home

Ted Kennedy's Divisive Rhetoric

I am a big fan of Ted Kennedy but he does the Democratic Party a great disservice with this type of talk:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama isn't likely to pick rival Hillary Clinton as a running mate, according to one of his most prominent supporters. "I don't think it's possible," Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt," airing this weekend.

Kennedy, 76, without naming names, said Obama should pick someone who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people. If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful," Kennedy said.

What a terrible terrible thing to say. The Obama camp should disavow it. Unless he said it at their behest. In which case, we are gonna lose in November.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< What Hillary Has and Obama Needs: An Image of Toughness | Krugman A Must Read Today: What Obama Must Do >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    UNITY baby! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:06:01 PM EST


    I swear (5.00 / 10) (#45)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:26:24 PM EST
    that Rove is going to write an op-ed where he says something like:

    Dear Democrats

    We thought we couldn't take down the Clinton's intra party so we decided to take her down internally. We didn't like her because we knew she was serious and effective.

    SUCKERS!

    faithfully Yours

    Mr Rove.

    Parent

    Re: I swear (none / 0) (#184)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:37:34 PM EST
    I have never bought into the evil genius myth that Rove promotes about himself, and you guys shouldn't either.  2006's "secret math" proved his fallibility.

    Parent
    It's called self-immolation (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:08:19 PM EST
    Part of the New Democratic Party's single-state strategy.

    which state are (none / 0) (#12)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    they going for?

    Parent
    Guam (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    yes, I know--it's not a state--but please don't burst their bubble.

    Parent
    You are funnier than (none / 0) (#15)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    Jon Stewart!  Are you Jon Stewart?

    Parent
    Jon will be funny again when.... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:31:46 PM EST
    ...the kool aid wears off.

    Parent
    He'll go mad. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    permanently.

    Parent
    Not Ted's own (none / 0) (#160)
    by zyx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    Massachusetts must be just chock-full of ignoble people with gutter aspirations.

    Parent
    the insults (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by just victory on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:09:17 PM EST
    just keep rolling in. They really don't want my vote in November.

    it really seems that way (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:13:52 PM EST
    doesnt it?

    Parent
    I realized that a couple of days ago... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:34:34 PM EST
    ...when Donna Brazile had her meltdown and nobody walked it back. So, what to do?

    Parent
    The Pickling Process of Kennedy's Brain Complete (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:03:55 PM EST
    "Obama should pick someone who is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people."

    Well that leaves out Kennedy and Kerry.  What a very stupid thing to say, although we should not be surprised as this has been a campaign by obama's camp to out-stoopid the most stoopid utterances in any campaign ever.  They seem directed at dividing, not uniting, as much as possible.

    Parent

    Re: the insults (none / 0) (#187)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:40:21 PM EST
    You would vote for a diametrically opposed party because a Senator who wasn't even running was insufficiently deferential to your candidate?

    Isn't that petty?

    Parent

    Not petty, but sane (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by christinep on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy is not just any Senator. He is one of the purported leaders/elders of the party. In many ways, personifies a particular segment of the party.  It isn't "petty" to consider what he is saying these days and what Kerry is also adding in the way of "fuel to the fire."  Nope...not petty. Its an eye-opener.

    Parent
    Re: Not petty, but sane (1.00 / 0) (#221)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    Okay.  At this point I can only conclude that hardcore Clinton fans are actively looking for an excuse to take their toys and go home and sulk.

    This election is about putting the country back together after 8 years of absolute disaster.  8 years of absolute disaster.  Oh, but Ted Kennedy said something mean about my gal Hillary, so I'll vote for McCain, or I'll stay home.  Because my hurt feelings are far more important than the servicemen and -women who will die from 2009 to 2013.  Or the countries McCain will bomb.  Or the families who'll be tossed out on the street because the GOP doesn't want to help them.  No, none of these things matter because I have been offended.

    Perspective, people.

    Parent

    As I said in a lower thread (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:09:27 PM EST
    Ted must have fallen off the wagon again to be spewing such crap.

    What a terrible terrible thing to say. The Obama camp should disavow it. Unless he said it at their behest. In which case, we are gonna lose in November.

    Sadly, I think you're reading the tea leaves right. I've been saying it for some time. I don't expect any disavowal from the Obama camp, not when he's busy coronating himself at any rate.

    What's so terrible? (1.00 / 0) (#170)
    by madpie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    What's so terrible about suggesting that we need somebody in tune with nobler aspirations? Man, I really don't get it. This blog has become so weird.

    Parent
    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:15:52 PM EST
    Isn't it obvious that the implication is that Hillary Clinton does not have the noble aspirations that Barack Obama does?  I can't believe I even have to explain this.  By the way, not only is it divisive and insulting to Clinton but also to the 49% of democratic voters that have voted for her and believe in her.  

    That's what's so terrible.

    Parent

    Re: What's so terrible? (1.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:43:39 PM EST
    I think that Kennedy's remarks are being interpreted as a dig at Hillary Clinton.  Which is just people here looking to be insulted and seeing what they want to see, in my opinion.

    At this point I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would not be great because it would just seem disingenuous.  It's pretty clear that by now there is no love lost between them on a personal level, despite their similarities on policy.  I think Clinton is better off staying in the Senate and rising there, as Kennedy himself had to do when his presidential ambitions ended in defeat.  

    Parent

    I almost get the feeling (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:09:32 PM EST
    that he and Nancy Pelosi actually want to lose the Presidency in the Fall.

    I honestly think (5.00 / 11) (#29)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:18:35 PM EST
    that they are just so wrapped up in this bubble, and they are so sure that they are right and Clinton is wrong, and that the whole world feels this way, that they spout off whatever they like without understanding the consequences.  Reminds me of just after the NH win, when Matt Tiabi was on Colbert and said that his first thought was that CLinton must have cheated, and his second thought was that he felt worse when he heard about her win than if he'd just heard he'd been diagnosed with cancer.

    Ted Kennedy is not an idiot.  Do you think he would say something so horrible if he didn't think (1) that it was true and (2) that everyone basically felt the same way, so why not say it?

    The disconnect is amazing.  It's like the Obama folk who say, "Don't attack Obama.  Don't you realize that 50% of all democrats support him?"  And you just want to say, "uh, who do you think those other 50% support?"

    They are absolutely clueless, and blinded by their certainty that they are correct.  The media is exactly the same.  They are shocked when someone comes out and says that they actually like Clinton, and totally convinced that that person must be either deluded or racist or insane or all three.

    And they wonder why people think they're elitist.

    Parent

    Blind spots (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by christinep on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:36:21 PM EST
    Gradually, I have come to realize that there is a certain streak in Ted Kennedy that my adult-long dedication to the Kennedy image had caused me not to see.  That has been one of the tougher little lessons learned this season...and, today, he just reinforced the image of faction politics. A bit of a mean streak, to put it mildly.  A history professor acquaintance reminded me recently that Kennedy acted in the same manner toward Carter in his ill-fated attempt to unseat the former President in the primary then (ultimately, it may well have contributed to Carter's defeat.) Either he resented the Clintons 1990s political ascendance more than readily apparent (and, eagerly "passed the torch" to the more aligned House of Daley) or he is carelessly again undermining the longterm prospects of the party. For me, it has been quite sad to watch the antics of a Democratic legend whom I had admired beyond almost any other Democratic politician.  I wonder if Obama could comprehend the ironic ramifications of his "turn the page" oratory for people such as myself.

    Parent
    Congratulations...but (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    sorry it's so painful.

    Reality.

    Teddy is simply an embarrassment now.  He cares nothing for the Democratic Party.

    Final nails in coffin of TK's legacy.  What a damn shame.

    Parent

    Clinton animosity (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by zyx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    I read that a lot of Washington insider Democrats never could stand Bill Clinton because he was BOTH a Rhodes Scholar AND a Bubba.  He could swing both ways and appeal to people that they could not.  And it bugs the he11 of 'em for some reason.  Jealousy?

    I have a lot of respect for Ted, for his life of (effective!) service to people who are less fortunate that himself, but this is nasty and low.

    Parent

    I was taught (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    a long time ago by the two very smart people that raised me that you should listen to what people say. Really listen. Because sooner or later they will actually tell you the truth. Ted Kennedy said what he and the Stevenson Democratic Party believe. They don't want the "bubbas" in their elite party and they have come to believe that either they can win without them or that all the little Bubbaboys and Bubbagirls will come home to the Party in November because they have no where else to go.

    Believe them. They mean what they say.

    Parent

    Re: I was taught (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:54:14 PM EST
    I think that the notion that in 2008 that Bill and Hillary Clinton are not elites in the Democratic Party is just insane.  You can't be serious.  They've dominated Democratic politics for almost 20 years.

