Report: Kennedy Told Obama Of Endorsement On Thursday, Before Bill's Jackson Comment

Comments (51)

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 10:17 AM:

Obviously.

Desperate much, Greg?

Gre wrote on January 28, 2008 10:18 AM:

Anonymous: Don't like facts much, do ya

impartial journalistic type dude wrote on January 28, 2008 10:24 AM:

hey! where did the clip of bill clinton saying that comment about jesse jackson go? Deleted news entry on TPM?

tym wrote on January 28, 2008 10:28 AM:

No matter when
Ted doesn't like Billary's racism

Fred App wrote on January 28, 2008 10:29 AM:

I don't understand what the big scoop is here. Kennedy was unhappy with the racial overtones. He expressed his displeasure to Clinton, who kept on doing the same thing. So then Kennedy decides to endorse Obama -- probably for many other reasons, as well, but the racially divisive campaigning was certainly a factor. Then, after he makes up his mind, Clinton goes ahead and proves that he made the correct decision by continuing to insert race into the campaign. No, Kennedy's decision was not spurred by the Jesse Jackson, but the Jesse Jackson comment certainly vindicated some of Kennedy's feelings.

CalD wrote on January 28, 2008 10:32 AM:

You kind of hate to see a guy rewarded for so shamelessly playing the race card (and mostly getting away with it). But I guess that's politics for ya.

Anon wrote on January 28, 2008 10:32 AM:

Good for OJ Obama!
Talk about dysfunctional dynasties, even the Bush's would be less disruptive to Hussein's coronation meme than that family of drunks, rapists, murderers, and moral cowards called the Kennedys.
Do ya think Hussein will get the Onassis vote too?

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 10:38 AM:

Wow...

The Clinton camp long knives are out in force.

So if the two biggest babies in the Democratic party don't get their way, will we soon be having Clintonnacht- where the shop windos of everyone that didn't get in line like they were supposed to, get broken?

Anon wrote on January 28, 2008 10:45 AM:

Maybe McCain will let Barak Hussein Osama play lawn jockey at the White House.

GMFORD wrote on January 28, 2008 10:46 AM:

I'm glad to see Kennedy backing up the candidate who wants to end divisiveness. It's the right thing to do.

RonK, Seattle wrote on January 28, 2008 10:54 AM:

If it wasn't the Jackson comment ... hmmm.

Could it have been Hillary's remark posing JFK's rhetoric in contrast to LBJ's results?

hadenough wrote on January 28, 2008 10:55 AM:

As NOT seen on tpm:
Look Before You Leap: Obama’s Mobbed-Up Allies

Alexi Giannoulias—a “man who has long been dogged by charges that the bank his family owns helped finance a Chicago crime figure” and “who became Illinois state treasurer” in 2006 after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “vouched for him”—”pledged to raise $100,000 for the senator’s Oval Office bid,” Charles Hurt reported September 5, 2007, in the New York Post.

The September 5, 2007, Chicago fundraiser was omitted from Obama’s public schedule and the event was closed to the press,” Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

“Before he promised to raise funds for Obama, Giannoulias bankrolled Michael ‘Jaws’ Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution.

“Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state’s speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won...
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/27/look-before-you-leap-obamas-mobbed-up-allies

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 10:59 AM:

What's wrong with Bill's jackson comment? Jesse Jackson did win SC on 1984 and 1988.

The Obama supporter seems try really harder to hide his skin color. if Obama is white, everthing would be prefect.

virginia cynic wrote on January 28, 2008 11:02 AM:

Interesting to see the pro Hillary people trying to belittle and, in some cases, savage Sen. Kennedy, a person that they worked hard to bring to their side, had hoped would endorse Hillary, or at worst, stay neutral.
For an inland guy like Bill Clinton the turning of the tide can be a frightening event.

OJ Obama wrote on January 28, 2008 11:03 AM:

And just who was the last pig in a poke that promised to be a "uniter not a divider"?
I thought only the Christianist Fruitcakers were looney enough to fall for that bill of goods. Again.

