Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton's LBJ Comments Infuriated Ted Kennedy

There's more to Sen. Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama than meets the eye. Apparently, part of the reason why the liberal lion from Massachusetts embraced Obama was because of a perceived slight at the Kennedy family's civil rights legacy by the other Democratic presidential primary frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a "meltdown" in reaction to Clinton's comments. Another source close to the Kennedy family says Senator Kennedy was upset about two instances that occurred on a single day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, a day before the state's primary.

The first was at an event in Dover, N.H., at which Clinton supporter Francine Torge introduced the former first lady saying, "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" signed the civil rights bill into law.

The Kennedy insider says Senator Kennedy was deeply offended that Clinton remained silent and "sat passively by" rather than correcting the record on his slain brother's civil rights record.

Kennedy was also apparently upset that Clinton said on the same day: "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Ac. It took a president to get it done."

Both comments that day, by Clinton and her supporter, were meant to make the point that Clinton would be better equipped to get things done as president than Obama, her chief Democratic rival. Sources say Clinton called Kennedy to apologize for the LBJ comments. But whatever she said clearly wasn't enough to assuage Kennedy, who endorsed Obama earlier this week.

Kennedy insiders say the Massachusetts senator has also been angry with former President Bill Clinton for his "Southern strategy" themed comments on the campaign trail. The senator didn't hide his disdain for the nasty tone of the campaign during his endorsement speech at American University on Monday.

Kennedy's spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, would neither confirm nor deny that the senator was angered by Senator Clinton's LBJ comments. She simply said: "Senator Kennedy knows that candidates can't always be responsible for the things their supporters say. He's proud of President Kennedy's role in the civil rights movement, and believes that it's time to unify and inspire Americans to believe we can achieve great things again."

The Clinton campaign hasn't responded yet to our evening-time request for comment on Clinton's telephone apology to Kennedy. On the day of the LBJ rhetoric, however, a Clinton campaign spokesman was quoted on the New York Times' politics blog distancing Clinton from the surrogate who made the inappropriate assassination comment.

By Mary Ann Akers  |  January 30, 2008; 8:10 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sen. Lautenberg: Bon Jovi Gets Him Rockin' (And Raising $$)
Next: Giants vs. Patriots, Clinton vs. Obama

Comments

Go Ted!!!

Posted by: Ark87 | January 30, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

In other words his endorsement has nothing to do with Obama's credentials. Ted is just getting even. That is pretty childish.

Posted by: Jack ny, ny | January 30, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

hillary's comment was correct. if LBJ would not have been president the act would have not been signed. JFK would have signed it also, but at the time he was not here. there was no slight ment at the Kennedy family. as far as race goes obama has been playing the race card. which he said he was not going to do. and now it has been brought to our attention about his dealing with lebonese crook rezko. who obama claims was only a five month stint. but it now comes out that rezko helped obama buy his house. what gives. obama critical of 527's but he sure has taken alot of their $$$'s. same with the drug companies. he in their pocket. while many seniors are having a hard time getting their prescriptions, and paying for them.
SO WHERE IS THE CHANGE OBAMA HAS BEEN SPOUTING. I DO NOT SEE WHERE IT IS! GO HILLARY GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: melody, Snohomish, wa | January 30, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Well, all Bobby Kennedy's kids are supporting for Hilary. Ted has done many great and many not-so-great contributions. I respect his judgment, but I think that there is a much better choice:

Ms. Hilary Clinton!

Posted by: Maggie | January 30, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Ted Kennedy, America does indeed need bold changes which the politically opportunistic Clinton megalomaniacs could never achieve. As leaders of the Democratic party, Billary conceded to every hawkish whim of the Republicans and frightened every other Democrat into playing along. Barack took a chance with his political career in opposing the war in Iraq and intelligent voters are rewarding him for it.

Posted by: ClintonsEqualBushes | January 30, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Maggie is right, if JFK were alive, he would have signed the Civil Rights legislation. He wasn't, so LBJ did. That being said, anyone who happened to be in the oval office at the time could have done it. The _reason_ it could be done was because Martin Luther King and his movement had changed the climate, and had solidly altered public opinion so that it could be done. I am not denigrating LBJ's contribution, it was a courageous thing to do, but the only reason it could be done was because of the contributions of MLK and all those who stood by him and changed America. Clinton is one of those people who could have sat in the office and signed the bill into law. Obama is the only candidate who could have changed the climate in order to make it possible for a politician to do so.

Posted by: Alex | January 30, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Ok am confused where is the democratic party heading?if this troubling news is the reason why Kennedy endorse Obama it is based on ego and personal animosity against the Clintons.How can we all come together come fall.Stay tuned this is troubling.

Posted by: sam | January 30, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton was very clear in what she said about LBJ helping to get the civil rights bill through the senate and then signing it into law.She made no remark that diminished Dr.Kings part in this great and much needed undertaking.We all,not just the Kennedys can be proud of this.I could be wrong but I beleive Ted Kennedy is just envious of the Clintons and the Kennedys never liked President Johnson either.It would seem that Kennedy is only using Obama to get even for an imagined slight.Senator Clinton did not owe him an apology.The very fact that she was gracous enough to offer one speaks volunes to her class and character and Kennedy's lack thereof.

Posted by: Nannie Turner | January 30, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama is up against a very vicious Goliath in the two headed monster, Billary. I give him all the credit in the world for having the guts to go against them. Not many Democrats have been bold enough to step up against this power duo and only now that Obama has done it, all of a sudden prominent Democrats have developed some courage. Good luck Obama!!! The world loves you!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9GPU3g7VSM&NR=1

Posted by: IrishGentForObama | January 30, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Pathetic! Teddy must have had too much to drink again. Hillary, you dont need that liberal endorsement anyways!

Clinton 08!

Posted by: Michael | January 30, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

It's so obvious that the Democratic party's establishment is sick and tired of the bully tactics of the Clinton couple. Every significant couple is defecting to Obama. I hope CNN's Wolf Blitzer is objective in tomorrow's debate because he is such a Clinton puppet.

Posted by: Leeanna Ferez | January 30, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton seems increasingly unstable. Her Stepford like delivery of the line about reaching her hand out "in friendship and unity", the glassy-eyed stare, the "victory" rally in Florida when she in fact won nothing -- I think that Kennedy stepped in to save our country from a potential madwoman.

Obama is authentic, brilliant, honest and, with any luck, our next president

Posted by: Suzanne | January 30, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Michael, Hillary tried to get the elder Kennedy's support but nobody likes their third world political tactics against their rivals. If Hillary is nominated, we're sure to lose to the Republicans...and I'd help them beat us too by voting and campaigning for them.

Posted by: Obamafansrule | January 30, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Go Obama! The whole world is behind you!

Posted by: Sally Hamilton | January 30, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

I admire both Obama and Clinton. I was for Edwards. Now, I will support Clinton because of her clear agenda. As for Obama, I believe he could be a good president but in another time.

Posted by: mqr | January 30, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't rely on Ted Kennedy to be one to point to as being one who wants America to come together. He helped lead to a Democratic defeat in 1980 when he took down Carter with his negative campaign and was pretentious and unyielding to the end at that convention. He's a Kennedy family loser. He's the one brother who wasn't fit to pick up the torch. And he's still holding a grudge with the Johnson family...give me a break!

Posted by: Tim | January 30, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Reading all these comments, I can not help but wonder why those against Hillary Clinton have to resort to rudeness, insults or name calling and those against Barack Obama appear polite. Am I mistaken in assuming that you are all supposed to be from the same Democratic Family? Or were some of raised up while others were dragged up? Please can you all learn to disagree without resorting to unnecessary rudeness? Some of us have to read these things! May I remind those rude ones, that they claim to be for change; I seriously hope that change is for the better.

Posted by: Fresh | January 30, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Another writer said the transfer to Obama of the Kennedy mantle by passed
his sons.
While the "passing of the mantle" aspect received the most attention, and
was the most upbeat part of the endorsement speech, the negative comments
about the Clintons were much more than a big snub. The endorsement itself
may have hit the Clintons hard, but Kennedy's comments about
them were as strong of an attack as one could make.

To make such a personal attack on the Clintons, Kennedy must have been
personally dissed to his face by one of them. I would like to know the real
reason not just for the endorsement but for that strong attack on the
Clintons. It must really have been personal.