    More and more, the Clinton supporters here are sounding like Republicans.  I don't understand.  I supported her for months and months, and this kind of anti-intellectual Caddyshack mindset is ridiculous to me.  This is not the campaign I supported.  If anything, Dean and his Fifty State Strategy has done more of reachout to Democratic voters "behind the lines" in deep red states than anyone in recent memory.  Dean has certainly done more than the Clinton "Fifty Percent + 1 Vote" strategy did to rebuild the party.

    I don't get it.  Sometimes people just lose races, you know?  It's not the fault of some cabal of Ivy League elites.

    Parent

    A wise comment (none / 0) (#197)
    by christinep on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    To kenoshaMarge: Thank you for your insight. At some level, I have always sense a professional envy as well. The funny part is that there are many of us who fit in both "worlds." The would-be elite really do not understand it.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:25:56 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was 100% right when he said that some Obama supporters are people who don't actually need a President.

    Ted Kennedy, of course, is the ultimate example of such.

    Parent

    nancy likes (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by sancho on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    being opposition leader. hillary might make her pass something.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    We are SO not getting a pony.

    We don't deserve one (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    We're all low-informed, white trash racists. Now with less nobility or leadership skillz!

    Parent
    don't forget we also have poor judgement (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:37:24 PM EST
    because we like the "psycho stalker ex girlfriend" candidate. Oh and we have dirt underneath our fingernails an don't shop at Whole Foods.

    I thinkI've come up with a new acronym?

    W(hy) W(on't) O(bama) S(upporters) S(hut) U(p)?

    With friends like Bowers, Brazile, and Kennedy who needs enemies. Evidently, their mothers didn't teach them that if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing. They are really bound and determined to offend the half of the electorate that prefers Hillary.

    Parent

    That's like a really scary (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:42:25 PM EST
    chemical compund: W2OS2U

    Parent
    Even though (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:45:27 PM EST
    some of us actually do shop at Whole Foods? Oh noes, are they going to bar me from the store now because I support HRC? phear

    I think I'd actually amend that to WWOSSTFU but yes...you'd think that at this point SOMEONE would figure out that it would be better to keep quiet and let HRC and her supporters hang themselves than continue to bloviate and make the situation 1000x worse. This is why us white trash people (sorry -- I keep laughing as I write this considering I was born and raised in NYC, hold a Master's degree and am self-employed, for a start) know there is no real Unity to be had. The only Unity = you're either with us or against us, apparently.

    Parent

    Not even a seahorse. (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:38:26 PM EST
    Maybe IDIOT Ted should read this: Today's Foreign (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by SunnyLC on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    Today's Foreign News that Obama Probably Doesn't Know a Thing About...
    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

    Who can forget that interview way back in 2000 when George W. Bush was asked who was heading Pakistan? Bush dismissively answered that it was some general and that it didn't matter if he couldn't recall the name, because he would be surrounded by advisers who knew all this stuff.

    Were you impressed then? I sure wasn't and I'm not impressed with Obama's "expertise" on foreign policy either. His policies speeches may come chapter and verse straight from the party platform and he can buddy all he wants with Jimmy Carter...but that sort of "foreign policy by association" doesn't cut it with me, especially after seeing Bush and Cheney in action. Spending a few years in Indonesia as a kid, having a dubious relationship with Odinga in Africa, and never having the curiosity to explore Europe doesn't count either.

    So, when I ask if Obama knows the name of the current Japanese prime minister it's because I want to see his ATTITUDE when he answers. Is he going to act like Bush?

    I wake up to the BBC World Service news every morning via shortwave radio and in about 5 minutes I learn more than I could ever learn from the American media. Today was a BIG NEWS DAY on at least 3 fronts-Russia, Lebanon, and, yes, Japan. Having followed a lot of the related news while churning out the World Media Watch for Buzzflash for quite a few years, the stories I heard really woke me up, fast! Because the spectre of Obama (or McCain) reacting to some of the situations reported gave me a kick in the gut.

    MORE MORE MORE at my blog post

    Winning was never their goal (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by sonya on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:13:06 PM EST
    They only wanted to destroy the Clintons.  Another republican administration isn't going to hurt Kennedy or Kerry or any of the other losers.  They just used Obama to carry out their petty and vindictive plan.

    My money is still on Hillary.

    This is believable given (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:14:01 PM EST
    the stupidity of the statements Kerry and Kennedy have made in the last 48 hours.

    Parent
    said in a previous thread (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:16:45 PM EST
    this season is either causing people to lose their minds or there are some agendas circulating we do not fully see.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:28:57 PM EST
    Ted and Kerry are prolly just stupid.

    we just keep forgetting how stupid they are.  recall they are born to wealth or married to money.

    Parent

    In situations where Democrats do things (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:30:04 PM EST
    that don't make any sense, sometimes the best conclusion really is that they aren't that smart.

    Parent
    It's the simplest one. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:37:02 PM EST
    It avoids conspiracy, and avoids ideological backbiting.

    Parent
    Occams Razor in action (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    BTD, they are all working against you (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by BigB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:13:29 PM EST
    I know you have been working very hard to bring the two sides together.

    I hope you can understand why Hillary supporters like me cannot support Obama. This is how they really think. They want to purge us from the party. This has been clear for a while.

    I keep trying to tell myself it's just trolls (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:17:18 PM EST
    I want to believe that the people making these inane statements are simply trolls who want to make trouble or turn people off of the Democratic Party. But every time I'm starting to get convinced, someone "respectable" makes an inane comment like this and I realize that it's not trolls - the views of the people on-line are simply echoes of the views of the party leaders.

    Parent
    It sure seems that way (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:17:39 PM EST
    Teds outburst (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    tends to show that it's the head of th efish that is rotting.

    Obama suggests things, surrogates reinforce it and the fans act out.

    It's Fugly

    Parent

    WTF? (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    "If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful," Kennedy said."

    Teddy, STFU.

    It would also have been enormously helpful (5.00 / 0) (#210)
    by Anne on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    to have had real leadership in the Congress, don't you think?  Harry Reid couldn't lead a freakin' parade if he was the only one in it, for crying out loud.  A whole year of, "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down" from Congressional committees - yeah - we really know a lot about leadership, don't we?  Senators and Representatives working to give amnesty to telecoms, failing to pass an S-CHIP expansion, funding the war over and over and over.  I don't know - maybe I missed all those examples of Barack Obama leading his fellow Dems - and the Republicans - to the right decisions.

    "Real" leaders do not blow off sub-committee chairmanships with the lame excuse that they were too busy campaigning.  Gosh, it's not like we have anything important going on in Afghanistan, or need the support of our European allies or anything.  And it couldn't possibly be useful to someone who wants to lead the freakin' country to spend some time actually getting some foreign policy cred, could it?  Oh, wait - he lived in Indonesia 37 years ago, so what am I thinking? - of course he's ready to lead...

    Teddy Kennedy is going to be sorry he hitched his aging wagon to this star that is all light and no heat; he'll be learning a lot about the word "ignoble" in the coming months.  Sad.

    Parent

    I'm seeing red over this (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    I declared in Salon that if he doesn't retract or otherwise reinterpret his statements I'm leaving the Democratic Party. I can't believe he said this.

    Why wait...get it over with now and vote your (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Salt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:22:44 PM EST

    Community of interest not that of a unprincipled political Party not sure about you but I feel scammed for providing donations for this DNC shell game of a Primary it wont happened again for me.


    Parent
    I am (none / 0) (#43)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    Charlie Brown rocks - and he is the only candidate who is getting my money or my vote this election.

    Parent
    If this leads you to leave the Democratic Party... (1.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    ...then your commitment to its policies was obviously not very strong to begin with.

    I can't believe how incredibly petty people here are being over the remark of a candidate who isn't even running.  yikes.  Calm down, everyone.  Kennedy is allowed to not want Clinton on the ticket if he wants.  But he doesn't get a say in the matter.  You guys are seeing conspiracies everywhere.

    Parent

    Good Lord (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by MaryGM on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:16:06 PM EST
    I almost think that's worthy of a direct apology to Senator Clinton (and I'm not one of those who makes many apology suggestions - politics is mean).  That's just immensely insulting, especially when you look at what he says we need and put a "Hillary Clinton is not" in front of them (which is what he's essentially saying).

    I swear, if I didn't know any better, I'd think these people just started playing this game. What an idiot.

    Absolutely... (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Salt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:27:26 PM EST
    Teddy doesn't need to play the game (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:41:44 PM EST
    the brutal truth is Teddy has a lifetime job in the US Senate because his brothers Bobby & John (God rest their souls) were killed. Despite all the evidence to the contrary (Chappaquiddick anyone?) people project onto him the noble aspects of his dearly departed brothers.

    Parent
    and teddy divided the party (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sancho on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    in 1980 when he went after carter's nomination. he's an old hand at party division. but he still get to be the lion of the senate.

    Parent
    Remember... (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:46:39 PM EST
    many of Obama's 'new coalition' really did just start playing the game.  They have no political memory pre-Bush.  I remember wondering what the effect of it would be, but I would not have imagined that, because of this, the party 'elders' would piss away this election.

