The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

Passing the Kennedy Torch

By Dan Balz
For political symbolism, there is little that can top Edward M. Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama. Before a jam-packed arena at American University, the lion of the Senate passed the Kennedy family torch to the young senator from Illinois in his bid to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.


Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., campaigns with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., during a rally on the campus of American University in Washington, Monday, Jan. 28, 2008, after he was endorsed by Sen. Kennedy, and Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late president John Kennedy. (AP)

Democrats have searched for half a century for a successor to the legacy of the two Kennedy brothers -- Jack and Bobby -- who in their own different ways inspired a generation of Americans in the 1960s. Today, the third Kennedy brother told Democrats that Obama is worthy of carrying that mantle -- of rekindling the Kennedy magic.

"I've seen it. I've lived it," Kennedy said. "And with Barack Obama, we can do it again."

If it were only an endorsement of Obama, Kennedy's decision would be significant enough. When he has supported presidential candidates of late -- Al Gore and John Kerry -- he has thrown himself into their campaigns with vigor that belies his age and physical limits. He is the party's emotional leader and his blessing is a valuable asset at a time when endorsements often carry little real weight with voters.

But this was more than just a decision to support Obama. In doing so, Kennedy consciously decided not to stay neutral in this most fiercely contested battle for the Democratic nomination. Instead, he chose to enter the fight against Hillary and Bill Clinton

Kennedy took sides after growing increasingly discomfitted by what he saw from the Clinton campaign. First came his private admonishment of Bill Clinton for the way he has chosen to criticize Obama. Ultimately there was the rebuke to the Clintons with a public embrace of Obama's candidacy.

Kennedys vs. Clintons is an irresistible story line as the campaign goes forward, warring dynastic families of the Democratic Party. The Clintons, who restored the Democrats to power after 12 years in the wilderness, seek to extend their hold on the party with the kind of tenacity that carried them to victory twice in the 1990s. The Kennedys have called on the party to skip a generation and embrace a leader who seeks to change the politics of the Clinton and Bush eras.

What are the practical effects of Kennedy's endorsement? Obama advisers hope that he can help win two types of voters where Obama has been weak: working-class Democrats with whom Ted Kennedy long has had great affinity, and Latinos, who have enormous affection for the Kennedys and who have been strong in their support of Hillary Clinton in this campaign.

Some strategists doubt whether Kennedy can deliver those voters in big numbers, and the first fruits of his endorsement will be seen on Feb. 5 in states like California, Missouri, New Mexico and Arizona.

But Kennedy's endorsement helps Obama in one other critical area. By lending his support, he helps to validate Obama as someone who, despite his limited experience on the national stage, has what it takes to be president and commander in chief. Stealing a line from Clinton's own campaign talking points, Kennedy thundered to the audience at Bender Arena that Obama would be "ready on day one" to be president.

"The biggest challenge for Obama has been getting past the concern that many voters have about his readiness to lead, and to have very senior senators who have served with him say that he has those leadership qualities is an important point of reassurance to voters," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin.

Kennedy's endorsement -- which came a day after Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late president, announced her support for Obama -- adds to others that the Illinois senator has picked up lately that speak to a candidate with appeal across the ideological spectrum of the party.

Along with the liberal Kennedy, Obama has won the support of conservative Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson. He has been backed by red-state politicians like Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill. According to many reports, he soon will add Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. As one strategist noted privately, the fact that Kennedy and Nelson can agree on a candidate, let alone one who is not the establishment favorite, is remarkable.

Clinton has significant endorsements of her own. Some were well earned, but others came by dint of her status as the establishment front-runner at the start of the campaign. What Obama's more recent endorsements reflect is sentiment among elected officials in areas of the country where Democrats have struggled that they see Obama as a stronger general election candidate in their region than Clinton.

The Kennedy endorsement was locked up before Obama's victory in South Carolina, according to aides to the Illinois senator. But its timing helps to sustain the momentum Obama may have gained from that big win on Saturday.

Obama enters the final week of campaigning running behind Clinton in many of the big states that will vote on Feb. 5. Clinton seeks a public relations boost from Tuesday's beauty-contest primary in Florida, where none of the candidates has campaigned. Kennedy's full-throated endorsement will help Obama keep attention on his candidacy.

In the end, endorsements are not likely to decide this nomination battle. This remains a choice for Democrats of two strikingly different styles of leadership and two candidates with superb assets of their own. But the Kennedy decision is far too rich in its implications for it to be treated as an ordinary event. What Obama can make of it will be up to him.

Posted at 2:41 PM ET on Jan 28, 2008  | Category:  Dan Balz's Take
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: McCain Tells 'Tale of Two Mitts' | Next: In Rezko Arrest, an Echo of Hsu?


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



kenonwen posted:

"Wow. Ted Kennedy endorses Obama and the Clintonites - who were hoping for Kennedy's support themselves - start chanting 'Chappaquiddick'.

Classy."

Thanks! I, indirectly, brought up the question of Ted's character because I believe it's relevant to the weight one should give his endorsement--regardless of whom he endorses, most certainly including Hillary.

My point has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with Ted Kennedy, his well documented, undisputed behavior over decades, and, in light of that behavior, the value I place on his endorsement.

I appreciate that some argue for separation of public and private behavior. But I see no reason to lionize a womanizing drunkard who has traded repeatedly on his family name and power, and has demonstrated the ultimate physical cowardice, simply because I agree with some of his politics.

Your standards may differ from mine.

Posted by: WylieD | January 29, 2008 1:10 AM

Fopr everyone else, keep in mind that Hillary Clinton still leads Barack Obama in total Congressional endorsements (81 to 49):

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
(D-N.Y.) (81)
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.)
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)
Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.)
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa)
Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.)
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.)
Del. Donna Christensen (D-V.I.)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.)
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)
Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)
Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.)
Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.)
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)
Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.)
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.)
Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.)
Rep. Michael McNulty (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.)
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.)
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.)
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.)
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.)
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.)
Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.)
Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.)
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.)
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
Rep. Albio Sires (D-N.J.)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.)
Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.)
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-Ohio)
Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)
Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.)

Sen. Barack Obama
(D-Ill.) (49)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.)
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.)
Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.)
Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.)
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.)
Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.)
Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.)
Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)
Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-A.S.)
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.)
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas)
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)
Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.)
Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.)
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
Rep. David Loebsack (D-Iowa)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.)
Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.)
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Rep. Albert Wynn (D-Md.)

http://thehill.com/endorsements-2008.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 29, 2008 12:42 AM

kenonwenu:

I thought you were SURE I was one of the "Clintonites"?! So, which one is it, you are sure, or you are not sure?

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 10:57 PM

Kennedy's endorsement could be the kiss of death for Obama, given that wingnuts and many Independents consider Kennedy a "raving liberal," as they did John Kerry.

Lotta pictures from today that Republicans can use to attack Obama as too liberal in November.

And the Republicans are not going to treat Obama with kid gloves just because Obama supporters whine if they don't.

Association with Teddy in an election year when Obama himself said he wants to attract Independents and all those Reagan Democrats to support him?

Not such a good idea, Barak.

He'll be framed by Repubs exactly the way John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy are.

Posted by: auntmo9990 | January 28, 2008 10:40 PM

If I were Barack, I would hire more SS agents. Has he heard of the Kennedy curse? Ted has not done him any favors today. Neither has Caroline.

Posted by: Marmashi | January 28, 2008 10:20 PM

I'm not sure what you are, JakeD, but classy you ain't.

