Libs Rip RFK Jr. For Endorsing Hillary

CLINTON ENDORSEMENT: SHOCK AND AWE

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s formal endorsement of Hillary Clinton seems to be drawing more ire than fire from longtime Kennedy loyalists, who expressed their extreme displeasure with his choice for president all over the blogosphere this week.

While his endorsement of Senator Clinton’s campaign is no doubt a smooth strategic move (especially if he has his eye on her Senate seat), the announcement didn’t exactly seem to stir the hearts of Hillary’s supporters. Their reaction, even on the candidate’s own website, was fairly lukewarm by comparison:

Posted by: To the Hill Top

“We can be very proud of a party that produces public servants like the Kennedys and Clintons. Both families have given their all to our nation and are respected by our friends, allies and even some of our adversaries. That Robert Jr. would endorse Sen. Clinton is hardly surprising.”

by Lunabella
“RFK JR is a leader for environmental causes and obviously recognizes that senator Clinton holds the issue of global warming as one of her top concerns. He has chosen his candidate wisely. GO HILLARY GO! “

by Veronica
“Robert Kennedy , Jr. is a strong environmentalist. His endorsement will enhance Hillary’s standing with environmentalists. Of course, Hillary has an excellent record on the environment, an issue that is very important to me, but it certainly helps to have someone like Kennedy to come out in support of Hillary.”

While Hillary’s fans seem to be happy to hear the news, this is hardly the expected outpouring of passionate enthusiasm for having the likes of RFK Jr. join their team.

Elsewhere, the Democratic party rank-and-file greeted the news with a polite golf clap and a bit of a collective yawn. This is likely because the party faithful are still breathlessly awaiting Senator Ted Kennedy to give Hillary his endorsement. To many, he’s still the only Kennedy endorsement that matters.

We’ve culled together some of the most interesting comments regarding this latest development from around the web, both positive and negative. (Although we had to look pretty hard to find genuine enthusiasm for RFK’s Clinton endorsement.)

What we did find was a good deal of indifference — sort of a collective “so what?” — and a great deal of cynicism, mistrust of his motives, and outright anger amongst Kennedy’s progressive base. Many are puzzled. Others feel betrayed. Some say the man has sold out.

Either way you slice it, the response has been by far more negative than positive. Even some of the comments posted to RFK Jr.’s own blog at the Huffington Post had a surprisingly nasty snarl to them. The discussion soon sidetracked from the subject of so-called “clean coal” to the Clinton endorsement:

“Obviously Robert has been bought off by the Hillary forces. Why would someone who has devoted his life to environmental causes endorse someone who has never spared a thought for the environment, unless it was entirely expedient for her to do so. Hillary has nothing to add on the two biggest issues of the day: the war and global warming. She is not the right candidate for LEADING us away from the precipice where we are perched.

When I heard about his endorsement, I groaned out loud. Did she just promise him a Cabinet post outright? Are the Kennedys and Clintons so enmeshed? Why couldn’t he at least withhold it until after she’s been anointed by the Iowa and New Hampshire party bosses and their sheeple? I wonder why Robert thinks we are supposed to take seriously his devotion to the environment when he supports a presidential candidate who has never been exerted by the enormous threat of global warming.

It is simply too discouraging for words. The elite is all in cahoots, and it would be idiotic to think an elite would lead us away from this state of affairs.

– posted by IowaGirl

You simpleton, Kennedy doesn’t need the money so your fallacy about being bought is plain dumb.
It’s about the environment. Clinton has supported clean environments and this is just another.

– posted by drumz

I am saddened that you would endorse Hillary. What do you know that we dont.
Or have you been promised a White House spot.
Please say it isnt so.
I listen to Ring of Fire and cant believe you would sell out to big business.
Please tell us why.

– posted by snowbird42

And from the New York Times:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president today, and headed out to campaign for her in Iowa — a state where he once told residents, “large-scale hog producers are a greater threat to the United States and U.S. democracy than Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.”

According to news accounts at the time, in April 2002, in the Des Moines Register and the New York Post, Mr. Kennedy made the comparison during a Waterkeeper rally in Iowa on hog farm issues. The group has long raised concerns about the environmental fall-out from large-scale animal raising enterprises.A Register editorial denounced his comments as “idiotic” and “ridiculous,” and the paper’s leading political columnist, David Yepsen — who Mrs. Clinton and other candidates now eagerly court — said that Mr. Kennedy’s comments were “one of the crudest things ever said in Iowa politics.”

A Clinton campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said yesterday, “We aren’t going to agree with everything that every one of our supporters has said.”

