Bill Clinton Loves Him Some Andrew Romanoff

UPDATE: According to TPM, Clinton won’t be making appearances for Romanoff and that “A Clinton source says the email posted below is likely to be the only campaign effort on Romanoff’s behalf.” Sorry Democrats, looks like no Colorado visits from Big Bill.

———-

The campaign of Andrew Romanoff today sent out an email with an endorsement from former President Bill Clinton (text after the jump).

This is easily Romanoff’s most significant endorsement (no offense, Dennis Apuan), and now he has a Democratic President to match Barack Obama’s support of incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. So the big question: Who has Jimmy Carter?

I first met Andrew Romanoff in 1992, when he was a student at the Kennedy School of Government and I was a candidate for President.  Four years later, I was running for a second term, and he had just been elected to his first — as one of Colorado’s representatives on the Democratic National Committee.

I was proud to carry Colorado in 1992, but you should be even prouder of what Andrew Romanoff did to turn the state blue.  He worked harder than anyone in Colorado to put Democrats in positions of power — and to use that power to benefit every single citizen.

Andrew led the effort to win a majority in the Colorado House of Representatives for the first time in 30 years, and to keep that majority for the first time in more than 40 years.  He built the largest Democratic majority since John F. Kennedy was President.

Even more important, Andrew took on Colorado’s biggest challenges and made enormous progress.  As the first Democratic Speaker of the House since 1976, he:

Put together an Economic Recovery Plan to bring good jobs to Colorado and balance the state budget.

Passed the largest investment in school construction in state history — a billion-dollar plan to repair, rebuild and modernize schools, especially in rural Colorado.

Protected Coloradans from the threats they face every day: insurers who deny their claims and refuse to honor their policies, scam artists who prey on seniors and bilk them out of their life savings, polluters who destroy the environment and expect somebody else to pay for the damages.

Andrew won.  Colorado won.

In 2008, the editors of Governing Magazine honored Andrew as “Public Official of the Year.”  They recognized in Andrew the same qualities that the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and more than 50 other organizations had already seen — integrity, courage, compassion.  Simply put, Andrew Romanoff is one of the best legislative leaders in the United States.

Colorado is far better off today because of Andrew Romanoff’s leadership.  America will be too.

As a Senator, Andrew Romanoff will continue to stand up to special interests and fight for working families.  We need Andrew’s leadership in Washington — especially now, when so many Americans are losing so much.  “It is not enough,” as Andrew put it at the Colorado Democratic Assembly last month, “to put a President of real talent and vision and leadership in the White House if the same qualities are not matched at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Andrew won the state assembly by 21 points.  With your help, he’ll win the primary and the general election.

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

I support Andrew Romanoff, and I hope you will too. Please make a generous contribution to his campaign today.

165 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. WashParkPoet says:

    This really says a lot about the split of the Democratic party. if Clinton is supporting Romanoff and Obama is supporting Bennet, then what are we to make of this?

  2. JeffcoDemo says:

    I was proud to carry Colorado in 1992, but you should be even prouder of what Andrew Romanoff did to turn the state blue.  He worked harder than anyone in Colorado to put Democrats in positions of power — and to use that power to benefit every single citizen.

    I keep forgetting how the authors of The Blueprint messed up that whole leadership thing, it was Andrew all along.  Now that Bill says it I guess I believe it.

    • BlueCat says:

      Ross Perot took a so many R leaning votes.  Lost in ’96 with no significant third party candidate.  Nothing at all like the Obama win.  Clinton is right about Andrew being instrumental in turning the state blue, though.  That’s totally legit.  He’s done a great job over the years for Colorado Dems.  

        • jpsandscl says:

          support him in the primary.

          Remind me again what Bennet was doing all those years Andrew was a selfless public servant?

          • MADCO says:

            I say career politician.

            I say thank you – and attempt to fairly evaluate his candidacy.  Which I did in September when I chose Senator Bennet.

            Gratitude for his service does not mean he gets the seat.  If he can earn it, fine.  But it’s not his just because.

            During those years Bennet was living a life with his family, working at jobs and stuff.

