Clintons-Kennedy- Disloayalty

Guys, I did not know this before. This makes Kennedy more of a .......%#$$$$....I cant trype here.. ial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/06/a_l oss_for_kennedy/

Back in 1994, Kennedy was suddenly and shockingly vulnerable to a challenge from a rich, smart Republican named Mitt Romney. On the defense in his first real political fight in decades, Kennedy wrapped himself "in President Clinton's mantle," the Globe reported in June 1994. "I am honored to stand with him, day after day, week after week, month after month, in our fight for jobs, economic justice, and progress on the great issues like health reform," Kennedy told delegates to that year's Democratic state convention.

Both Clintons rushed to Kennedy's aid.

"There is not a single, solitary member of the US Senate more interested in new ideas than he is. In the most partisan atmosphere in modern history, he is absolutely the ablest member of the Congress at getting Republicans to vote with him and work with him to make this country a better place," President Clinton told Massachusetts voters.

Hillary Clinton also campaigned for Kennedy: "Do not let the political climate of the moment undermine the record of one of the greatest senators who has ever served in the US Senate," she said at a September 1994 event.

In 2008, Kennedy didn't return the favor. Kennedy Country took on Clinton Country.

Now, that's personal. Clinton backers vowed to battle for a state that Bill and Hillary Clinton vacationed in, raised millions in, and nurtured for years. Clinton headquarters buzzed with volunteers the day before the primary vote.

"We'll do everything we can to deliver Massachusetts. Bill and Hillary Clinton never forgot this state," said Boston City Council President Maureen E. Feeney. Added House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi: "There are show horses and workhorses. We're the workhorses."

The workhorses beat the show horses. Clinton won.

Tags: Clintons (all tags)



Re: Clintons-Kennedy- Disloayalty

I remember this quite clearly, and this was the primary reasons I was so disappointed that Kennedy didn't show some loyalty. The Clintons really helped save Kennedy's ass in that election.

by Denny Crane 2008-02-06 07:54AM | 0 recs
Ted Kennedy is a piece of shit

and we all know it

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-06 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons-Kennedy- Disloayalty

Teddy's Camelot is over, RFK Jr. is on the rise.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-06 08:38AM | 0 recs
What loyalty?

A few Clintonites endorsed Obama? So why is Ted Kennedy beholden to the Clintons forever???
Obama didnt really help Lamont compared to Edwards, yet Lamont endorsed Obama.

I am sure Ted Kennedy thanked them for their efforts at the time.

by Pravin 2008-02-06 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons-Kennedy- Disloayalty

Whenever I think of Ted Kennedy, I just can't get a song out of my head:


by hwc 2008-02-06 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons-Kennedy- Disloayalty

Listen, you guys (Hillary supporters) are not ENTITLED to Kennedy's endorsement no more than you are/were entitled to the Democratic nomination.  You have to earn them.  Stop throwing hissy fits every time something doesn't go your way, (a) because it's annoying and (b) it does your candidate no good to act like a bunch of spoiled eight year-olds.

by TheUnknown285 2008-02-06 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons-Kennedy- Disloayalty

Yes, even the Obama supporters must admit that the Kennedy promulgation did little to help Obama and did much to make the Kennedys (Teddy, Ethel, Caroline, Maria and the like) look disloyal and silly.

One of the constants in all exit polling thus far is the fact that few voters are swayed by endorsements or media.  In fact, they matter very little, and are often a hindrance.

As has been previously noted, the Kennedy group abandonment of the Clintons had less to do with their wanting Obama than preventing another Clinton term--or set of terms.  This would make the Kennedy Era further recede in the public memory.

One of the most amazing achievements of the Clintons is their ability to defy the odds, the pollsters, the pundits, "momentum," and all manner of opposition--and yet triumph.

After the Iowa caucus, Senator Clinton's campaign was proclaimed dead.  Before New Hampshire, every pollster and pundit had her losing by wide margins.  Michigan's big win for her was ignored.  Before Nevada, Culinary Workers were to deliver that caucus to Obama without fail.  Florida's massive win for Senator Clinton was widely downplayed--yet in demographics, it proved to be right on the money for Super Tuesday.

And now, the Obama folk still believe that their money and "momentum" has been hardly blunted at all.

But that is their delusion--the most current of their many delusions.

Democrats, unlike the GOP, cannot win without California.  It is their very core base to successful general election victory.

Hillary's victory there was huge.  It meant that Californians rejected Obama, and in fact embraced McCain more than Obama--but truly loved Hillary most of all.

Thus, if Obama's money and machine should somehow give him the nomination, he is doomed to lose both New York and California to McCain.

Remember, this is a media defined "maverick," who plays quite well to both New Yorkers and Californians.  McCain is more a media honey than is Obama.  And Obama does not play as well to either of those states.

If the Obama forces were wise and not so full of themselves, they would secure for him a vice-presidential spot with Hillary.

It would give him necessary gravitas; it would give her the access to the movement.  A reverse pairing wouldn't work--both years and experience forbid it.

And it would, indeed, become a dream ticket.

What the Obama folk cannot comprehend is the simple fact that without California and New York, no Democrat goes anywhere in a general election.

The Obama folk believe that New York and California would still be theirs in a general election.

On this fact alone they are supremely delusional.  Not against John McCain in those states will they triumph.

Whereas Hillary Clinton would easily best McCain--as her vote totals more than prove--in both those core states.

Yes, the Obama team has money, endorsements, press, schedules and bizarre caucuses on their side.

But a road to the nomination paved with certain defeat in November is meaningless.

The Obama folk need the Clintons, and it is time they started admitting that fact.

And there is nothing wrong with their man accepting second slot.

For all of three years in the Senate, one could say that is doing very well indeed.

by lambros 2008-02-06 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons-Kennedy- Disloayalty

I have always believed in the legacy of John and Robert Kennedy. I don't want either of them trashed by anyone. They were my inspiration to even care about politics.

That being said I think that the torch of the Kennedy vision was picked up and carried by someone else, John Edwards, hence I consider myself an Edwards Democrat now instead of a Kennedy Democrat as I have for the last twenty five years. Edwards desperately attempted to carry that vision on and was ingnored and vilified by the press, Kennedy and Kerry.

I was glad to see Hillary win Massachusetts because it showed the people who know that legacy best don't agree that it should be passed to Obama. I think it makes Kennedy and Kerry look pretty ridiculous when the endorsed Obama and the voters of their state rejected him so soundly.

As for me, I am and forever remain an Edwards Democrat, carrying the New Frontier into a new century.

by RDemocrat 2008-02-06 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons-Kennedy- Disloayalty

I knew Maria Shriver would do nothing here- as I've said before she is no "First Lady of California"- she's practically been invisible since Arnold won as Governor.

Caroline was actually a good endorsement- and her speech was quite well-done.  Ted Kennedy's endorsement seemed more about himself than it did about Obama- it was obvious I think to most he was doing it out of some sort of grudge.

by reasonwarrior 2008-02-06 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons-Kennedy- Disloayalty

I am not going to vote for some who is endorsed by
Maria Shriver Kennedy and her line If Obama was a state, he would be California. Right-California is Hillary State.But I would say NM voters listened to Ted.

And if they want real change, it is time that
MA had 2 new Senators

by indus 2008-02-06 11:25AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads