Ted Kennedy Prepares to Pass the Mantle to Obama

Conservatives love to hate Ted Kennedy, and for good reason. He's the most powerful player on domestic issues in the U.S. Senate, a stalwart liberal with close ties to organized labor and minority groups that are the backbone of the Democratic party and a living link to the most iconic president of the post-World War II era.

He's also a prodigious and popular campaigner who gives a lot more than his good name to the candidates he chooses to support.

In states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and Wisconsin in 2004, Kennedy gave an essential boost to the presidential campaign of John Kerry. The senior senator from Massachusetts lent liberal credibility to the junior senator from that state, while at the same time cloaking a candidate who never quite fit into his "JFK" initials in some genuine Kennedy star power.

Barack Obama is not so in need of celebrity assistance as was the charisma-challenged Kerry. But, as Obama takes his campaign on the road to "Super Tuesday" states such as California and New York, Obama will be making the Kennedy connection.

The Democratic presidential candidate who won a landslide victory in South Carolina Saturday got a taste of Camelot Sunday, when Caroline Kennedy indicated that she saw something of her father, former President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in the young senator from Illinois. In a New York Times column titled, "A President Like My Father," the daughter of the most iconic post-war Democratic president wrote of Obama, "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president -- not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

Caroline Kennedy, as JFK's relatively apolitical daughter, brings a piece of the mantle to the Obama campaign. Ted Kennedy, as JFK's very political brother, brings the rest of it. Even if other members of the clan back the campaign of Hillary Clinton -- as Robert Kennedy Jr., did in November -- the combination of endorsements from Caroline and Ted effectively delivers the family name to Obama.

That delivery is expected to be completed Monday morning in Washington, where Senator Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy plan to appear with Obama at a rally at American University.

Of all the endorsements that Obama has received, these two may be the most important. And they come at precisely the right moment. "The America of Jack and Bobby Kennedy touched all of us. Through all of these decades, the one who kept that flame alive was Ted Kennedy,'' says Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt, an Obama backer with close ties to Kennedy. "So having him pass on the torch is of incredible significance. It's historic."

Obama worked hard to grab the torch.

The Illinois senator maintained a steady behind-the-scenes conversation with the senior senator over the past year. Even in the early stages of his campaign, Obama knew that a Ted Kennedy endorsement would give him traction with traditional liberals, who have long seen Kennedy as a champion of their causes, and with key Democratic constituencies that have traditionally revered the Kennedy name.

That's even more true now, as the campaign trail veers toward February 5 "Super Tuesday" primaries and caucuses in states that have track records of being friendly to the Kennedys in general and to Ted Kennedy's brand of liberal politics in particular. These include Massachusetts, which Kennedys have represented in the Senate since 1952, and California, where the Kennedys have for decades nurtured strong political relationships and where Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign ended in triumph and tragedy. But Obama also knows that Kennedy can help in the northeastern states of Connecticut, New York and New Jersey that should be bases of strength for Hillary Clinton but that might be vulnerable to a Ted Kennedy-voiced appeal to Democratic nostalgia and liberal values.

And Ted Kennedy will raise his booming voice for Obama.

Word from the Kennedy camp is that, after delivering his endorsement, the Massachusetts senator will hit the campaign trail. In particular, Kennedy will concentrate on winning union members and Latinos for Obama. With the campaign of former Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton relying heavily on strong support from Hispanics to renew her run for the presidency, the targeting of Kennedy's campaigning could be even more of a blow to Clinton than is his decision to endorse her foe.

Kennedy, who has maintained reasonably warm relations with Clinton since she joined the Senate Democratic caucus in 2001, will probably stay off her home turf in New York. He has reportedly been extremely ill at ease with Bill Clinton's campaign tactics in recent days, but he is not looking to directly confront the Clintons. Rather, watch for Kennedy to go where he can help Obama the most. Prospects? A swing through states with large Latino voting blocs, such as California, Arizona, New Mexico and New Jersey. And don't be surprised to see the liberal lion working his home state of Massachusetts -- a February 5 state with 121 convention delegates, more than Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada combined -- for Obama.

