Ted Kennedy To Endorse Barack Obama

[replicator]

I'm a Canadian, but Obama is getting lots of press up here - very pro Obama, which I think is great. He is a very gifted orator, able to stir your imagination and unite people towards a common goal. I can't see how any thinking person would want Billary. US President office is a family business?

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: randym431
Endorsements don?t really matter, its voters.
Neither Kennedy, or Opra, or Kerry will matter except to Kennedy, Opra and Kerry.

I really don?t think Obama is electable.
He got a huge black vote in SC, but notice it was NOT Obama but
Edwards taking the white male vote.

This is very bad for Obama. I smell a republican in November of 2008.

Kennedy and Kerry are organized throughout the country. Combined with Leahy, basically all top-level Democrats are behind Obama. The only one missing is former President Clinton, for obvious reasons. Hillary had a lot of endorsements from mid-level Democrats early in her campaign, but now that Obama has taken over as the establishment candidate he will begin picking up more and more superdelegates.

As for the racial divide, this is why the party is getting pissed at the Clintons. They saw Obama pull in the white vote in Iowa, and only after race was injected into the debate (and let's not pretend it wasn't, with Bill's Jessie Jackson comments among others), it started to split that way. Obama still got 24% of the white vote so as long as these tensions ease up a bit he will take it back again, especially as white Democrats lose their alternatives.

BS. Senator Diane Feinstein (conservative Democrat) endorsed Hillary.
And Ted Kennedy has been a joke of a Senator for a long time, even to liberal Democrats.
This endorsement does not really help Obama much, and will be a real negative if he makes it to the presidential election.
John Kerry's endorsement? Worthless.
What's next, Jimmy Carter's endorsement?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: marincounty
And Ted Kennedy has been a joke of a Senator for a long time, even to liberal Democrats.

This is obviously a profoundly stupid statement.

He wouldn't have been re-elected with around 70% of the vote in 2006, (and remember there actually are some Republicans in Massachusetts) if he was actually disliked the way you assume he somehow must be. He probably especially does well among older Americans which is a demographic Obama wants to do better with. The reality is if all the Republicans can come up with in the general election against Obama is merely that Ted Kennedy has chosen to endorse him, the Republican Presidential candidate will lose in a landslide.

Kerry's endorsement did provide a variety of benefits, including access to his email list and potential campaign donors.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: marincounty
And Ted Kennedy has been a joke of a Senator for a long time, even to liberal Democrats.

This is obviously a profoundly stupid statement.

He wouldn't have been re-elected with around 70% of the vote in 2006, (and remember there actually are some Republicans in Massachusetts) if he was actually disliked the way you assume he somehow must be. He probably especially does well among older Americans which is a demographic Obama wants to do better with. The reality is if all the Republicans can come up with in the general election against Obama is merely that Ted Kennedy has chosen to endorse him, the Republican Presidential candidate will lose in a landslide.

Kerry's endorsement did provide a variety of benefits, including access to his email list and potential campaign donors.

Just because he is re-elected with 70% of the vote does not mean he is important or respected. He was both at one time, that time has passed.
Strom Thurmond kept getting elected too.
Don't be stupid, a Ted Kennedy endorsement is about as valuable as getting the KKK endorsement.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Just because he is re-elected with 70% of the vote does not mean he is important or respected. He was both at one time, that time has passed.
Strom Thurmond kept getting elected too.
Don't be stupid, a Ted Kennedy endorsement is about as valuable as getting the KKK endorsement.

You obviously are unwilling to talk about this very rationally. (I'm not sure if this is because you personally hate Ted Kennedy or hate Obama.)

Among various Democratic groups he does have a great deal of respect. This is perhaps less true of young people, but that's a group Obama is already doing well with. It doesn't exactly matter much what Republicans think of it for the Democratic primaries. The reality regardless is very few people don't vote for someone simply because they were endorsed by someone else, but it can be a positive in some cases.

