CBS: Why Ted Kennedy Didn't Endorse Clinton

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/31/politics/washingtonpost/main3774271.shtml

Washington Post: Hillary Clinton's Comments On LBJ Infuriated Liberal Icon

There's more to Sen. Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama than meets the eye. Apparently, part of the reason why the liberal lion from Massachusetts embraced Obama was because of a perceived slight at the Kennedy family's civil rights legacy by the other Democratic presidential primary frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a "meltdown" in reaction to Clinton's comments. Another source close to the Kennedy family says Senator Kennedy was upset about two instances that occurred on a single day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, a day before the state's primary.

The first was at an event in Dover, N.H., at which Clinton supporter Francine Torge introduced the former first lady saying, "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" signed the civil rights bill into law.

The Kennedy insider says Senator Kennedy was deeply offended that Clinton remained silent and "sat passively by" rather than correcting the record on his slain brother's civil rights record.

Kennedy was also apparently upset that Clinton said on the same day: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Ac. It took a president to get it done."

FULL story at link.

shows how much clout Uncle Teddy has.

Don't give me that BS! And anyway the shill votes that Hillary is trying to claim weren't suppose to count and I live her in Florida. We were under the impression that our vote would not count. I did however vote for Obama. This is idiocy!:argh:

I lived through this and believe me when JFK and Bobby and MLK were all killed it was traumatic! To say that you think this was just an ego trip or a not important is to be very naive and even cruel! JFK and Bobby and MLK gave the lives because of their dream of equality and the belief in the American Constitution and promise! I don't blame Sen. Kennedy for feeling the way he did!!!!

:grouphug: Thank you to JFK, Bobby and MLK! We will never forget your sacrifices!!!!!!!

what with this being politics and all.

At least, I didn't get that from what she said. I took her to mean that it took LBJ's actions shepherding the bill through Congress. LBJ was considered superlative at getting legislation passed.

I guess I can see how Ted Kennedy could be miffed. And HRC probably should have mentioned that JFK was an ally in the civil rights struggle. But the fact was it was LBJ who got it through and, sadly, probably in great part to the fact that JFK's assassination had brought the nation together in grief and unity.

BTW, I lived through that era, too. I cast my first vote for JFK. And RFK was a hero to me.

Can you provide a link for your claim that 60% of the Florida vote came from early voting?
That was not the case in my county. I appreciate the information.

cesspool.

to not support Hillary. Her statement about LBJ was accurate and correct. LBJ twisted many arms to get that civil rights legislation passed and you can hear it for yourseld on PBS replays of tapes from his Oval Office. This is a bogus reason by Ted.

in the Kennedy camp, either.

Short-fused, vindictive, real sweethearts.

Plenty of arrogance to go around.

in other words, a gaffe.

good for the country.

By trotting him out for the purpose of political retaliation.

mention Ethel, couldn't just endorse Obama on his own merit. They had to call up the memory of JFK and RFK. They are already mythical figures, a great part of our emotional history; they will never be forgotten or their contributions downplayed.

Whether or not this story is true, it seems that they can't relate to anything, except through the myopia of their family legacy.

I hope RFK Jr. and Kathleen Townsend don't do the same thing with Hillary.

Who knows, maybe some day. He may go down in history as the last American president to preside over a non-fascist state. That's something.

Mentioning Bill, other than some of his accomplishments, pretty much boils down to nothing.

Are you a soothsayer?

to them, they have been protective of his/their legacy for how long?

So for them to actually go out and making that comparison means a lot i think

One thing about Hillary even her detractors and enemies would have to admit,she can remain cool as a cucumber while others flail about.

:)
I like Ted, but come on, dude. :)

:)

wow

:cry:

Oh brother.

Like we are supposed to believe after all these years that Kennedy is the vain one and Clintons are victims of HIS vanity?

They really are shameless.

This reads a bit like a gossip column or Kitty Kelly novel.

I still think it was the ol' who's the boss of the party thinghie. Kerry was the first salvo. It doesn't matter now. Teddy id just an Obama surrogate - his credibility is no larger than Obama's. On anything primaries 2008. He has no torch to pass.

Well, known -- the "Kennedy branch' of the Democratic Party and the rest of the 'rubes' in other parts of the country.

This does make Kennedy look a little shallow, though.

ensure that his legacy had a firm place in history. In other words, the right-leaning faction of this country may not have accepted the Civil Rights legislation, if it weren't for the enormous blood sacrifice that was made, to which no one to this day, really believes the government has properly investigated.

..he skips Kennedy.

remember him either. Kennedy's death, however, and how LBJ took to adopt his policies is well documented. The sad reality is that this country probably wouldn't have moved as quickly as it did on Civil Rights legislation if it weren't for that assassination. Seeing clearly how divisive our country is today, I'm shocked that Civil Rights legislation was passed at all back in 64. But once Kennedy was assassinated, as when any president is killed, there was a period afterward where it could have become a cause for revolution, unless his supporters were placated.

There were two groups that would have never given up and would have continued their revolution until they were heard. First was the Civil Rights movement, and second were the war protesters. The young and black Americans. Two groups that could have destabilized the paternalistic conservative control of this country, if they hadn't been appeased, when they were.