            • jpsandscl says:

              “If he can earn it, fine.  But it’s not his just because.”

              That’s EXACTLY what most Romanoff supporters think about Bennet. He has to earn it. I think Andrew has done for more for the Colorado Democratic Party over a much longer time frame than Bennet and has earned our support.

              Meanwhile “…Bennet was living a life with his family, working at jobs and stuff.”

              Just like the rest of us. I guess we are all equally qualified for the job by that standard.

              • greality says:

                Aren’t we supposed to all be qualified to run for office? Isn’t that in like… the constitution? Some important document like that.

                • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                  with Romanoff from the very beginning. He (and his supporters) constantly fall back on the argument that he deserves the position because he’s Andrew Romanoff. While I appreciate and acknowledge all the hard work and sacrifices he’s made as a career politician, it doesn’t automatically get him the Senate seat. Romanoff was (and continues to be) genuinely shocked when the seat wasn’t just handed to him. How dare people question whether Bennet, a private citizen, might be a better choice than a career politician?

                   

                • Voyageur says:

                  and a resident of the state you represent.

                    Still, Henry Clay was appointed to the U.S. Senate at age 29.  Nobody challenged him.

                    Other than that, anybody can run and the rest of us choose — since we now elect them directly rather than being appointed by the legislature as in Clay’s day.

                    Sometimes, I think AR yearns for the old days when the legislature did the appointing.  

                  • OuiserBoudreaux says:

                    …after he seeks and is turned down for them, that is.

                    🙂

                  • jpsandscl says:

                    that all the difference is made.

                    I have seen maybe one or two actual valid defenses of Bennet’s candidacy in all the posts I’ve read aout this race. The rest condign Andrew as some sort of a bitter loser for not graciously walking away when he wasn’t appointed originally.

                    Sorry he and so many others think it is a position worth fighting for and worth campaining for. I guess so does bennet. he could have resigned. He could have decided not to run for election. But he thought it worth fighting for too. Good for both of them.

                • jpsandscl says:

                  and to all the disingenuous comments about what should qualify someon efor such a responsible position in public office as that of a United States Senator, I must say I beg to differ.

                  I think it is important to be knowledgeable about the things we might ask our Senators to deal with, to have experience in the legislative process, to know something about the world and the role of a Senator in it.

                  In the year bennet has been in office, I frankly don’t see such great things yet. he does not understand the process that well, although he definitely understand the politics. he is great at writing letters, not evidence that it translates into greatness at writing legislation as yet.

                  And the kinds of experiences we have does mean something. No one takes their car to a vet. he may be great at working on his own car, but we want someone with experience. The same is true in almost all professions. Yet our modern society somehow demonizes people for getting exactly the kind of experience we should want them to have in the political world.

                  “Career politician” said with a sneer as though that is almost the worst thing you could call him. Shame on you.

                  • MADCO says:

                    I have never sneered or otherwise belittled Speaker Romanoff’s career and service.

                    Team Romanoff are the ones denying it and running away from it.   I have nothing but gratitude and respect for his contributions.

                    Sure – experience and a resumГ©.

                    I think Bennet has earned my support – you think the same about Romanoff.  They’re both good choices.

                  • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                    the only people “qualified” to be senators are ones who have previously held some other political position? Lobbyist? Or just to have been a lawyer? I’m trying to understand what you meant by:

                    I think it is important to be knowledgeable about the things we might ask our Senators to deal with, to have experience in the legislative process, to know something about the world and the role of a Senator in it.

                    What do you consider adequate experience in the legislative process? Clearly you don’t think that Bennet has or had it so I’m looking forward to hearing your explanation;

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      I think some legislative experience is a good thing to have to be a Senator. it is a steep learning curve without it.

                      And that doesn’t mean necessarily as a legislator. My good friend Jon Goldin-dubois is running a strong campaing for House District 7 in my area and his experience is as a lobbyist more so, another much maligned group in the popular media.

                      So, what qualifies in your opinion? Just having reached the age of 30 or 35 as some have suggested?

            • stadt says:

              Yeah, DC lawyer in Clinton’s admin and then millionaire.  He’s just a regular guy.  Total outsider.