Posted by: kenonwenu | January 28, 2008 10:16 PM

I was the only one to bring up 'Chappaquiddick' -- in response to someone else posting a laundry list of Ted Kennedy's sins -- I am not a Clintonite and would never vote for her in a million years.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 10:12 PM

Wow. Ted Kennedy endorses Obama and the Clintonites - who were hoping for Kennedy's support themselves - start chanting 'Chappaquiddick'.

Classy.

Posted by: kenonwenu | January 28, 2008 10:03 PM

O B A M A !!

No wonder the Republicans want Hillary to win the Dem. primaries... you won't find any Republican defections to her....quite the opposite!

If any Democratic contender can motivate the Republicans to vote (Republican), it's Hillary. (THEY DESPISE THE CLINTONS)

So even Hillary supporters should ask themselves.... do you really want Mccain for president??

Posted by: kevinlarmee | January 28, 2008 9:46 PM

As a supporter of Barack Obama, I wish to thank Bill Clinton from the bottom of my heart for all his assistance thus far.
Our success in South Carolina is due, in large part to Mr. Clinton's demonic rantings.
Please! Please! Please!
Bill keep it up!
We need your hysterical voice now more than ever!
As you have eloquently done, so far, please exploit every opportunity to remind Americans of Mr. Obama's color and therefore your determination that he is unsuitable for the Presidency.
Go Bill!
Show them who's the real MAN!

Posted by: skycontrol | January 28, 2008 9:44 PM

The Hillary camp must be desperate.
They are know ripping apart the Kennedys with more hate than neocons.

The Hillary camp keeps alienating big groups of people.
The Kennedys are respected and loved dearly by a large amount of baby boomers.

You guys keep it up. That hate and desperation is going to work as good for you as it did in SC.

The Hillary camp has no class. It's weak and pathetic. A real turn off.

Posted by: catwoman2 | January 28, 2008 9:29 PM

Congrats Barack - you got the Kennedy and Rezko endorsements today!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/28/AR2008012801244.html

Posted by: d_money | January 28, 2008 9:26 PM

Frishoo:

What would you think about Elizabeth Dole for President?

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 9:03 PM

Lame article. This country is long overdue for a female or minority president or both.

Let's get it right though.

Obama is a phantom candidate promoted well past his limited experience because of race and charisma.

Hillary is a woman who watched her husband fornicate with half the free world yet stayed with him because of her obsession with power. (feminist? I think not)

It's so important we get it right the first time.....these two folks are wrong right now. If Hillary leaves Bill or Obama gets real experience perhaps we could consider them down the line.

Let's get it right.

Posted by: Frishoo | January 28, 2008 9:01 PM

claffiteau:

Since you are counting Ethel's "endorsement" of Barack HUSSEIN Obama, can Hillary add Eleanor Rooselvelt to her column then?

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 8:52 PM

edhere:

How do you know that hotnuke is supporting Hillary Clinton? I've asked, but he / she refuses to answer the question.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 8:48 PM

Hey Jake D and everyone else who supports Billary, Barack or any of the Republican candidates-
The Caroline, Ted and Patrick Kennedy endorsements were not aimed at you or in any way meant to change your minds regarding who you support. They were aimed at those who are undecided or have been supporting other candidates like Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich et al.
Despite Jake D and other's attempts to cast the Kennedy endorsements as somehow offset by the Clinton endorsements by 3 of Bobby Kennedy's children, no-one with half a brain, no make that 1/4 of a brain would think for a moment that Billary wouldn't trade the endorsements of Bobby's kids for the ones Obama got today from JFk's brother, daughter and nephew. Plus Bobby's widow Ethel basically endorsed Obama for President in an interview 2 years ago by calling him this country's NEXT president.
You don't see thousands of Billary Clinton supporters and all the networks showing up to hear the endorsements of Bobby's kids for Billary because those endorsements simply don't carry as much weight with voters as the ones Obama got today. Get a life would ya. Just accept these facts of life and move on to more productive pursuits than posting countless messages beating a dead horse. Billary would have done anything to get these endorsements but he/she didn't. Those are the facts, plain and simple. Learn to live with it!

Posted by: claffiteau | January 28, 2008 8:47 PM

Sorry, that should be Mary Jo Kopechne -- a former staff member in Senator Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign -- Ted Kennedy was "involved" in her 1969 death when he drove off the Dike Bridge into the channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard. Teddy swam to safety, but Kopechne died in the car, and the accident was not reported for hours. Kennedy eventually pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended sentence of two months in jail.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 8:47 PM

Why are hotnuke2008's offensive comments allowed on here? Just wondering. His comments actually reflect poorly on Hillary Clinton supporters.

Posted by: edhere | January 28, 2008 8:46 PM

tallison-holmes:

Don't forget Mary Jo Kopeckne.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 8:43 PM

Let's not forget that Sen. Ted Kennedy is always out of the mainstream of the vast majority of Democrats. Remember 1980? Yes, it was Sen. Ted Kennedy who wrongly decided to "take down" a sitting President (Jimmy Carter) OF HIS OWN PARTY!! The Kennedy campaign spectacle of 1980 caused the defeat of Carter and gave us eight very long years Ronald Reagan. Thanks, Teddy. In the early 70's it was Ted Kennedy who blocked the National Health Care Bill that the Dems & Repubs had agreed upon and that then Pres. Nixon was willing to sign (yes, it's true). Kennedy refused it claiming we could "do better". Well, we didn't. We still have no national health care. Thanks, Teddy. He's usually wrong. Remember "No child left Behind">|?, a complete failure he sponsored along with George W. Bush. Thanks, Teddy. Kennedy's ego is enormous, still longing for the power his family once controlled. He demanded that former Pres. Bill Clinton stop campaigning for Hillary and Bill rightly refused, Teddy got mad and endorsed Obama. Wrong again, Teddy. Sen. Obama is not qualified to be President. Trying to "pass the torch" is a joke. There is simply no comparison between JFK and Obama other than the occassional good speech. Good speeches do not a President make.JFK had 14 years of experience in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, was a World War Two Hero, etc. all before the age of 43,compared to "community organizer" and a couple of years of the Senate Obama? Get your rose colored glasses off people. We've seen what happens when an unqualfied person is in the White House, Bush has brought us 7 years of hell on earth. Sen. Hillary Clinton is clearly the most qualified, most experienced, most politically skilled, with the best grasp of domestic & international issues of ANY candidate in the race of ANY party. She will make a GREAT President! The 24/7 media against her only makes her stronger! Rock on, Hillary!

Posted by: TAH1 | January 28, 2008 8:36 PM

WylieD:

Especially not if said ride involved crossing any water over bridges ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 8:35 PM

bobwestafer:

Wow! That was a lot -- let me start with a simple question about Barack Obama's consistency against the war in Iraq: do you know that in 2004, when asked whether he would have voted against the authorization to go to war, Obama said: "I don't know."?

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 8:34 PM

Value the endorsement of someone you wouldn't trust to give you a lift home from a party?

Posted by: WylieD | January 28, 2008 8:30 PM

Obviously Kennedy hopes Obama can pick up the old Kennedy torch...since Ted himself dropped it and lost to Carter.

Posted by: tmcinroy | January 28, 2008 8:28 PM

Jimmy Carter was bad for America and bad for the world.

Anyone, but Obama!
We don't need another Jimmy Carter.

Vote 4 Hillary or Vote 4 a Republican.