Comments (47)

1. Great endorsement!

   Finally, the Democratic establishment is shifting away from Hillary and recognizes something special in Obama - they recognize that Obama is the Democrat's version of the "Reagan Revolution", who will usher in a new era in progressive politics, one that will last for many generations to come!

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/27/2008 @ 4:16pm

2. Now is the hour, John Edwards, secure the AG office & back Obama when he needs you most. If you can get to DC to appear on that stage with Ted & Caroline tomw, do it, do it, do it. They -- & the Republic -- will all be indebted to you, as you help make history.

   Posted by sloper at 01/27/2008 @ 4:21pm

3. Frank can explain sometime how being farther to the right of liberal makes you progressive. Check out the progressive democrats of America http://www.pdamerica.org/ for an idea about the extension of the term 'progessive'.

   I am glad that Kennedy didn't endorse Clinton. I don't suppose that was ever a real possibility. Given where Edwards is now, an endorsement would be wasted, since Edwards probably isn't even going to campaign in Mass. So the choice was Obama or no one.

   In the past I have thought that going with no one was better than going with Obama. While I am still not comfortable with Obama (I think between his corporate support and his vague feel good speeches he is likely Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter all over again), I am glad that Kennedy made this endorsement. In the end every policy issue on which Obama has problems is a policy issue where Clinton has bigger problems or (like on the health care mandates issue) Clinton has a severe credibility problem (she came out with a plan that was substantially similar to Edwards' months after he put his out and showed you could be succesful with it. That combined with the corporate give away her '93 plan was makes it really hard to trust that she will follow through with the most progressive aspect of her health care bill, the ability to buy into federally administered health insurance.).

   On the war for instance, while Obama's plan leaves combat forces in Iraq (a big problem) Clinton's program doesn't provide for a withdrawal at all. It starts to bring down troop levels within 60 days of her presidency beginning, meaning March '09. That by itself is little different than the current plan (a huge problem). Obama's plan will continue to inflame Iraqi opinion against us and delegitimize the government (unless he, as he suggested in the NV debates follows Edwards' lead and moves all combat forces out of Iraq into Kuwait and other allied countries.) Clinton's plan is just the occupation done cheap. My brother is in Iraq right now, and when I think about the candidates I much prefer a guarantee that he be out. If I cannot have that, I prefer a plan on which he is likely to be out. I cannot support someone who will probably leave him in.

   If I have to settle for a candidate more like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter in order to avoid a candidate who is more like Richard Nixon, I will do it. So I have changed my mind, if Edwards does pull out before Feb. 5 I will vote Obama in the NY primary, though with significant reservations. So while this is not an important endorsement by any means, I thought I would say it. If Edwards can get a guarantee of some delegates on the platform committee at the convention, and some input into cabinet spots (or a cabinet spot himself, as Bob Novak, the prince of darkness, has reported is in the works) then I think he should pull out. Clinton is the enemy. This crap about all the democratic candidates being better than all the republican candidates is just that. With Clinton as president the democratic party will be pulled even more to the right. And then there will not even be an institution with the potential to represent the poor and lower middle class.

   Posted by dentedpat at 01/27/2008 @ 5:54pm

4. First of all, let's give a healthy THANK YOU! to the voters of South Carolina.

   What we just witnessed last night was nothing short of a watershed moment in the nation's political history.

   The win by Obama, held aloft on the pure energy of an electrified electorate, was akin to a bone jarring right cross to Hillary's jaw. I believe the replay will show Hillary's mouth piece flying into the crowd.

   And the whole thing happened without a punch actually being thrown by Obama. It was as if it happened via "the Force". The force of the hopes and dreams of a public that has been disillusioned for nearly a decade and is famished for a brighter future.