    Parent
    Ha, I always knew they snubbed her... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:40:10 PM EST
    ...on purpose.

    Parent
    Another argument to get (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    Clinton supporters.... these guys are just giving excellent fodder to the Repubs to get Clinton voters.

    The Repubs are actually complementary to Clinton and making comments about how her supporters are being treated (declaring victory is insulting to her supporters) while the Dems in the media have been critical and dismissive of Clinton and her supporters.

    And it's working (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:18:58 PM EST
    sad when the Republicans know how to court disgruntled voters and play the Unity strategy in the correct way. Pity the Obama campaign and it's spokesmouths like Donna Brazile can't seem to wrap that concept around their thick HopeandChange infused skulls.

    Parent
    Well his VP pick will prove if it's pandering or (none / 0) (#128)
    by Salt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:55:26 PM EST
    an invitation to join...we shall see.  If he pulls white women and seniors he will have an unbeatable an invitation to join...we shall see.  If he pulls white women and seniors he will have an unbeatable coalition and we will have divided governance and the creative base will also have the face of their new exclusive Party.

    Parent
    Re: Well his VP pick will prove if it's pandering (none / 0) (#207)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:02:06 PM EST
    I have a feeling that Claire McCaskill would be his first choice if she didn't have even less time in office than he did.

    I'd like to see an Obama/Webb ticket.  He's someone who could bring in those mystical "Reagan Democrats" that everyone salivates over (if they even still exist 20 years after Reagan left office).  And he would eviscerate McCain's only strength, the war hero card.

    Parent

    Please not McCaskill (5.00 / 0) (#226)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:26:04 PM EST
    That would really tank the ticket.

    I find her....well....weak, inexperienced and thinks she hit a triple.

    Parent

    Crikey i'd be buttering her up (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    If I were hume, hannity or rove.


    Parent
    O'Reilly (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    already made a step in the right direction. God knows I loathe Bill-O but I have to say the interview with her was pretty impressive.

    Parent
    but ko is just as bad (none / 0) (#130)
    by Salt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:56:24 PM EST
    KO is worse (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:08:26 PM EST
    since he pretends he's above that kind of behaviour and even Bill-O didn't mock her with his pals as soon as she was off camera. He seemed pretty pleased. Scary that I am typing this but KO could learn a little lesson in how to behave from Bill-O (seriously, I never ever thought I would be able to say that!)

    Parent
    Do You Have Some Links? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Blue Jean on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:11:18 PM EST
    I'd like to believe it.

    Parent
    Watch Fox (none / 0) (#206)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:00:33 PM EST
    I'm sure they post clips but I'm not looking for them.  Like many Clinton supporters, I gave up on MSNBC and CNN over 3 months ago and have been watching Fox.  We've admitted our shame.  Yes, sometimes they criticize Clinton, but as Obama has moved closer to the nom, they have moved to the GE and they are complimentary of Clinton.  Rove and others specifically talk about how the Dems have treated her, how the media has treated her and how her supporters are being dismissed.

    Parent
    Re: Watch Fox (1.00 / 0) (#211)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:07:58 PM EST
    I think this comment more than anything else encapsulates why younger people, you know, the "egghead college elites," have grown disenchanted with Hillary Clinton and her hardcore supporters.  ugh.  There's a world out there beyond your property taxes, you know.  Fox News more than anyone in the media cheered on the deaths of half a million Iraqis.  But, hey, they're nice to my gal Hillary, so let's watch them instead.  No, that's not selfish and narcissistic at all, no way.

    Parent
    Unity (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    anyone?  Get off your high horse.  You actually think I'm concerned that some snobs care that I watch Fox for political coverage as I can't stand watching CNN or MSNBC dry hump a certain candidates leg. pffft

    It's narcissistic, selfish, elitist, and delusional to go around thinking anyone cares whether you approve of where someone gets their political coverage.

    Parent

    Oh Well (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    Guess he really does not like Hillary, or has something else in mind. I hope he is not speaking for Obama because I cannot imagine a better ticket, but then again my political imagination may be limited.

    Wonder who he is thinking of as veep.

    Look (5.00 / 11) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    Even of you do not want that ticket you do not say anything REMOTELY LIKE THAT publically. EVER.

    The Clintons are now justified in saying eff it, you guys go and win this on your own then.

    Parent

    That is a wonderful point - (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Boo Radly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    the Clintons are now released from any campaigning on the behalf of BO. They can still say, if BO gets the nom and loses that it is their fault, but seriously, he is gonna lose no matter what.These clueless tirads from the entire following are so misguided. Arrogance from BO on down.

    I some times wonder what color the sky is in their world - but I sure don't want to go there and find out.

    Ted has never been sure of anything having to do with BO, nor is he right. This is not a person thinking they have it all wrapped up. I really think he is being defensive. He stepped in it really deep by making the statement 'ready on day one' and Caroline using the comparison to her father. Can you imagine what some peole may be saying to him because of the stark reality in the difference?

    PS 101 - you don't talk like this to win or if you are winning unless you are an idiot.  

    Parent

    Unless Obama Is Stupid Enough To Push Them (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    out of campaigning for him, Bill and Hillary will, as they have said, work their @sses off to get him elected.

    Parent
    What is it about the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by lilburro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:34:40 PM EST
    that makes people just want to destroy them?  

    Literally, CDS left and right.  Why?  

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:27:22 PM EST
    I do not understand your comment, if that was a response to mine.

    Parent
    It is very responsive (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:33:43 PM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:02:53 PM EST
    I have no idea as to what your point is, really. If you have a problem with what I have said please be more specific because I do not know what should never be said "REMOTELY LIKE THAT publically. EVER."

    Really I am in the dark.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#216)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:12:41 PM EST
    Got it, and yes I agree. I thought you were referring to something I said that should never be repeated publicly.

    Clearly a divisive move. There are many Dems who feel the same way as Kennedy though. Mainly older people that see new blood coming into the party via Obama, and see the Clintons as unattractive to young new potential democrats.

    I wonder if he was referring to Robert Reich's nobel causes v just causes, because Obama fits the ticket, and he appears to be in favor of Obama.

    Politics is more than merely the pursuit of power. At its best, it involves the articulation of noble aspirations, on the one hand, and just causes, on the other. These are not at all the same thing. Noble aspirations are appeals to people's better instincts. Movements do not spring from noble aspirations... Just causes, by contrast, are moral crusades... Just causes are political in the most basic sense: They seek to change the political order for all time.
    [snip]
    For most of this century, the Democratic Party has been the party of just causes... The Republican Party of the twentieth century has been the purveyor of noble aspirations--in marked contrast to the famously just cause into which it was born.... We seem to be engaged now in a fundamental reversal of political temperament.

    link


    Parent

    And should maybe the time will be 2012 for Hillary (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    exactly (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:37:44 PM EST
    Hillary will be around to pick up the pieces in 4 years.


    Parent
    Re: Look (none / 0) (#213)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    But you're talking as if the Obama campaign called a press conference and asked Kennedy to go out there and make these remarks.  Or as if it's Kennedy himself who's running.

    Again, people willing to give up on the country because of a snippy comment from a non-candidate just seem incredibly petty to me.  I'm hoping tempers calm down over the next few months.

    Parent

    himself (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    no doubt

    Parent
    nobler aspirations? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    Uh...hmmm...errrrr...(trying very hard not to swear here)...for crying out loud...

    All you guys really miss the point... (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    IMVHO.

    You keep saying what fools and cretins Kennedy, Kerry, et al. are, and we could really have a winning Democratic party this fall if it weren't for them.

    They ARE the party.  This is it.  These are the leaders.  There's no more in the box.

    Time to bail.

    touche (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:19:57 PM EST
    All you guys miss the point... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    I'm seriously considering bailing. I can't believe this is best the Deomocratic Party can do. Any good independent candidates?

    Parent
    Write in (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:30:03 PM EST
    vote for Hillary Clinton.  Since her name was on the primary ballot in all states I believe that she would be a legitimate write-in candidate.

    Laws differ from state to state. Check state law to determine those people who are eligible to legitimately receive write-in votes.

    Parent

    writehillaryin (none / 0) (#217)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    I believe the site is called writehillaryin.  Very few states automatically allow it.  Some prohibit it outright and some prohibit it if the candidate lost in a primary.  If a voter wants their vote counted, the candidate needs to submit paperwork.  She'd never do it.  The write-ins would simply be ignored.

    Parent
    Kennedy credibility (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    has eroded greatly this primary season. If he were able to endorse, with sound reason, and decline to use innuendo as insults he wouldn't look so captive to his own personal agenda.

