home

Ted Kennedy To Endorse Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Wolf Blitzer and the AP are reporting that Senator Ted Kennedy, a giant to many of us, will endorse Barack Obama.

Obviously, this is a huge endorsement, as far as endorsements go, for Barack Obama. And good for him. But endorsements simply are not that important.

As an aside, while Ted Kennedy has every right to endorse whomever he chooses, given the tenor of the campaign at this time, I would have preferred he remain ostensibly neutral in this campaign. It would have been better for Party unity. But what I want does not matter.

Big good news for Barack Obama.

< Communities That Feed on Prisons | Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ted Kennedy To Endorse Obama | 177 comments (177 topical)
    Gee, Big Tent (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:36:20 AM EST
    A few days ago when the big story was Bill Clinton attacking Obama you were saying that that wasn't destroying party unity. Now you're worried that an endorsement for someone other than Clinton isn't good for party unity?

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:38:31 AM EST
    is Hillary's husband.

    It is clearly different.

    This will not destroy Party unity but it will not help it either.

    But misconstrue at your leisure Bob. You are good at it.


    [ Parent ]

    Well, endorsement DO kinda matter... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by mike in dc on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:44:30 AM EST
    ...because Kennedy, Kerry et al are superdelegates as well as nationally prominent Democrats.
    Obama now has the endorsement of the three biggest Democratic politicians in Massachusetts.  I don't think it'll give him a win there, but I think it'll move the polls a few points in his favor.  Every little bit helps.

    It matters alot in Massachusetts (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    I do not think my post would be inconsistent with that.

    [ Parent ]
    Ted Kennedy To Endorse Obama (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by tjproudamerican on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    I voted for each Clinton twice. I wish there were public records so that people would see how disgusted many of us former supporters are by Bill Clinton's buffoonish politicking and by Hilary's pointless lies about Obama.

    I have had a Saul of Tarsus conversion against them. She was (and will) win the nomination and she knows it. The Republican field is cranks, religious fanatics, a hologram, and a 9/11 ghoul: why did she have to lie about Obama?

    And why does Bill have to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson? This makes Obama seem like a black candidate running as a black man. It is subtle, sort of; it is great politics, reminding everyone who is white and has misgivings about black men that Obama is a black man; but it is scorched earth politics delivered with a smile.

    The Clinton's have lost me. I am real and apparently I have been showing up in the polls. Now Bill will mount a charm offensive canonizing Obama after Hillary is safely nominated.

    Bill Clinton will attempt with his smile and charm to polish my shoes from where he muddied them. However, I will be 60 soon. To the Clinton's I say: fool me a few thousand times shame on me.

    But, Mr. President, I finally see that is not shinola you are rubbing on us.

    You are talking about the press (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    not the Clinton's.  I hope someday you see how you have been played in the most disgusting way by the media in this country who refuse to allow us to have an election rwegaridng what we actually need to do to help our country.

    Save your contempt and direct it where it belongs, I beg of you.

    [ Parent ]

    I now (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:16:09 PM EST
    firmly believe that neither candidate can win without the other one....It is basic common sense...the more we cut down either one, the more we aid the GOP and their win in November...

    [ Parent ]
    and play into (none / 0) (#97)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    the press cr*p which is who cares about the US?  it is all ratings baby.

    [ Parent ]
    excuse me (none / 0) (#139)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    for "press" read media. My contempt is not completely for the papers...print media do try in a lot of cases.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not ratings: they have an agenda. (none / 0) (#187)
    by magnetics on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:14:13 PM EST
    Back in the 90's during the Clinton impeachment, the press was howling for his blood, but his approval ratings were running above 60%.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not ratings: they have an agenda. (none / 0) (#188)
    by magnetics on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:14:43 PM EST
    Back in the 90's during the Clinton impeachment, the press was howling for his blood, but his approval ratings were running above 60%.

    [ Parent ]
    But the press are people too ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:14:02 PM EST
    ... and at least some of their resentment of the Clintons is based on disillusionment, especially with Bill's lying.  I didn't buy the Clinton race-baiting narrative, but I do not like the JJ comment either.  Or do you think that remark represents what we actually need to do to help our country?