Posted by: Spiffy2 | January 28, 2008 8:24 PM

Former President Bill Clinton may be keeping his zipper closed these days. But his mouth is always wide open and constantly in motion, as he campaigns for his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator Barack Obama has tried mightily to raise the country's level of political discourse to actually discussing ISSUES. But Bill Clinton's pursuit of a third term is getting in the way -- he'll say ANYTHING, true or false, to discredit Obama. And so Obama, a veteran of Chicago politics, has had to hit back -- which he has still done in a dignified way.

Enough already. The Presidency of the United States is not a consolation prize to be awarded to Hillary Clinton, for standing by her man after his hanky-panky with Monica Lewinsky. It is the most important job in the world. Obama may be a lot younger than Hillary, but he has learned more in 46 years than she has in 60.

By the way, I'm an old white guy. And an Obama supporter.

Posted by: chuck8 | January 28, 2008 8:22 PM

On Saturday Jan 26 Senator Barack Obama won a stunning 2 to 1 victory in South Carolina. The voting results were: Obama 55%, Clinton 28%, and Edwards17%. The current CNN Pledged Delegate Estimate for Democrats is: Obama 63, Clinton 48, and Edwards 26.
On Tuesday Feb. 5 -"Super Tuesday" - some 22 states will hold presidential primary elections or caucuses. Many Super Tuesday voters are very interested in learning more about Barack Obama.
In his books Barack Obama has told the story of the family into which he was born, about a father from Kenya whom he barely knew and about his young American mother who along with his father were college students in Hawaii. By age 6 young Barack was already living in Jakarta with his mother and his Indonesian step father before abruptly moving back to Hawaii at age 10 to be raised by his maternal grandparents when his mother and her second husband divorced.
Over the years Barack Obama had bonding experiences with white and black relatives and with Asian family members amidst an understandable struggle to find his own identity. Through it all he developed a keen ability to understand and to resonate with people of various ethnic backgrounds. Barack Obama worked his way through the racial complexities into which he was born to graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and become president of the Harvard Law Review. He served in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years and in 2004 won a 70 % landslide election to become a United States Senator.Barack Obama has had 46 years of personal experience in understanding how perceptions of ethnicity and judgments about race can divide people and he is uniquely qualified to bring a sense of unity and common purpose to all Americans, and to appropriately reintroduce America to the rest of the world.

In 1963 (when Obama was just 2 years old) on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech that included the familiar phrase of "not being judged by the color of one's skin but by the content of one's character." That speech, of course, helped prompt passage of the 1964 US Civil rights Act and the next year, King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. If the people of America elect Barack Obama to be their 44th President in November of this year King's dream will have become much more than just a dream.
Was Barack Obama's reported opposition to America initiating the Iraq war a "fairytale" and has his position on the war been "inconsistent"?
Senator Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks October 2, 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago: "I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I Don't Oppose All Wars
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
On Saddam Hussein
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You Want a Fight, President Bush?
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."
Barack Obama delivered his powerful speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago October 2, 2002 against the US beginning war in Iraq while later that same month Hillary Clinton voted for the authorization to begin US military action in Iraq. Once US troops were actually in Iraq and fighting a war, of course, it would be irresponsible for Obama to be against funding the troops. The key is that Barack Obama had the judgment to see the dumbness of the war in October 2002 and clearly said so. Hillary Clinton did not and voted for funds authorizing the start the Iraq War.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's tactic of trying to paint Obama's war position as "a fairy tale" or as "inconsistent" is typical "Clinton politics" and clearly demonstrates why America badly needs the enormous breath of fresh air Barack Obama provides. At one time Senator Kerry from Nebraska referred to the Clinton's as "clever liars" several years before President Bill Clinton told America: "I did not have sex with that woman!" or as Jay Leno quipped, "He didn't have sex with her, she had it with him!"
Barack Obama made an appearance -- via satellite while campaigning in Beaufort, South Carolina -- on David Letterman's "Late Show" on Thursday Jan 24 to read the show's traditional "Top 10″ list.
The Top 10 Barack Obama campaign promises:
10. To keep the budget balanced, I'll rent the Situation Room for sweet 16s.
9. I will double your tax money at the craps table.
8. I will appoint Mitt Romney secretary of lookin' good.
7. If you bring a gator to the White House, I'll wrassle it.
6. I'll put Regis on the nickel.
5. I'll rename the 10th month of the year "Barack-tober."
4. I won't let Apple release the new and improved iPod the day after you bought the previous model.
3. I'll find money in the budget to buy Letterman a decent hairpiece.
2. I will pronounce the word nuclear, nuclear.
1. Three words: Vice President Oprah!
When the Top 10 was finished, Letterman said, "Sen. Barack Obama, thank you very much for helping us out, senator. Good luck with the campaign."Obama replied, "Thank you so much, David, but you can't muss my hair" -- a reference to Letterman messing up rival John Edwards hair during his Late Show appearance on Tuesday Jan 22. Said Letterman, "OK, whatever you say."
Below are 3 significant newspaper editorial board endorsements for Barack Obama:

Posted on Sat, Jan. 26, 2008
Philadelphia Inquirer's Democratic endorsement for president: Obama
Change.
Democrats are so sure Americans want a change from the eight years they have endured under President Bush that the party thinks winning back the White House from the Republicans is virtually guaranteed.
But only if the right nominee is chosen for the office.
Barely a month into the calendar of caucuses and primaries, the field has been winnowed. Gone are Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich. Quixotic is the only way to describe Mike Gravel's campaign heading to Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, when more than 20 states, including New Jersey and Delaware, will hold their caucuses and primaries.
John Edwards' hopes had hinged on the outcome of yesterday's primary in his home state of South Carolina. On the party's ticket for vice president in 2004, Edwards' populist style might have made him a formidable candidate in any other presidential election.
But not this one.
This year it's been hard for anyone to get traction against two candidates who would make history no matter which one is nominated - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In them, Democrats could choose as their nominee either the first woman or the first African American to become president.
But the choice is hard.
In some respects, Clinton is much better prepared than was her husband, Bill, when he, as Arkansas governor, was elected president in 1992. The senator from New York could be a strong leader, comparable to Britain's Margaret Thatcher, but with a compassion for children's issues that could glue the nation's focus on its most precious asset.
But in an election where change is the operative word, would the former first lady represent that? After two Bush presidencies, many Americans don't see change in a Clinton dynasty. Hillary's high negatives in polls may have more to do with her husband's behavior as president than anything she has done since. But those negatives suggest she could be a catalyst for division when the nation longs for unity.
Given that, BARACK OBAMA is the best Democrat to lead this nation past the nasty, partisan, Washington-as-usual politics that have blocked consensus on Iraq; politics that never blinked at the greedy, subprime mortgage schemes that could spawn a recession; politics that have greatly diminished our country's stature in the world.
Obama inspires people to action. And while inspiration alone isn't enough to get a job done, it's a necessary ingredient to begin the hard work.
Obama's appeal to Americans to have the audacity to hope, even in the face of tragedies such as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, has fallen on fertile ground. Americans want desperately to believe they can overcome any difficulty - given the right leadership.
But the Illinois senator has shown on the campaign trail that he offers more than pretty words. In debates and speeches, he has provided details of a White House program that, with adjustments, could produce the outcomes this nation needs.
On the war, Obama wants to have all combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months, while maintaining a force in the region for targeted strikes on al-Qaeda. On the economy, he proposes tax credits for working families and a mortgage credit to help lower-income homeowners. He proposes a national health insurance exchange to help individuals purchase coverage. He wants to do better than No Child Left Behind to improve education.
The question is whether a first-term U.S. senator with no major record as an Illinois legislator is ready to be president. His life story says yes. This former community organizer knows how to bring people together to beat the odds. Others who seemed an unlikely fit rose to the occasion once in the Oval Office. Obama could do that, too(end of endorsement).