Your article may have answered my question. Thank you

Posted by: pjonathan@chorus.net | January 30, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

As a woman, I was for Clinton at first, then left for Edwards because of his poverty policies but am never going back to Billary after the crazy sh*t they tried to pull on America last week. They vindicated the rightwing's hate for them, and frankly, they won me to disliking them too.

Change comes from the bottom going up! Not as Billary would have you believe, top (corporations) down(the people). I hope all Democrats cast a protest vote against the Clintons if they wind up winning the primaries. Real change or vote Republican UNTIL the Democratic party's status quo seizes to be Republican-light, ie. the Bush allies, the Clintons.

Posted by: Nancy P | January 30, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Nancy.

And it's so hypocritical that Clinton borgs are complaining about the rudeness of Obama's fans -- do you know the Clintons at all? Rudeness and lack of civility does not even begin to describe them.

They are cruel, deceptive and ruthless against anything that stands in the way of their power exploits. Even the blacks have caught on to their evil schemes.

The author of the article above told only half the story. The real reason that Ted Kennedy opposed the Clintons is that he was afraid that they were doing damage to the party by categorizing its voters into conflicting racial and gender categories just so that they could leach votes from Obama. In other words, they were willing to tear apart the party for as long as the party was not entirely willing to hand them a royal pass to power. The Clintons are obviously spinning crap through their surrogates.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 30, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

I had suspected his endorsement was strongly linked to ghosts of the 60s. This confirms it. Not a very strong endorsement for forwarding thinking. And I think Obama is naive enough not to understand what it really means to have Ted Kennedy in your corner. Obama's "new ways of Washington" are now more beholden to the old ways than Hillary Clinton's. Ooops!

Posted by: joywinnebago | January 30, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama 08!

The Clinton express has finally met its match!

Hope the Democrats continue to stand up to the selfish pair!

If Clintons lose, America wins. Even if a Republican wins. No more Clintons and Bushes.

Posted by: TheElement | January 30, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Why are all the most powerful democrats, Leahy, Kennedy Daschle, Kerry etc now dumping the Clintons even though they are leading in the polls?

HillBill are no different from Bush

Posted by: Jay Goldberg | January 30, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I think anyone who wouldn't vote for either Obama or Clinton isn't really a Democrat in the first place.

Posted by: joywinnebago | January 30, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama 08 is the only real change. Clinto is only a gender change but a continuation of Bush politics.

Posted by: Jay Goldberg | January 30, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

I agree with whomever called Wolf Blitzer and CNN the Clintons' monkeys. Their game is so obvious that I can predict their spin on any Clinton related story days ahead. I too hope it's not going to be Wolf Blitzer and Hillary Clinton against Obama. He's ganged up with her against Obama before.

Posted by: Ozzie | January 30, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

i'm from Sydney Australia, i'm an Australian but have been following the campaign of Hillary from the start....and also been doing my reseach of Obama etc....and what i have researched etc, Hillary has clearly have the experience and skills to move your country forward....all these candidates inc Obama are only tryin to pull up dirt on Hillary as well as attack her coz she is a Lady and they are scared of her....they are scared that a lady is going to beat them to the oval office....

you go HILLARY....you got my support....love ya work

Posted by: Daniel | January 30, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Ted needs to get over himself. He and Obama both have way too much ego for their own good.

Hillary has conducted herself pretty well, and is a classy lady.

Ted, Obama, and the spoiled media children have all been acting like bratty two-year-olds.

Posted by: VOTER | January 30, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Teddy Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy endorsements were not about Mr. Obama's credential or his competency. PERIOD.... It is out of spite.

Posted by: jmal | January 30, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war. Hillary supported the war.

Posted by: Hillary supported the war. | January 30, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Teddy passes the Kennedy mantle to Obama. Since when did Teddy become the self proclaimed king of the Democratic party? It is insulting to me and should be to every Democratic that the notion Teddy chooses who should get the full support of the party. Its about us, Democratic voters, not who the old guard chooses.

My piece of advice for Teddy is stay away from the open bar and absolutely NO driving!

Posted by: David | January 30, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Tangerine | January 30, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

The food fight among dems wil elect McCain as the next president of United States. Not only we will stay in Iraq for 100 years, we wil also Bomb Bomb Iran, or di u forget that McCain moment.

How many presidential candidates support ed by Kennedy win since 1976 with the exception of Clinton. Didnt Kennedy support Kerry, and Gore.

This Punjabi thanks Mr Kennedy for not endorsing the senator from Punjab. That was the first racial salvo fired in this race. Does any one know who did it?

Posted by: Yogi Gupta | January 30, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

God bless the noble Kennedys, if only the conniving loveless couple, Billary, was half as noble.

The Clintons are unkind for pretending that Ted endorsed Obama for selfish attacks. Their spinsters are working overtime on all sorts of forums selling the silly argument.

Not everyone thinks and acts like you, Billary.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 30, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons ARE NOT, as they think, the soul of the Democratic party. They conspired with the Republicans on virtually every crucial issue that Democratic voters opposed. Ted Kennedy did not, Obama did not...they did! The Bushes even consider this vernomous couple their friends and allies.

True Democrats would vote for Democratic issues, not only for candidates. Clintons, on the most crucial issues, have proven more Republican than Democrat!

Posted by: Boomerang | January 30, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

I wish Obama would just stop talking through both sides of his mouth. He is the one who cries foul when someone turns up the heat. Look at who is flingng the mud today - Obama. He puts Clinton down by accusing her of being divisive when he is just as bad when he and his wife use race issues and references to win votes in S.C. - that's so hypocritical. His low down tactics even trancend his organization and supporters who resort to name calling and bullying on the internet when they cannot win an argument (the examples here are typical of the ones you find all over the internet). I was for Edwards but will now surely vote for Hillary as I am sick of Obama's double standards. He cries when he feels he's attacked but at the same time he's the one that's flinging mud when he can. Obama said he is for change - where's the proof? It's like someone just entering the workforce with no experience but wants the CEO job. NOT! His campaign is turning into a classless act based on double standards and you are milking the "race" issue to win votes. You do not have the spine to vote consistently (your record shows it); you know little of foreign policy from your naive answers during debates, you come up short on domestic issues and you are too arrogant and full of yourself. Spouting popular slogans with nothing to back you up reminds me of the old saying "Empty vessels make the most noise". On top of that, the media has made him their "darling" but will just pounce on anything Hillary and Bill will say and spin it out of control in a negative fashion. In contrast, Obama's offensive and put down remarks are given a bye time and time again. My family and I for one, will be voting against double standards and giving our votes to Hillary.
Thanks to John Edwards for running a great campaign and speaking for those in America that are less privileged. We will miss not voting for you - so Hillary here we go - you got our votes as we are sick of the "hot air" coming from your last opponent.

Posted by: Terry | January 30, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Lol, now the Clinton workers are cramming every site and abusing the Kennedy legacy. It didn't work on Obama, it won't work on the Kennedy family.

The Kennedy family sacrificed so much for this country. It's a sad shame that for political opportunism, the Clinton hired goons are now flooding the internet with irreverent abusive of such a beloved family. The Jackals should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 30, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Hillary trolls are busy tonight. hehe

Posted by: HillaryTrolls | January 30, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama needs a few more years, and I would vote for him then. But now, we need somebody who can correct what happen to our country. I will vote for anybody else if Obama wins the nomination.

Posted by: Jamie | January 30, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter what the Clinton trolls say, the Kennedy clan will always be something for America to be proud of.

Mary Anne Akers, you should be ashamed of yourself for the crappy argument. These guys have died in service to America and people like you posturing as intellectuals get paid to push this garbage as gratitude?

Posted by: Robert S Santana | January 30, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

I will vote Republican is the race-baiting Clinton monarchy returns.

Posted by: Aroma | January 30, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree, the Clinton trolls keep stooping to new lows.