COMMENTS AT NY TIMES:

This is a puzzeling endorsement. She hasn’t exactly been running a green campaign. I thought that Kennedy was a person of true beliefs. Edwards would have been more in line with his views.

— Posted by cliff jones

I’m sure that if we cornered Kennedy, he’d tell us that we should all vote for Hillary and forget about third party candidates because she is the most likely to win and because she comes closer to our views than the GOP, but you don’t vote for someone because you think they’re gonna win. You vote and support someone because they are closest to your views. The Green Party doesn’t support the war. The Green Party doesn’t support the private ownership of land. The Green Party wants an end to the corpocracy that is running Washington. The Green Party wants an end to the destruction which agricultural conglomerates and cattle ranching have caused to the environment.Robert Kennedy should be a member of the Green Party, not the party of “let’s see if we can get our one or two issues addressed.”

— Posted by John Feier

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is not the visionary his father was. Robert F. Kennedy would be stirred by the dreams of Barack Obama and John Edwards, who are the natural successors to the man who showed America the abject poverty millions of our own citizens live in to this day. Robert F. Kennedy toured Appalachia and the deep south to reveal homes with no running water, no heat or electricity, children dressed in rags with no shoes on their feet. Schools that were little more than tumble-down shacks.Robert F. Kennedy would find kindred spirits in Obama and Edwards who have worked hard for those with the least. Bobby Kennedy was ready to challenge the status quo and fought for goals that did not end with personal success, but with aid and comfort for those who needed it. He personified the quotation which has come to identify him best: Man’s reach should always exceed his grasp.Hillary Clinton brings to mind none of those ideals. She holds no special place for the impoverished, but seeks instead to enrich herself and family. The White House is not a place where Hillary sees she can do good for all, just do good for herself and close friends. Her goals is not to change the world, just be elected president, as if it is merely another entry on her paltry resume. How telling that Robert F. Kennedy, brother of the martyred President, ran not on his brother’s record but his own. How different from Hillary who wraps herself tightly the resume of her husband, assumes roles and titles held by others, inflates her unelected job into something unrecognizable, and — being generous here — fibs about her accomplishments. Barack Obama and John Edwards will do just fine without the endorsements of the son, but the father must feel some disappointment that someone so shallow and self-centered received from the keeper of his legacy, the bearer of his name, the endorsement which should have rightly gone to others far more deserving.

— Posted by jade7243

And of course this has nothing to do with RFK Jr.’s reported interest in running for the US Senate seat that President Hillary would have to vacate should she be elected. To think they used call his daddy the ruthless one!

— Posted by Capital Cat

The endorsement is useless. Most dems don’t know who this Kennedy is except he hates hog farmers especially Iowa hog farmers. — Posted by DIckie

Congratulations to Hillary on her myriad of utterly useless endorsements…keep them coming.

— Posted by Chima>>>>


...And there's lots more reaction where these came from. This is only a sample of what we've been seeing so far. Your thoughts, DU'ers?


READ FULL STORY AND ALL COMMENTS HERE:
http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/clinton-endorsement-produces-shock-and-awe-among-rfk-supporters/

I see the Obama supporters are really up and at em this morning. Making statements that the Hillary supporters are whiners..ha ha ha...they can't wait to post slurs....seems to me they are the underhanded ones.

But then just think of all the people who choked on their coffee when they saw who their mayor, governor or just plain politic an endorsing Obama...made it seem like they endorsed him, when they personally wouldn't touch it with a 1,000 foot pole.

Sad to find another man I looked up to selling out to the Clintons for prospective future personal gain.

All those years of respectable Democratic leadership have really just been a cover for his insatiable thirst for power!You're willingness to shred any reputation in order to lob childish insults at Clinton is putrid.

resulthing quite frequently in bitterness toward the erstwhile hero.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/coals-true-cost_b_74738.html

Only scanned some of the early responses.

Yikes.

What is the world coming to?

While the majority of people who signed the petition to draft RFK jr. for president indicated that they wanted to see him run as an Democrat, 25% said they would prefer Kennedy run Independent.

About 3% said they wanted to see him run as a Green, 2.5% said Unity `08, 2% Libertarian.

The surprisingly high number of independents seems to reflect that growing block of voters who have yet to find their candidate.

At best, she's DLC. As far as I'm concerned, she's a Republican-lite.

own little alternative world, she's republican lite. The truth is she has an environmental record no repuke comes close to. The truth is that her record on social issues is a good one. The truth is her votes on some important issure suck, but she ain't a repuke- and she's left of the DLC.

