Quantcast

Thursday, July 31, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 135 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Obama endorses Schatz in U.S. Senate race

By Josh Lederman

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 02:21 p.m. HST, Mar 31, 2014


WASHINGTON » President Barack Obama on Monday threw his support to Sen. Brian Schatz over Colleen Hanabusa in Hawaii's Senate race, stepping into a primary that has been divisive for voters in the state where Obama was born.

Obama's backing could give a critical boost to Schatz in Hawaii, where Obama remains more popular than in most other parts of the U.S. Seven in 10 Hawaii voters chose Obama in 2012. Polls this year show Schatz and Hanabusa are in a competitive race.

"Sen. Schatz is protecting Hawaii's values and fighting every day on behalf of middle-class families," Obama said in a statement. "There is no question that Senator Schatz is the right choice to continue delivering for Hawaii."

Appointed in 2012 after longtime Sen. Daniel Inouye died in office, Schatz is running in a special election to fill the remainder of Inouye's term, which expires in 2016. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie appointed Schatz over Hanabusa, both Democrats, despite Inouye's preference that Hanabusa replace him.

The race has become a point of division for Democrats both in Hawaii and on a national level. The state leans heavily Democratic, and the winner of the August primary is likely to win the general election. Hanabusa, who like Inouye is Japanese-American, has attracted many of his dedicated supporters, while many younger voters have been attracted to Schatz's progressive message.

In Washington, much of the party establishment, including the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has lined up behind Schatz, while Hanabusa has secured backing from Emily's List, a PAC that assists female Democrats who support abortion rights. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also endorsed Schatz on Monday.

"I endorse him wholeheartedly and support President Obama's decision to do the same," Reid said in a statement. "Brian has proven himself a champion for working families in Hawaii."

Hanabusa campaign spokesman Peter Boylan said in a statement that Hanabusa would continue to listen to the concerns of people in Hawaii, who will decide the election.

"The people of Hawaii are looking forward to their first opportunity to vote for their next U.S. senator and we believe they trust Colleen to continue fighting for them in the U.S. Senate," Boylan said.

Although the president is aggressively raising money for Democratic groups to use for the general elections in November, he's generally avoided intervening in primaries. In December, Obama did endorse Abercrombie in a re-election bid for governor over a primary opponent, state Sen. David Ige.

Schatz was an early backer of Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, while Hanabusa and Inouye were allied with then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Schatz has been actively involved in Hawaii's statewide bid to lure Obama's presidential library to Hawaii, where the president vacations with his family every year.

"I am proud to be one of the president's most steadfast allies in the U.S. Senate," Schatz said of the endorsement, which was first reported by The Huffington Post.