          • BlueCat says:

            Gratitude isn’t everything.  I think we owe a debt of gratitude to John McCain, for instance, for all he endured on our behalf as a POW.  That doesn’t mean I think he knows his ass from a hot rock or would have been a competent president. Romanoff doesn’t have the ass/hot rock problem but I think Bennet is the better candidate for a bunch of reasons we’ve all argued endlessly here already. I show my gratitude by acknowledging Romanoff’s accomplishments and wishing him well in some other endeavor.

            • jpsandscl says:

              You don’t think so, but it doesn’t stop you from using the analogy in derrogating Andrew. Oh, but you didn’t mean Andrew, you meant McCain. We were just talking about Andrew.

              Subtle.

  3. The realist says:

    and a terrific letter!

  4. sufimarie says:

    because his name is still tied to the Sestak job offer and this is only going to remind everyone of that. Clinton is still in the pocket of the Obama/Illuminati administration and ultimately a Clinton endorsement is …uhm… bad.

    Sorry, I was just trying to channel my inner infant/Libertad and try to beat Bennetpols to the punch.  

    • Middle of the Road says:

      about a president endorsing a Senatorial candidate. I think you do see a little bit more of that on your blog, no?

      You know, the whole argument and protest and resentment and bitch and moan fest that has lasted for nearly a year now over the fact that the President of the United States preferred one candidate over another and then endorsed him. Do share how that is so very bad but this is so very, very good.

      • sufimarie says:

        I can’t.

        :'(

        I just can’t

      • Colorado Pols says:

        We’ve never said anything about whether Obama should or should not have endorsed Bennet. This is politics — people support others who helped them before. We wouldn’t expect that to change, even for a President.

        The only real conflict of interest we’ve ever thought to be significant is with a State Party Chair because of their role with the caucus/assembly process, but that hasn’t been an issue in Colorado for either party (not officially, anyway). Otherwise, people should be free to endorse whomever they want.

      • StrykerK2 says:

        check out compete.com — they rank traffic on websites.  This blog has been taking a nose dive for the last few months.  Squarestate is on the rise.

        I think people are getting tired of Pols’ bias.

          • StrykerK2 says:

            I am…everywhere…

              • StrykerK2 says:

                sorry to hear about that MoTR

                • Middle of the Road says:

                  Pols appreciates the traffic.

                  • StrykerK2 says:

                    fewer people are coming here — probably because of 2nd rate hacks like you.  

                    The number of posts doesn’t drive the numbers — the number of people does.  That’s what sites have to show to potential advertisers (notice how long that top ad has been empty?)

                    If pols is going to continue to be this bad, I for one and glad to see them go.

                    • raymond1 says:

                      schizo much?

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      I really do. He is the living embodiment of resentful bitterness and while he’s on here ringing the death bell for Pols, there a whopping four posters on his beloved RomanoffState and he’s one of them.

                      He hates it here. He truly does. But he just can’t quit us. 🙂

                    • Ralphie says:

                      Stryker–you’re a fucking idiot.  An embarrassment.  A guy who makes me continually rethink my commitment to vote for whoever wins.

                      The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris.

                      I have no dog in this fight and plan to vote for whoever wins.

                      But there are assholes out there who are conspiring to cause me to think twice about that.

                      You belong to that club.

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                    • MADCO says:

                      so many choices…..

                      The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris.

                    • wade norris says:

                      just continues to rise on this site, thanks

                      to you Ralphie.

                      and double classy points for MOTR for endorsing that train of thought.

                    • botw says:

                      … a joke that Woody Allen included a joke in Annie Hall.

                      “This restaurant is terrible, and the portions are so small.”

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      because when new guys like me show up, we are made to feel completely unwelcome.

                      I might add that it usually takes more than 15 hours to earn a little cred on this site. Stick around for a while and we’ll see if your rhetoric holds up to scrutiny.

                      by: dukeco1 @ Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 22:40:04 PM MDT

                      No one told me I had to sit back and shut up for a certain amount of hours until I had built up enough “cred”.

