Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama

Source: Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.

Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support. That will be a potentially significant boost for Obama as he heads into a series of critical primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

Kennedy believes Obama can ``transcend race'' and bring unity to the country, a Kennedy associate told the Globe. Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.

The coveted endorsement is a huge blow to New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is both a senatorial colleague and a friend of the Kennedy family. In a campaign where Clinton has trumpeted her experience over Obama's call for hope and change, the endorsement by one of the most experienced and respected Democrats in the Senate is a particularly dramatic coup for Obama.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ted_kennedy_end.html

There's already been some Caroline-bashing (she's just an idle rich dowager who reads romance novels), so Teddy is surely next in line for it.

I just can't believe some of the crap that's been turning up on DU.

:sarcasm:

(I think my head just asploded :P )

That may be the political kiss of death for Obama. :rofl:

Just kidding!

:rofl:

Hillary's mistake---and the mistake of a lot of Democrats--is that they take the Progressives/Liberals for granted, play the conservative game and think the Progressives/Liberals have no place to go except to them.

Hillary played that game too long--hence her vote on Iraq and Iran (Kyl-Lieberman), etc.thinking it would help her in the national general election and being appealing to conservatives and moderate Republicans. Well, Hillary, you lost 70% of the SC vote. I think the Progressives/Liberals left you a message.

That message should wake-up Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Put Impeachment back on the table Nancy. Harry, kill the immunity Bill for Telecoms. You both are in for a big surprise in your next election. FUCK THE DLC--FRIEND OF THE CORPORATIONS AND TRAITORS TO AMERICA.

And he's making the announcement at American University, the site of his great brother's greatest speech.

Powerful stuff.

However, I will say that the endorsement of Senator Kennedy does make Obama far more favorable in my eyes.

It makes Ted less favorable in mine. Strange how that works out, eh?

:thumbsup:

Therefore, I have to at least entertain the thought. I do know though that there are some right-wingers out there who detest Edward Kennedy and his endorsement might turn them off to Obama big time.

No one was arguing that they do or do not. Nice straw-man though...

From the linked article (and this evening's broadcast news) it seems that the Kennedys and Clintons have had a personal friendship for years, that Ted mentored Hillary when she first came to the Senate, and that Ted Kennedy told Bill Clinton to back off on the negativity -- which advice we all now know the Clintons ignored.

This is huge.

Hekate

"I do know though that there are some right-wingers out there who detest Edward Kennedy and his endorsement might turn them off to Obama big time"

Actually it is looked on as a major internal power struggle by almost every prominent democrat senator to keep the clintons from winning the nomination, which is, in fact, what it is. This in itself is interesting. I suspect the issue is control of the party itself.

"My feeling is that Teddy Kennedy has interacted with Obama more."

Dubious, the clintons were in the white house 8 years, and HRC has been a senator since 2000.

What are you talking about?

"'democrat' senator"? Pardon me? Don't you mean Democratic senator, buddy?

Are you telling me that I have interacted with Obama more than Senator Kennedy?

"What are you talking about?

"'democrat' senator"? Pardon me? Don't you mean Democratic senator, buddy?"

Spelling cop. Answer the content of the post if you are able.

"Are you telling me that I have interacted with Obama more than Senator Kennedy?"

Let me refresh your memory, you give grammar/spelling lessons while showing total lack of reading comprehension.

"""My feeling is that Teddy Kennedy has interacted with Obama more."

Dubious, the clintons were in the white house 8 years, and HRC has been a senator since 2000.""

I am done with you, find someone else to feed you as you troll.

Did I say I wanted Ms. Clinton? No. I care for neither Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

But it seems that people, such as yourself, automatically assume that because someone is against Mr. Obama he or she must automatically be for Ms. Clinton.

Please don't delude yourself. I believe that, once again, the Democrats have not fielded anyone who is a true leader. If they presented a candidate that wasn't so polarizing (i.e. not another Clinton - who comes with baggage just because of the name and not connecting themselves to a movement that alienates gays and lesbians (which I am one...er...not the lesbian part)) I'd be overjoyed.

