Today, in a very emotional public event before a boisterous crowd at American University in Washington, D.C., Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy, brother of slain former president John F. Kennedy, conferred the mantle of JFK on Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK, also addressed the crowd and gave Obama her endorsement. The senator's son, Congressman Pat Kennedy, also was present to give his endorsement to Obama as well. This is no ordinary endorsement; the Kennedys still have enormous weight with voters in New England, and are believed to have considerable influence with Hispanic voters, as well, who have come to regard Sen. Kennedy as their champion. Sen. Kennedy's speech was the most animated and enthusiastic he has given in a long time, continually evoking the Democratic icons of John and Robert Kennedy, and applying them unabashedly to Obama.
For many years now, the Kennedy wing and the Clinton Wing have vied for control of the Democratic Party. With this endorsement of Obama against Sen. Hillary Clinton, the conflict has become virtual open war.
From some of Sen. Kennedy's remarks, it is evident he was outraged and disgusted at the recent race-baiting statements of Bill Clinton, in what appears to be a repeat of his tactic when he ran against Jesse Jackson in his own run for president, when he made statements that polarized African-American voters and got them to award the SC primary to Jackson, so that a white backlash would result around the rest of the country that gave the nomination to Bill. This time around, however, it is less likely the tactic will succeed, since Sen. Obama has a wider appeal than Jackson did, and people like Sen. Kennedy are clearly "on" to Bill and are publicly speaking out.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Kennedy praised Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards, saying Edwards "has been a powerful advocate for economic and social justice. And Hillary Clinton has been in the forefront on issues ranging from health care to the rights of women around the world.
The democratic primary race has been remarkably clean as far as I can tell. At least in comparison to the GOP.
Open war? Not really.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Open war? Hardly. The GOP side is closer to open war than the Democratic side.
The whole thing has been incredibly overblown by the media. Every time they say someone "lashed out" or "attacked" another candidate, they make it look far worse than it really is. If you really look at what they are saying, it's really not that heated at all. The media are being sensationalist to a wreckless degree.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I agree with that. I'm getting tired of every single remark being turned into a feeding frenzy.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: the Kennedys still have enormous weight with voters in New England,
Ha! That works on multiple levels
-Bok
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ted Kennedy's endorsement does not make me more likely to vote for Obama.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
DEMOCRATS IN OPEN WAR
KENNEDY COMPOUND LIKE "LORD OF THE FLIES"
PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA RULES FROM THRONE OF SEPULCHER AND BONE OVER PIT OF SACRIFICE TO DREAD YUM CIMIL
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Where will we put our green zone in the Democratic Candidate War of 2008?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
H. Clinton has been stumping on behalf of adoption and foster care for ten years. I'm still a little bit shocked she hasn't played that up. It's the truth.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
MattP -
Ironically, the media finally got it right when they said "Stewart slams media." What he did was an actual slam I'd say. The rather civil talk of the candidates is not a "slam."
Icarus -
I don't think Obama was really hoping that Kennedy would get him YOUR vote. Voters in Massachusetts are what he's likely aiming for, and the voters in any state the senator in question actually represents are the people they are hoping for. Senators rarely have cross state appeal. Besides, what they REALLY want, beyond the superdelegate vote, is the machinery that senator has in the state. They want the phone banks and volunteers and such. If it did work, you'd just be a bonus.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The media did not manufacture anything. If you have not caught what Bill Clinton has been saying, and recognized for yourself the same tactic he used against Jesse Jackson when he was running for president, then you simply are not politically astute. Politics must be very boring for you, if you have no depth perception.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There's no need to get personal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't say they are making anything up, they are just being melodramatic. It's the image they create. They make it sound like the candidates are frothing at the mouth and dueling with pistols. It's not nearly so animated. They ARE taking swipes at each other, but it's mostly under the breath one liners, or even straight up one liners, but they aren't the diatribes that the media are reporting.
I know a sensationalist report is a lot more dramatic and people probably tune in more, but it's not true, and it actually changes our national political process, which makes it irresponsible.
Edit to add:
The type of sensationalism they have been doing would be like me saying that when you call me "not politically astute," it'd be like me reporting that as "Ron wildly attacks Lyrhawn with personal swipe."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK, let me put it this way. If you are politically astute enough to see what is going on beneath the surface appearances, politics can be really fascinating.