To suggest that LBJ did what he did, without taking into account that Kennedy's blood sacrifice had anything to do it, is pretty shocking coming from a family that likes to claim that it was influenced by Kennedy's legacy.

:rofl:

list history among them.

Not to mention how lacking your knowledge of the events of that time are.

Too young to try drugs and old enough to be influenced by the events. However, it's only now that I'm beginning to understand why LBJ became such a proponent of Kennedy's agenda.

As for John Lewis, I think the point is made that someone who can't remember Kennedy's legacy, really shouldn't get too worked up about it when the day comes when nobody remembers his.

As for John Lewis, he correctly stated Kennedy allowed the Civil Rights bill to be watered down.

At the time NAACP president Roy Wilkins warned President Kennedy not to let his already over-moderate civil rights bill be further watered down.

Finally, Lewis is not "worked up" about anything nor has he said anything that would hint at that.

that are designed to help those in need, then you picked the candidate most likely to disappoint you. I'm going to have fun hounding you during her presidency every time she does so, if she makes it through.

I don't know John Lewis, and that tells me that his opinion means nada to me. So I think people that are putting such measure in his words, are forgetting what we were dealing with back then. I admit I didn't understand it fully, until recently. What I have learned in the last ten years, that I didn't know in my childhood back in the 60s, was the intense prejudice that Kennedy was dealing with was not isolated to small pockets in the South. It was far more rampant in the US than I previously realized. And as a child, I thought with a swish of a hand, we became one big Kumbaya nation, which was fine with my Christian beliefs.

You have to pardon that naivete, you see, I lived overseas on a military base. Only one English channel came through and it was owned by the military. So wouldn't you know that I grew up on a diet of liberalism and American pie propaganda. Conservative AND Liberal values all in one bite.

Maybe it's wrong, but I believe that naive perception is still the right one, the right goal. If it's at all possible to reach, we should try. But as for the Kennedy era, the older I get, the more clearer it becomes to me that we wouldn't have taken such a huge leap in the direction of Civil Rights, if things didn't occur in the order they did. We don't seem to come together as a nation, unless something terribly tragic happens.

But, I'm afraid we're wearing down with all the manipulations of the last fifteen years, and as distrust begins to settle in, it will be much harder for the next leader to get our attention, all at one time.

Are you capable of doing thst?

are looking for weasel room for her. She made a major historical faux paus, and you all are running to her aid trying to find a loophole that would allow her to get away with comments that completely ignored Kennedy's enormous impact and influence on Civil Rights. That's chutzpah.

And I'll bet that before the final primary, this will all flip-flop and we'll be hearing about how the Clintons were inspired by the Kennedys and how they're planning to take us into the next Camelot.

I just hope when the time comes, Hillary can make an Arthurian decision and allow the investigations to go through her husband's records without interference. But, I'm advancing the discussion and I know how that confuses you.

would feel, wyldwolf? Why is it okay to insult Kennedy's legacy, but not Lewis'? Let me know when the bulb goes on.

I don't change the subject, wyldwolf, I advance the discussion but you never seem to want to respond and address the next level of the conversation. I'm on to you. It's an attempt on your part to put boundaries on a discussion that you are not able to win.

I hope other DUers are listening so they can learn your debating affectation.

1. What you consider my attributes to be.
2. What you think of the candidate I support.
3. Yout impression (from where, who knows) than John Lewis is "worked up."

That fact remains, civil rights leaders of the era felt Kennedy was offering up a weak watered down civil rights bill and they told him as much.

LBJ got civil rights legislation through, not JFK and Clinton stated that accurately.

John Lewis, to this day, feels JFK's role was too little too late.

You're looking for a technical loophole, wyldwolf. That's why people don't like the Clintons and they won't like the Clinton supporters. You spend too much time looking for technicalities instead of fessing up to your mistakes. Nothing, but NOTHING justifies Hillary's slight to the Kennedys. Saying that LBJ got civil rights legislation through without addressing Kennedy's tragic demise as a major factor leading up to the acceptance of that legislation is just despicable.

I don't ever want to hear you on these boards wrapping the Kennedy dream around your shoulders. Since you obviously consider LBJ as the man who gave us Civil Rights, single-handedly. Let's see how that argument endears you to other Democrats, especially as time reveals LBJ's true motivations.

And thanks for identifying the fact that you can't handle additional points made in a discussion.

Then, yes.

thanks for identifying the fact that you can't perform an kindergarten-level skill of staying on task.

conversation. The original point was made a long time ago, actually, over and over again. You just can't handle it when someone tries to discuss anything above kingergarten comprehension and tries to move to the next salient point. I guess you're waiting for someone to start a new thread to germinate a new idea?

Hey, go wild, talk about two different topics in the same thread. It won't kill ya.

...is not relevant to stating something factual that happened in 1963. Yet, you tried to focus the discussion on that. Wild tangent.

being thrown at you at one time? And the one that you are buzzing around is incredibly weak. This hinges on your bringing up Lewis's comments for what purpose? Are you really using his criticism of Kennedy's legislation back in 1963 to vindicate Hillary's 2008 slight of Kennedy's influence on Civil Rights? Whatever Lewis may have known in 1963, does it have any relevance to what we know now?

