Ted Kennedy? Pshaw…it’s Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement that seals the deal! I mean…her father was JFK! That means…
I mean, she’s…
Her political experience and history shows…
What exactly?
Yeah, well, I guess I should have said I like Obama and I don’t hate Ted Kennedy, but this endorsement is bulletin board material for the opposing locker room as well as an opening for some of the left’s most accurate foot-shooters; maybe that’s why he’s getting it over with early. 
I think the real importance is that Ted has a huge fundraising machine, and now it will be used for Obama’s benefit.
If it does nothing more than put the Massachusetts primary in play, it’s a boost for Obama.
One of the things I am proudest of is joining the Democratic Party in 1980 so I could vote for Ted Kennedy in the 1980 Michigan Democratic Caucus. Ted Kennedy has served the public better than perhaps any Senator currently, or indeed ever, in office. Ted’s endorsement will give Obama some gravitas and legitimacy among those that thought of him as a lightweight. Kennedy is very popular with liberals, with older Democrats, with union members, and with Hispanics. In a country where many families still have portraits of JFK on their walls, this is a big deal. This endorsement and Kennedy’s campaign work will reap huge benefits for Obama. It also sends a message to other superdelegates that it is okay not to back the establishment candidate, it’s okay to follow the dream. Clinton is not universally liked among established Democrats, many of them are going to take the cue and jump off the Clinton bandwagon now.
I don’t care if he picks either of the two obvious choices as that’s expected. I’d be a lot more interested if he picked someone out of the blue, like say Andy Griffith.
Um… The opposition was actively courting his endorsement. Or did you mean conservatives? Teddy will be shilling for the eventual nominee no matter what, and the guys who really despise Teddy aren’t going to vote for a Democrat.
This can only help Obama. How much is anyone’s guess, but it certainly will have some positive value for his campaign.
Laugh all you want, but Kennedy still has some sway with certain elements of the party: working families, unions, and (for some reason) Latinos. The demographics Obama’s weakest with, and could use all the help he can get. It isn’t so much that individual voters will say be impressed by Teddy’s approval (though some of that will happen), but that political and community leaders will, and *they *will then turn their resources to turning out the vote for Obama.
Also, any big political name (and they don’t come much bigger than Ted Kennedy for the Democrats) shows a swing in momentum towards Obama. That gets headlines. That gets donors and volunteers.
Plus, in the still unlikely but increasingly more plausible event of a brokered election, I’d rather have a guy like Ted Kennedy with me than against me. He won’t just be in the smoke-filled room, he’ll be dominating it.
Finally, and most importantly, Teddy’s popularity, his power, his resources, all centered in Massachusetts. Which is in play.
The Latino connection is from Bobby Kennedy’s work with Cesar Chavez.
That’s actually my thought as well. I’d guess it’s more of a pragmatic/calculated move than anything personal. The Kenndey family legacy as face of the democratic party has faded and faded into there really isn’t much left, and the influence has waned. And with 8 more years and 16 total, the Clinton clan and friends would become the new leagacy of the Dems, and the Kennedys’ influence would become totally irrelevant.
Oh I can’t agree with this assessment at all, if for no other reason than the sheer volume of Kennedys vs the number of Clintons.
Ignorance essentially. Some people seem to misunderstand the statement made in the OP. It says that “Ted Kennedy is supporting Obama”. They seem to think that it reads “Obama supporting Kennedy”.
Politically, this probably means more behind the scenes in the Kennedy camps’ ability to finance and mobilize for the campaign and later in gathering votes for policy. In the end I think the more unified the Democratic party is, even if compromises have to be made, the better from November.
I agree. By election day, it’ll all be water under the bridge.
From the press release W88 - ทางเข้า W88 ล่าสุด - W888 เว็บตรงไม่ผ่านเอเย่นต์
So to answer the OP, NOW-NY cares. A lot.
In response, another arm of the Kennedy clan has spoken out to say they support Clinton.
You have got to be kidding me.
The national chapter of NOW has already pretty much disavowed them, saying that while they still endorse Clinton, they respect Kennedy’s choice to endorse someone else.
I hate to say it, but the sense of entitlement among some supporters of Clinton is getting quite ugly. Just as there are reasons to oppose Obama besides racism, there are reasons to oppose Clinton besides sexism. I’ve heard several people basically accuse Obama’s supporters of rank misogyny and all but admit that they support Clinton based only on her gender. That’s not helpful to anyone, I think.
Right, must be ignorance.
If Kennedy supports someone, this means (to me) that the someone in question is potentially closer to his political or personal views than some other someone might be (either that or he’s just trying to latch on to someone popular in an effort to bolster his own career), so if Obama is considered the closest to a Kennedy Democrat by a Kennedy, then there is a good possibility that Obama is not the candidate for me, since I have little to no respect for the Kennedy’s.
I think we can all agree that the situation is far more nuanced than this. It’s largely a tactical decision, as most of American politics is these days, and it’s entirely unclear how much or how little Obama’s camp had to do with it. Also the Kennedy group is by no means monolithic and it’s motives are probably pretty complex and in some cases contradictory.
One could make a strong case that Kennedy is backing the candidate that he feels has the greatest chance to beat the Republican nominee which to many Democrats is the concern which supercedes all others. Their politics might line up more closely with Clinton (or Edwards for that matter) but if they see him as less likely to win in the general election it’s a moot point. Personally I think Hillary’s baggage makes her unelectable and that reason above all others is why I won’t vote for her. Who’s to say Teddy is any different.
To the point, judging a politician by who supports him is a dicey proposition unless that person (or organization) doing so makes his motives explicit. Lacking that you’re better off judging solely based on the candidates platform and agenda. Don’t put words into Obama’s mouth.
The Nation of Islam will probably support Obama too, but I’m not ready to presume he shares Farrakhan’s opinions and motives.
It’s a shame we don’t have, I dunno, some sort of tool, maybe a search engine of some sort to tell us how he votes, so we don’t just make the automatic assumption that he must be just like someone because of that person’s endorsement! That would be keen.
Sadly, the delegate of the organization for which I work more or less said that we are voting for her because we are primarily a women’s rights organization, and as a woman, she’s more likely to forward our cause. Which I thought was patently sexist.
And amazingly useless. From the site - “Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.4% of the time during the current Congress.”
Wow, valuable information indeed. Certainly sets him apart from Clinton with 97.1%. There’s a full .7% difference!
Since they’re nearly identical, maybe things such as apparent sincerity, background, politicians with whom they associate, etc. could be used to differentiate.
Honestly, that old drunk alone isn’t going to change my intentions (unless he signs on as a running mate), but it does give pause.