   The victory speech that crescendoed with the line, "This is not about black versus white, it's about the future versus the past", was a master stroke at once tying Hillary and her politics of the status quo to the disastrous years of Dubya.

   I see two likely trajectories from here.

   1) Hillary manages to stay competitive and the battle goes all the way to the summer convention in Denver to be decided.

   2) An avalanche effect begins to kick in and Hillary gets buried by the Barack effect.

   In case number one, the John Edwards campaign may play a continuing and very significant role in shaping the issues of this race. I wholeheartedly support him in that endeavor, but it is a course that is deeply twinged with the danger of splitting the progressive vote and letting Hillary sneak by with the party's nomination. If we get to the convention without a nominee, hopefully the party establishment realizes by then that a Hillary run will be a suicidal risk for the party.

   But my bet is on scenario number two. As Buffalo Springfield sang, "There's something happening here". And what is in this case, is becoming fairly clear --Obama's campaign of hope and charisma is starting to take hold.

   This is historic, people. Savor the moment because whoever the next president is, they will be faced with monumental challenges.

   P.S. Watching Hillary's "ignore Obama" speech in Nashville was a fine clue to where Hillary's run may likely lead --into the hall of fame of ignominy.

   Instead of hailing the night --and the historically huge turnout-- as a victory for democracy and the Democratic Party, she chose to act as the undignified, and graceless figure that she is rapidly establishing as her legacy.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/27/2008 @ 6:01pm

5. Bottom line for me? I want a President who has experience and can handle the job from day one.

   Hillary's poor judgment in Iraq, Iran, and now Pakistan PROVE she is NOT ready to handle the presidency on day one.

   The voters ACROSS THE COUNTRY prefer change from the status quo to experience in Washington, and therefore Hillary's continued "experience theme" will sink her candidacy.

   Hillary's advisors are over-rated and over-paid Karl Rove worshipers. They only have one gear - the smear your opponent gear. When they are forced to run a different kind of campaign, they fall flat on their noses!

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/27/2008 @ 6:26pm

6. Were you a flower child by any chance?

   Frank Grits @ 6:16pm

   No Frank, I'm just the product of hard-boiled northern European immigrant parents. I like reason and logic, and fine human sentiments as well. And I love fire when it is directed at the crass, the powerful, and boot-to-the-throat "conservatives".

   That's a significant reason why I find Hill and Bill so repulsive --both of them are seriously deficient in the humane and reasonable qualities that I hold in high regard. And both are themselves abusers, rather than the defenders of the abused.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/27/2008 @ 6:57pm

7. She can, McCain can, Obama simply cannot.-----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/27/2008 @ 6:04pm

   Here's another theory on the "Why FRANKG will only back Hillary or McCain"....

   Limbaugh hates McCain too. And as I've postulated, perhaps one of the sole reasons that FG is a Hillary cultist and adores her is.....Limbaugh hates (or pretends to), therefore FRANK must love her!

   And, as noted this week, Limbaugh hates McCain, therefore FRANK is willing to vote for "Maverick John" over some "upstart Dem who dared steal Hillary's divine right to the nomination"!!!

   Posted by Mask at 01/27/2008 @ 7:43pm

8. Ted Kennedy will be 76 yrs. old this year.....endorsing Obama is like an old gizzard driving a Spitfire w/the top down....he'll enjoy the buzz for while! Obama probably promised Ted, NO WINDMILLS off Cape Cod until he gets to cavort w/Mary K., again :~)

   Posted by Happy at 01/27/2008 @ 8:08pm

9. The mantle Kennedy is passing is one that never really existed..... Just as camelot was an after-the-assassination fabrication by Jackie Kennedy, so too is the mantle Ted Kennedy is supposed to have passed to Obama, and, like the mythical camelot, it exists only in the minds of liberals, progressives, and others who vote with their hearts and not their heads.....

   Would that such idealism as Obama's (and his supporters)worked in the real world...Alas, we all know that it doesn't........

   It's just that the calculated mud-slinging of the Clintons provides such a contrast, that the choice between the two is cetainly the hope and optimism of Obama....