You also certainly can't underrate the significance of the Obama= the next JFK association which really can end up effectively swaying some votes if people get convinced on this point.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: randym431
Endorsements don?t really matter, its voters.
Neither Kennedy, or Opra, or Kerry will matter except to Kennedy, Opra and Kerry.

I really don?t think Obama is electable.
He got a huge black vote in SC, but notice it was NOT Obama but
Edwards taking the white male vote.

This is very bad for Obama. I smell a republican in November of 2008.

Kennedy and Kerry are organized throughout the country. Combined with Leahy, basically all top-level Democrats are behind Obama. The only one missing is former President Clinton, for obvious reasons. Hillary had a lot of endorsements from mid-level Democrats early in her campaign, but now that Obama has taken over as the establishment candidate he will begin picking up more and more superdelegates.

As for the racial divide, this is why the party is getting pissed at the Clintons. They saw Obama pull in the white vote in Iowa, and only after race was injected into the debate (and let's not pretend it wasn't, with Bill's Jessie Jackson comments among others), it started to split that way. Obama still got 24% of the white vote so as long as these tensions ease up a bit he will take it back again, especially as white Democrats lose their alternatives.

Not all top level Dems. Those in the leadership roles in the Democratic Party(not committee chairs, but Speaker, Majority Leader, Majority Whip in both houses).

Some notables besides the leadership that are staying out at least for now, are Rep. Emannuel, Rep. Dingel. As for as I can tell, Rangel is the only major committee chair in the House who has backed anyone and he did it early in 2007. Very few Senators have backed anyone.

Most are waiting for a clear cut favorite or the convention if there isn't one. Although Kennedy might be able to drum up some other big name Dems.

Dingel hass

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: randym431
Endorsements don?t really matter, its voters.
Neither Kennedy, or Opra, or Kerry will matter except to Kennedy, Opra and Kerry.

I really don?t think Obama is electable.
He got a huge black vote in SC, but notice it was NOT Obama but
Edwards taking the white male vote.

This is very bad for Obama. I smell a republican in November of 2008.

Kennedy and Kerry are organized throughout the country. Combined with Leahy, basically all top-level Democrats are behind Obama. The only one missing is former President Clinton, for obvious reasons. Hillary had a lot of endorsements from mid-level Democrats early in her campaign, but now that Obama has taken over as the establishment candidate he will begin picking up more and more superdelegates.

As for the racial divide, this is why the party is getting pissed at the Clintons. They saw Obama pull in the white vote in Iowa, and only after race was injected into the debate (and let's not pretend it wasn't, with Bill's Jessie Jackson comments among others), it started to split that way. Obama still got 24% of the white vote so as long as these tensions ease up a bit he will take it back again, especially as white Democrats lose their alternatives.

BS. Senator Diane Feinstein (conservative Democrat) endorsed Hillary.
And Ted Kennedy has been a joke of a Senator for a long time, even to liberal Democrats.
This endorsement does not really help Obama much, and will be a real negative if he makes it to the presidential election.
John Kerry's endorsement? Worthless.
What's next, Jimmy Carter's endorsement?

First off Feinstein isnt a conservative democrat. Shes from CA, and San Fran no less. Shes one of the most liberal in the Senate. She also has less influence than Kennedy. Kennedy still holds a lot of influence.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: marincounty
And Ted Kennedy has been a joke of a Senator for a long time, even to liberal Democrats.

This is obviously a profoundly stupid statement.

He wouldn't have been re-elected with around 70% of the vote in 2006, (and remember there actually are some Republicans in Massachusetts) if he was actually disliked the way you assume he somehow must be. He probably especially does well among older Americans which is a demographic Obama wants to do better with. The reality is if all the Republicans can come up with in the general election against Obama is merely that Ted Kennedy has chosen to endorse him, the Republican Presidential candidate will lose in a landslide.

Kerry's endorsement did provide a variety of benefits, including access to his email list and potential campaign donors.

Just because he is re-elected with 70% of the vote does not mean he is important or respected. He was both at one time, that time has passed.
Strom Thurmond kept getting elected too.
Don't be stupid, a Ted Kennedy endorsement is about as valuable as getting the KKK endorsement.

