Great Jumping Horny Toads! Kennedy Endorses Obama
 

I'm speechless:speechls: Ted Kennedy has just endorsed Obama. There are now officially two major camps in the Democratic party. Screw the Kerry-Hillary endorsement, a Kennedy endorsement for a Democratic candidate is big. This really does indicate that Obama has arrived and has the support of at least some of the Democratic leadership.

If this goes past Super Tuesday and no back room deal is reached, the convention is going to resemble 1969 (sans riots), complete with anti-war protests.

In fact, both parties might have their primary contests settled at their conventions. If you're a political junkie, this might be a once in a lifetime experience.

If you go to Intrade, though, the betting still favors Hillary at 61.5 to Obama's 38.5, which indicates both price and percent betting on victory. It's actually more like stock in that you can sell shares at any time. If it was actually legal, I would put down some Obama money because I think that 38.5 is way too low.

You are absolutely right. A Kennedy endorsement is second only to Bill Clinton and on par with one from Al Gore. This is a major coup for Obama.

Rumor has it that Gore is going to announce his support just before Super Tuesday - perhaps Sunday. Definitely a race to watch!

Where's W.H.I.P. when you need him?

I think we can narrow down the field now that several primaries have passed. Let's see... black man, female, old white guy, and mormon. Let me break out my magical 8 ball to see's who's going to win... shake it...
old white guy.
Wait, let me shake it again...
old white guy.
I'll try again...
old white guy.
Hmmm... on the floaty thingy the only choices are old white guy. I guess this thing was made 50 years ago.
Luckily I like McCain.

After a president named Mitt, the only logical following will be one named Biff or Buffy. Is this really the road we want to go down?

I didn't realize until I read an article yesterday bashing Hillary's camp for bashing Obama that his middle name is Hussein.
I know its a common name, but its funny to think we might go from GWB who toppled (Saddam) Hussein to Barack Hussein Obama as Prez.

Coincidence? I think not!

Just don't name any Teddy bears after him.

An endorsement from an old drunk guy that got away with killing his girl friend. Yea, what a coup. Kennedy is a frigging idiot.

He is, as pointed out in the article no one will read, a human-alcohol hybrid.

I havta say, I went to the Target Center Obama rally yesterday along with 20K+ other Americans to see for myself, and I was very very inspired. He was amazing.

I caught the UCLA rally with Michelle Obama (also amazing) and he picked up Maria Shriver's endorsement now, too!

Why? What he said? How he said it? Ability to work the crowd?

A. the crowd: Young, Old, Male, Female, All Colors, All engaged and concerned.

B. What he said:
1. Promises- yeah, hear them from all but... rooted in the tough reality of the sorts of change he advocates. Accountability, strategy, common cause.
2. His own personal international perspective. Strength and defense through Diplomacy. Engagement. Negotiation. Respect. I did not doubt his ability to be commander and chief, a much better commander and chief on day one.
3. A sense that he understands much first hand and is able and willing to surround himself with intelligent and able people- He struck me as wise.
4. The leverage and value and tremendous potential of turning a new page with the will and brains behind it.

How he said it:
1. Leader. Presidential. Articulate. Smart. Creative. Sincere. Ethical .
2. Its not trickle down change he's talking about. He hammered that home.

Working the crowd:
He bashed Bush/Cheney only once- large response segue into foreign policy.
He evoked Paul Wellstone once - has his old Senate desk supporting his Iraq stance, truth, ethics.
He praised Edwards once- segue into poverty issues
He evoked his daughters' future twice, as his reason for entering race- the critical time is now.
He evoked his mother's death and her struggle with health coverage during her illness seque into universal coverage
He evoked his father leaving and being raised by a young, single mom segue into education, work security, economics, crushing student loans.

A Kennedy endorsement is huge. Elephants walk by a Kennedy endorsement and go "Wow...that's fuckin' huge." Personally, my politics matched John Edwards the most out of the Big 3 Democrats, but I can get behind Barack Obama. He's an electrifying speaker, the only viable candidate who was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and I agree with Warch; he seems to have a certain wisdom, an acknowledgement of the fact that his plans may not be perfect, but they're moving in the right direction. I think that he invokes a youthful, energetic quality that we haven't seen since JFK, and that he's what a frustrated country needs following an era of mistrust and cynicism in politics.