    [ Parent ]
    If any (none / 0) (#85)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    black person in South Carolina today were approached and told that Clinton made a racist remark by bringing up Jesse Jacksons candidacy, they would look at you and say, "why is that racist?"

    [ Parent ]
    you are off on a tangent (none / 0) (#87)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    of irrelevancy courtesy of the press.  i wont bite.

    [ Parent ]
    But YOu Just Did (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    Or was that only a nibble?

    [ Parent ]
    wasnt talking to you (none / 0) (#92)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:24:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Know (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    Just thought your choice of words was unintentionally ironic, sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    you asked me a (none / 0) (#93)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    question. where i come from it is rude not to answer (I am learning here to be rude)

    - but I did not bite into your silly question - did you really not understand my response?  I thought you were pretty quick. Guess not.

    [ Parent ]

    oops (none / 0) (#96)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    this is an answer to rbrecht - not the other poster

    [ Parent ]
    Don't blame the press, it is Bill and Hillary (none / 0) (#112)
    by tjproudamerican on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    I have sympathy for those who ardently defend Hillary and Bill Clinton. I did until I saw her bring up a total lie to attack Obama.

    He was talking entirely about something that has driven Progressives and liberals crazy since Reagan and even before that with the Nixon-executed death of hope: as Nick Lowe asked in a song Elvis Costello sang; What's so funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?

    Reagan made it seem like he had ideas because the Democratic Party had no vision. Bill Clinton had a vision, Universal Health Care; the Right Wing Noise Machine killed it, but so did Hillary's secretive meetings and the fact that she was hired as the Boss's wife.

    But, and I defended the Clinton's endlessly despite these "buts", but, both Bill and Hillary dropped the idea. The old Clinton motto is: fight until the last dog for Bill and Hillary, but for others and their concerns, "If at first you don't succeed with an idea like Health Care, quit and win reelection."

    Then the abominable Newt Gingrich, the wormy little scratchy voiced village idiot savant suddenly seized center stage and proposed so-called ideas.

    Clinton tried to answer with his Bill of Rights, but so half-heartedly that a fool like George W. Bush made Clinton look stupid and lazy.

    The Media has an anti-Clinton, and a pro-Clinton too remember (she found her voice: The Comeback Kid Redux), narrative.

    But the Clinton's did not lose me because of the media. They lost me because I watched her. I am saying this hoping some of you work for her and will tell her Stop! Call of The Dogg! Run as her and on the strength of her ideas.

    I do not think she will listen. You are either for her or against her. She is her husband's wife, built to be moderate but built to win at all costs, even the soul of the country.

    [ Parent ]

    good for you (none / 0) (#113)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:33:34 PM EST
    but the media is controlling the discussion and you are naive if you think that isnt happening.
    They have turned what could have been a useful election into a nasy joke.  I despise them for it.

    [ Parent ]
    If you expect (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:08:07 AM EST
    "Peace, Love, and Understanding" from politicians, you may be in for a big awakening.

    [ Parent ]
    Judith did you see this comment (none / 0) (#157)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:22:44 PM EST
    made by Craig Crawford on his blog comments...

    concerning Ted's endorsement....Interesting slant

    -- when Ted decided in 1980 that it would be a great idea to run against his own party's sitting president (Jimmy Carter), and then, once soundly beaten in the primaries, peevishly refuse to back that president, we got one of the great ironies of all presidential history: the "liberal lion" paves the way for Ronald Reagan -- if I were HRC i would not want such poltiical genius on my side

    so many of our young Obama supporters don't remember this history.....

    [ Parent ]

    the real lesson (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by diogenes on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:06:05 PM EST
    If the much-hated incumbent Jimmy Carter had backed down, someone else might have beaten Reagan.  Which Democratic today comes closest to the phrase "much-hated incumbent"?

    [ Parent ]
    no, I didnt (none / 0) (#158)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:31:27 PM EST
    but it backs up the roots of the South vs NE heritage of not liking each other.

    [ Parent ]
    sure does..... (none / 0) (#159)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:34:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I will have to bookmark him (none / 0) (#160)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    he seems to have a clue...but I have been let down so often. sigh. ;-O

    [ Parent ]
    ps (none / 0) (#162)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:45:26 PM EST
    when I read about it some time ago it seemed to point to it being a longer term dynamic...but it ay well be that I read something about this too -perhaps this event or non event was the reason for the comments, I just dont recall.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain as a hologram? (none / 0) (#65)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    Or Romney?  That's hilarious!

