Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Kaine Still Has High Hopes for Obama

Tim Craig

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) said he's still confident Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) can overcome Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to win the Democratic nomination for president, despite new poll numbers that show Clinton is widening her lead nationwide.

In an interview this morning, Kaine said Obama is still well positioned to win the Iowa caucus, where many polls show a three race between Clinton, Obama and John Edwards.

"Someone who comes in and wins Iowa in a surprise way gets a tremendous amount of momentum," said Kaine, who earlier this year became the first sitting Democratic governor to endorse Obama. "I feel very good where Obama is in Iowa."

Kaine has taken an active role in Obama's campaign, offering frequent advice to the senator and his senior staff. Kaine is also organizing support for Obama in Virginia, which holds it presidential primary on Feb. 12.

"He is the underdog and you know Senator Clinton is the front-runner and that has been the case since the day he got in, but he is doing very, very well in the way he is setting up in the early states and I am feeling good about his chances," Kaine said.

But Kaine doesn't have the best track record when it comes to supporting winning presidential candidates. In 2004 Democratic primaries, Kaine endorsed Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who quickly dropped out after a string of losses to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)

By Tim Craig  |  October 3, 2007; 2:23 PM ET
Categories:  Election 2008/President , Tim Craig , Timothy M. Kaine  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gilbert Presses Kaine
Next: Feder's Fund-Raising Prowess


Fact: Senator Obama noted that, on the most critical vote of Senator Clinton's senatorial career, she WAS WRONG. And, more importantly, she did not even read the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) even though she had 10 days to read those 90 pages.

In essence, Senator Clinton showed GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY in not reading the report, which, had she done so, would have seen many caveats, as pointed out by former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who read it and therefore could not vote for the war.
We are talking about judgment, and Hillary showed BAD JUDGMENT on her vote for the war, compounded by her not reading the report before sending other people's kids off to die or be maimed in this war of choice.

Fact: More bad judgment...she just voted FOR the Lieberman bill that calls the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which is essentially taking the first step towards helping Bush go to war with Iran. Hillary HAS NOT learned her lesson, and continues to exhibit bad judgment for the American people.

Fact: Hillary is also very PRO increasing the H1B visas which bring in high tech professionals who earn about $20K less than our own unemployed IT people all over this country, and the companies don't have to pay benefits, either. She is directly responsible for HELPING TO GUT THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Fact: President Kennedy was advised to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but this young, wise president told them NO, and opted for a naval blockade, thus saving us all from an all out nuclear war. Declassified documents show just how close America came to nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

President Kennedy had the wisdom and good judgment that Senator Obama has shown, going all the way back to 2002 when he gave his public anti-war speech at a rally in Chicago when he was running for U.S. Senate and could have jeopardized his Senate seat. He did it, anyway. That's called courage of his convictions and GOOD JUDGMENT.

We do not need someone in the White House who got there by playing the game via the vaunted Clinton Machine, triangulating and changing positions like a reed in the wind.
One more thing...if being first lady for 8 years in the Govenor's Mansion and first lady for 8 years in the White House qualifies as relevant 'experience' to be president, then why not have Laura Bush run for president? How preposterous does that sound?

Let's wake up and pay attention, and don't rely on the mainstream media because they have already coronated Hillary, which is an extremely un-democratic thing to do in a democracy, and they do it every single day.

The question of good judgment:
As Senator Obama stated in his speech yesterday, "So there is a choice that has emerged in this campaign, one that the American people need to understand."

"They should ask themselves: Who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong?"

That, right there, disqualifies Hillary for me, as failing on the biggest decision of her life, and compounding her failure by triangulating her rationale for authorizing this disastrous war of choice.

Posted by: pacifica1 | October 3, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I, too, think Obama is going to surprise a lot of the pundits when the voting actually begins and this gives me great hope.

I have never voted for a Republican but if Hillary gets the Democrat nod I won't be voting for a Democrat this time around. She is, by far, the purest politician in the race and, not only do I dislike what that means at its core, I also fear what four more years of that kind of stewardship will mean to our country.