    This country speaks through it's vote. I'll use my voice. No holding my nose and marking anything as the lesser of two evils. Not this time. It's not just the candidate in 2008, the party itself is forcing a mass exit of the sustaining base.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    But I should remind you that with a strong showing in the upcoming primaries we can send a big middle finger to these 'leaders' and force the supers to think twice at the convention - the Clintons did it once before, remember?  I think we forget the good parts about Hillary's legacy from the 90's because the Obots constantly remind of us the bad (the true and the monstrously false).

    Parent
    I spoke through my vote in 2000 (none / 0) (#162)
    by so tired on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:20:57 PM EST
    and I've regretted it ever since. I was very disappointed in Al Gore because every word out of his mouth was about how he agreed with his opponent. Because he had all of these distracting media-driven negatives around him that he couldn't quiet them down. It felt like this massive race to the bottom and I was just couldn't bring myself to do it.

    I'm about to disclose something shocking, something I haven't discussed in about seven years. (deep breath.) I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

    I rationalized it: the nation survived Reagan, the nation survived Nixon; there are checks and balances--Congress and the Supreme Court wouldn't allow Bush to do anything too moronic; Gore might win anyway; I was in a "safe state"; a significant Nader protest vote would teach the Dems not to alienate the liberal base of the party. I thought I had so many great reasons. I honestly thought the worst case scenario couldn't be that bad.

    And through that first uneventful summer this seemed to be the case. Bush had abysmal approval ratings, he hadn't accomplished anything, and he had already taken what felt like dozens of six week vacations to Crawford. Al Gore had grown a beard and put on weight, and because of a long succession of slow news days this somehow became noteworthy.

    Then, as George Bush is fond of saying, everything changed. The worst case scenario suddenly became much worse. I don't need to rehash how; you know.

    The other irony is that weak-willed middle-mongerer over the next 8 years turned into a hugely important progressive voice that I respect deeply. I wonder what I missed in 2000, how the media manipulated me.

    I didn't teach the Democrats anything with my "protest" and I still feel like a jackass for my "principled" stand. I also don't look forward to being asked by my son, whom I plan on raising to be very politically conscious, about whom I've cast my vote for over the years. We all get one "oops" I hope. I wish mine wasn't so monumentally bad and didn't come at what turned out to be such a critical juncture.

    I don't really expect to change anyone's mind, I'm just an over-sharer who's been harboring a secret for a while. I hope someone gains something from it though.

    Parent

    stop it (none / 0) (#169)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    It's highly unlikely that this concoction will work.  

    Parent
    Insult (none / 0) (#192)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    has been a characteristic of politicos who've endorsed Obama.  From Ted Kennedy to John Kerry to Bill Richardson to Russ Feingold (D-Appointee Rubber Stamp).

    Russ Feingold is a special case.  He needlessly and viciously trashed John Edwards as he endorsed Obama just before the Nevada caucus.

    Endorsements are a part of politics but I can't remember a time when politicos made endorsements while virulently trashing the opponent.

    One small satisfaction was when Massachusetts voters gave Hillary an overwhelming victory after Kennedy and Kerry had endorsed Obama.

    Parent

    Goodbye Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Bob Boardman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:24:24 PM EST
    Someone might want to warn the Democratic Party....

    Eight years ago a lot of Democrats in Michigan were happy to vote for John McCain in the Republican primary.

    As one of them, I won't have any trouble voting against Ted Kennedy and the Obama crowd for John McCain this fall.

    Perhaps a big loss in congressional voting this fall will destroy the Republican Party.

    And a big Obama loss this fall will help destroy the Democratic Party.

    That is the kind of change, I'll be voting for.


    i wouldn't count on big congressional (none / 0) (#67)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    wins for the democrats. of course the local guy whom everyone likes might be fine. but there WILL BE NO COATAILS.

    in fact if they keep this up, and i mean this dissing of working americans, the religeous(they get it no matter no much obama might pander), the latinos, women, jewish voters. basically i guess anyone who is in the creative class, latte gulper, or aa; then you can expect a massive and i mean a massive backlash.

    Parent

    It wouldn't be the first time it would have (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:26:29 PM EST
    better if Teddy wasn't "helping" Democrats in a presidential campaign.

    My Mom and I were talking about how we thought it would have been better if McGovern had refrained from "helping" too.

    If this is their way of healing rifts (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Left of center on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:26:59 PM EST
    within the Democratic party, then i must question weather or not Obama is just some Karl Rove GOP plant who's ultimate goal is to take down Hillary in order to keep the GOP in power.
    Before i'm labeled as some tin foil hat nutjob, think about it for a second. The Democratic party was Mostly united behind Hillary 6 months ago, now,we've never been more divided.

    hopefully, it's all on purpose (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:27:46 PM EST
    Hopefully the NDP formation, kicking out bubbas, kicking out and trying to destroy the Clinton wing of the party is all on purpose. And who knows, perhaps there new party could be strong and win. I feel bad that this new party doesn't include me and doesn't seem to really care about the issues I care about. It's quite sad. But perhaps they know what they're doing and it's on purpose, and they have an actual game plan. Well, either that or they're complete idiots. :-)

    Weakening (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:22:18 PM EST
    the middle class (toss out the Bubbas, screw the workers) is a losing strategy for the Democratic Party and especially for the nation. Shrinking the middle class weakens the nation.

    Leaving only an electoral choice between right and farther right (in economic terms) will further diminish participation in the political process.

    During the "roaring 20s" both parties were fairly conservative.  After 1920 the percentage of eligible voters participating in elections dropped throughout the decade and was little improved in 1932.  In 1936, after four years of Roosevelt, the participating percentage shot up dramatically.

    The struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party that we're witnessing in this campaign, will, IMO, have potential long range impact on the nation.

    Parent

    This is precisely (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Virginian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:30:31 PM EST
    one of the reasons I could not support Obama. Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, Dean, etc...want a president that THEY control. They don't want to just bring the 3 branches of government back into balance, they want the swing the balance of power far back to Congress.

    Obama isn't a leader...in fact, all his public actions are those of a follower, and that is what they want...a weak president and a strong Democratic Congress (see how that turned out for Carter).

    I think you may be onto something (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:31:31 PM EST
    Its the only sound logical reason (none / 0) (#91)
    by Virginian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    I can see for experienced pols like Kennedy or Pelosi jumping on the Obama bandwagon...and frankly they don't come off like Obama bandwagon koolaide drinkers either...they come off as shrewd pols advocating and posturing for some sort of personal gain...

    Parent
    Obama is an egotist though. (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    he could burn out like a Caligula.  Hailed at first by the serious men of Rome and then villified for upsetting their customs. (one reading of Caligula is that he was making fun of a bunch of stuck up prigs by appointing his horse to the senate and being a baudy poltroon by pretending to conquer Britain.)

    Obama'll end up making them regret thinking he's weak I suspect. He's got his own destiny to fulfill.  Not like the fun & games  Caligula had though.

    Parent

    obama won't make it to the wh so (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM EST
    i suppose his deeds that the dem elders will regret must be done in the general election.

    Parent
    Close... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:09:50 PM EST
    they didn't 'jump on the bandwagon.'  It only looks that way because they bided their time before going public with their support.

    They went looking for a candidate to beat Hillary and drafted Obama for that express purpose.

    Only an AA could have called the Clintons racists and made it stick with blacks, depriving them of a solid base of Dems for Hillary.

    And it worked.

    Talk about cynical.

    They couldn't win the presidency themselves, Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy and they do not really care if the Dems win the presidency...just so long as it isn't a Clinton.

    But if Obama pulls off a miracle...hey!  He'll owe them everything and they'll be in the driver's seat at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Parent

    Don't forget, Ted Kennedy was instrumental ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by dwmorris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    in mortally-wounding Carter, which opened the door for the Reagan revolution (the reults of which we are still reaping in the form of Bush, the lessor and perhaps now McCain).

    In spite of his other good works, I am dismayed that Democrats look to "elders" like Kennedy for sage advice on how to move forward.

    Universal Healthcare (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Petey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:33:45 PM EST
    Off-topic, but Team Clinton has finally answered my prayers.

    They're hitting Obama on universal healthcare in Oregon.

    "You've got to have a seamless health care system which covers every single person. My plan does, my opponent's doesn't.... How can anyone run to be the Democratic nominee and not have a universal health care plan?"

    About time.

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:35:25 PM EST
    And this from a guy who, as a senior member of the party, was very worried about Bill Clinton stepping over the line and tarnishing the reputation of a former president.

    Of course, Kennedy said that a few days before endorsing Obama, and, certainly judging by this rhetoric, he was simply being a concern troll.

    He needs to start acting like a senior figure and help bring the party together. But oh wait, that's all up to the likely loser, according to a lot of Obama supporters.


    It is WAY too Late n/t (none / 0) (#142)
    by Boo Radly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:03:29 PM EST
    People listen to Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    he was so instrumental in winning MA for Obama.  And look at how well Obama is polling against McCain now in MA.  It's just amazing how much influence the old lion still has.  The man is legend.