    [ Parent ]
    From Hillary Clinton's book (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Two weeks later, John F. Kennedy, Jr. sent Bill and me a handwritten letter that I cherish. "I wanted you both to understand how much your burgeoning friendship with my mother meant to her," he wrote. "Since she left Washington I believe she resisted ever connecting with it emotionally - or the institutional demands of being a former First Lady. It had much to do with the memories stirred and her desires to resist being cast in a lifelong role that didn't quite fit. However, she seemed profoundly happy and relieved to allow herself to reconnect with it through you. It helped her in a profound way - whether it was discussing the perils of raising chidren in those circulmstances (perilous indeed) or perhaps it was the many similarities between your presidency and my father's."

    Black voters (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:30:13 PM EST
     predominately voted for Obama because he is Black. Is that good or bad? Should White voters vote for Hillary or Edwards because they are White? No. Wrong is wrong and right is right. My comment might appear disturbing and if any finds it offensive I apoligize. to many in this country this election is about race, regardless of what we would like to believe. I wished race didn't transend nitself into this primary, but unfortunately it did.This election should not be about race, and Bill Clinton is no angel, but he is speaking the truth. The media is treating Obama like a saint, and twisting everything the Cintons says.
       I smell a conspiracy. Remember that most major media company are owned by wealthy republican leaning individuals. They want Obama to receive the nomination, then if he receives the nomination, then the media will take their gloves off and attack him, by holding more accountable than they do now. how would negative media about Obama carry itself with many non Black voters in this racially sensitive country.  It would be easier to do this to Obama than Hillary. Is their an incentive for media tycoons to have a democrat president? No. This is a conspiracy to put the republicans in office. Wake up and smell the coffee.

    IMO (none / 0) (#144)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    the only way, Obama, could have gotten the votes in SC that he did of the black people was to trash Hillary...He did this by insinuating that Bill was a racist....They believed him...so sad as Bill has been a great friend of theirs for many years....but Obama didnt hesitate to do it...and it worked...

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    That is really insulting and wrong imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Big Endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by LadyDiofCT on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:56:34 PM EST
    Big Endorsement is my first thought.  Second thought is: leaders of the party making endorsements makes me nervous.  John Kerry's endorsement was just creepy - here is the presidential candidate of the whole party now picking sides!  The Leahy endorsment pissed me off - get back to work on the Judiciary Committee and do your job.  Kennedy's endorsement is supposed to tell us who will save this sorry party.  The so called lions of the democratic party haven't even had the spine to stand up to George Bush or the Repubs. Why no contempt of Congress charges brought forward, why no charges against the ruthless run amok Blackwater, why still hedging their bets on immunity for telecoms, and on and on and on.  Puleeze..... I am sticking with Hillary.  She's the only one with any guts!

    Interesing the family of Bobby Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:22:32 PM EST
    Well, the John and Teddy wings may be going for Obama, but the Bobby clan seems to moving in a different direction. This statement from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was just released by the Clinton campaign:

    "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."

    So even the Kennedy's are split.....

    I find is highly insulting (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by NaNaBear on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:11:54 AM EST
    when people think AA voted for Obama just because he is black.  Naybe somne did, so did some whites that voted for Hilary.  I supprt Obama, and its not because he is black, like me.   Why is our choice being scrutinized if we don't support Hilary.

    Kennedy supports Obama, big deal.   Charlie Rangel and other black leaders support Hilary.  They were in S.C. supporting her at various black colleges.   They came out for her long before the Kennedys, Leay,  and Kerry. She still has a lot of support in the black community.  When Al Sharpton ran for president he lost the black vote in S.C.  

    WE have stood by the DEM. Party over the years,  now some act like we aren't knowlegeable enough to pick who we prefer. Its a put down and a big turn off.

     The Republicans can get some good amunition to use if they read comments made on here. There is a lot of talk about race , yet its blamed on the media and any one except the Hilary supporters.

    I also think its an insult when you say Kennedy and others think they will be able to handle Obama. Its demeaning, and condecending.

     I think all three candidates would make great presidents. My supporting Obama would never make me make negative remarks about Hilary. Afterall, she is a fellow Democart. So is Edawrds.

    OOPS (none / 0) (#200)
    by NaNaBear on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:13:59 AM EST
    I need to proof read. Sorry for the mis-spells(smile)

    [ Parent ]
    Well Put NaNaBea (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:20:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    A week ago (4.20 / 5) (#7)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    "neutral" Kennedy was all "concerned" about Bill Clinton's "unpresidential behavior".

    That rings hollow now. Seems like he already made up his mind.

    Anyway, this is part of the standard strategy for the Obama campaign: after a primary in a state, line up a number of endorsements to either stop Clinton's momentum, or increase Obama's momentum.

    Great point (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:43:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's a good endorsement (4.00 / 2) (#48)
    by spit on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    I'm still of the opinion that individual endorsements bring media attention, but aren't necessarily going to move large numbers of people. Endorsements by organizations are worth a bit more in terms of adding actual on-the-ground resources to the or whatnot, but even those don't go nearly as far as they once did IMO.

    Still, it'll give Obama some more good press after a day of very good press, and that's not meaningless. It contributes to the "momentum solidly behind Obama" narrative, and that's a good thing for him.

    FWIW, I sometimes wish all elected party members would remain neutral in all primary races, but that'll never happen.

    One campaign passed the early primary test. (4.00 / 3) (#56)
    by kid oakland on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    One campaign is driving the positive message of the Democratic Party.

    One campaign is building a winning Democratic coalition that will advance our policy agenda.

    One campaign is driving turnout and getting their voters to the polls.

    It is not surprising the Senator Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg, having waited for the results of the four "early states" to come in, are endorsing the Democratic campaign whose positive message is something that all Americans can rally around and be proud of.

    The Clinton campaign had a flawed message: it was always about "them." I wrote about this. That message had real perils.

    The voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina have spoken and one campaign passed the test.

    It's not hard to see why the endorsements are coming in. It's about our future as a party.

    One campaign is driving the Dem Part message (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    and it is the Edwards campaign.

    One campaign is about the candidate and it si the Obama campaign.

    Your refusal to deal with Obama's unity shctick and to understand that Obama is NOt driving a Dem message is baffling.

    Be for Obama as you wish, I am for cynical, politcally calculating reasons, but please, this is too much.

    [ Parent ]

    If John Edwards is (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    the bearer of the democratic message, then why is his supports tend to be white, male and more conservative then any other candidates?

    I know that many bloggers think he is "more progressive" but I think there my be some disconnect with the voters on that.  My theory (and obviously this not a reference to you, or Jer for that matter) this disconnect comes from the lack of diversity among bloggers.

    Your refusal to deal with Obama's unity shctick and to understand that Obama is NOt driving a Dem message is baffling.

    If you buy that, that means the heart of the democratic party is to be against republicans.  I for one think it is about our own agenda, and as an overarching theme, being a broad diverse coalition of people, hence the unity schtick.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    Cult of Personality comes to mind.

    [ Parent ]
    Admitting it (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    is the first step!  The is help for coming out of the cult of Clinton! You just need to ask.

    [ Parent ]
    hmm, i think the cult of obama (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:35:37 PM EST
    has and is the issue written most about on this blog. there is help, just admit it.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (none / 0) (#202)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:54:15 AM EST
    this site thinks everybody in the world who sint for Hillary is in a cult.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't there a (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by standingup on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:00:48 PM EST
    difference between the democratic message and the democratic party?  I think the difference is that Edwards was not in the running with the Democratic establishment.  He never had the support from the elected Dems that Hillary or Obama has received.    

    Hillary had a large base of support from within the party and big donors.  Obama picked up his own support from inside the party with Daschle and then Kerry.  Obama also has lobbyist support.  The difference is Obama has put some restrictions on how they can contribute and participate but they are still very much involved.  Edwards bucked the system and I think the DLC and others in the party wanted to shut him down.  

    [ Parent ]

    In South Carolina maybe ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:00:19 PM EST
    If John Edwards is the bearer of the democratic message, then why is his supports tend to be white, male and more conservative then any other candidates?

    ... but is that true outside of South Carolina?  Here in New Jersey he is indeed seen as the true liberal standard bearer.

    [ Parent ]

    In (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    Iowa as well look at the places where people have voted.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly (none / 0) (#110)
    by lily15 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:28:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Also (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    since the voters in NH and Nevada preferred Clinton, your argument that only ONE campaign has passed thest is beyond ridiculous.

    For those wondering what drinking the kool aid looks like, here it is.

    [ Parent ]

    ted kennedy (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by tek on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:14:04 PM EST
    So far, one of the truly disappointing things about this election is that the Democratic leaders seem to be piling it on Hillary and openly supporting BO. I'm still trying to believe that Rahm Emanuel and Kennedy said last week they think BO will be the nominee and they don't want him personally battered or "politically compromised." How would he be politically compromised unless his politics are bad? I guess it doesn't matter if Hillary is battered and compromised. The message here is: DON'T CRITICIZE BARACK OBAMA.
    Hmmm, just like Bush.

    and yet... (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    these same folks have relied on the Clintons to support them and raise money for them.  I, too, am sickened by the betrayal.  They are glomming onto the new young thing and forgetting the folks who got them where they are.

    Whatever happened to loyalty?

    [ Parent ]

    Loyalty? In politics? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    I will be wishy washy. I think it does step on Obama's message. It will not do him any good with Republican voters and it probably will help with regard to the Democratic base as to those who are undecided.

    All things considered, It is now official- Obama is a pol. © So watch out.

    (© owned by BTD, all rights reserved)

    [ Parent ]

    It counters the cozying-up-to-Reagan message (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:21:23 PM EST
    Nothin' like a Kennedy to drive the Reaganites crazy in my neck o' the country.  And Teddy Kennedy?  Ouch.  The worst with them.

    [ Parent ]
    Here Too (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:59:38 PM EST
    The local trolls hate him.

    [ Parent ]
    Does Ted Kennedy owe the Clintons? (none / 0) (#52)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:47:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He Obviously (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:49:27 PM EST
    Believes that Obama can win over Clinton. It is not personal and his loyalty is to the party.

    [ Parent ]
    IMHO that's the only thing that gives ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    ... this endorsement any real meaning.  If Ted Kennedy really thinks Obama can win the nomination, and isn't just giving a jab to the Clintons, that makes me sit up and take notice.  Can Obama really win the nomination?

    [ Parent ]
    I haven't doubted (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by spit on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:12:29 PM EST
    that Obama can win the nomination for a while, honestly. That doesn't mean I think he will -- at the moment, I frankly put about even odds on Obama and Clinton, given their different advantages and disadvantages.

    But I think you're possibly right that getting some of these "old school" dem endorsements does maybe lend Obama a little more credibility to some voters. I don't know how many people it will really move, but he'd certainly rather have that than not.

    [ Parent ]

    The Endorsement (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:16:28 PM EST
    Did make me notice. As many here I am lukewarm on all the candidates, but compared to Republicans they are all great. I also am not taking for granted a win in the GE, so this endorsement seems important to me since I have been somewhat more inclined to think HRC would be our strongest contender.

    As much as there is obvious class tension, I cannot imagine Ted Kennedy basing his endorsement on personal or frivolous reasons when it comes to winning the GE for the Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    I wouldn't (none / 0) (#128)
    by Kathy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    call Ted Kennedy the standard bearer for the party.  Maybe in New England, but the rest of the country...not so much.  What does give him gravitas is the Kennedy name.  Basically, it's confirming Obama's silent contention that he is the next JFK.

    I say this as a firm Hillary supporter.  I just hope between the SOTU (haha, what state: we're screwed!) and Florida, this endorsement will have a short spin.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe He Sees Him (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    As one who can rally the next generation of voters. Someone that can keep the party large and healthy. The demographics show that Obama is favored by the young.

    In her Kudos to Obama for his landslide victory in SC digby notes:

    Obama, for instance, once again did extremely well among young people of all races, which it seems to me is much more salient than the media have yet to acknowledge. If he keeps this up, we will see an entire generation making its home in the Democratic Party and that is a tremendous advantage.

    I do not think of Kennedy as the standard bearer of the party but I do think he is an important fighter for us. His priority is winning the GE, and as many seats as possible. Anyway I still think HRC is the better but this endorsement (and BTD's tepid stance) makes me think twice.

    [ Parent ]

    Establishment Dems killed health insurance (none / 0) (#116)
    by lily15 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    during Clintons Presidency...it's not like they were a big help...rather, they aligned with Rethugs to stop it. (acting the opposite of the way Rethugs do)

    I blame establishment Dems for not sufficiently supporting Clinton while he was in office...or he would have accomplished more.  Here is another example of estabishment Dems throwing their weight around.  But look at weak and wimpy they have been in Congress, where they are constantly outplayed.  By the way, wasn't it the great liberal Senator Kennedy who stood up for the Constitution and filibustered the FISA bill?  Isn't he the guy with the courage?  Or did he stand by and say nothing?  Oh, yes, it was Senator Dodd and Senator Feinstein who actually showed courage...  And what about Obama's problem with dynasties?  Having Ted be a big player in his administration...plus his niece...isn't this a little bit dynastic? and reminiscent of the past?  too old the thinking of oldies like Kennedy?

    [ Parent ]

    Feinstein? Really? Or Feingold? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obams is Embracing the Status Quo (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruthy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:22:14 PM EST
    Not only is Obama going back to the same old status quo, he is embracing the status quo.  I was sickened when I say him embracing the status quo - John Kerry.  Obama is just playing a game with the minds of the voters. It is almost like a cult.

    On the Status quo (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    The Old Senators, have all to gain when a newbie become president.  If Hillary wins, she will reign them in.  She will not have a learning curve in the white house.  She will want legislation to come to her as she said in her interview with the Reno Gazette.  She will hit the ground running.  Now with Obama, the Senators will have 2 or maybe 4 years of the same old passivity.  Heh, they don't want to do any work now in their old age.  Finally, they are to the core sexist little putzes.  

    [ Parent ]
    rein them in (none / 0) (#117)
    by lily15 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:40:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Shame on Obama ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    ... for acting like a politician!

    [ Parent ]
    but he isnt a politician (none / 0) (#42)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    he is the second coming!

    [ Parent ]
    Well I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy (none / 0) (#45)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    also endorsed Jesus.

    [ Parent ]
    play nice now. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Don't you know? (none / 0) (#1)
    by vastleft on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    Unity is only something we do with Republicans.

    I remember (none / 0) (#3)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    he did this I think to Jimmy Carter too and wouldnt endorse him....Personally I think Teddy's life has been a mess and I wouldnt be swayed by this....

    [ Parent ]
    Aren't there about as many Kennedy haters (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:33:31 AM EST
    amongst older Republicans as there are Hillary haters?  seems like T. Kennedy's endorsement might turn off some potential Obama voters from the right.  

    With base Dems (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    this is a huge plus.

    And that is what Obama needs.

    Other than Gore, this is the best possible endorsement for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    the base dems have already made up (none / 0) (#27)
    by hellothere on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    their minds. so who would it bring in? african americans? no, they have made up their mind for the most part. moderate dems or independents? no, teddy has no influence with them.

    [ Parent ]
    base dems (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by tek on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    It could turn out that democrats, who are not as anal as Republicans, will decide that a few high profile party members and the media aren't going to decide for them who the candidate will be.
    John Kerry criticizing Bill Clinton is surreal. He couldn't even get elected and he criticizes one of the most popular Democrats in history. Personally, I have no use for any Democrat who demonizes the Clintons. I've watched the speeches and the debates, BO is the attacker. Hillary has no reason to attack him, she's been winning. Too bad a lot of Democrats don't use logical reasoning on that issue.

    [ Parent ]
    all that hype for obama did no good in (none / 0) (#81)
    by hellothere on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    nh or nevada. i cannot see new york or california  voters saying to themselves oh, they like obama in sc, so i'll vote for him too. i don't think so.

    in fact i am wondering if mccain's big mo is now under a lot of pressure.

    [ Parent ]

    It may help him by a little (none / 0) (#88)
    by spit on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    in some parts CA, which I don't expect him to win as a whole, just based on the strength of the win. Everything up until 2/5 is about narrative. Everything after 2/5 is about delegates.

    Mostly, I think his SC win means that this process will continue well beyond Super Duper Tuesday. If he'd come in lower than expectations, and followed that up with a likely loss of FL and somewhere less than half the total delegates on 2/5, he'd have become more of a longshot. The hype from his strong win in SC will keep him in the game unless he has a spectacular flame-out soon, which I don't think is terribly likely.

    On the other side, McCain's big mo is going to have some problems, IMO. It's shaping up quickly into a Romney/McCain battle for the nomination -- the establishment Repubs and economic conservatives like Romney way better, and McCain has to share some of that "maverick" vote with Ron Paul, who I expect will do quite well in a lot of the western states.

    [ Parent ]

    i agree abour mccain. (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    i know josh marshall has wanted mitten to do well since he doesn't think he is all that electable in the general.

    i get back to why establishment dems are worried about hillary. she is a partisan fighter and obama isn't.

    i hate to say this but i see backlash. some have felt it was economic, and i see some merit to that view. it has been shown that hillary does well with the working joe. fact, there are more of them than the latte drinkers as it were. also i see some of obama's supporters becoming quite verbal. hey they have shown that over and over. too much veerbage from them or obama could really backfire. expect some of that!

    [ Parent ]

    the problem with (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kathy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    these "old guard" Obama endorsements is it presents a dichotomy to his message.  If he is all about change and moving ahead, why does he keep looking back with all these "status quo" figures?  John Kerry: status quo.  Kennedy: status quo.  Aren't these the guys Obama is "fighting" against?  Where are the new folks he is going to bring into the process?  Where are new policy directors, economists, foreign relations experts?  Where are republican and independents and greens and Nader-ites on his advisory panels (other than the new and improved homophobes).  Every time I turn on the TV, there is an old guard Clinton person talking about Obama and change.  It seems to me that the majority of Obama's advisors are the same folks Clinton used sixteen years ago.  It's hardly moving forward and having new ideas if you are using every tool in the status quo arsenal to send out your message.

    Again, my original problem with Obama: he tries to have it both ways.

    This is all positive for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    It shores up his base Dem support at least bona fides wise.

    I think a fair question to ask Kennedy is what does he think of Obama's health care plan - health care is a signature issue for Kennedy and I believe his proposals would be more in line with Hillary Clinton's.

    [ Parent ]

    another angle (none / 0) (#32)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    Maybe another way to look at this endorsement is to ask yourself how much respect Kennedy has shown women over the years....He has the worse track record in history....

    [ Parent ]
    Were you thinking of his (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    shrinking demeanor during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings?

    [ Parent ]
    What? (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    Can you back that up with links? Sounds like Kennedy Derangement Syndrome to me.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (none / 0) (#15)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:49:05 AM EST
    Isn't he the anti-establishment candidate? It doesn't get more establishment than Kennedy.

    But have no fear, there are ways to rationalize that, of course.


    [ Parent ]

    I thought the same thing :-) (none / 0) (#31)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    but if I were the Clintons I would call it as it is - Obama needs people of expereince to shore him up.

    [ Parent ]
    Could it be (none / 0) (#43)
    by Rojas on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:37:35 PM EST
    that some of the "old guard" signed on to be the opposition party?
    Didn't the clinton's bring in Dick Morris to abandon those "old guards"?


    [ Parent ]
    Bad for Obama! (none / 0) (#12)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    This will seriously harm his appeal to his Republican base.

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:48:36 AM EST
    See the What Obama Really Meant rule.

    [ Parent ]
    I am not suprised (none / 0) (#18)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:53:39 AM EST
    Obama comes out of the the Liberal Northeast machine wherein Kennedy and Keey emerge.  I read awhile ago about the competititon between the Northerns (read Boston) and the Southerns and everybody else..  The Southerns/ee tended to win lately and not the Northerns.  Are we splitting that way again? I dont see how that helps Obama in the long run...but I like Ted so it helps him in the short run as so astutlely noted above my post...
    No (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:54:37 AM EST
    Obama is from Chicago. The Daley Machine.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, so Kerry picking him (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    for the 2004 speech at the convention and apparently turning over his infrastructure in the US for this election season is not a way of co-opting him or Obama's co-opting of that machine?

    The people I hear of who are feeding him position papers etc come from Harvard.

    [ Parent ]

    I am sticking with this (none / 0) (#71)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    and I think I will be proven right.
     

    [ Parent ]
    Keey being Kerry (none / 0) (#19)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:54:12 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ted Kennedy (none / 0) (#24)
    by beyoundcrazy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    I like Obama but I am for Hillary and Ted does nothing for me here in Ga

    in a bakeoff down South (none / 0) (#33)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    between the guy from Little Rock and the rich guy from Hiannis Port - who wins?

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    The guy from (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    Chicago clearly does.

    [ Parent ]
    to my mind it has less to do with obama. (none / 0) (#25)
    by hellothere on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:58:06 AM EST
    teddy surely knows his talk is just that talk. it has to do with why he is opposed to the clintons. hmmm?

    opposition (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by tek on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    That's what I am wondering and wonder if all Democrats should not be questioning it. Why, indeed, are almost all the D. C. Dems against Hillary? I wonder if they know she would be a strong leader and they want an inexperienced person like Obama who they can control. They refused to impeach Bush and there is all that new power on the table.

    [ Parent ]
    bingo (none / 0) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:59:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I dont think so. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:05:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Quote from Bostonglobe.com article: (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    Kennedy believes Obama can ``transcend race'' and bring unity to the country, a Kennedy associate told the Globe. Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said
    This affects (4.00 / 0) (#50)
    by horseloverfat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    my opinion of Kennedy and Kerry vastly more than my opinion of Obama.  I can make up my own mind about Obama's power (let alone his inclination) to transcend race.

    Obama only transcends race when convenient.  Situational transcending.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:52:00 PM EST
    I agree Obama uses his race when it is convenient...

    [ Parent ]
    Can anyone say John McCain? (none / 0) (#46)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:40:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    bipartisan? oh, now the mist is clearing. (none / 0) (#86)
    by hellothere on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    our whiny dems are afraid they may have to work for a change.

    [ Parent ]
    The right wing will love this (none / 0) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    should Obama win the primaries.  "A Teddy Kennedy Liberal".

    I don't think this is as big an endorsement as some think.  I actually think it harms the electability...and it might even steer some of the "moderates", that he is assumed to take, away from him.

    I agree (none / 0) (#47)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    Maybe Obama will be giving Nancy Reagan a call to help balance things out.  Teddy never looked comfortable with the Clintons, sort of like the Democratic aritocracy having to slum it with the nouveau riche.  But the Kennedy's are indebted to the old Chicago machine.

    [ Parent ]
    On the nail (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:53:41 PM EST
    It's the Chicago machine that made Obama.  The change is just the machine.  

    [ Parent ]
    it isnt a "just" (none / 0) (#153)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:10:17 PM EST
    it is a big deal if he has the New England machine behind him. BTD misunderstood my comment above - I meant where he was being groomed as a contender and where he emerged from for this election.  

    I am a Northeasterner myself so this isnt a diss.  

    [ Parent ]

    to clarify (none / 0) (#155)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    they expected to win in 2004 and picked Obama to groom as a potential for 2012 or 16 and when Kerry  failed so badly and Obama came out of the convention etc smelling like a rose, they sped up the calendar to now and skipped over Edwards.


    [ Parent ]
    Hm (none / 0) (#161)
    by chrisvee on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:45:17 PM EST
    I think you're onto something here. I've been curious about how quickly Obama went from Senator to presidential candidate considering most folks probably didn't know who he was before 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    he was the only Dem (none / 0) (#168)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    who stood out at that convention - he deservedly received enormously positive attention for his eloquence and grace.  God it was such a gracelss time!  I do not in any way blame him or his backers for saying...know what dude, we think the time is now.  Let's go for it.  Write a book or two and keep up the positive rhetoric (same as 2004 speech) and let's ride this enthusiasm to the top.  All fine.  But to pretend he isnt latched on to some establishment anchor is daft.

    [ Parent ]
    2004 Convention (none / 0) (#169)
    by chrisvee on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:44:17 PM EST
    When I saw him speak at the convention, I immediately said he'd be POTUS one day.  At the time, I thought it might be Clinton/Obama but of course that dream melted away quickly in the heat of reality.  At some point I guess you're right and he decided to strike while the iron was hot.

    [ Parent ]
    I heard him say it himself (none / 0) (#170)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:18:44 PM EST