Report: Ted Kennedy Endorsing Obama
The Boston Globe is reporting that Ted Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama, in a formal announcement scheduled for tomorrow.
The endorsement could go a long way in helping Obama with older voters and liberal activists. Another question is whether it could help Obama in Massachusetts, where Hillary Clinton has enjoyed a huge lead in the polls despite Obama already gaining the endorsements of John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick.
Comments (196)
DRinOH wrote on January 27, 2008 1:54 PM:Endorsements are wildly overrated, and this one will be no exception. That said, this is still quite significant if for no other reason than the way it represents a rebuke of Clinton tactics by the Democratic establishment - this at a time when so many thought the Clintons were the Democratic establishment.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 1:56 PM:I don't think these endorsements really mean anything....people will vote for who they want too not because some one else says too....
Hillary is going to win HUGE in Florida tuesday even if there aren't any delegate seats... It will help her as she heads into super tuesday.
Most polls have her winning all 22 states that vote on super tuesday... obama and edwards are going to lose.
Edwards should go ahead bail out.
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 1:58 PM:I think this makes it fairly official. The Democratic Establishment is tossing Bill and Hillary overboard for a younger more attractive version of them. A DLC-like, moderate to conservative panderer and triangulator. Only with less experience. It will make for an interesting General Election run, of course!
Get me some popcorn!
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 2:01 PM:Anon..
Things change far too quickly to have any confidence in whatever polls you are looking at today. That should be abundantly clear by now.
coyote wrote on January 27, 2008 2:02 PM:The one tangible effect this endorsement does have is to take all the air out of the Clinton's Florida ploy.
Keith wrote on January 27, 2008 2:03 PM:Super Tuesday is all about delegates, not poll victories.
DRinOH wrote on January 27, 2008 2:04 PM:Electability v. McCain:
Obama + 5
Hillary +2
(top right of this page)
It's not much, and I know it's early, but every little bit counts when it's this close.
dave wrote on January 27, 2008 2:09 PM:What does Dana Perino think?
Let us know when you have some video... yum
texasdem wrote on January 27, 2008 2:10 PM:loki,
Am I understanding you to say that OBAMA is the "DLC-like" candidate? That's a joke, right? Isn't the DLC Bill Clinton's baby?
Or are you saying Obama is the SAME as the Clintons (yes, they're both running), "only with less experience?" In which case it would seem appropriate to add that Obama has less experience than Bill, but better judgment than both of them.
Not that I, as an Obama supporter, agree that he's a DLC-like triangulator.
Zach wrote on January 27, 2008 2:13 PM:To all those who tout billary's advantage in the polls, I would like to point out that the polls have been rather mistaken during this election cycle. One way or another, the actual results are going to be different from the polls, so it's stupid to bludgeon comment-board opponents with poll numbers.
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 2:14 PM:Yes Tex. And it is only Obama supporters or true anti-clintonites that are unable to see this.
Alan wrote on January 27, 2008 2:15 PM:Since Senator Kennedy is endorsing Senator Obama, I guess that means that Senator Clinton is battling the establishment. Senator Kennedy and Senator Keery are both losers, therefore it helps Senator Clinton.
Also, I would remind those who were moved by Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Senator Obama should remember a few things.
Caroline is a wonderful person who has experienced more tragedy than any ten people I know, and my heart goes out to her and the kind of person she is.
But people should be aware that while President Kennedy inspired many people, me included, his almost 3 year Presidency was not marked by many acheivements, and some disaters, like the Bay of Pigs. As a Senator, he was considered a showhorse, not a workhorse, and for many of you who are fed up with "I did not have sex with that woman"
Well....
TheraP wrote on January 27, 2008 2:17 PM:To follow up on DRinOH above:
Electability v. Romney
Obama +9
Hillary +5
(click on "more polls" top right, this page)
Subliminability wrote on January 27, 2008 2:18 PM:So, Alan, is this an argument that people who are fed up with "I did not have sex with that woman" should vote for HRC?
Or that she is likely to be assisted by a latent anti-JFK backlash?
coyote wrote on January 27, 2008 2:18 PM:LOL--if FDR were to rise from his grave and endorse Obama, Clinton supporters would be talking about FDR's Presidency "not being marked by many achievements."
wow lol wrote on January 27, 2008 2:20 PM:great to see billary fanboys talk trash about JFK and the whole Kennedy clan so fast ROFLMAO
So pathetic.
CT Voter wrote on January 27, 2008 2:20 PM:Alan:
As a Senator, he was considered a showhorse, not a workhorse, and for many of you who are fed up with "I did not have sex with that woman"
I don't get your point--can you elaborate on this?
Mittman wrote on January 27, 2008 2:20 PM:Who let the dogs out?
Bling? bling? bling? bling?
rg wrote on January 27, 2008 2:21 PM:I think it's really impossible to predict what anything means - everyday things feel different. So - as an Obama supporter I am going to volunteer every spare minute this week! I hope that both Kennedy endorsements drive his momentum. And like coyote says - takes the wind out of the Clinton Florida ploy. I think at minimum there is a strong message against the Clintons dragging the party down. And we have a strong, uplifting sense of excitement once again.
RC wrote on January 27, 2008 2:23 PM:Clinton vs Kennedy! Wow that is some political battle.
Anybody who thinks that Kennedy does not help ``Obama'' believes in ``fairty tales''.
Kennedy will be a huge help in Unions. I am not sure about Hispanic voters, but Union households will definitely give Obama a second look.
wwjb wrote on January 27, 2008 2:23 PM:Also take into account that a poll from a week or so ago had McCain beating Hillary 51% to 39%, so gotta take these polls together, and the fact is that the trend is clear, she will get destroyed by McCain, and Obama is our only chance. Obama can blast ahead by creating record turnout, Hillary just can't do it like he can, neither can Bill, Obama is what they can never be, and they HATE it.
wwjb wrote on January 27, 2008 2:23 PM:Oh yeah, read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?ref=opinion
Subliminability wrote on January 27, 2008 2:24 PM:The Caroline and Ted endorsements are huge, and the latter perhaps a harbinger of other party leaders who can now clearly see which candidate represents a future of an expanding Democratic party and which represents an effort to eke out victory using old paradigms and a party with a decidedly limited upside.
My wish list of my Obama endorsements for the next two weeks, in rough order of electoral value (not actual likelihood of endorsement):
1. John Edwards
2. Al Gore
3. Jim Webb
4. Bill Richardson
Would also be nice to see some of the many people, especially in CA, who jumped on board the HRC train early when it seemed she would walk away with it, switch their endorsement in light of the Clintons' desultory campaign tactics. It is never too late to turn back from the wrong path. This means you, Mayors Newsom & Villaraigosa!
Finally, an extra Obama '08 lapel pin who can get Tom Brady (who, though very rich, is not a Republican) to endorse Barack in a post-Superbowl interview. That would help in MA even more than Ted's endorsement. Brady is proof of what Barack will demonstrate: that excellence, not length of resume, wins championships.
ronald wrote on January 27, 2008 2:28 PM:Always amuses me that in America the supposed pinko Democratic liberals are named Rockefeller and Kennedy.
John McCutchen wrote on January 27, 2008 2:31 PM:Boston Globe
Kennedy plans to campaign actively for Obama, an aide said, and will focus particularly among Hispanics and labor union members, who are important voting blocks in several Feb. 5 states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona and New Mexico.
No accident either that the Obama unofficial campaign chant has shifted from "FIRED UP! READY TO GO!"
To "SI SE PUEDE"! (Yes we can!)
while President Kennedy inspired many people, me included, his almost 3 year Presidency was not marked by many acheivements
Yes, the Clintons' fans loathe JFK, RFK, and MLK. They much prefer dishonest and warmongering--but very experienced and effective--LBJ. This is getting downright bizarre...
Alan wrote on January 27, 2008 2:32 PM:I will splain:
Apparently many Obama supporters have neglected history.
It is well known that President Kennedy slept with many women in the White House and many Obama supporters are upset with President Clinton for his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. I point out the hypocrisy.(sp)
Also, as has been referred to before, President Kennedy's legislative achievements were done after he was tragically killed. The Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. The other legislative achievements occurred after the Democrats won a Landslide in 1964 and LBJ had the votes to enact many of President Kennedy's hopes.
At this time, we cannot wait three years or longer for National Healthcare, or wait to get our troops out of Iraq.
These are the thing that I was referring to.
John McCutchen wrote on January 27, 2008 2:34 PM:When you are thinking on 2/5 in the big states, you should not pay too much attention to statewide results, especially as far as blacks, latinos or api's are concerned.
This is a race for delegates and that means it is a race for congressional districts. Minority groups tend to concentrate in a relative few number of districts. Consider that of CA's 53 congresspersons only something like 6 or 7 have spanish surnames. Thus a candidate could roll up large numbers in one or another group and have those numbers show directly in the state vote but not pick up a commensurate number of delegates.
Who knows what's going on in LA? Linda Sanchez (LA) is for Obama, her sister in Santa Ana, Clinton. Villagraigosa's huge clinton but that won't matter on the West side or at the beaches..
Remember what happened in NV. Hillary won by 5 pct. Obama won more delegates. The Clintons had a big win among latino voters but they were geographically concentrated.
That will repeat in NJ, NY, CA, MA, GA, MO but probably not so much in IL
the supposed pinko Democratic liberals are named Rockefeller and Kennedy.
what pinko liberal Rockefeller are you talking about? certainly not cheney's bud Jay.
Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 2:37 PM:Sounds like the Hillary brigade would turn down an endorsement from Senator Kennedy. Sure they would. They really are a bunch of perverse habitual liars. Hillary tried her best to get it, so it is a little late to now start to discount his endorsement of Senator Obama.
benjoya wrote on January 27, 2008 2:38 PM:many Obama supporters are upset with President Clinton for his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky
this is fiction. have you ever read a blog before? we're upset with president clinton for being a triangulatin POS.