Roosevelt had bears. Perhaps the Barack Badger is in order?

He has a son named Tagg. Tagg. T A Double G. This shouldn't matter, but it does. Tagg, for fuck's sake.

I've been impressed with his ability to speak, but playing devils advocate, if the mixed crowd was all "engaged and concerned", they were probably looking for a savior and heard what they wanted to hear. Jimmy Carter did that for those of us that were disgusted, too. I wonder if Obama can sway the only semi-interested crowd?

I'd say it was a split, like in any rally. Half looking for salvation, half looking for a real candidate.

I hope he can really deliver on his promises, if elected.
Being an old fart that's been disappointed so many times, I can't help but think......

Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

I know. I'm old too. And realistic. But I just don't want to give completely in to cynicism. There's good. And there will be bad too, with any of them. Nothing better will happen if you don't even try to chip away at it, take a new tact.

Along with national security, Healthcare's a huge one to tackle.

I always knew you are smarter than the average bear... and voter.

We all need someone to lean on.... If, there is a load, that you have to bear, ...

helloooo Booobooo!

I am disappointed with the shallowness of many Americans to take a drunkards endorsement of a candidate and comparison to JFK.

First and foremost, Americans have always romanticized the Kennedy presidency. He is the youngest President, the first to skillfully manipulate the media. Beautiful wife, darling children - women wanted him and men wanted to be him. He had incredible approval ratings - never below 50%, and once as high as 80%. However, during his short presidency we had the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile crisis - the closest we have come to nuclear war. I often wonder if the media had covered his extramarital affairs like they did Clinton if he would have had the same approval ratings and if America would still have the Camelot image. I also don't know if our love affair would have continued had he not been assisinated, and became an old man like the rest of the Presidents.

In truth, Kennedy's depth and experience (or should I say lack of)before Presidency is similar to Obama's. He won because he was able to manipulate the media. He "won" television debates because of his appearance, not his answers. Radio listeners felt Nixon won the debates, not Kennedy, but television viewers saw Nixon as tense and uncomfortable, and deemed Kennedy the winner. He was poetic, speaking of change and service. It was a new message then. Obama has dusted off this campaign trick and is using it wisely. He seems to transcend politics and bring hope to those desparate for a message of hope. But is it real?

His voting record indicates he is not an agent of change. In an effort to avoid any challenges to his votes, he has chosen not to make a decision. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us...cs/20obama.htm
He has gained momentum in the African American community, but the funny thing is - he does not have the traditional "African American" experience and has not had the trials and tribulations as those that are supporting him. He is not the descendent of slaves - but his mother's side were slave owners. He did not grow up in a prejudiced society - he went to a Catholic elementary school in Indonesia, followed by being raised by white grandprents in a very racially diverse and much more accepting state of Hawaii. He has little in common with the African American voters he is swaying. I heard on the radio a Mexican immigrant (legal) stating he was supporting Obama because Obama was from a family of immigrants like him. Ummm, Obama's father was not an immigrant, he was a foreign student who went back to Kenya, and his mother's family has been in America for centuries. People see what they want to see in Obama; they don't see what he actually is.

Obama's message of hope, while uplifting, is too shallow to survive a Presidency in which he has to make vital decisions, and appoint experienced leaders in key positions. We need someone who can lead us out of Iraq, back into international diplomatic graces, and back into an economic prosperity. He lacks the experience and the ability to make decisions. It takes more than poetry to lead.

Just my thoughts.

So who are you endorsing aimee? Who is the proponent of change? Who is going to make the majority of Americans proud of this country again?
I'm all ears - I have no real draw to any of these candidates.

Hmmmm

That's a funny cartoon.

