I actually heard this last week and got quite a kick out of it. I'm aware that as a good and faithful democrat I must always worship at the Kennedy pulpit, but really this kind of thing is beyond belief.
Posted by Ann at February 4, 2008 12:19 PMIt seems that both Kennedy and Kerry endorsed Obama for reasons that derive from they're being prima donnas, rather than because they believed Obama is the best candidate. Pathetic.
Posted by MarkL at February 4, 2008 12:27 PMGreat, we are vilifying Ted Kennedy now!
This article is the biggest bit of crap that I have ever heard. Any 5th grader can check sources on the net to quickly debunk this article. This is all nonsense. I believe that Kennedy’s support for Obama was due to the crap that the Clintons were trying to do in SC; to make Obama into the “Black candidate.” Read what African Americans were saying about Bubba and his comments in South Carolina. Several leaders admonished the Clintons to “knock it off.” South Carolina’s Rep Clyburn threatened to get involved and endorse Obama if Clinton did “knock it off.” The last straw was when Bubba said that "yeah, Jesse Jackson won here in 84 and 88."
You guys are worst than the Republicans!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24796
um. nobody's vilifying ted kennedy. i'm a fan. but this article was interesting. sorry.
Posted by Turkana at February 4, 2008 01:08 PMTurkana:
USE THE GOOGLE!
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 01:18 PMIt is a very interesting story if you live in "LA LA LAND" but this is reality. Again, Use the GOOGLE.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 01:20 PMum. google for what?
Posted by Turkana at February 4, 2008 01:23 PMangryman:
Well said. This blog has turned into attack Obama every which way. However, they do not realise that they are attacking most likely the nominee of Democratic party. That way you are correct that these guys are worst than Republicans.
I supported Hillary from day one but would not bad mouth Obama and will vote for him if he is the nominee. I think it is absolutely essential to get a Democrat in the Whitehouse to bring this country back on track.
If you listen to today's NPR program " All Things Considered" about 9/11 commision you will realize how manipulative Chenney and the company has been for the final report. We still do not know the whole truth.
Do we want 4 more years of this dictatorship?
Posted by suresh at February 4, 2008 01:24 PMsuresh,
i'll also vote for obama, if he wins the nomination. not sure how this post is anti-obama.
Posted by Turkana at February 4, 2008 01:26 PMTurkana:
I will vote for the eventual nominee. I have just stated my reservations on this blog. I sure as hell am not gonna vote for McOld and get a continuation of the Bush doctrine.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 01:33 PMTurkana:
It is very clear to me and lot people who read this blog that there is an effort to promote Hillary and trash Obama. If this is a Hillary blog then have the courtsey to openly say so.
Now why I think this way is that you take an opinion of some reporter about Kennedy's endorsement of Obama and put a spin on it which is negative to Obama. Also you down play Bill Clinton's attack on Obama was the cause of lack of support to Hillary. I am no pundit but when I heard Bill's attack on Obama, I knew that it was inappropriate and will be repulsive to many Democrats. Now you do not see Bill campaigning much and has toned down his criticism. Finally he got the message that Kennedy and others were trying to give him.
Posted by suresh at February 4, 2008 01:37 PMWasn't Hugo Chavez closer to RFK, whose family has endorsed Hillary?
Posted by TIKI AL at February 4, 2008 01:40 PMI am an infrequent visitor, but since Steve's initial endorsement of Hillary it has seemed a Pro-Hillary blog, imho.
Posted by curious at February 4, 2008 01:50 PMsuresh,
i haven't been for hillary, and if edwards is still on my ballot, i'll vote for him. akers, however, is a very credible reporter. and if i wanted to go hard anti-obama, i could. there are plenty of credible news sources that reveal quite a bit about him. i'm just extremely bothered by the double-standard to which hillary is held, and that obama has become the teflon democrat. he's running as the candidate of change, but i don't see anything substantially different than clinton. his ties to special interest groups are every bit as deep. you don't see that on other blogs, and you don't see it in the corporate media, where he has become their latest darling. sorry if we report things others won't.
Posted by Turkana at February 4, 2008 02:00 PMThere are far more Pro-O blogs than pro-Hillary. DailyKos, Huffingtonpost, AmericaBlog, TalkingPointsMemo.
But they still begrudge people a slight Hillary slant, which is actually pretty anti-liberal if you ask me.
Posted by NYGiants!Woohoo at February 4, 2008 02:01 PMTurkana:
Use google to find out what African Americans thought; and why many switched at the last minute for Obama. And why many believe that that pushed Teddy into supporting Obama.
Just saying you cited only one source.
But they still begrudge people a slight Hillary slant, which is actually pretty anti-liberal if you ask me.
Exactly.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 02:17 PMangryman,
i understand how some misinterpreted the comment, and i also understand how some misunderstand history. as for kennedy's personal reaction, until i see it refuted or denied, there's no reason to question akers's reporting.
Posted by Turkana at February 4, 2008 02:42 PMThat was it? He just pushed the country in the direction of an untested schmoozer over a fit of pique?
