Sen. Ted Kennedy has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama and was joined by several surviving members of the Camelot clan. This endorsement, we're being told, is quite a piece of political machination with America's Royal Family giving a collective rum-running middle finger to America's First Black President.
If you had the chance to watch the made-for-TV event you'll notice the Obama campaign practically channeled the ghosts of John, Bobby Kennedy and little John-John saluting his father's coffin in suit and shorts.
The Torch has been Passed. Ich Bin Ein Berliner. Happy Birthday Mister President...
This is kind of funny considering that older Democrats, who actually remember and voted for John Kennedy, are supporting Hillary Clinton by two and three-to-one margins. This bears repeating.
Kennedy Democrats, old Democrats, are supporting Clinton and, to a lesser extent, John Edwards. Is it too late for the Clintons to dig up Lloyd Bentsen?
Today's performance, a well choreographed and powerful bit of theatrics, was a classic example of retro-nostalgia. What you had was a bunch of Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers dressing up in their parents' patchwork bellbottoms, slipping on love beads and spinning a vinyl copy of "Revolver" they picked up on Craigslist. Obama even went so far as apologizing for not being old enough to actually remember the Kennedy administration. It sure sounded far-out and groovy. This isn't a criticism.
It would be nice to talk about an issue of substance with Obama; any sort of domestic, foreign or economic policy would be nice. There is no substance. This is working just fine for Barack. There is a lot of hay to be made giving the masses non-specific promises about how the future will be better if only you vote for me.
If the Democratic Party is smart enough to nominate Barack Obama the GOP is screwed (although, to be frank, a much stronger adjective is in order).
This statement is predicated on what dirt and slime the Clinton machine can stain Obama with between now and convention time. Bill and Hillary are not going down without a fight. If they do go down they won't be going down alone. This campaign season has featured a relatively scandal-free parade of political hopefuls. I'm still waiting for something nasty to get leaked to Drudge with shades of Gary Hart or Jennifer Flowers. Yes. Things have gotten so weird politically that it wouldn't surprise me at all to have Hill and Bubba slip something juicy under the door of Matt Drudge's office.
So how can a two-year junior senator - and two-year Illinois legislator - wind up knocking at the doors of the White House?
America is "ready for a black president". Use The Google on that phrase and you'll come across tens-of-thousands of similar hits. Analyze his appeal; it is solely on his ability to breed hope for a better future. He's charismatic and inspires the souls of his supporters. This is powerful. Napoleon and Caesar could tell you the same.
Obama is Kennedyesque. This is a criticism.
The decade of the 1960s was a miserable time politically for the country. JFK was a catastrophe on the foreign policy stage; Bay of Pigs, Vietnam and the Diem Coup for example. The odds are good that he wouldn't have won re-election in 1964. If it weren't for one, lone psychopath with a 6.5X52 Carcano, Kennedy would likely be ranked among presidents like Coolidge or Hayes instead of being lionized as a martyr.
Historical facts don't overcome warm, fuzzy memories of an era in America's past that never was but seems good today.
If Obama does take the oath of office in 2009 one does hope he'll be a better foreign policy president than JFK. Particularly with America's commitments to the fledgling governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and Iran, a militarily resurgent Nationalist Russia and the new economic superpower China staring across the Taiwan Strait.
There are some things that are curious about today's performance. Namely why is an endorsement of one U.S. senator suddenly worth drop-everything-news-coverage by all of the cable news networks? We're talking about Ted Kennedy here. Insert punch-line. Some so-called expert on MSNBC just got through saying "Ted Kennedy appeals to the beer drinking Democrat" with a straight face (meaning lower-middle class Dems).
Is having a Kennedy endorsement any less of a kiss-of-death than one from John Kerry? You didn't see this type of attention when, say, Duncan Hunter endorsed Mike Huckabee.
Extra: Republicans can beat Clinton with all of her prior negatives and most Americans being sick of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle. And an Edwards run would be a prayer answered. But Obama?
The only way the GOP can combat "Change We Can Believe In" is by putting forward a candidate that has a positive, upbeat message who is likable and trustworthy. 2008 is going to be about personality, personality and personality this September, October and November and only then will there be any real chatter about those nasty and boring topics about domestic and foreign policy.
America is not going to buy the latest line being peddled by a phony politician like Mitt Romney and having John McCain snarl and glower (war hero and all) when standing in the light of Obama's sunshiny aura harkens to a repeat performance of a wounded combat veteran who ran in 1996. Mike Huckabee is probably the most Reaganesque candidate of the lot in terms of personal charm and charisma but members of the Conservative media for whatever reason have done their best to crucify the man. Rudy Giuliani will be effectively out of the race if he loses in Florida; a sad end to what was once a front-running campaign.
In the general election, we can have ads talking about Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama while playing Ted's speech where he drunkenly called him Osama bin Bama.
Posted by: KW64 on January 28, 2008 01:24 PMThis is confounding coming from the likes of David Goldstein who was either not born, or just a few years old when Kennedy was shot. There's a mythical lore about "Camelot" just because of the martydom. And many still buy in to that lore and emotion regardless of the actual history. Today's progressives conveniently overlook JFK's role in Vietnam, while at the same time reiterating the Vietnam era antiwar slogans for Iraq. But it is impossible for those two young to have lived in that era, really be guided by anything but the lore.
It's disingenuous at best. But the Dems always sell emotion. That's their core competency. If they can really make people believe Obama's woozy platitudes to change, then that's all they need to do.
DW-Yeah Ivan. If you look at the actual political mess Kennedy was in during 1963. The man was also deathly sick and in failing health. Historical what-ifs can be debated later. Back on topic.