Just because she doesn't agree with you on all issues doesn't mean she's not a Democrat. If we limited the party to people who agree with you on everything, the party population would be one.

The old "Deutschland Democratic Republic". Or as we called it, East Germany.

And the "L" is equally worthless, as they couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag.

When Obama or Edwards gets an endorsment the crowds cheer and say "good for them." And they consider it a feat--that is shows something about the candidate that they would get support from that highly considered person. And it brings more favor to Obama or Edwards.

When Clinton gets an endorsement, the reaction is different. Rather than even consider that their steadfast, opinion of Clinton may be a bit off, or wrong, or otherwise these great people would not endorse her--they turn on those they trusted before. Wes Clark, RFK, and others are attacked. It is suggested that they are lying to get favors from Clinton.

It is irrational. I don't understand it.

Sounds like you understand it to me.

a receiver of big bucks from big corporations, Big Pharma, MIC, R. Murdoch, also a big friend of the environmentalists? Come on, RFK jr, you're kidding!

your position. Perhaps you should look at her environmental record. I suggest that you keep your friends close and your enemies closer--and Murdock will help her and us if on our side. Obama has people on his side that are not progressive in anyway (homophobs), and yet that seems to be ok...why not give Clinton the same standard?

Instead of keeping your steadfast beliefs, based on criteria that some would suggest is superficial, you look at those who have endorsed her Wes Clark, RKF, and consider that perhaps there is more to it.

is like comparing apples and oranges. Even though many blacks are freaked out by gays, Obama is not getting big bucks from them. Wes Clark is going to get a cabinet post or better for his support. Probably RFK jr is hoping for Hillary's seat to be vacated, then he will be a likely shoo-in for the N.Y. Senate.

That this is a shock to anyone is a shock to me.

RFK, Jr will be a great political leader when he decided to give it a go.

The Kennedys endorsed Bill Clinton in `92 and `96, and RFK jr. endorsed Hillary's senate run in 2000, so his endorsing her for president doesn't come as a surprise, at least in that regard.

To my knowledge, when RFK Jr. endorsed a Clinton in the past, no one objected. So why is everybody so upset with him now?

I think the difference is that times have changed, the world has changed, and opinions of our public servants have changed. Voting itself has changed radically since 2000 (and many, including RFK Jr. would argue, not for the better).

Kennedy is right when he says the 2008 election will be the most important of our lifetimes. That's one fact everyone - progressives, conservatives, greens, independents - can all agree on. And that's exactly why his endorsement of a perceived "establishment" candidate rankles...for a country so hungry for change, Clinton's candidacy, in many respects, smells like more of the same.

Clinton knew he was going to need him on health care

Are starting to believe their own bullshit...

is how much trouble people have respecting somebody else's decision. You don't have to agree with an endorsement to do that.

And frankly disappointing. I heard him speak a couple of months ago not only on the environment, but also about how our government is being smothered under the weight of corporate controlled politicians. I was impressed that he was speaking the truth so freely. That is why I find it surprising and disappointing that he has endorsed the most corporate controlled candidate in the Democratic field.

He's lost me on this one.

So his endorsement of Clinton counts more than his years of dedicated activism?

She's not my choice, but if someone I respect and admire chooses to endorse her, they won't "lose me".

That is why I'm backing off of politics; it is too personal, and is becoming a contest that has little to do with anything beyond personalities. I feel like I'm in high school when I'm on these boards, and frankly, I'm way past that at this point in my life.

I like RFK jr., and in fact his endorsement of Hillary makes me like him that much more......cause he's made his own decision.....like he always has. More power to him on this.

be they Conservatives on the right or Dem-Hating-Leftists on our side of the fence.

Reality is not allowed near these types. Their mindless beliefs are sacrosanct. Everything else must change for the belief to remain intact. Wes Clark is bad. RFK is bad. Gore is bad. Kerry is bad. Hillary is bad. The sun revolves around the earth. Period. What the reality is does not enter into it at all. Al Gore is the same as George W Bush and that is that. There is no reasoning, no rationality, no debate, just the shrieks of the extremist protecting his insanity.

You know it from the right, but you have a hard time accepting it from the left. After all, they are 'one of us' progressives; how could that be wrong. Well, it could be and is. In just the same way that Publicans, who think they are the true Americans, are in actuality the greatest threat to America and everyone in it, and that includes Osama bin Laden and all of al Qaeda. So too are Dem-Hating-Leftists, who think they are the true progressives, the biggest threat to the progressive side of the political spectrum. Deal with the paradox, because if you don't deal with it, it will deal with you, as it did in 2000.