Posted by: Aroma | January 30, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

As a democrat - I don't find it an offense to vote Republican if your party endorses someone you cannot support. All things being equal. I don't believe a Bill/Hillary white house will be much different from the last 8 years. My opinion in that case is to vote to keep my taxes low. I am willing to pay more - but not to move the chess board around to change the pieces. I am an Obama supporter but willing to make the sacrifice for the right candidate. Hillary is not that one - she asks nothing of us. Obama asks everything of us. WE NEED LEADERS NOT 3-POINT PLANS

Posted by: Trey86 | January 30, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

FDR, JFK, RFK and MLK have left their brand on the Democratic party it is a brand of courage, sacrifice and love of country and countrymen! They are the exemplars that all politicians should emulate. The Clinton brand is a brand of sleaze, division and selfishness nothing is sacred to them the end always justifies the means.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 30, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Well said Trey86. Billary = Bush

Posted by: Aroma | January 30, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

I held the Kennedy's in high regard (because of JFK) but now see at least 2 of them as small and petty. They have brought shame to their family and are trying to pass their actions off as doing what is good for the country. NOT!

Posted by: bonbon | January 30, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

I too will vote Republican if the Clintons succeed in their racist and gender divide and conquer games. That will assure that the Democratic party abandons the plotting pair and is finally free to represent Democrats, not just Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Aroma | January 30, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

God bless the Kennedys! God Blessed America the day the Kennedys came to America!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 30, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Bonbon...you must be talking about the low ranking Kennedy's that foolishly endorsed Billary (Republicans-lite).

Hillary started off Republican. i guess you can take the girl out of the gutter but you can never take the gutter out of the girl.

Vote anything but Billary.

Posted by: Aroma | January 30, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Thanks - And recent polls in CA and NY show the race tightening. Not to mention, Obama has the lead in 3 southern states as well as a few in the Midwest. We will win NY and CA anyway. Can we win in the South and the Midwest.

Posted by: Trey86 | January 30, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Without a candidate that can pull in moderates and independents. (did not finish the comment) :)

Posted by: Trey86 | January 30, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

It took a lot of courage for Ted Kennedy to stand up to Bill Clinton's attacks on behalf of Obama. I hope this inspires other Democrats to do the same. The Clinton camp is trying to tell everyone that Kennedy stood up to them because he was protecting his own family and not promoting Obama. They obviously still think America is full of stupidos just waiting to be manipulated.

Posted by: Daniel H Wood. | January 30, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy's endoresement of Obama is out of jealousy towards the Clinton's.He is the only Kennedy who couldn't get elected for president.JFK and his brother Robert Kennedy were true american's and civil rights leaders,there lives ended much too soon.JFK would have signed the civil rights bill,but he was not given the chance because of a nutcase like Oswald.Anyone who knows about the Clinton's knows that they have done everything they can to help the African-American population.Hillary didn't want race to become a factor in this race,but it's clear Obama benefited from the attention because he got 80 percent of the african-american vote in South Carolina.Hillary is the best qualified and ready to lead this country in a new direction.Who wants to be endorsed by Ted anyway.Have we all forgotten about Mary Joe,who was left to die beneath the icy waters for 8 hours when Ted drove off Dike Bridge,he swam safely to shore,and didn't mention poor Mary Joe till 8 hours later.Hillary has the endoresements of Robert Kennedy's children,and Hillary will be the nominee and she will bring the democratic party together.GO HILLARY!!

Posted by: hillfan from the south | January 30, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Lol. All the powerful men AND women are endorsing Obama and not Hillary! The pollsters say that Hillary's is highly popular amongst the uneducated. I'm not surprised. Hehe.

Posted by: Aroma | January 30, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

I think Ted Kennedy is an old man who lost his way... He tried to control Clinton and found a more submissive Obama, ready and willing to do WHATEVER for an endorsement. For Ted and Caroline to say that Obama is this generations JFK is a far reach... Obama has done well with the speeches he gives using MLK and JFK's words of inspiration and hope, heck he even tries to inflect his voice to sound like them but he falls very short!Obama is not a LEADER he is a FOLLOWER; he is not original and has nothing to defend his position to be the next president of the US of A... Just like he did during his short time in public life; he will sidestep the issues and STAND FOR NOTHING... It is funny how people like him because he is pretty and can give a good speech but that my friend does not make a president!

Posted by: Muniz4Hillary | January 30, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

What really offends me is how Teddy seems so protective of his brother's legacy yet is diminishing it in the same breath with this endorsement. He is cynically linking his brother's legacy to a one one-term senator in an effort to take an opponent out. They are licensing his image out to Obama like Elvis or something.

Anyone see the Obama/Kennedy commercial where they show a man landing on the moon? Nixon was president while that was happening. And Teddy was in Chappaquiddick right around that time.

Posted by: Scott, NY | January 30, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Yeah! Kennedy just endorsed Obama because he was jealous(?) Are you kidding us, Billary trolls? He stuck by your candidate and her husband when they were about to send Monica Lewinsky to the insane asylum for "imagining things" and yet you paid trolls now treat him like this? i hope Hillary pays you well for your disingenous service to America

Posted by: kelly | January 31, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Yeah! Kennedy just endorsed Obama because he was jealous(?) Are you kidding us, Billary trolls? He stuck by your candidate and her husband when they were about to send Monica Lewinsky to the insane asylum for "imagining things" and yet you paid trolls now treat him like this? i hope Hillary pays you well for your disingenous service

Posted by: kelly | January 31, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Yeah! Kennedy just endorsed Obama because he was jealous(?) Are you kidding us, Billary trolls? He stuck by your candidate and her husband when they were about to send Monica Lewinsky to the insane asylum for "imagining things" and yet you paid trolls now treat him like this? i hope Hillary pays you well for your disingenous service to America

Posted by: kelly | January 31, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

LBJ did more for the civil rights cause than the safe and evasive JFK ever did during his presidency. If anything, it was JFK's death that help create momentum for LBJ's work in passing that legislation in Congress... So yes, JFK's legacy played a part in the 1964 act, but not in the way most Americans would like to believe it to be.

Posted by: Tram | January 31, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

LBJ did more for the civil rights cause than the safe and evasive JFK ever did during his presidency. If anything, it was JFK's death that help create momentum for LBJ's work in passing that legislation in Congress... So yes, JFK's legacy played a part in the 1964 act, but not in the way most Americans would like to believe it to be.

Posted by: Tram | January 31, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Ted supported the Clintons before the race and gender baiting experiment exploded in their faces. The Clintons were asked to compete on legitimate terms but sought to divide all so that they could conquer Obama. They got what they deserved and now their surrogates are running around the internet trying to destroy the Kennedy name, particularly the long serving senator. God protect him from the Clinton scum.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama's message of hope, message of bringing people together is nothing but WORDS that he HOPES helps him get in the whitehouse. Obama has said in an interview that if he doesn't win this time that he won't run again...DUH, it's because he will have to eventually show his true colors and people will not like what they see after 8 years. If he really believed that washington needs change he would not say, "I will not run again if I don't win this time around"... BOOHOO! Does this sound like a man who believes in what is coming out of his mouth or is he just telling people whatever he can to try and get elected, since this is the only attempt he will make...

Here is the website with him talking about not running again.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ne...

Posted by: Muniz4Hillary | January 31, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

LBJ did more for the civil rights cause than the safe and evasive JFK ever did during his presidency. If anything, it was JFK's death that help create momentum for LBJ's work in passing that legislation in Congress... So yes, JFK's legacy played a part in the 1964 act, but not in the way most Americans would like to believe it to be.

Posted by: Tram | January 31, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama's message of hope, message of bringing people together is nothing but WORDS that he HOPES helps him get in the whitehouse. Obama has said in an interview that if he doesn't win this time that he won't run again...DUH, it's because he will have to eventually show his true colors and people will not like what they see after 8 years. If he really believed that washington needs change he would not say, "I will not run again if I don't win this time around"... BOOHOO! Does this sound like a man who believes in what is coming out of his mouth or is he just telling people whatever he can to try and get elected, since this is the only attempt he will make...

Here is the website with him talking about not running again.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ne...

Posted by: Go Hillary! | January 31, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama's message of hope, message of bringing people together is nothing but WORDS that he HOPES helps him get in the whitehouse. Obama has said in an interview that if he doesn't win this time that he won't run again...DUH, it's because he will have to eventually show his true colors and people will not like what they see after 8 years. If he really believed that washington needs change he would not say, "I will not run again if I don't win this time around"... BOOHOO! Does this sound like a man who believes in what is coming out of his mouth or is he just telling people whatever he can to try and get elected, since this is the only attempt he will make...

Here is the website with him talking about not running again.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ne...

Posted by: Muniz4Hillary | January 31, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy needs to get over himself and his family's legacy. I have lost respect for him because he is using Obama to extract revenge. How awful.

