Has Ted Kennedy gone round the bend endorsing Obama?

So now that South Carolina is over and the Obama people have stopped screeching “racism“….What exactly did the Clintons actually say about Obama? They questioned Obama’s shifting positions on Iraq, his sometimes spotty voting record in Illinois, and his ties to crooked Syrian wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko. They said that MLK didn’t fight the whole civil rights revolution by himself, and they called out a reporter for falsely accusing the Clintons of racism.

Obama implied that the Republicans have had all the ideas and the Clinton administration didn‘t have any -- and then Obama was shocked, shocked that the Clintons reacted to that!

That’s it. That’s why everybody from the Obama to John Kerry to Ted Kennedy is screaming that the Clintons are on a mudslinging racist jihad against Obama, and neocons are actually hollering that we should apologize to them for questioning their attacks on the Clintons -- “see, we were right all along!” What hogwash. There was nothing even remotely racist in what the Clintons said. Sorry, folks, but the Clintons are allowed to do this -- since when are candidates not allowed to criticize the other guy‘s record, and respond to personal attacks?

Compare what the Clintons actually said, to the 15 years of Republican smears against the Clintons, the six-on-one hammering Clinton got in the October debate, the two months of pounding Hillary has taken in the media, and of course the endless lies and smears against the Clintons right here in this forum. For that matter, look at McCain and Romney screeching “liar!” at each other all across new Hampshire. This Obama stuff is nothing. A tempest in a teaspoon.

Everyone forgets the stuff that came before, in this race: while the Clintons were actually defending Obama regarding attacks on the Muslim allegations, and declined to exploit the fact that Obama ally Louis Farrakhan started attacking the Clintons (which any real racist would have responded to)….while Hillary was going easy on Obama, Obama’s team was claiming Hillary was responsible for the murder of Benazir Bhutto.

Do you know?

You just cut through the BS with that one good question.

This is THE point. The BLACK alternative.

Since Edwards was white, his victory in 2004 should not be compared to Obama's victory in 2008.
I get it now.

If he did then he would be comparable to Obama. There is only one historical analogue to Obama's SC win. Is Bill Clinton supposed to rewrite history?

Black people should only be compared to other black people, especially if it helps the Clintons win.

He didn't know he was going to get 81%.

some nice spinning for Obama today (the transcript is already up - when you are speaking from the bosses handout it is easy to get a quick transcription).

They pushed the White males will be as much for Obama as for Hillary

according to this web site on his funds

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00001109

Obama raised more than that last night in ONE HOUR

Obama is a candidate for POTUS

Al Sharpton ran as a black candidate

the difference should be noted by those here trying to marginalize Obama (not directed at anyone in particular)

loan to himself of the 80k - but after that first week I do not recall fund raisers (he did go to some churches a few times).

Guess the diff is viable vs not viable. What in the world did he spend 500k on?

You don't think there's a Obama Spin Team at all? You know they all do it, right?

Hmmmmm...interesting word choices there.

This is quite tame compared to the usual bile.

yikes, it looks like you picked 5 or 6 talking points from Hillaryis44 and jumbled them all up. Pretty funny stuff.


:rofl:

and I am especially disappointed in Caroline's decision. She apparently is being guided by Teddy who is friends with Kerry.

She doesn't have a mind of her own. :sarcasm: RFK, Jr. endorsed Hillary. His cousin and his uncle endorsed Obama.

Sounds like the Kennedys can each speak for him/herself.

being manipulated by that villainous Kerry. Comments like these make me want to cry and laugh at the same time.

make a decision on her own? From what I've read Teddy didn't make up his mind until the Jesse Jackson comment yesterday and I'm sure Caroline's op-ed was already written by then.

At an earlier time in our political history, a Kennedy endorsement would have been compelling. I feel that the Kennedys, while beloved among older Democrats such as myself, no longer have that power.

My own judgment is that Obama has made himself the "black candidate." He organized his campaign in SC as the black favorite son, he campaigned that way, he and his surrogates attacked the Clintons from a racial stance, and he won as the black candidate.

Nearly every black voter voted for him; he only attracted a small minority of whites. White Democrats do not disdain African Americans. He and his demonizing the two most powerful white Democratic advocates for black rights and aspirations as knuckle-dragging bigots, is deeply resented. Obama is in the fire now.

