Looks like Ted Kennedy's going to pull the trigger and endorse Barack Obama. Having the Kennedy/Kerry/Patrick trifecta should help Obama in Massachusetts, but more broadly one assumes that the iconic figure of American liberalism can help Obama convince people that he doesn't have shrines to David Broder and Ronald Reagan in his basement.
« Dark Phoenix | Main | Leadership »
Ted
27 Jan 2008 01:38 pm
Comments (43)
I didn't expect this at all. Wasn't Teddy friendly with the Clintons in the 1990s?
This is bigger than just Ted. Combined with the endorsements from Caroline and Ted Sorensen, Obama now has the JFK mystique behind him as well. That's huge.
This is going to get into Clinton’s head, even more that Obama has managed to do since Iowa. Contrary to the popular idea that “Clinton got into Obama’s head”, I think it’s actually the other way around.
Obama’s victory in Iowa was actually a shocker to both Clinton’s, who actually went into New Hampshire afterwards with consternation, perceiving that the vaunted Clinton machine could actually be upset by this untried young upstart.
But what obviously set them off was Obama’s comments to the Des Moines Register which seemed to them to dis the fabled Clinton legacy. That perceived affront sent Bill Clinton off into an unconcealably red-faced rage that he vented vehemently and publicly with all the scurrilous and demeaning remarks against Obama that have now made Clinton into a pariah in the eyes of many.
Now, the “unkindest cut of all” comes with this public award of the mantle of a JFK legacy to Obama This will undoubtedly be perceived as not just a rebuke to the Clintons but as undermining (if not overthrowing, in the case of an eventual Obama victory) the iconic image that Clinton had managed to occupy for so long.
The question now is whether this new development, plus the serious blow delivered by the loss in SC, will drive Billary into even more of a self-defeating rage with attacks on Obama.
Bill Clinton's involvement in his wife's campaign is, as far as I know, unprecedented and to many people, not an appropriate role for an ex-president. There is too much a sense of entitlement by Hillary Clinton, as well as too many lingering images of the 90s that many people, including myself, do not want to re-visit. The utter disaster that has been the past eight years of the Bush administration demands drastic, not subtle change, and Sen. Obama has convinced me that he is worthy of being elected president of the United States.
I'd say this sort of endorsement could be pretty important with the core ideological base of the Democratic Party, as well as its residual urban working-class vote.
As I've said before, the demographics of the campaign are pretty simple. If Obama can win around 1/3 of the non-black Democratic primary vote, he's probably the nominee.
And if he can't win even just 1/3 of the non-black Democratic vote, then he'd probably lose something close to fifty states in November, so even the Obamabots should probably admit that he *shouldn't* be the nominee.
If you look at the trend-lines for his non-black share of the vote in the three contested states so far, they've been moving in an extremely unfavorable direction in this regard.
Maybe a big Kennedy endorsement will change this, maybe not.
Since I don't much like either Obama OR Hillary, I think I can be a little objective in this sort of analysis.
Nail on head. The Clintons can't run to the left of Obama this week.
They'll keep talking about their friend Rezko, and the charge that Obama has flip-flopped on enacting single-payer quickly (which he has...he'll need to explain AND counterattack on that if she brings it up in the debate).
A lot is going to happen in the next 9 days.
Colrrection- I meant to say Obama's comments to Reno Gazette-Journal.
Ted is great, but the Kennedys cannot compete with the two Clintons' attack machine. No one has ever defeated them. Ever. Forever.
The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now embedded in our blood stream. We cannot have a blood transfer.
I fear the worst. I fear that the Clintons will seriously hurt Obama. I fear that they will take apart his spirit. I fear that even if Obama wins (A BIG BANG IF), the Clintons' will force themselves as VP. Thus, Obama will become a useful tool to them.
In sum, the Clintons will win. This is an axiom. It cannot be proven wrong.
There is of course ONE WAY (and ONLY ONE WAY) to defeat the Clintons. Now and Forever.
- Make the Media zero-in on the supposedly "35" years of experience of HRC, the spousal beneficiary. As a starting point, read Colbert I. King's essay in WashPost (1/26)
- Demand the Clintons papers (especially between the Clintons) to be accessible to all now (or GOP will demand them in General - Have the Press say this again and again).
If these two things happen then and only then the Clintons will be defeated.
eorse:
"Ted is great, but the Kennedys cannot compete with the two Clintons' attack machine. No one has ever defeated them. Ever. Forever."
Well, Bill beat G.H.W Bush with the help of Ross Perot and Bob Dole, an awful candidate. We might want to reevaluate how awesome that machine really is.
