Ted Kennedy Matters.

The debate in politics about whether endorsements matter is kind of like the debate in football about whether coaching matters. Most of the time, it matters on the margins. But sometimes, people, place and purpose come together, and an endorsement really stings a rival.

I think Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama, today, coming two days after South Carolina, coming at a time when, thanks to the ingenious placement of a New York Times editorial the night after a hard-fought and well-won victory after weeks of racial acrimony, well, this sentence has to end somewhere. Ted Kennedy matters. Forget the casual association of his name with blocks of Democrats Obama needs to do better with, like union members and downscale workers, Latinos and older liberals.

It allows Obama to further clarify what, for him, the Old Politics is all about -- that is, it allows him to separate the Politics of the Clintons from the politics of Democrats before the Clinton administration -- a party dominated by the Kennedy dynasty and their patrons, in many respects. And the The New Kennedy is even more of an attractive figure, in some respects. He has never shirked the responsibility of Democrats to beat up Republicans, but throughout his career, he has demonstrated a long arm for compromise. Most recently, He worked with President Bush on No Child Left Behind and with Mitt Romney (whether Romney currently accepts it or not) on health care in Massachusetts.

In some ways, there may be no member of the Democratic pantheon who better reflects the consensus-based, transformative and activist-oriented politics that Obama embraces.

And so Kennedy can be an enormously effective advocate for Obama because he understands, and, indeed, has practiced the New Politics.

There are 8 days till Super Tuesday. Thanks to Ted Kennedy and Camelot, Obama's won two of them. And because momentum seems to attenuate quickly, rolling out these endorsements when the spotlight was already on Obama extends the battery life for another 24 hours.

On a more visceral level, Ted Kennedy's endorsing your opponent is probably as big of a rebuke as there is in the Democratic Party -- even bigger than South Carolina.

Now -- it is true that Camelot, as many Democrats remember it, is idealized, and that Kennedy himself has done bad things to himself, his family and others, as Fox News and Republicans will no doubt remind. But voters know this -- they did not, after all, nominate Ted Kennedy in 1980. And so it probably does not bear any more mentioning in a political column.

Comments

Obama: An electable Ted Kennedy?

Also he's much thinner, but I don't want to make this a race about weight.

Posted by KathyF | January 28, 2008 9:30 AM

Marc,

Go get yourself some coffee. It's a good post, but not up to your usual literary standards. (In particular, the Democratic Party has been dominated by the Kennedys and their proteges, not their patrons.)

That said, the post is spot-on. We saw the Obama camp employ this gambit after New Hampshire, too, when every day before Nevada they rolled out another major endorsement, most of them stockpiled for some weeks. That's when the junior senator from the Bay State endorsed. This time around, we already know how they're going to follow up tomorrow. On the day after the State of the Union, when Democrats are chatting about the Gov. Sebelius' response to the Bush address, and while she's enjoying unprecedented exposure in the national media, Obama will return to his grandparents' hometown in Kansas and announce her endorsement. That's a human interest story coupled with a process story. She ain't EMK, but it's not too shabby, and will get some major play. After that, it's anyone's guess. But count on this - more endorsements are coming.

Posted by FlyOnTheWall | January 28, 2008 9:37 AM

First, if Teddy had endorsed Clinton, everyone would have dismissed its importance and made white whale jokes.

Second, if the Kennedy blessing doesn't translate to votes, do you think all the pundits will finally shut up about endorsements? There's very little evidence they mean a thing.

Posted by Cal | January 28, 2008 10:44 AM

I think the most important thing is not really how many voters will now turn out and vote for Obama based on Ted's endorsement, but it's weight in the superdelegate realm. I feel that the superdelegates are going to have a lot to do with our nominee, and getting party leaders like Kennedy on board will be huge for Obama, who is currently trailing in that area.

Posted by Daniel Andrews | January 28, 2008 10:51 AM

I get it: Hillary is a part of the past but Ted kennedy is not.
Hillary is symtomatic of everything that is wrong with washington but teddy is not.
Washington is broken but teddy is not.
He teamed with george and gave us the disaster NCLB but he's good.
And he's the expert on fair campaigning?
I love the Kennedys except when I think about what some of them have done to thier wives and thier children or to MLK JR. or to democratic hopes in 72.
I do love the Kennedys but if hillary is suddenly part of the past, the obama folks can't really parse it two different ways.

Posted by Michael C. | January 28, 2008 10:57 AM

Second, if the Kennedy blessing doesn't translate to votes, do you think all the pundits will finally shut up about endorsements? There's very little evidence they mean a thing.

Check out the polls in Florida today. After a great endorsement, McCain has regained the lead in almost every tracking poll. Seems like some of that evidence you asked for.

Posted by Ben | January 28, 2008 11:12 AM

>>>>I do love the Kennedys but if hillary is suddenly part of the past, the obama folks can't really parse it two different ways.>>>

I don't think that in the sense Obama is using it "the past" simply means anything older than he is. Obama is decrying a turn that U.S. politics took round about Reagan where it became so polarized and predictable that the national disacourse essentially stopped. That's his line anyway, and in many ways it seems geared as a reaction to the last 16 years more than anything else.

Kennedy is in many ways the perfect model of what Obama is talking about...he's a passionate defender of liberal values, while at the same time has worked across the isle to further those ideals in whatever way he can. Some of the products of these collaborations are neccessarily imperfect, but in no way do I see them as capitulation to an enemy. He's done the best he can in the political environment to forward our agenda, without, I would argue, ever horse-trading fundamental liberal ideals. Compare that to someone who worked on and backed DOMA, flag-burning, Iraq...I'm sure with noble intentions and perhaps some good effect. But for my money, I'll take the Kennedy model.