Posted on Wed, Jan. 23, 2008
The New York Observer

Endorsement of Barack Obama

Lost amid the sound and fury of this year's primary season is the certainty, not the promise, of change. For the first time since 1952, there is no heir apparent to the administration in power.
The stakes have rarely been higher in a presidential election. The question is not if there will be change in American leadership, but what kind.
And the change that is being offered has a focus and intelligence that is kindred to the best American traditions. It is embodied by one candidate in the Democratic Party who is offering a reinvigorated America: Senator Barack Obama.

The New York Observer urges New York Democrats to support Mr. Obama in the state's presidential primary on Feb 5.

New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America.
Most of the other candidates have absorbed, assimilated or appropriated Mr. Obama's issue of change. It is a powerful concept. But a great deal of the argument for Mr. Obama's candidacy is about one great issue in American life: restoring and reinvigorating American democracy.
Democracy is the greatest strength of this still-young nation. Its living enactment is our gift to the world. It is the product of our best instincts and most powerful ideals. But it has been polluted, sullied and compromised by an obstructive administration that seems to have to have no particular regard for its attributes.
It is difficult to remember the last national candidate who has charged and jazzed the democratic system as Mr. Obama has. Partly as a result of his candidacy, college campuses have remembered why they are proud of the United States, kids are going door to door, runners are handing out leaflets on weekends, racial lines have been culturally melted and the electoral approach to presidential campaigning has been reborn.
And, as more than one commentator has said, America is being reintroduced to the world.
Because of who he is and what he stands for, a former constitutional law teacher with few ties to the Washington establishment yet a sophisticated respect for it, Mr. Obama stands the best chance of restoring the essential relationship between power and the American people. He is not flanked and blocked by an existing, entrenched power structure; his words are not muddied by layers of handlers; he still says what he means.
We believe that Mr. Obama's idealism and fresh ideas would ensure that the end of the Bush era would also mean an end to government by secrecy, Cheneyism, arrogance, oligarchy; an end to mindless armed unilateralism abroad; an end to the blustering, rank partisan disputes of the last quarter-century.
Mr. Obama has found his strength in the generation that succeeded the baby boomers, speaking for the frustrations of those who wish that their leaders would get over themselves, get over the 1960's, get on with resolving issues that threaten our global leadership. Mr. Obama is an inclusive figure at a time when our popular culture demands that we embrace a new America while still comprehending the lessons of hard-won history--from World War II through the fall of the Berlin Wall--that have brought us to a free world in 2008.
He is also determined to mend this nation. Mr. Obama, as Walt Whitman did, hears America singing, not snarling. Too many candidates have turned opponents into traitors, critics into jackals. Mr. Obama believes the nation yearns to see hope and inspiration and courage emerge victorious from the era's gauntlet of hypocrisy and lies and false bravado. Imagine, for a moment, any other candidate this year saying what Mr. Obama said at the 2004 Democratic National Convention:
"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and yes, we got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
That is a song we have not heard for too long a time. It is the kind of song that can make citizens of spectators, Americans of couch potatoes, patriots of slackers.
Mr. Obama would also be the most formidable Democrat in the general election. He has demonstrated a capacity to energize young people and attract new voters, and is the only candidate in the Democratic Party who attracts independents, who are the fastest-growing part of the electorate. His refusal to demonize the Republican Party as a right-wing attack machine will appeal to those independents as well as moderate Republicans.
Mr. Obama, it is true, is hardly an experienced Washington hand, which surely explains the freshness of his vision and the power of his life experience. His opponents have hit this issue hard. But as far as experience goes, to those Americans who celebrated finding ourselves with our first M.B.A. president in 2000--we can only advise them to look at the $9 trillion national debt in 2008.
And when George W. Bush was driving a bleary, shocked nation into war with bait-and-switch deceptions in 2003, where was our experienced leadership? Meanwhile, in the west, an Illinois state senator--who has since served three years in the Senate, the same Congressional period that a fellow Midwesterner, Abraham Lincoln, had served when he sought the presidency--rose to exhibit courage and public judgment on that deceptive adventure, stating, "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
Now we have paid the price many times over, and there are no clear paths in Baghdad. But there may be one in Washington. Mr. Obama is the emblem of a new America. He has risen too quickly for his opponents' taste; that fact is nothing less than a recommendation.
His relationship to truth and plain speaking and public transparency is the first step toward reviving democracy in the United States of America. Barack Obama of Illinois is the future. New York's Democrats should embrace him (End of endorsement).

Posted on Tue, Jan. 22, 2008
The State
Endorsement of Barack Obama in the Democratic Presidential Primary Election
THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in South Carolina this year offers voters an unusual choice. Earlier votes have winnowed out the most experienced candidates, leaving a field with fewer accomplishments and differences on policy, but including two candidates who come with the promise to make history just because of who they are.
Looking at the remaining field: Rep. Dennis Kucinich offers a bold plan on health care, but his platform is an odd fit for us and for many in South Carolina. John Edwards has morphed away from the optimist who won South Carolina in 2004. The candidate who stayed mostly above the fray four years ago is angry now, and pushing hard to turn working-class angst into political opportunity. He also has tried to one-up the other top Democrats with the least prudent plan for withdrawing from Iraq.
On positions from Iraq to health care, the policy differences between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are minute. Much of the debate between them has involved making these molehills look mountainous or clashing over who-shifted-when.
The one most significant difference between them can be found in how they would approach the presidency - and how the nation might respond.
Hillary Clinton has been a policy wonk most of her life, a trait she has carried into the U.S. Senate. As her debate performances have shown, she has intelligence and a deep understanding of many issues. Her efforts in New York focused first on learning her adopted state's issues in detail, and pursuing legislation that would not necessarily grab headlines.
But we also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary's fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend that it won't happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons' joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.
Sen. Obama's campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn't use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He's not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.
Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee's goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.
Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America's global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world's view of America. He would seize that opportunity.
He would close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which has damaged America's moral standing, and strive to rebuild many diplomatic relationships.
Despite America's bitter partisan divide, all sides should agree on this: In such an environment, little gets done. Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict's sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.
And America certainly has things to get done.
From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects - and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.
He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday's Democratic primary. (End of Endorsement)

Posted by: bobwestafer | January 28, 2008 8:21 PM

Passing the Kennedy torch? Barack Obama as King Arthur of Camelot and Michelle as Guinevere? Give me a break, fellas. The Dems have lived for 8 years restrained to a small claustrophobic room, that now the door has opened, they have sucked in the pure new oxygen and are now on a narco-trip. Hope they soon come down, else Karl Rove (remember him? he is sharpening the knives out of sight) will eat this imploding party for breakfast. And the world will curse the Dems.

Posted by: sar1turbo | January 28, 2008 8:21 PM

Clinton supporters - like me - will find it very difficult to support Obama, despite his assertion that he will get our votes.
Honestly? I could live with a McCain presidency, and I think we all will have to do that come January of 2009.

Posted by: MikeKF | January 28, 2008 08:03 PM

-------------------------------------------

MikeKF,

Your words are prophetic.

Like you, I could not vote for Obama because I feel that it would an irresponsible way of voting. I will vote for Hillary or vote for a Republican and I have reason to believe that we are not alone on this. While speaking with some prominent doctors in the Iranian community (here in L.A.) who are going to vote for Hillary, they're also very worried and have expressed the same thing, that if Obama is the nominee, they are voting for a Republican.