You have no idea what you are talking about. So shut up.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: randym431
Endorsements don?t really matter, its voters.
Neither Kennedy, or Opra, or Kerry will matter except to Kennedy, Opra and Kerry.

I really don?t think Obama is electable.
He got a huge black vote in SC, but notice it was NOT Obama but
Edwards taking the white male vote.

This is very bad for Obama. I smell a republican in November of 2008.

what are you smoking??

 

[chowderhead]

Obama has Kennedy, Kerry and Governor Patrick but he is still trailing in Massachusetts by 37 points against Clinton.
link

Perhaps, they could also help Obama win Massachusetts since he is currently trailing John McCain in a general election match up by 5 points there.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

LOL, do you also find it amazing that the usual suspects that would normally denounce Sen. Kennedy as a drunk, a "liberal", and possibly a murderer are now prasing his actions??

Similar to how those who typically rush to defend the Kennedy legacy are now upset that he may endorse Obama, and cause the Clinton express to derail on a bridge in CT.

Who are these people? I see no example of that in this thread unless you want to construe a "har har he's a drunk" post as doing that...quite a stretch.

Had he endorsed Hillary, I guarantee you that the Clinton-hating crew here would have pounced all over him.

Exactly my point.

 

[nageov3t]

so, all he needs now is Gore to give Obama a pure trifecta of far left-wing losers

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Originally posted by: Dari
All these New England liberals' endorsements are one thing. Obama needs endorsements from Middle America and conservative America. I don't think he has any.

This is my thinking too. While he's gotten his East Coast support in Kerry and Kennedy I'd be interested to see/know if anyone in the southwest and west coast has gotten behind him as well. Those are the money states.

He's got a number of endorsements form Latino polititions (state Senate & Congress) from CA, particularly the LA area.

Fern

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

LOL, do you also find it amazing that the usual suspects that would normally denounce Sen. Kennedy as a drunk, a "liberal", and possibly a murderer are now prasing his actions??

Who are these people? I see no example of that posted before your post unless you want to construe "the hope train is steamrolling now" post as doing that...quite a stretch as it was obvious sarcasm.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Originally posted by: Dari
All these New England liberals' endorsements are one thing. Obama needs endorsements from Middle America and conservative America. I don't think he has any.

This is my thinking too. While he's gotten his East Coast support in Kerry and Kennedy I'd be interested to see/know if anyone in the southwest and west coast has gotten behind him as well. Those are the money states.

He's got a number of endorsements form Latino polititions (state Senate & Congress) from CA, particularly the LA area.

Fern

to be fair, Obama has received endorsements from Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and probably one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). Obama has also received the endorsement of Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona and is set to receive the endorsement of Kansas Governor. Kathleen Sebelius.

As for Latino voters, Clinton clearly has an advantage over Obama winning almost 2-1 among Latino voters and racking up more endorsements there.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obama must have bought him off with a case of Scotch.

Oh, come on. Doyou have any evidence of Ted Kennedy having a drinking problem in the last 10 or 20 years to justify this sort of knee-jerk character assassination?

 

[Pabster]

Ted Kennedy: 'Through Barack, I believe we will move beyond the politics of fear and personal destruction and unite our country with the politics of common purpose'

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obama must have bought him off with a case of Scotch.

Oh, come on. Doyou have any evidence of Ted Kennedy having a drinking problem in the last 10 or 20 years to justify this sort of knee-jerk character assassination?

you don't think alcoholism is a lifelong disease?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obama must have bought him off with a case of Scotch.

Oh, come on. Doyou have any evidence of Ted Kennedy having a drinking problem in the last 10 or 20 years to justify this sort of knee-jerk character assassination?

you don't think alcoholism is a lifelong disease?

It is. It is NOT necessarily a lifelong behavioral problem deserving of ridicule, or necessarily preventing Ted Kennedy from being a good Senator.