Michael A wrote on January 28, 2008 11:05 AM:

Hey clinton people. Why don't you just post the link to hillaryis44.org as opposed to repeating the nonsense from the site. It's really simple and would save the rest of us time skimming through your garbage. Just name and hillaryis44.org. That way you get to vent and distort all you want. Thanks.

brad wrote on January 28, 2008 11:15 AM:

It's great to sit back and watch the anonymous HRC trolls elevate the discussion. I may have to run out for more popcorn.

Bill wrote on January 28, 2008 11:20 AM:

The Clinton folks in this thread might to well to reread Animal Farm. Kicking, squealing gucci little piggies...

Moishele wrote on January 28, 2008 11:24 AM:

Obama himself criticized Teddy Kennedy as being on old man who sides with the Republicans. Now that's high praise. But when it comes to an endorsement that might help him Obama of course grabs it just like any other hypocritical politician would.

Read up on Bill's relationship with the Kennedys. Other than a few photo ops there have never been any warm and fuzzies there. I have to wonder if Uncle Ted was worried about another political dynasty surplanting the Kennedys. All this time and his presidential campaigns never took off, and now here are these upstart hicks from Arkansas with such high approval ratings.

Another poster commented about LBJ only following up on JFK's rhetoric.... take a history lesson. There's no way JFK could have gotten that legislation through the Congress. Yes, Kennedy was a dreamer, but it takes a politician to know how to work a bill. LBJ pushed that legislation through at his own political cost because Dr King convinced him it was the right thing to do, NOT because of anything JFK said.

Billy Glad wrote on January 28, 2008 11:27 AM:

I think RonK is right. As I commented earlier, Kennedy's resentment has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. When Mrs. Clinton reminded people that passing the Civil Rights legislaton was something John Kennedy tried to do and couldn't, she stuck her finger deep into an open wound. John Kennedy campaigned on Civil Rights, but he didn't get legislation in front of Congress until 1963, shortly before he was assassinated. When Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress in 1964, he received credit for the legislation. It's not surprising that Ted Kennedy would open up on the Clintons the first chance he got, but it's disingenuous of him to claim it's about Bill Clinton bringing race into the campaign. Accusing the Clintons of making Mr. Obama's race an issue is a cheap shot. The Clinton issue has always been Obama's competence. And it is precisely on the issue of competence that the Kennedy Presidency, and the Kennedy legacy, can be questioned. But not, it appears, by the Clintons.

It occurs to me that Bill Clinton may have stepped in front of this bullet on purpose. The headlines and blogosphere chatter have been about his comments, not hers. If he modulates his tone now, she can get back to the experience issue. And if Gore will endorse Obama, she can unload the Gore legacy and baggage, too. Kennedy has a lot of prestige riding on this endorsement. He had better get his ass in gear and bring her down in Mass., or he is going to look even more ineffectual than usual.

hello_world wrote on January 28, 2008 11:28 AM:

The Clinton folks in this thread might to well to reread Animal Farm. Kicking, squealing gucci little piggies...

The Hillary44 trolls would be the sheep. Unfortunately, we now know who the pigs would be in that particular analogy. Moishele wrote on January 28, 2008 11:33 AM:

It's not surprising that Ted Kennedy would open up on the Clintons the first chance he got, but it's disingenuous of him to claim it's about Bill Clinton bringing race into the campaign.

Excellent point, Billy.

example wrote on January 28, 2008 11:34 AM:

f he modulates his tone now, she can get back to the experience issue. And if Gore will endorse Obama, she can unload the Gore legacy and baggage, too.

Gore Baggage? Are you kidding?

No one has more baggage then Bill, in the democratic party.