   Posted by davebarlett at 01/27/2008 @ 8:35pm

10. Well theres the kiss of death. I'm sure this is one endorsement Obama doesn't want. But its no surprise. Hillary is a centrist, too far to the right for the likes of a Kennedy. Hillary will still take Mass.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/27/2008 @ 5:17pm

    hmmmmm,

    and if mr. kennedy had endorsed ms. clinton...........

    [cue dream music]

    "ted kennedy's endorsement of hillary proves she's excellent, super and perfect."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 8:46pm

11. Ted Kennedy will be 76 yrs. old this year.....endorsing Obama is like an old gizzard driving a Spitfire w/the top down....he'll enjoy the buzz for while!

    Posted by HAPPY 01/27/2008 @ 8:08pm

    careful HAPS, time only marches forward and we must keep our karma clean. :©}

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 8:48pm

12. careful HAPS,...

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/27/2008 @ 8:48pm

    I was giving ole Teddy a hat tip.....the old gizzard still wants to have some fun and perhaps, be part of making history...."Just Do It!"!

    Posted by Happy at 01/27/2008 @ 9:29pm

13. Frank, you are still on this biographies kick? What do biographies tell you about whether a particular trade policy works and who it works for? What does it tell you about why inflation went up in the 70's and why it stayed down in the 90's (two very relevant questions for how active the government should be in the economy)? What does it tell you about the effects of minimum wage hikes? What does it tell you about the effects of the various banking deregulation acts (particularly the one in the early 80's and the one in the late 90's)? Maybe you are telling the truth about how many books you have read, but if they are biographies then that is very shallow reading, and doesn't prepare you to defend policy positions, which might be why you never do.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/27/2008 @ 9:42pm

14. Criticisms of Camelot are fair, but have no place in discussing Ted Kennedy. He is not perfect, but the idea that he has no legacy to pass on is silly. He has been a democratic leader in the senate since the 1970s. He ran against Carter and almost saved Democrats that debacle (though it would have cost us one of the better ex-presidents). When it comes to civil rights and protecting the poor, few democratic leaders have ever done as much as Kennedy.

    Like with Kucinich throwing support behind Obama in Iowa, this endorsement makes me feel a tiny bit better about Obama. Though they could be going through the same reasoning that I am, which is that the democratic party will either fall apart under Clinton or have its character radically changed into an explicitly pro-business, anti-poor party. Either way this is good for Obama. To think otherwise is to be focusing a bit too much on car crashes that have nothing to do with who would make a better nominee.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/27/2008 @ 9:48pm

15. Teddy Kennedy's endorsement of Obama carries the same weight as other former Democratic President's brothers. Who would Billy Carter endorse? How about Roger Clinton? Of course neither of them left a girl to drown in his car which apparently is the criteria for significance in this case.

    Posted by Downtown at 01/27/2008 @ 9:50pm

16. Downtown,

    How much time did Roger Clinton and Billy Carter spend in the Senate? How much time did they spend as one of the party leaders? How many times did they run for President?

    You are an idiot.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/27/2008 @ 9:56pm

17. DENTED,

    Teddy Kennedy is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident and most likely drunk driving. He and O.J. walk free for the same reason, MONEY, and we should respect his opinion why?

    Posted by Downtown at 01/27/2008 @ 10:04pm

18. DENTEDPAT:

    here is an article that i think you'll (AND EVERYBODY ELSE) will appreciate:

    Waving Goodbye to Hegemony

    By PARAG KHANNA

    Published: January 27, 2008

    Second-world countries are distinguished from the third world by their potential: the likelihood that they will capitalize on a valuable commodity, a charismatic leader or a generous patron. Each and every second-world country matters in its own right, for its economic, strategic or diplomatic weight, and its decision to tilt toward the United States, the E.U. or China has a strong influence on what others in its region decide to do. Will an American nuclear deal with India push Pakistan even deeper into military dependence on China? Will the next set of Arab monarchs lean East or West? The second world will shape the world's balance of power as much as the superpowers themselves will.