I just want to see what YOU personally believe, because I want to log it for future discussion. Do YOU actually believe that Lewis's 1963 comments vindicate Hillary's current statement?

THE ISSUE! Answer the question. It's based on YOUR original point. The only one that you insist is salient to the argument, so here it is again:

Your one point, the only one that you will address, the only one that you think is valid to the argument, is weak. Your point hinges on Lewis's comments for what purpose? Are you using his criticism of Kennedy's legislation back in 1963 to vindicate Hillary's 2008 slight of Kennedy's influence on Civil Rights? Whatever Lewis may have known in 1963, does it have any relevance to what we know today?

I just want to see what YOU personally believe, because I want to log it for future discussion. Do YOU actually believe that Lewis's 1963 comments vindicate Hillary's current statement?

- - -

This is within your own tight boundaries, and I bet your short attention span will still not be able to address it. You will run, you will sidestep, and you will show that you are the perfect shill for Hillary Clinton.

Wyldwolf, we're doing this your way. Instead of addressing the several points on this issue, which were very valid to the dicussion, we've cut it down to your one. AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Here it is again:

Answer the question. It's based on YOUR original point. The only one that you insist is salient to the argument, so here it is again:

Your one point, the only one that you will address, the only one that you think is valid to the argument, is weak. Your point hinges on Lewis's comments for what purpose? Are you using his criticism of Kennedy's legislation back in 1963 to vindicate Hillary's 2008 slight of Kennedy's influence on Civil Rights? Whatever Lewis may have known in 1963, does it have any relevance to what we know today?

I just want to see what YOU personally believe, because I want to log it for future discussion. Do YOU actually believe that Lewis's 1963 comments vindicate Hillary's current statement?

- - -

This is within your own tight boundaries, and I bet your short attention span will still not be able to address it. You will run, you will sidestep, and you will show that you are the perfect shill for Hillary Clinton.

All I asked was, for what purpose? What were you going to gain by bringing his name up? Were you really going to use his 1963 comments to vindicate Hillary Clinton in 2008? Was that why? Explain yourself.

And now you're upset that I won't follow you down every twisty turny road.

on the beaten path, ergo, he's fair game. All I'm asking is a simple question. What were you trying to accomplish by bringing his name up? Surely, you weren't going to try to vindicate Hillary Clinton's comments based on his 1963 opinion. Surely?

His documented words run contrary to Ted Kennedy's reasons for not supporting Obama as detailed in the OP.

My candidate choice and all the other off ramps you tried to inject into the discussion are NOT relevant.

not noticed that your attributes are a bit out of place.

First, John Lewis's comment were in 1963. Correct? He made the comments in 1963, not in 2008. Is that correct? In that case, (a) how can any of us know how John Lewis would feel about JFK today? It's been 45 years, and in the aftermath of Nixon, Reagan and two Bushes, Kennedy's Civil Rights record looks pretty damn good. Even if Lewis were still holding a grudge, Hillary should know better.

(b) This is the noose that hangs your argument the most. Since you're big on staying on tangent, this is an exact quote from the original OP: 'Kennedy was also apparently upset that Clinton said on the same day: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."'

Wyldwolf, if Hillary said that, it's pretty harsh and John Lewis's comments won't give her an alibi. In fact, his comments directly contradict her because, even as Lewis attempts to criticize JFK, his comments affirm that JFK was working on Civil Rights programs. It may not have been what Lewis wanted at the time, but he WAS working on them, therefore, Dr. King's dream did not begin to be realized with LBJ. It was obviously being realized by JFK.

Lewis may not have liked what JFK had proposed before JFK paid the highest price that anyone can pay for shaking up the conservative base, with his life; but at least his statement acknowledges what Hillary's statement did not. That JFK was at least working on it.

And, finally, you may want to look at the sentence you wrote because Ted Kennedy *is* supporting Obama. I'm sure that was just a typo on your part.

this one, and lost it big, are you?

else's argument. You're a shill for Hillary Clinton and I have to tell you, that if I were her, I'd be embarrassed to have you representing me.

In a discussion of historical events, my personal beliefs and voting preferences are not relevant.

of your narrow mind. YOU brought the subject up to make a point. You didn't just drop it like some loaf at the side of the road. You brought up that John Lewis thought that Kennedy's Civil Right's record was too little to late, and to this day, leaves Kennedy out of the discussion when he talks about Civil Rights.

I just asked the obvious question. So what? Are you bringing him up to attempt to vindicate Hillary Clinton's slight against Kennedy in 2008? If you are afraid to claim that it is, then I can only surmise that you have figured out how incredibly lame your offering was.

I'm just wondering how long it's going to take before she recognizes that she got caught trolling.

The narrow mind is yours - trying to divert from the very real fact that John Lewis credits JFK with NADA by tying my personal voting choice (and other irrelevant points) into the discussion.

different to you, than it does to me, or maybe I have the wrong John Lewis, because here is what John Lewis said about President Kennedy during his acceptance speech for a Profile in Courage Lifetime Achievement Award, presented to him by Ted and Caroline Kennedy in 2001, and his opinion of Kennedy is no where near the ballpark of what you project on this board.

Direct Quotes from John Lewis's acceptance speecH:

Caroline Kennedy, Senator Kennedy, President Ford and Mrs. Ford, members of the Selection Committee, Trustees of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, family and friends.