John Couch wrote on January 28, 2008 11:36 AM:

Speaking of Jesse Jackson's campaign back in '84 or '88 (I can't remember which precisely) didn't he run on a theme of "The Rainbow Coalition"? So isn't his campaign back then VERY ANALOGOUS to Obama's present campaign???

membengal wrote on January 28, 2008 11:36 AM:

Gotta say, the HRC supporters have done NOTHING to help her with this voter. I support one of the other two, but will NOT be switching to support her in the general, at this point. I will vote third party green, Iwould guess. And part of it is the reprehensible behavior of the HRC trolling in these and other spaces.

Unreal.

NCSteve wrote on January 28, 2008 11:37 AM:

The New York Post? We're going to blogs run by kooks and the New York Post and for our guilt-by-association, tell-half-the-story smears now?

Say anything, do anything.

ArkPanda wrote on January 28, 2008 11:37 AM:

I think we're forgetting the first Jesse Jackson event, which was when Obama sent (or at least allowed) Jesse Jackson Jr. to attack Hillary with the stupid "crying over Katrina" comment after the NH primary. Before then there hadn't been much connecting Obama to the old school Jackson/Sharpton black leadership. Bill may have decided at that point, "if he wants Jesse Jackson's mantle, he can have it till he chokes on it."

I don't know if that's what actually happened, it's just a hypothesis.

John Couch wrote on January 28, 2008 11:37 AM:

Speaking of Jesse Jackson's campaign back in '84 or '88 (I can't remember which precisely) didn't he run on a theme of "The Rainbow Coalition"? So isn't his campaign back then VERY ANALOGOUS to Obama's present campaign???

Jay wrote on January 28, 2008 11:38 AM:

"As NOT seen on tpm:
Look Before You Leap: Obama’s Mobbed-Up Allies"

..this comes from a hackey, discredited, anti-Obama blog - try again..

Liam wrote on January 28, 2008 11:38 AM:

Reality Check for all the Racists who appear to want to make Obama the Blacks only candidate: Senator Obama was elected to the US Senate by a mostly white vote in Illinois.

Second reality check. He was born to a White Mother, which makes him as much white as black. So, stop with all your race baiting.

Elizabeth wrote on January 28, 2008 11:48 AM:

>>>>What's wrong with Bill's jackson comment? Jesse Jackson did win SC on 1984 and 1988.

Past winners of the South Carolina primary/caucus:
1984: J. Jackson (caucus)
1988: J. Jackson (caucus)
1992: Bill Clinton
1996: (uncontested)
2000: Al Gore
2004: John Edwards

Would it have made *any* sense if Bill replied to a quetion about why it “took two people to beat [Obama]" Mr. Clinton had added: “Al Gore won South Carolina in 2000. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama has run a good campaign here, he has run a good campaign everywhere.”

Sorry, the statement has coherent meaning only only if you insert the unspoken but clearly heard parts:
"Jackson > won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988 >."

Does this mean Clinton is racist? Absolutely not. But it does mean that he'll use race (or anything else) to get people to shy away from supporting a political competitor or to minimze that competitor's achievements.

Sad.

Anon wrote on January 28, 2008 11:49 AM:

Obama's going to the White House!
The need a new boot black on McCain's staff.

John McCutchen wrote on January 28, 2008 12:05 PM:

Mike Barnacle reports that after he endorsed Obama, John Kerry received threatening phone calls from Camp Clintons - "don't bother calling us again. You are a non-person. Lose the number"

Suggests that this may have outraged EMK even more than he already was

Michael A wrote on January 28, 2008 12:30 PM:

John, they were doing that with big dem donors as well. That's what set geffen off about them. They were telling donors that they could only contribute to the clintons' campaign for a third term and no one else. If they contributed to any other candidates, they would get the same phone call and would be excommunicated from the clinton cult.