DHLs - your 'fellow' progressives, have already given us nearly a decade of fascism, with what will probably be $6 trillion into the hands of mostly their fellow fascists, four thousand dead GI's in Iraq, twenty thousand maimed, uncountable numbers of internally destroyed vets, which we haven't really even begun to deal with and probably won't, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis too. And alot more pain and destruction to come just out of their momentum, like the $11 trillion national debt they have racked up and the insane right-wing federal courts that they have packed.

This was all done by livid DHLs who were impervious to reason and reality and who would not back down from their lies and insanity, the net result of which is that they granted nearly a decade of power to GWB and his subnation of fascists. And they don't acknowlege a bit of their handiwork - it's everybody else's fault. Even after all they have wrought they don't become aware and they don't get better. Understand this. Understand what it means. Like the newly-minted RFK-haters this endorsement has created, they do not learn and do not get better. They sound like us and they have basic beliefs like us, but everything about them works against everything we, and they, believe in. That's why you have such a hard time understanding them. Why can't they put the pieces together? Maybe just a little more reasoning with them? FORGET IT!

They are not your friends. They are not your compatriots in the fight. They are not your kindred spirits.

They are the irrational enemy of the left. The enemy. Understand this. We need to defeat them before we can even begin to fight Publicans. See what happened when we didn't do that in 2000?

It's painful to know that you have to defeat the irrationalists on your own side first. I know, but this isn't a choice. They need to be exorcised. I want Democrats to be able to strategize politically without worrying about the traitors flanking us, making this a two-front war. Cut them out and cast them off. I don't want Democrat-Hating-Leftists to be part of the Democratic calculus. I don't want DHLs voting for Hillary. We'll get the votes in the middle.

If a handful of DHLs eventually grow up into rational political beings, then come on back, just like if a handful of Republicans decide to evolve. Come on over. But expecting rational political behavior from intransigent extremists is cutting our own throats. Gore-haters, Kerry-haters, Hillary-haters, just go away. Don't "hold your nose" to vote for Democrats, just go away. Don't lower yourself to vote for "the lesser of two evils", just go away. Don't vote. Vote Republican. Just leave where you're not wanted. This way we won't have to deal with you when you come back screaming that it's your party because you 'held your nose and voted' and now we have to start all over again trying to get you to behave rationally when you simply don't have the ability or the wherewithall to do it.

In the meantime it's up to us politically rational progressives to stop wasting our time and energy catering to these extremists, who are only one vote away from putting the next rational progressive Democrat on their hate list. How long till they realize Obama isn't an extremist and will probably compromise with Republicans three times as much as Hillary ever will? Wait till he does something like open ANWR, or who knows what. The bottom line is we have to get the extremist, single-issue, brook-no-compromise or they'll go all DHL-insane progressives out of our process, with their sneering dishonesty and taunts of voting for someone else. VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE! In the meantime, fuck off. You're not even as left as I am, but just because I'm not politically insane I have to listen to your sanctimonious drivel about how Bill and Gore and Kerry and Hillary and Pelosi and Reid and Wes and now RFK are evil? No I don't. I'm done with that.

You're the enemy. Not RFK.

...is pretty insulting to anyone who is now, or has ever been, a Democrat, IMHO.

Can fellow Democrats agree to disagree? Yes. Can we have a civil debate? Well...I hope so. If we cannot, our party *will* split along issue lines again, and this has cost us dearly in previous elections.

There is no debating with extremists. I thought I put that in there somewhere.

The Democratic party has slit along issue lines once in modern history - 1948 - and Truman still won without the left wing lunatic fringe.

I did not know that. That's heartening.

...when the Democratic party's spirit of inclusiveness drove many progressives to vote for Nader instead of Gore.

The rest is history.

Many Dems blamed Ralph Nader for costing Gore the votes needed in to win the 2000 election. If that is so, perhaps we should be asking ourselves how we can bring the party back together again in 2008.

This is how I view RFK Jr.'s endorsement of Hillary, as a move towards bringing more progressive votes into her column and helping to unite the party.

Unfortunately, this gesture seems to have produced the opposite effect among many of his staunchest supporters on the left, as the article posted above clearly illustrates.

The Democratic party was indeed much too inclusive. We should have cast the DHL liars overboard very early in the process.

When you count on backstabbers, well, you get stabbed in the back. How obvious is that?

And that was the whole point of my piece. These extremists, like the ones in your OP, don't change and can't be counted on to do anything but work against us. We must cast them off, and the sooner the better.

And you are puzzled as to why it didn't.

That was what my post was trying to enlighten.