We are not in need of a consumate politician. We need someone who may turn out to be a statesman. With Obama that hope exists.

Posted by: David Dial | October 3, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Kaine is right on the money. I question the reliability of the polls that just came out. Why not give Clinton 80% and share the rest among the candidate?

The polls are bogus and are not reliable.

Posted by: Bee | October 3, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "she did not even read the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate)"

I agree.

Furthermore, she voted against the 2002 Iraq Levine Amendment.

When recently asked about this by George Stephanopoulos on his Sunday morning show, Senator Clinton ducked (in my opinion, and to my great disappointment) the question.

You don't authorize the option of war, and put young people's lives at risk without first having done your homework, and requiring peaceful solutions to have been adequately explored first.

Clinton failed on both accounts.

Obama got this one right. Clinton did not. The choice is clear to me. And, as the electorate becomes better informed on this most crucial of points, I hope it will become clear to sufficient numbers of those who vote in the Democratic primaries, too.

Posted by: George, Houston, TX | October 3, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

It's not a national campaign yet. National polls are very little indication of much of anything. Obama is running ads in only a few states and has only been running ads and campaigning consistently in Iowa and to a lesser extent NH for any significant amount of time. Look at Iowa for a model of how voters react when they learn there's a track record of accomplishing change on gridlocked issues to go with the hopeful rhetoric and good judgment.

On health care, ethics reform, energy, education, justice and the death penalty, and foreign policy, on all of the crucial issues we face, Obama has a track record of bringing people together to find solutions. Yes, there are indeed substantive legislative achievements on all of those issues. Two examples: the first ethics reform in Springfiels in 20+ years, the first time CAFE increases passed the US Senate in 20+ years. It's too bad we can't clone Obama and get CAFE done in the House too, but we can make him president.

I could go on, but Obama's accomplishments are too numerous to list. Hillary? Well, few successes but she's got those "scars". . . not that she's learned from mistakes she refuses to admit making.

Posted by: Jeremy | October 3, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is smart and calculating, but this hurts her credibility with those looking for a consistent stance on the war. She equivocates like Kerry, and look what happened to him.

Obama is the fresh face with new ideas. Some complain of lack of experience. I agree with other postings that it matters more that I trust his judgement and that he is telling me what he really thinks.

Clinton makes me nervous, like she has something to prove and as a female president would have to pull the trigger to prove her "manliness."

I have no problem with a female president in general, but Clinton has too much baggage that will weigh her down in the general election. That and, if we are going to go against the conventional white male model, I honestly think that a black man has a better shot this time around than a white woman.

Either way Obama wins. If he loses the nomination, he's positioned for the next round. But this is Clinton's only shot before she gets too old. I do not feel that we should give her the nod jsut because she is next in line.

Posted by: Jason | October 3, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

The only poll that matter is when the real people go out there to cast their votes. In my opinion, most of the polls will never favor Sen Obama because a large portion of his supporters are young adults who don't believe in Land phones.

There is also the possibility of PUSH POLLING, coupled with the fact that MSM have already picked the winner.... Just like the way they pushed the Iraq war on the people by telling people what they think they should think instead of allowing the people make up their minds.

Posted by: ZTL | October 3, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a draft-dodger.

Posted by: Kacoo | October 3, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

The truth:
1- Polls are made up.
2- Washington Post, CNN and other have been leading a negative campaign from the start against Obama. As a result we are not surprised that their polls look exactly like their opinion about Obama: negative opinion.
3- But America watch up and listen up, be ready to see the clintons fake the election like Bush did in Florida... what a stupid democracy.

Posted by: chris | October 3, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I hope people use their own judgment and not listen to the MSM. Obama is brilliant and has what it takes to run this country. He is genuine and not trying to "score points" like Hillary. He addresses problems with common sense, and most importantly, without listening to lobbyists and special interests. If Clinton gets the nomination, as a registered Democrat I will not vote for her.