Sadly (or happily in the case of the Republicans) neither party has given a decent candidate (in my eyes) for the last 3 elections.

But, of course, all this will mean to you is that I'm still some kind of bot for Ms. Clinton. Enjoy your erroneous belief, however.

:wow:

:pals:

Teddy is no more a Republican than I am the Patriots quarterback.

:hug:

I was waiting for the horrible broken logic. Im glad you are proposing this in jest.

This makes sense. Interesting too, because Bloomberg is playing the role of John B. Anderson in 1980, threatening to run if Clinton's the nominee but not Obama. Anderson ran against Carter but said he wouldn't run against Kennedy if he defeated Carter in the primary.

Party and its chances in the GE. I favor Edwards, but see lose-lose propositions for the Democrats with the Clintons, not so with Obama. The Clinton era should be over, along with all the baggage it brings.

NoFederales

for the republican Obama. I will never forgive him for this. I do a lot of work for Mass Dem's but not him or Kerry anymore.

he must be....his head is fuzzy. If I was a senator and someone talked about me like that I'd say instead what cheney said to Leahy.

He's even more liberal than Kennedy. Don't you love it?

and DLC /Republican Lite. :sarcasm:

Obama's policy papers are not the most liberal. Do you think that he thinks that the Republicans can beat Hillary?

One thing can be stated with certainty: there's nothing on those redacted pages that involves Obama. Those in the know (and that would include Kerry and Sanders) may be trying to cut down a dangling Damoclean sword.

IMO, Obama better personifies the ideals the Democratic Party stands for than either Clinton.

The report summarized the findings of the longest-running Independent Counsel investigation ever, initially centered on misdeeds by Henry Cisneros. Allegations were that he avoided paying income tax, fraudulently diverted funds to his mistress, etc. The investigation turned into an unraveling sweater. Alleged improprieties included political manipulation of the IRS against Clinton Administration enemies and suppression of evidence. After some strong behind-the-scenes politicking, about 20% of the final report was redacted and withheld from the public, and Dems closed up behind it. The Independent Counsel (David Barrett) was furious.

I'm just summarizing here. I don't know if the full report would be harmful to HRC's candidacy or not, but rumors on the political circuit say it's bad news. No doubt the repugs will leak it and exploit it in the G.E. if it's damaging, and HRC is the candidate. That's what prompted my speculation about a Sword of Damocles.

Pols like Kennedy and Kerry rarely move against the party status quo so quickly and abruptly, and that's a powerful signal that we don't know the real reason for the astonishing rush to back Obama at this early date in the primary schedule. Toes are being stepped on big-time.

Here's a NYT piece from a couple of years ago for background:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/politics/19inquire.html

Here's the link to the O.I.C.'s official website and report:

http://barrett.oic.gov/

You may well be right - not to mention the Rich pardon, when Rich was a big enough issue that he was - by himself - listed as needing further investigation in Kerry's BCCI report's list of things still left to do when the committee was taken away. I have worried that if someone not connected to Bush gets the Republican nomination and HRC gets ours - the Republicans could, in a snake-like way, shed their "Bush skin" merge it to Clinton's Presidency - then run on the need to clean up the mess. (This thought occurred when peopl like Tweety said Kyl/Leiberman could lead to claiming backing for action against Iran, as the 1998 resolution on Saddam did for Iraq. Ignoring the fact that it was clearly not true - it was scary that he said it and the pundit with him nodded his head.)

I think that Kerry was motivated by exactly what he said. Though they clearly weren't heard, there was a call in his own campaign for the need of change. It was nowhere near as central or as explicit as Obama makes it - likely because of the times. He tried to point to a time when the threat of terrorism wouldn't be a dark cloud over the country. I'm sure the theme of Obama's speech in 2004 was one that they agreed on and that it reflected values they share. Kerry's endorsement speech for Obama was incredible. Two frames from it seem to have been picked up by the media - that Obama could be a transformational President and that it is choosing Future over past. In March 2004, at a NYC booksigning, in response to a question by Charlie Rose, Kerry spoke of how the next President would have a chance to be a truly great transformational President like FDR, because there were so many huge things that needed to be done. He then said he did think of that when he opted not to enter the 2008 race.