During Hanabusa's 2010 and 2012 House races, Obama recorded ads praising her values and saying that Hawaii needs her in Congress.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 135 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(135)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
realist3463 wrote:
If the electorate in Hawaii was an intelligent one, Obama's endorsement of Schatz would be "the kiss of death".
on March 31,2014 | 06:50AM
soundofreason wrote:
Worked on me.
on March 31,2014 | 07:14AM
Ewasohappy wrote:
Me too.
on March 31,2014 | 08:28AM
bleedgreen wrote:
Me too.
on March 31,2014 | 10:18AM
Manoa_Fisherman wrote:
It certainly is for many people. Obama will go down in history with even a worse reputation than Jimmy Carter, really intelligent men without a lick of common sense. Great endorsement from one Punahou grad to another.
on March 31,2014 | 10:35AM
boolakanaka wrote:
Hmmn., then please explain, how come the deficit i is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush’s administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 -so, it seems- the US “debt problem” seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity. But the outlook has changed dramatically in just 4 years. And it has been a boon for investors, as even the safest indices have yielded a 250% return (>25% annualized compound return:) Or, even for small investors, such as those limited to their 401(k) or IRA investments, the average annual compound return on stocks under President Obama has been more than 27% since the lows of March, 2009. This is a better result than either Clinton, Reagan or FDR....so?
on March 31,2014 | 03:05PM
justin_thyme wrote:
Very well spoken. The Obama-bashers keep looking more and more ignorant and pathetic every day!
on March 31,2014 | 03:26PM
Ronin006 wrote:
Boolakanaka, you are confusing budget deficit with national debt. The budget deficit may be shrinking as a percentage of GDP, but the national dept is increasing by millions of dollars every day and is almost $17 TRILLION, an increase of about $6 trillion since Obama took office. What you need to know is that the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not recorded in the budget. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the US “debt problem” seems largely solved?
on March 31,2014 | 05:15PM
Ronin006 wrote:
Boolakanaka, you are confusing budget deficit with national debt. The budget deficit may be shrinking as a percentage of GDP, but the national dept is increasing by millions of dollars every day and is almost $17 TRILLION, an increase of about $6 trillion since Obama took office.
on March 31,2014 | 05:16PM
Ronin006 wrote:
Greetings Boolakanaka, I think you are confusing budget deficit with national debt
on March 31,2014 | 05:32PM
Ronin006 wrote:
Greetings, Dear Webmaster. why are my comments repeatedly being sent for approval? Here is the latest: “ Boolakanaka, I think you are confusing budget deficit with national debt. The budget deficit may be shrinking as a percentage of GDP, but the national dept is increasing by millions of dollars every day and is almost $17 TRILLION, an increase of about $6 trillion since Obama took office. What you need to know is that the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not recorded in the budget. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the US “debt problem” seems largely solved?”
on March 31,2014 | 05:44PM
Manoa_Fisherman wrote:
Schatz must have you on the payroll for your multitude of comments on this story alone to defend his and Obama's record. As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Your statistics are probably accurate, but have no bearing to the reality we have exist in Hawaii. While Schatz talks about green energy, Hawaii's people must pay three times the national average for our electricity. Also, using the bottom of the stock market when Obama took office to see how well some one's retirement portfolio is coming along is misleading, if not plain deceptive. Try living on the interest of savings bonds and certificates of deposit that pay next to nothing which retirees were told to invest in to avoid the volatility of the stock market. Meanwhile inflation continues to eat away at the elderly living on fixed incomes as well.
on March 31,2014 | 06:47PM
Nevadan wrote:
Where are the $7 Trillions?
on March 31,2014 | 07:40PM
soundofreason wrote:
Are ya just gonna ignore the record debt issue? He refinancing a 2nd mortgage 5 times over for that illusion.
on March 31,2014 | 08:43PM
boolakanaka wrote:
See: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/budget-deficit-shrinks-103092.html
on April 1,2014 | 03:58AM
boolakanaka wrote:
The federal budget deficit is projected to drop in fiscal year 2014 to its lowest level since President Barack Obama took office, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO projects the federal deficit will fall from $680 billion in fiscal year 2013 to $514 billion in fiscal year 2014. Federal revenues are expected to increase by 9 percent in 2014, to $3 trillion, while spending will increase 2.6 percent to $3.5 trillion -- both in line with the 40-year average. Expiring tax cuts for businesses and an expiring cut to the Social Security payroll tax, along with an improving economy, account for the boost in revenue. The increase in spending is attributed largely to higher spending on programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. The federal deficit was a record $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, when Obama took office. The subsequent years have seen a concerted effort to cut the deficit; the debate has largely centered on by how much. After the GOP took control of the House in the 2010 midterm election, the pro-austerity crowd has largely won the debate in Washington, with the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, passed by Congress and signed by the president, cutting federal spending by $1.2 trillion over the next decade. That austerity has come with a price: CBO previously projected that the sequestration cuts would result in 1.6 million fewer jobs by the end of fiscal year 2014 and cut 0.7 percent off the national gross domestic product
on April 1,2014 | 04:00AM
cwo4usn wrote:
me three
on March 31,2014 | 10:57AM
hanalei395 wrote:
From the above, that's already 5 votes for Hanabusa.
on March 31,2014 | 12:18PM
mitt_grund wrote:
me four. And I supported Obama with my hard-earned dollars. But can't help noting he is sort of muddling through his last term. I see it as blind, unfounded Punahou grad scratching back of another Punahou grad, sort of like incestuous nepotism.