Just to be clear, I am not a supporter of Sen. Obama. I voted for Sen. John McCain in the primary in Michigan. I just had to comment on the significant endorsement Obama received today, and point out the implications of the negative comments Sen. Kennedy made about the way certain people are campaigning, along with the political context. Bill Clinton has used this tactic before. He got away with it then, because he was subtle about it, and it was not clear what he was about until it had happened. Not so now, and Bill Clinton is angry at the media only because they spotted him using the same tactic again and called him on it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Great link riv.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Blame my dad, who told me about the story. Google did the rest. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The media did not manufacture anything. If you have not caught what Bill Clinton has been saying, and recognized for yourself the same tactic he used against Jesse Jackson when he was running for president, then you simply are not politically astute. Politics must be very boring for you, if you have no depth perception.
Ron, Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton have never run for president the same year. Jackson ran in 1984 and 1988.
So I have no idea what tactic of Clinton's you're referring to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The type of sensationalism they have been doing would be like me saying that when you call me "not politically astute," it'd be like me reporting that as "Ron wildly attacks Lyrhawn with personal swipe."
RON AND LYRHAWN ENGAGED IN APOCALYPTIC SUPER SAIYIN CONFLICT OF CENTURY
LYRHAWN ASKS PEOPLE OF EARTH TO GIVE ENERGY TO SPIRIT BALL TO FINISH FIGHT
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
lol, I don't see CNN devolving to Dragon Ball Z references.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The democratic primary race has been remarkably clean as far as I can tell. At least in comparison to the GOP.
quote: Open war? Hardly. The GOP side is closer to open war than the Democratic side.
quote: The whole thing has been incredibly overblown by the media. Every time they say someone "lashed out" or "attacked" another candidate, they make it look far worse than it really is. If you really look at what they are saying, it's really not that heated at all. The media are being sensationalist to a wreckless degree.
Unless of course you are talking about Republicans in which case there is no limit to the war they are raging against each other. Or were those first two quotes sensationalist to a wreckless degree?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Samprimary, you made my lungs bleed.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
THAT'S MY SCHOOL!!!!
Sadly, I wasn't there to see the speech, but a bunch of my friends did, and they said it was amazing. I wish I could have been there, but apparently the line to see him was enormous. People got up at 6 am, just to see him speak.
As for the Kennedy's endorsing him, it will certainly help, rather than hinder. The Kennedy's have a kind of legendary status in my state (Massachusetts) and they are still one of the leading families in the state. I know my brother, for one, has a intense love of all things Kennedy. I don't know how many people it will help sway, but it certainly can't help.
Rivka, I love that link. I never knew about it, and I think that's an amazing story that should be told. But I can completely understand why Obama doesn't really want to flaunt it. To me that just seems a little bit personal.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Great Link rivka.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Today, in a very emotional public event before a boisterous crowd at American University in Washington, D.C., Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy, brother of slain former president John F. Kennedy, conferred the mantle of JFK on Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.
Evidently they forgot the part of the ceremony where the previous owner of the mantle ascends to heaven in a chariot of fire.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What is the gist of rivka's link? It's blocked from my work, unfortunately.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Kennedy was appealed to by an "airlift" scholar exchange program, and funded the travel of Barack Obama's father to the United States. There he married Obama's mother. He left the family when Obama was 2 to go to Harvard, which is kind of sad. I suppose I should read one of Obama's books in more detail because it's very interesting to me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
gist of rivka's link:
In the late 1950s, Mboya, a labor leader in Kenya was trying to establish a scholarship program to bring Kenyans to study at US Universities. When negotiations broke down with the state department, he contacted then senator Kennedy who was head of the Senate committee on Africa. Kennedy arranges a $100,000 grant from his families foundation to keep the program running. It was under this grant, that Barak Obama Sr came to the US to study where he meet and married Barak juniors mother.
The article also talks some about the current chaos in Kenya and Obama's relationship with different parties in the conflict.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
By the way, I love that they called the crowd at American University "boisterous." That's my school for you!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Are you the one I gave a ride home from that hotel party?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The media did not manufacture anything. If you have not caught what Bill Clinton has been saying, and recognized for yourself the same tactic he used against Jesse Jackson when he was running for president, then you simply are not politically astute. Politics must be very boring for you, if you have no depth perception.
Ron, Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton have never run for president the same year. Jackson ran in 1984 and 1988.
So I have no idea what tactic of Clinton's you're referring to.
That's because you lack Ron's depth perception. He's able to see depth, not just in space, but in time as well. I'm afraid you are just not politically astute, Morbo.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Evidently they forgot the part of the ceremony where the previous owner of the mantle ascends to heaven in a chariot of fire.