It is pretty sad. He didn't campaign as the black candidate and you all know this. It would serve no pourpose for him to do that because he is marginalized as the black candidate he knows that whites won't support him. There are only a few states where there is a majority black electorate so this wouldn't make sense. Also, he if wanted to present himself as the black candidate he would have spent more time focusing on issues that are important to that community. Also, he didn't receive a small minority of whites.

From reading some of the posts on this board it does appear that there are some whites that disdain African Americans.

It would make sense for anyone who sincerely wanted to understand how this became an issue that they would spend some time inquiring within the African American community. If any of you all who truly wanted to understand would see is that this became an issue within the community without any prompting from Obama's camp.

I think she can make up her own mind. Kennedy managed to make up his own mind long before he knew John Kerry, who he respected and endorsed for President in both 2004 and 2008. I think all three of these people are capable of independently deciding who to endorse.

I wonder if you Hill-bots have any idea just how racist you sound.

The real point is that the press corps knows that more people (statistically) favor Hillary than Obama. The gap is fairly big (about 10-15 points) that they want to drive the polling closer. So they will anoint Barack Obama ...

... until he moves ahead. Then they will suddenly take an interest in the uglier parts of his record and find a few scandals. Hillary will become the golden girl, and Obama will become the whipping boy.

Conflict sells advertising, and the media thrive on it. They actively promote emotionalistic, reflex-response political thinking. This year is their big chance to mold and "program" the liberals. After all, we will be in the driver's seat for the next generation or two.

But I have given up all hope of ever having an engaged, intelligent dialog with an Obama supporter on-line. They're crazed. Not all of them, but the bandwagon is enormous. There are far fewer Hillary supporters on-line which keeps us from bandwagoneering, but I am sure we would be every bit as crazy if we were the ones who dominated. And I'm using that word in its original sense of mania.

As happy as I am that people are re-energized about politics and public participation, mania is not one of the better parts of it. Well, I guess you have to take the bad with the good. Obama certainly doesn't suck, and I will have no problem enthusiastically working for him during the general election if he prevails.

--p!

Theres the "New Democrats", which is headed by the Clinton's and their supporters.

They are comprised mainly of Southern Democrats who are more politically aligned with moderate Republicans than Democrats.


Then theres the "Traditional Democrats", which once was the side of the party that got JFK his win, and has its core in the Northeast.

They are comprised of the more left leaning side of the Party, as represented by both Ted Kennedy and the current DNC leader Dean.


The nomination process this year seems to be for the heart of the Democratic Party, and Obama is drawing the traditional Democrats to his side as they seek to end the influence of the "moderate Republican" that the Clintons represent.

The groups that track "the liberalest politican" put Obama as more liberal than Kucinich or Hillary or Edwards but not quite as liberal as Kennedy and Kerry. Though the difference between all of this year's contenders is minimal.

There have been two major power factions in the party, and they've been around longer than 15 years. It goes back at least as far as when Kennedy challenged Carter. I suspect it goes back much further, maybe to Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

One faction is primarily centered in the NE and is mostly controlled by Ted Kennedy; the other is more Southern (altho not exclusively) and is currently led by the Clintons. In both case, ideology and policy positions have very little to do with anything -- it's all about power politics, and both align with younger Democratic politicians of various degrees of progressive or centrist leanings.

Disgraceful.

~PEACE~

can any of the other candidate's supporters prove a link to quotes or articles saying this. The smear was started by the other candidates campaign. If there is a link give it to us.....

Just like all the smears all over the net about Hillary and Bill being crooked etc etc. There is nothing. It is just another form of swiftboating that the corporate republican MSM is floating.

I hope that doesn't hurt your feelings. In fact, I don't even know if I'd consider you one of the top 5 Hillborg's anymore. :(

It's a sad day for DU. :cry:

And, for the record. It wasn't just what Hillary said, but what her husband said, her campaign said, staffers said, and her supporters said. It is the collective.

And I expect that collective to collectively keep stepping in it.

Enjoy the slide.

Brilliant tactic. Let me know how that works out for you.

It's going to be a rude awakening.