I am humbled by this honor and very pleased to be here with you on this special occasion marking the work and life of a courageous and humane man of politics and letters -- President John F. Kennedy.

I feel lucky. I feel more than lucky, I feel truly blessed to receive this award and I feel very blessed to still be here. While you honor me today for a lifetime of achievement, I cannot forget those whose lives were cut short: the three young civil rights workers in Mississippi----Mickey Schwerner, James Chaney and Andy Goodman. President Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. Dr. Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers. So many lives cut short. We must remember them. We are indebted to them.

<snip>

Somewhere in my youth I remember hearing: "Sorrow may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning."

That night at First Baptist, exactly forty years ago today, was a long, long night. If we continued the Freedom Ride, we would face arrest or worst. And if we stopped the Rides, freedom would be denied.

An angry mob surrounded the church - throwing stones and firebombs, overturning cars, even pounding on the walls of the sanctuary. While we prayed and sang freedom songs, President Kennedy and the Attorney General desperately negotiated with the Governor of Alabama - fighting for our safety.

It was our sorrow and the nation's sorrow for that night. And for many more nights to come, the American people -- indeed the world -- would witness many more beatings, jailing and even the killing of non-violent protesters daring a better America.

So on May 21, 1961, I remembered:

"Sorrow may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning."

By that morning, joy had come to us: President Kennedy made a bold and courageous decision to federalize the Alabama National Guard. He also sent in federal marshals to protect us. We would make it to Jackson Mississippi. But we could not have done so without the help of President Kennedy and his brother, the Attorney General.
<snip>

People often ask, how did others and I continue our non-violent protests through the sixties with the likelihood that we would be beaten, imprisoned or even killed. President Kennedy is my best answer to this question. In 1963 he said "The question of race is a moral issue. It is as old as the scripture itself."

<snip>

Acceptance speech delivered by Congressman John Lewis, recipient of the Profile in Courage Lifetime Achievement Award, May 21, 2001.


http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/John+Lewis/Acceptance+Speech+by+Congressman+John+Lewis.htm

Check Mate.

Surely you understand that. Or is that just another diversionary tactic. The thread is about the Civil rights act. Our discussion is about Lewis not giving JFK credit for it of which I've said repeatedly. I state Lewis credited JFK with nada. You prove he credited JFK with something, but again divert from the point - the civil rights act.

I'm sure John Lewis credits JFK with being a human. A president. Lots of other things. But not the Civil Rights act, the subject of our discussion and ultimately the entire thread.

check mate.

No one in their right mind would suggest that JFK had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. LBJ, when he took over made a speech which said he would push Kennedy's programs, and that recognition is where your argument fails. No American would claim that Kennedy had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. Not even Lewis, and you know it. So stop distorting his record.

In addition, your original post was made in regards to the CBS article which discusses far more than just the actual legislation. It talks about a legacy which you don't seem to want to acknowledge, and even Lewis would not agree with you. In fact, I think you have done a great disservice to Lewis and you owe him an apology. Because he does talk well of Kennedy, not "NADA," and this is what he said:

"People often ask, how did others and I continue our non-violent protests through the sixties with the likelihood that we would be beaten, imprisoned or even killed. President Kennedy is my best answer to this question. In 1963 he said "The question of race is a moral issue. It is as old as the scripture itself."

No one in their right mind would suggest that JFK had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act.

And no one has. If they have, provide a quote (and I mean among those relevant to this discussion (Clintons, Kennedys, Lewis - just in case you pull some quote from someone unrelated which, it seems, you're likely to do.)

In addition, your original post was made in regards to the CBS article which discusses far more than just the actual legislation.

My original post made a point about John Lewis. That is what subthreads are for.

fact, I think you have done a great disservice to Lewis and you owe him an apology. Because he does talk well of Kennedy, not "NADA,"

But not when it comes to the Civil Rights act.

and this is what he said:

And this is what he said: It was 'too little too late.'

BC: No one in their right mind would suggest that JFK had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act.

W: And no one has. If they have, provide a quote (and I mean among those relevant to this discussion (Clintons, Kennedys, Lewis - just in case you pull some quote from someone unrelated which, it seems, you're likely to do.)


You distorted Lewis' position Wyldwolf. Right here in post number 26:

And even to this day, when Lewis speaks about US presidents and civil rights...
..he skips Kennedy.

That is a false statement. In his acceptance speech in 2001, Lewis described Kennedy as playing a pivotal role in the fight for civil rights. For crying out loud, Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard and sent in federal marshalls in the 60s to help Lewis. What is that if not being in support of civil rights? Lewis was even good enough to point out that Kennedy's life was cut short.

- - - -
BC: In addition, your original post was made in regards to the CBS article which discusses far more than just the actual legislation.

W: My original post made a point about John Lewis. That is what subthreads are for.

A point which we have determined involved a statement of Lewis made in 1963 and which did little to advance your criticism of Ted Kennedy's displeasure as it was described in the article which involved more than just the Act.

- - - - -

BC: In fact, I think you have done a great disservice to Lewis and you owe him an apology. Because he does talk well of Kennedy, not "NADA,"

W: But not when it comes to the Civil Rights act.