    Please tell me... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:38:53 PM EST
    What does it say about the party, Obama and his campaign that all this ugliness continues to spew forth from people that are generally known to be sensible people?  BTD seems to be pointing it out repeatedly and I have noticed it when many seem to have not.  I am extremely worried that so many people I have respected in the past have insulted the Clinton's and the voters with the rhetoric that is out there.

    I now know who to count on (none / 0) (#146)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:06:11 PM EST
    when it gets hot and fractious.

    And I'll tell you that it's not many people.  Either there is something just naturally intoxicating about a Presidential campaign or people were never that stable to begin with.

    Tom Noe comes to mind.  He had a great scam going "investing" money for the state (of Ohio) government.  The contract was pretty much gift wrapped and dropped into his lap courtesy of his political connections.  Things were going great....until he got sucked into the Bush re-election campaign.  Then he embezzled money, committed felonies by laundering campaign donations and he's now in jail.  He'd played political power broker for many years and then....along came Bush.  

    He was a Republican, so I don't mourn him - but he was a crafty sonuvagun, not some bumbling neophyte.  

    Parent

    What leadership? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by goldberry on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:40:10 PM EST
    Could someone please ask Kennedy to clarify his remarks and tell us what leadership of Obama's he is referring to?  

    He Leads At Raising Money (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    which might be all that they require.

    Parent
    The delicious irony is that when Obama (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:40:31 PM EST
    and his new politics are elected, we have been promised that the old politics will be swept away. Old politics definitely includes Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Daschle etc. as well as the Clintons. Brilliant that he has enlisted them in their own destruction.

    I think it's bigger than that. The (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:13:15 PM EST
    under-30 crowd want all new hopey-changers. Though they haven't noticed that Obama's not that young. But he is new and different. When the purge is complete, there won't be anyone left to vote for the older pols.

    Parent
    BTD says... (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by kempis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:42:42 PM EST
    What a terrible terrible thing to say. The Obama camp should disavow it. Unless he said it at their behest. In which case, we are gonna lose in November.

    And that's it in a nutshell. This is unacceptable. I'm tired of watching Hillary Clinton being gratuitously pummeled by her own party. I don't know what these people have against her--other than the fact that her husband managed to do something no other Democrat has done since FDR and serve back-to-back terms.

    But they need to get over it and realize that half of their party supports her enthusiastically. Barack Obama, with a 1-2% lead, does NOT have a mandate. Hillary Clinton deserves a helluva lot more respect than she's getting.

    "husband managed to do something" (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    you nailed it.  that +
    they are hicks.  they never deserved to be where they were. they only won because of Perot.  they are not real democrats.
    etc etc etc.

    Parent
    let me expand on that before I (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:55:34 PM EST
    check out for the weekend.
    if you let you mind drift back to 1992 Bush I's approval after the first gulf war was something like 90% so all the "real" democrats, Cuomo and the like, stayed out of the race.  it was his second term, he will sail to victory, why bother.
    a few months from the election Clinton was running third after Bush AND Perot.
    the rest is history.
    and the powers that be have never forgiven the Clintons, hicks that they were, for being in the right place at the right time.
    I still chuckle when I think about it.


    Parent
    Oh F&@*K that.... (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:50:26 PM EST
    ...as an "honorary white women" I call bullcrap. It's all our fault because we continue to support her so therefore its our responsibility to make things right for them. And don't forget to make the coffee.

    Thank you Maria... (none / 0) (#185)
    by christinep on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:38:44 PM EST
    Well said, as always.

    Parent
    Oh My God!! (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:52:29 PM EST
    Stupidly watching Hardball on MSNBC and they are spinning this quote to make Clinton look bad!!!  Saying this is what everyone is thinking anyways, that she was not gracious in her speech after her Indiana win, and that Ted is saying this to give cover to the Obama campaign for not choosing her as VP.

    Not a single word that this was disrespectful or anything of the sort.

    I'll tell you what.  I am almost to the point where I'm happy to see the Obama camp crash and burn in November so she can actually campaign again in 2012.  And I can NOT believe that I am saying that.  I have always said I'd vote for him if she wasn't the nominee but good god, they really do NOT want our votes.  I am literally flabbergasted.

    I will not make the coffee! (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by davnee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:58:56 PM EST
    Screw them all.  I hope HRC goes nuclear now.  Just lets it all hang out.  The Big Dawg too.  Unleash him.  There is nothing here worth saving.  Do not take one for this team Hillary.  I missed the chance to burn my bra by about 15 years.  I am ready now.  Match is lit.

    they wont do it (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:05:47 PM EST
    they are in it for the long haul.  Hillary will be president.  if not now in 4 years. (IMO)
    they are going to be gracious and magnanimous and smart.  just like they have always been.
    there will be pieces to pick up in 4 years and Teddy and Kerry and their new BFF Obama and the rest can go back to the peanut gallery where they belong.

    Parent
    It seems to me that 'smart' (none / 0) (#209)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:05:44 PM EST
    right now is not to 'be nice.'  Polite, to the necessary extent, yes.  But I'd venture to say that the circumstances don't allow for a middle road.  We really want to let them get away with blowing this election AND utterly smearing Hillary and distorting her record so completely?  I see what you're saying but isn't it possible that things might be different in 4 years?  After 4 years of Obama the Democratic party could very well be broken and discredited.

    Parent
    BuzzFlash (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    Stopped having any credibility months ago. They used to loathe Peggy Noonan and MoDo until the two started dissing Hillary at every opportunity. I used to love BuzzFlash. Now I wouldn't go their with out a gas mask and Dramamine.

    sorry, (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    umbrage loused up my spelling. That should be: "I wouldn't go there without a gas mask and Dramamine." sure messed up my tiny attempt at cleverness. :(

    Parent
    Yeah, that's true (none / 0) (#222)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:17:08 PM EST
    of a lot of places, unfortunately.

    Parent
    Let's see (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by lilburro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    terrible statements this week from Kennedy and Brazile.  Pelosi's due for one this coming week I bet.  Kerry too.  Obama needs to get these people in line, now.  But it appears there is just something about him that makes them WANT to say dumb sh*t all the time.  I don't recall Dems falling all over themselves to make such lofty and damaging comments in 2004.


    This is the only progressive blog (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Baal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    where I have ever heard anyone openly consider supporting John McCain, a corrupt, small-minded, war-mongering, pandering, poorly-educated man who STILL does not know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.  

    I don't get it.

    My favorite candidate was toast by January, I got over it, voting for McCain was never an option.

    I wouldn't (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:53:54 PM EST
    vote for McCain either. But then I won't vote for Obama is he is the Democratic nominee. Your vote is your business and our votes are our business. And if you haven't heard other Progressives talking about maybe voting for McCain because they are so disgusted with the Democratic Party and dislike Obama so much, then you haven't been to a whole lot of blogs.

    Parent
    I won't vote for McCain (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    But I most certainly won't vote for Obama, give money, or lift a finger to help. I did both, past elections, as did my dh.

    I will go to vote and will vote downticket. So far my congresscritter hasn't switched from Clinton to Obama. If he does, I won't vote for him either.

    Parent

    Unity (5.00 / 0) (#220)
    by chrisvee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:16:18 PM EST
    I commented in the open thread about how ugly, divisive, and foolish these comments are, so I won't repeat myself.  I'll just add that in addition to the internal power struggles going on, I think the party elders are giddy over Obama's ability to bring in the youth vote as well as the money.  They see this as a way out of the 50+1% dilemma because they can build a permanent Democratic majority without having to solve the problem of those pesky working class and values voters.  They'll get 'em young and have them for life.  If they have to sacrifice part of the current party base as a result, hey -- the end justify the means.  Plus, what choice do people really have (in their minds)?  Everyone will come home in the end.

    I fear they have grossly miscalculated. If they had walked a more moderate line, they could have had both Obama's transformational effect while at the same time leveraging the anti-GOP sentiment in the country for a landslide win.  But victory in the GE seems no longer secure to me and if the Bush Years have taught me one thing, it's that people will vote against their economic and/or national security best interests for a myriad of emotional reasons.  I fear the party is giving too many people those reasons.

    I admire and honor the achievements of the Kennedy and Shriver families, so I don't want to say too much about Ted Kennedy even though I find his remarks deeply offensive.  I do wonder if Bill will pop a blood vessel when he sees this interview, though.

    And sincere compliments to John Edwards for showing how to keep it classy and positive today.

    OMFG -- It is completely destroyed. (5.00 / 0) (#227)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:44 PM EST
    The Democratic party is destroyed.  Ted Kennedy just said to all Clinton supporters: "don't let the door hit you on the way out, losers"

    It is bizarre.  Why are they doing this????

    I really (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by sas on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:02:22 PM EST
    am beginning to hate these people...Kennedy, Kerry, Brazile, Dean, Pelosi....