It is also clear from Kerry's email and DKOS post that the lies made him intensely angry and determined to counteract them. There was a similar intensity to his comments on the NV lawsuit. It was clear that he was furious that the Clinton people were pulling a stunt to disenfranchise voters that Blackwell would have been proud of. Kerry has never been reluctant to take on the status quo. He did when he returned as a highly decorated vet to take on Nixon. He did in pursuing the illegal support of the Contras, who had support even among Democrats including the Clintons. He did on BCCI. He did on Alito, where he and Kennedy were both ridiculed and trashed for their efforts. He did with Kerry/Feingold, where the Clinton camp vilified him in anonymous attacks in the media. In fact, it is amazing that Kerry ever got the nomination given the history of fighting the status quo that he has.

They will bargain away any Democratic principle if it means winning. Winning for them, not for us.

...but he sees (as I am reluctantly beginning to accept) that he will not be the Democrat's nominee.

Of the two remaining choices left, Obama is a better campaigner than Hillary and he has less baggage.

He is an excellent speaker and he's got the certain amount of charisma that Hillary lacks.This has translated into attracting new voters to the primaries, and will hopefully translate into new Democratic voters in the general election.

Kennedy's been around a long time and knows that politics is all about controlling your environment, and he knows that the best policies and intent mean nothing if they can't be implemented.

In short, he's compromising.

I also support Edwards, but it is looking less and less likely that he will win the nomination.

republicans CAN beat Hillary

GOBAMA!!! :bounce:

Ted, Caroline, and four major newspaper endorsements in the past few hours. My heart sings. :loveya:

:rofl:

... he has centrist, Republican, libertarian, and "establishment" supporters as well.

Unstoppable train? :)

His record doesn't exactly appeal to libertarians. He is an establishment liberal Democratic senator all the way. Obama believes in strong government. Libertarians don't.

And that train will derail in a general election.

...pretty much hits the nail on the head as to one of the best hard-headed reasons Obama is the best candidate...looking at things from 'across the pond' it does seem to me that most Dems assume they are a shoe-in for the White House which would be taking confidence too far....

If Clinton wins it would provide the Republicans with an excellent rallying point against the disaffection felt by many after stemming from Bush...to win elections you need to pick a candidate that can reach beyond the core support of your own party...this is something the Democrats especially need to do considering that support is palpably not enough to win the White House...if Clinton wins there is actually a good chance you will see a Republican Presidency for the next four years....Obama is making the right noises to start to build a coalition of voters, from progressive liberals to disenchanted conservatives who can take him all the way...

I would love to see a woman in the White House--but not Hill 'n' Bill. Yes, She is brilliant. But
there is something unauthentic about her. Ask the Code Pink ladies how she refused to speak with them.
Besides, since we can't get one Clinton without the other, would we REALLY have a woman president?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She stood by silently while he went after woman after woman. She did not stand up to him to set him straight. Can anyone seriously think he would not be calling the shots if she "won"?

:hi:

BTW, it's "shoo-in" as in shoo fly fly.....

Clinton is great and will make a good President.

Oh, and Obama is great and will make a good President. It is great that Ted Kennedy likes him.

But, Edwards is the best and will make the best President.

I respect and admire Senator Kennedy for all the good he's done during his career, but as my mother, a lifelong teacher, said, "That man's never attended a public school in his life. Where does he get off telling us how to 'fix' them?"

another fellow-senator just doesn't impress me much.

:yawn:

I do so wish that these threads were required to be posted in the GD-P forum and not LBN - it rather trashes up the landscape.

:shrug:

Well, at least throw some trash at kennedy for supporting No Child Left Behind in 2001.

Oh wait...don't we remember....Hillary Clinton VOTED FOR NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND in 2001. Of course, now that the political winds have shifted, she is opposed to it. I guess it is yet another of the things she voted for that she wish didn't pass....