Given the choices of Obama (no), Clinton (yes), McCain (yes) and Romney (won't get nomination)...
I'm either voting for Clinton or McCain. Clinton is a Washington insider - which is not a bad thing at this point in time. Under her hubby, we were in good graces with our allies, and had a good economy. Is she another Bill? No. But does she know the right people to appoint to key positions? Yes. That was GWBs fatal error - appointing his fathers Cold War croonies in an era that needed Globalization experience or at least knowledge, not leaders who thought in terms of "we won the Cold War our way". But I digress. Anyway, Clinton knows who to appoint. She listens to advisors. She doesn't just change her position on the whim of the population, but she does change when she facts and opinion support a different approach. Do I think she'll bring, hmm, I can't think of the right word, but something like pride and 'Camelot' into the White House? No. Would that be nice? Yes. Is it the most important thing now? No. McCain - I don't believe in all of his positions, but he's a straight shooter, follows his heart and gut instinct. He has the experience. There is a bit of fear he'll be another cowboy diplomat... but I think he's learned from GWB. Overall, I think McCain makes sound, solid, reasonable decisions. He makes decisions - period.
I don't dislike Romney... I just don't think he'll get the nomination.

I was listening to CSPAN radio on y horrid morning commute today. Several callers in a row stating they dislike McCain and Clinton, like Obama and Romney. It got to the point I thought CSPAN was only putting on callers who thought that way. However, there was one caller that I had to go "huh?" He was a conservative republican that thinks McCain is "horrible. A liberal." The caller went to his appearance (I want to say Missouri) only in the hope of being able to tell him to his face that he was "a horrible person". So already a bit of a lunatic. But he said he would vote for Obama if McCain got the nomination because McCain is really a liberal. Huh? Another caller really liked Obama, likes his message of unity. When asked if Clinton got the nomination, would he vote for her, all he said was he would support the democratic party because thats what we need to do. Refused to say her name.

Another funny thing was my husband and I were talking - and I can't remember which one of us said it first - but Romney is the candidate that looks like a President. And we both agreed on it. My new cube mate, Rhiannon, said the exact same thing. I think Romney would have a Presidency appearance of, hmm, not Camelot, but the closest to it in a while. I just honestly don't think he'll get the nomination. I could be wrong. But a lot of people have issues with him being a Mormon.

I honestly believe it will be McCain versus either Clinton or Obama (too close to call right now). And I think McCain will win. If Edwards was the democratic nominee, I think he would win. The primary process unfortunately doesn't choose who would be the best opposition to a viable republican candidate - it just chooses who the democrats like the most. I didn't know a lot about Biden, but he seemed to be a viable candidate as well.

I am not looking for a savior or to resurrect JFK. I want a change for the good but I am either a sceptic or a realist. I don't think someone can change a system like ours just because they say they can. (HOW) change can be accomplished hasn't been answered.


good points aimeecc 'cept McCain scares me. Is he going to be a war monger too? Or revert to the McCain of long ago? He's got bushy all over him.

I think McCain scares a lot of people. People see Bush in him. I can understand why. But there is absolutely no love lost between him and Bush. The two can't stand each other.

My opinion, based on what I see (and we all view things through our own experiences) is that McCain will not be as diplomatic as Clinton or Obama. And that is needed. Desparately needed. But he won't be as bad as Bush. Maybe its that I hope he won't be anywhere near as bad as Bush. I'd like him to support troop withdraw, don't like his statements that we'll be there 100 years if that's what it takes (he really should not have said that), but he does defend his position on staying in Iraq well (in short, we need to ensure the Iraqi gvernment can survive before we withdraw). I don't agree with his reasoning, but the reasoning isn't flawed or wrong. I just disagree with it.

I do not believe he'll be a cowboy diplomat. However, other nations may percieve him to be another Bush, another cowboy diplomat. Which won't help.

I found this on PolitiFact.com http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...onomic-policy/

I cut out those that were no longer contenders. Romney seems to have the most extensive plan. Both McCain's and Obama's is weak. I like Clinton's, particularly increasing child-care credit. I spent over $8,000 in child care for 8 months (and not at an expensive academy - just the going rate here) - but the max allowable to claim is $3,000, and then depending on your tax bracket, only a percentage of that (for me, 20% of $3,000 = $600).

Candidate of change? Seriously? Classic you are smarter than that. None of the candidates are really proponents for change. Not in the way you mean it, anyway. The only real change any of them are interested in is seeing their address change. Real proponents of change wouldn't survive in politics long enough for you to even learn their names. Every person in the race has been around long enough and compromised enough that the only hope for change you'll find is in their rhetoric. Once the winner moves into the White House they will begin their reelection campaign so they won't want to make too many enemies.