Posted by: Jon Perdue | January 31, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

LBJ did more for the civil rights cause than the safe and evasive JFK ever did during his presidency. If anything, it was JFK's death that help create momentum for LBJ's work in passing that legislation in Congress... So yes, JFK's legacy played a part in the 1964 act, but not in the way most Americans would like to believe it to be.

Posted by: Tram | January 31, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Ted supported the Clintons before the race and gender baiting experiment exploded in their faces. The Clintons were asked to compete on legitimate terms but sought to divide all so that they could conquer Obama. They got what they deserved and now their surrogates are running around the internet trying to destroy the Kennedy name, particularly the long serving senator. God protect him from the Clinton scum.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I am OFF the Obama bandwagon. I've had it with the arrogance and vanity, and now to discover the reason Teddy Kennedy endorsed Obama was to pay Hillary back? Good Lord!

Posted by: Steven Redd | January 31, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I don't think an elitist attitude is attractive among Democrats.

The party has historically been credited for helping the "uneducated" and "working class." They are telling us who they believe can give them what they need: Hillary Clinton.

That should be something worthy of an elitist's attention--even among the "powerful" men and women.

Again, if you won't vote for either Obama or Clinton, you are not a Democrat. Those on the board saying that are the same kind of people who promised to move to Canada if Bush got elected and, evidently, you are still here.

I believe Hillary is a Rorshach test. If you have a visceral reaction, there's something you hate about your own life or something you are afraid of that has no basis in fact.

The New York Post is endorsing Obama. Enough said.


Posted by: joywinnebago | January 31, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Ted supported the Clintons before the race and gender baiting experiment exploded in their faces. The Clintons were asked to compete on legitimate terms but sought to divide all so that they could conquer Obama. They got what they deserved and now their surrogates are running around the internet trying to destroy the Kennedy name, particularly the long serving senator. God protect him from the Clinton scum.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Nice way to discredit Ted's endorsement, planted for by hillaryclinton.com

Posted by: Yiannis | January 31, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton Troll.

I am paid to post anything that discredits the good work and conscience of the Kennedys under several names. Barrack, Leahy, Daschle, Kerry and all who disagree with the Clintons' ruthless tactics are doing so because they are jealous, not because the Clintons are indeed ruthless and "Republican" in the way they abuse fellow democrats.

My programme says the Clintons are saints. *wink*

I need my battery recharged.

Posted by: ClintonTroll | January 31, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton Troll.

I am paid to post anything that discredits the good work and conscience of the Kennedys under several names. Barrack, Leahy, Daschle, Kerry and all who disagree with the Clintons' ruthless tactics are doing so because they are jealous, not because the Clintons are indeed ruthless and "Republican" in the way they abuse fellow democrats.

My program says the Clintons are saints. *wink*

I need my battery recharged.

Posted by: ClintonTroll | January 31, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton Troll.

I am paid to post anything that discredits the good work and conscience of the Kennedys under several names. Barrack, Leahy, Daschle, Kerry and all who disagree with the Clintons' ruthless tactics are doing so because they are jealous, not because the Clintons are indeed ruthless and "Republican" in the way they abuse fellow democrats.

My programme says the Clintons are saints. *wink*

I need my battery recharged.

Posted by: ClintonTroll | January 31, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton Troll.

I am paid to post anything that discredits the good work and conscience of the Kennedys under several names. Barrack, Leahy, Daschle, Kerry and all who disagree with the Clintons' ruthless tactics are doing so because they are jealous, not because the Clintons are indeed ruthless and "Republican" in the way they abuse fellow democrats.

My program says the Clintons are saints. *wink*

I need my battery recharged.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

It appears as though most of Senator Obama's supporters here and on many blogs are really Republican's posing for him.
Slime dogs at there best...Politics at its best.
The Campaign of Hope is now a Campaign on a Rope...stooping to low blows and personal attacks. How quikly they learn...or mabye they always had the political slime attacks.

Posted by: Ann Aloha | January 31, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

What's with all the hostility towards Hillary Clinton by so many women? Shame on you. As a woman I find it offensive that a Democratic woman (much less any woman) would use such degrading and sexist insults targeted at the first woman in history who has a shot at the Presidency. She should be applauded. And "Billary"--a reference borrowed from the Enquirer. It is disrespectful to refer to the former President and First Lady that way. At any rate, Obama seems to have a lot of support from people buying into all of the rhetoric of what he can do to save the country and recreate Camelot. It is a romantic idea, but we're in a mess and we need someone to clean it up. Obama does have potential, but would be better suited for VP. I don't think it fair to call the Clinton campaigns tactics into question without looking at Obama's campaign and some of the things coming out of that camp.

Posted by: Margret | January 31, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

After reading the ridiculous sniping here by everyone, it looks like we'd better get used to hearing "President ...McCain". (shudder) Get it together, people!

Posted by: depressedlib | January 31, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

If those are truly reasons why Ted Kennedy chose to endorse Obama, then Kennedy is a nut case. You don't endorse someone to be president because you feel your family legacy has been slighted, particularly when the slight is made by people other than the candidate.

I heard someone on CNN say that the tipping point for Ted Kennedy was a phone call he had from Bill Clinton that made Ted really mad. I don't believe it, but it makes me realize more than ever how sexist the media is - they want the story to be all about the candidate's husband rather than the candidate.

Posted by: Yappa | January 31, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Why are all the most powerful democrats, Leahy, Kennedy Daschle, Kerry etc now dumping the Clintons even though they are leading in the polls?

HillBill are no different from Bush


A spineless panderer, a drunk and two losers. Rackin em up alright.

Posted by: troy m. | January 31, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Carter lost the reelection in 1982 because Paul Volker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (FED) raised the home loan mortgage rates in 1980, the election year, from 7% to 2.15% in eight months and threw the economy into Stagflation; high inflation with deep recession with millions of homeowner losing their homes to the banks, just like the Greenspan strategy of 2004 duping millions of homeowners out of their homes with the Subprime scam conspired by the Federal Reserve Bank, a private company controlled by foreign bankers. Incredible but factual.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

I don't like Clinton BECAUSE I'm a feminist. She's Bill's puppet and is as mysoginist as Bill for brushing off his numerous adulteries.

What has she done to earn her place? She's held on to Bill's cape her whole life. That's not the role model I need for my daughters. Very weak and insecure woman who models her image after the most belligerent men to validate her strength as a woman. Pity.

As another feminist put it, Hillary looks at her femininity as a thing to get over, not a thing to extol. She's no Indra Gandhi or Golda Meir. She's a tag along and Bill is her master.

Posted by: Anne Lockley | January 31, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

i chuckle at the hillary supporters who bend over backwards in tortured logic explaining clinton's mlk - lbj comments yet feign bewilderment and scratch their collective heads when obama explains his nuanced ronald-reagan-was-a-transitional-figure remarks. disingenuousness, a scorched earth attack mode, and hypocrisy seem to the guiding principles of the tag-team clinton campaign.

Posted by: jm | January 31, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Carter lost the reelection in 1982 because Paul Volker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (FED) raised the home loan mortgage rates in 1980, the election year, from 7% to 2.15% in eight months and threw the economy into Stagflation; high inflation with deep recession with millions of homeowner losing their homes to the banks, just like the Greenspan strategy of 2004 duping millions of homeowners out of their homes with the Subprime scam conspired by the Federal Reserve Bank, a private company controlled by foreign bankers. Incredible but factual.

Posted by: JOE LANZA | January 31, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Carter lost the reelection in 1982 because Paul Volker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (FED) raised the home loan mortgage rates in 1980, the election year, from 7% to 21.5% in eight months and threw the economy into Stagflation; high inflation with deep recession with millions of homeowner losing their homes to the banks, just like the Greenspan strategy of 2004 duping millions of homeowners out of their homes with the Subprime scam conspired by the Federal Reserve Bank, a private company controlled by foreign bankers. Incredible but factual.

Posted by: JOE LANZA | January 31, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Paid Clinton trolls, huh?

Wow...and I'm posting favorable comments for free.

(I'm even trying to avoid bashing Obama even though he's continuing to slam her in his stump speeches while she's not mentioning him in hers.)

I'm not a paid Clinton troll...but that could be a great part of an economic stimulus package.


Posted by: joywinnebago | January 31, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Clinton blew it. Period.

Clinton Surrogate Francine Torge compared Obama to John F. Kennedy who "was assassinated", and did it in front of Clinton, whose "expression did not change noticeably when Ms. Torge made the comment.