What a crock. Criticising kennedy for supporting nclb when Hillary Clinton also supported it. Hypocrisy in the extreeme...

He had a big hand in writing it. And proudly takes credit for it. So, it's a valid criticism.

They seem to be terrified of Hillary Clinton in the White House.

They waited to endorse Obama until now. I don't think it is so much that they like Obama. I think they are afraid of offending young voters and African-American voters, and they think that if Obama does not get the nomination Hillary will.

Hillary is absolutely unelectable. I guess they figure of the two Obama is more likely to attract undecided voters and voters who Haw sat out other elections.

They should be backing Edwards. Obama is also not electable in the end. He has no, I repeat no, experience in foreign relations or security matters. Voters I talk to (and I talk to a lot of them) seem to think that Obama will be able to work miracles in the area of foreign relations just because of his race. They are naive. The thought of a McCain/Obama contest should give Kerry and Kennedy cause for concern.

Edwards served on the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate. He voted with Kerry and Kennedy on the IWR. They can't criticize him for that. Edwards knows far more than Obama about foreign relations.

As usual, Democrats are just steering the party to disaster. Honestly, if Hillary or Obama is the candidate, I'm just going to give up. How can people be so idiotic as to think either of them can be elected.

JD.

We need to start asking, "Where's the substance?" (And please, no dope jokes!) Obama is nothing more than image. He needs a few more years and a few more political bumps and bruises. Then he will be a great President.

...our choice. A couple thoughts:

1. I doubt Kerry or Kennedy is terrified.

2. The Democratic party has a progressive wing and a more centrist wing.

3. I agree that, of the three, Obama is not the strongest on foreign policy...but Kerry and Kennedy are.;)

4. Any Democrat...progressive or centrist...is better than a Republican. :7

I have to ask myself, if I was running the republican party who would I be the most afraid of?

Obama: Easy target. Young African American, no experience, who might be a MUSLIM? Yikes!

Hillary: Easier target there. Besides being a woman you would have the whole Clinton baggage to dig up.

My fear would be with Edwards. Smart white male, well educated, well respected, nice wife, family going through personal tragedy in a classy way. If I was running against him I would be worried. Besides his $400 hair cut what would I have left to pick on?

As a matter of fact my single worse fear would be a Edwards/Kucinich ticket.



-My first post, no disrespect to AAs or woman. It's just my take of how the other side would view things. Politics ain't pretty. -Peace

... He's the only one willing to go all the way to fix it. That is why the media has almost treated him as if he didn't really exist. Elections in this country are corrupt. Only those receiving big money can afford to put ads in the media, and because this country is so big, candidates rely on those ads to introduce themselves to people. The media is the big problem here. Those are our airways they are using. Why aren't they regulated? Why aren't we giving them orders to give free air time to candidates and limiting the air time to that free air time? Why aren't we charging them for air time instead of letting them collect billions of dollars of candidate ad fees? Until that is done, elections will continue to be unfair and candidates will have to sell themselves to the highest bidders.

Read Kerry's endorsement. Then remember Edwards claim that both he and Obama are for change - but he thinks it must be through confrontation and he belittles Obama's goal of working with the other side. Which view seems closer to those of Kerry, the diplomat?

Also Obama was an activist before being a politician - as Kerry was. Those roots often show up in how Kerry addresses problems. Edwards was not an activist.

Edwards does not know more about foreign relations and did NOT serve on the SFRC, but was on the Intelligence committee. Obama is on the SFRC - and often works in tandem with Kerry, Feingold and Boxer in continuing a line of questioning.

my confusion about the committees. Thank you. Both the foreign relations and the intelligence committees provide insight and experience in foreign relations.

I take exception with you on Edwards not being an activist. Plaintiff's attorneys are activists. Like Ralph Nader, Edwards represented plaintiffs in products liability cases. Certainly you would not question that Nader was an activist when he sued car manufacturers and others? I believe that Edwards also did some medical malpractice cases. In all of those cases, he was dealing with self-insured large corporations or with insurance companies representing the defendants.