    Would the world not be more stable if America could be reaccepted as its organizing principle and leader? It's very much too late to be asking, because the answer is unfolding before our eyes. Neither China nor the E.U. will replace the U.S. as the world's sole leader; rather all three will constantly struggle to gain influence on their own and balance one another. Europe will promote its supranational integration model as a path to resolving Mideast disputes and organizing Africa, while China will push a Beijing consensus based on respect for sovereignty and mutual economic benefit. America must make itself irresistible to stay in the game.

    super-highly recommended [tinyurl.com]

    original link:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&ref=magaz ine&oref=slogin

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 10:25pm

19. Damn its gonna be fun in November crushing you Libz like the grapes you are!!!

    Posted by FRANKSHITZ 01/27/2008 @ 10:17pm

    quit whining.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 11:01pm

20. It's amazing, and sad, how ignorant all these Kennedy haters are of the man's long record of accomplishment for progressive causes in the Senate. Dentedpat and a couple of other commentators are the only people here who know what they are talking about.

    Posted by oisin3 at 01/27/2008 @ 11:03pm

21. JFK.......whose lasting legacy is the space program and of course, PT-109 w/Cliff Robertson. Three favorites, including the one at his Arlington tomb:

    1962, at Rice U.: We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,....

    Inaugural Address - January 20th 1961: ....And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

    Jan. 24, 1963, in a special message to Congress: The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

    Posted by Happy at 01/27/2008 @ 11:12pm

22. Posted by OISIN3 01/27/2008 @ 11:03pm

    You are deluding yourself! JFK as a Senator, no matter how great, was not worth anyones' conspiracy to assassinate. For his short tenure as POTUS, he had huge impact on the US, the world, and the future of mankind beyond earth.

    Posted by Happy at 01/27/2008 @ 11:23pm

23. Unfortunately, he was not able to get the endorsement that he really wanted--Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the kind of leader that Obama really want to be like. Here are his own words about why people voted for Reagan.

    "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

    The excesses and growth of the government were what the Democrats did. It was the Great Society, The Environmental Movement, Medicare, Civil Rights, Progressive taxation, Government Regulation of the economy and Gay Rights. Calling them excesses is Republican language. Most Democrats didn't think they went far enough. And the "clarity" was against the honest soul searching that Americans had after Vietnam and Watergate of our place in the world. The Optimism allowed Reagan to ignore thousands dying of AIDS.

    Posted by maxstar at 01/27/2008 @ 11:34pm

24. "On the war for instance, while Obama's plan leaves combat forces in Iraq (a big problem) Clinton's program doesn't provide for a withdrawal at all. It starts to bring down troop levels within 60 days of her presidency beginning, meaning March '09. That by itself is little different than the current plan (a huge problem). Obama's plan will continue to inflame Iraqi opinion against us and delegitimize the government (unless he, as he suggested in the NV debates follows Edwards' lead and moves all combat forces out of Iraq into Kuwait and other allied countries.)"

    Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/27/2008 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person

    Of what do you use, to base the above on? Auguries? the Ides of March? Lack of fiber, combined with iron deficiency ... perhaps? What?

    Site Link [barackobama.com]

    "Bringing Our Troops Home

    Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

    What is it that makes people refuse to visit campaign sites? One could guess ... because it then enables them to make statements, inline with sentiments that would otherwise be contradicted?

    Just guessing ...

    Posted by V at 01/28/2008 @ 12:33am

25. Posted by MAXSTAR 01/27/2008 @ 11:34pm | ignore this person

    ... Idiot.

    Posted by V at 01/28/2008 @ 12:37am

26. Context never killed anybody ... I think.

    (Barack) Obama stopped just short of calling (Hillary) Clinton and her husband liars... from the Swamp's live blog of last night's Democratic debate.