This is one of only 2 or 3 endorsements that can carry some electoral weight, I think.

Posted by bupalos | January 28, 2008 11:24 AM

I think Caroline Kennedy's op-ed and speaking on behalf of Obama is potentially as important to Obama as Ted. She is a huge weapon at HRC's target audience. My mother who is 70 year old woman is now voting for Obama because of her love of Jackie and those children. When is the last time Caroline used the Camelot imagery to such a degree? Uh, never.

Ted is big but Caroline comes with zero baggage and anytime she speaks it will get huge airtime.

Posted by cg, nyc | January 28, 2008 11:36 AM

The Kennedy's endorsement gives others permission to walk away from Bill Clinton, a wildly popular and charismatic man. The endorsement suggests that the Clintons do not 'own' the democratic party and that maybe this upstart from Chicago really does represent the future.

We shall see if Teddy's campaigning helps Obama with the white and hispanic working class. I hope so.

But I think what is most important about this endorsement is symbolic. It validates the message of change. No one needs to be afraid any longer.

Posted by heather | January 28, 2008 11:36 AM

Cal,

You miss the point. Endorsements cannot help Hillary's public perception - they only aid her fundraising, and when they come with machines, her field operation. She started this campaign as the candidate of the establishment. Any endorsement she lands is no more than was expected; any she fails to score is a blow. That may be an unfair narrative, but it's the price of being the early prohibitive favorite, and of relying on your husband's standing as party standard-bearer.

Obama, on the other hand, has no stash of favors to cash in. He doesn't control the party apparatus. Any endorsement he lands becomes a story, and the more embedded the endorser is in the establishment, the bigger the coup. That's why Kennedy is a huge deal. The only reason for politicians to endorse Obama is because they believe in his candidacy. That's just not true of Hillary, and it shows in the media coverage.

Posted by FlyOnTheWall | January 28, 2008 11:42 AM

Will Teddy move the Latinos and Asians to Obama? What part of the coalition is Teddy going to shift to Obama? Working women?

It nice. All endorsements are nice.

But when I think of endorsements I think of Howard Dean. Dean scored Gore and Harkin ahead of Iowa ... and came in third.

Endorsements are nice, they give writers someting to write about, but I don't think they move voters in any meaningful way.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | January 28, 2008 11:42 AM

While the Clinton's have tried to marginalize the South Carolina victory by Obama, there is nothing that can be done to marginalize Caroline and Ted Kennedy's endorsements. The images of Ted on the campaign will play well for Obama.

Posted by Jim | January 28, 2008 11:48 AM

"I think Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama, today, coming two days after South Carolina, coming at a time when, thanks to the ingenious placement of a New York Times editorial the night after a hard-fought and well-won victory after weeks of racial acrimony, well, this sentence has to end somewhere."

Marc, are you over-tired?

Posted by Sir Winston | January 28, 2008 11:50 AM

Hey Dickie Flatts-

Do you think the endorsements of Patrick, Kerry and now Kennedy of MA will have any effect on how people in MA vote? Will Caroline Kennedy's op-ed have any effect on how people in NY (where she lives and advocates for public schools) vote? Those are both Feb. 5 states; that is why they matter, principally.

Posted by Michael's Mom | January 28, 2008 11:52 AM

Ted Kennedy is a spoiled, murdering brat.
He has made this world worse by his presence.
Why do you think any sober human being would listen to Ted? If anything, they would do the opposite.

Massachusetts elects to murders to the senate and yet they still theink their special.
To hell with the KK murders of Massachusetts.

Posted by Terry | January 28, 2008 12:55 PM

Coming from Mass, I can tell you even the most ardent anti-Kennedy Bostonian deep down has some love for them on some level, especially if they are born and bred. I knew a lot of people growing up who had beliefs and rhetoric that elsewhere would make them closer to Bayh or a moderate Republican, but they loved Teddy and what he had done for the state. There is still some aspirational glow around the Kennedys: they were the Bostonian Irish Catholics who made it ok to be Catholic and respectable and liberal in America. They symbolized class. Jackie was the last First Lady to be an icon to such a degree. Part of this is rose-tinted glasses, but those glasses are definitely in place and I saw this across class, racial, religious and many regional lines.

Posted by Reality Man | January 28, 2008 1:00 PM

I don't think endorsements translate directly into votes, but what they do accomplish is to add momentum and generate a sense of 'tidal wave.' Obama is riding high on that wave right now and Hilary ain't.

Every endorsement makes the next one easier to get, and aids fundraising as well. We all like to back a winner. The Obama endorsements also help to diminish the sense that Hilary is the inevitable nominee of the Democratic Party.

Posted by global yokel | January 28, 2008 1:20 PM

Folks, get a grip. Which ever candidate some ole booze-soaked liberal from MA (of all places) endorses means less than nothing to the rest of us (especially those of us in fly-over-country.) Oppps, maybe it does mean one thing, that being that now most of us are now unified on one more thing (or person...candidate)that we won't support! No other place in the country could elect ole ted, much less RE-elect him ...(how many times?) The fact that the media gives it any print or air space just indicates how out of touch they are with the rest of us. When was the last time his endorsement meant anything (if ever?)

Posted by ejones | January 28, 2008 1:23 PM

It is hard to imagine any undecided voter being swayed by anything that this boozy, woman-drowning anachronism had to say. True liberals can think for themselves.

Posted by Dan Mathews | January 28, 2008 1:46 PM

So, Ted belongs to the future and Hillary belongs to the past? Why can't politicians and movie stars stop endorsing anyone and let the american people decide on their own??