Then, she dismissed Dr. King. She was getting peeved at the comparisons of Obama to MLK and JFK. So what did she do? She was trying to make the analogy that Obama was about "hope" and dreams" like MLK, and she was a "do-er" like LBJ. That was not the best thing to do.

First of all, "King's dream" was "realized" when it was first "conceptualized". Period. In the face of being jailed, prosecuted, spit on, beaten, and threatened with death, King's dream forced the hand of Lyndon Johnson who acted only after he was forced to. So Obama was right when he called Clinton's remarks "unfortunate", and Clinton was right when she said she "misspoke". But there's more to it than that: she messed up on a monumental level.

Posted by: Rubiconski | January 31, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Yappa,

Of course those aren't the reasons. Use your brains to giude yourself, do not follow the Clinton trolls' leash.

They are mad that Kennedy did not endorse them and have formulated a "reason" to explain why.

Just like a scorned lover will explain away her rejection. The Clintons are scorned and hence their attempts to feed idiots such trash as the article above through their willing surrogate "journalists".

Posted by: TheClintonsAreScornedLovers | January 31, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

To try and blunt the comparisons of Obama to MLK, RFK and JFK, she messed up and ended up offending the patriarch of the Kennedy clan.

Hillary has no one to blame but herself. And she did not speak "movingly" of MLK in that remark. I saw the video.

Hillary and her running mate Bill are both wack. The Kennedy's know it. I know it. Now you know it.

Posted by: Rubiconski | January 31, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama's fans are haters they are not uniting us with these vulgar attacks but dividing the democrats ,irony there!!!!

Posted by: gregg lower | January 31, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Mary Akers, THIS IS ALL HEARSAY.

And a way to discredit his endorsement or make some sense of it.

NOW should apologize to Ted Kennedy for their feminist attack on his character.

Posted by: StuntMan | January 31, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

"I don't like Clinton BECAUSE I'm a feminist. She's Bill's puppet and is as mysoginist as Bill for brushing off his numerous adulteries.

What has she done to earn her place? She's held on to Bill's cape her whole life. That's not the role model I need for my daughters. Very weak and insecure woman who models her image after the most belligerent men to validate her strength as a woman. Pity.

As another feminist put it, Hillary looks at her femininity as a thing to get over, not a thing to extol. She's no Indra Gandhi or Golda Meir. She's a tag along and Bill is her master."


Bravo, Anne! You read Hillary perfectly!

Posted by: S Harper | January 31, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Robert Kennedy was the best Democratic candidate to run for president during my lifetime. He was truly concerned about civil rights and the plight of the poor. His children, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, RFK Jr., and Kerry Kennedy are all supporting Hillary Clinton. Their thoughtful, rational consideration of her candidacy is much more significant to me than the weird Caroline/Teddy brouhaha.

I was very excited about Barak Obama too, at first. He sounded good. Then I started to listen for the substance and didn't hear anything. I noticed his petulant-child tendencies ("You're likable... enough"). Then came his prevarication on the Rezko issue. Trying to pass off his 17-year relationship with Rezko as "5 hours of work," not giving back the campaign money until the day Rezko was arrested, etc. And what horrendous judgement it was to buy his house at a huge discount with assistance from the Rezkos, at a time when Rezko was under investigation. Then there was that four-page memo from his campaign staff of spurious accusations of racism against Clinton. Talk about race baiting! It's all too much now, and I just find him to be dissembling and highly annoying. I can't even listen to his voice without cringing. I'm amazed at the numbers who are taken in by this immature, naive neophyte. I miss John Edwards!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

"I don't like Clinton BECAUSE I'm a feminist. She's Bill's puppet and is as mysoginist as Bill for brushing off his numerous adulteries.

What has she done to earn her place? She's held on to Bill's cape her whole life. That's not the role model I need for my daughters. Very weak and insecure woman who models her image after the most belligerent men to validate her strength as a woman. Pity.

As another feminist put it, Hillary looks at her femininity as a thing to get over, not a thing to extol. She's no Indra Gandhi or Golda Meir. She's a tag along and Bill is her master."


Great post and I also agree with its originator. Hillary's macho act is as feminist as Michael Jackson's skin bleaching is about black power. Haha

Posted by: letsvoteforthebest | January 31, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

obama drew 10 000 people in Denver today and 13 000 people in the evening in Georgia, I think...hmm, that might explain why the deceptive stuff is being posted by Clinton's people. They are losing sleep over his surge in the polls and the attendances at his rallies. Don't even consider his endorsements, they might give the Clinton puppets and Anne Akers a heart attack. lol!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

I see the Billary machine has shifted the character assasination resources from Obama to the Kennedys. Desperation, desperation. The whole world smells it from these people. they wreak of sour grapes.

Posted by: Sceptic | January 31, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy is a BACK STABBER!!!!!!people here in Mass are disgusted he would endorse such an idiot, a novice!!Ted Kennedy,John Kerry and all the boys can't stand that Hillary is so smart,good old fashioned sexism!!Women have stuck by Ted Kennedy through the murder,booze,womanizing you name it,what a slap in the face!!but their will be a back lash trust me! shame on the press for giving Obama a FREE RIDE!!!and going after the clinton's in such a VULGAR over the top way!!!Obamas fans or zombies are usually young and dumb or out of touch politically!!they have no idea of what the clinton's have accomplished!!and btw Hillary is ahead here in mass 59 to 22 so much for Teds endorsment!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: gregg lower | January 31, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

As for the numbers of people coming to hear the speeches...they might just be coming to hear the speeches.

I heard him in person--long before I made a choice--and I left feeling inspired and motivated. He's a great performer. I just didn't see him as president material. Even after looking at his web site.

You know, it's possible some people aren't Obama-haters or Clinton trolls. It's very possible we made an informed decision and are proud of the presidential candidate we believe is best for our country.

Posted by: joywinnebago | January 31, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad that so many people actually caught on to Billary's twisted and corrupt plots against their enemies. I was beginning to think that we lived in a nation of zombies. Conragrats to Obama for the lofty Kennedy endorsement. Only he, and not the Clinton hyenas, deserved it.

Posted by: Acer4x45 | January 31, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Sour grapes!!!!!! That's all it is on the part of these guys.!! If Kennedy endorsed them they'd worship him....but because he turned down them down, he is now sour grapes to them. pathetic. We know what you're up to and it ain't working.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

They can't stand the rejection from the Kennedys that count and that's why they are attempting to destroy them. The Clintons don't learn to run faster, they chop the competition's legs when they are losing. That's the only way they know to win races and that's why their surrogates are now attempting to chop down senator Kennedy. Truly pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Oh dear, more Ted Kennedy drama again whose endorsement was driven from reaction.

Unity?

Posted by: J. Jackson | January 31, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

If Kennedy doesn't care about Obama's credentials, and just wanted to get even with the Clintons, then...

why didn't he endorse John Edwards?

Posted by: yungCaucasoid | January 31, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

I just read a post that makes me believe in "Hillary as a Rorschach ink blot theory." A female with feminist issues.

She's a wonderful role model for women of all ages--and precisely because she gets up every morning and serves the entire country--those who profess to hate her and those who don't--in spite of the venom that's hurled. Grace under fire, who can fire back when necessary. Daughters could do far, far worse...like witnessing women tear each other apart for no good reason.

Posted by: joywinnebago | January 31, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

This is turning me off from Barack Obama Im sorry his fans are way to into attacking Hillary, I thinks she is really smart especially in the debates,but i like Edwards the best I'm so bummed he dropped out!

Posted by: gina gallo | January 31, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

"I don't like Clinton BECAUSE I'm a feminist. She's Bill's puppet and is as mysoginist as Bill for brushing off his numerous adulteries.

What has she done to earn her place? She's held on to Bill's cape her whole life. That's not the role model I need for my daughters. Very weak and insecure woman who models her image after the most belligerent men to validate her strength as a woman. Pity.

As another feminist put it, Hillary looks at her femininity as a thing to get over, not a thing to extol. She's no Indra Gandhi or Golda Meir. She's a tag along and Bill is her master."

Indeed, well said, Anne. The bickering will not win the white house. Let's re-focus ourselves.