If you need a president to make you proud of the country then the country isn't worth being proud of anyway. Our nation is a great nation because of the people you meet everyday - not the douchebags on tv. The people that wake up every day, go to work, and try to improve life for their families. The people that have to make hard decisions everyday (are getting new tires more important than replacing the refrigerator this month?) are far more important than the people who talk year in and year out about medical care. The family that weighs the risk and decides it is better to start their own small business than spend another day working for someone else, contribute more to our economy than all the suits talking about tax code combined. The woman who is worried about paying for the kids' school supplies but still manages to give a couple bucks to the guy on the corner is doing more for the poor than all the jokers debating the size and scope of tax rebates.

Be proud of the country based on the real people in it, not the assholes that get elected.

Hmmm. Its a bit more complicated isn't it? If you are truly a swell people in a representational republic, worthy of a sense of pride, yet misrepresented at best, incompetently and dangerously around the globe for years, you have a duty to change it. That's where the pride of country comes in... a peoples' civic ability to peacefully alter their government to best represent their values and interests.

Its messy but its worth working on. See, on levels big and small, that's why most people get up in the morning and go to work. They somehow manage to balance the cynicism with a little hope.

As to amieecc good comments- I'm convinced of depth and ability beyond Obama's pretty face and rhetoric. But a lot of my friends are desperate for their best shot at universal healthcare and are solid for Clinton. I can understand that.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a President you'd be proud to have. A lot of people do a lot for America - but guess who's face we see and the rest of the world see's every day? Its none of the every day heroes. Its the President, and Britney Spears.

I'm proud of me and my husband. I'm proud of my brothers and sisters. I'm proud of my son. I'm proud of the people who volunteer their time to help others. I'm proud of those that serve our nation - whether its the Marine Corps or Peace Corps or diplomatic corps. But I, like a lot of Americans, want a leader I can be proud of, a leader who will lead our nation through this tough time, put us on the right footing with other nations, and make our economy strong again. He (or she) doesn't need to be handsome and debonair, doesn't need a chest full of medals, and doesn't need a sqqueky clean family picture to make me proud. Just needs leadership ability.

Right on!

I'd add that they need to lead in the right direction. I don't want to follow a strong leader off a cliff.

Good discussion. Hillary is not the answer. Obama, maybe, McCain, maybe. I don't know. If Hitlery gets the nod from the Dems I will vote for Donald Duck if he is the Repub canidate.

But Wesley Snipes like Hillary's tax cut proposal.

I'm honestly happy that at this point, no matter who goes to the general election of the few candidates left, it won't be as bad as the choices 4 years ago. It really was 'who's the lesser of two evils' question for me. I don't think I'd be unhappy with any of them this go round.

So what's wrong with Clinton?

Personally, I am proud to be an American, but I hear so much from so many that it troubles me a great deal. Thats why I said what I said.
Aside from than that, I agree with you.

There isn't enough paper on the planet to answer that.

How about the top 5... 3... 1?

#1 seems to be that she's a Clinton.

Everything.:cool:

I don't know how you'd stand listening to her voice for the next 4-8 yrs to be honest.

She sounds like a fishwife.

Here are the basic frames I see:

Shrill, Femi-nazi, Tough, Manipulative, Slippery (slimed by Bill), Ruthless, Driven, Demanding, Angry, Built-in network to the Democratic partisan machine.

Old, Unstable, Hot Tempered, Loudmouth, Two-faced, Power hungry, Manipulative, Lacking Governing Skill, Bush-light, Riding his War record.

Naive, Black Male= (unstable, angry, threatening, untrustworthy, unelectable), Manipulative, Insincere, Idealistic, Unprepared, Muslim, Terrorist.

Mormon freak, Corporate slime, Vain Power-hungry pretty boy, heir to the Bush policy and political machine legacy.

Preacher, Theocratic, Clueless hick, unprepared, Bushian feel for constitution, Tax and spend, naive, idealistic.

A republican friend passed this on to me:

1) She's a Clinton or a Bush.
2) She's "Hillary" Clinton.
3) Here Husband is Bill Clinton.
4) List of Clinton Scandals.
5) Stance on Taxes.
6) Stance in Iraq.
7) Look at her.
8) Listen to her.
9) Lack of action with Wal-Mart situation.
10) Political beliefs are contrary to mine.