Joe Lisboa wrote on January 27, 2008 2:39 PM:Congrats to Obama and everyone who busted their tails in SC to make the blowout a reality. The timing on the release of the two Kennedy endorsements struck me as very smart: Caroline's endorsement was on every commenter's lips last night and now Ted's will lead the news cycle Monday, right alongside the primary blowout headlines. Masterful. The big mo is back for the big O!
benjoya wrote on January 27, 2008 2:40 PM:but to be fair to JFK, as a senator he was a major tool for the military-industrial complex, playing on fears of a fictional "missile gap" to paint Ike as asleep at the switch against the commies.
Keith wrote on January 27, 2008 2:43 PM:Alan:
What's sad is that the Clintons were working HARD to get the Kennedy endorsements. Not sure how that fits into your narrative dismissing the importance of this endorsement, but it will be interesting to see how you distinguish that fact.
Mack wrote on January 27, 2008 2:46 PM:"A DLC-like, moderate to conservative panderer and triangulator. Only with less experience."
Inbred spinning at its best folks..
brad wrote on January 27, 2008 2:49 PM:Commenting on this blog is good fun and all, but I hope all of the Obama supporters who read and post here will make an effort to
1 stay focused
2 work more than we talk
3 stay positive
If we are effective in these efforts we win. thanks.
Brad add 1(a)- SIGN UP FOR NATIONAL CALL CENTER or Local Precinct Captain
Si Se Puede Eric!
LOS ANGELES, CA – Congressman Xavier Becerra today endorsed Barack Obama for President, citing his ability to unite Americans to lead our country in a new direction. Becerra serves on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and as the Assistant to the Speaker of the House is the highest ranking Latino in the House. "Senator Obama is the most qualified candidate to lead our country in a new direction," said Congressman Becerra. “Throughout his 20 years in public service, Barack Obama has united and inspired people from all walks of life and from all parties to bring change we can believe in. As war rages abroad and Americans worry about what the struggling economy means for their families, we need a leader who will tell us not what we want to hear but what we need to hear about the challenges we face. Barack Obama is our strongest candidate for president because of his great crossover appeal that spans parties and regions and his unique ability to rally the American people behind a common purpose.” “Congressman Becerra has spent his career taking on the special interests to put the American Dream back in reach for working families, and I’m grateful for his endorsement,” said Senator Obama. “Xavier Becerra knows that to get things done, we must reach across the aisle and bring people of all parties together to find common ground. Xavier Becerra’s inspiring story demonstrates what is possible in America, and he will be a great help in our effort to build a broad coalition to solve the complex challenges that lie ahead.” Congressman Becerra represents the 31st Congressional District of California in the city of Los Angeles. Becerra is the son of working-class immigrants and was the first in his family to graduate from college. On the Ways and Means Committee, Becerra has worked to restore fairness and balance to the economy and to strengthen Social Security for women and minorities. Becerra is a former chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.eorse wrote on January 27, 2008 2:54 PM:
Ted is great. But, the Kennedy family cannot compete with the two Clintons' attack machine. No one has ever defeated them. Ever. Forever.
The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now embedded in our blood stream. We cannot have a blood transfer.
I fear the worst. I fear that the Clintons will seriously hurt Obama. I fear that they will take apart his spirit. I fear that even if Obama wins (A BIG BANG IF), the Clintons' will force themselves as VP. Thus, Obama will become a useful tool to them.
In sum, the Clintons will win. This is an axiom. It cannot be proven wrong.
There is of course ONE WAY (and ONLY ONE WAY) to defeat the Clintons. Now and Forever.
- Make the Media zero-in on the supposedly "35" years of experience of HRC, the spousal beneficiary. As a starting point, read Colbert I. King's essay in WashPost (1/26)
- Demand the Clintons papers (especially between the Clintons) to be accessible to all now (or GOP will demand them in General - Have the Press say this again and again).
If these two things happen then and only then the Clintons will be defeated.
fougasseu wrote on January 27, 2008 2:54 PM:Teddy Kennedy has worked closely with every significant Democrat leader of the last forty years. He is the voice of the Democratic Party. If his endorsement doesn't mean anything to a Democrat, then that person isn't a Democrat, they're a Clintonite.
I think it's time for the Clintonites to come clean and start their own third party. Better for them to start their own party, due it with integrity, than to damage the Democratic Party with their divisive, race-based style of politics.
Endorsements from the Kennedys may be somewhat more relevant than usual for the simple reason that recently Clinton has been attacking Obama's "liberal" credentials (e.g. doing things like suggesting he is not strongly pro-choice), and the Kennedys are still considered the standard bearers for liberalism by many Democrats (particularly older Democrats).
And taking a slight step back, it really is amazing that Obama is getting endorsements from both the Kennedys, Kerrys, and Leahys of the world as well as the McCaskills, Napolitanos, Ben Nelsons, and Tim Johnsons. And all with the outcome still very much in doubt.
ChangeNow wrote on January 27, 2008 2:56 PM:Alan,
You are missing another message from the Kennedy endorsement. JFK was a break through candidate for Catholics breaking the "no Catholic can be elected President" conventional wisdom (not that one has won since - how narrow are our choices!) Obama would do well to figure out some way to strike a chord with ethnic Catholics because he can't win without a large percentage of them backing him both in the primaries and in the fall. Fortunately, he also has the Daley machine behind him.
CT Voter wrote on January 27, 2008 2:58 PM:I get your point about JFK, Alan, and I think it would be appropriate, had it been JFK who endorsed Obama (or whoever).
And wirh respect to "womanizing", I happen to think Bill's affair was tacky. Tackiness doesn't really bother me, but arrogance does. It's incredibly arrogant to think that, as President, you could have an affair with an intern and that there wouldn't be any consequences...and as a result of this misjudgment on Clinton's part, our nation spent far too long pondering his sex life, and he got significantly less done, as a result. That's what I object to, wrt to "womanizing".
brad wrote on January 27, 2008 2:59 PM:thanks John,
I can report that it seems like the WI/MN organization is in great shape from what little I can see...
Obama '08
Qtip wrote on January 27, 2008 3:01 PM:Billary won Mich with 55% on the strength of name alone.
Obama and Billary fought for South Carolina and Obama won with 55% (spin it which ever way you want but they both tried and Obama won).
Can Billary (who by all appearances is actively campaigning there) beat the 55% threshold in a state where Obama isn't campaigning?
benjoya wrote on January 27, 2008 3:02 PM:it really is amazing that Obama is getting endorsements from both the Kennedys, Kerrys, and Leahys of the world as well as the McCaskills, Napolitanos, Ben Nelsons, and Tim Johnsons. And all with the outcome still very much in doubt.
deserves repeating. combine the movement from the establishment with the enthusiasm at the grass roots (500k donors!), maybe we got something.
Chappaquiddick wrote on January 27, 2008 3:08 PM:qtip-
Billary only won michigan because no one else was trying to win. I could have swore more people wrote in no votes or something like that. Hillary hasn't had any wins by as high a margin. 5,000 vote margin in NH, lost the delegate race in NV and last night's pummeling.
Hill has the momentum but it is all in the wrong direction.
I'm so glad Bill is showing his true Arkansas colors.
Score one for the O machine, now officially for candidate of the establishment. This would only bring more fight spirit into the Clinton's. No more vaction in hynesport but that's fine. We are going to win, making Kennedy the ultimate loser.
He does not need to be involved. If he chooses, the way he chose to pump Kerry, he will deserve a huge loss again!
LL wrote on January 27, 2008 3:18 PM:Question: Do these endorsements also count towards the super delegates in the convention? If the super delegates comprise the party leadership, then it logically follows that the endorsement of a party leader, like Sen. Kennedy, would also correlate to his support/vote as a super delegate. If this is a race for delegates, then these endorsements may weigh more down the line. But, I'm not entirely clear on the whole super delegate process, so I could be wrong here.
Ni Daye wrote on January 27, 2008 3:24 PM:As reported Kennedy has asked Mr. Cliton to tune down. Meanwhile, he has been plotting when to endorse Obama. No one sees anything wrong here?
Kennedy was once called by Obama to be spineless. For him to turn around and endorse Obama, it really shows how much spine this old man has!
Mark wrote on January 27, 2008 3:26 PM:"As reported Kennedy has asked Mr. Cliton to tune down. Meanwhile, he has been plotting when to endorse Obama. No one sees anything wrong here?"
aka misguided sour grapes..
DTM wrote on January 27, 2008 3:26 PM:LL,
That is correct: all Democratic members of Congress are superdelegates, so Senator Kennedy is a superdelegate, and one would assume this endorsement means he would currently plan to vote for Obama.
It should be noted, however, that superdelegates are free to change their minds whenever they see fit.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 3:30 PM:Yesterday, I saw Obamabots celebrating the narrowing of national poll between Hillary and their lover boy. No one appears to care about this trend anymore. Interesting?!
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 3:32 PM:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/18/obama-called-out-ted-kenn_n_77337.html
This could be a fun couple weeks.
hobgoblin wrote on January 27, 2008 3:32 PM:Having grumbled last night about what I see as the over-estimation of Caroline's endorsement, I thought I'd chime in here to say that, by contrast, I DO think this endorsement is impressive. Teddy has both actual experience and status in the Democratic party. That's great news.
I'm also delighted to see that most of the SC coverage is focusing on the size of overall turnout rather than fulminating about racial divides. That's perhaps even better news.
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 3:34 PM:Also, note in the video above how Barak seems to have taken on a rather "street" sounding cadence and accent? Obama so pure, so unaffected and genuine! Heh-heh.