                    • Cartesian Doubt says:

                      Especially this primary season. But some of the conclusion-jumping is counter-productive to the inclusiveness most of us seek here.

                      I think giving the benefit of the doubt would help until someone is proven to either be a hollow shill or a serious contributor.

                      It’s unfortunate that you had this experience.

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      The funny thing is, I moved here from CA right before the appointment of Bennet and didn’t really get interested in politics until after the last elections. I think moving from a state that is/was so solidly blue to a “swing state” had a lot to do with it. In Colorado voting and elections have serious consequences.

                      Overall, this site has been engaging, enlightening, frustrating, and informative. I’ve also met some very cool people who find politics as fascinating as I do even if their politics aren’t the same as mine.

                      I strive to respectfully disagree when I feel someone is wrong so I was pretty taken aback at that reaction.

                    • Cartesian Doubt says:

                      in all shapes, colors, and (ego) sizes.  

        • Colorado Pols says:

          Compete.com is like a lot of other sites that try to “estimate” traffic data based on who-knows-what. You can see from clicking on our profile on Compete that don’t participate in any of their programs and do not carry their tracking code on our website. In other words, Compete has absolutely no idea what kind of traffic we actually get, because their code is not embedded at Colorado Pols — there’s no other way to know a site’s traffic unless you have code embedded.

          Our stats program tells us plenty about our traffic. Take what Compete says and multiply it by about six and you’ll have a little better picture.

        • Voyageur says:

          I can’t believe a site with as few postings as Square State has anything like the vibrant readership of pols.  The Fongster is bringing it up, slowly and surely, and we all wish her well.  But it’s a long way from matching pols.

    • harrydoby says:

      One of Andrew’s many strengths is his ability to instill loyalty among those that know him.  As Bill Clinton indicates, he’s known Andrew a long time, and the support (both in the DLC and in supporting Hillary) is mutual.

      Even though I’ve voted for Andrew 4 times in the past, my head says I will vote for Michael Bennet in August, and the Democratic primary winner in November.

      • sufimarie says:

        why do you support Bennet over Romanoff. I’m sure this space has been busy with a protracted back and forth answering this but I haven’t read it. Can you summarize your support for Bennet?  

        • harrydoby says:

          I wrote this diary after the caucus explaining my reasoning.

          As I said to the Romanoff delegates at the assemblies who asked me “Why are you against Andrew?”, my answer was – I’m not, I’m for Bennet.

          Senator Bennet, far from committing a firing offense, has — in little more than a year — achieved far more than anyone in the Old Boys Club could reasonably have expected from a mere freshman.

          • StrykerK2 says:

            I mean it must have been hard work voting to make sure BP kept their tax breaks.

            • harrydoby says:

              I’m sure both you and I will grit our teeth over a few of his votes too (as I did over his immigration vote in the Colorado House).

            • Cartesian Doubt says:

              doesn’t help anyone think any better about Andrew Romanoff. Do you not think about the possible damage you do to his campaign before you post here? Because of your (and others’) attitudes toward Bennet supporters here, if Romanoff wins, I will probably skip the Senate line on the ballot.

              And to address any bias you may allege, I’ve written before of my respect for Andrew Romanoff. But I lose a bit of it whenever I read posts here insulting Bennet supporters.

              • Middle of the Road says:

                A few petty bitter bloggers should not be enough reason to let a Republican take this seat. Like they say, it’s not personal. It’s business. In this case, it’s political but same motto in the end.

                • harrydoby says:

                  I can almost guarantee that the winner will be endorsed by the loser.  It will be a bitter pill to swallow for whomever that turns out to be.

                  But both men are a class act and will understand that the alternative of letting Norton (deludedly) or Buck (tactically) fuck up our futures is much worse than the consequences of their own personal setback as it pertains to the future of America.

                • Cartesian Doubt says:

                  have turned this primary into an unending exercise in vicious name-calling and childish whining. I’m sick of it. It’s not what a primary is about.

                  The Romanoff campaign has posted here on policy issues, but I want to see a diary denouncing, in no uncertain terms, the people here who have become symbolic of the negativity that’s turning others against Andrew Romanoff.  