I only see 4,5,6,9 & 10 as valid, but that's certainly enough to make an opinion.


Oh, and congrats to Warch, you done did it.

yeah most of the others weren't all that serious, but still. I think we need some fresh blood in there - NOT a Clinton nor Bush.

I can more than understand your disgust with past.

I honestly didn't like her 8-16 years ago. Thought of her as a femi-Nazi, thought running for Senate in NY was slimy...

I guess over the last several years I've actually listened to her, and not put her in the neat little stereotypical boxes that we all love to do to public figures. I hear people call her disengenuine. Its not that I disagree, but I don't think Obama or any of the others are genuine either. They just mask it better. I don't agree with all her stances, but I think she takes a reasoned approach and has a wealth of experienced and sound advisors. She has more depth to her answers than the pretty words used by Obama. They are all power hungry.

Its not just the President you elect, but who you think they'll bring in as cabinet members. I think Clinton's will be far more in line with what I want in a cabinet than any of the others. The others will either go with unexperienced, or old school, or a brand of far left or far right that I do not support in the least.

When I take the various candidate tests (MSNBC has one as well), I come closest to McCain and Obama - mostly because my positions don't fall neatly along party lines. But as I've said before, Obama lacks experience, is naive and refuses to admit it, and fails to make decisions because he doesn't want to upset anyone. He speaks of change, but to afraid to make change, for fear it would go on his record. He's just as disengenuine as Clinton - to hear him talk to African Americans like he is one of them, using their language, is pathetic. He isn't. To court the Hispanic vote like he's 1st generation immigrant is wrong. To portray himself as having international experience because he spent a few years in elementary in Indonesia is wrong. To portray himself as a common man is wrong as well. He was just as privileged and sheltered as Clinton - a different background, certainly, but not one of the common man. If there was another 9/11, I would be most uncomfortable with Obama as President. McCain's ok. I wouldn't be upset with him as President.

As far as Clinton's stance (1st time) on Iraq, she has stood by her decision based on the information at the time. Had the information been clearer, she would have voted differently. I also think she voted for it because she didn't want to be portrayed as unsupportive. That would of had its own backlash as well, and shown a divided nation to the world. It was easy for a relatively unknown Obama to make statements against it. He even stated in an interview that he couldn't say how he would have voted had he been in Congress at the time since he did not have access to the intelligence reports Congressmen/women made their decisions on. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-..._and_iraq.html

I was against the war in Iraq not for any of the normal given reasons - WMD or no WMD? Are they a threat or not? Then (later) freedom for the Iraqi people, making the world more democratic. I was against it because I knew it was a civil war waiting to happen. Countries that are so ethnically divided, polarized as Iraq unfortunately need the equivalent to a dictator to suppress civil war. Its a nasty part of life, but democracies don't work in polarized nations. http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/
Not bad reasoning, but not exactly profound or inspired either. And easy to make a speech and not be required to vote. I think he would have voted "present" had he been in Congress, his way of not being accountable for his votes.

This is the reason Obama appeals to me despite his political positions. He isn't a polarizing figure. He speaks respectfully of other peoples beliefs. He seems to take the time to understand the oppositions perspective. Clinton, on the other hand, carries the burden of being extremely polarizing. I think our country needs to tone down the rhetoric for a while.

I think she voted for it because Democrats have been afraid for a long time to be painted with the "soft on defense" brush. She wanted to appear tough. Also, the public was still out for blood after 9/11. She was afraid to go against public opinion polls.

I didn't trust anything Bush was saying during the lead-up to war. How could she have? WMDs? No way. The inspectors had access to every facility in Iraq, and found nothing. Since then, all we found were some old corroded non functioning shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Bush was lying about WMDs, and I suspected it at the time. Clinton should have too. The burden of proof to go to war should be extraordinarily high. It wasn't with Iraq, and there was no reason for her to vote for war.

She has created this nice excuse that Bush deceived her, but what does that say about her? That she can be deceived?