Chuck wrote on January 27, 2008 3:35 PM:Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy. Since he can't run on his light record, his rationale for running is that he's "Kennedyesque."
blackstar wrote on January 27, 2008 3:39 PM:Score one for the O machine, now officially for candidate of the establishment. This would only bring more fight spirit into the Clinton's.
------------------
hahahahahaha
Yeswecan wrote on January 27, 2008 3:40 PM:Obama makes people cry when he gives his speaches while Hillary reads from cue cards.
I think Ted has an easy choice.
Step aside Hillary. Time for the future.
As MLK said, "Now is the time..."
DRinOH wrote on January 27, 2008 3:40 PM:I love the way people call Kennedy a loser. As if to say it isn't the principles you stand for, but the outcome of an election that defines you. Reminds me of the current Obama narrative that they'll do or say anything to win an election.
Mack wrote on January 27, 2008 3:43 PM:"This could be a fun couple weeks."
*Yawn" Keep spinning.
jhv wrote on January 27, 2008 3:44 PM:here, here, brad.
Mack wrote on January 27, 2008 3:44 PM:"Also, note in the video above how Barak seems to have taken on a rather "street" sounding cadence and accent? Obama so pure, so unaffected and genuine! Heh-heh.'
People love embarrassing themselves - does it get any more pathetic?
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 3:45 PM:Loki's HOPING that this will be a "fun couple of weeks"
Loki's also hoping the Clintons steal the nomination with their now exposed Michigan/Florida scam
Bush v. Gore redux - these two are nothing if not old and tired
John McCutchen wrote on January 27, 2008 3:48 PM:Josh Marshall and Eric Kleefeld are about to join Jonathan Chait on the other side of the Rubicon
Greg Sargent can't swim
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-chait26jan26,1,6187136.column
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 3:48 PM:DRinOH wrote on January 27, 2008 3:40 PM:
I love the way people call Kennedy a loser. As if to say it isn't the principles you stand for, but the outcome of an election that defines you. Reminds me of the current Obama narrative that they'll do or say anything to win an election.
>>> DRinOH, that is exactly what Obama is doing to win an election. He is lying, cheating, and using your emotion. You know it is impossible that the Washignton special interest will just give up because your love boy is the president. You know it is impossible that the Republicans will stop using filibuster to combat his legistative initiatives. He is selling hope for cheap to fellows like you. Who can argue against hope but one has to be realistic? How are you so sure he can deliver? We have seen a lot of talkers! give you two examples of great talkers who make into the governors' manshions: Matt Blunt and Deval Patrick. How are they doing? Heck, Matt Blunt even beat Makaskill. so what?
John McCutchen wrote on January 27, 2008 3:54 PM:Billary, Greg, Eric Meet
Sweet, Caroline! Estes Keefauver, Front Runner 1960
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estes_Kefauver
If you can't swim the Rubicon, we've life preservers available
Si Se Puede!
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 3:57 PM:Alan wrote at 2:15 "Since Senator Kennedy is endorsing Senator Obama"
His post goes on to trash the Kennedys and JFK, signaling that the Hillary Machine talking points are now distributed and the attack dogs are on the prowl. Obama is just another Jesse Jackson. JFK wasn't much of a president. Hillary is the lone outsider against the establishment.
The TRUTH of course is that the Clintons with their dishonest,deeply divisive, win-at-any-cost, support-me-or-I-will-destroy-you campaign has disgusted all Democrats who have any integrity. Finally, Democratic leaders are speaking up, unwilling for the self-serving Clintons to lie, encourage racial divisions and damage the Democratic party forever.
DTM wrote on January 27, 2008 3:59 PM:Per Ambinder, apparently Kathleen Sebelius (Governor of Kansas) is also planning to endorse Obama on Tuesday after she gives the Democratic response to the State of the Union on Monday.
By the way, I agree with Yeswecan: if the question is who could do the most to build the Democratic Party and strengthen it for the future--and that probably is the question for a lot of long-time Democrats--then I think the choice is pretty darn easy.
RaymondA wrote on January 27, 2008 3:59 PM:Methinks that Hillary's Senate colleagues -- the ones she boasts so much about having successfully courted because she is supposedly a workhorse, not a show horse -- are spurning her, because they know that she is not what she claims to be. Like the general public, they think she is not particularly likeable.
A NYT magazine article from about five months ago had a lot of Dem senators claiming that she swoops in at the last minute to take credit for things others have been working on, and buffaloes her colleagues into allowing her to cosponsor bills she has done little work on.
I am overgeneralizing to be sure. She has some Senate friends. Most notably, John McCain.
CT Voter wrote on January 27, 2008 4:02 PM:Thanks for the link, loki. So Obama calls on Democrats, and specifically, Ted Kennedy, to grow a spine, and Ted Kennedy turns around and endorses him?
That's gotta hurt.
And Anonymous at 3:48 PM
You know it is impossible that the Republicans will stop using filibuster to combat his legistative initiatives
Well, those filibusters will be pointless if the Democrats grow a large enough majority after this election. Which candidate has a better chance of attracting new voters to the polls? And thereby help increase the Democratic majority? I think all three candidates for good--we could do a lot worse.
But in my opinion, they are not equal in terms of bringing people to the polls. In fact, I think Clinton will in fact bring people to the polls: Republican voters...which will be a problem for Democratic candidates on the ticket with Clinton.
random wrote on January 27, 2008 4:04 PM:Hillary "supporters" are all over the blog comment boards with mean, vicious, dishonext attacks on Ted, Caroline, JFK.
We voters MUST pull the plug on the Hillary Campaign. It is mean and destructive. We simply cannot afford the Clintons' style of divisive "politics" anymore. The costs are too great, the times too challenging to permit this greedy, self-interested couple to wreak havoc on the democratic process and the nation.
Jeremy wrote on January 27, 2008 4:07 PM:A NYT magazine article from about five months ago had a lot of Dem senators claiming that she swoops in at the last minute to take credit for things others have been working on, and buffaloes her colleagues into allowing her to cosponsor bills she has done little work on.
That's very interesting. One of the things I've always been a little suspicious of is the amount of credit she takes for Kennedy's SCHIP.
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 4:10 PM:Speaking of growing a spine....what exactly did Obama do in the Senate that was so courageous? Voting for all that war funding? Oh yeah, that was it! Strong backbone there Barak!
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 4:12 PM:"Hillary "supporters" are all over the blog comment boards with mean, vicious, dishonext attacks on Ted, Caroline, JFK."
Really? Where?
puzzled wrote on January 27, 2008 4:12 PM:Some honest people mistakenly supported Hillary because they believed her. I hope they are now sufficiently troubled and embarrassed by her reckless campaign that they will change their minds.
sfam wrote on January 27, 2008 4:13 PM:One wonders what the message of Kennedy's endorsement would have been from Clinton Surrogates and supporters if Hillary had gotten it. Methinks they would be saying, "See, this shows that Obama is offering false hope - the Kennedy's have voted NO." Instead, they're gonna trash these as meaningless and try to make the case that this just means Obama represents the old-style establishment.
The moral of this story is that when an attack machine like theirs is in high gear, you don't really have to bother with the details, as "Truthiness" as they relate to poll-tested responses guides their responses.
Mack wrote on January 27, 2008 4:13 PM:"Oh yeah, that was it! Strong backbone there Barak!"
..just like the unintended gutlessness people display when people the intentional misspell Obamas name.
Mack wrote on January 27, 2008 4:15 PM:.just like the unintended gutlessness people display when they intentionally misspell Obamas name.
John McCutchen wrote on January 27, 2008 4:16 PM:sfam
Doesn't matter. The Clintons will attack anyone who stands between them and control of OUR party
As we all now know, The Clintons will say anything. They will say anything.
They are the Borg but we will never be absorbed
destiny wrote on January 27, 2008 4:17 PM:loki, don't you get it? Hillary's digs at Obama's record don't work.
He has vision, ideas, charisma, integrity, the capacity to inspire, unit, persuade and lead the nation, not just a small fraction of it. Hillary does not offer that, and with Bill, offers a lot of complication and distraction.
We need leadership for the future. Change. Not more of the selfish, dishonest Clintons.
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 4:19 PM:"unintended gutlessness?"
You really don't have any idea how stupid you appear do you?
CT Voter wrote on January 27, 2008 4:19 PM:Speaking of growing a spine....
Yes, the Kennedy endorsement does hurt, doesn't it?
Obama tells Kennedy to get a spine, and Kennedy still endorses him...ouch.
tym wrote on January 27, 2008 4:19 PM:
The Clintons are disgusting shameless politicians. Shortly after Caroline and Ted ,endorsed Barack, the Hill Shills unleashed their attack machine on the Kennedys. Saw negative Posts and blogs attacking JFK, RFK, Caroline, and Ted.
Maybe by tomorrow they will be attacking Jackie and John jr.
Have those people no since of shame.
Compared Caroline's endorsement to Paris Hilton.
And the the usual hits on JFK and RFK and Ted.
I would never vote for Billary and wish they would quietly just leave the Democratic party
"You really don't have any idea how stupid you appear do you?"
..this coming from a Hillary-shill, trying to convince himself/herself that a Kennedy endorsement is bad - good luck with that though.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 4:21 PM:CT Voter,
I guess Kennedy's endorsement of Obama against the Clintons shows that he got a spine, eh?
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 4:22 PM:Oh and Mack...it was a typo...just like when you forgot to use an apostrophe. Unless you didn't foget and just are too stupid to know you should have...hell you even posted it twice and "forgot" both times...what must that say about you?
NoBoy wrote on January 27, 2008 4:24 PM:And when Obama gets his ass whooped in Florida what will his fans say?
Oh, I know: "Florida doesn't count!".
Of course this is belied by his tv campaign here, but never mind.
C'mon Obama, I can't wait to hear your dismissal of Florida voters, numbering more than all who have voted to date.