Posted by: Anonymousgal | January 31, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Anybody who believes that Kennedy's endorsement of Barack is based entirely on these comments rather than his qualifications did not see Kennedy make the endorsement. If you saw Kennedy speak you would know that he believes in Barack. Sure, he may have been angered by the disrespectful comments about his brothr, but to suggest that was the entire basis or any basis for the endorsement is ludicrous. People who believe this type of gossip probably also read and believe the National Enquirer. Well, it is a fact that Hillary's fans are less educated and less sophisticated than Obama's.

Posted by: Kevin | January 31, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

I agree Gina, they are hateful which is ironic since they are suppose to be about unity and positive hope.....

Posted by: gregg lower | January 31, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill are running out of tricks. They are not even innovative or subtle with their evil ways. They are too transparent. Vote for change! No more Clinton lies and intimidation.

Posted by: Forzo | January 31, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Who the hell would want to get away from partisan politics? There will never be a political utopia that Obama supporters fantasize over. Who believes in this fairy tale crap? I want a president who will be ready to scrap. It's looking obvious that Mr. Obama can't take the heat...the Repuglicans will tear him up. Go to hell all you faux-Dems who dream of voting for Repubs if your nominee tanks. If HRC is the nom, she has my vote. If BO is the nom, he has my vote. Sh*t, I'd vote for a YELLOW DOG!

Posted by: TONY | January 31, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Special thanks to all for exposing Wolf Blitzer & his CNN cohorts. Its quite clear their loyalties are with the Clinton's. Hats off to Obama for fighting the good fight!! Go Obama! Go!

Posted by: keith | January 31, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for doing the right thing. It was exactly what we needed. You came to calm things down. Our dear Bill was totally out of control, and you were the only one with the clout big enough to stop him.
Ted did the right thing. He did it for the party. This is not about Bill, Hillary is the candidate, let her fight for it. Again, Ted did it for the party.

Posted by: Thanks Senator | January 31, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

This cracks me up women that are suppose to be "feminst" but are voting for Obama ,make me laugh!!Im willing to bet these comments are not even written by women!!!And yes I agree with you guys, his fans are very hateful,its like a cult kinda scary they are all over the internet spreading hate.

Posted by: Donna Shay | January 31, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, they know what the truth is. they are just convincing themselves against an inconvenient truth, the way they convinced themselves that Barack voted to go to war.

This is what the Clintons and their tribe of surrogates do. That seems their only strength. Cruelty and vice.

Posted by: Forzo | January 31, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

OMG!!!!!!this is so HATEFUL people stop it on both sides!!!The press is awful to Hillary as well as the people on these yucky sites.

Posted by: Colleen | January 31, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Donna, hate is closer to race-baiting than advocating for your candidate. advocating for Obama is not hating Hillary.

Your candidate race-baits, which does warrant contempt amongst civilized beings. Hate is another thing altogether. I personally don't hate anyone I've never met but I know I don't respect Hillary or her husband.

Posted by: EM | January 31, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama has just announced that he's asked Pollyanna to be his running mate!, and will ask the Care Bears to fill his Cabinet.

Posted by: Tony | January 31, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Guys Barack Obama is not bringing us together look at what is going on on this site and others,Im going for smart bring back the clintons!!

Posted by: Jack | January 31, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

This is why this guy decided to endorse Obama??????? This why he decided to play with our nation's future?????? Because of his own vengeful ego! If this is true, I have lost all respect for this person. I care not to even mention their name.

Posted by: Jessica | January 31, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

This article is not being awful to Hillary, it's being awful to a very honorable Kennedy, whose family has sacrificed so much for this country.

Spin it as you may, the hate is coming from the Hillary camp and not the Kennedys. Scroll up and read the abuse directed to him by the author of the article and the commentators alike.

Shame on you, Clinton trolls, for trying to spin it. Stop attacking people that disagree with your opinions. America is a democracy and everyone is entitled to their views.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

OBAMAS FREE RIDE FROM THE PRESS HAS GOTTA STOP!!!!!!THE GUY IS SO SHALLOW!!!

Posted by: Todd B | January 31, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Clintons have been swift-boating Obama, failed and have now moved onto to the old man. They'll blame him for starting the whole thing and claim they're the victims after its all done, classic sociopathic behavior.

Posted by: Robato | January 31, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Reply to: "This Punjabi thanks Mr Kennedy for not endorsing the senator from Punjab. That was the first racial salvo fired in this race. Does any one know who did it?"
by: Yogi Gupta | January 30, 2008 11:13 PM

The Senator from Punjab comment was actually first made by Dr. Rajwant Singh at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton that he hosted. It was meant as a compliment and she found it amusing. See http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/06/dpunjab_funny_d.html#more

Barack Obama never made this comment. It was repeated by one of his staffers on a mailer that made Obama quite angry when he heard about it, and it was immediately pulled. See the article on Obama in Newsweek of January 14, 2008. Bill Clinton was, as usual, stretching the truth.

Posted by: Ingrid | January 31, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

What has exactly Barack changed??you guys are acting like he is going to turn water into wine lol!!I personally dont think he is likeable i find him to be very arrogant smug.

Posted by: nancy beech | January 31, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Media is being too nasty with clintons and has always given obama a free ride. He is acting like a kid after getting endorsement by kennedy's. (have you seen his pics with teddy at the sate of the union address)

Posted by: ClintonForPresident | January 31, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I believe this woman (author) is irresponsible. I also believe that many of you are nuts to believe this nonsense, and to express yourselves with such vitriolic language -- whether is be against either candidate. Grow up, geesh!

Posted by: Annoyed | January 31, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

"OBAMAS FREE RIDE FROM THE PRESS HAS GOTTA STOP!!!!!!THE GUY IS SO SHALLOW!!!"

If anything, CNN is always giving Billary a free ride, that's why they call it the "Clintons News Network".

Google those words and you'll know why.

Posted by: Robato | January 31, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

"I believe this woman (author) is irresponsible. I also believe that many of you are nuts to believe this nonsense, and to express yourselves with such vitriolic language -- whether is be against either candidate. Grow up, geesh!"

Don't worry annoyed, they're all likely one or a few individuals doing their best to help the Clinton cause. Let them amuse themselves, it will do no harm. Lol.

They know the truth about Obama AND Edward Kennedys. It's just that the truth does not sit well with their generally vicious choice of candidate.

Posted by: Robato | January 31, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

I don't think that people really know much about Obama and I'm terribly afraid when I see a campaign based on a pretty word like "hope." It's like choosing your next president on "let's cross our fingers and hope that the Republicans will not be as nasty and destructive as they have been for the last 25 years."

I am really amazed at the vitriol aimed at Hillary. I can't help but feel that there is quite a bit of misogyny in this. Why do people love to tear her down? She's a hardworking, smart, experienced, effective, realistic person who's been hit in the guts before and knows how to survive. We need that.

I disagree with her war votes, and that's huge. But what legislation, what actual causes, has Barack ever stood up and taken a hit for? When has he ever really opposed the Republicans and risked their wrath?

It's too bad that we can't have both on the same ticket--they'd be a winning combo.


Posted by: nina | January 31, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

Except for young voters I just don't get the adoration of BO.

Congress has a 24% approval rating because they've all been such wusses and haven't fought for anything Dems wanted since Nov 2006.

Obama has this "let's all get along" message reflected in the weakest Dem rebuttal ever after the SOTU by his backer Sibelius (where was Jim Webb from last year with his fighting words?) Do Dems really think that the Republicans are going to play nice because he's in the White House?


Hillary is backed by RFK's children who are REAL progressives and she will fight to get Democratic policies through.

She can beat McCain. I read that 12% of Repub women say they will vote for her and what about those who will do so behind the curtain but might not say so to pollsters?

BO looked like the junior senator he is, sitting next to TK. The country needs a fighter. I'm sticking with Hillary.

Posted by: BayAreaVoter | January 31, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

One more thing.

It's not a good thing to take some sentences that a candidate says out of context and attack them. That's a Fox Network/Republican spin game. Who will ever run for president and be able to speak without being paranoid? Have you or I never said something that was taken out of context? Do we want candidates to be so terrified of being distorted that they can't speak from the heart? Let's look beyond some possible interpretations of statements and see the intent.

And let's look at a person's history, votes, positions, cohorts, and other more important things and not just on one or another quickly spoken sentences. That's just crazy and look where it's gotten us--someone who speaks like a 4th grader.

Posted by: nina | January 31, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Billary is a thing of the past.