Wait, I may have to change that "I" word. Will I be sent for review?


on March 31,2014 | 04:28PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Another vote for Hanabusa from mitt.
on March 31,2014 | 05:40PM
jmarie wrote:
Total agree!!!!!!
on March 31,2014 | 08:23AM
JAFO wrote:
Ditto!
on March 31,2014 | 09:17AM
hanalei395 wrote:
And you also agee ..... No Republican senator from Hawai'i.
on March 31,2014 | 01:40PM
AhiPoke wrote:
It is for me. I can't stand hanabusa so I guess I'll abstain.
on March 31,2014 | 08:23AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Schatz or Hanabusa,... it's a win-win for Hawaiians.
on March 31,2014 | 10:24AM
soundofreason wrote:
I thought you said you gave up drinking ;)
on March 31,2014 | 08:44PM
hanalei395 wrote:
For making a stupid comment, I'll be nice and just say that you're drunk. (I could have said that you're stupid).
on March 31,2014 | 09:02PM
AhiPoke wrote:
LOL, LOL, LOL!!! By the comment below, I think you got to hanalei.
on March 31,2014 | 09:16PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Agree. All who realize Obama is taking our country on a downward spiral should vote for Hanabusa -- it's the only way Democrats can show opposition to Obama, unless you vote for a Republican.
on March 31,2014 | 08:35AM
Rite80 wrote:
Voting for Hanabusa is like voting for a republican of yesteryear. Only positive thing I can say about her is she isn't a modern day crazy republican.
on March 31,2014 | 09:09AM
jyorck wrote:
and you are a Republican! move to Texas!
on March 31,2014 | 11:59AM
DAGR81 wrote:
He's not a Republican...He's an idiot.
on March 31,2014 | 05:27PM
Jaystuff wrote:
If the electorate in Hawaii was an intelligent one, then any other person's endorsement should be meaningless as each individual should be able to come to their own conclusions on who is the best candidate.
on March 31,2014 | 09:54AM
boolakanaka wrote:
Sage and prudent counsel.
on March 31,2014 | 01:00PM
glenn57377 wrote:
Agree!
on March 31,2014 | 11:10PM
frontman wrote:
Looks like Dannyboy wasn't one of obama's favorites.
on March 31,2014 | 01:54PM
mitt_grund wrote:
Remember Schatz, because Obama was an alumnus of Punahou, and he likewise, chaired the Hawaii Obama for President committee. So, Obama has to support him because he was chair and because he is Punahou.

Flashback: At the 2008 Dem caucus, there was an incredible turnout. At that time I voted Obama, but Clinton had a good turnout, too. Supposedly a lot of GOP voters became "Dem" that night just to throw the vote one way or another. Probably their presence helped throw the vote to Obama. LOL.