    Hmm. I see no reason to stop short. Bill and Hillary Clinton have lied brazenly about Obama's recent statement about Ronald Reagan.

    Let's look at the transcripts (emphasis added):

    Hillary Clinton, Jan 18:

    My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years.

    Bill Clinton, Jan 18:

    (My wife's) principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas....I'm not making this up, folks.

    Well, yes he is. The key, inflammatory words in the Clintons' quotes are better and good, and I invite you, reader, to find it these transcripts of what Obama has actually said:

    I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different.

    I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

    I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

    I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.

    I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful.

    And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out.

    Full Text [tiny.cc]

    If the last part had been added, it would have been harder if not impossible for someone to make the case that a certain candidate wanted ideas from someone whose ideas had played themselves out ... And he obviously didn't believe the ideas which had played themselves played out were JFK's.

    Posted by V at 01/28/2008 @ 01:03am

27. Downtown,

    You said his endorsement was no more important than one from any other presidential brother. Your opinion about the car accident doesn't change a thing about how stupid that claim was. Kennedy is a senior senator and a party leader. That is why his endorsement was important.

    V,

    The log in screen keeps failing me, so I got to see your little contribution. From that contribution:

    He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

    From my contribution, which you posted to question:

    On the war for instance, while Obama's plan leaves combat forces in Iraq (a big problem) Clinton's program doesn't provide for a withdrawal at all. It starts to bring down troop levels within 60 days of her presidency beginning, meaning March '09. That by itself is little different than the current plan (a huge problem). Obama's plan will continue to inflame Iraqi opinion against us and delegitimize the government (unless he, as he suggested in the NV debates follows Edwards' lead and moves all combat forces out of Iraq into Kuwait and other allied countries.)

    The answer to your question about where I got that was exactly the same place you got your quote. To quote again:

    if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

    So he leaves troops in Iraq, unless (as came out in the last debate) he thinks Edwards is right that all the counterterrorism job can be down from Kuwait. This is exactly what I said. This is what your quote supports. Since you obviously know how to read and write, I can chalk this up only to laziness on your part. Try reading things twice maybe. Then you won't make a fool of yourself by trying to contradict me in presenting a quote that agrees with me.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/28/2008 @ 01:27am

28. It seems to me that the wrong part of the Reagan quote has been the focus of discussion. Clearly Reagan was effective at converting some democrats. What is of interest is the claims about the excesses of the 60's and 70's. To what is Obama referring here?

    Is he buying into the conservative line that the economic downturn at the end of the 70's was caused by too much government involvement in the economy? If so why? The 70's had major oil shocks, a volatile federal reserve (under Nixon), and larger than normal deficits stemming from the Vietnam war. Clearly all those factors will impact inflation.

    Is he arguing that the programs associated with the War on Poverty were somehow responsible for high unemployment (something conservatives also say from time to time)? Reagan won because of the economic turmoil at the end of the 70's. The centrists took control of the Democratic party because of the perceived failures of the New Deal policies and coalition. An adequate understanding of what happened in the 1970's is vital to understanding the proper role of government in the economy. If you think like me that the downturn had less to do with the size of government and more to do with circumstances like the oil shocks, then you will think that the responses to the 70's (tax cuts, deregulation, lowering of trade barriers, shrinking of entitlement programs) were all mistakes. If you think that the conservatives were right about what was wrong with the 70's, why wouldn't you agree with their proposed solutions?

    The Clinton's didn't pursue this line, because the belief that the Democratic party was wrong back then is central to their political theories. Less well advertised is the fact that they do in fact think Reagan was right. Clinton pursued free trade, deregulation, and restriction of entitlements. He raised taxes, but nowhere near enough to make up for the Reagan tax cuts (suggesting he agreed that taxes were too high on the rich in the 1970s)

    I don't want to accuse here, because Obama didn't and hasn't explained the comments about excess. But this is a vital question. As far as I can tell this is what divides centrist democrats from old fashioned liberals and new progressives, the analysis of how effectively government can shape and guide the economy.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/28/2008 @ 01:39am

29. Speaking of Jimmy Carter, our best ex-president ... a good time this week for him to step up & endorse Obama, arm in arm. The Clintons were publicly rude to JC & dissed him. C'mon JC, step up to the plate & help retire Billary from the field. Let Obama start running asap against the Bush Republicans, like Romney who's taking Cheney's daughter on his campaign staff.