                  • Rainidog says:

                    but I’ll be surprised if that happens.  This has been going on for months and so far crickets from the “official” campaign re the name-calling, personal denigration and childish whining from supporters in public venues and forums.

                  • TheGreatAndPowerfulOz says:

                    Bennet supporters have viciously attacked people here and there is no apology from the Bennet campaign.

                    The whining seems to be coming from the people who are outraged that someone had the audacity to challenge Michael “Aw-Shucks” Bennet. It’s disgusting and beyond hyprocritical to then turn and point fingers at Romanoff’s people.

                    Just yesterday, a Romanoff supporter was called a “A fucking idiot, an embarassment” on this very site. Romanoff supporters were compared to the KKK as well. Yet WE are name calling?

                    Don’t be fooled, the “Aw-Shucks” campaign may lead people to believe that they are innocent little victims but they are nasty. It seems to fit the role of petulant child to call a friend in high places, like I don’t know, the White House, to try and get your opponent to drop out. That doesn’t seem so sweet and innocent to me.  

                    • RedGreen says:

                      was the “Aw Shucks” candidate.

                    • TheGreatAndPowerfulOz says:

                      Hickenlooper is the “Har Dee Har Har” candidate.

                      Cause he’s so funny see?

                    • Cartesian Doubt says:

                      I’ll call them out on it, too. But Sen. Bennet doesn’t post here, Romanoff for Colorado does. So they have the ability to read the hateful remarks.

                      And Oz? Give me some evidence of Bennet supporters being hateful.

                    • TheGreatAndPowerfulOz says:

                      I didn’t mean to wait to reply to you, I was unexpectedly called out of town to deal with some family matters.

                      Here is one link, http://coloradopols.com/diary/

                      Here is another,

                      http://squarestate.net/diary/3

                      I just linked to the entire diary so you can see the whole conversation instead of anything being taken out of context.  

                    • MADCO says:

                      But that name calling outburst wan’t because that poster apparently supports AR.  It was because that poster’s posts are twisted and shrill. And demeaning.

                      At least that’s how I read it- ymmv.

          • stadt says:

            we’re not firing him; we never hired him.

          • Colorado Pols says:

            And one that should be remembered for people in both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Just because you are supporting one candidate doesn’t mean you are opposing the other. Well, technically it does, but you don’t have to be actually against one candidate to be in favor of another.

        • Voyageur says:

          on terms that pretty much guarantee his defeat in november.

           First, after taking money from unions, pacs and everything else for eight years he had a revelation on the road to Damascus and decided– just four days after shutting down his PACmoney sponge, that he wouldn’t take money from Pacs or Unions and started claiming that Bennet was a crook because he was still doing what Romanoff did until four days earlier.

            Then, he has done nothing to restrain rabid shills like StrykerK2, who had the viciousness to post

           

          Bennet is a shitty human being

           on this blog.  If Romanoff’s campaign of character assassination succeeds in downing Bennet, just how eager do you think the honest Democrats who backed Bennet will be to back Romanoff in the November.

            Bennet has conducted an honorable campaign with his eye on the Republican opponent in November.

             Romanoff has so far run a “Burn down the mission” campaign.

          By the way, StrykerK2shill, I’m still waiting for an apology for your vicious personal attack on Bennet.  

          • botw says:

            Romanoff’s campaign has succeeded only in creating a large boomerang effect.

            He was much admired years ago, but he has shown himself to be endlessly snarky and dishonest.  Some of us who voted for him, helped him raise money, and sung his praises will never, ever work with him again.

        • Ray Springfield says:

          One of Andrew’s supporters correctly stated that I burned bridges with AR and that it was un needed. I suppose that if I had been willing to look beyond  the flat slander  of Sen Bennet that could have been true.

          Sen Bennet doesn’t play that game. If that means he isn’t as good at being a professional politician then so be it.

          I find the fact that Sen Bennet would rather say nothing than lie refreshing.  

  5. Say Hey Kid says:

    If Bill Clinton campaigns in person and does commercials for Andrew it will be a game changer.  Clinton is still very popular as shown by what he did to save the Democratic nomination for Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.  