Elizabeth wrote on January 28, 2008 12:33 PM:

Talk about being incoherent! Let me add the words that went missing from my post at 11:48:

>>>Sorry, the statement has coherent meaning only only if you insert the unspoken but clearly heard parts:
"Jessie Jackson [WHO IS ALSO BLACK] won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988 [AND WE KNOW THAT CAME TO NOTHING, HE DIDN'T EVEN GET CLOSE TO THE NOMINATION] And he ran a good campaign. Sen. Obama has run a good campaign ....."

Denice wrote on January 28, 2008 1:10 PM:

I am sure that Senator Obama will be our next President!

I don't think anyone Republican has a snowball's chance in Hades of winning this election. Too many of us have suffered under the Bush Administration.

For the first time I feel that I have voted for a trustworthy candidate.

In years past I was just selecting the lessor of two evils.

The Nation wants to be healed and restored to greatness. That can only happen with Intelligent, Righteous and Just leadership.

rasher wrote on January 28, 2008 1:28 PM:

Denise,

I'm curious as to what you mean by "Righteous and Just" leadership. Are you a Huckabee supporter or have you confused the election of the president of the United States with the selection of your church deacon?

Please explain...

goldberry wrote on January 28, 2008 1:32 PM:

Bulltwinkies.
Kennedy, not particularly well known as a uniter (see Democtaic convention in 1980) made this decision a long time ago and used the racial stuff as an excuse.
It had to be an excuse because Obama's campaign played the race card. Hillary had nothing to gain by it.
So, I guess we'd have to back through the Clinton-Kennedy history to find where the real rift started.
Then again, this may be Kennedy's last chance to live his brothers' dreams vicariously.
Not that it matters one bit to this NJ voter who ain't budging from Clinton.

goldberry wrote on January 28, 2008 1:38 PM:

membengal: Oh, we're just outrageous! How DARE we try to defend Hillary?
So, I'm assuming you are really a Republican. You HAVE to be because the US Supreme Court is at stake this election and if you are willing to throw it all away because of some perceived slight from the Clinton camp, then you're part of the problem.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 1:50 PM:

It's called Obama over country goldberry, it's quite common these days.

RC wrote on January 28, 2008 2:03 PM:

I have to say that comparison with Jesse Jackson only enhances Senator Obama's stature in my eyes. If Senator Obama is even half as progressive as the Reverend
on civil rights and union issues, he will be a good President.

Whether Bill had this in his mind or not is something I will leave others to decide.

Desider wrote on January 28, 2008 2:10 PM:

I'd be surprised if Uncle Ted is reaching all the way back to 1963 to find motivation for supporting Obama. Oddly, it could be that Ted likes Obama, he might not like the Clintons so much (not like the first Democrats to dislike the Clintons). Too many tea leaves, not enough hot water - sometimes people just do stuff just cause it feels right to them.

As someone's graph above shows, it helps to be black and/or a southerner to win South Carolina. And it helps to pull out the youth vote.

Mark F wrote on January 28, 2008 3:04 PM:

All I can say is that it's nice to see that Bill is finally screwing his own wife.

wes2 wrote on January 28, 2008 3:57 PM:

Doesn't this story make the endorsement even worse news for the Clintons? If TK came to his final decision on Thursday, two days before the SC primaries, then it's very much a stop-Hillary-before-Super-Tuesday endorsement. At that point, momentum and the (semi) surprise win in Nevada would be on Hillary's side, and, while it was likely that Obama would win in SC, no one was predicting the margin or turnout. Moreover, after NH, even SC was hardly a certain victory. So, TK was going for the underdog against Hillary, not merely annointing the golden victor in SC as the story seemed to play out this weekend. And that sounds like he really, really dislikes the idea of another Clinton presidency.

membengal wrote on January 28, 2008 5:44 PM:

No, goldberry, I am a 37-year-old lifelong Dem. Support with money and time, always have. But what that campaign has been about, I don't support, and that goes for you and the fellow Hillary supporters (I won't name-call, I find that classless) as well.

There is no need to win at any costs. If she had run a campaign and met Obama and Edwards head on over ideas etc., and won, I would have happily supported her. But I refuse to support a continuation of what I have seen to be politics of destruction, on both sides. So I will vote 3rd party green and be done with it.