    Posted by sloper at 01/28/2008 @ 05:23am

30. Will the 1st Black president stand up...

    Author Toni Morrison to Endorse Obama

    January 28, 2008 7:23 AM

    ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison -- who famously declared Bill Clinton to be the nation's "first black president" -- is endorsing Barack Obama for president today, an Obama campaign source tells ABC News.

    This comes as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., also announces his support for Obama on Monday, at a rally in Washington.

    In an October 1998 essay in The New Yorker, Morrison wrote: "Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black president. Blacker than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/author-toni-mor.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 08:14am

31. It may have taken a while, but was it Ethel that got the ball rolling?

    http://tinyurl.com/2lk2nf

    http://www.draftobama.org/celebrities

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 09:08am

32. Tic tic tic tic

    http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/28/2008 @ 09:11am

33. Gotta go with Mark Canyon on this thread...

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/28/2008 @ 02:36am

    better was your fingertips with caustic lye.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 09:15am

34. damnation!

    "wash"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2008 @ 09:15am

35. I don't get it. Why is Kennedy endorsing Obama? It doesn't make any sense. Doesn't he know that Bill Clinton was Impeached for lying to a Federal Grand Jury, in a lawsuit that involved him pulling his pants down in front of a young woman and suggesting she "kiss it"? Doesn't Ted know that Bill Clinton forcably groped and fondled Kathleen Willey, against her will, in the Oval Office? At one point, forcing her hand down on to his crotch? C'mon Ted. This guy is right up your alley. What about the time that Quanita Brodrick went on National television, on 60 Minutes to tell the country that Bill Clinton had RAPED her? Doesn't Ted even remember that? He's got to remember the F.B.I. tapes of Bill Clintons' brother, Roger, telling his buddies how "Bill had a nose like a vacuum" when it came to cocaine? It just doesn't make any sense. Sex, drugs, even RAPE. These guys are like twins, seperated at birth. You don't suppose Obama left some girl to die in his car somewhere, do ya? Suuuuuspiiiiiiciouuuuuuus.

    Posted by gommygoomy at 01/28/2008 @ 09:48am

36. JOMAMMA (1/27/2008) has got it right, and MarkCanyon states the obvious, but hopefully wrong conclusion. Obama wanting T.K. support and bashing Reagan is not going to win a majority vote. He needs to really examine the past of these two men and wise up.

    Posted by obamanation at 01/28/2008 @ 10:31am

37. Given the way Bill Clinton is functioning as Hillary's attack dog- do you think that it is possible he might be top of the list for selection as her VP if we are unfortunate enough to have her as the Democratic party nominee?

    He sure is deeply involved and doing the Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Bob Dole VP attack dog thing with great relish.

    Posted by lewis at 01/28/2008 @ 10:52am

38. Obama keeps talking change and puts 'change we can believe in'. The question is what change has he brought to American politics? What change did he bring to Illinois State Senate? What change did he bring to US Senate? Is 'present' a change? Is not voting a change? Come on, a new graduate can talk about change without experience to support. For a 40's guy with many years in politics, just talk? Give me a break. When you conduct a job interview, can you believe in a talk without anything in his resume to support?

    Obama is a bubble.

    Posted by GetReal at 01/28/2008 @ 10:58am

39. GETREAL - I completely agree with you.

    I don't really see why many journalists are making this Ted Kennedy endorsement out to be some monumental event that just happened. A) Does anyone really still pay attention to the Kennedys, other than themselves? B) From what it seems, it sounds more like Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama out of spite (recent heated phone conversations with the Clintons, what is that all about?)...how is that any kind of sound endorsement?