Bring it on Hussein!
I'm a Hillary supporter and I'm feeling pretty down. It is difficult to run a successful compaign if the media hate you and the establishment is closing on you. The endorsements of Obama by teh Arizona governor and likely by Kansas governor, on top of Senator McCaskill, really hurt. Old bull Ted Kennedy, a supposedly long-term friend of the Clinton's, will go out of his way to block her effort. it will also hurt. You are running against a talker who talks of hope and unity. How can you run against that? You are running against teh messenger but people will mistake you for running against the message. How can you separate the messenager from teh message. It is a very difficult task. People want to feel good even though you think such feeling is misguided. It is a very difficult task. Heck even you cannot run against his far-left position in IL senate. of course all of these will change in the General Election if Obama makes that far. The Repugants will have no trouble running against his record or lack of it, will run his association with kennedy, ...
If I were Hillary, I could have just quitted. this piling on by the media and Democratic establish would be too unbearable for me. But Hillary is not me, she will fight on and she will win, somehow. On every step of way, I will cheer her on. Next time I receive a fundraising letter, I will give her $25. Heck, I may well go to $2,300.
Jay wrote on January 27, 2008 4:24 PM:"what must that say about you?"
That I'm a person who enjoys toying with a shill who has a penchant for mercilessly spinning Obama endorsements - that pretty much sums it up.
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 4:24 PM:Jay,
Read a few of my posts. I don't think the endorsement is bad. I actually think it will have a very powerfully negative effect on Clinton.
I just don't buy into the Obama hype. Haven't drunk the koolaide!
Jay wrote on January 27, 2008 4:25 PM:I hear you..
NoBoy wrote on January 27, 2008 4:26 PM:Yeah loki, Mack "forgot" twice.
And Obama "accidently voted wrong" over and over and over.
What does that say about him? hmmmm?
At about noon yesterday, Wolfson appeared before reporters and conceded that The Clintons' internal polling showed that she would lose by 12 points
A few hours later, Obama had won by nearly 30 points
Two things I hope for (I just might get em)
1. The Clintons' supporters continue to cling to their polls
2. Bill campaigns actively in every 2/5 state...24/7
CT Voter wrote on January 27, 2008 4:27 PM:I guess Kennedy's endorsement of Obama against the Clintons shows that he got a spine, eh?
Oh, that's going to frost the Clinton supporters...
As I said: these endorsements have gotta smart...I guess you could argue against Caroline Kennedy's Op-Ed today and say "No, we DON'T need someone to inspire us..." but as a bumper-sticker slogan, that's not very catchy...
Jay wrote on January 27, 2008 4:27 PM:"What does that say about him? hmmmm?"
..and Hillary voted to authorize one of the biggest colossal clusterfucks this country has ever known - what does that say about her? hmmmm?
Michael A wrote on January 27, 2008 4:33 PM:Hi loki, glad you brought up obama's senate record. By the way, what were the crowning legislative achievements of the clintons the first time they occupied the white house? Please be specific. Thanks.
Juanito wrote on January 27, 2008 4:35 PM:Look everyone,
if she had kicked him out and gotten a divorce and won the senate seat on her own, and if she'd been against all of the Repub mendacity, lies and corruption after W's so-called election, and if she'd called the ginned-up Iraqi intelligence for what it was in 2003 and been against invading Iraq, she might have had a chance. But no. All she has done is play by Bill's playbook. Now, who was that old boyhood friend of Bill's, who went with him to the White House, who had a family to take care of and who had been part of the entourage since day one? Yes, the guy who shot himself. Perhaps he came to realize something quite profound about the Clinton's. And about himself. Last night when I read about Caroline's editorial I saw the first ray of light at the end of the tunnel. This season becomes glorious summer with Ted's endorsement.
Jay wrote on January 27, 2008 4:27 PM:
"What does that say about him? hmmmm?"
..and Hillary voted to authorize one of the biggest colossal clusterfucks this country has ever known - what does that say about her? hmmmm?
>>> Different people read the intelligence reports and reached different conclusions. Kerry, Biden, Dodd, a lot of good Senators voted for the resolution. You think all of them are less worthy than Obama. What I resent most about Obama's candidacy is his so called good judgement against war. That's bullshit. The man made a decision by hunch, without access to the wealth of information to the senators. Even he said himself that had he been in the Senate at teh time of vote, he might have made a different decision. Gimme a break! YOur love boy is not born with superb judgement. Just asked him how he decided to buy the adjacent lot from Tony Rezko.
Get ready to hear a lot more about Rezko!
Michael, dear child...please go read my post to you in that other thread.
Gregor wrote on January 27, 2008 4:40 PM:Bill Clinton almost singlehandedly destroying his wife's shot at the Presidency. You gotta admit, it's one helluva story. One for the ages.
For the untalented, uninspiring Hillary, that was just too much for her, or Democrats to shoulder.
Wow. The political genius couple of the 1990's makes one of the biggest miscalculations in recent political history.
Helluva story.
Jay wrote on January 27, 2008 4:40 PM:"What I resent most about Obama's candidacy is his so called good judgement against war. That's bullshit. The man made a decision by hunch, without access to the wealth of information to the senators."
Americans knew that Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, nothing as much is hardly a hunch - incessant intelligence reports couldn't prove otherwise.
"YOur love boy is not born with superb judgement. Just asked him how he decided to buy the adjacent lot from Tony Rezko."
Outside of that being one of the biggest non-scandals ever - a Clinton supporter knows better than to site unsavory characters and scandal. Those in glass houses..
Mack wrote on January 27, 2008 4:42 PM:"Get ready to hear a lot more about Rezko!"
What a battle-cry of desperation if I ever heard one.
Gloria Hole wrote on January 27, 2008 4:43 PM:Endorses Obama – NOT BILLARY – Did you get that this time Gloria Steinem?
Norbie7 wrote on January 27, 2008 4:44 PM:Outside of the box:
Maybe Bill doesn't want to go back to the White House and he's pulling the rug out from under her. After all, he'd only be back in the spotlight for four or eight years. And the media would be following him more than her! No chance for poon-tang.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 4:52 PM:Jay wrote on January 27, 2008 4:40 PM:
"What
>>> We Clinton supporters have never said they are perfect. At least they have not done this kind of deal to enrich themselves. This is very close to bribery! Be very careful!
loki is a douchebag. nanny nanny boo boo
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 5:01 PM:Obama is claiming that he is fightign the status quo, not creative enough such that has to borrow words from JRE. Bill has been out of office for seven years while Hillary is one of 100 in the Senate. How is she qualified to represent Status quo is beyond me! With all these establishment lining behind him, including Kerry and Kennedy, how wonder how much longer Obama can claim an outsider mento. with economy going down to sink, this will be "It's economy, stupid". This will be a fight between common people against liberul elitists. I bet more people would like to enjoy the properities of 90"s. That's just my hunch!
Go Hillary! Down with Obama :)))!!!
Jay wrote on January 27, 2008 5:01 PM:"We Clinton supporters have never said they are perfect. At least they have not done this kind of deal to enrich themselves. This is very close to bribery! Be very careful!"
Again, you have to be very careful when it comes to the Clinton's "enriching" themselves..
texasdem wrote on January 27, 2008 5:02 PM:Anon at 4:35:
"Different people read the intelligence reports and reached different conclusions."
But Hillary did NOT read the NIE.
Angry Vet wrote on January 27, 2008 5:03 PM:This is pretty stupid, by both sides.
You aren't convincing anyone, and, in the end, y'all are just playing into the current media narrative.
Obama supporters will love the SC victory. HRC supporters will pump up Michigan and Florida.
So fucking what?! Neither Michigan nor FLorida are contested primaries. Wherever HRC and Obama meet, HRC has a lead in the beginning, while gradually her support begins dropping. In NH and Nevada, her support had not dropped off enough.
In Iowa and SC, it was quite different, and her support had collapsed.
Now, from an objective standpoint, I think we will see the same dynamic play out in 2/5 states. The question is, will she maintain her hold in Massachusetts, California, and her insurmountable leads in NY and NJ?
Mighty big question mark.
But for the moment, may I remind all of you shills of the following facts?
No HRC supporter is going to ditch her candidacy because of her marriage to Big Bill, Bill's antics, HRC's war vote, or the failure to implement health care reform in 1994.
No Obama supporter is going to ditch him because of limited "links" between him and someone up for corruption charges (and as a fact he did not buy that land from Rezko; instead, Rezko bought an adjoining property), because Obama is "inexperienced," because the Republicans would be mean to him in the GE, or because his middle name is Hussein.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
CalD wrote on January 27, 2008 5:04 PM:I'd have to say that if all this firepower should fail to deliver the Commonwealth of MA for Senator Obama, people are definitely going to talk.
LL wrote on January 27, 2008 5:05 PM:DTM,
Thanks for answering my question. I think it helps put these endorsements in context to think of them as also potentially turning into delegate votes.
jmm wrote on January 27, 2008 5:05 PM:HRC tends to do better with older Democrats while Obama has an in with the younger crowd. I wonder if Kennedy's endorsement will attract some of those older voters to Obama's camp? Any thoughts?
Subliminability wrote on January 27, 2008 5:06 PM:Yes, it was "liberal elitists" (pace Karl Rove) who gave Obama a 43-point win in his Illinois Senate race, an 8-point win in Iowa and a 27-point win in SC. Those States are nothing but overgrown wine bars.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 5:06 PM:>>> We Clinton supporters have never said they are perfect. At least they have not done this kind of deal to enrich themselves. This is very close to bribery! Be very careful!
You idiots what was Whitewater? A real estate scam/swindle that the Clintons were full partners in, and in which they made big money.
Maybe Billary could also release the donors to the library in Little Rock
called Little Rock's Fort Knox.