Obama claims to have worked as a civil rights attorney. I don't know what he did, but I suspect he worked as a plaintiff's attorney -- just like John Edwards. Of course, maybe he worked on the defense side, but I think someone would have raised that issue if he did. You make a good point about Kerry being the compromiser.

Perhaps she wasn't too impressed by her ex husband (Andrew Cuomo's) intervention recently for Hillary and has decided to endorse Obama!

they just waited until after NH to make it public. endorsements don't matter that much in Iowa where voters vote mostly based on their personal experience with candidates. it was thought the Iowa bump would help in NH which it did since it was close.

Edwards did not serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. he was in the intelligence committee.

is as cheap as it gets. And I think Edwards is the least electable out of the three. And if you're so ignorant as to think that Kennedy voted for the IWR when he was one of those most adamently opposed to the war, oh well, that kind of explains a lot.

Clinging to Edwards is just pathetic.

So that we can direct this energy to the Re-Pukes where it belongs.

Remember, They are the enemy, Not each other.

...FATCATs. Welcome to DU. :)

:D

It has no logic to it

Endorsements should be subjective, based on the person who does the endorsing views why he or she believes that candidate is best

There have been endorsements given to all the candidates from various individuals and groups

If they want to argue why someone should or should not endorse someone that is fair game, but to try to trash the person personally for that endorsement is not a good reflection on the candidate THEY support

I haven't been for him before, but there seems to be some virus going around that makes people endorse him because he "feels" like Kennedy, or "sounds like" a voice of change, or "looks like" a new kind of politician.

Next thing I know, I might endorse him myself, because he "smells like" a brand new day.

Kennedy endorsed Obama because he thinks he can help with race relations. He didn't seem to hit on anything else Obama can do such as repairing the broken economy and bringing the troops home.

I seriously doubt it is "race relations". Kerry gave an excellent speech when he endorsed and two themes from it - past vs future and the idea that Obama would be a transformational President quickly moved into the pundit talk. I assume that Kennedy will give an equal speech. Caroline Kennedy also gave a brilliant emotional reason.

I disagree on bringing the troops home. I think Obama has the ability to immediately set up the type of regional diplomacy that Kerry spoke of and which there is a passed sense of the Senate resolution for. However, Obama because of who he is - someone not involved when it started and with his understanding of other cultures - could immediately restart the process and tone down the anti-productive rhetoric. He could convince the world that the US voted for massive change.

there is a clear effort by the democratic party non-clinton establishment to avoid the Clintons geting a 3rd term.

It is becoming a who's who of the well-known, long-serving Democrat Senate, and I strongly believe there is some orchestration in it. I have previously read that Kerry, Kennedy, Gore, and one other (cannot remember name) were all strongly opposed to Hillary as the party nominee. I guess we get to wait and see if Gore endorses Obama.

Leahy is the most liberal member of the Senate along with Feingold, and we in Vermont have known he was going to endorse Obama since last August- same with Sanders. Pathetic what Edwards and Clinton supporters are grasping at.

Challenging Carter for the nomination in 1980 helped Reagan tremendously.

Go John........

What a jerk....He and Kerry just must be kissin cousins!!

You wouldn't post that had he endorsed Edwards, who he once mentored.

Did it help Kerry four years ago? Endorsements do not matter.

Oh, how sweet it is.

The Clintons are still the odds on favorites to win, but who knows? Maybe the citizens will make the right decision this election, and try to make up for the last two.

Obama is a uniquely gifted individual. I don't agree with him on everything (I don't agree with any of the candidates on everything). But this Obamaman...he IS without a doubt the most interesting Dem. candidate to come along in many years.

so I'm not too surprised with who he chose this time.

Kerry was more liberal than Dean and was every bit as against the invasion.

As others stated above, Ted Kennedy probably feels more comfortable with Edwards but sees the handwriting on the wall. He is also more progressive than HRC can ever dream of being.