Show me footage of Ted Kennedy showing up drunk for a hearing, and I'll say the attack is justified. Don't, and I'll say it's unfair to give the guy no break for decades of good behavior.

IMO, it's an idiotic behavior to pigeon hole someone so much that the only response to their political views is 'Chappaquiddick' or 'alchoholic' based on events long ago.

It prevents the understanding and debate of actual issues that is important. If he has behaviors that are relevant to the political issues, raise them, if not, give it a rest.

It's one thing to note their history, but everyone here knows about Chappaquiddick. It was fine to note George Bush's drunk driving arrest, but it shouldn't be the response to every thread involving him. If he's found to be going around drunk again, fine. If you want to analyze the effects of his alcoholism, fine, but don't just say 'drunk driver' every time his name comes up in lieu of discussing the issues.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I'd estimate that Ted Kennedy's actual politics/votes/speeches get under 5% of the space in discussions about him.

 

[jonks]

How are a long string of endoresments of Washington insiders helpful to Obama's campaign when he is running on change and points to the very people endorsing him as emblematic of the broken system he's trying to fix? Are voters to think these incumbents have now seen the light and are going to no longer take lobbyist money, no longer run negative campaign ads, etc?

 

[randym431]

I'm so proud and thankful to have been quoted so much here

And I would LOVE to jump on the Obama band wagon,
but here are the facts.

iOwa...
Obama did win iOwa.
But, sadly, iOwa does the caucus thing.
Anyone knowing the flaws in the caucus system knows how crazy unfair
they are. Its held for hours, and only at night.
That locks out ANYONE on the job i.e. police, firemen, clerks etc etc that work nights.
The caucus system has no allowance for absentee voting, so night workers
(and there are many) are totally locked out. A flawed system. Not a true picture.

Now to S.C.
S.C. has a huge black vote, and they came out. And naturally they would?
I mean, maybe old Bill Clinton calls himself the first black president, but
that holds no water to Obama, a "real" black man running for president.

So... as loving some blacks are for the Clintons, they are not going to
vote Clinton if an Obama is running. Its a no brainier.
Thing is, Hillary should have conceded S.C. in the first place.
It was a big MY BAD for the Clintons to even think they had a chance there.

The fact the Clintons thought they had a chance in SC is worrisome on the
Clintons judgment abilities. That worries me more than anything for the Clintons
i.e. ability to run the country.

But...BUT, its not iOwa or SC that will be the test of test, its SUPER TUESDAY.
If Hillary bounces back big time, with hard core loyal democrats on Fed 5th,
this thread will be moot.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
How are a long string of endoresments of Washington insiders helpful to Obama's campaign when he is running on change and points to the very people endorsing him as emblematic of the broken system he's trying to fix? Are voters to think these incumbents have now seen the light and are going to no longer take lobbyist money, no longer run negative campaign ads, etc?

The people endorsing him, IMO, are not the problem that needs changing. The last 7 years are not the years of Ted Kennedy.

If George Bush, Tom DeLay, or Bill Frist endorse Barack, then I think he has some explaining to do.

 

[randym431]

Watching (live) Ted Kennedy up there endorsing Barack, I cant help but think or fear
any cross over Republicans just derailed over to McCain supporters.

Oh well...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Pabster
'Through Barack, I believe we will move beyond the politics of fear and personal destruction and unite our country with the politics of common purpose'

I didn't see that quote you're attributing to Ted Kennedy.

But if is his quote, I find that mighty interesting.

One part, "politics of fear" I believe critisizes GWB and the Neocons.

The other part, "politics of personal destruction" seems aimed at squarely at the Clintons.

So Ted, in one sentance groups the Clintons in with GWB and criticizes them both?

If true, ouch - Billary must be mighty "red-faced" today. :Q

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obama must have bought him off with a case of Scotch.

Oh, come on. Doyou have any evidence of Ted Kennedy having a drinking problem in the last 10 or 20 years to justify this sort of knee-jerk character assassination?

you don't think alcoholism is a lifelong disease?

-snip-

Umm, Craig I think he (Red Dawn) was just joking around.

Fern