Posted by: ivan on January 28, 2008 01:30 PMDW: You should be loving it Duffman since Ted Kennedy obviously appeals to beer drinking Democrats... *rimshot*
Kidding is over. B.o.T.
I'll take the R chances.
How about a case of Buckhorn beer, Don?
DW: As a bet? No, I only gamble on sure things like the ponies...
But just for drinking good old animal beer? Sure! Although I wish the local swill was still being brewed; Olympia, Rainier...
There is enough sewage back there that I'll plead for the best 2 candidates as well.
Posted by: Frank on January 28, 2008 01:46 PMI disagree. This is likely going to be more about issues than previous years. Probably the best way to beat Obama is to just list his agenda: all of the specific ways he wants to take away our rights, our liberty, our property, our money ...
Our country has never elected a President just because of personality. They need substance too. Even Clinton had SOME substance.
Mike Huckabee is probably the most Reaganesque candidate of the lot in terms of personal charm and charisma but members of the Conservative media for whatever reason have done their best to crucify the man.
He is a terrible candidate. He might not even get 40% of the national vote against Obama. He is being "crucified" because of his (what he calls "populist" or "compassionate," what I call "big government" or "socialist") tendencies. Many conservatives are angry that we got Bush for eight years because of his similar tendencies, and they'll be damned if we get another one.
And on the other hand, the left and middle will see Huckabee as a. a clone of Bush (who isn't very popular among them right now) and b. a rightwing religious zealot (far moreso than they see Bush).
He is a terrible candidate.
Romney and McCain can both win. If Romney is the candidate, he needs to present himself as the one who can fix the economy, which is valuable in this "recession" year. If McCain, he can also address that through promises of cutting spending, plus, he is the one with foreign policy experience, and he's the "adult" in the race. And both Romney and McCain have much more substantial records of "working with people on the other side" than Obama does.
You are dead wrong. We can set aside the Republican primary debate. That has been hashed out below.
Americans have always chosen the more likable candidate; the man who was perceived as being more real. It is always about personality.
GW was more down to earth than patrician Kerry and robotic Gore.
Clinton beat patrician G.H. Bush and BobDole's clenched pencil (with help from Perot both times of course)
Vice-President Bush was a patrician in 1988 but he was certainly more real than Dukakis riding in a tank.
Reagan and Mondale (Nuff said).
Pudge, the economy is NOT in a recession and by all predictions WON'T be in a recession during the general election campaign. It will be burning up by then unless there is some terror or war problems in the middle east. All these interest rate cuts will be boosting the economy by the middle of summer and those 'rebates' will be being spent right about then. The economy won't be the issue in the general election unless there is some external war/terror related item.
And I disagree with you on your statement, "Our country has never elected a President just because of personality. They need substance too." Every candidate can creat substance. However, how many Presidents have we elected during the age of television, that wasn't the most well liked of the candidates?
Don't underestimate that. The main reason all the Rep. candidates can beat Hillary except Romney is that the others will be more liked. Obama vs. Romney would be a worse outcome for the GOP than Hillary vs. Romney. I still think Rudy could compete with Obama, but McCain would be turned into a cranky old Bob Dole vs. Obama and IMO would have less of a chance than Huckabee.
Against Hillary our best chances to win are McCain and Rudy.
Against Obama it would be Huckabee and Rudy.
Posted by: Doug on January 28, 2008 02:01 PMSomeone once told me that JFK actually said, "I am a rutabega"
I'm sure that's not true but just the thought always makes me laugh.
"I am a citizen of Berlin"
Posted by: Duffman on January 28, 2008 03:02 PMA real citizen of Berlin would have said, ""Ich bin Berliner," but since no one would believe that JFK was actually a citizen of Berlin, he inserted the indefinite article "ein," which made his statement more like, "I am like a citizen of Berlin," than the inaccurate, "I am a citizen of Berlin."
Posted by: Obi-Wan on January 28, 2008 03:20 PMDW: That's nice. And off topic. Stop trying to goad the commenters. There is plenty of "McCain is the anti-christ/No he ain't" debates below.
Posted by: blathering michael on January 28, 2008 03:23 PM"I am a citizen of Berlin"
Cato weighs in with the urban legend bit about JFK saying "I am a jelly doughnut" and proceeds to lecture me that it is an "urban legend".
No duh!
Good grief. I was just kidding.
Have I ever mentioned that liberals have a tendency to be just a bit tightly wound?
They cannot deal with a Nixon, a Reagan or a Bush -- people whose ideals more closely mirror the majority of people in this county.
So, they keep hoping that the masses will elect some guy that likes to read Shelley and invites them to the White House every night to discuss "their thoughts on globalism".
Dream on, eggheads.
I am wondering when the media will recognize he is for more of the same and it is Ron Paul who is for change.
Posted by: Travis on January 28, 2008 07:49 PMIf Bush had done any of these things, media would still have their hair on fire over it.
Still I like JFK--staunch anti-commie, tax-cutter, NRA life member. If he were around today, he would be kicked out of the Demcratic party for sure.
Posted by: Russell Garrard on January 28, 2008 08:48 PMUnfortunately, I have several friends who are hard-core Obama groupies (don't get me wrong, they're actually really smart ladies...it's just fun to call them "groupies"), and they were nothing short of ecstatic to get the Kennedy endorsements.
The Kennedy family is cursed--Obama better be praying that they don't have Midas' touch when it comes to his campaign.
Posted by: Cydney on January 29, 2008 01:30 AMYeah we really want to go back to THEM days.
NOT!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 29, 2008 07:13 AM