W: And this is what he said: It was 'too little too late.'

I'm inclined to ask you to post a link to that claim, that he said "too little to late," because you've already made inaccurate statements about Lewis's record. Not that it would matter to me, if he did make the comment, because the point is made that it does little to advance your case, if your purpose was to bring it up to defend Hillary's statements in 2008. A point which you don't seem to want to fess up to, and I can understand why.

That is a false statement. In his acceptance speech in 2001, Lewis described Kennedy as playing a pivotal role in the fight for civil rights. For crying out loud, Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard and sent in federal marshalls in the 60s to help Lewis. What is that if not being in support of civil rights? Lewis was even good enough to point out that Kennedy's life was cut short.

Nope. I see Lewis speak often. He skips Kennedy. What was Lewis suppose to say in regards to Kennedy while accepting that award.

I believe, because you seem to be so literal minded to the point of aburdity, you'll have to understand that in the scope of this conversation I'm always referring specifically to the Civil Rights act.

A point which we have determined involved a statement of Lewis made in 1963 and which did little to advance your criticism of Ted Kennedy's displeasure as it was described in the article and it involved more than just the Act.

I've never criticised Kennedy's displeasure, have I? Quote me. In your zeal to zing and divert, you only assumed I did.

If I saw Lewis through your eyes, I could only conclude that he's one big phony so it's a good thing that I'm not basing my opinion on your personal observations. In fact, someone who would intentionally skip over Kennedy when he speaks out in regards to Civil Rights, and then goes and accepts a Profile in Courage Award, (which you do know is an award straight out of the JFK library) is anything but courageous.

And, here's something that I've been trying to tell you, but which you don't seem to want to understand. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on Kennedy's civil rights bill and vision:

This is from wiki
"The bill had been introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,<1> in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote."

He then sent a bill to Congress on June 19. Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General to sue state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

That was June of 1963. He was killed five months later.

As I stated before, LBJ picked up Kennedy's agenda. Even Wiki states it:

"The wave of national grief and soul-searching following the assassination gave enormous momentum to Johnson's promise to carry out Kennedy's programs. He retained the senior Kennedy appointees, some for the full term of his presidency. Even the late President's brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, with whom Johnson had an infamously-difficult relationship, remained in office until leaving in 1964 to run for the Senate.<17>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBJ

And, finally, Kennedy's displeasure was the whole reason you posted: You said, in post number 9, your original post, "I hate to tell Ted this but...."

You know Wyldwolf, I'm inclined to believe that Ted Kennedy knows John Lewis a whole lot better than you do. In fact, I think everybody who has been following this thread probably does by now.

And, finally, Kennedy's displeasure was the whole reason you posted: You said, in post number 9, your original post, "I hate to tell Ted this but...."

:rofl: So you KNOW the reason I posted that, huh?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, was based on Kennedy's civil rights act/vision so if you are right about Lewis, I can only conclude he is a hypocrite. If you want to paint him in that manner, the seeds are there to do so. He even called himself militant in his passion, meaning he would not take into account, all the things a president would have to take into account; and something that Kennedy may have paid with his life to accomplish:

This is right out of CNN:

John Lewis longs for the passion of 1963
From Jonathan Karl
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, August 28, 2003 Posted: 12:13 PM EDT (1613 GMT)

<snip>

"We came with a different philosophy, we came with different attitude," he said. "We were a little impatient. We had a degree of militancy."

The original text of Lewis' speech promised a "scorched earth policy" to march through the South the way Sherman did, burning Jim Crow to the ground.

Lewis pointed out that the speech called for only nonviolent actions. But, the words were too militant. March organizers wanted them out.

<snip>

Randolph and King both thought Lewis would strike the wrong tone with his speech.

"Right behind Lincoln here," Lewis said, "we were sitting on the side making the changes, and Mr. Randolph said, 'John we've come this far together, for the sake of unity, can we make these changes?' And Dr. King said, 'John, that doesn't sound like you. Can we make those changes?' I made the changes."

Only two years before, in 1961, Lewis was among 13 volunteers to participate in the first Freedom Ride, organized to challenge segregation at interstate bus terminals across the South.

Lewis was beaten severely numerous times for participating in the Freedom Rides. He was hit with a wooden crate in Birmingham and left unconscious in a Greyhound bus station in Montgomery, Alabama.

After the march, Lewis and the other civil rights leaders met with President John F. Kennedy. But Kennedy had opposed the march, fearing it would provoke a backlash.

"President Kennedy thought with a march there would be chaos, possibility of violence, that it would turn the Congress against passage of a civil rights bill."

Kennedy was assassinated November 22, 1963. The Civil Rights Act was adopted in 1964 and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The leaders of the march credit the event with raising enough awareness to pass the bill.

Forty years later, Lewis looks back at the march with a mix of longing and nostalgia.

"I long for that sense of passion, I long for that sense of movement, that sense of not being still and I think 40 years later, we're too quiet, we're too patient, too complacent," Lewis said.

"Somehow we need to find that sense of passion in the same spirit that descended on us 40 years ago. It needs to descend on American people again."


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/27/march.lewis/


So, Wyldwolf. Maybe you should post the link where Lewis says that Kennedy's contribution to the Civil Rights Act was too little to late? What did Lewis want him to do, die sooner? I'd like to read the context of those statements since you are no longer credible.