You see, when you have people for whom RFK and his passion and work on the environment can be tossed aside in a split second, with nothing more noble for an epitaph than a paragraph of resentful partisan rancor, as so many of the posts you brought over did, you HAVE TO REALIZE that you are dealing with a level of intransigence that will not compromise.

The only way to "bring the party back together", which is to say bring these people back into the larger party, would be to compromise the party 100% or nearly so to their every single demand. If you tried, and that's assuming all the intransigents are coherent in their beliefs so you could, you would end up with a party platform that would make Dennis Kucinich look like the resident fascist, and be less electable than he is.

There is no reasoning with these people. With people who would throw away a lifetime's worth of dedication and service before they'd even listen to a thing you say.

When groups of people become that hardcore, and that ugly, there's only one choice left.

I know you don't like it.

Party Division = bad.
Party Unity = good.

...and it requires some compromise on *both* sides.

What if one subgroup is committed to the notion that compromise is evil?

The key phrase here - "drove many progressives to vote for Nader instead of Gore." There is certainly no indication these "progressives" ever voted Democrat. They certainly didn't in large numbers in any presidential election prior to 2000.

St. Ralph wasn't a Democrat and he ran on the Green party ticket. The only state he had any effect was Florida.

Al Gore received more votes than any Democrat in history up to that point. That doesn't sound like a "split."

I agree. The old adage fits, you know "cutting off our nose to spite our face?" Thanks for saying this. I've about decided to stay away until after the primaries. It's sick having to read some of the crap so-called dems are throwing around. I hope the respect I feel for all of our dem candidates is reflected countrywide. They are truly incredible and I wouldn't think of saying a word against any of them. That said, I surely hope my "girl" comes out the winner.

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

"Get the Hell out of my daddy's Senate seat!!" :evilgrin:

same thought crossed my mind

Throw him to the lions! May demons rip the flesh from his bones!

_____________________

We got 8 candidates in the nomination race. He chose the frontrunner and I'm quite sure he had his reasons.

If I expected politicians to do everything I wanted them to do and threw a shit fit when they didn't, that's ALL I'd have time for.

What matters about Robert F. Kennedy Jr is everything else, and that list is long and that list is dazzling.

Folks whose feathers were ruffled by this are smart folks, and naturally they wanted RFK's brains and spirit with them and in another camp.

This time, they didn't get him. That doesn't mean he's gone.

I admired the blue blazes out of him two weeks ago and there's been no change this afternoon, and likely won't be next year or in ten thousand years.

He's a diamond.

I'm so happy that RFK chose to endorse her after Wes Clark did. I have so much respect for both of them, and it hurts when either one of them gets smeared and trashed for their choices.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you read no other political analysis this season, by all means read Dickie's surgical insights on the character of Robert F. Kennedy Jr as regards RFK's LEGENDARY disregard for hog farmers.

RFK Jr is known FAR AND WIDE for his contempt for hog farmers -- and not just Iowa hog farmers, either, but ALL hog farmers.

RFK Jr's contempt for hog farmers of course if not an environmental concern, but a PERSONAL, SEETHING --

LOATHING

-- for the hog farmers themselves.

Dickie nailed it.

offers historical context with an impressive range of ideas.

Thank you.

Hey OC! Thanks for adding your thoughts to this thread, couldn't agree more with you. My opinion of RFK Jr. hasn't changed a bit either.

Thought I might share an interesting comment someone posted to our blog about this today. While I don't personally agree with everything the poster said, they brought up some interesting points:

http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/op-edthis-endorsement-stinks/

"In politics, nothing is accidental. (Didn’t FDR say that?)

Speaking of FDR, readers of Kennedy family history will remember a situation similar to this happened in 1932, when Bobby’s grandfather, Joseph P. Kennedy, campaigned for Roosevelt (and raised a LOT of money) in hopes of securing a cabinet position.

FDR dangled this carrot in front of Mr. Kennedy for two more years…but never gave him the promised cabinet post (Kennedy had wanted Sec’y of the Treasury) until finally, in 1934, FDR appointed JPK as chair of the newly-formed securities and Exchange Commission.

After the 1936 election, Kennedy became head of the maritime Commission and at last was given the Ambassadorship to Great Britain in 1937, a career move that proved disastrous as the US moved closer to war. Mr. Kennedy took an strong anti-war stance, resulting in his public downfall and crushing his hopes of a future run for the presidency himself.