    Should Kennedy be the one to Bridge the divide? (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by tokonoma on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:08:36 PM EST
    Why is Ted Kennedy injecting himself so forcefully into this campaign, and why is Obama so willing to embrace him?  Teddy has shown that in a sink-or-swim situation he cannot be trusted.  Obama can decide on his running mate when the time comes; come on Teddy--Obama will cross that bridge when he gets there.  

    Teddy wants to send Hillary back to Chappaqua faster than he fled Chappaquidick.  Teddy, your support (as well as John Kerry's) proved an anchor in your home state of Massachusetts.  Hopefully, your latest efforts to sink Hillary will be equally unsuccessful.  This time Teddy, you can't keep a good girl down. ;-)

    We? (1.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Baal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:37 PM EST
    Based on comments that Hillary has made recently, I wonder who is this "we" you are talking about, since for the last several months she has sounded more and more like Joe Lieberman.  If that's what you like, well ok.  But most Dems (and 68% of the nation) are not part of that particular "we".

    Assuming that we are all generally on the same side here, let's consider where she was last October: in a position where all conventional wisdom and her own rhetoric was that she can't possibly lose, 20-point leads in the polls, piles of money, unparalleled name recognition, the general good will and respect of her party, including Dems who supported Edwards, Dodd, et al, but who figured she would get the nomination in the end.  And now? I can only ask how it is that you can possibly think that anyone who ran a campaign this catastrophically incompetent is the only one who can lead us to the promised land?

    damn the torpedos (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:28:13 PM EST
    full speed ahead.


    Parent
    You miss the point, too (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    Baal, I truly believe this party was hijacked by a mass hysteria, a dream from which it is only now beginning to awaken.

    The dream was that our complicated national problems and world imbroglio could be fixed, and our liberal guilt absolved, by a handsome young man on a horse, coming out of nowhere.

    Onto this fallible, marginally capable young man a whole bunch of dreams, hopes, and fantasies were projected.  Even in the best of circumstances, no one would be able to fill that bill.

    But this is not the best of circumstances.  Now we are starting to open the box and see what's in side.  I don't think it will take us through November.

    In psychology, they call this "projection."


    Parent

    Quite right (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    They had me going for a while too...but I thought that during the course of the campaign that Obama would get specific and lay out exactly how he was going to change things.  That moment never came, and so I went to work and eventually chose the best of 2 candidates: Hillary.

    Parent
    In retrospect (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:36:58 PM EST
    I feel quite foolish for not seeing right away that it was just a hollow PR campaign.

    Parent
    I can offer an explanation (none / 0) (#81)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:36:15 PM EST
    See, the Clintons were lulled into a sense of winning because that was the narrative being driven by the MSM.

    They never thought the press would turn on them at this point.  They gravely miscalculated.  Now, Clinton has a 3-pronged fight:  Obama, the GOP and the media.

    So now we are at a point where your question is actually quite good and very fair:  how is it that she can lead us to victory considering all her miscalculations?

    Easy:  re-calibrate.  Intelligent and reasonable people don't flip-flop, they adjust and win.  McCain fired his campaign manager and BOOM! HE's their nominee.

    Clinton is human, not some super-calculating politician.  Her mistakes have shown that.  But being resilient is not a character flaw.  She has re-invented herself (that's why Madonna's pushing 50 and all the kids still dance to her music-reinvention).  

    I think that Clinton had to get a some cold water splashed on her to realize that the press and the American people were going to make her work for their votes. Thus putting the idea of entitlement to bed.  She wouldn't have to working this hard if she were in that situation.

    I liked you comment and it made me think.  Hence, this response.

    Parent

    Our elected officials (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:42:59 PM EST
    should have to work for our votes.  It's ironic because the Obama camp always says this about Clinton feeling entitled, and she may have been lulled by being in the lead but I must inform you that in one way or another Hillary has been working for our votes the whole time.  And guess what?  She succeeded.  I'm one of those who thinks she will still be our nominee, and I'll be working hard to make it so here in Kentucky.  If not, I may have to pack it up too.  I won't stand by and let this happen with my support.

    Parent
    Another characteristic of projection (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    Is constantly accusing people of being what YOU are.

    So Obama accuses Hillary of feeling "entitled."  Scuse me?

    So Obama accuses Hillary, and everyone else, of being a racist.

    Scuse me again, but WHO sat listening to Jeremiah's rants for how many years?

    Parent

    Umm, I think she got that message (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by goldberry on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:47:27 PM EST
    The problem is that the haka is intensifying and her  campaign is being put on mute.  This is what is in store for Obama.  
    Not only that but many of us already loathe the guy and will not lift a finger to help him when the $#%@ finally hits the fan.  
    The DNC could think strategically about what is about to happen to them or they could cling to this death wish.  
    But at this point, it isn't anything that Clinton has done.  She got her act together after February and has done a stellar job.  It's Obama who can't close the deal but the DNC  is going to shove him down our throats anyway.  


    Parent
    OK, and here's my concern (none / 0) (#141)
    by independent voter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:03:21 PM EST
    NOT wanting in any way to pick a fight!
    Is it OK for her to realize now that the strategy is not working? Over 4 months have passed since the first vote. To me this is a valid question and a real concern for someone that wants to be making the important decisions for this nation.
    I have read many articles stating Clinton hit her stride in Indiana, but it was too late. I find a huge disconnect between "ready on day 1" and hitting your stride 4 months into the nomination race (when it is virtually over). Again, this is not to pick a fight. I do not believe that Hillary Clinton has shown the ability to strategize and react to unforseen obstacles in a timely enough manner. This is not a sexist statement. It is fact that she has not run her campaign better than all other contenders. Did some of her top people trip her up...yes. And she is the boss, and she has to be able to see they are damaging her and GET RID OF THEM before it is too late.
    I started out supporting her. It bothered me all along that her nomination was assumed (it just didn't seem democratic-small d). She lost me because I did not feel she invested herself enough. I think she is now, but it is just too late.


    Parent
    And Obama? (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:11:29 PM EST
    What do you see in him, that you don't see in Hillary?

    I see inspiration, but this campaign has given me a whole new view of the Motivational Speaker industry.    

    Parent

    I see an ability to diffuse (none / 0) (#165)
    by independent voter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:24:17 PM EST
    situations that could have become extremely damaging. I truly believe this will be very important in the GE. I see someone that has selected talented staff, and planned and executed a very effective strategy.
    He should not have been able to defeat Hillary Clinton. But he did....why? I know he had much favorable press initially, but please admit the Rev. Wright thing was the opposite of favorable and it ran 24/7 for what seemed like weeks. And if the press adores him, then good for us in the GE! It is not something to bemoan.
    I see qualities that are most likely impossible for a Hillary Clinton supporter to see (right now with the current situation).

    Parent
    Obama has real problems. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    1. He doesn't defuse potential bombs.  Wright was a disaster in the making and should have been taken care of ages ago.

    2. He puts his foot in his mouth.

    3. He takes things personally, much to his detriment.

    I had to beat this into my husband's head.  
    "It's not about YOU.  Do not take it personally."
    with regard to parenting.

    When the kids act up, make a mess, destroy your plans or anything else - they don't do it specifically to hurt you or upset you.  If you react as if it was a personal attack, you'll be acting like a child, not an adult.

    Obama takes things personally.  He shouldn't.  It's a luxury that he can not afford.  The minute McCain's team realizes they can get under his skin and get him to make gaffe after gaffe by provoking Obama, they will do exactly that.

    And Obama recovers poorly, gracelessly.  He can't even cough up a simple apology.  If Obama gets the nom, the first debate will be McCain attacking Obama in order to get him flustered and the results will be painful.

    Clinton attack?  Clinton go negative?  Paper cuts compared to the Republicans.

    Parent

    Well, then we will agree to disagree n/t (none / 0) (#186)
    by independent voter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM EST
    excuse me obama isn't ready now and (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:12:08 PM EST
    i don't believe ever will. he doesn't have the requisite caring for people. he has thrown the majority of the american people to the side of the road. i am amazed you don't see that.

    Parent
    If it was the majority, he (none / 0) (#172)
    by independent voter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    would not be ahead right now.

    Parent
    if more votes were counted.... (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by kempis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:49:23 PM EST
    I honestly think we'd discover that the majority don't support him. He's ahead because he's running a 48-state strategy and relying on delegates delivered largely through un-democratic caucuses.

    The Democrats need to seriously overhaul their primary process. This is a disaster. Obviously, the intent was that the superdelegates were a firewall against an un-electable candidate winning the nomination. What they didn't consider, though, was the political difficulties this power poses for the superdelegates.

    Obama's campaign has gamed the system beautifully and eked out a 2% advantage, which they're acting like is a landslide. But I don't really think he has a genuine majority. Again, caucus math is not like our earth math.

    Parent

    I know Clinton supporters do not want to hear (none / 0) (#199)
    by independent voter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:53:00 PM EST
    this, but she could have campaigned for the caucus states as well. I find it hilarious that so many want to accusingly say "he's running a 48 state strategy", when the reality is, if you look at the states the CLinton campaign did not bother to expend any time, money, or energy in, she has probably run about a 25 state strategy.