on March 31,2014 | 04:39PM
Wazdat wrote:
Really you want a useless old lady in there ???
on March 31,2014 | 02:59PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Wazdat will be voting for Schatz.
on March 31,2014 | 03:30PM
serious wrote:
HIS endorsement might be the kiss of death!!! Look at what happened to Michigan State in the Sweet Sixteen!! Who did Putin pick? Oh, he didn't have time, he was running a country.
on March 31,2014 | 06:54AM
boolakanaka wrote:
Putin's country? Which has lost over 10% of its stock market in a single month? A place that originated the term Oligarch? A country, in which income disparity is one of the worse in the world? A country, for all its nature resource largesse, has almost zero foreign investment, because most financial markets view it as being the most corrupt in the world? A country that outside of oil and some mineral concerns, has almost not industry at all? A country that is pariah to almost every other industrialized country in the world?? Is that the country he was running...?
on March 31,2014 | 07:06AM
808HRW wrote:
boolakanaka, You missed the whole point. Serious wasn't saying that Putin was running a better country. And in fact, regardless of the country that Putin runs, his point was that at least he's at the helm running it rather than playing/vacationing/golfing/going to OSU bball games etc. but you knew that you just wanted to sound smart.
on March 31,2014 | 09:39AM
boolakanaka wrote:
808--You unfortunately confusing Presidents. Because the winner of that trophy, in the modern eram by a long-shot, was George W., see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/09/watch-which-u-s-president-took-the-most-vacation-time/ Read, it sometimes helps....
on March 31,2014 | 10:06AM
Anonymous wrote:
It's all George Bush's fault. After four years that's all you got?
on March 31,2014 | 10:11AM
boolakanaka wrote:
I did not blame anyone, I merely placed in context the previous persons comment about the White House and vacations. That is all.
on March 31,2014 | 10:18AM
townbound wrote:
Well OK, he was a Big Time Doofus too.
on March 31,2014 | 01:14PM
hanalei395 wrote:
The Bush/Iraq war. ... Over 4,500 U.S. troops ....dead .... for nothing.
on March 31,2014 | 05:52PM
AniMatsuri wrote:
The are lesser countries that just control a lot of oil(western Europe is dependent on Putin's oil) that have a lot of influence. Do you share Obama's opinion that Russia is just a regional power of limited threat to the US?
on March 31,2014 | 09:41AM
boolakanaka wrote:
I don't think that anyone who considers them well read, would say Russia is a regional power. That said, I would be fairly cautious of not reading that exceprt in the full context of the passage. That is to say, limited threat in what way? Economically--then yes, it has very limited flex in that area. Politically, then yes again, it is very limited outside of eastern europe and central asia, and far east russia.. But, in terms of how large its military is, and moreover the volatile nature of their leadership, it could be a threat, just as Iraq was once a threat.
on March 31,2014 | 10:04AM
NiteMarcher wrote:
Iraq was never a threat to the US--BUSH just claimed it was and we had no business in there. We step into these countries and leave it worse off than ever when a new regime steps in. We go in, cause havoc, step out and think we did these countries a favor. It's complete BS--Saddam had no WMDs to begin with. Our problem is we need to stay on our own side of the fence, we're not global policeman and have a tendency to push our weight around. Putin only got back what was originally his to begin with.
on March 31,2014 | 02:57PM
boolakanaka wrote:
Hmmn, by that logic, why don't you just say that Poland got screwed in the deal, as Ukraine was part of Poland in the 1700s.
on March 31,2014 | 04:15PM
OldDiver wrote:
To be expected. Schatz's position on the environment sits well with a President with two young daughters. Hanabusa's membership in the Blue Dog Democratic House caucus "The New Democratic Coalition" favors corporate profits over people. Their position to cut Social Security and Medicare to help balance the budget is troubling.
on March 31,2014 | 06:57AM
KKawa wrote:
Agree with you 100% OldDiver.
on March 31,2014 | 07:49AM
AhiPoke wrote:
Where did you find her on the blue dog list? I looked them up and her name was nowhere to be found. Everything that I've seen of her is that she's another left wing politician. Yes, schatz is on the extreme left, if that's what you like, but not much more than hanabusa.
on March 31,2014 | 08:28AM
Rite80 wrote:
Google New Democratic Coalition. Colleen Hanabusa is a member of this conservative blue dog democratic caucus.
on March 31,2014 | 08:50AM
AhiPoke wrote:
I believe this coalition is not the same as the blue dogs. Regardless, while i still won't vote for her, this group seems to me to be a better alternative to schatz's progressive movement that wants to spend spend spend us into bankruptcy.
