Bloga Culpas: The Kennedy Endorsement

On Friday, following Ben Smith's careful nugget about Hillary Clinton's worry about a Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama, I reported that people close to Kennedy were convinced that he would remain comfortably neutral. Well, the truth hurts, Drebin, and readers deserve an explanation.

I based my report on several sources, one of them being a person close to Bill Clinton, who said that, in conversations with Kennedy, the former president had come to believe that he would not endorse. (That source stands by Clinton's perception, and today, an adviser to the Clinton campaign said that Kennedy had told Democratic elected officials close to the Clintons that he would not endorse.)

Perhaps the radio silence from the Obama campaign should have tipped me off. They did not respond to my requests for comment. I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing in the same scenario, but to the extent that my reporting seemed in any way to denigrate Ben Smith's, I regret very much that perception.

We were both dealing with provisional information. But Ben was right. And I was not.

Some of you who actually read political blogs on Sundays might have also noticed that the first version of a report on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius's impending endorsement of Barack Obama said it would happen in Tuesday in Kansas. That last part of the report was not correct, and within three minutes of posting it, I removed.

Sebelius will endorse Obama; the details of the endorsement are under wraps, at the moment.

Comments

HC is the political cruella DeVille. We know she doesnt mean it...besides she cant even do her stumpin' with out Billy....she needs as all of the horses in the race, to focus on education, iraq, and the econonmy....the stimulus is a farce...
(the midas touch) ...regardless i feel for who ever wins this horse race (poor mr or mrs next president)

Posted by rawdawgbuffalo | January 27, 2008 6:58 PM

I don't understand. You reported that people "close to Kennedy" think he would remain neutral, but now you say that one of your sources was a "person close to Bill Clinton." So which is it? Were you relying on sources close to Clinton or to Kennedy? And, if both, why didn't you phrase your original report to reflect that?

Posted by Fred App | January 27, 2008 7:00 PM

I for one appreciate the mea culpa. Journalists are not always perfect and if there is one thing I am confident of is that you try to give us the best information you have, if only because it is your advantage.

Posted by Benjamin | January 27, 2008 7:03 PM

Methinks you're letting yourself getting spun too much by the Clintons. Start with a simple precept: don't believe a word any of them say. Then go from there.

Posted by michael | January 27, 2008 7:08 PM

You should probably note that Sen. Obama's South Carolina Field Director is Jeremy Bird, not Jeremy Boyd.

Posted by While you're at it | January 27, 2008 7:13 PM

This makes me wonder how much of what Ambinder reports is really just spin from the Clinton campaign.

Did he ever explain why he's a member of the Harvard for Hillary group?

Posted by Mike | January 27, 2008 7:17 PM

Obama's website confirms that he'll be in Kansas on Tuesday. According to the Wall St. Journal, the Wichita Eagle, and Al Giordano's blog, ruralvotes.com/thefield, Obama would be the first Democratic Presidential candidate to campaign in Kansas since RFK in '68. It's hard to imagine that he'll be able to afford going there twice before Feb. 5's caucuses there. Given all that, I think it likely that Gov. Sebelius will be there with him on Tuesday.

Posted by Joel Rutstein | January 27, 2008 7:29 PM

I sincerely appreciate the explanation and apology.

And hopefully Marc learned his lesson about serving as an outlet for the Clinton campaign.

Posted by DTM | January 27, 2008 7:30 PM

More wishful thinking by B. Clinton.

Thanks for the explanation.

Posted by evie | January 27, 2008 7:39 PM

Thanks for explanation. Actually hearing the details makes me even happier...Bill Clinton got absolutely worked by Ted. Ouch!!!

Posted by ar | January 27, 2008 7:55 PM

Now the only thing left is for Gore and John Edwards to endorse.

The Clintons running against the establishment? Ha.

Posted by sumofallfears | January 27, 2008 8:18 PM

Marc, and this is why you need to stop drinking the Clinton kool-aid. The party is turning against them before our eyes. Get out before it's too late. Thanks for the explanation, though.

Posted by indieFL | January 27, 2008 9:21 PM

The aforementioned Al Giordano has a pretty impressive record of calling or hinting at big endorsements of Obama before they happen (Kerry, Sebelius, Kennedy). I think that he's got good sources. He has been hinting at Gore recently - not quite a prediction, so I wouldn't count on it, but the other endorsements he has hinted at have come to pass, so this is worth listening to.

Posted by ikl | January 27, 2008 9:27 PM

no harm, no foul. it happens. im not sure i'll believe it until I see footage of the old man actually going through with it. What a brave move! He's putting a lot on the line. I hope more senators will follow.

Posted by denver | January 27, 2008 9:42 PM

Meet The Press addresses Clinton’s race-baiting:

Today, an amazing thing happened; the MTP panel confronted the Clinton’s race-baiting strategy against Obama head on. Here’s the link. Watch it for yourself. The discussion begins at around 27 minutes (after the John McCain interview).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22867810#22867810

Posted by sue | January 27, 2008 9:52 PM

Marc, thanks for the explanation.

You, Ben Smith and Al Giordano are writing the best accounts of this primary election. The occasional foul-up is totally understandable, especially with explanation.