Accoring to Obama, Ted Kennedy is getting old and needs to get some backbone.
Video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IlvJ8bA6_xA

I guess Ted didn't see this video before endorsing.

thank you.

During the early part of the primaries I heard many who supported Hillary make charges of sexism when those supporting other candidates criticized her or her positions. With Obama it's race, and it's just beginning. If Obama gets the nomination, not only will we constantly hear charges of racism from Obama's supporters, but should he win in the general, which is extremely doubtful, every time a major news media outlet criticizes him his supporters will cry racism, which is one of the reasons America won't elect him president. They don't want 4 years of political correctness shoved down their throats. And chances are it would work with the news media the same way they were bullied into backing Bush and his invasion of Iraq. Things in this country are going to get a lot worse, if you can imagine that.

I have no dog in this Hillary/Obama fight, I think that both of them are corporate whores with perhaps(and I emphasize perhaps) five degrees of difference in their positions.

But for such a rabid Hillary supporter such as yourself, who was lording it all over the boards about the Hillary endorsements, to get so bent out of shape about the Kennedys is quite priceless. The fact that you're trying to rationalize these endorsements in the manner that you are simply goes to show how intellectually void and morally bankrupt you truly are.

You say that Obama considers Farrakhan an "ally." This is conjecture and nothing more.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008; Page A13

Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

There is more than meets the eye with Obama. The supporters who "blindly" defend him, and this also addressed to Caroline and Ted Kennedy, are being led to a wholesale slaughter engineered by Republicans. Besides this article, the simplest explanation is "divide and conquer" by splintering the Democratic Party. The Republicans will destroy the Kennedy Legacy forever and a day. The initial tipoff should be the involvement of John Kerry. When has John Kerry ever been aware of external forces moving around him. The jackass is so full of himself, blinded by his own ego, he is incapable of leadership, even in a primary election.

supported Louis Farrakhan with an award.

Where does that say Obama considers Louis Farrakhan an ally?

Obama Decries Farrakhan Statements

"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/15/obama_decries_farrakhan_statem_1.html?hpid=topnews

Farrakhan" that is also in his column or: "It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan."

From TPM on Cohen's column:


And Obama's statement in response to an inquiry from TPM regarding the Cohen column: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_responds_to_richard_cohen_column_about_his_church_and_farrakhan.php

Obama does not take responsibility for his words. He restates them in (unspoken) nuanced meanings, ever distorting his original intent. So, providing a response of Obama's thoughts on Cohen's article, is meaningless to me.

suggests such agreement. Yet you cite Cohen's column as "proof" of an Obama "alliance" with Farrakhan when it simply isn't anything of the sort.

Evidently also "meaningless" to you is Cohen's own words that not only don't support a conclusion that Obama agrees with Wright on Farrakhan, but also do not provide any basis for your assertion (not Cohen's) that Obama is allied with Farrakhan.

Perhaps you felt that Bill Clinton's departure from the campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally non-functional black man after his "Sistah Souljah moment" in 1992 had nothing to do with race and was all about his commitment to justice.

However, we all know that race is spoken of through code in American politics.

Invoking Jesse Jackson and suggesting Obama may have been a drug dealer are examples of racially loaded language. I'm not going to list all of the winks and nods, because I don't have the time.

But suggesting the Clintons "defended" Obama is a perfect example of how they manipulate language to bring people down, instead of inspiring them. Their "defense" was sending out Bob Kerrey to repeat over and over that Obama's middle name was Hussein.

Again, they suggest OBama promoted the GOP agenda. A complete load of crap and these very intelligent people know it very well.

What Obama was talking about is the difference between liberalism and progressivism. To be a liberal, you merely need to agree with the Democratic party in 1970. The progressive agenda involves a host of new ideas, many of which were presented - however poorly - by Ralph Nader in 2000.

Bill Clinton was man of competence, not of transformation. Ronald Reagan was a man of transformation, not of competence. It is like when Bill Maher said the 9/11 weren't cowardly. Maher wasn't saying they were wonderful people. He was simply saying that courage is not necessarily tied to morality.

Finally, it is saddening that the Clintons would suggest that 15 years of GOP smears justify what they are doing to OBama. Because some right wing nutballs MAY suggest OBama is a drug dealer, doesn't mean that you should do it.