Posted by: Spiffy2 | January 28, 2008 8:16 PM

Passing the Kennedy torch? Could Dan Balz go any farther to suck up to this guy? The Post's reporting staff is in the tank for Obama. This is just disgusting.

Posted by: lounatick8 | January 28, 2008 8:13 PM

As a supporter of Barack Obama, I wish to thank Bill Clinton from the bottom of my heart for all his assistance thus far.
Our success in South Carolina is due, in large part to Mr. Clinton's demonic rantings.
Please! Please! Please!
Bill keep it up!
We need your hysterical voice now more than ever!
As you have eloquently done, so far, please exploit every opportunity to remind Americans of Mr. Obama's color and therefore your determination that he is unsuitable for the Presidency.
Go Bill!
Show them who's the real MAN!

Posted by: skycontrol | January 28, 2008 8:13 PM

Does anyone remember by how many votes Kennedy beat Nixon back in 1960? Does anyone also remember, after the Kennedy era (that is to say, 1968, when LBJ chose not to run), in those 24 years the Dems had only one sorry-assed President who made America look a fool in the Iran hostage crisis? It took a Clinton to return the Dems to a 2-term Presidency, in the teeth of insurgency from neocons? Ted Kennedy also endorsed and campaigned for Gore and Kerry ... the kiss of death.

Posted by: sar1turbo | January 28, 2008 8:10 PM

I don't think Kennedy's endorsement hurts Obama one bit with independents. It's an affirmation of the central premise of Obama's candidacy, that he can bring people together across ideological, racial and ethnic, and partisan divides into a common cause. That won't drive independents away.

But it may get a lot of Clinton's base to take a second look at Obama. So far she's drawing most of her support from a small handful of groups---older women, voters over 65 regardless of gender, Hispanics, and lower-income white working class voters (though she got absolutely hammered by Edwards among white males in SC). Balz says Kennedy will command attention among working class whites and Hispanics; that seems right. But the Kennedy legacy is also a huge deal to Democrats over 65, many of whom were just coming of age in 1960, got caught up in the Kennedy mystique, and went with a "roll of the dice" on a less-experienced and then-unconventional (because Catholic) but unmistakably talented newcomer over more senior Democratic politicians for the nomination, and over Nixon's "experience counts" message in the general---an uncanny parallel to this year's race. I think a lot of these folks haven't given Obama a close look yet because they're inclined toward the old and familiar and the "experience" message, and because the familiar names in the party establishment seemed to be lined up solidly behind Clinton. Kennedy's endorsement will cause many of them to give Obama a closer look, though of course it's still up to Obama to close the sale. Clinton may still win this demographic, but rolling out these Kennedy endorsements---not only Ted, the last remaining Kennedy brother, but Caroline, whom the 65+ crowd remember fondly as JFK's darling little girl---is a brilliant move by the Obama camp to create an opening for a possible breakthrough with older voters. If they succeed, it's the death knell for the Clinton campaign which is in a defensive posture, struggling to hold on to its steadily shrinking base after beginning the campaign with huge leads in almost every demographic, and losing them one by one to the Obama insurgency. Lose another one, and she's done.

Posted by: bclintonk | January 28, 2008 8:04 PM

Based on posts here and on other sites, there is a deep division in the Democratic party and it is unbridgeable.
The Clintons have been deemed to be evil incarnate; there is a sense of hatred coming from their Democratic detractors who post online. There is also an animus displayed towards anyone who is a Clinton supporter.
Clinton supporters - like me - will find it very difficult to support Obama, despite his assertion that he will get our votes.
Honestly? I could live with a McCain presidency, and I think we all will have to do that come January of 2009.

Posted by: MikeKF | January 28, 2008 8:03 PM

If Ted Kennedy had endorsed Hillary Clinton, it would have played right into Obama's stump speech: "the same OLD people in Washington doing the same old things."

Hillary is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. And now the Kennedys have joined in on the piling on.

Give me a break. The Republicans would make minced meat out of the inexperienced Obama in a general election. Because Teddy gets mad at Bill and says that Obama is ready, we're to believe he really is?


Posted by: faithfu | January 28, 2008 7:55 PM

I deny utterly that there is an imprimatur in moral legitimacy which can compare with the sweet and timeless endorsement of a lady who has worked for 5 years in the public education system of the City of New York. You may think of her as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, you may think of her as the brave baby of your own childhood. But I see her as knowing what is needed -- and who can doubt, need is the symptom of the day. Her uncle's own endlessly authoritative reserve could not withstand this simple observation. Give us justice, give us justice now; help us live in dignity.

Posted by: Carter_NIcholas_readily_targetable_in_Virginia | January 28, 2008 7:50 PM

And Ted is now campaigning for Obama among Hispanics in California, and that WILL make a difference, for he is enormously popular among Hispanics.
Posted by: dunnhaupt | January 28, 2008 07:30 PM

------------------------
Oh Please!

Por favor..!

Es popular entre cuales Hispanos?

If Ted had any clout with Hispanics in California, how come Dolores Huerta who stood right next to Bobby Kennedy and who was praised by Bobby the very same night that he got assasinated, has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton?

Dolores Huerta knows our community well and she's well respected. Most Hispanics (especially the young ones) have no clue as to who Ted Kennedy is.

And, if Dolores Huerta's endorsement and active participation in Sen. Clinton's campaign isn't enough, then Hispanics will also look up to our Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and he too, has endorsed Sen. Clinton.

So really, who is Ted Kennedy kidding? Not Hispanics.

Ademas, en California a quien se conoce mejor y en quien los hispanos confian verdaderamente es en la Senadora Hillary Clinton.

California y particularmente Los Angeles es territorio de Hillary.

Vamos con Hillary o
Vamos con un Republicano!
(Se enoje quien se enoje)

Hispanics 4 Hillary
or 4 a Republican.

Posted by: Spiffy2 | January 28, 2008 7:49 PM

Well, the outcome of the SC primary was known to pollsters earlier in the week, although the public wasn't told about it. So Kennedy did know Obama would win big before he endorsed him.

I am suspicious of Caroline Kennedy's endorsement. What has she ever done to carry such import? She's not an elected official like Ted and Patrick. She's not even a past elected official like Kathleen.

People complain about the Bush and Clinton dynasties. The Kennedy dynasty is true American royalty in its worst sense.

Posted by: blasmaic | January 28, 2008 7:42 PM

Several commenters on here attack Barack Obama because they don't want the Republican candidate to have to face him.

Of course they want Hillary to win. Who could get the Republican base fired up more?

Posted by: edhere | January 28, 2008 7:41 PM

Mr. Balz, whatever way you and your Obama partisans in the imedia (Including the shameless Chris Mathews, Tim Russert, Brian Williams Etc) spins it, the fact is that Obama is the Establishmentcandidate.
Until the NH primary shameless media pundits like you ran a hate campaign against HRC. Then, your insticts were hidden from public till SC primary. Now, Again your ugly hate filled insticts have reared up

Remember, in 2004 convention, HRC was not even included in the initial list of spekers by the Dem establishment run by Kennedys. She was included as a speaker only after her supporters protested.
It is very clear Obama is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy is the Democratic Establishment.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symobols of everything wrong with Democratic party. Kennedy was responsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side, which runs the Dem establishment. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.
This bunch loony left is ably supported by the neocons pretending as Democrats

Posted by: j_rhymes | January 28, 2008 7:39 PM

Wow, what sore losers! Sen. Obama snags the most important Democratic endorsements, Ted and Caroline Kennedy, and Hillary trots out ... Bobby's kids who have supported her since at least last year? And all the media report it as "news"??? Me too!! Me tooo!!!! I've got a Kennedy, yoo hoo, don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the powerful Wizard of Oz! Or ... well, I won't go there with any other WOZ analogies. Does anyone forget that Ethel Kennedy not too long ago introduced Sen. Obama as "our next president?" For both Sen. Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy to make primary endorsements is extraordinary and speaks to the visionary pull of Barack Obama. A little grace and dignity would be in order as opposed to the sour grapes being offered up by the Clintons and on this blog.