on March 31,2014 | 09:47AM
OldDiver wrote:
There is no caucus called the blue dog caucus. New Democratic Coalition is for the corporatist democrats or blue dog democrats.
on March 31,2014 | 11:51AM
AhiPoke wrote:
Actually, per Wikipedia, there is a caucus called the Blue Dog Coalition.
on March 31,2014 | 01:04PM
itoboy wrote:
AhiPoke: Please check on the following issues to see why Hanabusa is a fake progressive. There is nothing wrong with being a moderate democrat not being a progressive, but if Hanabusa is a moderate, she should say so instead of pretending to be a progressive. After voting for her in the last two elections, I no longer trust Hanabusa - she's on too many sides of the issue. Why did Hanabusa vote with the GOP to weaken EPA rules on coal-fired boilers? Why did Hanabusa vote with her PhARMA PAC to prevent the U.S. from negotiating lower medicare drug prices (like Walmart does)? Why did Hanabusa vote with Wall Street Banks to recind a portion of the Dodd-Franks financial reform bill and allow banks to once again gamble with tax-payer insured deposits on derivatives? Why did Hanabusa vote in favor of spying on American citizens (CISPA & FISA). Why won't Hanabusa sign the Grayson-Takano letter, which promises "we will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits". Why did Hanabusa vote in favor of Simpson-Bowles which seeks to cut Social Security? Hanabusa is looking more and more shady.
on March 31,2014 | 09:37AM
justin_thyme wrote:
All very valid points, itoboy. Plus, Colleen is anchored to the past, whereas Brian has visionary plans for the future. Our sitting senator will get my vote and my campaign contributions.
on March 31,2014 | 03:32PM
kekelaward wrote:
You dems can't even stand each other.
on March 31,2014 | 08:51AM
Rite80 wrote:
At least we have democrats who can't stand each other.
on March 31,2014 | 09:06AM
NiteMarcher wrote:
They need to stop loaning other countries millions & billions off of the tax payers back, Close many of the bases throughout the world, cut Pentagon's spending where needed, stop looking for reasons to cause war with everyone else out there. We the people have paid into this system, and there are a lot of people out there who dropped and never collected a cent of there SS---but, that's never brought up, and our govt. still went in and siphoned off a lot of that money like they do whenever they create some type of fund (like a hurricane fund) and now want to do away with it because they can't pay it back....modern day slavery if you ask me.
on March 31,2014 | 03:05PM
pcman wrote:
Way to go Schatz. All other Dems have avoided the Obama touch of political death. Obama does not care what happens to young politicians as long as they push his lies on. Get wise Schatz. Stand for Hawaii and do Hawaii's bidding. Do something for Hawaii, not for Obama. Obama is not qa Dan Inouye. Dan was for Hawaii, first and foremost. Obama is for Obama. If Schatz can't see that, he does not deserve to represent Hawaii in the Senate.
on March 31,2014 | 07:21AM
serious wrote:
pcman---what was Sen Dan's opinion of the Jones Act that gives us the highest cost of living in the USA? Answer: he was all for it gets unions votes, the heck with the citizens of Hawaii. And our federal legislators all share that opinion. Dan was for Dan--period!!
on March 31,2014 | 10:17AM
Hanalei13 wrote:
You have absolutely no understanding of the Jones Act, maritime shipping costs, or the open market. If you think that the Jones Act drives up the cost of shipping to Hawaii, you're more a fool than ignorant.
on March 31,2014 | 11:18AM
Wazdat wrote:
you are the fool buddy. Really, time to WAKE UP
on March 31,2014 | 03:00PM
loquaciousone wrote:
Most politicians are beginning to think that an endorsement from Barry is a kiss of death. Is Barry endorsing Kneel too? I hope so.
on March 31,2014 | 07:27AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Hey! Don't forget Brian got to ride on Air Force One back to Washington! He must be a powerful guy. Oh wait, he was holding Bo's leash.
on March 31,2014 | 09:11AM
Anonymous wrote:
Maybe he was wearing it.
on March 31,2014 | 10:12AM
Skyler wrote:
Best. Line. Ever.
on March 31,2014 | 05:50PM
HAJAA1 wrote:
I mean, really, what are our choices??
on March 31,2014 | 08:42AM
kekelaward wrote:
Anybody other than a dem
on March 31,2014 | 08:53AM
gtracer66 wrote:
kekelaward, you are a member of a seriously endangered species. A citizen of Hawaii who is not a Secular/Progressive Democrat
on March 31,2014 | 12:55PM
false wrote:
Two uninspiring choices. At least Hanabusa has had years of Hawaii legislative experience. As for Schatz, well what can I say? Appointed by Abbey and holds great pajama parties. Also, he supported Obama over Clinton whereas Hanabusa supported Clinton. Doesn't take a mind reader to know what list Hillary puts Brian on if she becomes the next president, as expected.
on March 31,2014 | 09:59AM
NiteMarcher wrote:
Republican
on March 31,2014 | 03:08PM
LanaUlulani wrote:

This is BAD news for Hawaiians. It signals Obama's plans to UNILATERALLY sign an Executive Order to call us Hawaiians INDIANS.

Senator Schatz already mentioned it late last year.

No offense to our indigenous cousins but we are not Indian. WE ARE HAWAIIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!


on March 31,2014 | 08:45AM
boolakanaka wrote:
What are you even talking about? Even though it has been mentioned to the President, he has not seriously considered it a real option. Why--because, anyone that actually knows administrative law and native policy will tell you, that there are only three routes to federal recognition: congressional action, a ruling by a federal judge or an administrative procedure. The last implies by both definition and practive, that it will have the implicit authority and backing of the Department of Justice. You need to do a little homework, and study what the actual process is from both a political and legal vantage might be---and finally, they would not call kanaka maoili indians, it is both misplaced from both a legal and anthropological perspective.
on March 31,2014 | 09:08AM
NiteMarcher wrote:
The US talked about Putin going in and annexing Crimea and that it isn't right--but was it ok for the US to annex Hawaii--when all the same laws were in place at that time. Something is very wrong with the system, it's more like a land grabbing tactic that the US pulled on the territory of Hawaii. First the missionaries, than the greedy men (the land grabbers) all step in. The English, British and Americans walk in hand in hand in this type of actions.
on March 31,2014 | 03:13PM
boolakanaka wrote:
Yes, yes and yes. Do a reading on the Doctrine of Discovery, that started from the 13th century, and is a concept that extends even to public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall justified the way in which colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to sovereign indigenous nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects explored and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments. In short, some very crappy stuff....
on March 31,2014 | 03:44PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
boolakanaka wrote "they would not call kanaka maoili indians, it is both misplaced from both a legal and anthropological perspective."

Wrong. The legacy version of the Akaka bill -- the final version which passed the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on September 13, 2012, just a couple months before Inouye died and Akaka retired, says the following:

"The Native Hawaiian governing entity shall have the inherent powers and privileges of self-government of an Indian tribe ... and be considered to be an Indian tribe [and] ... is subject to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ... The Secretary may consider the Native Hawaiian governing entity to be an Indian tribe ... ."

How many times have we heard it said: If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ... then it is a duck.


on March 31,2014 | 05:08PM
boolakanaka wrote:
Having the inherent powers of an Indian Tribe is not the same as being a tribe, it merely reflects legal affectations of sovereignty--that is to obtain a political status. Further, my original point was to clarify that Obama is not promulgating an executive order. 25 CFR 83 delineates the way entries within Indian country obtain federal recognition, those 7 delineated criteria, are not applicable to the native Hawaiian community, and thus, by application and default would not be considered Indians. Sir, you got to do your homework on the legal and administrative side....
on March 31,2014 | 05:37PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Howzit, Chief?
on March 31,2014 | 09:10AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Do you think Kimo Sabe was Hawaiian?
on March 31,2014 | 12:33PM
boolakanaka wrote:
He was Tongan Bolivian.
on March 31,2014 | 12:48PM
bully106 wrote:
unwise, mr. president.
on March 31,2014 | 08:53AM
eastside808 wrote:
Is this because Obama thinks he is the most capable person or is it because Brian Schatz is a Punahou alumnus? Kiss of death? Well, the prez did pick MSU to be NCAA winner so maybe? I hope the prez doesnt pick UH to finish in the top tier of the MWC this upcoming season.
on March 31,2014 | 09:09AM
PokeStop wrote:
Punahou Mafia connections? Lately, they all suck. Just ask Gib Arnold, Norm Chow, Michelle Wie, and Bobby Titcomb!
on March 31,2014 | 10:38AM
Bdpapa wrote:
Schwartz was the point man for Obama in Hawaii!
on March 31,2014 | 02:52PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Completely predictable. Colleen is Hillary's gal pal and Inouye, Colleens sponsor, was pro-Clinton.

I expect Hillary to endorse Colleen.