Posted by: Alex | October 3, 2007 8:14 PM | Report abuse

I hope my fellow Americans this time will make an intelligent choice to elect a president who can change the business as usual in politics as well as foreign policies. Clinton again voted for declaring Iran national guard as terrorist organization after she voted for Iraq war. She does not seem to have learned anything from her previous mistake (although she has never admitted that she made a mistake). Sometimes I wonder if she actually believe in anything or have any moral obligations to anybody at all except for her own ambition.

Posted by: murshao | October 3, 2007 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Kacoo, I hope you're being sarcastic when you called Obama a "draft-dodger"!

I, too, like so many commenters before me, hope that America pays real close attention to the candidates' track records. Clinton is a politician and represents the quest for power for power's sake. Obama represents change, hope, a new generation, a new face for America around the world.

You know, if Clinton were to get the nomination, and win (and I don't think her chances would be good in a general election), and then serve 2 terms, by the time she got out of her 8 years in the White House, half of the living US population at that time will have known no presidents whose last names were NOT Clinton or Bush. How sad is that?

Posted by: Daniela | October 3, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Barack Obama will be at the Prince George's Community College on Wednesday, October 10th, 5 pm. You can get tickets on his website.

It may well be his last visit to Maryland and the suburbs until primary day.

Posted by: Hellmut | October 3, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

As one poster said above, I have not voted republican but, if hillary gets the nomination I won't be voting democrat for the first time.
I just cannot see hillary getting the nomination. In my bones I just feel she is not doing as well as the polls say. Many feel the polls are off somehow whether they are being manipulated or what, they are not correct.
and the media, with it's gushing obsession with the clintons, doesn't help matters.
But, I do think the race is much closer then is being stated.
I do know, living in Illinois, that Hillary's organization in Iowa is a mess. It is not very strong and I have heard alot of it is outsourced to corporations to run.
Obama is a former community organizer and it's said his organization in Iowa is very impressive and strong and effective.
this is going to be a difference.

Posted by: vwcat | October 3, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

If you think the WP has been running a negative campaign against Obama, you should read the NYT. They have clearly endorsed Clinton and won't back down--that is both surprising and discouraging to see.

Obama has the charisma, the small-scale leadership experience, and the big-time vision to lead this nation. If the MSM don't succeed in swaying public opinion toward the industry standard, he WILL be president.

Posted by: Sara | October 3, 2007 11:06 PM | Report abuse

I believe because Obama stands for a real change, a change that will touch the intreast of many media owners and special intreast, they see the need to fight against Him and support Hillary who is in their pockets. Obama is a loosed men not a puppet of any man! If you are for change know more fights and oppositions will come! dont loose heart stand with what you believe and not let anyone tell you otherwise.

Posted by: Wazolangu | October 3, 2007 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Sen Clinton is an extremely intelligent, disciplined, and obviously a visionary politician in her own right without former Clinton's street cred. However, I can't believe Americans are not asking is it proper to have four consecutive Presidents from two immediate families. It seems un- American to me and actually something I would expect from the Old World or Third World not the so called New World. No one is talking about this ?. I've seen her asked this question twice and she get's away with a unsubstantial answer like " I thought Bill was a good President." Haven't we seen the ill effects of an executive branch who is not accountable to the people. Very honestly the overly corporate media is unwilling to operate as a true 3rd Estate, and the behemoth baby- boomer generation is usurping so much influence, but then acts like a blind leviathan- people wake up.

Posted by: jacade | October 4, 2007 12:09 AM | Report abuse

11:06 p.m. touts Obama's "small scale leadership experience." Gimme a break. Three years ago, he was a member of the Illinois State Legislature. He basically had a buy in his 2004 election. There is much I like about Obama, but waxing eloquent about his "small scale leadership" experience is making a virtue out of necessity. What's next, the head of the local PTA running for President on that basis?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Several posters have complained that, if Hillary wins, we'll have too many people named Bush or Clinton as president. And they ask whether Democrats will nominate Hillary because "it's her turn."