    When it looked like all was lost the former Speaker pulled a Clinton Rabbit out of his hat

    • Middle of the Road says:

      According to TPM, this is all the effort he is making for the race.

      A Clinton source says the email posted below is likely to be the only campaign effort on Romanoff’s behalf. Clinton will not appear at any Romanoff campaign rallies.

  6. Ralphie says:

    “Andrew as Progressive” meme, doesn’t it?

  7. TheDeminator says:

    Congrats for Team Andrew for doing this but unless Clinton is coming into CO for fundraising it does not help him much.  Unless he catches up money wise it does not matter.  I am sorry Andrew Folks, it is going to come down to money. Michael has it, Andrew does not –  Andy Szekeres

    • WitnessProtectionForGeeks says:

      you can’t win without money.

      Sad thing is, Andrew knows this, but he has to play the hand he has

      • paulrosenthal says:

        I’m sorry Andy, but even if Clinton doesn’t actively campaign for Andrew, which I think odds are he will, this really grants Andrew a major boost in legitimacy in his campaign.

        So, money is extremely important but not everything.  This is a bizarre political year, and I think an upset is still possible despite Bennet’s money advantage.

        • catpuzzle says:

          Not that big, and really, not that surprising given the 2008 primary. Romanoff backed Hillary. Bennet backed Obama. It’s just loyalty and payback…

          The endorsement brings to the surface 2-year-old fractions between President Obama’s camp and the Clinton establishment camp. Romanoff endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2008 and Bennet endorsed Obama.

          http://blogs.denverpost.com/th

    • stadt says:

      but that’s exactly the problem, and exactly why I’m voting for Andrew.

  8. glasscup says:

    So says talking points memo…

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo

    A Clinton source says the email posted below is likely to be the only campaign effort on Romanoff’s behalf. Clinton will not appear at any Romanoff campaign rallies.

  9. Dan Willis says:

    This is why I am afraid for my friend’s chances.

    It is an absolute campaign plunder to not have an ask for contributions worked into this release. And it is this lack of money that is going to get in the way of Andrew winning this election.

    I hate to say it, I hate to see it, but there it is.

  10. Gilpin Guy says:

      It also helps Bennet.  A Clinton endorsement would have reinforced the insular Washington insider fraternity image.  Now Romanoff gets a lift and Bennet doesn’t have to defend himself that he is riding the insiders wagon.  Good for the candidates.  Good for the race.  Good for the state.  This could be a barn burner race to the finish.  With class.

  11. GottaFindaBetterUserName says:

    I’d like to see a campaign ad that pictures romanoff and clinton smiling and shaking hands when Romanoff was at KSG – similar to Kennedy and Clinton – with warm hues mixed with perfect shading and orchestral soundtrack, all juxtaposed with Bill’s aweshucks drawl stating, “I like Andrew, and I hope you do too.”  (Yes, yes, I know Andrew is only getting the email and maybe nothing more, but one can hope!)

    …provided such a picture exists and provided they have enough money to put that ad up. But heck, photoshop can do wonders.

    That would be a pretty good ad imho.

     

  12. StrykerK2 says:

    rather than promoting either of the diaries that wrote about this first.

    This way they could add “information” like the quote from TPM (not found anywhere else for what it’s worth) that makes this sound less impressive.

    • studmuffin says:

      It’s really not that impressive. Nor was Bennet getting the Obama endorsement. I can see about five things in my peripheral vision that are more impressive than presidential endorsements, including two empty chocolate pudding snack-packs. Which were delicious.

      Chocolate > Presidents. Any day.

      Let’s focus on the issues and not the big people who try to throw their weight around.

    • Colorado Pols says:

      We post the entire endorsement letter from Bill Clinton…but you still find some sort of anti-Romanoff conspiracy afoot.

      When you complain about everything, we end up listening to nothing.

      • StrykerK2 says:

        but hey…you can trump whatever internals you want 😉

        • Colorado Pols says:

          Our traffic has consistently risen every year. Our page views are up 45% from the same time last year.

