Kennedys side with Obama

snow scorpion

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, rejecting entreaties from the Clintons and their supporters, is set to endorse Senator Barack Obama’s presidential bid on Monday as part of an effort to lend Kennedy charisma and connections before the 22-state Feb. 5 showdown for the Democratic nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28kennedy.html?ex=1202187600&en=f849a7c6afe02a0e&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

wildsaffy

:d

Manic Moran

Ted Kennedy has charisma?

NTM

is_that_so

I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing. He also got Oprah which didn't seem to have any effect at all.
Apart from the Kennedy gaffe below, Kennedy has also endorsed Gore and Kerry in the past. Of the the three Kennedy brothers he was the most damaged by what happened in his private life. He has also recently got into a digging match with Bill over what went on in SC. The Kennedy clan itself has also had its ups and downs. Caroline is one of the few who have had a less troubled life, but if I were American am I going to base my vote on "Hi my name is Caroline Kennedy and you all know how much you loved my Daddy as president, so you should do as I tell you"? I think not.

As this goes on it becomes more and more surreal. I also can't help feeling that the media is running itself around in circles on this and will continue to embarrass itself with its craven support of both Hillary and Obama.
I would put it down to the "firsts" effect - first woman, first black guy. It's as if there are competing factions for the coronation. Kings and Queens of course were chosen for their ability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos

brianthebard

is_that_so wrote: »

As this goes on it becomes more and more surreal. I also can't help feeling that the media is running itself around in circles on this and will continue to embarrass itself with its craven support of both Hillary and Obama.
I would put it down to the "firsts" effect - first woman, first black guy. It's as if there are competing factions for the coronation. Kings and Queens of course were chosen for their ability.

I think that its possible that the democratic candidate will be damaged by the constant media coverage. Its about ten months til the election and there's already special programmes every evening on the subject. The voters will get sick of it all, they have to really. Meanwhile the republicans have been left alone by comparision, meaning their candidate will seem fresher as the election actually draws near.

is_that_so

The women in Massachusetts are not happy with it .

Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy is under heavy fire from a state chapter of the National Organization for Women for his decision to back Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

In a sharply critical statement, the New York state chapter of NOW took aim at Kennedy Monday for what it called an "ultimate betrayal," and suggested the Massachusetts Democrat "can't or won't" handle the idea of Clinton becoming President of the United States.

"Sen. Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard," said the statement. "Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/29/womens-group-slams-kennedy-for-betrayal/

LostinBlanch

So, what do they say about Caroline giving Obama her support?

LostinBlanch

is_that_so wrote: »

I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing. He also got Oprah which didn't seem to have any effect at all.
Apart from the Kennedy gaffe below,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos

Just out of curiousity was that a direct quote or fox doing a voiceover?
It is Fox after all.

SeanW

is_that_so wrote: »

The women in Massachusetts are not happy with it .



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/29/womens-group-slams-kennedy-for-betrayal/

Did it never occur to NOW that perhaps the Kennedys actually like Obama as a candidate, and that they made this decision on a race and gender independent basis? Or is everyone, in NOWs eyes, obliged to support Hillary just because she's a woman?

Title 9 isn't exactly something to be proud of either - while when passed it merely outlawed discrimination based on sex and provided for equal opportunities, an interpretation given by the Carter Administration went further, to require equal outcomes and quota filling which caused the elimination of some men's sports. So I can't blame anyone for being slow to support that particular measure.

is_that_so

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Just out of curiousity was that a direct quote or fox doing a voiceover?
It is Fox after all.

That was him OK. But he's not the first to make that gaffe. It is merely an observation. As regards his niece I don't think it really matters to the election what she thinks. Her uncle as a political animal is a different story and people will listen to him. At the same time, is it a wise move? The Dems have always been great at pulling themselves in many directions at once. Actively campaigning for one party nomination candidate over another, by one of the senior members of the party, sounds like trouble to me. I also think it is questionable how much effect it will have a week from Super Tuesday.

is_that_so

SeanW wrote: »

Did it never occur to NOW that perhaps the Kennedys actually like Obama as a candidate, and that they made this decision on a race and gender independent basis? Or is everyone, in NOWs eyes, obliged to support Hillary just because she's a woman?