I support Hillary for President. I asked myself those very questions before I made up my mind. People are right to ask them.

But I decided that Hillary was the best candidate of the lot, and if that meant that another Clinton, then so what? Does anyone complain that the Kennedys are a political dynasty? That Al Gore's father was a senator? That Chris Dodd's father was a senator? Why single Hillary out?

As for "it's her turn," I disagree that she's campaigned on that basis. That charge would apply to John Kerry or Fred Thompson, but not Hillary, who has shown a real hunger for the nomination and poise when answering questions.

And she didn't win her Senate campaigns by drilling down to the Democratic vote in New York City. She won them by appealing to Republican voters in upstate New York. That's not the style of someone who feels she's owed a victory. It is the style of someone who's hungry for victory.

Posted by: Hillary supporter | October 4, 2007 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Hillary supporter- I'm glad you have thought about the dynasty- legacy thing, and it's true about the others like the Kennedy's many don't have a problem with, But c'mon Rick Lazio it's easy to cross party lines when you run vs him( Everyone was thinking why is the paperboy on TV ? )

Posted by: jacade | October 4, 2007 2:00 AM | Report abuse

I'd rather vote for Newt than Hillary and I usually vote for the democrats. I hope Obama wins.

Posted by: Democrat in California | October 4, 2007 3:20 AM | Report abuse

Guess what the Internet and blogs and hope doesn't win elections

Cold hard cash and discipline does

Obama is running an elementary school campaign and will continue to crumble against the professionals and Hillary

Posted by: Obama = Howard Dean | October 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

You are so ridiculous! How much can you live with yourselves when you write all these anti-Obama stories??? I'll bet the people are going to get sick of Hillary by the time the primaries come around. You can tout whatever poll numbers you like, there's no suppressing the truth!

Posted by: Washington Post | October 4, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

oh for god's sake, people - this MSM phony story is based on 592 people, I repeat 592 people. This is how the MSM anoints the winner in the self-fulfilling inevitability game. The only place 592 people across a nation is a significant percentage is when we're talking about millionaires and jazz fans...there are 80 million self-described democrats in this country, which means ABC/WAPO is trumpeting this based on surveying less than 1/1000th of 1 percent of all democrats. Yup, that is pretty convincing polling indeed...

Posted by: mz | October 5, 2007 3:47 AM | Report abuse

Go Oboma! Hillary is the most contrite, phony, flip flopper she is worse than Kerry, who has no vision except corruption and gaining personal power, she is like Hugo Chavez, Hilter, Marx, and Lennen combined rather than trying to make this country better she was to recreate Amerika through communism/socalisism! There are 17 Democrat districts about 14.4 million voters that do not want Hillary come and campaign! Go Obama, 48-52 negitive ratings for Hillary and 55% white women and men will not vote for her ever. Then there are the upcoming scandals including her involvement in ACT a voter activist group who signed 250,000 voters that did not exist 110,000 voted in Pensyvania and Ohio and the largest fine for VOTER FRAUD ever $770,000 to Soros Hillary's money man. then there is Hsu in federal costody who is about spill the beans on Bill and Hillary on the funny money from straw donors through money laudered from China, also his CEO is missing, probably dead or in China! As a white man Hillary leaves me in stark fear she is not a leader and will sell out our great country just like Bill did in 1992-2000, the Bush Clinton dynasty has to end almost 2 decades is way to much, time for a refreshing change, Go Obama, I am sending you a contribution through your website today! Then there Media Matters her group she excepts the creation of it, the Clinton spin machine to not allow any opposing views but hers be heard by black mail intimidation, threats, spying she is not a defender of free speech at all.
Mr Oboma I am honored that you are running! Keep up the good fight! If you want win run on to change these divisive ways of the Demorat party and run on Change for a positive platform, not her kill your enemies first she is scary! The 2 decades of her Clinton crime machine is over! Just remember honesty is the best policy to win!!!!

Posted by: james | October 5, 2007 9:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company