For corruption the Clintons have an insurmountable lead of any politician
sfam wrote on January 27, 2008 5:08 PM:What's becoming truly absurd about this race is we see an extremely talented woman candidate who by all accounts is genius (whether or not we personally like her), needing her strong hubby to try to push her over the top.
Its hard to imagine a worse message here if Hillary wins the nomination - that if you're a woman candidate going for President, when the going gets tough, don't bother trying to win it on your own as a "man" would - instead you need to bring out your more charismatic and ego-driven successful husband to beat up anyone who says anything bad about you.
At this point its pretty much embedded in everyone's psyche that its not Hillary vs Obama - its "Bill and Hillary" vs Obama. That Edwards' concession speech essentially started, "I want to join Hillary and Bill in congratulating Obama..." pretty much hammers the point home.
"You've come a long way, baby" - just make sure you have your big strong hubby get rid of the riff-raff if you want to win.
DemUnity08 wrote on January 27, 2008 5:08 PM:This is a big win for Obama, especially coming a day after South Carolina. But Feb. 5 is still over a week away and while there might be a nice bounce in the polls it's hard to imagine the race narrowing that much in so short a time. I try to think of what Obama might be cooking up that could possibly change the status quo (Clinton with overall BIG lead in national polls) in this race, and I don't see it.
Maybe Obama is counting on Edwards to earn enough delegates and he thinks he can convert those delegates and combine them to beat Hillary. Edwards takes the Attorney General job as reported, and Obama doesn't have to have more delegates than Clinton. That still sounds like a longshot to me, and this race is definitely Clinton's to lose.
John wrote on January 27, 2008 5:17 PM:Is Ted Kennedy part of the status quo? When republicans want to talk about liberals, who is first mentioned? How will this help unite the country? Ted Kennedy's endorsement goes againist everything Barak Obama is preaching from the pulpit. period. If you think republicans don't notice this endorsement you are kidding yourself. You just joined the polarized club Barak, as you so often say Hillary is. What a hypocrit. Just read the article saying South Carolina win turns a page, and while reading what he says about the 90's think about Ted Kennedy's endorsement.
CalD wrote on January 27, 2008 5:26 PM:Angry Vet,
Michigan was an uncontested primary (unless you count Chris Dodd). In Florida, all candidate's names will be on the ballot and Barack Obama is even advertising there right now, by virtue of having recently made a sizable national cable TV buy that included Florida.
Florida also has something much more like the national average percentage of black voters than SC, along with a somewhat higher than average Hispanic population and of course, 27 electoral votes. So regardless of the fact that it may be only a beauty contest at this point, given the lopsided demographics of Senator Obama's SC win, where 77% of his vote came from African Americans and only 23% from white/Hispanic voters according to exit polls, I have to think a lot of people will be watching Florida with great interest. Besides, there's really nothing else on TV that day.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 5:26 PM:CalD wrote on January 27, 2008 5:04 PM:
I'd have to say that if all this firepower should fail to deliver the Commonwealth of MA for Senator Obama, people are definitely going to talk.
>>> Obama will not win MA. People have seen the play in MA before. they are all having buyer's remorse regarding Deval Patrick.
For the moron who mentioned whitewater before hand, you need to get the fact right. The Clinton entered into a real estate venture and ended up losing a lot of money. It has been thoroughly investigated and nothing has been found against the Clinton's. If you idiot thinks Ken Starr has not done a thorough job, you can hire attorneys and re-fight it. How can you mother bring up a son or daughter so stupid as you!!!
Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 27, 2008 5:30 PM:I'm not trusting the polls. I feel like events and perceptions are happening too quickly in a giant, fluid mashup, namely:
Bill's antics created a viral recoil, really snowballing this last week
Bill's bigfoot makes people wonder where the woman who found her own voice went
Every time Barack wins (or loses) his speech tops the last one...he has the glow of success
Hillary's Michigan and Florida plays completely looks like an end-run, which reminds people of their Machiavellian tendencies (let alone the end-run of term limits)
Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsements cut through the clutter and telegraph serious legitimacy, instantly
The last one feels like what we might look back on as the tipping point. How many people poll pro-Hillary because, well, she's inevitable and Barack is a phenom. Now that he's officially for real, I'm thinking we may be hearing a great rushing sound across the country as voters move to his side.
I believe this is a good opportunity for the clinton compaign to tout the difference between Clinton's healthcare proposal and Obama's. They can say they respect Kennedy's long-term effort of bringing healthcare to all people. If he thinks a plan should start with 15 million uncovered, he is welcome endorse Obama. Kennedy was instrumental to bring universal healthcare to MA. If he now regrets that it has a mandate, he should say so and he is welcome to support Obama. they may even make a little bit of fun with Obmama's old comment regarding ted's spine.
Ni Daye wrote on January 27, 2008 5:36 PM:Furthermore, the Cliton compaign should point out Kennedy cannot be more a part of establishment. With endorsements from kerry and Kennedy, the Obama compaign should stop its claim to be an outside against washington estalishement. They should refer to Crag's morning Joe asseseement of media mental sickness and The Page's taking on the media's passionate rooting for Obama and start run a common people versus elistist people compaign. Yes, Obama has a collaratin, it is one with liberal elitists and the black. the clinton people cannot run against the black, they should definitely run against the liberal elistist establishment!!!
We the people will win. Not the machine of Ted Kennedy!!!
NCSteve wrote on January 27, 2008 5:39 PM:Of course Hillary wants Florida to count. Its full of old people from the Northeast, her base.
Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 27, 2008 5:45 PM:NCSteve--right you are. Lots of old people and Jewish people (worried about the "H" middle initial). Everybody says too many blacks to matter in SC, nobody says the same about Hillary's base in FLA.
DTM wrote on January 27, 2008 5:51 PM:Clinton could only plausibly claim to no longer be the establishment candidate if at some point she fell substantially behind in the count of declared superdelegates.
And frankly, it is way too late even for that.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 6:00 PM:Its hard to imagine a worse message here if Hillary wins the nomination - that if you're a woman candidate going for President, when the going gets tough, don't bother trying to win it on your own as a "man" would - instead you need to bring out your more charismatic and ego-driven successful husband to beat up anyone who says anything bad about you.
I thought the Clinton's idea was that since we'd never had a woman president before, Hillary's presidency would sorta be like Driver's Ed, with Bill having a full set of controls on his side of the car in case Hillary started to drive the country off the road.
Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 6:07 PM:Ni Daye wrote on January 27, 2008 5:36 PM:
Furthermore, the Cliton compaign should point out Kennedy cannot be more a part of establishment.
----------------------
Was that why the Clintons tried so desperately to try and win Senator Kennedy's endorsement?. You Clintonites are truly pathetic. If Senator Kennedy had agreed to what HillBillery had sought, and endorsed her, you would all be crowing about how that trumped the Kerry endorsement of Obama.
You lost again, so people are no longer buying the Clinton fairy tales.
useful EMK analysis:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/
HRC and JE supporters, we know 99% of you are not like the trolls above. Stay positive, support your candidate for positive reasons, and let's look forward to unity in November. Know hope!
dcshungu wrote on January 27, 2008 6:16 PM:Recycled to this more appropriate thread:
Where is Lloyd Bentsen when you need him! But I believe that the following would blow any notion that Obama is like JFK out of the water:
Ask Not! Why Obama is No JFK
By Ted Widmer.
Speaking of Kennedy endorsements, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend along with her brother and sister just endorsed Hillary, which should help with women voters (I am not sure how valuable Teddy's endorsement of Obama is, except with very liberal voters):
1/27/2008 Statement from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision but I have made a different choice. While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary Clinton for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results. As a woman, leader, and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president. She shares so many of the concerns of my father. Hillary has spent a lifetime speaking out on behalf of the powerless and working to alleviate poverty, in our country and around the world. I have seen her work up close and know she will be a great President. At this moment when so much is at stake at home and overseas, I urge our fellow Americans to support Hillary Clinton. That is why my brother Bobby, my sister Kerry, and I are supporting Hillary Clinton."
Now you see how "polarizing" Hillary is? She just split even the Kennedy family! LOL.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 27, 2008 6:18 PM:Gentle people:
Let us always remember that endorsements are always important when they are for your candidate and not important when they go against your candidate.
More to the point:
a) Kennedy's endorsement *is* important -- or else both the Clintons and Obama wouldn't be jockeying for it. It will set the tone at the convention among the superdelegates and may well be a signal in the factors deciding the issues of MI and FL delegates.
b) Kennedy *could* have stayed neutral. He did not. He might be supporting Obama sincerely. It may also well be possible that Kennedy is ABC -- we don't know. But we do know he isn't hoping for a return of a Clinton in the White House.
c) Kennedy's endorsement will go a long way in telling the old school Dem's that Obama is just fine, thank you very much. If you look at the polls from SC, it was 65+ that is Obama's weakest age demographic. Kennedy's endorsement will mean the most to exactly this set of people.
d) JFK symbolism is exceedingly important to the Dems and to the Clintons in particular. How many of us have *not* seen the picture of Bill shaking JFK's hand?
e) And Kennedy's endorsement takes a LOT of the teeth of the "experience" remarks of the Clinton campaign. From Kennedy's perspective, both HRC and Obama are mere upstarts in the Senate. There are only 100 senators -- everybody does know everybody quite well.
The road for Obama is not going to be easy, because the Clintons are clearly a group that would just as soon cut off their nose to spite their face. Of course, this is *precisely* the reason why the older Dems are lining up against them -- they do not want the Clintons to implode the Dem party. The Clintons are clearly not so much interested in the future as the here and now.
Nevertheless, just as every brick holds a great building up, every positive sign helps advance Obama down the path further.
Halperin also gets the politics of it:
http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-five-reasons-why-the-kennedy-endorsement-is-a-big-deal/
It's still gonna be a crapload of work, but a path through the thicket of the next two weeks is now vaguely discernible.