Kennedy’s public image was ruined by rumours that he was a Nazi appeaser in the press. JPK always blamed FDR for planting these rumours on purpose to hurt his credibility when the 1940 election came around and many in the USA were trying to draft Kennedy to run against his “old friend” FDR. (It is important to note that in 1940, the majority of Americans were opposed to fighting in WWII, which they considered “europe’s war” — and they were looking for an anti-war candidate to challenge FDR.)

On the eve of the 1940 election, under pressure from the White House, Joseph Kennedy reversed his position and gave a landmark speech (broadcast coast-to-coast via radio) urging all Americans to give their votes to FDR. This sudden flip-flop enraged Kennedy’s supporters, who accused him of capitulating and compromising his principles. But the tactic worked - FDR was elected to a third term just 4 days later - and Kennedy’s speech was a major factor in swinging undecided voters over to the FDR column at the last minute. Although Kennedy did what he had to do for his party and his president, he later admitted that he deeply regretted making the speech (understandable after he lost one of his sons in the war and almost lost another) because, as he feared, America did enter WWII the following year.

Of course, there are other examples in the Kennedy family history which are more recent. Take for example, JFK bringing Lyndon Johnson onto the ticket as his running mate in 1960 - a smooth move politically (to bring in those much-needed Southern votes), but a provocative move which angered many of his staunchest supporters. JFK/LBJ were hardly a match made in heaven, more like the politicial equivalent of an arranged marriage. And we all know how that worked out.

After JFK’s murder, there was tremendous pressure on Bobby Kennedy to run for president and continue his brother’s work. In early 1964, despite his personal animosity for LBJ, RFK had tried to force Johnson to accept him as his running mate. Johnson eliminated this threat by announcing that none of his cabinet members would be considered for second place on the Democratic ticket. Johnson also became concerned that Kennedy might use his scheduled speech at the 1964 Democratic Convention to create a groundswell of emotion among the delegates to make him Johnson’s running mate; he prevented this by deliberately scheduling Kennedy’s speech on the last day of the convention, after his running mate had already been chosen.

I bring up these examples from the past to give us a bit of perspective on this latest Kennedy maneuver. I also think these examples illustrate the truth in two old sayings:

“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

and

“Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it!”

performances on DU I've seen in a while. Thank you for this thread and for the above post, too.

I knew almost nothing of the FDR segment of the Kennedy family history, at least not in detail. Neither of those two gentlemen were strangers to the punches thrown in politics.

And the more contemporary glance at the Kennedy/LBJ tension ... wow, yes, that was for real. The problem Democrats have in the South now go back a long, long way, and it's hard to understand politics now without a good long look at how the Kennedys felt about Lyndon and how Lyndon felt about the Kennedys.

Your thread not only affirmed that I feel no less respect for RFK Jr now but also reminds me that one of the reasons I'm a Democrat at all is because of the huge and lasting impact JFK and RFK had on my consciousness-forming years.

So. Great thread, nicely researched stuff and nicely presented, too.

Thank you.

...once you start reading up on that twisted tale, you soon find that you can't get enough of it! What a soap opera!

If you're curious to learn more, I'd recommend a book called "Hostage to Fortune: The Letters of Joseph P. Kennedy", compiled by his granddaughter Amanda Smith. It gives an insight into the real Joe Kennedy through his letters, diplomatic dispatches, notes, diaries, and other materials which have never before been published.

The book certainly paints a very different picture of old Joe than what we've read in the newspapers...very different indeed. But then again, anyone who questioned the lead-up to war in those days was labeled as "pro-Nazi" or a Chamberlain-esque appeaser (incidentally, Kennedy and Neville Chamberlain were close friends and allies in the cause of peace) and got the "Lindbergh treatment" in the press.

Which rather reminds me of an event in recent history...shortly after 9/11, when our president told us to support the war on terror because, "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

The lesson we can take away from all this? In politics, sticking to your principles (no matter how much you believe in them) can cost you dear. As old Joe Kennedy and his sons (and grandsons) later learned the hard way, sticking steadfast to your principles can be political suicide. Sad but true. Welcome to Washington.

If RFK Jr. truly want to reach a spot in government where he can make a difference (be it senator, A.G., EPA head, or even president), it's likely going to take a few backroom deals in order to get there. He may have to get out and stump for a candidate who he does not agree with on everything because he's got his eye on a bigger prize. The question is -will his base understand and accept this as a political reality and continue to support him?

I've never heard of it and may be able to track it down on one of the on-line book services.

"The Lindbergh Treatment" indeed. By any chance have you read Philip Roth's THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA? It is set in the Roosevelt years, only the account skews into a fictional narrative in which Charles Lindbergh defeats FDR. What follows is as much a comment on what's happening right now than what may have happened during the Depression. Anyway, it's a wild ride and a wonderfully told tale. Roth is a personal favorite of mine.