Posted by: Omyobama | January 28, 2008 7:37 PM

It's all about spin from here on out. . . This is the first time the Clintons have been held accountable for their politics of personal destruction. The fact that they did this to one of their own is what's so reprehensible and has so many Democrats outraged.

The sad thing in all this is that Bill will see himself as the victim (classic narccistic tendency) and Hillary will attempt to reinvent herself one last time.

The good news is that America wants real change and will reject it in unprecedented numbers. I don't think anyone really realizes what a movement has been ignited and if you think SC caught the Clintons off guard, wait until Super Tuesday.

This is just the beginning, folks.

Posted by: Caliguy75 | January 28, 2008 7:35 PM

Mr. Balz, whatever way you and your Obama partisans in the imedia (Including the shameless Chris Mathews, Tim Russert, Brian Williams Etc), the fact is that Obama is the Establishment candidate. Remember, in 2004 convention, HRC was not even included in the initial list of spekers by the Dem establishment run by Kennedys. She was included as a speaker only after her supporters protested.
It is very clear Obama is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy is the Democratic Establishment.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symobols of everything wrong with Democratic party. Kennedy was responsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side, which runs the Dem establishment. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.
This bunch loony left is ably supported by the neocons pretending as Democrats

Posted by: j_rhymes | January 28, 2008 7:34 PM

Mr. Balz, whatever way you and your Obama partisans in the imedia (Including the shameless Chris Mathews, Tim Russert, Brian Williams Etc), the fact is that Obama is the Establishment candidate. Remember, in 2004 convention, HRC was not even included in the initial list of spekers by the Dem establishment run by Kennedys. She was included as a speaker only after her supporters protested.
It is very clear Obama is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy is the Democratic Establishment.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symobols of everything wrong with Democratic party. Kennedy was responsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side, which runs the Dem establishment. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.
This bunch loony left is ably supported by the neocons pretending as Democrats

Posted by: j_rhymes | January 28, 2008 7:34 PM

Mr. Balz, whatever way you and your Obama partisans in the imedia (Including the shameless Chris Mathews, Tim Russert, Brian Williams Etc), the fact is that Obama is the Establishment candidate. Remember, in 2004 convention, HRC was not even included in the initial list of spekers by the Dem establishment run by Kennedys. She was included as a speaker only after her supporters protested.
It is very clear Obama is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy is the Democratic Establishment.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symobols of everything wrong with Democratic party. Kennedy was responsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side, which runs the Dem establishment. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.
This bunch loony left is ably supported by the neocons pretending as Democrats

Posted by: j_rhymes | January 28, 2008 7:34 PM

Mr. Balz, whatever way you and your Obama partisans in the imedia (Including the shameless Chris Mathews, Tim Russert, Brian Williams Etc), the fact is that Obama is the Establishment candidate. Remember, in 2004 convention, HRC was not even included in the initial list of spekers by the Dem establishment run by Kennedys. She was included as a speaker only after her supporters protested.
It is very clear Obama is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy is the Democratic Establishment.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symobols of everything wrong with Democratic party. Kennedy was responsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side, which runs the Dem establishment. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.
This bunch loony left is ably supported by the neocons pretending as Democrats

Posted by: j_rhymes | January 28, 2008 7:34 PM

Mr. Balz, whatever way you and your Obama partisans in the imedia (Including the shameless Chris Mathews, Tim Russert, Brian Williams Etc), the fact is that Obama is the Establishment candidate. Remember, in 2004 convention, HRC was not even included in the initial list of spekers by the Dem establishment run by Kennedys. She was included as a speaker only after her supporters protested.
It is very clear Obama is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy is the Democratic Establishment.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symobols of everything wrong with Democratic party. Kennedy was responsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side, which runs the Dem establishment. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.
This bunch loony left is ably supported by the neocons pretending as Democrats

Posted by: j_rhymes | January 28, 2008 7:34 PM

Dan Balz is right on.
I also did not miss the political weight of the symbolism involved today. It was huge. It was moving.

Posted by: catwoman2 | January 28, 2008 7:33 PM

Susan9,

If you read the article a bit more carefully, you'll notice that Obama received Kennedy's endorsement before the South Carolina primary. Your argument that Kennedy extended his endorsement due to Obama's win doesn't make sense.

Posted by: smc91 | January 28, 2008 7:33 PM

It is stupid to count the number of Kennedys in each camp. There is only ONE that counts, and his name is TED. And Ted is now campaigning for Obama among Hispanics in California, and that WILL make a difference, for he is enormously popular among Hispanics.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | January 28, 2008 7:30 PM

apparently, Esther 624 does work for the Obama campaign and therefore tells us a sad story about how Kennedy inspired her in the grape picking fields. Give me a break. JFK ran to the right of Richard Nixon, and I remember wondering if he was able to do anything at all being as young as he was coming and from a wealthy, well groomed family with little to no experience. His "inspirational" aura took place after he was assassinated, a tragic way for an American president to die. Caroline Kennedy ought to wake up and stop pretending she was anything more than five years old at the time that he was taken from her life. She's a lovely lady but if it had been left to her father, she'd never be published or have become a lawyer or anything like that. He was the male chauvinist and she just doesn't want to remember that. If anyone is responsible for Caroline Kennedy's "success" in life, it's women like Hillary. So let's remember that, Caroline, you and your uncle are just jumping on some bandwagon, for what reason I have no idea. But I also don't care.

Posted by: qrsi | January 28, 2008 7:28 PM

apparently, Esther 624 does work for the Obama campaign and therefore tells us a sad story about how Kennedy inspired her in the grape picking fields. Give me a break. JFK ran to the right of Richard Nixon, and I remember wondering if he was able to do anything at all being as young as he was coming and from a wealthy, well groomed family with little to no experience. His "inspirational" aura took place after he was assassinated, a tragic way for an American president to die. Caroline Kennedy ought to wake up and stop pretending she was anything more than five years old at the time that he was taken from her life. She's a lovely lady but if it had been left to her father, she'd never be published or have become a lawyer or anything like that. He was the male chauvinist and she just doesn't want to remember that. If anyone is responsible for Caroline Kennedy's "success" in life, it's women like Hillary. So let's remember that, Caroline, you and your uncle are just jumping on some bandwagon, for what reason I have no idea. But I also don't care.

Posted by: qrsi | January 28, 2008 7:28 PM

apparently, Esther 624 does work for the Obama campaign and therefore tells us a sad story about how Kennedy inspired her in the grape picking fields. Give me a break. JFK ran to the right of Richard Nixon, and I remember wondering if he was able to do anything at all being as young as he was coming and from a wealthy, well groomed family with little to no experience. His "inspirational" aura took place after he was assassinated, a tragic way for an American president to die. Caroline Kennedy ought to wake up and stop pretending she was anything more than five years old at the time that he was taken from her life. She's a lovely lady but if it had been left to her father, she'd never be published or have become a lawyer or anything like that. He was the male chauvinist and she just doesn't want to remember that. If anyone is responsible for Caroline Kennedy's "success" in life, it's women like Hillary. So let's remember that, Caroline, you and your uncle are just jumping on some bandwagon, for what reason I have no idea. But I also don't care.