    Who cares what endorsements a person has? What kind of morons are out their letting a person's endorsements sway their votes? It's about the issues people. Why is this always the least important thing in elections these days? That is the true story which should be front page news.

    Posted by phnord at 01/28/2008 @ 11:54am

40. Dentedpat,

    What experience does Hillary actually have? Her only public office is in the United States Senate? Obama is also in the Senate. True, not as long as her, but come on, is that the basis of you saying she is ready on day one and he isn't? He was also a state legislator and his reputation in both places is one of getting things done, working with other members and diligence.

    Posted by rasalula1 at 01/28/2008 @ 12:17pm

41. When you conduct a job interview, can you believe in a talk without anything in his resume to support?

    GETREAL,

    I get it, you are having trouble reading anything other than Hillary-spin, right?

    Here is Obama's 11 year resume [ontheissues.org] for you to read when you take a break from the deception from the Hillary folks!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/28/2008 @ 2:16pm

42. What is most disturbing is insurmoutable evidence being compiled against this candidate. His real resume doesn't include the facts seen here(http://knowbeforeyouvote.com/) or this bit of information(http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=bho101). There's also(http://www.tucc.org/about.htm) that upholds the African nation yet is stationed here in America and considers this paramount to the beliefs in the constitution(of which Obama is a current supporter and endorser). The pastor who upholds these beliefs has made a strikingly racial remark involving Natalee Holloway and also claims that "America had it coming," when 9/11 occured. I would never support any candidate without first researching the facts, their voting records and backgrounds whether they are Republican or Democratic. So the evidence exists standing in sharp contrast to public opinion, which could only mean that MSM has served its purpose by misinforming the masses. And, to support another reply, what change does he believe he can make? To silence the people that are pro-life? To allow the Muslim faith to run rampant in our society as they do in their own country? To require that all schools be fitted to address Muslim worship that demonizes women strickly by beliefs in the Quran?

    Posted by dobropet at 01/28/2008 @ 3:04pm

43. Ted's endorsement. Few notes, no teleprompter, no mangled English ... the old warhorse really let it rip ... if you didn't see it ...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22882751#22882751

    Posted by sloper at 01/28/2008 @ 3:31pm

44. "To require that all schools be fitted to address Muslim worship that demonizes women strickly by beliefs in the Quran?" Posted by DOBROPET 01/28/2008 @ 3:04pm

    Smells like HAMILTONGRAD & MARKCANYON, yet another provocateur, to be ignored.

    Posted by sloper at 01/28/2008 @ 3:33pm

45. Being blind, or ignoring this, does not excuse it(http://www.ilanamercer.com/WhatTheCAIRBearTeachesAboutIslam.htm) and (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/23/wafghan 223.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox). Be informed....

    Posted by dobropet at 01/28/2008 @ 3:53pm

46. Frankly, I can't stand Kennedy: Unlike his brothers, he has no moral courage. Politically, he is helping to turn his own State into a socialist swamp. The economic shambles that would result from the adoption of some of his policies wouldn't effect him, of course, not with all his money...

    However, I have come to see Barack Obama as one, like Paul on the Republican side, who will not give the electorate Business as Usual for another four years. If Kennedy's endorsement helps him at least achieve the nomination for his party and defeat Clinton, I'm all for it.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/28/2008 @ 4:36pm

47. DENTED,

    My first post was a tongue and cheek reference to Berman's own words in the article:

    "Ted Kennedy, as JFK's very political brother"

    If you choose to focus on that, feel free. But that does not, to use your words, "change a thing" about the character of Teddy Kennedy. If you choose to turn a blind eye for the selfish reason that he promotes an agenda that you agree with, again feel free.

    All I ask is that you look the screen in the eye and answer this question, "Have I extended the same consideration to those with whom I disagree politically?"

    Posted by Downtown at 01/28/2008 @ 7:43pm