Jeeze, either you've drunk the koolaid or you havn't--concerning both Obama and Clinton. Personally, I don't care who endorses Obama (and, as a boomer, I have a special place in my heart for Camelot), IMO he remains the inspiring speaker, whose speeches, when examined, consist of vague Broderisms and whose pandering to the centrists and the right (all those wingnut talking points are not accidental) are just as calculated as anything on Clinton's part. As for those who speak of "defeating" the Clintons as if they were an evil two headed dragon (perhaps a combination of Lord Nagafen and Lady Vox, a reference solely for old school EverQuest players), I find this Clinton hatred as incomprehensible as ever. I've never been a fan of either Clinton; they are too far to the right in my book. Nonetheless, Clinton is vastly superior to any Republican candidate--as is Obama. I wish we could sing kumbaya and end the nastiness on both sides and stop doing the Republicans' work for them.
Somewhat off topic, but either of these candidates could go a long way to winning me over by making a real (not rethorical) stand against the IC FISA bill, including--horror of horrors--actually returning to Washington for the votes. Of course, neither will, which is pretty much in line with the undistinquished Senate careers of both. And which is why neither excites me.
huh? Obama just beat the Clinton machine twice, and neither was a state called Illinois. I don't think either Clinton has been spanked electorally the way Obama beat them in South Carolina.
It's hard to wrap one's mind around the changing of the CW, but sometimes, once in a great while, events just outrun the CW. It's OK if you don't want to believe when it's a long shot--it's the prudent thing to do, and you'll be right 9 times out of 10. You don't want to be *too* late to the party the 10th time, though...
"Bill beat G.H.W Bush with the help of Ross Perot"
Ok, I'll play Bob Somerby here. We really should not buy into the Republcian (or Clinton-hating) rewriting of history. Exit polls showed--and the contemporary CW widely agreed--that Perot had a pretty much much neutral effect on the 1992 election. Indeed, Clinton was somewhat hurt by Perot, since he likely would have won a popular vote majority in his absence and had more political leverage.
Really, that's just a little overwrought, eorse.
The Clintons have had four major political tests: 1992, 94, 96, and 98 (impeachment). 92 was a real achievement. 94 was a disaster. 96 was taking candy from a baby. 98 was, ehhh...I dunno. That's really not a stellar record. They fuck up as much as everyone else, but they do a good job of projecting invincibility. Or they did until very recently.
I wonder if this endorsement will settle Krugman down a bit. Given that Kennedy was instrumental in passing the best state-level healthcare plan of recent memory (and unlike a certain Republican candidate, would be willing to take credit for what it actually is), and that policy dispute was the origin of the animosity, it would be nice to see. I usually agree with Krugman when he cites policy differences with Obama, but he's gotten unbelievably snippy lately and I'd love to see it quiet down a bit.
Marlowe
Obama has the most liberal voting record and has the best approval amongst independents and centrist conservatives. Hillary has the most conservative voting record and draws the most visceral hatred amongst the right-wing.
Obama, in his inspiring and welcoming, promising to bring in millions of new people into the democratic party to forge a WORKING majority in order to accomplish liberal goals. Hillary hopes to get 50+1 and still selling out liberal ideals (as shown by her senate record) for the sake of personal power.
Who's the Broderist?
i just don't get the flap over obama's shout out to RR. RR was one of the last politicians to dominate, and convince people to vote for him despite policy disagreements, party affiliation, etc. obama similarly seems like the first pol in a long time who could actually win going away, rather than 51/49, and convince even those who don't agree with many of his policies to nonetheless vote for him based on charisma, seeming authentic, like a breath of fresh air, etc.
Ted Kennedy will help win over Latinos. As the eminence grise of the Party- I'm surprised he's taking a stand. It really does seem obvious that Bill's recent antics left too bad a taste in too many mouths.
I think it's fairly clear by now that Edwards and Obama are both bucking the conventional wisdom meme.
I think it's fairly clear by now the only difference between Obama and Edwards is HOW they would deliver the much sought after change.
When looking at all the numbers from all the races, the Clintons are destroyed if you combine Edwards and Obama numbers.
Far more people are against the Clintons than are for them.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
David:
Didn't Clinton lose his first race for public office?
Obama is going to need all the surrogates he can get to offset the Clinton duo.
I feel like so many are coming to his side. It's nice! Makes me feel proud again. BTW, what a victory speech.
dj superflat: i just don't get the flap over obama's shout out to RR.
Clinton was pandering to stupid people.