Posted by: qrsi | January 28, 2008 7:28 PM

It is really amazing that many journalists are anticipating a huge boost from Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Senator Obama. They speak with schadenfreude about whatever they think hurts Senator Clinton.

They were the ones who claim that Senator Obama attracts independents because he advocates for a change. Senator Kennedy is a ninth term senator and king of liberals.

Since when do independents like an old-timer liberal?

Posted by: teak1 | January 28, 2008 7:14 PM

This article speculates that some of Clinton's endorsements "came by dint of her status as the establishment front-runner at the start of the campaign". How is that less valuable than those that come only after Obama's first real win? I think early endorsers are the real kind. If Kennedy and the others had any real political guts, they would have committed in the beginning. They are politicians behaving as such and nothing more. Please stop plaguing Hillary with negative articles in this newspaper. It has gotten to be every day and it's a real turn off. Please aim for some balance.

Posted by: Susan9 | January 28, 2008 7:02 PM

This article speculates that some of Clinton's endorsements "came by dint of her status as the establishment front-runner at the start of the campaign". How is that less valuable than those that come only after Obama's first real win? I think early endorsers are the real kind. If Kennedy and the others had any real political guts, they would have committed in the beginning. They are politicians behaving as such and nothing more. Please stop plaguing Hillary with negative articles in this newspaper. It has gotten to be every day and it's a real turn off. Please aim for some balance.

Posted by: Susan9 | January 28, 2008 7:02 PM

This endorsement also signals to the rank and file Democrats that it is ok to dump Hillary and join Obama. We may see a flood of endorsements coming Obama's way in the next few days.

Posted by: zbob99 | January 28, 2008 7:02 PM

The American people have a chance to elect in 2008 not "a black man" but a person who is the best thinker with the best judgement of any candidate in both parties and has more personal and political integrity than most of them combined and who won't just talk about uniting the country and the government but will expend every fiber of his being to DO it. So of course The Dark Forces of Politics Past are doing everything they can to kill his candidacy. Anyone wonder why?

We must not and shall not sign over control of our democracy, our lives, our futures to the Clinton Attack Machine and Monarchy-in-Waiting: her own personal "Kill Bill;" the rest of her armada of out-of-control political assassins/stormtroopers; the legions of Hill Shills, fawning toadies and cronies in the news and entertainment media (NEM); and every obnoxious we-know-better-than-you-what-you-need neo-Marxist who roams this land. They have been working steel-fist-in-velvet-glove with each other to wage nonstop war against anyone who stood in their way since Clinton's adopt-a-state campaign landed her in the Senate, and if we put her in the White House they will (only figuratively, I think) rip the meat off our bodies:

o More U.S. secrets handed over to the Chinese in exchange for political campaign cash and special favors.
o More "suicides" by cabinet members.
o The Lincoln Bedroom again a destination-of-the-month for an endless parade of Hollywood power-abusers.
o Sexual misconduct anywhere, any time and the only "punishment" once again swiftly meted out by the Clintons against anyone who dares report it.
o More $100,000 mystery investment windfalls in Hillary's investment portfolio.
o More dragon lady episodes such as the one that claimed the jobs of the entire White House travel staff.
o More of Mrs. Clinton's subpoenaed government papers "disappearing" for years, then "reappearing" when they can no longer place her in harm's way.
o More FBI file-gathering and abuse-of-power against millions of their fellow U.S. citizens who the Clintons consider political enemies.
o More national security documents stuffed in Sandy Berger's pants.
o More firings of U.S. attorneys with nary a word in the media, after which Alberto Gonzalez was driven from office for firing a small group of those same U.S. attorneys.
o One fawning, suck-up media interview after another of Hillary on every talk show; Bill Clinton sitting in on saxophone with every talk show band; and the continuation of the sickening, already-well-underway grooming of Chelsea Clinton to run for public office in the none-too-distant future.

Of course none of this is ever repeated by the Hill Shills who lurk in the media, instead choosing to focus on a few blips on the radar by Rudy Guiliani to make sure and wipe out his candidacy before it ever had a chance.

If the Clintons' record of "achievement" as noted above is the kind of horrifying vision the American people want for this nation, then by all means they should vote for Hillary.

I'm a true Independent who voted for Ross Perot in '92 (and God forgive me, helped put Bill Clinton in the White House), then has voted for Republicans ever since. I'm just crazy enough to want to see America once again in the hands of "We, the People." I believe Barack is the one who can restore that kind of leadership again. And I hope to God we as a nation have the good sense to elect him.

Posted by: RexRange | January 28, 2008 6:40 PM

Whether or not the Edward M. Kennedy endorsement and support of the Barack Obama candidacy gains, loses, or changes not a thing about the level of support Obama attains during the primaries, Senator Obama can thank The Clintons for Senator Kennedy's vocal enthusiasm. Kennedy was driven by principle to stand up to the low-down ways of the Hillary For President campaign. The Clintons were destroying the very fabric of the Democratic Party, making a mockery of everything the party has stood for since FDR; Kennedy stood up to Reagan, Gingrich, Atwater, and their ilk, and, although I'm sure he was pained to do it, he had no choice in standing up to The Clintons and their shamefully divisive approach to gaining the party nomination. Clearly what The Clintons need is a remedial course in civics.

Posted by: rarignac | January 28, 2008 6:23 PM

Thanks for the link jojo. The Clinton's are apparently not above using everyone or pitting group against group to achieve their results. Please God, do not let this woman win. I am a white 40yr old female and I for one am disgusted by the Clinton campaign. THIS is not what the democratic party stands for.

On the topic, I think the Kennedy endorsement is really big.
1)It is a repudiation of the Clintons and their brand of politics
2) It negates a lot of the Clintons points against Obama

3) Regardless of actual history, most people believe that JFK had a profound impact on US History and that he inspired people to do better. As Obama talks about change it might be a little esoteric for some. I think this now helps people to really connect Obama's campaign with a sense of history and understand the power of inspiration. (What if we hadn't taken a chance on JFK??) For most democrats, I think that hits home somewhat.

Posted by: newfapalooza | January 28, 2008 6:03 PM

"Democrats have searched for half a century for a successor to the legacy..."

Strong words but this is the reality:

"Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when Clinton's veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, "In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone."

Posted by: JoJo7 | January 28, 2008 5:34 PM

Let's hope that on Feb 5, a house falls on the wicked witch of the south, er, north, no east. Nobody knows where this carpetbagger actually hatched.

Posted by: maricopajoe | January 28, 2008 5:29 PM

Found an awesome article on this topic on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

http://savagepolitics.com

It's called "Rubber Stamps R' Us".
Here is an excerpt: "Political endorsements have been a part of American Politics for more than a Century. They have been used to both consolidate a particular ideological position within a Party and/or to advocate the split from one imposing social current to another. They have also played a role in every subterranean aspect of our Nation's history, because we have been socially conditioned to give weight to any and all forms of patronization. In the old days, a Party Boss would expect the endorsement of a high ranking official within his organization before he would openly lend his support to any particular candidate or figure. At other times, specially at the beginning of the 18th Century, it was the actual Party Boss who would make sure that certain officials got endorsed above others, all in the name of flagrant economic favoritism (also read SP article Slaves, Democrats, and "Honest Abe"). To the detriment of the public interest, many of these "rubber stamps" have served candidates to prove their undying loyalty to the Party's (and eventually the National) Establishment interests. How negative is this archaic practice when juxtapositioned against the 21st Century?..." Get the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=61

Posted by: elsylee28 | January 28, 2008 5:15 PM

"Democrats have searched for half a century for a successor to the legacy..."