You ask the hardest questions -- this time about whether his supporters will follow him if some of the political realities he faces/chooses/shapes are not to their expectations, etc. It's real hard to say because voters can be very fickle. I don't know who his base support is beyond the interlinking of the environmental groups. I'm from his father's generation more than his, but see the social awareness gene of the Kennedys gleaming in him.

Whatever he decides to do, I'm supportive of in advance, even if it isn't what I expect him to do.

Wow, funny you should mention that book, it's a damn good read. And while fiction, is written as a sort of alternate history which really wasn't so far-fetched to imagine at the time. (Consider the 1934 fascist coup attempt against FDR which Gen. Smedley Butler exposed) A lot of folks don't realize just how close America came to going the way of Germany and Italy in the 1930s.

Indeed, Charles Lindbergh's non-interventionist rhetoric was enormously popular back then, and like his friend Joe Kennedy, his name was also seriously floated as a draft candidate in 1940 to oppose Roosevelt. These two political opponents were effectively neutralized by FDR's camp, and both later reversed their position after Pearl Harbor to support the war:

"In this time of great crisis all Americans are with you. Name the battle post. I am yours to command."

-- JPK telegram to President Roosevelt after the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 1941

Still, Kennedy (a lifelong pacifist who also opposed U.S. entry into WWI) privately continued to hold onto his true belief - the belief that destroyed him politically - that America should not intervene in foreign wars unless we were directly attacked. Even when publicly endorsing FDR for a third term in that now-infamous radio speech, Kennedy again stated his reasons for opposing American involvement in the war:

"After all, my wife and I have given nine hostages to fortune. Our children and your children are more important than anything else in the world. The kind of America that they and their children will inherit is of grave concern to us all."

-- JPK Radio address of October 29, 1940.

(This controversial speech is something every student of history or political science should read - it is available at the JFK Library in Boston in Box 157 of the Joseph P. Kennedy Papers, and is also reprinted on page 482 of the Amanda Smith book, "Hostages to Fortune.")

Watching his father's fall from grace had a tremendous impact on young JFK, who learned well the lesson of compromise without sabotaging one's self or core beliefs. JFK often called himself "an idealist without illusions," (a very apt description) and a great deal of this philosophy no doubt comes from being Joe Kennedy's son.

In later years, the former Ambassador gave a statement which is very telling as to how he rasied his children:

"The generation that follows me many have to stand for everything that I stood against - and I realize that includes my own sons. I made my choice among philosophies offered when I was young. Each of them will have to make his or her choice."

-- Quoted in Joseph F. Dineen, The Kennedy Family, 1959.

And so it appears that RFK Jr. has made his own choice.

If his grandfather were here today, he would probably disagree on principle, but Joe would respect Bobby Jr.'s choice and continue to love and support him as ever.

Perhaps once they recover from the shock of the Clinton endorsement, RFK Jr.'s supporters will come to that same conclusion. One hopes.

and the hard-bitten realist father would have understood the grandson's choice, and as you say, disagree or not, would have respected it.

I love it that you've read Roth's PLOT AGAINST AMERICA. It's so readable and interesting -- espeically for someone who already likes history and sees the contemporary points Roth is making.

I've loved his other stuff also, political or not, especially GOODBYE, COLUMBUS.

I like how in your posts you acknowledge the difficulty of RFK Jr's choice while sticking with him on grounds of his innate integrity and brains and courage. Those things are too often in short supply in U.S. politics and we need to preserve the set for the few people in the cast who deserve a role in the play.

It does suggest a possible Senate run. And that would be a thrill.

Sounds like we're both Roth fans as well!

Bobby is certainly making no secret of the fact that he'd like to sit in his father's former Senate seat someday...perhaps sooner rather than later.

Cultivating friendships with Hillary and NY governor Spitzer (who will actually appoint her successor) would get him there at warp speed.

I hope he can do some real and lasting good in the US Senate, but would rather see him get a cabinet post or A.G. ...

And on what planet is Hillary not a "liberal?" No, she may not be the most liberal in the race, but Hillary Clinton not a liberal? Ridiculous. We've got a slate of candidates that would allow me to support any of them. I am shocked that an endorsement of Clinton by RFK, Jr. could actually cause people to lose respect for the man - that's just absurd.

Democratic Underground after all.