And he's been in the senate for how long and has never held a leadership position, right?
Well, not really a surprise, is it? He's been reckless for years.
Turkana;
I am expected to believe that Ted was so upset by Clinton’s slight of his brother; he first had a “meltdown” then went out and endorsed Obama? That’s it?
Keep in mind the Aid's comment in NH; Johnson’s comments in SC, Clinton’s MLK slight, Rangel’s comments and finally Bubba “So did Jesse Jackson” comments.
Please don’t ask me to even remotely believe this article.
Link to get other perspectives.
By Susan Milligan
Globe staff
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ted_kennedy_end.html
angryman,
you think kennedy confidantes were going to say anything else? and i realize that the clinton-haters have spun everything as racism, but, um- charlie rangel?
Posted by Turkana at February 4, 2008 03:25 PMSusan Milligan: When looking for a murderer, one usually looks to the person who had motive and opportunity. Before Obama entered the race, most african american voters would have been Hillary's natural constituency. She had no incentive to alienate them from her.
But Obama did. So, take a couple meaningless comments and blow them out of proportion and head to the fainting couch crying, "racism!" and voile! You've just hogged that constituency all to yourself.
Let's stop this silliness about who played the race card. It was Obama all the way. To accuse Hillary of doing it defies logic or reason.
So you're a journalist, eh?
No wonder.
Turkana: Yeah; thats right, pick out one word to condemn the whole thing. USE YOUR GOOGLE
Riverdaughter - if you are not African American you nor I have a clue how AAs feel. That is why we should read how they preceived that happened in SC. Maybe you should send them a note and tell them how silly they are.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 03:45 PM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24796
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 03:47 PMActually, JFK was not really a civil rights hero. What progress he made was pretty much forced upon him. MLK had a difficult relationship with him and a much better one with LBJ.
I guess I've just lost Ted Kennedy's support for my eventual presidential campaign.
Posted by Steve at February 4, 2008 04:03 PMTurkana
you have stirred up a hornet's nest. People are so giddy with the endorsement by a dynasty that they forget that their main argument against Clinton is that supposedly electing HRC will be propagating the Clinton dynasty (bunch of crock but whatever). I always felt that Obama was all about Obama, his repeated veiled threats about how his supporters will not vote for Hillary if she was nominated, today's comments by Michelle Obama and all the comments left by the Obama cultists (picked by Krugman on his blog) show that this election is about Obama, not the democratic party.
Few days ago Frank Rich wrote this paean comparing BO to JFK yet one forgets that had Frank Rich been a columnist when JFK was alive he would turned his poison pen on JFK. JFK was a national security hawk and a philanderer worse than Clinton yet he was a great president. Yet if any president today even ventured to do something like Bay of Pigs we would see an impeachment motion. JFK's legacy was that he set in motion the wheels that led to the civil rights act and the voter emancipation act but he need a real tough sob like LBJ to shove it down the throat of a hostile congress and senate.
End of the day it is the Washington elites who back Obama because he will play ball, he will not be like Hillary who will stake everything to stand on something but eventually see reason. When JFK said "..ask what you can do for you country" as a war hero and a person committed to the shared responsibility he meant it. Unfortunately for Obama when he posits the same question it more of an academic rhetorical question. We saw what he did to universal health care, not only did he not have the courage to propose a wider program like JRE or HRC he effectively ended all hopes of achieving uhc by using the same Republican talking points that had been used to kill it once before.
Hope we have a better nominee than him.
tarheel74;
This is a case of irrational exuberance. Judging from your name you may be from NC. Anyway, I could careless how anyone on the blog votes...I will say that for starters. I just want the stories that are posted here to have at least the illusion of being balanced or at least attempt to get to the truth. The only reason that this story is here is because the Clinton supporters want to vilify Ted Kennedy because he didn’t endorse Hillary.
I am saying that the story is fundamentally flawed; not only in the reasoning but in the very content. Again you can believe what you choose to believe, I am just saying look at the facts and the facts sure as hell don’t support the hypothesis. The hypothesis is: Kennedy was so upset or had a “meltdown” at the very mention of someone downplaying the role of Prez. Kennedy in Civil Rights, that he endorsed Obama.
I will stop there because my comments will be chewed up and spit back at me. Someone will pick one word that they dont like to discount the entire thing.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 04:44 PMangryman,
i'm not clicking a link to human events. you d realize it's a right wing rag, right?
Posted by Turkana at February 4, 2008 04:47 PMjust copy and past in address bar. Google other sites that tell the same story.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 05:11 PMangryman- i don't give hits to right wing sleaze sites. sorry.
Posted by Turkana at February 4, 2008 05:21 PMWhatever.
That is a good reason for you to keep your mind closed. That is the most moronic thing you could have said. Just go to the friggin site and read it. Or GOOGLE OTHER SITES SO THAT YOU CAN KNOW THE TRUTH. Oh, sorry I assumed you wanted to know the truth.