Michael A wrote on January 27, 2008 6:27 PM:Oh, great adult loki, you are so adult even though you write the most juvenille posts on this site, you didn't answer the question. You merely hurled insults as always. I understand that you can't answer the question, because there are no wonderful legislative accomplishments. Why can't you clinton people just admit something for once as opposed to insulting people. It's truly amazing.
CalD wrote on January 27, 2008 6:32 PM:NCSteve wrote on January 27, 2008 5:39 PM:Of course Hillary wants Florida to count. Its full of old people from the Northeast, her base.
Too much is made of the retiree vote in FL. According to the census bureau, Florida's percentage of persons age 65 or older is only 16.8%, just 4.4% above the national average of 12.4%. In Iowa, where Barack Obama won, the percentage is nearly as high at 14.6%. NH is bang on average at 12.4% and SC is just a tick above at 12.8%.
As for the FL delegates, I'm sure Clinton would love to have them count but it's as important for her that Floridians know she thinks they should count. Florida will certainly be good for some buzz value going into Super Tuesday, national delegates or no national delegates.
Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 6:33 PM:Kathleen Townsend went down in flames in her own campaign for governor.
Her Uncle is a winner, and a lion in the US Senate.
So many key elected Democrats are endorsing Senator Obama, that I am starting to think that they are aware of some very bad stuff that the Republicans have on the Clintons, and that the Democrats would go down in flames with Hillary at the head of the ticket.
Knowing Bill's past history, does anyone really believe that he became a born again Virgin for the past eight years.
Political seismologists are picking up signs of potentially devastating fresh Bimbo Eruptions.
patchwork wrote on January 27, 2008 6:33 PM:LOL
Next Billary and the supporters will be exhuberantely but sublety pointing out the fact that Kennedy is a Catholic. LOL.
Since Catholics are involved in scandals re the priests, that means Kennedy's endorsement is moot. LOL
Wouldn't put it past them at all at this point.
I would not put it past Bill Clinton to come out with something similar to that, artfully disguised of course, given his disgusting behavior in the past month and the most recent disguised smear he thought up by invoking Jesse Jackson's win in South Carolina. And the defender of feminists, Hillary will stand meekly by and let her man do it so she can be the first woman president, when it is really Bill who will be the president.
jeanette wrote on January 27, 2008 6:36 PM:this is ridiculous
kennedy's endorsement does nothing but undermine obama. he's run his entire campaign on how bad democrats are. he's even called kennedy a tired old hack. the endorsement hurts the central rationale for obama's candidacy
i guess sexism runs deep even in the democratic party. remember, chappaquiddick ted belongs to the catholic church, not known for its progressive views on women
Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 6:45 PM:All the women that Bill Clinton has pawed and demeaned know what a real sexist pig is like, after they have been assaulted by him.
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 7:04 PM:Michael...insults? You are complaining about insults? You? You've made your name in here based on how little you know and how many different people you can insult. Heh-heh...Don't make me laugh.
Now go crawl back under that slimey rock you sexist chump.
tym wrote on January 27, 2008 7:12 PM:Liam
Just like 1992 more Bimbo eruptions coming
Along with the unrevealed donations to the Clinton library and the papers from the Clinton presidency.
Bill has moved on up in the world and now plays with super rich divorcees who probably will not talk like the Arkansas trailer trash. But you never now.
Like always the Clintons are awash in scandals
tym wrote on January 27, 2008 7:17 PM:I think the country knows if Bill is back in the White House that he will turn it into his personal Bordello again
How many of you would let your daughter work for Bill as an Intern.
DTM wrote on January 27, 2008 7:19 PM:I really don't think we need to hypothesize some as yet unrevealed scandals to explain why all these endorsements are coming Obama's way.
Let's review:
Clinton is getting her support mostly from running up the score among relatively narrow (and older) slices of traditional Democratic voters.
Obama is getting his support from a broader cross-section of traditional Democrats and by attracting new people--independents, former Republicans, and young people--to the Party.
Now who would you choose if you were thinking about the future of the Party?
NCSteve wrote on January 27, 2008 7:29 PM:DCS,
Do you really think for a minute that Hill and Bill wouldn't swap their Kennedy endorsees for Obama's in a New York minute, and throw in Boardwalk, Parkplace and all three yellow properties with hotels to boot?
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 8:16 PM:DRinOH said at the beginning of this thread at 1:54 PM: "Endorsements are wildly overrated, and this one will be no exception."
WRONG. The Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsements are enormously important. The news has bolstered battle weary Democrats eager to unify behind a truly outstanding new leader.
All the cynical, Clinton attack dogs take notice. Your dirty, dishonest, divisive brand of politics will not win this election. It is of a past era, and the Democratic Party and the nation are moving forward past the Bush-Clinton era of partisan warfare. Your agressive mean spirited attacks are wasted.
You are saying "you cannot change Washington and claim the future," Obama and supporters are saying "YES WE CAN"
Hi loki, I don't recall insulting anyone. Maybe you could enlighten me. Just because I have an issue with your candidate's non-experience and horrible policies isn't insulting.
On the sexist issue, like I said in the last thread. Look in the mirror. It's called projection putz . . . heh, heh.
Cheers.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 8:29 PM:Bill should have listened when Kennedy asked him to cool it, stop the dishonest attacks on Obama, and stop the race baiting.
But red-faced, finger-wagging, lying Bill was having none of that. He was having too much fun making the news.
IF Hillary can't run her own campaign and keep Bill accountable, how would she ever run the country?
Where exactly is the evidence of Hillary's own voice and tough leadership?
jeanette - thanks for proving once again that in the main many of the Hillary supporters that post here are low information voters.
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 8:38 PM:NEWS FLASH! Rumors are running rampant that BILL CLINTON is now considering endorsing Obama.
"Shoot, he's got the best game in town," the former President was overheard telling advisors. "I'm having some real doubts about my early endorsemwnt. May have been premature. I like Hillary and all that, but president?"
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 8:40 PM:According to NBC Clinton campaign correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, her sources report Ted Kennedy was "appalled" at The Clintons' conduct and will bitch slap the dynamic duo in tomorrow's speech
dcshungu wrote on January 27, 2008 8:44 PM:We are perhaps making too much of endorsements. I cannot think of a case where an endorsement made a huge difference. Gore endorsed Dean, and then he went up in a scream shortly thereafter. Obama got the "huge" Culinary Workers Union endorsement in NV and he lost the state...etc...etc...
Vive la difference!
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 8:45 PM:jeanette, and Bill Clinton has progressive views on women? hmmm
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 8:45 PM:jeanette wrote on January 27, 2008 6:36 PM:
this is ridiculous
kennedy's endorsement does nothing but undermine obama. he's run his entire campaign on how bad democrats are. he's even called kennedy a tired old hack. the endorsement hurts the central rationale for obama's candidacy
i guess sexism runs deep even in the democratic party. remember, chappaquiddick ted belongs to the catholic church, not known for its progressive views on women
wow. that's some desperate spin. not only kneecapping the entire Dem party but having a whack at The Church while you're at it. again, wow.
dcshungu wrote on January 27, 2008 8:47 PM:Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 8:40 PM:According to NBC Clinton campaign correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, her sources report Ted Kennedy was "appalled" at The Clintons' conduct and will bitch slap the dynamic duo in tomorrow's speech
Kennedy is no stranger to intra-party feuds. I am old enough to remember his ill-fated challenge to Carter that went all the way to the national convention!
loki wrote on January 27, 2008 9:13 PM:Michael...
It's in your posting history, and anybody can look it up...and they all should.
Shrill, insulting, naive, ignorant and...wait for it... sexist. Heh, they can't say you aren't well rounded.
Chump.
John Petty wrote on January 27, 2008 9:44 PM:As an RFK supporter myself--I was our campus coordinator for RFK--I hope our language wasn't as vacuous and vituperative as Obama's supporters' remarks are today.
sue wrote on January 27, 2008 9:51 PM:Meet The Press addresses Clinton’s race-baiting:
Today, an amazing thing happened; the MTP panel confronted the Clinton’s race-baiting strategy against Obama head on. Here’s the link. Watch it for yourself. The discussion begins at around 27 minutes (after the John McCain interview).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22867810#22867810
A few points:
1. When Hillary threw her hat in the ring I was thinking how much I liked her when she was first lady. She was more of a partner than any first lady had been in the past. She was smart and involved in the issues.
2. I didn't vote for Bill in the primary but I liked him as president. And the 90's were definitely a time of prosperity. What I didn't give enough weight to at the time was what a big deal the loss of congress was.
3. When I first saw Obama speak, I was extremely impressed. I thought 'this guy could be president'.
4. Both Hillary and Obama are not far enough to the left for me (but then few are) but they are solid Democrats. They will follow the democratic platform which I am solidly behind. You won't see them vetoing an S-Chip bill or funding for stem cell research.
5. At first I was thinking we need to elect someone who will erase all the years since 2000 and take us back to the 90's. But I have come to realize that we need someone to take us forward to the 10's with a new vision.
We boomers were mostly engaged in politics when we were young. GenX has not been up to now but it appears GenY is getting involved early. They see the future in Obama and I'm happy to join them.
Billy Glad wrote on January 27, 2008 9:58 PM:Actually, older Democrats who actually experienced the Kennedy Presidency may be the least impressed with the Kennedy legacy. Icons tend to impress the uninitiated.
John Petty wrote on January 27, 2008 10:02 PM:Clinton is getting her support mostly from running up the score among relatively narrow (and older) slices of traditional Democratic voters.
Obama is getting his support from a broader cross-section of traditional Democrats and by attracting new people--independents, former Republicans, and young people--to the Party.
In the first place, I disagree with this analysis. Hillary gets two-thirds of the Latino vote, and THAT's the future of the party.