I am a Democrat, and I was ashamed of all the members of my party who voted for the war. They were a bunch of spineless wimps rolling over so Bush could have his way with them. All because they were afraid to stand up to him and the public. True leaders wouldn't have acted that way.

If Clinton was a true leader, she would have stood up to Bush and public opinion. She would have changed public opinion instead of following it.

I think Obama would have his pick of the best and would take it. Clinton's braintrust includes a brand of polarizing old left that needs some airing.

I think they both have pretty good middle class stories. Hillary growing up in the 50s in the midwest and Obama in Hawaii/Indonesia in the 60s-70s with his mom and grandparents. And they are as common as all the strange histories and family constructions you can find anywhere. Their parents worked and the ambitious smart kids went to college. Where's the uncommon privilege and shelter?

Seems like running for president on a ticket of hope and change, taking on the party's heir apparent is pretty boldly decisive and out there and on his permanent record, and has upset some peeps. He seems to be pretty clear on how serious and hard this venture will be, maybe not so naive as just less cynical.

I feel I should add that although I admire Obama and long to break these polarizing old dynasties, I think Clinton is a close second for me based on her generally solid policy positions, most notably healthcare. I'm wondering what a combined ticket would could portend...

What exactly about her healthcare ideas appeals to you?

Some would view an upper middle class upbringing as privileged and sheltered. I did not say wealthy. They do not come from blue collar roots - the common man. Understanding those that live paycheck to paycheck for decades. Those that choose between health insurance and a car payment or groceries. Neither have experienced this, although Clinton is actually closer with her background. She is more solidly middle class.

Obama went to a private college prep school in Hawaii from the 5th grade on. Nothing common about that.

His campaign is just an ego boost - not decisiveness. Don't be fooled. What will Obama's next vote of "present" be on? If he can't decide to protect or not protect identities of sexual assualt victims, what can he decide on?

Hitlery Clinton is SSDD. She is NOT change. We are just swapping these dynasties back and forth. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. No more. Put an end to it now. Same coin, different side.

Well, you have defined the same reasons why so many feared Kennedy as President in 1959. Missing, though, is a fear based in religion. That was another reason why many saw Kennedy as a poor choice for president.

Yeah really - after she's done we can have President Jeb :lol:

Oh please do tell. I need to know this before the election.
C'mon -gimme, gimme, gimme.

Bias and ignorance by one who knows only using a conservative agenda is demonstated again.

As usual, classicman knows because he was there in 1959. Oh. He need not be there. Extremist conservative bias is enough to know.

classicman - the day you posted something was not convervative enough for you is the day we know you don't bother to learn before knowing. An intelligent classicman would have been interested in learning those comparison. Classicman's post is a blunt obvious insult. Being a moderate means learning facts before knowing. But classicman knows all about Kennedy because he were there. Did god tell you how to know?

Meanwhile, much of aimeecc's criticisms of Obama were similar criticisms of 1959 John Kennedy. He had no experience. He was a poor Senator. He could not possiblity relate to the poor and downtrodded Hispanics, WV Hillbillies, and negros (the word that was routinely used then). He had no international experience. He grew up in a sheltered, rich kid life. He could not stand up to our enemies (USSR). He was on an ego trip as any rich kid would be. His experience was too limited to find, identify, or know of talented subordinates. Just a few Kennedy criticisms in 1959 - many conclusions justified by accurate facts.

So why are we all alive today?

*Bold text = my emphasis*

Well now its my turn - no insult was intended nor implied - I actually wanted your insight and perspective on this issue. I was in a rush to post. Now I'm sorry I posted in haste and got nothing more than another indignant response from you. Such a waste.

Thanks for the "intelligent" compliment - ewven though you didn't really mean it :rolleyes:

I'm not saying I'll agree with your opinion tw - we all know that, but I am trying to get as much info and perspective from as many sources as possible before I cast another vote.

*Note* Please leave my relationship with God out of your future posts. Its not your place. Also, Kennedy was dead before I was born so the only perspective I have on his legacy is that which I've read, seen on tv or heard from older friends and family who were alive at the time.

Pssst - and just between you and me Tom, I voted for Obama on Tuesday in the primary. Perhaps you would have been able to infer that from some of my other posts (see 46 above for example) instead of just making rash assumptions about me. Let go of whatever bias you have please.