One other factor is probably swaying the senators who are endorsing Obama: they've interacted with him and find him easier to approach and to deal with. No only professionally (hell, they are pros and can work with the devil when ABSOLUTELY necessary); but personally, too. Here is a case of her aloofness damaging her chances.

record and sadly, too many are buying into hype.

Obama didn't vote for a banruptcy bill as JRE an HRC did. Do you know who led the fight against the bankruptcy bill - Ted Kennedy! He may not think Edwards was always that much a liberal.

Barack Obama is easily the best candidate to grace the American scene in a long time. His integrity and respect for his fellow candidates is admirable. He has what Americans need: Vision. That's what JFK had. Vision for America, not just for himself. I am tired of candidates whose political conversations present the necessities of people's lives as vague trivial references that exist only for the purpose of accenting their orgy of self-centerness. I'm sick and tired of leaders who seem to think that it is their mission to exclude Americans from the government of their own country. We don't seem to matter except during elections. People seem to matter to Barack Obama; something he has already demonstrated in his life. People don't matter to the Clintons; the scandals of the 1990s proved that. I want to elect someone to whom I matter.

Just listen to how they speak. Obama is best for this country right now.

They don't determine elections. It doesn't matter who endorses who. Never have I seen an endorsement swing an election. The Candidate's words and actions, the will of the people and probably vote rigging are the only things that ever determine the outcome.

No wonder the Democrats have been doing so poorly in the elections.

On edit: BTW, welcome to DU. I hope you enjoy your time here. :-)

why the Democratic party wants to lose the presidency??? The Republicans took the last Democratic nominee, who is a decorated war hero, and beat him with the draft dodging, AWOL, mental midget. What will they do to Obama, or Clinton. The media wants a weak Democratic candidate so that the Republicans can keep the White House. The only person left in the race that the Republicans cannot find anything to smear him with is John Edwards. I hope that the Democratic nominee will win in November, but I'm afraid that we are about to do it again. That is, lose an election that we should win hands down!
How to lose:
1. Let the corporate owned media choose the nominee for the Democratic party.
2. Don't really listen to what the candidates are saying or read their policy statements.
3. Allow the corporate media to ignore the more progressive candidates(Edwards, Kucinich).
4. Have a bitter primary campaign with a lot of infighting, to give the Republicans all the sound bites
they will need to use against the Democratic nominee in November.
5. Get caught up in the feel good, no substance, candidate and don't hold him/her to any kind of
scrutiny.

Believe me the Media wants another Republican President... and it is beginning to look like the Democratic Party is going to give them one.

What can you do? Support Edwards, with your money, time and vote. If you do already, great! If not, ask yourself why you want to lose in November?

Because the Republicans will make stuff up if they can't dig up true dirt on Mr. Edwards. And, sadly,the public will buy it. What's the saying? Tell a lie 1000 times and it becomes the truth?

He does have areas where he can be attacked - including his Senate record. His performance in the 2004 primaries and general election were not that strong. In the primaries, when it was just Kuchinich, Kerry and himself - he paled in comparison to Senator Kerry. Kerry was the one who was sharply attacking Bush, not Edwards. In the debate with Cheney, the best that can be said is that he was better than Leiberman, but not stellar.

I think that Obama is the best chance we have. (Though I think that had Kerry opted out of 2004 for health reasons, he could have been the strongest anti -HRC candidate in 2008. He would still have led on Kerry/Feingold and his anti-corruption credentials (BCCI, Clean elections) are impeccable. HRC would have difficulty using S-CHIP as her big "change" as Kerry wrote parts of it and started the effort with Kennedy in their bill.)

this is totally about relevance in the democratic party, after futily challenging his own party's nominee in 1980 and not even coming close. If he supported Clinton, it would be expected. But this is a surprise. I also sense that Obama pledged to make Pat Kennedy actually matter if Obama is elected.

Ted Kennedy. :rofl:

Can someone enlighten me on the statement i have heard here and in other forums regarding Obama's snub of the Gay community. I haven't heard him say that he is in favor of any legislation that curtails rights of G&L.