Title 9 isn't exactly something to be proud of either - while when passed it merely outlawed discrimination based on sex and provided for equal opportunities, an interpretation given by the Carter Administration went further, to require equal outcomes and quota filling which caused the elimination of some men's sports. So I can't blame anyone for being slow to support that particular measure.

I am just observing here and it is yet another story to throw into the mix. And they may like him but why wait until after he had his spat with Clinton to come out with it. I think it does highlight that however inclusive Obama wants to be, he does need to get beyond his constituency - which so far he has not done that well. This was highlighted in the non-vote in Florida where Clinton got 50%.

storka

Seems not all the Kennedys are down with Obama!

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,1,1101821.story

LostinBlanch

is_that_so wrote: »

That was him OK. But he's not the first to make that gaffe. It is merely an observation.

I'll take your word for it. But I watched it a couple of times and it looked like his lips were out of synch with the words.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone spliced together those phrases from different speeches and then run it over that video. Of course if that someone then sent it to Fox then they would run it.

is_that_so

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I'll take your word for it. But I watched it a couple of times and it looked like his lips were out of synch with the words.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone spliced together those phrases from different speeches and then run it over that video. Of course if that someone then sent it to Fox then they would run it.

I am not saying that they didn't but given Fox's track record they'd rub their hands with glee at getting a gaffe like that. But you can see him chuckle himself as he corrects himself. Even though it was a few years back there's scope for lots of rewinds and replays on that.

SteveS

is_that_so wrote: »

I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing.

I wondered the same thing. Outside of some old line Democrats and Mass. residents, TK doesn't have all that much appeal. It probably won't make a difference either way.

Now that Edwards has dropped out, I wonder if he will endorse Obama?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy is under heavy fire from a state chapter of the National Organization for Women for his decision to back Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

In a sharply critical statement, the New York state chapter of NOW took aim at Kennedy Monday for what it called an "ultimate betrayal," and suggested the Massachusetts Democrat "can't or won't" handle the idea of Clinton becoming President of the United States.

"Sen. Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard," said the statement. "Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few."

This type of crap really makes me hope a feminist never gets into power.

snow scorpion

SeanW wrote: »

Did it never occur to NOW that perhaps the Kennedys actually like Obama as a candidate?

Or is everyone, in NOWs eyes, obliged to support Hillary just because she's a woman?

...the Carter Administration went further, to require equal outcomes...

Question 1: I suspect he wants Obama to win so he can become relevant again. Obama will listen to Kennedy's advice. Hillary won't listen to anybody; she's got her mind made up on what she wants to do.

Question 2: Yes.

Point 3: Government mandated equal outcomes - that has always worked out well, hasn't it? Come to think of it, how come we haven't heard much out of the USSR in the last 16-17 years or so?

ghostdancer

Maria Shriver, niece of JFK, and wife of (republican) Governor Schwarzenegger, appeared onstage with Michelle Obama, Caroline Kennedy, and Oprah, at a televised rally earlier this evening.

snow scorpion

LostinBlanch wrote: »

So, what do they say about Caroline giving Obama her support?

There's more than a little confusion:

Take it from the modern media's biggest Kennedy sycophant, Chris Matthews. In his book Kennedy and Nixon, Mr. Matthews often points out how "uncomfortable" Kennedy felt among liberals like Eleanor Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson - he even hand-delivered a sizeable check from his father to Richard Nixon in the latter's bid to defeat Helen Gahagan Douglas in California. Sen. Obama is, politically, more the New Dealer and Stevensonite than he is the New Frontiersman. Does anyone really believe that Sen. Obama subscribes to the reasoning behind JFK's tax cuts that "a rising tide lifts all boats," or that John Kennedy would have even considered free universal health care paid for in high taxes?

More interesting points here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/wwjackd.html

snow scorpion

Oops! Sorry, Barack

A new Rasmussen national poll indicates that 34 percent of Democrats surveyed said Kennedy's support would make them less likely to vote for Obama. Thirty-three percent said it had no impact. And only 30 percent said it would make them more likely to support the Illinois senator.

Now if you throw in the Republicans and Independents with the Democrats, the endorsement looks even more harmful. Forty-six percent of those surveyed said the Kennedy nod makes them less likely to support Obama. Thirty-four percent said it had no impact. Only 16 percent said it makes them more likely to vote for Obama.

More info here