidence linking homosexualty with some other genetic abnormality which, on balance and given the right environmental circumstances, might provide a positive impetus in the selection process. No such luck. While Mayr and Haldane turn in their graves, Noacoler inadvertently brings creationism one step closer to the classroom. Poor devil.

Posted by: Brigade | June 29, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Patriots dd, d, noa, et al., tell me when the boycott is off. In the meantime, you robo-trolls have the blog to yourselves. Just bumblingberry/brigade/zouk and heatwave/37 talking to each other.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 29, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

A Clinton endorsement is certainly worth more than an Obama endorsement. Same with a Clinton presidency.

I notice Drindl started the day spamming one of the other threads with her usual cut and pastes from other sites and then had the audacity to contaminate each and every thread today by lurking in the background and, whenever a non-conservative appeared, leaping in to tell the poster to boycott the Fix and meet her somewhere else. What sort of loser trolls internet blogs all day and night, cutting and pasting, spamming, lurking and begging others to leave one site and visit another?
And what poor pathetics would follow the lead of such a loser?

Posted by: Brigade | June 29, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse


Politico is reporting that the Daily Kos has admitted that it has been publishing fraudulent polling data.


I guess that settles the dispute with broadwayjoe over Rasmussen.


Research 2000 is being accused of fraud by the Daily Kos - you just can NOT make this stuff up.


Statement from the Daily Kos:


We contracted with Research 2000 to conduct polling and to provide us with the results of their surveys. Based on the report of the statisticians, it's clear that we did not get what we paid for. We were defrauded by Research 2000, and while we don't know if some or all of the data was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can't trust it. Meanwhile, Research 2000 has refused to offer any explanation. Early in this process, I asked for and they offered to provide us with their raw data for independent analysis — which could potentially exculpate them. That was two weeks ago, and despite repeated promises to provide us that data, Research 2000 ultimately refused to do so.

________________________

WOW


.

Posted by: Heatwave | June 29, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

The statement from the Daily Kos can be changed to apply to Obama:

Statement from the American People:


We voted for Obama to do what he said in the campaign of 2008 - work hard at being bipartisan, finding bipartisan solutions with the Republicans, and to be post-racial.


Based on the Obama's job performance, it's clear that we did not get what we voted for.


We were defrauded by Obama and the democrats, and while we don't know if some or all of the campaign was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can't trust it.


Meanwhile, Obama and the democrats have refused to offer any explanation.


Early in this process, We asked for and they offered to provide us with their raw data for independent analysis - and after Scott Brown was elected, Obama was handed a golden opportunity to be bipartisan — which could have potentially exculpated Obama and the democrats.

That was five months ago, and despite repeated promises, Obama and the democrats refused to do what they said they would.

_____________________________________

Can't make this stuff up folks - who in the world would have thought all this would have happened this way.

.

Posted by: Heatwave | June 29, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

This is just a lame mix-em-up and confusion-em tactic by Obama and Clinton

So to distract everyone away from the Romanoff-Obama scandal, Clinton endorses Romanoff.

Which throws Romanoff a bone, and throws everyone off the track of what is really going on.

Just another wacky day cooked up by the Clintons - they always have some crazy thing going just to distract everyone from what they are really up to.


Par.

.

Posted by: Heatwave | June 29, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company