The bottom line, even though article is a bunch of crap, is that Sen. Kennedy endorsed Obama. Even if the article is taken as true, it could be read that Sen. Kennedy saw Hillary's true character which is a big negative for the Democratic Party.
Posted by a4L at February 4, 2008 06:08 PMLet's stop this silliness about who played the race card. It was Obama all the way.
Anyone with half a wit knows it was the African American leaders who played the race card before Hillary tried to wear MLK's robes.
As for Johnson, for those who read, he carried many of Kennedy's plans forward after Kennedy's death. He felt it was his duty to make real those things his fallen commander had proposed. No other New Deal democrat had the political acumen to make Civil Rights legislation a realty. It's really an interesting read about Johnson's phone calls to the southern Congressman to get this legislation passed. He really did think he had the responsibility to take Kennedy's plan forward.
Posted by phidipides at February 4, 2008 09:28 PMMarkL said:
It seems that both Kennedy and Kerry endorsed Obama for reasons that derive from they're being prima donnas, rather than because they believed Obama is the best candidate. Pathetic.
I am still pissed at Kennedy for trying to say the tactics of Team Clinton made him support Obama. What a complete ass!!
Yeah, tactics such as taking Hillary and Bill's words and twisting them 3 times into a pretzel to come up with racist connotations. and then politically benefitting from that. Tactics such as lame asses such as Kennedy and Kerry silently standing by, in the face of treatment Hillary has gotten. Kerry got what, about 54% of women's votes? Then when McCain got the b**** question and laughed, Kerry or any of the democratic men weren't offended.
No wonder voting public believes politicians are asses. They have good facts to go by.
angryman:
I have not doubts that AA's in South Carolina were angry enough to vote against Hillary and for Obama. But you are stuck on the effect and not the cause.
It's not different than middle school group dynamics. Somebody tells you that your best friend called you an idiot and says your breath smells. You're going to start having doubts about your best friend even it was one of HER friends that said it and actually said, "I offered him a mint".
What you have failed to tell me is how it would have benefitted Hillary to play the race card in this campaign season? Under the circumstances, how could that POSSIBLY help her? It doesn't parse logically so I don't think her campaign engaged in it. What happened was that some Obama campaign people carefully sifted through casual remarks and cherry picked a couple that they wanted to spotlight. Then they milked them for all they were worth.
It worked brilliantly for Obama. It would be like his wife going on TV and calling Hillary an over emotional woman who slept her way to the top. Or better yet, saying she didn't think she could support Hillary as the nominee because she would have to see about her "tone". That's dogwhistling sexism and Michelle knows it. But she's doing her dirty work because if the "tone" remark came from the mouth of her husband, he'd be in big trouble going into super Tuesday.
It goes both ways. But the media is not going on a tear about it like some innocuous MLK remark.
But those of us who actually *listen* to what is being said are not voting for Obama.
goldberry;
To answer your question about how it would benefit Hillary. Again, I dont have all of the details, however some have suggested that "the clinton campaign" was trying to polorize the electrate with what is called the Southern Strategy. (READ IT FOR YOURSELF)
Here is a link
www.blackperspective.net/index.php/repercussions-of-the-clinton-race-baiting-southern-strategy/
Posted by angryman at February 5, 2008 10:39 AMWe've heard so often the charges of racism attached to Hillary's statement that although Martin Luther King built the foundation for civil rights as we now know it, it took President Lyndon Johnson to cement the foundation to the edifice. For this she was castigated, trashed from pillar to post as having uttered a racist statement that demeaned the accomplishments of MLK. For this woman to be branded as she was can only be seen as sinful, considering her background and beliefs.
Consider: Here is Obama, like MLK the larger than life preacher of hope, unity, ideals and transformation reaching out, like LBJ, for the presidential brass ring in order to...what?...cement the foundation of the ideals he speaks of to the edifice of legislative and regulatory force. For he knows and says that this, becoming President, is the path to success, to transformation.
And yet, yet, when Hillary stated the obvious, the obvious that anyone faintly familiar with the process of government knows, and the obvious that Obama certainly understands, she is tarred, feathered and burned at the stake.
If Obama's spokespeople spoke truthfully when they attacked Hillary for that statement, if they truly believed that the message of MLK DIDN'T REQUIRE a Lyndon Johnson to carry it to fruition, that it could somehow effectuate itself, then why in hell is Obama running for president?
He's stated his message, he's preached in the cadences of the churches he's familiar with and has gotten the responses he has sought, and now he could wait for his ideas to permeate society, as MLK might have done--and waited forever in the process.
NO! He's running because he knows that it takes a congressional and presidential village to raise a transformation "child." And he knows, therefore, and his insiders know, therefore, that Hillary was not disrespecting or demeaning or diminishing ANYTHING that MLK proposed in his life's teachings. The attack on her was coldly deliberate and it changed the tenor and direction of the race for the presidency, injecting a foul atmosphere into what should have been a fair and hard-fought battle.