Posted by Jenny | January 28, 2008 2:01 PM

To the world, I think it means a lot that the Kennedy torch has been passed to Obama.

Kennedy also offers a rebuttal to every Hillary talking point so this is huge.

Obama also just became O'Bama in many eyes.

Posted by ceti | January 28, 2008 2:09 PM

I agree with you what is the meaning of Ted Kennedy's endorsement? Why are the Kennedy's coming out to endorse Obama? Kennedy's are part of the past, if you said PAST it includes everything so are the Kenedy's. You can't say the past of just 10-16 years ago only, you can't be selective about the past. So tell me what is new. All candidates campaingning for change. What we need to consider is; are those words about changes can be translated by the person to actual change. Lets not vote for good peotry let us vote for the person who can actually do the job and that is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Nancy M | January 28, 2008 2:25 PM

To the Kennedy-haters, this is just another occasion to crawl out of the cracks and vent again. But their voices ultimately mean very little - they were surely never going to vote for any Democrat this year, and most definitely not for Obama or Hillary.

The Kennedys' endorsements really DO mean something. As observed, this set of endorsements completes a loop for Obama - bringing together the established party leadership and old loyalists with the millions of fresh voters Obama has attracted. This endorsement means it is quite likely Obama will not suffer another Nevada-style campaign rebuff from the traditional party loyalists.

And contrary to some of the comments posted here, a great many independents around the U.S. respect Ted Kennedy for his bi-partisan work on numerous issues over the years. He even has some influence with moderate Republicans for the same reason.

Endorsements indeed make a difference. I saw that first-hand in more than 30 years of professional political consulting and issues management. These endorsements put Obama at the head of the Democratic pack, and perhaps more importantly, encourage those who have already lined up with Obama.

Posted by Johannes | January 28, 2008 2:27 PM

If Kennedy is so hated and unimportant, why did the Clintons want his endorsement. As a Bostonian, I don't approve of what Ted Kennedy did years ago. However, Bill Clinton's indiscretions happened less than 15 years ago. Why do people still worship this scum?

Posted by pat | January 28, 2008 2:28 PM

It is time that we elect a well educated man to lead the counrty, a professor, who is capable of guiding this country to a better tomorrow. Like many send there kids to school for better, it is time to correct past mistakes and elect Obama who can produce better. Instead of continuing to elect the same old families who are attempting to dominate the government.

Posted by JEAN | January 28, 2008 2:40 PM

Caroline and Ted Kennedy's speeches highlighted the theme of our only hope for the future: a Presidential example free of politically-motivated divisiveness. Ted Kennedy in particular repudiated the Clintons "Rov(e)ian" tactics and racial patronization. Since the first debate, I've remained troubled, angered by the not-so-hidden patronizing attitude of the Clintons toward Senator Obama. At every debate, HRC's condescending tone, interruptions, and denigrating manner towards Senator Obama have, to me, been offensive. Now HRC's plea-bargained partner, has added the comedic irony that it is Senator Obama, who is playing the race card. I'm honestly wondering what the impact would be should HRC with her "own voice" now exemplify her superior "readiness" and "experience" by referring to Senator Obama's "boyish appeal" or more candidly, simply refer to him as "boy".
I pray that the ancient, patronizing politics of the 60's will be set behind us. It's the voices of the young and, like Caroline Kennedy, young in Spirit that must lead us. There is an "urgency of now"

Posted by dov | January 28, 2008 2:47 PM

Well, without a doubt Kennedy's endorsement of Obama can only be the envy of many not least the candidates who craved it.But his endorsement does not in any way dim Obama's credentials as an embodiment of the future, it does represent a realisation on the part of the democratic party that it has to embrace change for its own survival.Kennedy true of a leader worth his name,makes a statement;we are the party of the future.Remember too that the younger Kennedys are on board and they certainly dont represent the past!

Posted by OMAGWA. | January 28, 2008 2:56 PM

Perhaps Ted Kennedy has historically stayed out of the endorsement business because he hasn't seen a candidate he felt worthy of his nod. Say what you will about Senator Kennedy and his indiscretions and vices but that does not make his support of Obama less valid. I've voted Republican since we lost Bobby. The Kennedy years were wonderful for this country but there hasn't been a democrat since who had their vision or abilities to heal this country and move it forward. If Edward M. Kennedy says it feels right to him then I know it's coming from his heart and Obama gets my support.

Posted by susanpcs | January 28, 2008 2:57 PM

I still dont know why a lot of people try to downplay the impact endorsements have.I believe they really do matter. Oh, I see!! It matters if the Clintons are endorsed by a big shot but doesnt in the case of Obama. The media is such BS. The Kennedy's are big, huge, monstrous when it comes to politics. This should go a long way for Obama.
One more thing, Obama himself does not stress it enough that he is the most capable person to unite the country since he is half black and half white.He does not stress this enough but he should so that all those trying to inject race into this election will know he represents all colors. He really needs to start playing all the good cards if he really wants to win. I wish him all the best!!!

Posted by freaze | January 28, 2008 3:01 PM

Senator Kennedy's endorsement means nothting, he's the laughting stock of this country. I feel sorry for the people of Mass.

Posted by Ken Cook | January 28, 2008 3:09 PM

Senator Kennedy's endorsement means nothting, he's the laughting stock of this country. I feel sorry for the people of Mass.

Posted by Ken Cook | January 28, 2008 3:10 PM

I hope Kennedy's help Obama. I am tired of the Clinton's dirt. Don't we remember the Whitewater deal. Sent their friends to prison but they came out good. Bill smoked pot but didn't inhale.Bill can't tell what is sex relations and what is not. Hillery was on Wall-Mart's board. I don't think we need experience like this. Doug-Illinois

Posted by doug | January 28, 2008 3:10 PM

The President of The United States of America sits atop an enormous bureaucracy with which he interacts on a very limited basis for obvious, practical reasons. What United States President could have afforded to really invest time converting his overarching ideas, principles, and objectives into narrow directives aimed at guiding every action of those beneath him? None of them.

This is what the apparatus of government functions to do as a whole, through the machinations of many. A great President must be a visionary, an individual of great imaginitive oversight and a wielder of great optimism. When a President says he will do something, he says so figuratively speaking. He will do what he does with the help and support many Americans participating in our government. The United States Presidency is no unchecked autocracy, but is a role which leans heavily on many other American citizens and patriots and ultimately is held accountable by us all. Senator Barack Obama has a little of us all in him. Senator Obama has the interest in us all and the imagination needed to bring America's doings back into line with its ever-growing ideals by his leadership.

What we don't need is a micro-managing, tunnel-visioned, specially interested tool of a President, of which Senator Obama is none. I am absolutely, positively energized by this man and I can see America's re-ascension in him.

Posted by Booker | January 28, 2008 3:14 PM

Marc, you argue eloquently, but I think you're too dismissive of his endorsement's impact on "blocks of Democrats Obama needs to do better with, like union members and downscale workers, Latinos and older liberals" -- it's not so much just Ted's voice that matters, but his patronage of a host of Latino activists and leaders.

What's more, your lead analogy is really weak -- coaching matters more in football than in perhaps any other professional sport.

Posted by The Confidence Man | January 28, 2008 3:16 PM

One can hate Ted Kennedy all they wish. Yes, he's a flawed man, responsible for the death of a young woman. This anger might appear more sincere if those doing the hating might add in a bit for someone who is responsible for almost 4,000 American deaths in Iraq. Perhaps the deaths hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians might be mentioned. There is no balance to be found in Mary Jo's death or sex acts in the Oval Office. Which flaws affected the most human beings, is my point. We all sin, you know.

Posted by Mark Cartwright | January 28, 2008 3:17 PM

Thanks for a waste of an opinion. Why are the papers so biased for one candidate? Freedom of speech is getting a biy annoying. Everyone has a say and since I read some of that nonsense above, I'll vote for Hillary.

Posted by kim jones | January 28, 2008 3:28 PM

Thanks for a waste of an opinion. Why are the papers so biased for one candidate anymore? Everyone has a say and since I read some of that nonsense above, I'll vote for Hillary.

Posted by kim jones | January 28, 2008 3:29 PM

I disagree with a lot of people who want to suggest that the endorsement doesn't matter. The Kennedy's endorsement matters because it reminds us of a time when anything was possible in our country's future. I was not born yet when JFK was elected president and the fervor that surrounded his presidency. But I longed for a leader who would bring out the best in all of us and unite the country dispite our differences to change our country for the better. What Ted and Caroline's endorsement does is to bring us back to that moment when the Kennedy's gave this to us and reminds us of what was possible then and what may be possible now. For most Americans, all they will see is a reminder of what the Kennedy's did for American politics and all of the goodwill they have for the Kennedy's will carry over to Obama to some extent and translate into them being willing to hear what Obama has to say.

Posted by Darian | January 28, 2008 3:31 PM

Teddy's endorsement smacks of childish revenge. Big bad Bill was picking on little innocent Barry Obama so Uncle Teddy has to step in as his defender. To bad the Dems are getting excited about another unelectable big government liberal. I certainly hope so, the last thing we need is a black Jimmy Carter, all rhetoric and no execution. Shelby Steele is right, Obama is an empty suit who can make a good speech.

Posted by John Hurt | January 28, 2008 3:35 PM

Dang! to bad they don't make the Oldsmobile any more.....do endorsements really matter!

Posted by madmilker | January 28, 2008 3:36 PM

This is the first election in many years that has generated any visceral response because it seems we may have a real choice - a choice between politics as usual and the politics of real change, substantive and honest, not same old stuff. How refreshing and renewing that would be for the poor, beleaguered United States of America! You decide who has the better offer on the table and then vote your conscience, and make sure your candidate has one too. I'm for Obama.

Posted by An ex-pat in London | January 28, 2008 3:37 PM

Don't miss the boat!!!
The greatest impact will be the fundraisers and the black books of the Kennedy's - the resources!!! not only the name power, the superdelegates, etc. - the friends that come with the Kennedys with their money - now that's BIG!!

Posted by Libby A | January 28, 2008 3:37 PM

I think all the candidates running for president are a big joke. Why does everything have to black/white. I'm tired of listening to the candidates promise change and do nothing. O'bama may be a good speaker but the words don't do anything - he does not have a long record of doing
anything important.

We need a seasoned President like Hillary Clinton,
and a woman to run this country. Senator Kennedy
should not choose sides. And How can Caroline Kennedy compare her father to O'bama.

Posted by Fran | January 28, 2008 3:39 PM

1: Caroline – I was in High School when John Kennedy was murdered. I was raised on the vision of Camelot. But, burned into my brain, are TV images of Caroline and John-John at the funeral procession, signifying the loss of that dream. If there is any endorsement I take seriously, it has to be Caroline’s. She and John Jr. stayed out of politics for years, not endorsing anyone. I also remember a TV interview with Caroline when her brother died. She said that she valued her privacy too much to get involved in politics. And now she changes her mind and brings back the fantasy and hope that would be Camelot. My play on this is that it must be for a very strong reason. An impact for me – definitely!

2: Ted – Now, I have some mixed feelings about Ted. But one thing’s for sure – he is and always been a true liberal – something no other government official can claim. As a liberal myself, I respect that! What he is essentially saying is that “True liberals CAN and should feel good about voting for Obama”. Non-liberals – well they’ll just have to follow their own track. Will his endorsement carry weight (pun intended) to sway enough voters? Only time will tell, but let’s hope so.

Posted by Harry | January 28, 2008 3:44 PM

Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama is HUGE. It takes away the impact of Bill Clinton's support of his own wife so he can get back in the White House and be the de facto president for a third term. I wonder if Monica Lewinsky will indorse Billary now.

Posted by Roger Overkill | January 28, 2008 3:47 PM

I am happy to see acknowledgement of the need to bring in the Irish Catholic voters. My vote is for the Irish Church of Christ candidate, Barak O'bama.

Posted by marty acree | January 28, 2008 3:49 PM

I'm an over-50 white women, and I SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA. I just wanted to say that in order to make clear that I'm not buying the Clintons' bullsh*t.

More than anything, both Hillary and Bill want to marginalize Barack Obama in order to create a WHITE BACKLASH VOTE AGAINST OBAMA.

This is how the Clinton's think it works... you refer to Barack Obama and his campaign as a "black man" and a "black-driven" campaign any chance you get. You make white people think that blacks are going to elect the next president. You stir up racial tensions as much as you can, but try and make it look like the press is doing this.

You try to make whites angry, and you create as much of a white backlash vote against Obama as much as you can.

You see, you are the Clintons, and you don't care what this dirty POLARIZING campaign tactic does to the U.S., or to the Democrat party. In fact, you don't give a sh*t about the U.S., or the Democrats. You don't give a sh*t about ANYTHING EXCEPT WINNING and regaining POWER.

Posted by MarianneBlase | January 28, 2008 3:53 PM

I have found the vote to be far more personal. Depending on a publicly elected endorsement may sway my opinion but will not determine my vote. When any elected official endorses a candidate in my mind I find that that elected official may have a different motive. The Ted Kennedy endorsement leads me to question his ability to lead which is not a stretch.
History counts as much as numbers. They do not lie.

Posted by linda in cincinnati | January 28, 2008 4:02 PM

I have to say this and maybe it will matter to those reading, maybe it wont. I am prouder to be an american today that I truly thought would be possible in my life. I am 28, and was raised by a brilliant mom and dad, who always encouraged us to vote and make our voices heard. I have lived my whole life voting for the lesser of two evils....LITERALLY.... my whole life. Always waying which slime ball would do the least damage. I have said to my parents repeatedly that I was born in the wrong era.... so pationate about politics, blatantly having to call out all their lies and never able to call out how much I love what they stand and represent. Sen. Obama is the first man (I am from IL) who when I first hear him get booed when he made an antiwar speech at a time when we were all beating the drum of war..... stood for his principles. That was an extremely hard thing to do at the time, and it quite frankly took the guts to tell the people what they didn't want to hear. That, even as Bush screamed out WMD.... we had to believe the rest of the worlds inspectors and those of the UN... who quite frankly blatantly told us we had it wrong.... that we needed to think it out and be prepared to keep a civil war from occuring there once we took Suddam out.... If you didn't see it you wouldn't understand what that said about him at that moment. It was unpopular but it was the right thing to do. You should really find it and watch it.... it took some big... well kahonas. This man has brought me from the beginning back to the place where I hang my flag and where it proudly. He brings out my most patriotic ideals in a way I thought would just never "be" in our country again. Take it or leave it. I am not the only one..... Obama makes me want to be a better person and a better American. He talks to my every positive thought. Heck I take his words and literally use them as advise for what I want for my business. Win or loose...and I pray it is a win.... I will always be thankful to have seen this man come into the public with such an inspirational message that brings out the very best in me.

Posted by Ellen Braley | January 28, 2008 4:05 PM

Way to go, Mariane, you called exactly as it is. The Clinton's will do anything and say anything to get what they want. Bill ("I did not have sex with that woman") Clinton is a proven liar. I am a white, over 70 man who voted twice for Bill Clinton, and I bitterly regret that choice. I am voting for Obama, who reminds me strongly of Jack Kennedy. It is very significant that Caroline Kennedy is endorsing Barack Obama.

Posted by Roger Overkill | January 28, 2008 4:06 PM

I am a white, over 70 man who voted twice for Bill Clinton, and I bitterly regret that choice.

Really? You'd have preferred the policies of George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole, just because the president had a fling with an intern and tried to cover it up?

That, in a nutshell, summarizes the policy cluelessness and irrationality of the Obamabots. They're sounding more and more like Ron Paulbots with each passing day. February 6th can't come soon enough.

Posted by Let's take our country back from the GOP | January 28, 2008 4:16 PM

I'll vote for Hillary because of her constant advocacy for women and families over a period of thirty-five years. She has experience and would no doubt be a president for ALL Americans, regardless of race, gender or economic status.

Posted by DK Medlin | January 28, 2008 4:16 PM

One more thing, Obama's campaign started the whole racial brohaha by insinuating that Hillary Clinton was trying to minimize Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s contribution to the civil rights movement when she remarked that it took a Democratic president to sign it into law. She meant it was not a Republican president. Did Obama really think she was trying to minimize Dr. King's contribution or was he trying to make her look bad? Most would say the latter.

One thing is apparent to me, though. Hillary Clinton has been very specific about her ideas for change. Obama talks about change but he has yet to impress with his plans to solve America's problems.

Posted by DK Medlin | January 28, 2008 4:35 PM

So many good people who earn their living in politics have come and gone in the history of the U.S. Leaders come and go. Great leaders make America great and respected.

