Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going — and who he thinks is best to lead it.
Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State’s senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy’s niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support.
That will be a potentially significant boost for Obama as he heads into a series of critical primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.
Kennedy believes Obama can “transcend race” and bring unity to the country, a Kennedy associate told the Globe. Kennedy was also impressed by Obama’s deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.
The coveted endorsement is a huge blow to New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is both a senatorial colleague and a friend of the Kennedy family. In a campaign where Clinton has trumpeted her experience over Obama’s call for hope and change, the endorsement by one of the most experienced and respected Democrats in the Senate is a particularly dramatic coup for Obama.
What will happen to the political capital of Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick after Clinton wins MA by a safe margin?
<
p>When she wins the bulk of Feb. 5 delagates?
<
p>If she wins the nomination or the presidency??
about the result in MA — I don’t see any evidence that Obama is seriously contesting this state. Kerry and (especially) Kennedy both have national profiles and influence that extend well beyond MA, and that’s where they hope to affect the race.
<
p>Clinton will do well on Feb 5, but it won’t be over. There are still lots of states to come.
<
p>If she wins it all, that will let us see if she’s a uniter or a divider.
Where his niece Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has just endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Does anyone on the planet think that Kathleen Kennedy whatshername has as much influence with Democratic voters as Ted?
<
p>Just askin’. In any event, this (from the Globe article) appears to be the plan:
<
p>
<
p>Personally, I think Ted could move a lot of votes with that crowd, which of course is the crowd that Hillary must have in order to win. Therefore, I think that this endorsement is among the most (if not THE most) significant to have come down the pike thus far.
Limited to Md. (read above), she is well respected among Democrats there and probably still has a good mailing list, organization and contacts.
<
p>Obviously the Senator is a giant national figure, which is why the Clintons showed him so much respect when they were in the White House, and they were very helpful to his state.
Howie, K.K. is nice and all, but you know darn well that Ted can throw heavy electoral artillery just about anywhere he chooses. By the way, I think Billary is going to be seriously walloped in (y)our district (the 8th). Poor Marie Turley… it’s gonna be tough carrying an empty bag to Menino once again. Har Har
I live in the 9th, BTW.
<
p>I’m told Marie and her folks got a great reception in JP on Saturday!
<
p>But I’m sure Barack will outperform the great Kosta in terms of electoral politics!
<
p>Ciao,
<
p>H
<
p>I don’t think there has been an appreciation in these discussions of the sentiments toward Kerry and Kennedy in other parts of the country, where they are considered the incarnation of our party’s mascot. A Kerry/Kennedy endorsement is considered a death knoll in regions beyond the Blue State.
that Kennedy and Kerry are bigger progressive icons then Clinton?
<
p>How is that a problem?
While I appreciate and understand the fanaticism you display for your candidate, I was merely pontificating the consequence of Clinton’s likely sweep of Massachusetts and most other Super Tues. states on the political capital of the Commonwealth’s major political figures…
My gut check is that this is going to be a squeaker all the way to the end. Why? Because while Clinton’s institutional support from party hacks is solid enough to maintain a slim edge, her popular support is squishy and ambivalent. It’s the Obama supporters who are motivated and gung=ho. Plus the prospect of a Clinton/McCain run-off is justifiably scary to savvy Democrats. When I was door knocking up in NH I heard the same thing over and over from independent fence-sitters, “I’m torn between MeCain and Obama. Hillary? forget it.”
Just like in South Carolina?
<
p>Couple things to remember. Obama has the momentum and the buzz; the Clintons are beginning to acquire the rather unsavory aroma of two-week-old leftovers.
<
p>The Clinton campaign is in serious trouble, strictly from a campaign perspective. They made some boneheaded decisions early on and have been periodically stumbling right along. The introduction of strident Bill is a huge mistake, as David points out.
<
p>I wouldn’t be so sure that Massachusetts is going to go wacky over Clinton, either. In my (rather extensive) Democratic party circles, her support is tepid. There’s no telling (or is there?) what some of these folks will do in the voting booth. In my town, my DTC can’t scrape together a phone bank for Hillary, and that’s not because everyone’s so sure she’ll win. No one wants to work for her.
<
p>At any rate, Clinton may win but I wouldn’t count Obama out by any stretch, now that he has Uncle Ted’s endorsement.
I preface my comment by stating I have the upmost respect and admiration for the senior Senator from Masssachusetts and his forty year record of accomplishment in the U.S. Senate.
<
p>How is Obama going to transcend race if he can’t articulate persuasively how his dubious public policy positions in areas such as achieving universal health care coverage
<
p>Mr. Obama, under your health care reform plan, who takes care of the insured sick kid when the uninsured parent gets felled by a serious illness or injury? Perhaps, it will be members of Hillary’s village who will ensure the children recuperate and continue to develop in a healthy manner. However I would be loathe to rely on my arch-conservative Republican neighbors to fill the family void created by a serious parental illness or injury.
<
p>Oh well, I suppose I have to give Senator Kennedy a pass on the Obama endorsement. After all, Ted is still fighting, like a lion in winter, to extend the duration of unemployment insurance to those affected by the recession and continues to battle the Bush administration on expanding the SCHIP health care program to cover more uninsured children in America.
AFAIK, the main difference between the two plans is that Clintons makes it against the law to not but insurance. If you can’t afford it, tough luck – you don’t get it AND you pay a fine.
<
p>(I’d much rather see universal single-payer than either plan.)
<
p>The big difference is in candidates. Obama, as far as I can tell, is a man of his word. The Clintons… not so much.
A mandate is the only solution where everyone is covered, an insurance not a pick and choose system. If we are comparing plans with Barack Obama, then look at his plan and not universal health care, because his plan is not universal. Barack’s plan is not a plan of a Democrat but rather one of a centrist Republican. Show me otherwise.
The behavior of the Clintons in the last week or two has been so utterly apalling that I suspect most senior members of the Democratic party want them off the national stage. Race-baiting in 2008? Seriously, race-baiting in 2008? And from a Democrat? Almost as disturbing as Hillary’s vote for the Iraq war.
<
p>I expect that most Democratics in Congress and in the DNC want to drive a stake through the deceitful duo. The only way to do that at this time is to get Obama elected.
Every time an Obama supporter tries to re-sell this dubious “race-baiting” charge, all I hear is “I’d rather talk process or rumor than policy or platform.” It’s been days since I’ve heard anything about policy come out of Obama’s mouth (and I know that makes me behind the times, man, that I care about that.)
<
p>If Hillary doesn’t get this nomination, she’s still in the Senate and not going anywhere. Bill Clinton remains the last Democratic president, and in the event of a McCain-Obama race, that will still be true in 2013.
Virtually any Democrat will destroy McCain – sadly, he’s turned into an old man, he speeches are sorry things.
I have a very high regard for Ted and I can’t wait to hear what he has to say.
I was wrrrrrrr
<
p>I was wrrrrrroooo
<
p>I was wrrrrrrrr
<
p>I was wrong. When the possiblity of TK endorsing Obama was brought up here I said I’d bet heavily against that happening.
<
p>Glad I didn’t actually put money on it.
The man with integrity.
<
p>We went to Worcester to see the Big Dawg, Senator Ted Kennedy, Jim McGovern and Tim Murrary introduce and endorse Deval Patrick. Jim McGovern was a gracious host to president Clinton and the entire assembly. His ability to be a progressive king/queen maker as well as loyalty to his mentors is impressive. His political instinct is extraordinary because it comes from the heart as much as a keen mind.
<
p>He stands alone in his integrity during the endorsement fracas.
Chris Matthews was covering the Kennedy endorsement on MSNBC, and engaged in a give and take with Mike Barnicle about how “personal” this decision was for Ted. In other words, it wasn’t simply politics. At one point he tries to explain to today’s young that this was what the 1960’s was like–the excitement, the emotion, the sense of hope in politics. Then his voice starts to crack (1:46pm for the TiVonians), Andrea Mitchell cuts in, and Matthews mumbles a choked apology for getting emotional.
<
p>I guess we know who Chris Matthews is supporting…