Overshadowed by Leahy: VT's lone (and progressive Rep) endorses Obama as well

[cali]

Peter Welch, long time progressive activist, also endorsed Obama yesterday. Vermont is very pro-Obama and has been for some time. Welch is strongly anti-Iraq war and was before the decision to go to war was official. He spoke out strongly when he was the Vermont Senate President. Like Obama, Welch was a community activist when he was younger.

And of course, he's another super delegate.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7735672&nav=4QcSdcR6

[FrenchieCat]

Maybe the read Obama's book.....

Instead of talking out of their asses like some round here.

Great Endorsement. Thanks for letting me know.

[cali]

2. It is a good endorsement

Peter Welch is a true progressive and a really good guy. Hard to find anyone in this little state who doesn't feel that way.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Losta great endorsements

Varied too.

It appears that he is popular in the Red States as well as the Blue states.

In the Red/purple states alone, thus far, he has Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, and Govs. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Janet Napolitano of Arizona.

And the electoral stats show that in 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush carried North Dakota with 60.7 percent and 62.9 percent of the vote. A Democratic presidential candidate has not carried the state since 1964. Bush carried South Dakota with 60.3 and 59.9. It has not voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1964. Bush carried Missouri with 50.4 and 53.3. This bellwether state has voted with the winner in every election but one (1956) in the last 100 years. Bush carried Nebraska with 62.2 and 65.9. It last voted Democratic in 1964. Bush carried Colorado with 50.8 and 51.7. It last voted Democratic in 1992. Bush carried Arizona with 51 and 54.9. It last voted Democratic in 1996. Bush carried Virginia with 52.5 and 53.7. It last voted Democratic in 1964. Bush narrowly lost Wisconsin with 47.6 and 49.3.

I wonder why they didn't endorse Clinton or Edwards? Seem like they would love having a popular former President or a White southern guy coming sitting at the top of their ticket instead. Makes one want to scratch one's ass, hey?

[cali]

3. Interesting stats

I don't think there's a chance that a dem will take Nebraska or North Dakota, but CO, VA and NM strike me as good possibilities. And I know VT isn't representative of anything, but we are another very white state that has a lot of support for Barack.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Just kicking!

[Barack_America]

5. Way to go Vermont!

Your support is appreciated!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

6. Yes!

The more endorsements the better for Obama. It's quite interesting to read the papers here in the UK. The Times seems to favour Hillary while the Independent (the paper I read the most) favours Obama. The Independent does a lot of write-ups about Obama and talks a lot about American politics.

[cali]

9. The Times is Murdoch's flagship paper after all

I'm sure he'd prefer McCain to Clinton but he has supported Clinton in the past.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

10. I bought Wednesday's The Times

I never knew that it was owned by Murdoch! It was because the Independent was sold out (it is frequently sold out here in my part of the UK) and I wasn't sure if I wanted to buy the Guardian as the last time I read it, they had a cartoon of Obama as a shooting target, implying he was going to get assassinated. That turned me off the Guardian a little bit.

I might read it later when the election goes a bit further on. I always like to read differing views outside the US on US politics, it's quite fun.

[babylonsister]

7. Yay! Rec'd! nt

[MH1]

8. Obama's getting some NICE endorsements.

I guess these folks aren't worried about Mrs. Inevitable, or else they think it's that important to buck the Machine.