"...We march today for jobs and freedom, but we have nothing to be proud of. For hundreds and thousands of our brothers are not here. They have no money for their transportation, for they are receiving starvation wages or no wages, at all.

In good conscience, we cannot support the administration's civil rights bill, for it is too little, and too late. There's not one thing in the bill that will protect our people from police brutality.

This bill will not protect young children and old women from police dogs and fire hoses, for engaging in peaceful demonstrations...

...This nation is still a place of cheap political leaders who build their careers on immoral compromise and ally themselves with open forms of political, economic and social exploitation. What political leader here can stand up and say, "My party is the party of principles"? The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party?" - John Lewis, speech at the March on Washington (28th August, 1963)as written.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlewisJ.htm

Now comes the part where you try to tell us what Lewis REALLY meant. Since you are no longer credible... lol.

CNN article. He was a militant and it wasn't in his nature back in 1963 to compromise or look for a moderate, diplomatic solution to the Civil Rights issue. In fact, he claimed to pursue non-violent protest, but he said just the opposite. He even sees himself that way:

"We came with a different philosophy, we came with different attitude," he said. "We were a little impatient. We had a degree of militancy."

The original text of Lewis' speech promised a "scorched earth policy" to march through the South the way Sherman did, burning Jim Crow to the ground."

Lewis pointed out that the speech called for only nonviolent actions. But, the words were too militant. March organizers wanted them out."

If he still felt the same way in 2001 when he accepted that award, and if he still doesn't give Kennedy credit for the ideas behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 I wouldn't have any trouble identifying this man as a hypocrite.

I understand now why I never heard of him before. His view is salted with misdirected bitterness, assuming that's how he still feels today. How can you claim to pursue non-violent protest, and then talk about scorched earth? The two ideas are mutually exclusive.

And could you clarify who he was referring to when he talked about cheap political leaders who build their career on immoral compromise? Please tell me that's not JFK he's talking about?

Because, for him to say that about JFK in 1963 and swing to the following words in 2001: "People often ask, how did others and I continue our non-violent protests through the sixties with the likelihood that we would be beaten, imprisoned or even killed. President Kennedy is my best answer to this question. In 1963 he said "The question of race is a moral issue. It is as old as the scripture itself." Well, that's either hypocrisy or something worse.

Here's his quote in full:

"...This nation is still a place of cheap political leaders who build their careers on immoral compromise and ally themselves with open forms of political, economic and social exploitation. What political leader here can stand up and say, "My party is the party of principles"?

Sounds like he has a split personality, or, he's a hypocrite. Anyway, the more I learn about this fellow, the more I wonder why you brought his name up to begin with?

relevance to the current issue over Ted Kennedy's displeasure about Hillary's slight. That IS what this thread is about, isn't it? So, please tell me Wyldwolf, did you succeed? Even if Lewis still holds this extreme, militant opinion forty years later, an opinion, btw, he stated BEFORE Kennedy was assasinated, do you think Ted Kennedy is going to get all worked up about it?

:eyes:

You brought up statements he made at the height of his militant-activist years in 1963 when tough-talking was part of his method. And if he was critical of Kennedy, he would have been critical of LBJ too, because "too little, too late" would have applied to LBJ as well, in the sequence of time.

It's not relevant to the CURRENT discussion, because his statement was made two months before Kennedy's assassination and every indication is that Lewis recognizes today that he was more impatient than the others back then, in finding a diplomatic way through the process.

Even if he wasn't respectful of Kennedy, it still wouldn't matter. If that were true, it would say more about Lewis's lack of character, than it would Kennedy because Kennedy's papers and library will give you more than ample evidence of just how much JFK was involved with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

One man's opinion against a sea of well-documented history.

The man certainly played an important role in the process, but if he isn't man enough to give credit to Kennedy for Kennedy's role in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when there is ample historical documents to support it, then, he marginalizes himself.

Let me refresh your memory:

'I hate to tell Ted this but even John Lewis said JFK's civil rights bill was "too little too late."'

You brought the information up and on this board, that means it is subject to the scalpel. Two things about your comments, first, that the "even" suggests that John Lewis was agreeing with someone. Who? Obviously you're a Hillary shill, so your motives for writing was to lend support to Hillary's slight of JFK regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We've covered that one amply. You don't want to go there because you feel it's going off tangent, even though the word, "even," reveals your true purpose in writing. (You really should rethink that "off tangent" whinge of yours, because I sincerely believe it's the germ of this entire argument.)

Second, is John Lewis. Should Ted Kennedy really be concerned about what John Lewis thinks, ASSUMING, John Lewis feels the same way today, that he did in 1963. I covered that amply. And here was my response:

You brought up statements he made at the height of his militant-activist years in 1963 when tough-talking was part of his method. And if he was critical of Kennedy, he would have been critical of LBJ too, because "too little, too late" would have applied to LBJ as well, in the sequence of time.

It's not relevant to the CURRENT discussion, because his statement was made two months before Kennedy's assassination and every indication is that Lewis recognizes today that he was more impatient than the others back then, in finding a diplomatic way through the process.