    Parent
    I would say... (none / 0) (#181)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:36:32 PM EST
    That just about every time she wins a primary, there has been a slew of articles about how she's "now" hit her stride.

    The first one I remember seeing came out right after NH.

    Parent

    Catastrophically incompetent? (none / 0) (#107)
    by dwmorris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:45:09 PM EST
    Clinton and Obama blew away the rest of a strong field, so to call her campaign catastrophically incompetent is unfair.  In my estimation, she got beat by an exponential advance in "campaign technology." I'm impressed that she's done as well as she has, given what's she's up against.  Obama and Axelrod have taken community organizing to a national scale with incredible results.  Unfortunately, Obama is a flawed candidate ... and I believe the American political system will ultimately sweep him aside.

    Parent
    Those results are incredible alright (none / 0) (#134)
    by goldberry on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    He failed to win CA, NJ, NY, MA, AZ, TX, OH, PA, MI, FL etc.  They are just the biggest most Democratic states but that's Ok, his community organizing skills worked spectacularly well in Utah and Alaska and everywhere there was a significant AA population.  

    Parent
    exactly (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by kempis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:56:28 PM EST
    Adn this is getting swept under the rug by the talking heads and "progressive" bloggers who seem to have genuinely convinced themselves that Everybody Loves Obama and the only people in the entire country who like Hillary are a handful of old bats and hillbillies. Make that racist old bats and hillbillies.

    It's incredible. Had ALL the votes counted and had ALL the voters been able to participate (see not only MI and FL but all those damnable caucuses), Hillary Clinton would probably have the lead. As it is, Axelrod gamed it better. But that's hardly a mandate. Heck, the way the Democrats count votes, it's impossible to say with any certainty that Obama really does have a majority.

    But you'd never know to listen to Olbermann and Tweety and Cafferty and Co.

    Parent

    Im confused... (1.00 / 1) (#228)
    by Raheem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:29:15 PM EST
    But Hillary saying that she is White America's candidate is cool... but Kennedy saying this isnt...

    ftr, their both divisive... but in divisive meter, Kennedy's a 3... Clinton's an 11... and that is on a 1-10 scale...

    FTA (none / 0) (#2)
    by Trickster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    n/t

    Fault tree analysis? (none / 0) (#5)
    by rilkefan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    Failure to adapt?  Fed. Trans. Ad.?

    Parent
    F*ck That A$$hole? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    Great shortcut dictionary (none / 0) (#154)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    I found this very helpful site for figuring out short-cuts you kids are using around the internets, like:

    w/r/t

    and n/t

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/

    don't know if FTA is there. perhaps it hasn't made it thru the tubes.

    signed,
    OSCC

    Parent

    Cui bono? (none / 0) (#3)
    by rilkefan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    Does Kennedy have a protégé in mind?  Clinton wouldn't provide "real leadership", with her identical policy stance and more Fighting Dem rhetoric?

    What an arrogant Arse! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:09:34 PM EST


    Transcript available? (none / 0) (#36)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    At a time when we really need to begin healing the wounds of the primary season, perhaps it would be more prudent to read the transcript before reflexively assuming that Kennedy was claiming that Clinton wasn't "noble" enough to be the VP choice?  I am not sure how many of the posters here have been involved in media interviews before, but if you have, you know all-to-well how dangerous it can be when random snippets are extracted, presented together, resulting in a statement or premise which was never stated or intended.

    From a charitable perspective, Ted Kennedy was likely only presenting his opinion that Hillary might not be the best VP choice.  And there is a valid, credible basis to justify such an opinion (i.e. she doesn't have the regional appeal or national security credentials that other candidates have).  Later in the interview he might have been asked what criteria he thinks Obama should use in selecting a VP and that is where his "nobler" vision came from.  

    We really should avoid jumping the gun and assuming the worst about our fellow Democrats.  If the transcript is released and Ted Kennedy linked Clinton with the absence of nobility, I will be the first one to condemn him for it.  Until then, lets keep our powder dry.  Also, some of the commenters on this site bringing up Chappaquidick to discredit Ted Kennedy have really crossed the line and I'm surprised that they have not been admonished for pulling a page out of the Sean Hannity playbook.

    You go with that (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    Why the rush? (none / 0) (#55)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    Armando, I am sure you have been interviewed before.  You know the drill.  You also know what it is like to have unrelated answers to questions linked and quoted out of context.  What is so imprudent about waiting for the interview to play or reading the transcript first?

    This kind of rhetoric is not helpful, from either side.  If Ted Kennedy intended to suggest that Clinton was not noble enough to be the Vice-President, then he should be appropriate lycriticized and the Obama campaign ought to repudiate the remark.  But until we know for certain, is the need to throw red meat to the Clinton base so important that it is worth creating unnecessary controversy and exacerbating the party divsions that exist?

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST
    it is all too clear.

    the first part was bad enough. To say the second part in the SAME INTERVIEW is beyond the pale.

    Parent

    The first part? (none / 0) (#88)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:37:43 PM EST
    What is so inappropriate about Kennedy stating his opinion that it is "not possible" for Obama and Clinton to share a ticket?  The majority of commenters on this site today have said the exact same thing -- or worse.  Yet you never admonished them.  There are some very legitimate reasons why a dream ticket is not possible, not the least of which, is the acrimony between the two candidates.  Saying something is not possible is much different than saying that a person is not qualified.  The former is not objectionable, the latter may be.

    Parent
    Then you are (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:47:53 PM EST
    wrong.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#118)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:50:16 PM EST
    If you say so!  I guess we will both find out come this weekend whose interpretation was accurate.

    Parent
    Odds are... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:00:03 PM EST
    we'll get 5 different statements regarding "What he really meant to say was..." none of which will actually reference the substance of the quote or the  possible implications embedded within the quote.

    Ultimately we'll be left hanging with a statement that appears to say that a. Clinton will not be on the ticket and b. there are candidates out there with "far more noble aspirations."

    And both will have come from Obama's surrogate, Edward Kennedy.

    Parent

    what context would chage this? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    "If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful,"

    some things transcend context.
    God Damn America comes to mind.

    Parent

    If we had leadership (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:41:34 PM EST
    Uh, isn't Kennedy supposed to be part of our elder leadership?  He needs a 47 year old first term senator from the Daley machine to lead him?

    What's wrong with this picture?

    Parent

    I think I get it (none / 0) (#143)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:03:35 PM EST
    He's nothing more than a figurehead to them - they want their own Cheney to pull the strings from behind the throne.  They like him because he appeals to the youngin's (I'm using the "Bubba" word for it), which is what the party has been trying to attract for years.  Only problem is they think we'll just sit back and let them put on this charade.  And we must, I repeat MUST not let them achieve this.  

    Has anyone thought about maybe taking a list of superdelegates and having Clinton supporters lobby them to tell them we'll walk in the fall if they coronate Obama?  And that regardless of what they think we'll do, he's a walking time-bomb?  Now would be the time...the only hurdle would be figuring out which ones to focus on (only uncommitted? or also announced-but-reachable?).

    Parent

    Somewhere today (none / 0) (#188)
    by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:41:16 PM EST
    Great Orange Satan? - I read of superdelegates complaining loudly of being 'threatened by Hil supporters' who said they would leave the D Party if Obama was nominated...

    So, no...that won't work.

    Calling Al Gore....

    Parent

    Al Gore hasn't competed in a single primary (none / 0) (#196)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    and Hillary has the support of half our party.  I wouldn't say to simply 'threaten' but to make the point that 1.) Hillary is the best choice 2.) Obama is screwed in the general election and finally 3.) If you try to short-circuit the campaign, abandon the democratic base and coronate Obama it's going to cause a lot of defections, including possibly myself.

    I would have liked to have Al Gore too but he won't pull a Hubert Humphrey.  He just won't.

    Parent

    Iris.... (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:17:49 PM EST
    Personally, I'm not a great Gore fan....BUT....to my mind he is the only solution for healing the split in the party and in the country and the only Dem who could win this fall.

    I'm a Hillary supporter.  I know she's ready to go home and wait for '12, knowing Obama will lose this fall.  However, if she and Bill wanted a different outcome THIS year, the only possibility is Gore/Clinton.  She would have to announce that she is withdrawing and asking all her delegates for vote to nominate Al Gore.

    I think that would open the floodgates of the supers to rush to Al...knowing he should have been President in 2000.

    Parent

    Easy (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:41:09 PM EST
    If the interviewer is inquiring as to what criteria should be used in selecting the VP, it would be totally appropriate for Kennedy to say someone who had real leadership skills.  Taken on its own, that in no way impugns Senator Clinton or her leadership skills...particularly if Kennedy had ruled out an Obama-Clinton ticket for other reasons (i.e. she does  not bring any additional states into play).