That's another example of how the Clintons sell the party down the river - to use a phrase from slavery days - to promote their own ambitions.

"Obama implied that the Republicans have had all the ideas and the Clinton administration didn‘t have any"

"Obama’s team was claiming Hillary was responsible for the murder of Benazir Bhutto."

Todays propaganda brought to you by LieMax(tm):

Does frequent lying ever get you down? Then try LieMax(tm)! Guaranteed to make you lie without guilt or your money back!

Just because he didn't endorse Clinton doesn't mean he has mental problems. Grow the fuck up, I'm begging you.

...but Al Gore didn't really connect with voters either.

I'm an Edwards supporter and I am truly and honestly immune to the "charisma" of Obama.

It's not what I am looking for in a candidate.

But I can't deny the excitement on his supporters' faces, and I can't deny the turnout.

If Obama is going to have a coattail effect bringing new voters to the polls, it's obvious why these congressional endorsements.

i really don't think hillary could make that happen for dems.

-s

mine is as well. Unfortunately for us, what is going on is much more complicated and in depth than Obama supporters care to admit. Therefore, it is incumbent on us, irregardless of our candidates, to continue to point out the strategy engineered by Republicans to appoint "their" Reaganesque choice, as the Dem nominee.

you are willing to look behind the mask of charisma and see what's really there.

i feel pretty confident in my candidate's sincerity. it's why i continue to support and defend Edwards.

i respect your efforts to defend Clinton. politics just isn't very fair. but if what you are hinting at is something far deeper, something troubling in Obama's background, I am all ears. Not buying charisma makes you feel like... well it feels like I have been dragged to a Dave Mathews Band concert. I abhor and detest the Dave Mathews Band, and yet I have to stand there and watch it. It is an unsettling feeling because I know charisma is simply a tool, rather than an indicator of will. Will can hire charisma.

I had an interesting synaesthesia yesterday. I had Obama's victory speech playing in a background video, and Edwards speaking on MSNBC to Keith Olbermann on a foreground window, which had for some reason stalled while loading. While my eyes were glazing over at the strange phenomenon of Obama's vapid victory speech, which boiled down to "You ! All of you ! So diverse ! Voting for ME ! CHANGE !!!! FIRED UP !!!!" as usual, the Edwards video un-stalled and his clear, confident and rational voice pierced through Obama's cheerleading. it was such a contrast. Everything my candidate states is the truth and nothing but. His personal flaws are merely that he earned a lot of money so he doesn't mind spending it on a house. His record shows me a person who defended Bill Clinton from impeachment and has a great voting record. AND HE WRITES HIS OWN STUFF - brilliantly. His writings for the CFR for instance reveal a professor's awareness of US foreign policy and military readiness. It is an honor to support someone so intelligent for the nation's highest office.

In contrast, Obama's books seem like Harry Potter to me. They're mainstream crap, they whip up vacuous dreams of "the people are going to do it together". His policies are just words, and he rarely even brings them up in debates or speeches.

And when it comes down to it, it's that immunity that stands in my way - his speeches do absolutely nothing for me. he is uncomfortable for me to watch, and i got that same feeling from * the first time i saw his ugly face. Queasy.

That said, Obama has passionate supporters and I do actually respect some of these endorsements. But as your OP states, why is this weird? What exactly has Obama said or done to deserve these charmed messages of support? Is it just to be aboard the juggernaut? To beat the Clintons? (An understandable aim, but hardly a real vouching for Obama don't you think?) I think the political calculations of a larger-than-usual Democratic turnout in November are a real motivation for current Democratic Congressmen. So let's concede at least that much - if Obama is the nominee, it is likely that there will be a very large turnout. But considering all the dirt on him, and the way the Repugnicans have most likely amassed as much ammo as Clinton has, I am very insecure about Obama facing McCain - at least without Edwards as his VP, which I would probably be able to live with, so that's my compromise scenario. But Obama alone just seems to be not ready and not totally transparent. I guess it's good that he isn't a dork, but you know what? I'm not really buying his slang either. This guy has a lot to prove before I will lend him my support.