Even if he wasn't respectful of Kennedy, it still wouldn't matter. If that were true, it would say more about Lewis's lack of character, than it would Kennedy because Kennedy's papers and library will give you more than ample evidence of just how much JFK was involved with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

One man's opinion against a sea of well-documented history.

- - - - -

In sum, I don't think Lewis would be as harsh today as you portray him to be. The facts just don't add up in your favor.

to defend it. Your motives are free game. However, when I asked you what you were trying to accomplish by posting the statement, i.e. was it an attempt to give Hillary cover, you insisted I was going off tangent, but I wasn't, was I?

Instead, you took the cowards way out and decided to let Lewis and his record take the flak. I had time to kill, so I looked up his record on the net and, lo and behold, what I found was that you were quoting him on something he said back in 63. Whether he still feels that way is suspect. All we have from you as evidence, is that you never hear him talk about Kennedy during speaking events? Not much in the way of evidence, is it?

But, continuing on Lewis's place in history, to me, he represents the muscle and brawn of the civil rights movement, not the diplomatic faction. The muscle and brawn of any movement is impatient and wants things done yesterday. Which certainly would fit in with his comments of "too little, too late." He may have certainly played an important role, but he wasn't a diplomat. If he didn't have King to water down the fighting words in his speeches, and Kennedy to bail him out when he was under siege, things could have turned out differently,for the worst. I think that Lewis understands this and said as much in his 2001 acceptance speech for the Profile in Courage Lifetime Achievment Award.

So, should Ted Kennedy or anybody be too concerned about what an impatient, militant Lewis said in 1963? Or a theoretially impatient Lewis in 2008? No. Of course not. Because most politicians today are trying to represent themselves as leaders who can find diplomatic solutions to our problems -- especially today when we find ourselves recovering from eight years of leadership which relied solely on muscle and brawn.

Doesn't really matter what you think of John Lewis. The fact is, Lewis is certainly a better judge of the events of this era than Ted Kennedy.

be a good judge of the events of the era? Oh my God! Oh no you din't. Did you happen to miss the part where his brother had his brains sprayed across his wife's face and clothing? The assassination was probably precipitated because JFK was pursuing causes unpopular with the conservative sect of this nation. I'll believe that to my dying day.

This is what I was afraid of. You really don't understand the role that Kennedy played in the formulation of the Civil Rights Bill, do you?

Egads. This is like denying the Holocaust. Please, wyldwolf, I'll give you the time you need to rethink your post.

I'll say it again: John Lewis is a better judge of those events than Ted Kennedy. Deal with it.

Ted's brother getting assassinated in no way better educated Ted Kennedy in the civil rights movement that John Lewis.

black Americans suffered during that era, but I'll tell you something he never understood; something that King, understood. Diplomacy would have changed more minds, it would have had a more lasting effect. To this day there are white people who think that King was speaking directly to them, because King knew how to appeal to universal themes of fairness, the kind that bind people together, regardless of color.

Your Lewis, played an important role, but he was not MLK. And no matter how close he was to the issue, he cannot rewrite history. Kennedy was involved with the formulation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I said it before, it may not have been what Lewis wanted, but I think the verdict is already in, that with Kennedy's assasination, it sealed the certainty that it would be passed. Deal with it.

Lewis wasn't MLK, but Ted Kennedy damn sure wasn't John Lewis, or even JFK. Not even close.

John Lewis still can't rewrite history, as much as you think he's the cat's meow. Quite frankly, the more you insist he can, the less likeable he becomes.

Ted Kennedy still can't rewrite history, as much as you think he's the cat's meow. Quite frankly, the more you insist he can, the less likeable he becomes.

I'm still trying to meat out the truth in the first idea you proposed. The only thing that you can claim is that, John Lewis, after everything Kennedy did for him, renounced the original Civil Rights proposal, by calling it "too little, too late." That's his perogative. What you can't do, is try to streeeeeetch that criticism to claim that Kennedy had nothing to do with the final Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So, I guess the question is, are you attempting to use John Lewis to claim that Kennedy had NOTHING to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Even Wiki says you're wrong and Ted Kennedy is right. And quite frankly, even Lewis'statements suggest that a bill had been presented.

I know of no administration that has been open about their records. Just the opposite. But, if you know of one, please enlighten me. Thanks.

What you brought up is exactly what she's going to say. Please God in heaven, before the primaries are a historical footnote, let Hillary make the same statements made by juajen. Let her get up on that soapbox while the votes are not yet in and let's hear her say, "I realize that the voters for the next presidential election want answers to how and who brought this great country to its knees, and that, although I am confident that the fateful decisions were made during the Bush Administration, I understand that he was dealing with the same people that Bill was listening to, and that some machinations may have actually had their roots during Bill's Administration. However, if I'm president, this subject is closed. Let's reach across the aisle and forgive everyone's indiscretions and just move on. No other administration has been forewith in providing information upon request, why should I?"

Let's hear her make that argument and see how far she gets. We expect that from the Republicans, but not from the Democrats, especially not now when information is a matter of importance and public pressure may be needed to break with diplomatic immunity to remove ALL the moles. We need a president in the next election who has no dog (DAWG?)in the fight. Someone who will not have a reason to get in the way of the truth.