I was beginning to wonder...

reaction to yours but as a reaction to RFK, Jr.'s support. I admire him and have for years for his dedication to the environment which is and always has been my most important issue. I have tried to tell posters here that they are not right about Hillary being DLC; she has long been a progressive. I am sure that Robert Kennedy, Jr. thought long and hard about this decision and its impact on the world's environment. He has a right to support whomever he wishes. I respect his judgement. I was getting a little offput by some Hill's positions, as is true of each of our cadre of fine candidates...none are a perfect fit for me. However, now I will look long and hard at continuing my support of her. I suggest y'all do the same. The GOPers have spent 12 long years degrading the Clintons; it has had the effect of propaganda because many Democrats now believe the PUG garbage spewed out about these two fine Americans. Think what they have faced to be leaders in our country! I would never have thought the denigration worth it. In fact if we get another Pug right now, I will probably move somewhere else. Two more Supreme Court justices nominated by a GOPer pres is more than this country can survive.

and yet you're rethinking your support of Hillary because the Hillary-haters on the left aren't getting better?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Why would anybody even TRY to deny that Hillary is DLC??



In case you don't recognize the picture, the caption of it is "DLC Leadership Team"

Jeeze...where have I heard that before?

Nice try.

Was just trying to keep the headline short.

(long headlines sometimes get overlooked at DU)

It seems perhaps a little hasty, as Teddy hasn't yet endorsed anyone yet that I know, but if he decided it was and important thing to do, then I don't hold it against him.

That so many so-called "Progressives" have swallowed the long-time RW trashing of Hillary hook, line and sinker.

Apparently, anyone, ANYONE, no matter how respected automatically has their ethics called into question the minute they endorse Hillary.

Maybe, just maybe, RFKjr and the others are right about Hillary. Did you ever consider the possibility? Shocking thought?
Just wanted to throw that out there...

Is RFK jr right about Hilary?

I am considering the possibility.

No, I don't think they are right as far as I am concerned. Saying that everyone has the right to endorse, support and vote for the person of their choice. Just because I don't agree with his choice doesn't mean that I still don't respect him and trust him to have made his decision based on valid reasons for him. I may not understand them, but I know that he did what he thought was best and I support and will fight for his right to choose and support who he wants without harsh judgement from anyone.

I also have the right to endorse, support and vote for the person of my choice. It will not be Hilary. I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. His endorsement will have no effect on me. To me this is a very important election. I don't want to go back to the Clinton years. I want to move forward. The 90's is over and I want to move into the 21 century with new blood. There are other reasons, but I do not think she is the best person to stand at the helm and lead this country during this time.

Actually I will be writing someone in. I will be writing in the person who I think should be President. I am an idealist who tries to stand by their principles even when it means standing alone. I understand the reasons why he has chosen to support and endorse Hilary. They are valid reasons for him. I understand that. I just can't follow him in his support of Hilary Clinton and so I must march to my own drummer and do what I think is right and for reasons that are valid to me. I will be writing RFK jr in 2008. That hasn't changed for me. I am not a robot or a groupie who just because RFK jr endorses Hilary I all the sudden get on the Hilary band wagan, but I have made up my own mind of who I am supporting and voting for. We must all do what is right for us, even if it means you are standing alone and received harsh judgement for what we decide.

I admire Bobby's courage for doing what he believes he must do even though it ment that many people would not like it or understand. It takes courage to be a Democrat and decide for principle you can't support or vote for her but must be true to your principles. Both actions are a form of courage. I would hope that Bobby would admire my courage to do what I feel is right as I defend his to do what he thinks is right and know that we both have the courage to stay true to the ideals and prnicples that we have both based our decision on. We both love this country. We both want the children to have a futue.

For me voting for the same ole same ole is not the way I think we can best move forward. Hilary is a part of the problem because she is a Washington Insider. Something happens to them when they move to Washington and that is they forget what it is really like for the American people. I think we need an outsider who is in touch with the reality of the lives that we Americans are facing.

Just because Hilary doesn't get my vote doesn't mean she is a bad person or I hate her personaly. Frankly, I don't know her on a personal level. I do not like her poltics. I am sure she is a good wife and mother and is a good friend in real life, but being President is much more than liking someone on a personal level. I admire her that she has kept her marriage and family together during tough times. I have a good friend who used to live in New York State and she likes Hilary. She is going to be voting for her, but there are issues that Hilary and this dear friend stand for that I can not support. We are both Democrats but there are issues that as a devout Catholic I can't support. Though this election the US Bishops have said we could vote for a pro choice candidate if the moral condidtions in this country were more important as a moral issue. If she comes to the area that I live in, just to be fair I will go and listen to her speak in person. Maybe speaking in person she is better than on tv and those debates.