I’ve always wondered about this and since I don’t keep up much with politics nor understand it much, I’d figure I’d throw this out to the TM who will undoubtedly enlighten me.
My question is, why hasn’t Senator Edward Kennedy made a run for the White House? I understand about that Chappaquiddick incident, but IMHO, it’s out in the open and it was a long time ago. Is that the only reason his candidacy doesn’t seem to be a viable option? Or is there some other embarrassing itch hidden somewhere?
first is that, unlike when Sen. Kennedy’s brother was elected, the ‘hiring profile’ has changed. nowadays, we want governors. someone who already held an executive position. (quibble- i believe (but have no cites) that this “Senator (or Representative) vs. Governor” issue has fluxed over time- that is, sometimes Senators are desired, sometimes Governors). anyway, the current trend is for a Governor.
combining that preference with a strong centrist bias (and Mr. Teddy is most definitely a good old liberal) (quibble #2- seems to me that everybody (since McGovern’s loss) who won won the Presidency because they staked out and successfully claimed the center ground (not saying they or their policies were centrist; simply, that they captured the votes of the centrist voters- but here’s the quibble, did they? I mean Reagan was fucking right wing, but he claimed the Centrist vote, didn’t he? keep in mind i was 5 when he was re-elected)), and the whole Chappaquiddick incident, i daresay that Sen. Edward ‘Ted’ (wtf?!?) Kennedy is inelectable.
Sen. Kennedy did run for President in 1980. He was soundly defeated in the Democratic Primary by incumbent Jimmy Carter.
Since you ask for theories; in 1984 and 1988 Reagan was so popular that Kennedy was probably smart not to run.
AS for 1992, remember that in 1990, when Kennedy would have had to start his campaign, Bushs popularity was still sky high after the Gulf War. Most people were expecting another Republican landslide. By the time the economy went sour and Perot complicated the picture it was too late for Kennedy to get into the race.
In 1996 he would have had to run against Clinton, and I suspect that if he learned anything from 1980 it would be that incumbent Presidents, even unpopular incumbent Presidents, are difficult to beat in primary elections.
Actually, zigaretten, Sen. Kennedy’s attempt was more of a threat, than an actual campaign. He was more trying to get Carter to focus on certain issues than he was trying to get himself elected. Supposedly, Sen. Kennedy is pretty edgy about the whole idea of a Presidential campaign, and considering what happened to his brothers, who can blame him?
screw what i said. i think maybe Tuckerfan is on to something. seriously. if my two brothers were killed in presidential matters, maybe i’d be more than happy with a seat in the Senate…
As far as I know, Kennedy’s bid for the presidency was a real one. He was completely unable to anser the Chappaquiddick question. Perhaps the OP thinks that it is out in the open, but most think differently (And I say this as a Massachussettsian unabashed Kennedy fan). The same thing that happened in 1980 would probably happen again, particularly with the increase in negative campaigning. There are no other embarrasing itches, but that ones enough. (Look how hard a time Clarence Thomas had, with much much less evidence against him, for a much lesser crime, and not even having to answer to the public, only politicians.)
Plus, he’s a liberal giant, and it would hard to recast himself as a centrist of any kind nowadays.
Plus, he’s happily married, a bit cleaner and soberer and thinner than he has been for decades, and apparently enjoying the spare time he has to be a human being.
Plus, he is a senior senator with huge influence, and already wields huge power. Maybe he doesn’t want to pull a Bob Dole and give up a great sure thing for an outside shot at a slightly better thing.
Chappaquiddick was very damaging in 1972 and 1976 which were his best chances at the Presidency. Also he was young and never had the burning ambition that his brothers did. Now his brand of liberalism is out of fashion and his personal and family problems prevent him from making a run.
We don’t want to forget the incident with the nephew who got off on the rape charges (I think the name was Smith). The girl said Ted was drunk and standing around in just a dress shirt with no pants just being a rich muthafucka an’ everything. I don’t know if it’s true, but that kind of press can’t be a good thing. Incidentally, I like Ted. I think he’s one of the most effective senators in the lot!
Going strictly on memory…I seem to remember that Kennedy got off to a late start in 1980, I don’t think he originally intended to run but was inspired to do so by Carters incredibly low numbers in the popularity polls; but once he started I remember it being a real campaign. I remember Kennedy winning several states, including California, and giving Carter a run for his money for a while.
At some point it became obvious that Kennedy couldn’t win the primary but he continued to campaign, explaining that he was remaining in the race in order to influence Carter on issues. The cynics amongst us might believe that he really remained in the race in order to build a strong organization and support base for the 1984 election.
But I am honestly open to correction on any of this because my memory ain’t what it once was (if I remember my memory correctly, that is…)
Chappaquiddick ruined his chances in the years after it happened. While it didn’t end his political career, it made people very wary about the kind of man he is (or was). One might argue as to how important character is to the presidency, but calling your lawyer before the ambulance raises legitimate questions about whether you’ll put your welfare ahead of your constituents’.
Well said Cliffy. In Mass., there were certainly many (like myself) who admired his politics without admiring the man. A distinction like that is usually lost at the presidential level. Even though most agreed with his policies, could Clinton have been elected if all the stuff that came out during his presidency had been known before Election Night? Probably not.
Are you wondering why he’s called “Ted” when his name is “Edward”?
ike “Bob,” “Dob,” and “Nob” for Robert and “Bill” for William and “Peg” for Margaret, it was once quite common in England to create nicknames by changing the first letter of another nickhame: Edward–>Ed–>Ted, Margaret–>Meg–>Peg.
There were fewer names to go around then, and it was sometimes common for all brothers to be given the same name. Especially before family names became common, it became necessary to create variations.
“Ned” is also a nickname for Edward.
Of course, a Ted might also be a “Theodore,” as is the case with Alaska’s Senator Stevens.
I recall a political cartoon from 1980 that showed Ted Kennedy driving a car, Jimmy Carter was in the back seat wearing scuba equipment, and a Barney Fife look on his face. That was when Kennedy’s campaign was building steam.
The reason that he’s not run, IMHO, has to do with the fact that he is seen by most of the non-northeast parts of the country as a laughing stock, both for personal reasons and for his politics.
When Ted ran in 1980, he was doing okay until that interview on TV–I have no idea who quizzed him–but he blew it completely–he hemmed and hawed and “answered” as if he had never even rehearsed a response to a Chappaquiddick queston (maybe he hadn’t!). It was embarrassing to watch, you almost felt for the guy. His campaign was over, then and there.