on March 31,2014 | 09:09AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
I wish we could put money on that one as I would be happy to take your $$$. Not gonna happen. Why should she endorse either of them? She's too smart to get sucked into that.
on March 31,2014 | 09:53PM
Skyler wrote:
Are you implying Obama wasn't so smart by endorsing Schatz? No arguing or disrespect intended - more curious than anything. :-)
on March 31,2014 | 10:25PM
HOSSANA wrote:
Hanabusa is a very deceptive and sly politician who used deceptive practices to pass the legislative pay raises for the lawmakers on the last day of the session several sessions ago in her last legislative session before running for Congress. She voted against retaining Margery Bronster as A.G. under the Cayetano administration because of her political ties to Peters, Wong, and developer Jeff Stone but more so against Bronster's investigation of the Bishop Estate and possible fraudulent voting machines in her district. On the Bill O' Reilly or a national syndicated talk show, she came off looking like a fool as she had no damm idea what the hell she was talking about esp. when O'Reilly asked her if she did her homework or knew what he was talking about concerning the vices in Hawaii...I was too embarrassed after the show ended to even think that this was on national t.v.
on March 31,2014 | 09:26AM
loio wrote:
Well, that seals it for me. I'm rooting for Hanabusa.
on March 31,2014 | 09:38AM
2_centz wrote:
I don't know if Hanabusa was for this rail stuff but she was the one chosen by Inouye to continue this new transportation mode for Oahu. But I guess Schatz going have to be the one there. It's going to be hard since there isn't much Federal $$$$$ if anyone took alook in the cookie jar. The rail no more money and the guy in charge of rail says to taxpayers to borrow since they going get paid back in due time and the work must go on. If no more money then the work should stop until the money is there. Otherwise in is only bs in small letters.
on March 31,2014 | 09:45AM
Skyler wrote:
I think the DOT will scr*w Rail money up anyway since they've taken to de-funding Oahu's transportation planning committee (yesterday's news). Let's hope so!
on March 31,2014 | 10:26PM
entrkn wrote:
Senator Schatz is already doing a terrific job of representing Hawaii's best interests in Washington and we all need to get behind him, support him, and vote for him.
on March 31,2014 | 09:56AM
Anonymous wrote:
You give me the creeps
on March 31,2014 | 10:13AM
justin_thyme wrote:
Really? The truth creeps you out?
on March 31,2014 | 03:36PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
entrkn: Anyone who knows more about Hanabusa's past performance, will vote for Schatz. She has more than just an attitude problem.
on March 31,2014 | 10:25AM
Skyler wrote:
I'm definitely not going to be getting behind him & supporting him... #ThatsJustWrong.
on March 31,2014 | 05:54PM
Loki wrote:
Screw him then.
on March 31,2014 | 09:56AM
handsomeguy wrote:
Hate to say this folks but Hanabusa is too old for the job. She is in her 60's which means that she will have little seniority due to her age. On the other hand, Brian is only 40ish, so he has a long way to go. Let's face it...Brian will bring in the money just like Dan did and most people already know that. After all is said and done...money talks.
on March 31,2014 | 10:22AM
Manoa_Fisherman wrote:
Then so is Abercrombie, to be governor. We need a younger man with fresher ideas to run the state, not an old hippie. It cuts both ways when you say old folks can't be effective.
on March 31,2014 | 10:31AM
Anonymous wrote:
And they say that Obama's birth certificate is not authentic ??? If he truly was born in another country.....Every American was FOOLED !!!
on March 31,2014 | 10:26AM
Anonymous wrote:
Nay !! Just ask the 90 something year old lady who remembers that certificate at the Board of Health !!
on March 31,2014 | 10:30AM
AniMatsuri wrote:
Notice how the paper uses a lot of weasel words like there's a still competition now that Obama has chosen which demoncat will be the next Senator? Obama still enjoys at least a 70% approval rating here. It's a done deal but that won't sell papers or stories.
on March 31,2014 | 10:30AM
Anonymous wrote:
All you gun enthusiasts.....Shatz wants to take your guns away !!
on March 31,2014 | 10:32AM
gtracer66 wrote:
As do all Democrats!
on March 31,2014 | 12:58PM
false wrote:
What do you expect. Schatz campaigned for him.
on March 31,2014 | 10:32AM
PokeStop wrote:
One loser backing another loser! Oooooo....Schatzie boy! Scary, just ask the Kupuna!
on March 31,2014 | 10:35AM
Ronin006 wrote:
Inouye vs Obama. Very interesting.
on March 31,2014 | 10:38AM
hikine wrote:
LOL This is like voting for the pot or the kettle! Either one will burn you in the end!
on March 31,2014 | 10:56AM
HOSSANA wrote:
I have to agree with you even though I detest Hanabatta more than Schatz but you exactly right.
on March 31,2014 | 11:32AM
CloudForest wrote:
Schaz will vote with Obama 110% of the time, where as Hanbusa would only vote with him 100% of the time - thus Schatz it must be! It is time for a true change - vote Tea Party only.
on March 31,2014 | 11:30AM
Skyler wrote:
And support the loonies running the HIT-Party? Not on your life. I'll stick with the person who's best for the job, not align my loyalties with some fictitious 'party.'
on March 31,2014 | 05:57PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Senator Schatz voted against Pres. Obama's position in one of his very first votes in the Senate. It was about FISA courts and he went against the Administration's position. So perhaps you'll understand why we should give your prediction all that much credence.
on March 31,2014 | 09:57PM
jyorck wrote:
giant endorsement! Dan was great for America and Hawaii but became a tyrant at the end!
on March 31,2014 | 11:58AM
gtracer66 wrote:
If Obama endorses him, then I'm against him. We don't need more "Yes men" in Congress.
on March 31,2014 | 12:51PM
gtracer66 wrote:
Schatz or Hanabusa. Either way, Hawaii loses.
on March 31,2014 | 12:52PM
samidunn wrote:
Hanabusa is a shoo-in now!
on March 31,2014 | 12:55PM
W_Williams wrote:
If Obama endorses him, I'm in. NOT.
on March 31,2014 | 01:41PM
DAGR81 wrote:
The egotist can not support anyone who disagrees with him and will only endorse puppets.
on March 31,2014 | 01:42PM
Opelu wrote:
I guess Obama and Schatz "Inouye" bleeding hearts,honor,service etc and blah blah blah is over - Now let's blow some of this new found power blast up somebody's okole !!!
on March 31,2014 | 01:49PM
frontman wrote:
Looks like Dannyboy wasn't one of obama's favorites.
on March 31,2014 | 01:53PM
false wrote:
The only reason wee little Brian was endorsed is because Hanabusa supported Hillary Clinton and Schatz supported Obama. Obama is a lame duck and Hillary will be the next president. Brian will be up Schitz creek if he's still there.
on March 31,2014 | 02:14PM
loquaciousone wrote:
Speaking of inert, I noticed that Mazie passed a bill last week that gives people credit for donating to the Haiyan victims but I have to pay for it.
on March 31,2014 | 02:19PM
Mythman wrote:
And who was it that was going around saying the Barry is our first Asian president?
on March 31,2014 | 02:44PM
Wazdat wrote:
DUH.... Hanabusa has done NOTHING as an elected leader. Oh that's right she gave herself and the leg a 36% pay raise.