Anyone who knows U.S. political history understands that the Kennedy family has always placed a strong emphasis on the political aspirations of members of its immediate family. So, for Sen. Ted Kennedy to endorse someone outside of the Kennedy clan who aspires to the highest office in our nation is no small bag of potatoes.

As a female, I have great hope that one day there will be a woman who will win the hearts of Americans and unite enough of us to become President. She will be elected to office, not coronated or appointed on the basis of any legacy.

It feels great to be nudged away from habits that stagnate our humanity. If Senator Barack Obama is the person who is best equipped to do that, I wish him the best.

Posted by Audrey | January 28, 2008 4:36 PM

Hmmm... OK, I'm an outsider, north of your border and all, but let's face an unpleasant reality. When you folks, in the past, elected an idiot; or contemplate, in the present, the idea of electing a career politician that will do or say anything to get elected, the rest of the world let's out a moan. We marvel at how easily these less-than-worthy politicians seem to hoodwink the American electorate. Obama is intelligent, articulate, and decent. To say he's an empty suit is disingenuous. The president is a big picture figure, in many ways what they represent IS the face of America. As a leader, they need to inspire, to bring people together, to exercise good judgment, among other things. And these are not inconsequential things. Rodem-Clinton is not an inspiration, she's incredibally divisive, and her judgments only reflect that which is politically expediant. Other than her being female, why are the white women in America supporting her?

Posted by Canadian Content | January 28, 2008 4:38 PM

George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole werebetter men than DRAFT DODGER, PERJURER, Bill Clinton. I will vote for another better man, John McCain,who also served his country, before I will vote for BIILary.

Posted by Roger Overkill | January 28, 2008 4:43 PM

Thank you Caroline and Ted, our hearts are with you. GO OBAMA GO...

Posted by Hershel | January 28, 2008 5:19 PM

I am amused by the dismissive attitudes of the right wing kennedy haters. in spite of sen kennedys accident which killed mary jo, and his personal human flaws, he has been an excellent senator on behalf of the citizens of Mass. and the nation, pursuing progressive ideals that have helped millions of americans lead better, more productive lives. His endorsement matters esp. to us progressive LIBERAL( AND DAMNED PROUD OF IT)Democrats. I challenge the right wing blowhards to find a senator w/ a better, more extensive legislative record!Frankly, if President Reagan were alive, inspite of my disagreement with him on many issues, to suggest his endorsement wouldn't matter to conservative voters would be absurd. Finally, while Senator Clinton as numerous technical proficiencies, she is , to my mind , deficient in the quality of inspirational leadership. As a previous poster noted, what gets accomplished, in the final analysis will be the work of many technically proficient people in gov. - but the course must be set by a leader w/ vision and the ability to communicate that vision to others as well as the ability to reach across the aisle to the loyal opposition.agin , i must note, Reagan had those abilities, whether we like him or not , vis a vis specific issues. That Senator Obama has the courage and wisdom to acknowledge those facts, speaks volumes about his judgement and ability to step back and remove his personal biases from the equation. He will have my support in the primary and hopefully , the general. I also hope he picks edwards for v.p- a man who has shown the tenacity to fight the good fight no matter how difficult.

Posted by ken humberston | January 28, 2008 6:08 PM

To Roger overkill- I agree that Dole and Mcain are decent men. I suggest you do some homework reALL the Bushes as to the character of any of them. As for Bills perjury, I'll take lying about sex over lying us into a war that has killed 4000 americans, untold numbers of iraqiis, displaced millions more, all to enrich his corporate cronies. There are numerous books and plenty of other sources that support that staement and I'd be happy to share them w/ you, should you care to learn. Ken Humberston, former Marine, retired Law Enforcement!!!1

Posted by ken humberston | January 28, 2008 6:19 PM

To Ken,

George H. W. Bush served as a Navy pilot during WW2. John F. Kennedy served as a Navy PT Boat commander during WW2. Bill Clinton was a DRAFT DODGER (like Dick Cheney). I served in the Navy during the Korean War, worked for the Navy as a Nuclear Chief Test Engineer, and voted for John F. Kennedy. Hillary Clinton claims 35 years experience, even if she takes credit for Bill's experience as governor and president, she doesn't get 35 years experience. She also took credit for writing a book, "It Takes a Village" which she paid a professional writer $120,000 to write (and convienently failed to give credit for). She is as big a liar as Bill (the PERJURER). If the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, they are handing the presidency to John McCain. As a life-long Democrat, I will vote for John McCain before I will vote for Billary.

Posted by Roger Overkill | January 28, 2008 6:42 PM

Obama is running not just against the Clintons but against Kennedy and the entire DC Democratic establishment--it's astonishing that so few mention that fact. Obama isn't running against Republicans and the damage they've done but against all of the DC establishment--and Teddy is example #1 of a partisan Democrat.

Running after endorsements from that very establishment (who is "partisan" and "status quo" and not "unifying" or a "new way of doing things", etc) makes a mockery of all of Obama's "change" rhetoric and shows how hollow it really is.

Posted by amberglow | January 28, 2008 6:51 PM

To Ken,

I agree with you about George W, a trained monkey would be a better president than him, at least if you gave a trained monkey a banana, he would get more decisions right, and is probably smarter.

Posted by Roger Overkill | January 28, 2008 6:52 PM

DK, do you realize Hillary was in school at Yale 35 years ago? Her 35 years of experience is false unless you count all experience not just political. By that measure then Obama has 25 years of experience. how is that much different?

Be a good citizen and ask questions of your leaders and don't just follow their assertions without question. That is how we wound up in Iraq. If you don't want to vote for Obama and you want to vote for HRC because she is a woman then just say so.