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

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

Ted Kennedy and Caroline are not going to pass the torch to just anyone just because Ted is upset at a couple of comments.

The Kennedy family has a string of family members doing really good public service. Why go outside the family if they think they have a mythical torch?

on Kennedy, I would say that Kennedy was in his perfect rights.

I mean, let's get real. Pre-liberal blogging, the only way you could hide a secret like that for more than 30 years, is if the dirt went all the way to the top.

about here.... Not Class President of some High School! Ted made his decision based on THAT? Sad, sad, sad.

The article is an attempt to spin and discredit Kennedy's reasons for endorsing Obama. It is not true.

The media likes turning things into a silly soap opera. I really don't believe Kennedy would base his endorsement on that.

And the truth is that LBJ did far, far more for civil rights than JFK.

Bill Clinton took some heat for the number of government resources he made available to the Kennedys when JFK Jr's plane crashed. If Teddy were going to get petty about JFK's civil rights record being ignored, he would stop and remember Clinton's help when John Jr. died.

I'm thinking something bigger has gone on between EMK and the Clintons or maybe Ted just can't take any more DLC types and hopes Obama might move left if elected.

The JFK morphing into Obama commerical came out far too quickly for it to be based on what Hillary said. It had to have been in the design stage for a while prior.

It seems Ted was the powerful big daddy behind Obama's decision to run for president all along.

Ted was ripped because, obviously unbeknownst to Hillary, she was stealing some of the thunder from the powerful and beautifully composed morph ad.

Caroline and Ophra are best buddies.

Freaky.

(I don't watch TV anymore.)

Geesh, why does W have to tap phones? Source WAPO, backing Clinton and current DC establishment, no wonder. They've been doing that since JFK was shot. So who is booze guzzling source who let this rip? Another Clinton supporting kennedy? A plant? A fiction? An idiot misquoted and now hiding off martha's Vineyard?

Possibility: teddy's rage at the statement. Probability: the interpretation is all WAPO. Yes they are protective of the legacy and more than likely also sane enough to be offended at the civil rights slighting of MLK. Also mad enough to dislike the tactics of the Clinton campaign. But thanks to an invisible source, replete in our party but not the chugging WH, dissension is sown by the interpretation of Teddy's "wrath".

They can go(milelong string of expletives deleted) themselves and their insiders.

Stop using these goddamn sources for anything that causes trivial emotional warfare. they cannot be trusted. We have a couple hundred million sources for that but they don't know better every time the esteemed Foggy Bottom rag carries water for their own.

OF go ahead and defend WAPO to support this gossip. Even if subtsantially true which I doubt from MY sources, deaf ears here.

...another politician with a thin skin...is it no wonder the Dems can't stick together to get anything done?

And it usually involves EGOS!

The day Hillary made the comment LBJ signed the civil rights bill I made a post about it on DU. I said it was true LBJ signed the bill but it had pretty much been ironed out by JFK and LBJ didn't have much involvement in it. I said had JFK not been assassinated he would have signed it. LBJ was pretty much politically pressured to sign it. I said Hillary should have given credit to JFK because it slights the Kennedy name and it wouldn't bode well.

Now this is all speculation on my part about how the kennedy's would react but it seems I was right since the talk of the phone call from Ted to Clinton was rumored to be heated. I don't think Ted Kennedy is the most popular senator but the Kennedy name is legendary.

that Senator Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for three reasons, and not because of the nonsense in this trashy article. Those reasons are:

(a) He believes that Senator Clinton's high negatives make it impossible for her to win the general election; and

(b) He believed the Clinton campaign was dividing the democratic party; and

(c) Most of all, he believes that Senator Obama is the best choice for America in 2008.

Always smart, always clear, H20 Man.

Maybe because of all the advance media hype, obviously planted by the Kennedys, which seemed rather hostile towards Hillary. I don't recall Caroline endorsing any presidential candidate in the past (?), or if she did it was way more "quiet" than this one.

Clinton and Kennedy argued. I seemed to be more of an against Clinton rather than for Obama.

What a petty shame.

This sounds like crap. Teddy had a "meltdown" because of one comment from Hillary?

Sorry, Teddy doesn't strike me as being a "tween".

Ted is just getting even. That is pretty childish."

"We need someone who can bring people together. People want to new day and a new generation."
-- Teddy, lying about his reasons for supporting Obama?,

So Teddy, with 46 years in the senate, says we need change? Is this a joke?

It's so easy to backstab a Clinton, even when they did nothing wrong. HRC said, "It took a president to get it done," and she was right.

in reference to Clinton, on the other hand they love the Kennedy dynasty.

i love the Kennedy's but i find this approach hypocritical

sorry, about being slightly off topic

Why would anyone think that was true?

This is the kind of lie that makes me certain I will never, ever vote for Hillary.

and to endorse someone based on media spin vs. the issues is narrow thinking...

It was LBJ who twisted arms to get the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

Kennedy was in favor of it, but politically ambivalent about taking it on.

You may not like LBJ for other reasons, and there are many to justify it, he was the one who siezed on the Civil Rights Act and War On Poverty Programs and pushed them through Congress.

This was the message I got from the Clinton campaign after the Iowa caucuses.

I guess the last thing we need is someone going around raising people's hopes.

:eyes:

lots of the other Obama supporters.