Time to send her to retirement for good. bye-bye


on March 31,2014 | 02:59PM
blackmurano wrote:
I'ved never voted for a Democrat, but between Colleen Hanabusa and Senator Schatz, I would select Colleen Hanabusa because she is a lot tougher than Schatz and will get things done for this State than Schatz. The other U.S.Senate Liberal Democats gave him a chairmenship seat on one committe just in time for general election year. If the late Daniel Inouye preference was Hanabusa, he must know she would be a lot better than a Abercrombie appointee.
on March 31,2014 | 04:40PM
Manawai wrote:
This is purely paying Abercrumbie back for his support of Obama against H. Clinton. Pure and simple.
on March 31,2014 | 04:59PM
Ronin006 wrote:
Greetings, Dear Webmaster. Why are my comments repeatedly being sent for approval? Here is the latest: “ Boolakanaka, I think you are confusing budget deficit with national debt. The budget deficit may be shrinking as a percentage of GDP, but the national dept is increasing by millions of dollars every day and is almost $17 TRILLION, an increase of about $6 trillion since Obama took office. What you need to know is that the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not recorded in the budget. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the US “debt problem” seems largely solved?”
on March 31,2014 | 05:42PM
Loki wrote:
Why even vote when both candidates are equally bad.
on March 31,2014 | 05:45PM
loio wrote:
because if Barry tells me it's day, I'm inclined to believe it's night.
on March 31,2014 | 06:05PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Just bad for Republicans. No Repub can beat either of them.
on March 31,2014 | 06:42PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Blogs
Political Radar
`Toss up’

Political Radar
Super

Political Radar
Hilton; Plaza Club

Political Radar
Direct mail

Political Radar
Direct mail

Aperture Cafe
Ramadan #latergram