Strong words but this is the reality:

"If a Hillary Clinton campaign official told a reporter that white voters never support black candidates, would the media have swallowed the message whole? What if a campaign pollster began whispering that Jews don't have an "affinity" for African American politicians? Would the pundits have accepted the premise unquestioningly?

Read Gregory Rodriguez in todays LA Times: Clinton's Latino Spin. The Clinton campaign's assertion that Latinos historically haven't voted for black candidates is divisive -- and false.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez28jan28,0,1688217.column

Posted by: JoJo7 | January 28, 2008 5:10 PM

Ahhh. The nectar of justice is sweet when it flows. I'm enjoying it and hoping to drink from it more days than not in the future. After watching the repulsive tactics of the Clintons of the past several weeks, after coming to a bitter awakening of the people that I had previously supported as best representing values of integrity, compassion and the democratic ideals of this country, I was shocked to see two thugs reveal themselves for the slime that they are.

Many of us, young and old, were disgusted with the Clintons, still are, and contemplated leaving the party should the Clintons win the nomination employing such Machiavellian tactics. Ted Kennedy's appeal today not to do so - coupled with his valiant affirmation and validation of the ideals that is America and repudiation of the pitiful, contemptuous tactics that have angered us - at least reassured me that the party is listening.

The Kennedys' joining in the passionate chorus for change, and uplifting us with their own historic embodiment of change, stirred me to the core. God save America!

Posted by: commonsensepoliticstoday | January 28, 2008 5:03 PM

Found an awesome article on this topic on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

http://savagepolitics.com

It's called "Rubber Stamps R' Us".
Here is an excerpt: "Political endorsements have been a part of American Politics for more than a Century. They have been used to both consolidate a particular ideological position within a Party and/or to advocate the split from one imposing social current to another. They have also played a role in every subterranean aspect of our Nation's history, because we have been socially conditioned to give weight to any and all forms of patronization. In the old days, a Party Boss would expect the endorsement of a high ranking official within his organization before he would openly lend his support to any particular candidate or figure. At other times, specially at the beginning of the 18th Century, it was the actual Party Boss who would make sure that certain officials got endorsed above others, all in the name of flagrant economic favoritism (also read SP article Slaves, Democrats, and "Honest Abe"). To the detriment of the public interest, many of these "rubber stamps" have served candidates to prove their undying loyalty to the Party's (and eventually the National) Establishment interests. How negative is this archaic practice when juxtapositioned against the 21st Century?..." Get the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=61

Posted by: elsylee28 | January 28, 2008 5:01 PM

For anyone interested in Hillary Clinton's reaction to the Obama endorsements: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/107619

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 4:55 PM

President Kennedy inspired me and many others to "ask what we could do for our country" and to pursue some form of public service. It was good to hear once again Senator Kennedy's evocation of American ideals. Those ideals resonate in every speech Senator Obama delivers. Asking what the effect of this endorsement will be is, to me at least, like asking how many divisions the Pope has. The power lies not in the polls, but in the hearts of those of us old enough to remember when ideals could give birth to words, and words to action.

Posted by: thewolf1 | January 28, 2008 4:34 PM

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 4:21 PM

Ted Kennedy endorses Barack Obama, Check out the video. Wow!

http://www.seferm.com/news/us/governementelection/elections.asp

Posted by: ensure365 | January 28, 2008 3:58 PM

cdonham:

I don't have a "job" with the Clinton campaign -- as I have said repeatedly on these threads, I wouldn't vote for Hillary in a million years -- I am actually retired.

What's your job?

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 3:56 PM

As I sat in my wheelchair watching and listening to the Kennedy family endorsement of Barack Obama, memories rushed back, memories from 1960, when I was picking grapes in the California fields to 1968 when I was secretary to the Director of a program funded by the Office of Economic Opportunities founded by the Kennedy administration.

Kennedy's challenge became a reality for, and in me. In 1968, I was directly involved in a program that provided elementary education to the farm laborers of the central California counties.

My job gave me the opportunity to serve a cause very dear to my heart. I was trying to convey to those men and women, that they could surmount language and other barriers and get better jobs. Perhaps without intention, I was the realization of what they could grow and become. Few times have I felt so rewarded.

The changes that an Obama administration could bring to this nation, and hopefully to the world, could be a reality if we just hope enough, if we believe enough, if we work hard enough, if we share enough, if we commit enough. Today, I invite you to do the same, renew your dreams, your hopes and commit to this challenge. Help us by joining the efforts of thousands across this nation to bring Barack Obama to the White House.

Posted by: esther_624 | January 28, 2008 3:54 PM

JakeD:

After watching you comment incessantly for days, I wonder if your job with the Clinton campaign is to blog the Washington Post and New Yourk Times.

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

Notice that I will never resort to ad hominem attacks against anyone here. So, here's an honest question: Is the endorsement of THREE of Robert F. Kennedy's children worth more, the same, or less than one Ted Kennedy? And, I'm not talking literally, as we all know that Teddy weighs more than the three children combined ; )

Seriously, though, my issue with Mr. Balz was that he dismisses the fact that "Clinton has significant endorsements of her own" (IGNORING the three Kennedy endorsements) so that he can spout about "passing the torch" -- get it now?

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 3:24 PM

"P.S. did anyone else know that Robert F. Kennedy has ELEVEN children?!"

Yes, and two of them have died. Michael in a skiing accident and David of a drug overdose.

If I were Barack, I'd have checked the load of baggage that comes with that particular torch before accepting it.

Posted by: LongTimeRez | January 28, 2008 3:22 PM

Oh, JakeD, up to your silly disingenuous tricks again.
Listen, if Hillary got Teddy Kennedy's endorsement, very few Obama supporters would be touting Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's support. It's actually quite pathetic to do so -- everybody knows much more important (and symbolic) his approval is compared to hers. It would be like one of the candidates getting Al Gore's endorsement, and then his/her opponent touting the approval of Karenna Gore Schiff. It's just not in the same ballpark.

Posted by: RyanMcC1 | January 28, 2008 3:18 PM

P.S. did anyone else know that Robert F. Kennedy has ELEVEN children?! Even I did not know that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kennedy#Family

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 3:15 PM

question = questioning

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

For the record, Hillary Clinton got THREE Kennedy endorsements -- Kathleen, Bobby Jr., and Mary Kerry -- so, I am simply question TO WHOM was the Kennedy Torch passed?

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 3:13 PM

She never killed anyone driving off a bridge and leaving said someone to die trapped in a car underwater either.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 3:09 PM

JakeD;

She's not Teddy Kennedy.

Posted by: j_c_randall | January 28, 2008 3:07 PM

Funny how Mr. Balz dismisses the fact that "Clinton has significant endorsements of her own" including, for instance, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend passing the torch to her:

"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision but I have made a different choice. While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary Clinton for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results. As a woman, leader, and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president. She shares so many of the concerns of my father. Hillary has spent a lifetime speaking out on behalf of the powerless and working to alleviate poverty, in our country and around the world. I have seen her work up close and know she will be a great President. At this moment when so much is at stake at home and overseas, I urge our fellow Americans to support Hillary Clinton. That is why my brother Bobby, my sister Kerry, and I are supporting Hillary Clinton."

I guess those stubborn facts would get in the way of a headline like: "Passing the Kennedy Torch" ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2008 2:53 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company