Secondly, Democrats need to ask themselves if they want a Democrat for a nominee, or somebody...fuzzier.
Billy Glad wrote on January 27, 2008 10:13 PM:Angry Vet, I usually stay out of these one on ones, but somebody needs to set the record straight on the Rezko deal.
1. Obama wanted to buy a house.
2. The owner of the house was selling the house and the lot next door at the same time. The owner would only sell the house and the next door lot together.
3. Obama says he couldn't afford both the house and the lot next door.
4. Rezko's wife bought the lot next door at the same time that Obama bought the house as a favor to Obama. She paid $680,000 for the lot.
5. Later, in an "unrelated" transaction, she sold some of the lot to Obama.
So that's the favor the Rezkos did for the Obamas. That's what Obama is talking about when he says it was dumb for him to let a Rezco do something that he might think obligated Obama to him. For some reason, Obama just can't quite come clean about it. I don't know why. Pretty much he gets a pass from the liberal msm. I don't know why. Personally, I don't care if people get rich in public office. I just think the Obama explanations bob and weave some. He explains things away a lot.
Billy Glad wrote on January 27, 2008 10:18 PM:It wasn't, John. The mature Bobby Kennedy was the best of the Kennedys.
Billy Glad wrote on January 27, 2008 10:21 PM:Meet The Press? The Meet The Press panel accused the Clintons of race baiting? No! I'm so shocked!
Anonymous wrote on January 27, 2008 10:37 PM:sue wrote on January 27, 2008 9:51 PM:
Meet The Press addresses Clinton’s race-baiting:
>>> I watched MTP as well. The panel had no balance and it was totally nauseating to watch. You know how much Maureen Dowd hates the Clintons, as if she has tried hard to rape bill but got refused. You know how pathetic chuck Todd was. He was sure as hell that Clinton candidacy was finished in the eve of NH Primary. He was trying to get his prediction realized, albeit later. Finally, Bryon York, you knwo Bryon Yor?
did you see tim russert ask the question about running against Hillary and Bill? Which kind of dumb question is that? If Hillary is the nominee, is there anyone in this world doubts that bill will actively compaign for her? the evil man was abusing his role as a questioner in the Gop debate to infuse his opinion on the Democratic race? Pure and simple. Even he admitted he was just joking in an interview with the tweed bird.
John Crandell wrote on January 27, 2008 10:43 PM:All I gotta say is that I just can't wait to see Oliphant's next cartoon!
JTinSoCal wrote on January 27, 2008 10:53 PM:Does Gore endorse Obama next week? How about Harold Ford? Could be big w/ TN upcoming.
jonmichael wrote on January 27, 2008 11:15 PM:Couldn't be happier to see an Obama endorsement from an old "D" I was tired of Billary all along they're activities lately have just more offensive!!!
maxstar212 wrote on January 27, 2008 11:23 PM:Unfortunately, he was not able to get the endorsement that he really wanted--Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the kind of leader that Obama really want to be like. Here are his own words about why people voted for Reagan.
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
The excesses and growth of the government were what the Democrats did. It was the Great Society, The Environmental Movement, Medicare, Civil Rights, Progressive taxation, Government Regulation of the economy and Gay Rights. Calling them excesses is Republican language. Most Democrats didn't think they went far enough. And the "clarity" was against the honest soul searching that Americans had after Vietnam and Watergate of our place in the world.
maxstar212 wrote on January 27, 2008 11:23 PM:Unfortunately, he was not able to get the endorsement that he really wanted--Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the kind of leader that Obama really want to be like. Here are his own words about why people voted for Reagan.
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
The excesses and growth of the government were what the Democrats did. It was the Great Society, The Environmental Movement, Medicare, Civil Rights, Progressive taxation, Government Regulation of the economy and Gay Rights. Calling them excesses is Republican language. Most Democrats didn't think they went far enough. And the "clarity" was against the honest soul searching that Americans had after Vietnam and Watergate of our place in the world.
DTM wrote on January 27, 2008 11:32 PM:John Petty,
Well, Clinton did get most of the Latino vote in Nevada, but historically Obama has not had problems appealing to Latinos elsewhere, such as in Illinois.
So while I agree it would be a problem for people like Kennedy if they believed that Obama was fundamentally unable to appeal to Latinos, I suspect they do not in fact believe that.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 27, 2008 11:36 PM:This is much smaller news than the Kennedy endorsement, but the St Louis Post-Dispatch has also endorsed Obama.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 27, 2008 11:40 PM:Maxstar:
Actually Richard Nixon may well have done more for the environmental movement than Bill Clinton and, in fact, coopted much of the McGovern agenda.
And let's not forget that JFK wanted to really steer clear of the Civil Rights movement until it was thrust upon him by events. It was the "tricky politician" LBJ that actually embraced the lower people of America. And yet he was waist deep in monied political schemes with Brown and Root.
I voted against Reagan twice (4 times if you count primaries) and yet he is as undeniable a force in American politics as FDR.
It's important to remember history here. Most presidents act of their times. As a result, Nixon was a left-ward leaning Republican as Clinton was a right-ward leaning Democrat. This is how it should be: the politicians tend to strive to satisfy the middle -- and in the 90's the middle was right of where it was in the 70's, political parties aside.
Also: the government *had* grown excessive. Don't forget all the Federal Employees let go by that famed "Republican": Bill Clinton.
It's time to put dogmatic politics aside. It is the only way to have a meaningful conversation of the real issues.
Nice quote at the end of today's NYT piece. It's just one citizen's judgment, but for those of us who remember 1968 it touches a place in the heart:
"...near the end of Mr. Obama’s first year in the Senate, Ethel Kennedy asked him to speak at a ceremony for her husband’s 80th birthday. At the time, she referred to Mr. Obama as “our next president.”
“I think he feels it. He feels it just like Bobby did,” Mrs. Kennedy said in an interview that day, comparing her late husband’s quest for social justice to Mr. Obama’s. “He has the passion in his heart. He’s not selling you. It’s just him.”
Hope for 3rd party wrote on January 28, 2008 12:06 AM:I can't live with another on the job training President. If Obama is our choice in November, I will hope for Bloomberg/Edwards 3rd ticket. Mitt Romney today said on CNN that he coulg ot want to debate him and his Rhetoric. The press has given him a free pass but the GOP won't. I think people are not looking past what is said, and not asking him how will he get it done, and stick to one answer. We have to many problems with roads, water supply lines, schools, economy, our dollar is worth about $0.65, social security, global warming, jobs leaving the country, and the oil companies bleeding us dry. We need answers to those questions, no beating around the bush. That is why we need change from Bush yes, but not another on the job training President.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 28, 2008 12:19 AM:Dear HOPE FOR A 3RD PARTY:
*Every* president, except for an incumbent, is on-the-job training.
Moreover, even HRC said that typically the major issues a President deals with are not the ones campaigned on.
Take Lincoln, for example. We fortunately had an extraordinary mind in the White House when it counted. But no one could have prepared for that presidency. (Although most of Lincoln's political enemies thought themselves far smarter than he, Lincoln "rewarded" them with cabinet positions. ;-))
The next president will have to deal with something that *no one* of either party is contending with: the world is in a post-peak oil situation.
That goes beyond just oil for energy. It means the whole hydrocarbon industry, which drives both the phara and ag industries, will be capsized. No amount of hydrogen or nuclear (neither are solutions anyway) will help when we simply don't have the fertilizers to produced crops in the volume we currently do.
This is historically unprecedented.
Therefore, whomever you decide to elect in 2008 will be on-the-job training.
It it therefore critical to pick your candidate on the basis of character, intellect (not IQ points, but real wisdom), and ability to lead and inspire.
My two cents: I think Latinos will stick with Hillary. (I live in a state with lots of Latinos; most are for Hillary.) If Obama gets the nomination, I suspect they'll support the ticket.
RE: JFK/RFK. Obama is neither. In fact, it does a disservice to Obama to suggest that he is the "new JFK" or the "new RFK." In the first place, there was only one of each, and, in the second place, it does a disservice to Obama to try to put him in those shoes.
(Side note to DTM: Couldn't agree more.)
Billy Glad wrote on January 28, 2008 12:30 AM:I suspect the real reason Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama 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's the Surname, Stupid wrote on January 28, 2008 12:55 AM:Billy Glad:
History does not bear out your comments.
JFK, in fact, tried to avoid the whole Civil Rights issue as much as he could, until George Wallace's actions put the whole mess on his plate and force fed him. Once you saw Wallace's actions on the MSM, JFK had to act.
LBJ, on the other hand, had an *excellent* record on Civil Rights in the sense that he shouldered much of the burden in the 50's as Senate Majority Leader and also getting it past Richard Russell and Co. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was largely Johnson's doing under his leadership... after it was proposed by a REPUBLICAN president: Ike!
History is full of fun facts, n'est-ce pas?
I am not claiming that the 1957 bill was fantastic or progressive for our sensibilities today, or else we wouldn't have needed the 1964 acts, but you have to judge people in their time. And in 1957, it truly was LBJ's *Senate* Leadership that broke the dam -- and arguably made way for the 60's protests of even more reform.
Had it not been for Vietnam, LBJ would have gone down as one of the greatest American presidents in the 20th Century; right up there with his hero, FDR.
In fact, LBJ was probably the most experienced person ever to assume the office of TPOTUS as he was one of the most shrewd legislative officials the country has ever produced.
And *his* presidency ended in disaster!
spero to loki wrote on January 28, 2008 1:16 AM:loki rules. once had a hawk named loki.
also, there's a reason rethugs like to hark back to, and style themselves as JFK types. this is not heresy or treason, when typed by a Democrat.
anyone here remember "bread for peace?" (dough for caudillos).