On the topic of the Kennedy's - I think this legitimizes Obama's campaign. Caroline legitimizes that he can be compared to JFK and that his campaign is more than just a pretty speech. Ted legitimizes Obama's qualifications and negates HRC's (and many voter's) major beef with Obama - his experience.
It is also one that is guaranteed to get a lot of press, as much for it's rebuke of the Clintons as support for Obama.

Posted by carrie | January 28, 2008 6:56 PM

Bush sr's military record is commendable. However, research into his and george jr's business dealings among other things, make the clintons look like pikers. btw. the cbs story re: bush's own avoidance of service turned out to be true also. Having served in 'nam frankly, anyone smart enuff to avoid service at that time doesn't really upset me at all. we lost nothing but blood and lives, and 30 years later they are trading partners/w ith u.s. corps lining up to do business there. I agree w/ you re: Hillarys inflated resume. and certainly did not agree w/ bill on everything(esp his personal conduct. but if i must I will hold my nose and vote for her before any of the current crop of republicans with their interminable war agenda, anti union stance, right wing theocratic supporters etc. Thanx for the repectful response, as too often people respond w/o respect for one another. semper fi!!!!

Posted by ken humberston | January 28, 2008 7:10 PM

Roger, that crack re bush, monkeys and bananas cracked me up. good call.

Posted by ken humberston | January 28, 2008 7:14 PM

Ken, Agree with you there, Georgie Jr. was a DESERTER for 6 months also, If you or I pulled that we would have been doing hard time at Leavenworth. Don't get me wrong, I am no admirer of any of the Bushes (or Shrubs).

Bill wrote a letter when he was at Cambridge that he HATED the Military. Good choice for a Commander In Chief (not).

Posted by Roger Overkill | January 28, 2008 7:35 PM

Roger, I remember that one. what's interesting is i spoke w/ a number of men after he lefdt office wqho served during his presidency. seems he learned to respect them and many, vice versa. guess everyone can grow up, including bill( at least on things that don't invcolve his zipper)gotta go- cooking a steak!! ken

Posted by ken humberston | January 28, 2008 7:38 PM

This is fascinating stuff to read. Yes, Kennedy is considered an immoral buffoon by about 50% of the country. But he still is magic with at least a part of the democratic party. He also still can give a heck of a speech for partisan democrats, and he probably even makes some non-democrats smile, with what is now a doddering old man sort of way when he speaks.

So, this has to help Obama, particularly as Hillary tries to cheat her way into making Florida into a real primary. Obama perhaps should have delayed it until tomorrow, to compete with Hillary claiming a victory in Florida.

I think anything that makes Obama look good is very helpful, because I think a large part of the democratic party now is looking for a reason to abandon the Clinton's.

Posted by brian | January 28, 2008 8:17 PM

This endorsement if anything could have weight with the superdelegates. A subliminal message that is OK to vote for the man because he is acceptable to the party. I think this message is directed more to the African American vote. I believe that when all is said and done Hillary will walk in the Denver convention with a substantial lead in delegates and as well as having won most of the primaries and caucuses. Obama will win a few but not enough to alter the basic equation. It will be impossible for the superdelegates to deny the nomination to Hillary. At that point, the party will point back to Kennedy, and Kerry, and Napolitano, and all the rest of the gang that have rush to endorse Obama as sign that he lost the nomination fair and square. That the white establishment in the party did all they could to be fair to Barack. That will be very important if the Dems are going to heal the many wounds that have been opened lately.

Posted by Robert-V | January 28, 2008 9:12 PM

If they really belieived in Obama, they would have endorsed him when he first announced he was running. Sounds like a old school political move to me. The media is going to blow this up just like every endorsement for Obama. They didn't really blow up the news when Hillary was endorsed by the most prestigious paper in the country, the NY Times. And the Kennedy's are of the past, so this contradicts Obama's "Get rid of old Poltics" speech. And JFK was a cheater just like Bill. So how come no one mentions that? The country might, but not the media. The media is like a mom and Obama is like their baby. Everytime he whines the media feeds him his baby bottle. Waaa waaa. If Obama can't handle the Clintons, then he certaintly can't handle the Republicans and what about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia? Is he gonna complain when they pick on him? He's such a baby. Hillary is more tough than he can ever be. If Obama didn't have the support of the media he would be no where. He owes them so much.

Posted by JB | January 28, 2008 9:15 PM

The press made no mention of Robert F Kennedy Jr's endorsement of Hillary in November. His work for the environment with the Natural Resources Defense Council among many other great charities makes him a far more important figure than Teddy.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend also supports Hillary.

http://connect.hillaryclinton.com/thread.jspa?threadID=400012945

The press is so biased for Obama it is unnerving.

Posted by Robert | January 28, 2008 9:55 PM

I would like to commend Ellen Braley for her heartfelt and inspiring comment concerning Obama (see Jan. 28 4:05 p.m.post) The fact that Obama gave a speech opposing the War in Iraq at a time when it was not politically wise to do so is most impressive. Your comment on hearing him being booed that day, and ultimately deciding to vote for him for president, put in words the emotion many of us share. Unlike you, I am not under 30; I am an over 55 white male Air Force veteran who is also going to vote for Obama. My wife, who is latino, also plans to vote for Obama. We attended an organizational meeting for the Obama campaign today in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The meeting was well attended by a cross section of the community, young and old, black and white, men and women who are all enthusiastic supporters of Obama. Many of us believe this will be the most important election in our lifetime. We are most definitely "fired up and ready to go."