    Parent
    you picked the perfect name (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:43:26 PM EST
    Thanks (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:45:23 PM EST
    While I might have an appropriate moniker, you have no substantive response, just snark and ad hominem.

    Parent
    from you (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:46:28 PM EST
    I take that as a compliment

    Parent
    Personally... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    Am not in either camp.

    But I will say that when you look at the wording of the quoted section, it's hard to not see the implied argument...and wince.

    I'm not sure how much more context is necessary...

    Parent

    The point is... (none / 0) (#80)
    by thomphool on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    "I don't think it's possible" shouldn't be said in any context.  There is no way that that is possibly the correct answer to the question.  None.  Senator Kennedy knows this.  He knows he is one of the top 2 or 3 most important Obama surrogates out there and what he says will be monitored with a fine tooth comb.  

    And yes, "throwing red meat is necessary."  Obama's surrogates and campaign need to understand that, even if unintentional, even implying this is a losing strategy. Being mum and pretending it's okay just isn't going to work.

    Parent

    Keep in mind (none / 0) (#201)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:53:57 PM EST
    that he believes Obama can change the nature of politics...he's locked into a masturbatory fantasy of defeating "teh Clintonz" so of course he doesn't think it's possible.  It would disrupt the fantasy.

    Parent
    we need to hear it in "context" right? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    where have we heard that before?

    Parent
    Need a new acromyn (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    WORMSS....What Obama Really Meant for his Supporters to Say...

    Parent
    A WORM Turns Into A WKRM n/t (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:34:57 PM EST
    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    I was spanked by the posters to quit using GOP attack memes regarding TK.

    I for one realize the sum of the Kennedy family's contribution to our country.  I may not agree with what TK is saying and doing these days, but he has certainly earned the right to have his opinions.  

    Doesn't mean I have to like them though.  But I sure am not going to go after events past.  I thought's that what Rev Wright does.

    Parent

    Did you practice that with Clintons? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by BigB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    Did you "avoid jumping the gun and assuming the worst" when people were (and are) accusing the Clintons of being racists?

    Even yesterday when Hillary cited an AP story about her being more popular with working class whites I didn't see a lot of charity towards her from your side.

    Parent

    On waiting... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by christinep on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:34:02 PM EST
    Two things: 1. How much leeway have Obama supporters given to the Clintons and their supporters the few times ambivalent (but clearly misconstrued) remarks have been made? Did they not jump on the "fairy tale" comment, for example, and not allow context or explanation? Why do you think that was the case?  2. As an old pro, Kennedy had to know the way his comments would be portrayed, would he not? (Without reading the comment here, my first reading earlier today caused to utter some unfortunate sounds.) If his comments have been misconstrued, as a New Englander and a presumed gentleman would he not clarify for the press <because that would be very easy to do>?  Face it...he and some of the other of that ilk have gotten a bit carried away and are showing their own stripes more than anyone else's.

    Parent
    gawd (none / 0) (#40)
    by ww on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    I really thought he was more clever than that. sigh

    Awww Mr. Kennedy, you too? (none / 0) (#52)
    by bridget on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    and the following answer is typical Obama Campaign. When I hear something like that I always think the OPPOSITE. After all I didn't suffer thru all those debates for nothing. Plus the post spins re what he really meant.

    So Here in this one Obama surrogate answer we got four points to consider re Obama and foreign policy: "good understanding," "eloquent," "incisive" (sorry, but I can't help laughing at that one cause it so jumps out at you), and "right."

    Kennedy:
    "A vice presidential candidate with national security credentials would be ``useful'' though not necessary because Obama, an Illinois senator, has a good understanding of foreign policy, Kennedy said. ``I think he's been eloquent; I think he's been incisive; and I think he's been right,'' he said."

    Translation: Obama needs a running mate who knows something about foreign affairs and national security cause he doesn't.

    But (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:33:00 PM EST
    Obama himself said a few weeks ago that he didn't need a foreign policy Veep because he (Obama) knew more about foreign policy than McCain or HRC because he'd lived in Indonesia as a kid and spent 3 weeks in Pakistan. Same set of quotes where he said that HRC only had tea parties and listened to children sing when she went abroad, etc.

    So really, the question is does he need a Vice President at all? He's so knowledgeable and competent that he could be both a President and Vice President all in one!

    Parent

    Don't need a Cabinet, neither! (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:56:47 PM EST
    Obama, Sooooper President!

    Parent
    Yes, he most def. needs a VP because (none / 0) (#161)
    by bridget on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    by applying my Obama Campaign analysis = always think the opposite and you can't go wrong w. Obama

    So it becomes clear as a bell from his own words that Obama needs "a foreign policy Veep because

    he (Obama) knew more about foreign policy than McCain or HRC because he'd lived in Indonesia as a kid and spent 3 weeks in Pakistan."

    Let's all have a good laugh about that one, too.

    Parent

    Recycling Nicknames. Go Green! (none / 0) (#116)
    by Petey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:48:14 PM EST
    And off-topic again, but I don't agree with Somerby's choice ofepithets for Chris Matthews' weird new hair dye job.

    I'd go with "the Great Orange Satan" instead.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:55:01 PM EST
    Tweety would rather be called Wylie Coyote?

    Parent
    Nastiness continues unabaited (none / 0) (#126)
    by zebedee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    Given that someone like Kennedy should understand the need for unity, with his favored candidate the probable nominee, this kind of nastiness is guaranteed to turn off her supporters.

    I also can't believe how the race-baiting charge is getting such prominence. As with Obama's campaign around SC time, it's as though they can call someone a racist but get away with running a "positive campaign". What greater insult in a democratic primary is there than that?

    Slightly off topic but to me her comments were "he can't win enough of the important working-class voters", which is generally true. It would be completely true if there wasn't a subset of this, the AA working class voters, which indicated otherwise. So she had to qualify her statement to  make it clear she meant the white working class voters. So ironically, because we have a set of voters (AA working class) for whom, understandabley,  racial identity trumps other considerations, she becomes the candidate that ends up with racism slur. And the media and Obama's supporters are happy to pile on,  trying to hurt her legacy and make it more difficult to bow out gracefully and with dignity.

    I want a new candidate! (none / 0) (#135)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    Any chance Edwards can run on the Independent Ticket?

    It's gotta be Gore or nobody. (none / 0) (#203)
    by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    Quoting Noonan (none / 0) (#139)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    Quoting Noonan in your argument is about as valid as validating Drudge.  This sure is going to be a primary to remember.

    Piggy was on Joe this morning (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:08:43 PM EST
    she was in rare, righteous and revolting form.

    Parent
    Noonan Good (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM EST
    Krugman BAD.  

    Sheesh!  People don't seem to be reading their memos these days.

    Parent

    This is (none / 0) (#163)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:22:23 PM EST
    the position the "a-listers" put themselves into.

    In some ways it's almost funny to watch. Both funny and disgusting.

    Parent

    Drudge has played a big (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    role in the lies about Hillary.  Almost as big a role as Obama supporters have in spreading them because they were happy about changing the focus away from Obama.

    Parent
    "our year older than McCain" Kennedy... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Exeter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:08:51 PM EST
    the spokesmans for the Obama campaign. Nice strategery their Axelwad.

    Here's my read on Ted Kennedy's (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    statement:

    So for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.

    I think it's simple (none / 0) (#171)
    by befuddled on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    Ted is the noble figure that should be in second place. When I can think of something a little more choice than "You're a legend in your own mind" I plan to write to him about noblesse oblige.

    He thinks... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:31:53 PM EST
    ...he's superior and that blacks are superior.  

    I'm being blunt, but it's fairly obvious to me what Wright is saying.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#191)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    where you get that.  Did you watch the Bill Moyers interview?  Certainly he's proud of his heritage, both ethnic and religious, and he was defensive at the NAACP and press club, but look at how the name of he and his church was being dragged through the mud simply to smear Obama.

    For me the most damning thing about the whole Jeremiah Wright saga was that it only took a little pressure on Obama to get him to disavow his pastor of 20 years.  If he'll do that, how little pressure would it get for him to throw us under the bus on any number of issues?  Contrast that with Hillary, who despite enormous media pressure and pressure from these party 'leaders' she's hung in there.  

    Parent

    I've figured it out! (none / 0) (#180)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:36:09 PM EST
    Teddy wants the VP spot!

    Maybe, (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:51:04 PM EST
     but does he think himself noble enough?

    Parent
    Memory check (none / 0) (#214)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:10:30 PM EST
    Remember Al Gore did not want Bill to go out campaigning for him.  Well, we see where that got him.  

    Yeah, I can't believe that Obama (none / 0) (#215)
    by faux facsimile on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:12:23 PM EST
    Here he goes again, with his negative attacks on Clinton:

    "an extraordinary candidate, and an extraordinary public servant. . . . She would be on anyone's short list of vice presidential candidates. But beyond that, I don't want to offer an opinion."

    Talk about going nuclear!