JFK did his share both of womanizing, and of smashing democracies - aka corporate dirty war-mongering. period. knowledge of these facts does not make one a clintonista.
However, if the party had stuck by Bill Clinton when he was in the clinch, Al Gore would be president today. This shit between obamabots and the rest of us is just as depressing as it could possibly be. The charges of racism are both utterly fucking absurd - and obvioudly being fomented by x-rethugliscum qua corporate political pundit. christ. on a cross.
recommend we all start reading Scott Horton, over at Harpers.org, who's realiably focused on our actual enemy, and his actual evildoing, until all this egregious bullshit is over.
Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 6:28 AM:Latest reports from the Clintons' campaign is that Bill is being shifted back to advocate rather than attack dog.
Who exactly is running the campaign?
What happened to teary Hillary finding her own voice, just before Bill launched his angry, red-faced, finger-wagging, mean-spirited AND DISHONEST attacks on Obama?
Mrs. Bill Clinton cannot even lead her own campaign.
How could she possibly lead the nation and the world?
DonnaG wrote on January 28, 2008 6:37 AM:So simple folks. The Clintons shat in the Democrats' nest, the steaming ploppings smelled too much like somebody had been feasting with the Republicans, and loyal Democrats are willing to kick the Clintons out of the nest.
random wrote on January 28, 2008 6:40 AM:Have you ever noticed that anytime anyone says somethiing positive about Obama, or Edwards, or anyone other than the Clintons, they get brutally attacked on EC. The Clinton attack dogs simply cannot allow democracy to funtion with differences of opinion weighed to inform judgment. The Bush-Clinton politics of you're either for me or my enemy has damaged this nation for more than 20 years. Can we please move past it.
Greg Sargent had nothing but praise for Bill Clinton and his dishonest attacks and race baiting. "It's just poliitcs" according to the Clinton machine and the sheep who follow it.
The divisive, mean-spirited, dishonest Bush-Clinton politics are the past. We have a chance to move forward without the Bushes or the Clintons. Time to do it.
Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 6:51 AM:the latest media reports are that Ted Kennedy is not only endorsing Obama but will energetically camppaign for him in northeastern and Western primary states. This will give Obama additional opportunity to persuade union and Hispanic voters.
The Clintons have shown the nation their true colors in ways that Democrats with integrity simply cannot ignore. The Democrat Party will no longer tolerate the Bush-Rove-Clinton brand of dishonest attack and the playing of race and gender to divide the nation.
Billary is history. Good riddance.
TheraP wrote on January 28, 2008 8:36 AM:Let us hope Gore does the same. Endorses and energetically campaigns.
Peep wrote on January 28, 2008 8:41 AM:If the Dems attempt to pull the party back to the liberal left as Kennedy and Kerry are attempting and continue to wallow in this social justice identity politics alienating the other 70 percent of the country with this hysteria they said MLK and JJ, they loose it just reminds us why the Party almost became the party of oblivion. A coupled of two steps by the Republicans and their dead, one Immigration reform that is positive and a fresh face who is anti Bush at the convention and boom Dem advantage lost. And the Dems will still be discussing why social justice is the burning issue and everyone else is bigots at the pity party when they loose. It worked in Mass, same crowd same campaign.
I can support the Chuck Schumer Hillary Clinton wing of the Party I saw in 2006, Positively America, but not the Kerry Kennedy Clyburn Liberal identity politics old guard that is just as dangerous to our economic health.
What you wont hear from the liberal media. And those Independent voters who happen to show up when there is not also a Republican contest at the same time should worry you as well.
ABC News:
"ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison -- who famously declared Bill Clinton to be the nation's "first black president" -- is endorsing Barack Obama for president today, an Obama campaign source tells ABC News."
Billy Glad wrote on January 28, 2008 8:58 AM:I think we can disagree about the 1957 Civil Rights Act and still agree that it was Lyndon Johnson who pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Senate after JFK failed to do so. I'm simply pointing out that Ted Kennedy's resentment of Mrs. Clinton's remark about LBJ doing what Jack Kennedy tried and failed to do probably has more to do with his endorsement of Obama than anything else. Collossal egos are capable of vindictive actions on a grand scale. Clearly, Kennedy is willing to risk his own prestige on the chance of getting even. And, in spite of the chatter in the blogosphere, it was Mrs. Clinton's remark, not Bill's that set him off. Personally, I hope she beats the Kennedy machine in Mass. I'm not supporting either candidate yet, but I'm sick of tired old establishment candidates that have been losing to the Republicans year after year setting the agenda for the Democratic party. I definitely don't need Ted Kennedy and John Kerry telling me who to vote for.
Dave wrote on January 28, 2008 10:04 AM:The Clinton people are confusing me. Is Obama a Reagan-worshipping conservative or a dirty hippie Kennedy-hugger? Or is he a scary black guy like Jesse Jackson? Surely he can't be all of those things, can he?
Vitor Bond wrote on January 28, 2008 10:16 AM:THE TRAIN.
We missed it once... not again.
Are you in your 50s, or older?
Do you remember where you were...
The day John was shot?
The day Bobby was shot?
The day Martin was shot?
Those days closed a chapter of opportunity that has not opened again... until now.
Whatever your age, it is not too late or too soon to be a maker of - not only a witness to - history.
The thing that made so many of us so sad then was that we KNEW that we were watching something great fade away, like a mighty train into the mist, and we had no idea that we would ever see it again.
Well... now we are on the other end of that tortured cycle.
That train is coming again...
Not to give us a ride... that would be too easy.
But to roar into the future on tracks that WE help to lay.
That train is not Obama - he is only a conductor, and not even the only one, though he is now in front.
The train is US.
Young and old... black and white and red and brown and yellow... all of us.
US
North and South... East and West... city and country... all of us.
US
Tired of the foolishness... ready to ROCK!
US
And not just US.
The United States of US.
Go... Be... US.
Obama.
www.gobe.us
another reader wrote on January 28, 2008 10:18 AM:I've defended Hillary Clinton on this site several times before. Up until recently, I have seen everything as fair game--the Reagan comments, the Rezko thing, the present votes--it's just politics and I haven't seen Obama rise above it. Also, I've seen many posters say that the Clintons were the ones injecting race into the campaign, and I just couldn't have been convinced of it.
But this weekend it all changed. Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comments were the last straw. Even if they didn't start the race thing, they are playing the game now. And it's disgusting. It's one thing for a black candidate to pander (note--i'm not accusing Obama of doing this), but it's another for a white candidate to marginalize a black candidate on the issue of his race. The worst part of all of this is that the Clintons aren't doing this because they're racist, I don't believe they're racist for a second. They're doing it for political gain. That's terrible, and barring a head-on apology from Hillary, I just can't support her anymore.
I've always liked Obama. I think he's somewhat weak, better at marketing himself than his policies, but now I reluctantly join the Obama movement. And I mourn the president that Hillary Clinton might have been if she'd only had a little integrity.
South Carolina is 29% black.
Florida is 15% black.
There is a gambling initiative on the ballot in Miami-Dade.
Hillary will not win by much in Florida and the narrative will be her collapsing support heading into Super-Duper Tuesday.
Peep wrote on January 28, 2008 10:53 AM:
another reader wrote on January 28, 2008 10:18 AM:
What absolute bull I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that the Dem party can not look outward past identity politics and liberal social lectures as their burning cause and Lead this country in our time of need. This preoccupation with branding everyone racist this inflaming to victimize feelings and inflame for turn out is destructive and is spending all the capital on what most Americans don’t like about the Party really don’t like by the way, as much as they don’t like Bush it is non productive. That this goof would vote for someone he deems weak with as much as is on Americas plate SCREAM liberal short sidedness because he offend for the Black community for simple political statement, is well frankly not the kind of Party I want running all branches of government.
Wake up your strings are being pulled by marketing MASTERS and you look foolish, the Christian Right comes to mind, as a Party incapable of Leading just keeping a unflattering thonge up their behind. After Feb 5 if this party cant get over its demons well President McCain I guess.
Bill Clinton: "Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988" ('Obama is 'the black' candidate here folks... don't you know what that means?').
I used to be a major supporter of Bill Clinton. I am almost in shock over how slimy this comes across (though perhaps I shouldn't be).
I hope everyone understands that this tarnish is not going to simply fade away if Hillary gets the nomination. This moment is going down like Bush versus McCain in 2000: a moment wherein we got a first glimpse of the ugly truth in what Bush was bringing with him.
Ted Kennedy is already on record as having endorsed John Kerry over Hillary Clinton in 2005, so for me this is a big-whoop
NH Voter wrote on January 28, 2008 1:51 PM:
What these polls are NOT showing is the new split in the Democratic party, that will be effident come the general election. I am one of those NH voters who supported Hillary and still do. When the polls kept saying she was losing popularity, I asked my friends and family what the polls were all about, none of it made sense, it only made me more passionate about my choice. If the choice comes down to Obama vs. McCain, I'll be voting for McCain. So this "electibility" factor, is not calculating how badly us Clinton supporters are being slammed.
DRinOH wrote on January 27, 2008 2:04 PM:
Electability v. McCain:
Obama + 5
Hillary +2
(top right of this page)
It's not much, and I know it's early, but every little bit counts when it's this close.
Most polls have her winning all 22 states that vote on super tuesday... obama and edwards are going to lose.
Really? Obama will lose Illinois?
I think the Caroline Kennedy endorsement is big. She's a woman. She's JFK's daughter. And she's a New Yorker. In terms of numbers, it is probably worth two delegates right there.
Bungler OOPS wrote on January 29, 2008 5:24 AM:They network news should run this video while interviewing Obama and Kennedy the new Rezko clan.
They won't though. They trashed Hillary over a stupid meaningless picture with Rezko. If the news twist this big Obama fairy tail. Makes you wonder what else they twist that is small.
Nobody even knows who the Kennedys are anymore.