They will deadlock on every initiative if you vote them. They can't bring America together

Vote Obama for bipartisan progress.

Posted by: Owen Smiley | January 31, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Indeed, Owen.

It's about the past versus the future. Barack has forced a huge chunk of the old guard to wake up and accept that playing Republican B team just will not do in the 21st century and the old guard has now rightly adapted itself to forward thinking.

No more of the soap opera type of politics. Real progress and real change. We'll settle for nothing less.

Posted by: Robato | January 31, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

So, it's finally explained why Caroline Kennedy came out from her media reticence.

Ted Kennedy's attack was vicious and his endorsement of Obama was nothing to be proud of. Remember, he was a wild womanizer; he took the life of an innocent woman Mary Jo and wss never held accountable.

A shameless Kennedy is now campaigning for Obama.

Hillary will defeat the Kennedys and surrogate Obama. Go Hillary!!


Posted by: gina | January 31, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Keep morphing into different poster names and attempting to argue what's plainly ANOTHER CLINTON LIE.

You guys are haunted with misery and envy because the endorsement did not fly your way. And now there's a full assault on senator Kennedy's reputation, just because he chose a nobler candidate over your divisive overlords, Billary.

Posted by: Robato | January 31, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Shame on the deceitful author of this article. Noone is attacking the Kennedys that endorsed the Clintons and yet the Clinton attack poodles are gnawing at Ted's reputation. Shame on you all. You already have a terrible reputation for these tactics and this won't help you in the long run.

Posted by: Robato | January 31, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

What is POOR obama going to do if through his words of HOPE he actually got the dem. nomination??? Who would he run too, the media has been giving him a free ride because they are pushing the republicans agenda, trying to get MISTER I SIDESTEPPED 130 ISSUES AND VOTED "PRESENT" DURING MY SHORT TIME IN PUBLIC SERVICE TO WIN SO THEY CAN BEAT HIM DOWN. obama can give good speeches but that is about IT! No substance; he is a FOLLOWER not a LEADER! He talks about bringing people together YET HE SO OBVIOUSLY SNUBBED HILLARY AND THEN LIES ABOUT IT... Do americans really want someone in the whitehouse that will sidestep the ISSUES; someone that will not STAND FOR YOU! obama's words are pretty and all but if words were enough to win someone the presidency then we would have a lot more idiots like dubya up in there...Hillary is a STRONG WOMAN and we all know that the small mentality of many think that just because a woman is strong, smart, and successful that she is automatically looked at as if she was a witch, cold or polarizing... I am sorry but does obama think that his pretty words are really going to work on the REPUBLICANS and enemies of the world... I can just see him trying to make the speeches he does to osama bin laden or leaders around the world; they would laugh at him and then turn him on their knees and spank him!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

Someone above said, "electing Clinton to the White House is no different than the Bush White house."

As I recall the White house seven years ago had a balanced budget; eight years of peace and prosperity; crime down in every state, pronounced decline in welfare; 360 million new jobs compared to 3.5 million; college assistance to students; economy good; no military hospitals filled with wounded soldiers; nor families mourniing their loved ones-------- get the picture?

Compare the State of the Union speeches, just eight years apart. A WHOPPIING difference.

The present administration is leaving our White House a mess. I vote to have the former occupant/s restore lt's presence so that a future seasoned President Obana will continue it's great heritage, and the Bush White House left for the historians to unravel.

Posted by: jaycee | January 31, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Mary lies. Irresponsible Mary. Here is what Hillary actually said.
"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

Posted by: thp | January 31, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Fresh, the answer to your question is very simple - they can't stand the fact that she is strong and smart and has substance. If you think they are rude here - try asking one of them a simple question - and have them scream at you - you are a racist. That's what they do - the sad fact is both his campaign and supporters are the one who made every question, criticism or expression of concern about race.

Posted by: Barbara Jones | January 31, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

I pity the women journalist and other women who really don't know Hillary and are following blindly by what others have brainwashed them with regarding Hillary. The way that Hillary is being attacked and the way that she has been treated so unfairly by the biased media coverage is not only hurting her but it is hurting all the women who some day wish to be as successful as Hillary. People think that we have a long way to go when it comes to race but the journey for women's rights, equality and respect for their abilities is only getting longer because of the ongoing biased, twisted, and misrepresentation of her. Honestly, if Hillary were to get dirty with obama, people would get turned off because the small mentality of most americans believe that women should not do this to any man regardless of their color... people would say that is not a woman's place... WAKE UP PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU ARE WITNESSING THE GREATEST INJUSTICE TO WOMEN AND THIS WILL FURTHER PROLONG THE INJUSTICE TO YOUR DAUGHTERS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS DREAMS OF SOMEDAY BECOMING PRESIDENT OF THE US OF A...

Posted by: fourthsign | January 31, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

After many decades of respecting Ted and the entire Kennedy family, one grandstanding scene based in anger and hypocrocy is enough for me to rethink my seemingly misplaced respect.

Hillary was absolutely correct, and totally on target with the question, unlike her newsmedia and political naysayers.

It's time Ted gets a life and stops pretending he's neither racist nor sexist. He should just tell the truth - he's angrier than a hornet. Instead he childishly lashes out with an endorsement for a man he calls "Osama." On top of that, to not look sexist, he drags his niece out of obscurity to be the face for his dramatic and mean spirited snub. Only Obama's snub that same day is more childish and more mean spirited. So, two angry, mean spirited little men join forces.

Even worse is that Ted never ever supported positions that Obama says he supports. Then again, even Obama doesn't know what he supports, as he has yet to ever provide the most basic of any details.

One might say it's fitting for Ted and Caroline to align with Obama. Seems that on most days Obama pretends to be JFK. Pretty soon he'll start carrying a flame in one hand while using JFK's hand gestures with the other. Well, that is on days he's not pretending to Martin Luther King, or Ronald Regan. It's one thing to quote other people but it's another to pretend to actually be the other person(s). At best Ted is confused who he supports vs why he's angry. One is a name that confounds him, and the other is a statement of truth which also confounds him.

Posted by: Tommy | January 31, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

BARACK MOHAMMED OBAMA'S CHURCH "TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST" WEBSITE: www.tucc.org. A CANDIDATE WHO WILL SELL US OUT TO AFRICA. CHURCH'S MISSION..."WE ARE A CONGREGATION WHICH IS UNASHAMEDLY BLACK AND UNAPOLOLOGETICALLY CHRISTIAN...OUR ROOTS IN THE BLACK RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND TRADITION ARE DEEP, LASTING AND PERMANENT. WE ARE AN AFRICAN PEOPLE, AND WE REMAIN "TRUE TO OUR NATIVE LAND",THE MOTHER CONTINENT, THE CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION. GOD HAS SUPERINTENDED OUR PILGRIMAGE THROUGH THE DAYS OF SLAVERY, THE DAYS OF SEGREGATION, AND THE LONG NIGHT OF RACISM. iT IS GOD WHO GIVES US THE STRENGTH AND COURAGE TO CONTINUOUSLY ADDRESS INJUSTICE AS A PEOPLE, AND AS A CONGREGATION; CHECK OUT THE WESITE PEOPLE.HILLARY HAS MY VOTE! www.tucc.org;www.tucc.org

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 2:40 AM | Report abuse

"I don't like Clinton BECAUSE I'm a feminist. She's Bill's puppet and is as mysoginist as Bill for brushing off his numerous adulteries.

What has she done to earn her place? She's held on to Bill's cape her whole life. That's not the role model I need for my daughters. Very weak and insecure woman who models her image after the most belligerent men to validate her strength as a woman. Pity.

As another feminist put it, Hillary looks at her femininity as a thing to get over, not a thing to extol. She's no Indra Gandhi or Golda Meir. She's a tag along and Bill is her master."

I'm 99% sure that Hillary has done more with her life than you will ever do. (Yale law school, numerous social work positions, 2-term senator, etc.)

Because of that fact that her husband was president and thus has had a more high-profile career, you discount her achievements. Sounds like b.s. to me. I think you need to research the definition of "feminist."

Posted by: Damon | January 31, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

People, Rovians are also weighing in on this topic, for the sole purpose of sowing partisanship and divisiveness.

For the record, Ted declared his candidacy in 1980 one day before and not knowing that the Persian radicals would take over the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Everything changed in an instant. Ironic, in that Carter's blind support of the Shah and the Iranian reaction to it brought down Ted's campaign. He should have withdrew poste haste.