Posted by JH | January 28, 2008 10:40 PM

I am a resident of MA and an Obama supporter, and a woman who was in high school when JFK was in office and then killed. I worked on RFK's campaign, after Gene McCarthy went down; when Bobby got killed, I and millions of others of that era kind of gave up on politics. It seemed as though all our leaders were either killed or marginalized. Hope died. Everybody decided they had to buy a condo - America resegregated itself between rich and poor, black and white. In fact, being poor became almost a crime in America. I stayed in the fight as an inner city school teacher for 36 years, telling the kids to hope, to work for change in their lives and the lives of others, knowing it had been possible once. But I never could convince them, and as the years passed, I saw hope die by the ninth grade. I saw a deadness in their eyes, then an ugliness, then a violence and a despair so dark it was frightening and tragic. Now, we have a candidate who takes us out of that darkness, who helps us to believe in ourselves again. That you don't have to be white or rich or connected to be important. You have to be smart, and work hard, and care about others and show courage and leadership and give of yourself for the greater good. I think Kennedy and Obama belonged together on the stage because they both embody those thing. The Kennedys have dedicated their lives to helping the poor, the minorities, the handicapped, "the least of these." Obama is the natural to their legacy. Ted and Caroline showed great generosity today and a great love for their country. They tapped into the hearts of people like me. And most importantly, they tapped into the desire in this country to unite. "Out of many we are one." The fact that Obama is bi-racial makes him uniquely suited to heal our divides. He knows what it is like to be different. He has had to forge his identity out of two polar opposites. He can help us do the same. God Bless you Senator Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy for your great gift to me and all of us today -- hope.

Posted by jonnie rae | January 28, 2008 10:49 PM

So the big power hitter for Barack is the drunken womanizing senator from Massachusetts known for his Chappaquiddick antics. Slime begets slime Get real will not win women's votes for Barack. In fact it may drive some like me away from him. It’s not playing here in the Mid-West.

Posted by bookerone | January 28, 2008 11:41 PM

I am a white male over 55. I remember JFK and Bobby Kennedy. I remember that 'can do' spirit that John Kennedy inspired in all of us. I volunteered with Bobby Kennedy's campaign.

I first heard Barack Obama speak at the 2004 DNC convention. My wife and I looked at each other - stunned. Had we heard what we just heard? After rewinding the tape we both had a tear trickle down our cheeks at the eloquence and inspirational tone of Obama's speech that night.

My wife and I are supporters of Barack Obama. Not because he's biracial, not because he's eloquent. Because he got right inside our hearts and relit the flame of hope that America can produce such a fine young man who never sought the Presidency. It sought him.

Posted by Danny B | January 28, 2008 11:55 PM

Where Kennedy's endorsement is most valuable is in that it supports a very strong narrative for Obama -- that he's the Democratic torchbearer for JFK and RFK. Very few people will choose Obama just because Teddy said so. But many will change their votes to Obama because they imagine an Obama presidency as a return to the Camelot years. That is a very powerful vision for Democrats.

Teddy's support will also probably be very important behind-the-scenes with the backroom politics that will, in all likelihood, end up determining the Democratic nominee.

Posted by Andrew L. | January 29, 2008 12:58 AM

I think this endorsement is very hyped. Ted Kennedy is no Jack or Bobby and he matters very little to this democrat. (Well aside from hoping Hillary gets the nomination and can roast him over an open fire with Bill at her side)

Posted by William82 | January 29, 2008 7:27 AM

This endorsement is in my opinion very important for convincing older democrats to cross over and join his camp. The fact that the Kennedys see a new Jack or Bobby in Obama will certainly get older voters to start believing again.

Posted by Jonnie | January 29, 2008 8:58 AM

Are we ready to give the smooth-talking stranger anything he wants even if
it means throwing some old friends under the bus. That makes no sense to me.
People see themselves in Obama, they love him, they need him, they can't
live without him but they can't explain why - they just want somebody to love.
Is there any room for logic here?
We're about to give someone unlimited power - should it be an unknown?

Besides his claim that he's always been against the war, who is Obama?
Why did Obama get your vote and not Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards,
two people about whom we know so much more than the new guy?

I have nothing against Obama - how could I? I don't know him.

http://www.bartcop.com/

Posted by Wil Burns | January 29, 2008 6:29 PM

I am a 50 year old white male, and I would never vote for "the African-American” or "the Women” candidate. I know that the immediate reaction will be that I am an old fashioned racist and sexist, but this is not the case. What it really comes down to is that each of us is primarily motivated by what is best for ourselves. This is what makes Obama special for me. He is a candidate that I believe can represent me, and who represents the best of America. Hillary Clinton on the other hand is going to give us more of the partisan politics we have suffered under Bush. She is polarizing, close-minded, and unable to motivate and lead diverse coalitions. The great female leaders of our generation brought a unique combination of guile, intelligence, and persuasion that disarmed their opponents. Their success was because as women they brought a unique perspective and charm. Hillary on the other hand demonstrates the worst traits of male politicians without the flair of the best female leaders. What America needs today is for a new style of leadership; one that can reinvigorate the American people, to solve our own problems, and can represent all of us. We also need a leader that can restore America’s place in the world. I believe that this leader is Barack Obama, and this is what the people who knew JFK best see in Obama.

Posted by Ohioboy | January 30, 2008 9:38 AM

Vote for Billary if you want 8 more years of the Clinton's mess. The only thing she was responsible for was the universal health care program and she totally screwed that up. so much for leadership experience. Read Carl Bernstein's book on Hillary Clinton. I read it with an open mind and it totally turned me against her. It probably won't be a problem anyway, because if she gets nominated McCain will win the presidency.

Posted by Roger Overkill | January 30, 2008 12:38 PM