And the section where Ted Kennedy gives the Matrix of Leadership for Obama to light his darkest hour.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Morbo, you appear to be right--Walter Mondale was the Democratic nominee in the campaign for president in 1984. But the tactic Clinton used to head off Jesse Jackson from winning the nomination was indeed as stated.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But the tactic Clinton used to head off Jesse Jackson from winning the nomination was indeed as stated.
Despite Bill Clinton not running for President then or having anything to do with the Mondale campaign? Are you saying he did this just for the heck of it?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Evidently they forgot the part of the ceremony where the previous owner of the mantle ascends to heaven in a chariot of fire.
And the section where Ted Kennedy gives the Matrix of Leadership for Obama to light his darkest hour.
Arrrggg!!! To what depths have we sunk when a classic biblical reference is met with a Transformer cartoon!! Transformers don't even wear mantles!!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Transformers are bigger than Jesus.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Irami, as long as Obama's campaign rallies don't start playing You've Got the Touch over the loudspeakers...
I have to say, while I find the story amusing (and historically interesting), I'm a bit taken aback by how much Obama supporters react to it. Why does it matter? (Honest question -- I don't get it.)
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
yeah, pooka, that was me. And for those of you who want to actually see the endorsement, here it is.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess there's something cool about knowing Obama's very existence was made possible by JFK.
"made possible by..."
Sounds like how they intro sponsors on PBS.
(Evie: Well hi there! I thought your handle had an A in it for some reason.)
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
I totally agree. It just makes it so much sweeter. Nope, it's me. You probably just got confused because my real name is Abby. That's probably where you got it from. No worries.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That would do it. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
For the record, I totally dig my imagery, especially if one casts Howard Dean as Ultra Magnus.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Irami, as long as Obama's campaign rallies don't start playing You've Got the Touch over the loudspeakers...
--Enigmatic
If Obama played Dare or You've Got the Touch at a campaign rally, I'd vote for him just for that.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: The democratic primary race has been remarkably clean as far as I can tell. At least in comparison to the GOP.
Unless of course you are talking about Republicans in which case there is no limit to the war they are raging against each other. Or were those first two quotes sensationalist to a wreckless degree?
I really don't think either side is approaching anything like open war. Just that the GOP field is a much more open race, and they're struggling more to gain a lead. Both sides in this have been fairly clean, in my estimation. But with the republicans there's been rampant push-polling again. The campaigns themselves most likely aren't running the robo-calls, but they're not exactly falling over themselves to denounce them either. And then there was Huckabee's nonsense with the attack ad he decided to "pull" because of a change of heart.
The main idea, I suppose, is that if the charge of "open war" should be leveled at anyone, it shouldn't be the democrats. I don't personally think the GOP is operating that way either, so maybe we can all just agree to blame the media again.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Icarus -
I don't think Obama was really hoping that Kennedy would get him YOUR vote. Voters in Massachusetts are what he's likely aiming for, and the voters in any state the senator in question actually represents are the people they are hoping for. Senators rarely have cross state appeal. Besides, what they REALLY want, beyond the superdelegate vote, is the machinery that senator has in the state. They want the phone banks and volunteers and such. If it did work, you'd just be a bonus.
Fair enough.
But I think Kennedy has a negative effect on anybody who has ever heard of Chappaquiddick, for one thing.
(Not enough to actually change my vote, though.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Could be. I don't know enough about New England voters to know how they feel about Kennedy.
I wonder though, how many people who were already wanting to vote for Obama are going to say "Well if Ted Kennedy likes him, that just totally ruins it for me, I'm going to vote for someone else."
Generally I find endorsements like that have a much, much bigger benefit than they do a negative effect. But I'm more than curious to hear the other side of that question. Kennedy makes no difference to me one way or the other. Maybe if Rush Limbaugh backed Obama or Ann Coulter I'd start to question Obama, but that's my point of view, I don't know how people who hate Kennedy view the matter, it could be the same way.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, like I said, it doesn't turn me away. But maybe the issue isn't people who were going to vote for him, but people who were undecided. Kennedy will bring some of those in, of course, but he could conceivably push some of those away as well. The message Obama's selling is one of a changing paradigm of how we view government. I don't associate Ted Kennedy with change. I see him as very much an old guard Democrat.