Posted by Rachel Q | January 28, 2008 12:19 AM

Hilary is facing a real problem as more Democratic heavyweights get on board with Obama. The more endorsements he receives, the easier it becomes to get the next one, because everyone wants to back a winner. There is a tidal wave effect at work here, and it's all to Obama's benefit. He is peaking at precisely the right time.

IMHO, the only thing keeping the Clinton candidacy afloat at the moment is the fact that she and our useless media were so successful at making the 'Hilary is inevitable' argument. The Iowa primary deflated that myth, and her stock has been sinking like a stone since then. Worse, I don't think she and Bill have the grace and class to hold up well now that the wind is blowing in their face. I expect that their worst behavior will manifest itself in the coming weeks.

Posted by global yokel | January 28, 2008 12:37 AM

Just a few slips. Don't worry about it.

Posted by JRB | January 28, 2008 5:57 AM

I'm with Joel Rutstein on this one - the second retraction may have come too soon. Obama is returning to Kansas, to visit Eldorado, his grandparents' hometown. Sebelius's spokeswoman has said, when asked if she's endorsing Obama, that she had promised Nancy Pelosi that she would not publicly announce an endorsement until after delivering the response to the State of the Union on Monday night.

Add that together, you've got Obama suddenly showing up in Kansas on the morning that Sebelius is first able to endorse him. Don't think this one's too hard to figure out.

Posted by Cynic | January 28, 2008 7:14 AM

President John F. Kennedy himself once said:

"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."

Thanks to Carolyn, Ted and Patrick Kennedy and to Governor Sebelius for helping us to look towards the future in their endorsements for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Posted by Robert Campbell | January 28, 2008 12:20 PM

It seems so ridiculous for the Kennedy family to in any way
equate Obama to JFK. I think EMK has lost his marbles finally and in doing so has dragged his son and niece into pandering to the media in support of someone unqualified to lead this nation. Obama is no JFK..to paraphrase another Democrat. He has a long
way to go to take on that mantle. I am seldom shocked or surprise, but this endorsement takes the cake. Shame,shame shame for
such a political ploy. Nothing in politics is unplanned. There are
supported facts that show that Kennedy and Obama have been
close friends and instead of coming out to support him in the beginning, it is apparent that Kennedy timed this staged endorsement to coincide with Super Tues. A transparent political move geared more to scuttling Hilary's lead in the polls than to
genuinely embrace "the hope of the future". The good-old-boy
network in Congress in shaking in their boots from the possibility of turning the reins of power over to a qualified woman. There has never been a doubt who is the most qualified
in this race...so the conclusion is that any man regardless of his
experience or qualifications always trumps a more qualified
woman. Shame..shame shame

Posted by kathe holcomb | January 28, 2008 4:13 PM

The biggest myth in this campaign, from the very beginning, has been Hillary Clinton's claim to "experience". Almost her entire history in the White House is made up of negative experience, she actually has LESS years as an elected official than Obama and she has not accomplished any more in her extra years in the Senate than he has in the time he's been there.

But the American public is finally waking up. The Empress has no clothes.

Posted by Rebecca | January 28, 2008 6:05 PM

As to predicting what Ted Kennedy (or anyone else) was going to do and when -- why bother? Aren't we a little impatient about knowing what is going to happen tomorrow? I'd like to get through today and absorb what I have learned.

Also, I agree with kathe holcomb, above.

And to Rebecca,
Experience does not always come from being in elected office, and Hillary Clinton could use some of the same words I have heard in one of Obama's ads -- that when she got out of law school, she went to work on behalf of children with special needs, instead of taking a nice spot in some law firm. She is extremely intelligent and capable, and has a tremendous amount of "absorbed" experience, which can be just as valuable as on-the-job -- plus her actual experience as a Senator.

I worked for some great corporate executives and some very good attorneys over a 30 year period prior to becoming disabled. Not one of them could write a comprehensive executive report on a company with up to 14 divisions as well as I could -- or prepare a more perfectly worded and effective legal document than I could. But they didn't offer to increase my paycheck or promote me, as that would be admitting I was a large part of their success, and that would have crushed their huge egos.

If Hillary Clinton (or I) had been born 15-20 years later, a lot of things would be different.

Even now, many American males seem to be intimidated by an intelligent woman, and women are still not being paid -- or elected -- according to their abilities. The old ideas are slow to loosen their grip, which is why Obama can make negative comments (and frequently does) and hardly anyone notices -- but when Hillary says anything to point out the deficiencies of her opponent, it is considered to be "unfair", "a woman thing" or "b*tchiness".

Maybe by the time my grandson (age 6) grows up, there will be a more level playing field (to use a male-oriented term, because they are so proliferous).

I must say, I do not know exactly what Bill Clinton said in every instance on the campaign trail and I do not approve of any "creepiness" in that regard. However, from listening to cable news, one would think he had committed the unpardonable sin. I think it is unfortunate that Hillary could not run on her own, and I wish the press would leave Bill out of it a lot more than they do, but -- she's a woman! Men must make some excuse as to why she cannot become President! And the women who criticize her seem to be pretty cozy with the men who do. I guess it is good job security for the women. I wonder if any of them could have survived the humiliation that Hillary Clinton experienced. Her ability to remain calm is what I want in someone who has that awful button in their command -- not someone who sometimes "pressed the wrong button" several times -- on some fairly important issues!

Posted by PegT | January 29, 2008 6:18 PM