Clinton is playing Calvinball, threatening to introduce a wedge issue that may threaten the general election prospects of anybody but her.
i just don't get the flap over obama's shout out to RR. RR was one of the last politicians to dominate, and convince people to vote for him despite policy disagreements, party affiliation, etc. obama similarly seems like the first pol in a long time who could actually win going away, rather than 51/49, and convince even those who don't agree with many of his policies to nonetheless vote for him based on charisma, seeming authentic, like a breath of fresh air, etc.
Sorry, but this is just a misrepresentation of what Obama has said about Reagan. He didn't say merely that Reagan won over Democrats because he was a skillful communicator and salesman, but because "the fact was government at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money" and that "too often bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates" and that "a lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities." These statements aren't about the communication skills of Reagan, they're about the failures of liberal policies and priorities.
They'll keep talking about their friend Rezko, and the charge that Obama has flip-flopped on enacting single-payer quickly (which he has...he'll need to explain AND counterattack on that if she brings it up in the debate).
Yes, indeed. And Obama hasn't just flip-flopped on "enacting single-payer quickly," but on whether to fight for it at all.
Mixner,
Billary enacted all the policies that the right-wing asked for in the nineties (welfare reform, DOMA, etc) while rejecting the liberal ideas of the 70s. They gave up all their liberal values only to deliver a plurality.
And, really, no Dem candidate is asking for single-payer healthcare. Whatever gets through congress is going to be sausage, and no President would be able to keep. The difference between Obama and the other candidates would be that he would win with a Reagan-like majority and have real mandate behind him.
Billary enacted all the policies that the right-wing asked for in the nineties (welfare reform, DOMA, etc) while rejecting the liberal ideas of the 70s.
Gee, you mean there wasn't really so much to choose between the Clintons and a continuation of the Bush I presidency (or, for the 1996 election, a Bob Dole presidency) after all? One would never have thought so from the way you Democrats were behaving at the time. But you haven't learned a thing. You're still massively overhyping the significance of presidential elections.
And, really, no Dem candidate is asking for single-payer healthcare. ....
Well, there was Kucinich.
The difference between Obama and the other candidates would be that he would win with a Reagan-like majority and have real mandate behind him.
Ah, right. Keep that crystal ball nice and polished.
Ted and Obama should stump together in middle class venues and do a game change move and become the change agent for jobs, heath care, social security and education.
Time for smash mouth, no holds bared and pry away working class moms and dads from the Clinton hegemony. The stakes could not be greater for the Democratic Party and the nation, and the Clintons simply reek of arrogance, deceit and corruption, and have become a major liability to both nation and party.
Mixner,
Maybe it is an exaggeration to say that the Repubs got everything they wanted under Clinton, but it is clear that he had less of a mandate, negotiated from a weaker position, and did much less to advance his party's position than Reagan did.
Ah, right. Keep that crystal ball nice and polished.
Obama draws huge, passionate crowds while enjoying healthy support from independents and moderate Republicans. Meanwhile, Hillary is passionately hated by the Right and is doing a good job of alienating 1/2 of the Left. I don't have a crystal ball, but I imagine Obama could redraw the map while Billary might have to hope for another Ross Perot run.
ben,
You're missing the point. First, no one is in a position to confidently predict the eventual nominee for either party. The races are wide open at this point.
Second, there's basically nothing to choose between Hillary and Obama in terms of policy. They're both centrist Democrats. You're not going to get any big new progressive initiatives from either of them, just a lot of compromise, bipartisanship and business-as-usual.
It isn't likely to make much of a difference to your life, my life, or the lives of most Americans which of the candidates, Democrat or Republican, wins the election. There are much larger forces at work shaping the lives of Americans and the fate of the world over the next four years than the identity of the next American president.
Ben
Obama has the most liberal voting record and has the best approval amongst independents and centrist conservatives. Hillary has the most conservative voting record and draws the most visceral hatred amongst the right-wing.
Wrong!
Their voting records are as close as two Senators can possibly be. Nearly identical twins.
CQ WEEKLY – COVER STORY Jan. 13, 2008 – 6:42 p.m. The Space Between Clinton and Obama....judging by their Senate records, voters could pick either one of them and get more or less the same package...the reality is that their Senate careers have been more similar than their than their campaigns would ever admit.
For one thing, their voting records are nearly indistinguishable. Although both have good working relationships with Republicans, Congressional Quarterly’s annual vote studies show...
"more broadly one assumes that the iconic figure of American liberalism can help Obama convince people that he doesn't have shrines to David Broder and Ronald Reagan in his basement."
Utterly irrelevant.
The value of this lies not inside the Democratic cognoscenti, but instead among older low-information Dem voters who have never heard of David Broder.
Teddy is the single most important validator specifically to the demographics that Obama is getting wiped out among.
This is more helpful to Obama than a Gore endorsement, believe it or not.
-----
This endorsement is incredibly important.
It's the first time since NH that I think Clinton can actually be beaten. She's still the favorite, but in terms of Petey's Fair Value, she just dropped from having an 85% chance of the nomination to a 60% chance.
"Obama has the most liberal voting record and has the best approval amongst independents and centrist conservatives. Hillary has the most conservative voting record and draws the most visceral hatred amongst the right-wing.
Obama, in his inspiring and welcoming, promising to bring in millions of new people into the democratic party to forge a WORKING majority in order to accomplish liberal goals. Hillary hopes to get 50+1 and still selling out liberal ideals (as shown by her senate record) for the sake of personal power.
Who's the Broderist?"
As pointed out above, this is pretty much false since their voting record is fairly similar. And, voting records asisde, I find nothing inspiring about the career of either. Has either of them put their reputation on the line to change votes or lead in any progressive cause like Chris Dodd has on the FIAS bill? And maybe you are right about Obama the great liberal (I don't read Obamese like so many apparently can). But I call a candidate a Broderist if he/she speaks in talking points guaranteed to make David Broder come. Under that definition, the Broderist here is Obama. Maybe he's lying. But as Kevin Drum noted today, he (and I) would feel a lot better if Obama dd not consistently refuse to defend progressive policy on progressive terms.
BTW, I am not a fan of either--I'm still an Edward backer. But based on the record, I see very little to indicate that, especially on domestic issues, their positions are all that far apart. The difference to me is that Clinton has a clear eyed knowledge of the Republican slime machine while Obama has a naive one. Obama's smile and personality is not going to change one Republican vote in the Senate. Those who think it will are fools.
Marlowe: "And, voting records asisde, I find nothing inspiring about the career of either [Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton]. Has either of them put their reputation on the line to change votes or lead in any progressive cause like Chris Dodd has on the FIAS bill?...BTW, I am not a fan of either--I'm still an Edward backer."
Since when do Edward's supporters care about voting records or "progressive" leadership in the U.S. Senate? As Russell Feingold, an unassailable liberal leader, so deftly observed, nothing about John Edwards' tenure in the Senate was particularly liberal. Moreover, it's a lot more difficult to make courageous stands when you have something to lose; Obama and Hillary both do, Edwards does not -- and when he did, he didn't. Honestly guys, I respect Edward's "progressive" advocacy, and his leadership in policy development, but I suspect there's something not entirely genuine about his "progressive" conversion. And I think the fact that he lacks a unshakeable core of principles casts suspicion on his leadership ability as president.
Exit polls showed--and the contemporary CW widely agreed--that Perot had a pretty much much neutral effect on the 1992 election.
Exit polls only showed what would have hypothetically happened on Election Day if Perot supporters had gone to the polls, been unable to vote for Perot, and had to vote for someone else instead.
The effect of Perot on the 1992 race isn't confined to that moment in time.
Remember in June of that year, when all three candidates' support was around 30%? Then just before the Dem convention, Perot dropped out, the Bill and Al Show was a hit, and Bill's support rocketed into the mid-50s, and stayed there for awhile. In other words, Clinton got almost all of Perot's initial supporters.
Then when Perot jumped back in, he apparently drew supporters almost equally from both sides. But earlier in the race, he changed the dynamic in a way that Clinton was a massive beneficiary of.
Well, I'm much, much less of an expert in Democratic Party politics, but I'd strongly agree with Petey's assessment of the potential impact of a Kennedy endorsement of Obama.
Just as he said, it targets some of those demographic segments of the Democratic Party primary electorate where Obama has been weakest.
Since it's timed perfectly for Florida, it will be interesting to see what happens there on Tuesday...
The true significance is that Obama and his supporters will no longer mention No Child Left Behind.
The fascinating thing about this is that Teddy actually warned the Clintons publicly (through Johnny Alter) last week that they had to tone down the racial stuff.
Team Clinton's initial actions to ghettoize Obama after NH were brilliant and perfectly executed. And their publicly declared truce on race before the SC debate was also very smart and well timed. Their race-baiting already done serious damage, and they were getting out before the backlash hit.
But then Bill kept up the race stuff during his week in SC, either due to strategy or lack of discipline. Teddy's endorsement may be the very real backlash to Bill ignoring his warning.
...Perot dropped out, the Bill and Al Show was a hit, and Bill's support rocketed....Perot jumped back in, he apparently drew supporters almost equally from both sides. But earlier in the race, he changed the dynamic in a way that Clinton was a massive beneficiary of.
Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 27, 2008 9:43 PM
good summary, that's the way I remember it, too. As I remember, Perot basically directed a lot of voters there at that time, he said something like "now that the Democratic party has gotten it's act together..."
Posted by jhupp | January 27, 2008 3:55 PM I wonder if this endorsement will settle Krugman down a bit. Given that Kennedy was instrumental in passing the best state-level healthcare plan of recent memory (and unlike a certain Republican candidate, would be willing to take credit for what it actually is), and that policy dispute was the origin of the animosity, it would be nice to see. I usually agree with Krugman when he cites policy differences with Obama, but he's gotten unbelievably snippy lately and I'd love to see it quiet down a bit.
Sorry, jhupp, this is such ridiculous blog-bubble-think that I was laughing. Are you really serious? Do you worry about the mood newspaper columnists are in all the time?
I am sure Krugman doesn't care what Kennedy thinks, Krugman thinks for himself. I would not be surprised if Krugman has studied the candidates' health care proposals much more than Kennedy. (Kennedy probably doesn't read much of that type of thing for himself at all anymore, he's nearly 76 years old and has a staff.) And Krugman has never shown himself to be a Ted Kennedy style liberal. Finally, I hate to tell you, but Krugman does not have huge sway over the electorate, only elite liberal bloggers and New York Times' readers.
You sound like a spurned friend, upset that your best college bud doesn't like your new fiancee. Snap out it: Krugman's a columnist with his own opinions, paid to stimulate your thoughts, not your friend, alter ego, or hero figure.
Petey,
I am curious, I don't get the great benefit of the Ted endorsement. Caroline, yes, as that's the "Camelot" market. But I don't see it with Ted. I even think he may be a little bit of a negative.
I have always been under the impression of Ted as the poster child uber paleo liberal, the symbol of all that the DLC was trying to do away with in order to win back Reagan Dems. He is certainly used as a joke punchline in Midwest Dem circles I know. Older folks remember Chappaquidick and do not think kindly on that--as a kid, I never ever heard of him as being put in the same basket as the two sainted brothers, it seems people disliked him.
What demographic do you think this will help win over to Obama from Clinton? I would think he or John Edwards/leaning Obama already has anyone that likes Ted Kennedy. It is very unlikely, for example, that anyone blue collar outside of MA or the small business type would be swayed by a Kennedy endorsement, perhaps the contrary. Where does Kennedy have sway outside of Mass. and elite paleo-liberal circles?
"But I don't see it with Ted. I even think he may be a little bit of a negative."
IMHO, Teddy won Iowa for Kerry in '04.
"He is certainly used as a joke punchline in Midwest Dem circles I know."
His endorsement helps among low-info Dems, not high-info Dems.
"Older folks remember Chappaquidick and do not think kindly on that"
Folks above 50 - 55 also remember the 1980 nomination race where he came close to unseating a sitting President, as well as his 35 year long status as the leading lion of liberals in Washington.
"What demographic do you think this will help win over to Obama from Clinton?"
Old folks.
Obama's getting wiped out among old folks. This endorsement won't help Obama win old folks over Clinton, but it could enable him to trim the huge margins.
Teddy is a validator for old folks second to only Bill Clinton in the Party. If Teddy's vouching for Obama's bona-fides allows him to narrow Clinton's margin by a bit among older Dems, the delegate math is going to get a lot more interesting than I was expecting.
Here's my exit poll extrapolations of Obama's percentages so far among white voters, to give an illustration of how badly he's getting wiped out among older Dems:
IA
45yo+ 24%, 65yo+ 17%
NV
45yo+ 34%, 65yo+ 24%
SC
45yo+ 19%, 65yo+ 15%
Thanks for your input Petey. I suppose I can see some benefit among fence sitters in that group, classic liberals who might be worrying about buying a pig in a poke with Obama, if Kennedy says he's ok, not to worry. Definitely in Massachusetts it helps.
Comments closed February 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Love that last line.
Boston Globe Intelligencer says Kennedy decided to endorse Obama because of the new voters he is bringing out and rejuvinating the party.
Also, Bill's behavior last week probably had something to do with it.
Kennedy is going to go stumping for Obama with latinos and unions. He carries alot of weight with these groups.
Carolines' op ed set off panic in the Clinton camp and they were calling as well as having surrogates calling as well.
Posted by vwcat | January 27, 2008 1:54 PM