As for New Englanders, I can only assume they love him, since they keep electing him. Just one more way New Englanders always root for the wrong guy.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Excuse me, are you saying that all New Englanders always root for the wrong guy? That is merely a matter of opinion. I personally think, as a New Englander, that we vote for the people who will best represent our country and do the best for change and to make our country a better place. I honestly don't think we root for the wrong guy, just like I think you can't bunch all of us together. I think that I, as a person from Massachusetts (and proud of that fact), I like what the Kennedy's have done for my state. I think they have been loyal in terms of doing what is right for my state and putting the beliefs and needs of the people first. I also like the ideals of both JFK and RFK and I believe that they did a lot for this country and I wish they were still here. I really don't appreciate you attacking all New Englanders that way. I like who I vote for. You may have a different opinion, and I completely respect that, but please don't try to assume things about my part of the country, and I'll try to do the same.
As for the Kennedys, yes, I do love him. Heck, my brother has a kind of man-crush on JFK. I think they could have done great things, just like I think Obama could do great things if given the chance. It's time for a change. This country needs to get our faces out of our butts and deal with the world today, instead of constantly looking at the past. We need someone who's going to make the changes that need to happen for the next generation, so that I can have something to look forward to, so that people like me can be proud of being American. Because, right now, I'm not proud. I'm abroad right now, and a lot of the times I'm ashamed to be American, especially when I'm asked to defend my country's stance on so many things, not least of which is the war in Iraq. I want something to be proud of, and I think Obama is the best person to help us achieve that.
Edit to add: I challenge you to find anyone who can argue the fact that Ted Kennedy hasn't been one of the most dedicated public servants in government. He has worked for the last 46 years in the government trying to make this country a better place for all of us.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Do you like the Red Sox? Do you like the Patriots? Do you like the Celtics?
'Nuff said.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Wait? What are you saying about my sports teams? And how is that an indication of how we're always wrong? The Red Sox have won the World Series twice in 4 years. The Patriots won three in a row, and are on their way to a completely perfect season. The Celtics, yes have been crap, but they're actually pretty good at the moment. How does that mean we're always wrong? Your argument makes no sense.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You like evil teams.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Don't you live in or around Orlando? Other than the questionable Magic, do you guys even have any teams? Disney characters don't count. Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Evil teams? How are my teams evil? My teams kick butt! I dare you to find a bigger fan than Red Sox fans. They don't exist. The movie Fever Pitch was made about them for a reason.
And why such a hatred for my teams? I don't understand. We have no qualms with Orlando. Orlando's cool. Mickey lives there.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually Fever Pitch was a remake of a European film about a fanatic of a soccer team.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Yeah yeah yeah, I know. But, of all the American baseball teams they could have used, they used mine. That's because our fans are awesome. And somewhat crazy. But that's another story. But you still haven't answered my question. Why do you hate Boston teams so much?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Because they are evil.
And because their fans are obnoxious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well to be fair, the Red Sox bought their World Series titles. Or at least I think you can make that argument. You might not have a half billion dollar salaray like the Yankees do, but you aren't far behind.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Oh, let's not even get into this. Our fans are not obnoxious. We're passionate. And we did NOT buy our title. The Dice-K deal was a great marketing scheme and paid for itself a hundred times over with marketing from Japan. And we have such a better farm system than anything the Yankees have. The Yankees are evil, if anything. They buy their talent. Some of our best guys on the team were rookies that we brought up from our farm system and trained and took the time to use properly. Clay Buchholz pitched a no-hitter, and no one had ever HEARD of him until this year. Jacoby Ellsbury? Amazing, and a rookie and he came up from our farm system. The Yankees do nothing like that. They try to buy the big names and then whinge when they get injured.
PS. Don't get me started on this subject. I could be up all night talking about this, and I have class in 8 hours. If you want to talk to me about Boston teams, let me know, and we'll have a chat online. I'm totally ready for a debate.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: Some of our best guys on the team were rookies that we brought up from our farm system and trained and took the time to use properly. Clay Buchholz pitched a no-hitter, and no one had ever HEARD of him until this year. Jacoby Ellsbury? Amazing, and a rookie and he came up from our farm system. The Yankees do nothing like that. They try to buy the big names and then whinge when they get injured.
Right. I suppose you've never heard of Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, and Ian Kennedy.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Okay, so they do have some guys who came up from the farm system, but I honestly think that they don't use their farm system as much as they could. Plus, I hate the Yankees with a fiery passion of a thousand suns.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)