My own calculation is two fold. Essentially, Obama embodies a dual role. His primary task is to knock the Clintons out of contention as the Dem Nominee. Hillary is the greatest threat to the Neocon agenda because she will dismantle them stone by stone brick by brick until Republicans are tangentially irrelevant. Hillary will have a Dem Congress ready and willing to set things right for the people this election cycle.

I think we are all in agreement, the msm is a Republican owned mouthpiece. And the reason why the msm is pushing Obama hard against the Clintons slamming Hillary every hour of the day but always remaining keyed in and favoring Obama. If Obama is the Dem nominee, then the Republicans have the election sewed up.

Republicans will have the choice of their own field of candidates and Obama.. Republicans can virtually sit back and not have to lift a finger in the GE because they automatically win no matter who the electorate may choose as the next president. A paradigm of truth is, Republicans have and always have had for all intents and purposes their hands on both sides of the aisle in equity. Obama is no more than a vacuous figurehead elucidating pithy quotations from long accepted American heroes.

The Clintons can break the cycle of Republican domination because they are not only immensely disliked by the Neocons, they are also intensely feared as having a second chance of upending them. Now that the Clintons fully understand there is no extending hands to partisans they initially thought would work together for the common good. They will not ever again let themselves underestimate the ferocity of Republicans retaining power.. They are well schooled and prepared to deal with them in no uncertain terms. And why I will help them fight to reclaim the "our" county the Republicans have stolen from us.

it is tough for me, because i really like a lot of Obama followers here, but I really feel that they and the entire "intelligentsia" is being duped.

there is a myth, I think it is the myth that sank Al Gore 2000. This myth has been propagated by the right wing, but is amplified by the left wing. It is that "the two parties are the same, they are both owned by the same people, they are 100% the same". Under this myth, your candidate has suffered, just as Al Gore did in 2000. In other words - you have probably heard this over and over again - "hillary clinton is basically a republican". This kind of shoddy thinking makes me vomit.

this is the issue though - that the conspiracy against Clinton *knows how the Clintons act and react*. When they are threatened, as they are by Obama, they react fairly predictably - they fight, they will even go negative; they are hardcore politicians. This predictability is why the Obama plan is working so well. Hillary Clinton is going negative - and not on the jerks in the White House so much as against her opponent. At least that is the way the M$M is deigning to report their competition.

Hillary should probably keep focused on the REPUGNICANS and making sure they are squarely pinned with the blame for everything that is going on. Obama is a distraction unless she amplifies him by fighting one on one instead of raising the tone of the dialogue and aiming the democrats at the true enemy. She should take on Ann Coulter, perhaps, or Rush Limbaugh - she should aim her mud there, because Lord knows if she's the nominee they'll be unleashing at her. Better to get them to spew right now, because THAT would drive Democrats to the polls to support her during primary season.

More realistically, she can take apart the Repugnican field. I hope she can start picking McCain apart for instance. I give my candidate the same advice. I think focusing on the Repugnicans, and the specific details of their treachery, and specific plans on how to undo it - that is what I want to hear from ALL of the candidates. Unfortunately the Obama campaign seems well equipped to fight back and these two may drag each other through the mud to the extent that neither emerges capable of winning. It must be hard to be a Clinton supporter on these boards these days, tip of the hat to you.

when Clinton engaged in clear cut, undeniable race baiting.

I'm not even a Obama supporter, but some days this place reminds me of Faux Noise when some folks don't let mere actual facts get in the way of their agenda driven assertions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You never cease to amaze me.

You should do some research on Malcom X, especially after he went to Mecca and educate yourself on the reasons that he left the Nation of Islam.

You are simply unbelievable.

to be said.

it will help all within the party.


:9

and clear.

The Clintons have been race-baiting since Obama emerged. They got caught smearing Obama's middle name and youth through surrogates. They got caught taking cash from Tony Rezko and posing for a prom picture with him.

Enough of you assholes already. The more you spin, the more convinced I become that I'll never, ever vote for her.

Seeing that you live around that bend where you infer Ted has gone you would be the best to answer your own question.

and it would be a toss-up.

K&R

and the key should be thrown away. HE IS A MENACE TO CIVILIZED SOCIETY. :sarcasm:

So he didn't endorse your candidate. So what. That doesn't make him any less a Democrat.

I think it is a valid question

We've let the media and the establishment give us two candidates to choose from. This does not bode well.