          You need to have a basic understanding of website tracking programs before you go spouting off about what you think you know. The ONLY way to accurately measure the traffic of a website is if you have your own tracking code embedded in the code of said website — that’s not our rule, that’s how the Internets work. Any other attempts at measuring traffic are only estimates, and bad ones at that. Otherwise, everyone would know the traffic statistics of every website out there, which OBVIOUSLY isn’t the case.

          There’s no website you can visit that will tell you the traffic of Colorado Pols or ANY OTHER WEBSITE.

          And BTW, as of the writing of this comment, there are 101 other comments on this post. But yeah, nobody is reading anymore. Sure thing.

    • raymond1 says:

      Gotta love how Pols wrote their own…

      rather than promoting either of the diaries that wrote about this first.

      I call Bullshit!: if Pols HADN’T written its own, here’s what you would’ve written:

      Gotta love how Pols didn’t even write its own diary about this major event, instead just promoting a diary by a non-editor.

      See, you’re so predictable in your douchebaggery that I can write your posts for you!  You’re welcome.  

  13. The realist says:

    endorsement of Andrew Romanoff in the US Senate race.  Silly me.

  14. Say Hey Kid says:

    This is a real game changer.

    Clinton surely remembers the Romanoff support for Hillary in 2008 while Bennet was with Obama.  

    Clinton does not make this move unless he feels that Romanoff has a good chance of actually winning.  

  15. JeffcoTrueBlue says:

    Gotta love the spin from Bennet’s own Baghdad Bob – that this was just paying back a long-time friend and that Bennet respects the loyalty. Except, let’s review facts (which I know, Bennet tries to avoid mixing with his reality.

    A long-time friend? Paying back loyalty? OK, Romanoff met Clinton when Romanoff was in college – is that the long-time friend he’s referring to? Romanoff endorsed Hillary – along with thousands of others. Are we to believe that Clinton broke with the White House, no doubt created a storm for Hillary all because of that?

    Now on the other side, Guy Cecil was Hillary’s Political Director and is now Bennet’s Chief of Staff. Where was the loyalty that would have had Guy blocking this? More than that, Bennet and his daddy both worked in Clinton’s administration? Is his passing encounter with Romanoff worthy of more loyalty than working in his administration? Does he know something about Bennet that makes him throw his support behind Romanoff?

    Clinton doesn’t throw his considerable political weight behind without real thought behind the decision. Is he really putting his name on the line, breaking with the White House, going against the establishment all because he thought it would be fun? Or is it more likely it is exactly as he wrote, that Romanoff will be the better Senator and has a better chance of winning?

    Kincaid, the Bennetistas and Pols can dismiss this but I don’t think Clinton made this decision lightly.  

    • Colorado Pols says:

      Where did we dismiss this endorsement? Where? We posted the whole damn letter, and called it Romanoff’s best endorsement.

      But perhaps we should thank you for proving the point we have made over and over and over: We write good and bad things about everybody, and everybody — on both sides of the aisle — always accuse us of bias or some big conspiracy. That’s when you know you’re doing it right — when everyone thinks you’re out to get everyone else. We just call ’em like we see ’em. Nothing more.

      • TheGreatAndPowerfulOz says:

        I don’t recall you ever writing anything bad about Bennet.

        Maybe I’m wrong, but no one has been able to prove that yet.  

      • JeffcoTrueBlue says:

        Remind me again, when was it you guys authored a front-page story about Bennet doing something you didn’t agree with or was just stupid? Was it when he had his spokesman call and berate the only two local progressive radio hosts? Was it his vote on the Thune amendment? His vote on Too Big To Fail? His very public backing from the charter schools and DFER? Was it that article you put up asking where that public option is that he said he’d introduce? Was it calling him out for refusing to meet with immigrant rights groups until after the primary?

        The Govs – dead and the newly recruited – have a right to post whatever they want. But please, be intellectually honest and admit that you’re solidly behind Bennet. There’s not an ugly truth about Bennet that would come out that wouldn’t be dismissed.  

  16. MADCO says:

    A good endorsement for AR – and I’m glad to hear that President Clinton has moved to Colorado.  Wouldn’t want any more outsiders endorsing our candadites.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.