I am an attorney, and know full well what the Supreme Court stakes are, but, dammit, at some point there has to be more to it than that. I disagree that a campaign needs to be run as cynically as she (and Bill) have run hers (theirs), and will not support her in November. Which is fine. Clearly she and her staff made that calculation when they launched on this kind of prolonged tactic. And clearly you (and I have read most of your vitriol in these spaces) think that I (and people like me) have nowhere to turn, and will have to swallow the castor oil we are being fed. Well, I don't have to.

Perhaps she will ultimately be right, her scorched earth campaign will get her the White House, and the ends will justify the means to her. But it won't to me.

Sorry if that offends, and I hate that you have to name-call (Republican!) when someone disagrees with you or expresses anger or discontent at the campaign that the Clintons have launched. But, know this, I am NOT alone in this, and that is something that you and all Clinton supporters need to heed well. You reap what you sow, and all that.

Peace.

---Aaron

stellaa wrote on January 28, 2008 6:38 PM:

Rezko, Obama machine patron thrown in jail flight risk, read the details since TPM will not post
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/762838,rezko012808.article

ChrisO wrote on January 28, 2008 7:24 PM:

Hey Aaron, I don't buy your line of BS at all. How can you even find the pro-Hillary commenters, when Obama supporters always flood these sections to the tune of about 10-1. I can see why you're so upset, though. Here we have the first woman candidate, and Obama supporters refer to her with terms like shrew, witch, bitch, harpie etc. Oh, I forgot, that's acceptable. I notice the famously tolerant Obama supporters can't even bear to have Hillary supporters on the comments. I hope some of you can find the humor in seeing a hundred comments from Obama supporters saying "she's unelectable, she played the race card, she's unelectable, she played the race card" followed by accusing every Hillary supporters of being a troll who just repeats talking points. Most of the Obama commenters represent everything they accuse the Clintons of: race baiting, arrogance and condescension.

The we get idiots like Aaron who think it's not transparent when they say "I wasn't sure, but this latest move by Hilalry has convinced me that I'll never vote for her." Funny how so many people can arrive at such a definitive decision based on whatever it is the Obaba camp is whining about today.

Although I will say, I never would have known Obama was black if Bill Clinton hadn't told me. How dare he reveal that secret?

Liam: "Reality Check for all the Racists who appear to want to make Obama the Blacks only candidate.." in case anyoine's wondering what Hillary supporters mean when they talk about Obama's supporters playing the race card, Liam is exhibit A. Apparently, in order to avoid being called racists, we're supposed to pretend that a candidate winning 80 percent of the black vote (first place, by a huge margin) and only 25 percent of the white vote (third place) has nothing to do with the racial maekup of the electorate, or the race of the three candidates. Is this going to happen with every black candidate, where we have to pussyfoot around, and not talk about reality because jerks like Liam are going to start smearing people?

I have to say, for a bunch of people who claim to like Obama because he's a uniter, all of the divisiveness seems to come from Obama's supporters. The bulk of the incredibly negative comments are aimed at the Clintons, and any Hillary supporters ar insulted and told to go away. And if Obama doesn't get the nomination, these fans of "unity" won't vote for the Democratic nominee. Can you say hypocrisy?

membengal wrote on January 28, 2008 7:30 PM:

Why should I (or anyone) support scorched earth politics? I hated it from the right (more than you can know), I hate it just as much from the left (as it turns out).

Did I say who I support? Anywhere in my post? Could be Edwards. Could be Obama. Could have been Richardson.

I assumed it would be HRC if she won when this process started, but right now, it won't be. Hate it all you want, but it is the truth. You may be fine with that kind of shift, and will have to be, since it is reality. And, again, I am not alone. But beware scorched earth, sometimes when you burn something, it won't grow back.

And, hey, thanks again for the name-calling. Awesome. Your incisive searing broadside has sure made me see the light. Well done.

---Aaron

c wrote on January 28, 2008 8:38 PM:

Hey Aaron, sorry about the name calling. I guess when you referred to Hillary supporters as reprehensible trolls I didn't realize you were in favor of raising the level of discourse. And I repeat: look at the number of pro-Hillary comments on this thread (or virtually any political blog) versus the Obama supporters, and try to honestly tell me that all, or even most of the name calling is being done by Hillary's supporters.

"Ted doesn't like Billary's racism"

"Reality Check for all the Racists who appear to want to make Obama the Blacks only candidate"

"will we soon be having Clintonnacht- where the shop windos of everyone that didn't get in line like they were supposed to, get broken?"

"It's great to sit back and watch the anonymous HRC trolls "

"Kicking, squealing gucci little piggies..."

"The Hillary44 trolls would be the sheep. Unfortunately, we now know who the pigs would be in that particular analogy."

"All I can say is that it's nice to see that Bill is finally screwing his own wife."

These comments are just from this thread. Please explain how you scrolled through all of these (not to mention the somewhat less inflammatory pro-Obama comments) and came away with the impression that the pro-Hillary "trolls" were polluting the conversation. That is why I called you on your BS. Without fail, every thread I read now has an outpouring of vitriol from Obama supporters followed by declarations that Hillary "trolls" (I wish some of you people would actually learn the meaning of that term) are debasing the conversation and should just go away, followed by at least one person declaring that they were either undecided or Hillary supporters uuntil the latest transgression (whatever that might be) but now they've seen the light and are for Obama all the way. Do you people really think you invented this tactic?

Lee wrote on January 29, 2008 7:20 AM:

Sorry, but I am still looking for the racist overtones. The remarks about MLK/Johnson? You have to be crazy to think they are racist; the people who generated the notion that they are are the Obama crowd.

membengal wrote on January 29, 2008 8:16 AM:

Chris:

I did not say the HRC supporters in this thread were "represhensible trolls", I said I found the behavior reprehensible in the comments. The Obama folk have been equally incindiary at times, but when it comes to what Bill did with the Jesse Jackson non-sequitor, well, that pushed me over the edge. And to see people for HRC blindly try and explain away the casual racism when that same manuever from, say, Romney, would bring howls of anger, angers me as well.

Look, perhaps it is unfair that HRC is getting lumped in with Bill's bizarre out-front campaigning, but at some point, I would have thought she would have stopped it. It doesn't help her. She needs to stand on her own. I thought she was doing that, and am aghast at what they have done with Bill in presenting this to the country as a de facto co-candidate campaign. Aside from everything else, the bastards on the right will use that to a level I am not sure HRC supporters comprehend in the general. The true hatred that exists for that couple is jaw-dropping (trust, I live in TN and am far closer the source of the anger than most).

The back and forth mud slinging from supporters of all candidates on boards I treasure has been unfortunate (Edwards supporters on dailykos have made comments and diaries there almost unreadable). The Obama people tend to seem juvenile in their fervor, the HRC folk angry in their entitlement, the Edwards folk persecuted in their righteousness. It blows, regardless.

But the Bill C Jackson stuff really pushed a button with me. For better or worse. I have worked too hard in my own personal life to try and get to a place where color doesn't and shouldn't matter. That Bill (and, apparently, HRC supporters) seem so comfortable in trying to make sure Obama is seen as "the black candidate" really offends. Just as much as it would if Obama or Edwards were trying to make Hillary "the woman candidate". She is a woman. Big deal. She will lead whether she has a penis or a vagina. Those are not pre-reqs. Obama is black. Big deal. he will lead whether he is black or white. Etc.

But I don't like the pandering to soft racism. It bothers me. I don't think they needed to go there.

Anyway, again, it's been a pleasure. I am loathe to dip into these comments, and sorry for the intrusion.

---Aaron

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)