Posted by: John Crandell | January 31, 2008 2:48 AM | Report abuse

I look at these comments and obviously these comments about who Hillary is as a woman are coming from girls who have no idea what the struggle has been. These comments are coming from the generation of girls who look back at women like me who think that it was easy to be the "little woman" taking care of the house and home and at the same time holding down a job.

We are the generation that bridged the gap to help the women today have the choices they have, but the work isn't done. You still have no equal representation in Congress or the Senate. Despite the fact that the country is predominantly women we feel that we have to be told by men how to think, how to be led and what to do with our own bodies even.

We have allowed our even our most sacred texts to be maligned by the idea of men. So we as women are seeing our God through the prism of mens eyes. That is sad because we will never allow ourselves to lead or lead ourselves.

Here is a strong woman and a leader. As I think back to the first time she appeared on the scene in Washington D.C. in the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon. Yes, unlike some people would have you think she was asked to be on the exploratory committee at a time when our country was in a serious crisis. We had a President who was REALLY BREAKING THE LAW, not something sexual.

So when someone like Caroline Kennedy stands up she has no authority with women in my age group, because the fact is, we remember a young woman in 1974 who was fresh out of law school who was so brilliant that she was selected to work on constitutional law and not just constitutional law, but really serious constitutional law.

Some of us realize that the Republicans have never ever forgiven her for that work many years ago and they waged war against the Clintons for their hard work for us. Some of them never forget because they thought that they could do anything they wanted like break into buildings and steal private medical records and many other serious crimes.

Now to women like me, we are really proud of Hillary and we know that we have done our time and we know just how hard it has been to bridge that gap for our daughters. We know that she has worked hard for us. We also know that an Obama doesn't represent US. We know that a rich woman like Caroline Kennedy doesn't understand US. She doesn't know the sting of poverty, the hardships we have felt. We know President Clinton knows that and we know Hillary got down and dirty with us too! We also know she has fought the hard fight with us!

We know Hillary Clinton is fair! We know that other people want life easy and we question, question their ability because they are like so many of the young generation who want it handed to them. Like the Caroline Kennedy's who have no idea how hard it has been for me in my life as I now struggle with a transplant, no job and only to look forward to having tumors removed.

Unlike other people who want to get there the easy way, we know that they don't represent real compassion, because if the Kennedys really meant what THEY said, they've had since 1960 to do what THEY said they were going to do and that is REALLY A BRIDGE TO THE PAST IF YOU ASK ME!

No, I want a bridge to the 22nd century with Hillary. I don't want that bridge to 1960 with Teddy Kennedy. I don't live like Caroline Kennedy. I live in the Pacific Northwest where Bill Gates lives and he gives his money away to the world. We live by example and Obama, his friend Oprah, she hasn't set up a foundation with her money, no she just amasses more and more wealth.

It's all about Oprah and her stuff. It's all about Ted Kennedy and his last power play, because if any one wanted the truth, the reason he endorsed Obama is because TED KENNEDY could take center stage. He can't do that with a President Clinton.

As I sit with my 80 year old mother and I talk with my 83 year old Father, because that is what you do when you have had a transplant and you have to have tumors out and you are unemployed, and they looked at Teddy Kennedy on television they shook their head and said, "He never quite got it." Sure they feel bad for Caroline, but you know, the only one that had any endorsement potential was really JFK Jr. because he was political and he expressed his disappointments over his cousins behaviors. I'm sure he added Uncle Teddy to the list.

As for Indira Ghandi, or Golda Meir unless you know them personally you shouldn't judge what they are relative to Senator Clinton. She's an amazing woman to me and to millions like me. As a woman who has listened to the noise of talking heads who can't tell me the reality of the years I have lived. As a woman who won't be told by another man that he knows better than me what it is like to be a woman and that he can represent me better than a woman can.

I watch daily as the media and kids RIP APART this woman and then I see a news article on television where I see a young man has thrown his 3 month old baby away or another man has taken a baseball bat to woman to try to kidnap her. So it is no surprise they don't have the skill set to select a President no one has taught them any discipline, but then look at the endorsements that Obama just got! Ted Kennedy? And they want us to believe that this is the bridge to the 21st century? I really laughed on that one, we are talking about a bridge to the 19th century Barack you are more confused than ever dear...

Posted by: UWBizKid | January 31, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

who is writing all these norsence

Posted by: john | January 31, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

TED KENNEDY KNOWS DARN WELL THAT CLINTON IS *NOT* RACIST...
My goodness, he is disrespecting his brother's memory by USING HIM TO GET PAYBACK ON CLINTON...
This completely voids his endorsement; which would have bizarre even if it were not for the supposed offense taken because Ted Kenn--of all people--knows we need a president who is going to have a backbone and stand up to the extremists in the GOP and help get to agenda that Ted himself wants. Barry the Crybaby can't do that in 2008.

Posted by: Gavin | January 31, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

we're not Hillary trolls--we are just going to vote in the millions next Tuesday and surprise the Obamabots.

Posted by: BayAreaVoter | January 31, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Most of the comments are ignoring the REAL story: the Clintons' motivation for talking about King and Johnson. The context of these statements was Hillary taking 3rd Place in Iowa, and falling behind in New Hampshire. They were desperate, and THEY played the race card. Is the Democratic Party so blind they can't remember the chronology of events? Hillary made statements about Dr. King that implied he "only" had dreams, but it took a President like Johnson (and her?) to make change. King only gave his life for the cause, and I don't recall a national holiday on Johnson's birthday. And it's a STUPID thing to say anyway! She had an obvious motive. Bill continually said Obama's opposition to the war was a fairy tale, and that Obama was ahead in S. Carolina only because of race. Another stupid thing to say! I forgot how easy it is for Bill to lie. Hillary and her surrogates have desperately tried to get Obama off point, and then they have the gall to claim OBAMA brought up the race card! I had forgotten all of the Clinton scandals, and how their actions lost Congress and the Presidency to the Republicans for 8 years. And THAT'S why Edward Kennedy was so disgusted with the Clintons, and decided to back Obama. And with Edwards out of the contest, that's why I've finally decided to back Obama. I just don't see how I can morally, ethically, or spirtually back the Clintons.

Posted by: Jeff from California | January 31, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Senator Kennedy has every right to be upset. He's not the only one. Sen Clinton had gotten way too big for her pants and needed a basic shock to her political system. She ran around insulting World leaders (called Putin Souless and said that Musharrif was running for reelection when he was not) and acting like a crybaby, too. She got it. Obama's the better choice. But that can't seem to stop some people from playing games like at the State of the Union Adress:

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-snub-ap-reporter-laurie-kellmans.html

Posted by: Zennie | January 31, 2008 3:20 AM | Report abuse

I am no fan of Clinton. As a very young teen, I worked for JFKs election, later, for LBJs '64 campaign. Obama had no place "characterizing" Clinton's remarks --nor did Caroline, nor her uncle.
YES, LBJ worked on momentum; but he went far beyond any aspiration, much less capability, of the Kennedy White House.
The LBJ tragedy is that of being duped into following JFK's folks in the matter of VietNam. That, probably an attempt to counter the foolishness - perhaps criminality - in the JFK administration's bungling of the Bay of Pigs.

Posted by: Mochni | January 31, 2008 4:04 AM | Report abuse

I had political dealings with Sen TEDDY in Nome,Alaska, April, 1960. seeking delegates for JFK to National Democractic Convention, Los Angeles, CA, 1960. This Hippo has crippled and split the Democractic Party by endorsing OBAMA in a rage, as the head of Party does not endorse until rank and file Democrats do. Its a mortal sin in politics, thats Tedddy's political philosophy thus his ''LAST HURRAH ''.

Posted by: Stan Harhut, Anchorage, Alaska | January 31, 2008 4:13 AM | Report abuse

the one that should be ashame is you "robertsantana". The Kennedy's did not sacrifice A THING for this country. Every movement was very much a calculation of Joseph Kennedy. When is all this romanticism toward JFK going to end? just because he was assasinated doesn't make him the best president the US has had. For no valid reason he would've us when the bay of pigs!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:31 AM | Report abuse

Sally Hamilton says" 'Go Obama! The whole world is behind you!"

yeah, to kick him out of the way!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:32 AM | Report abuse

I love how folks say Obama needs a few more years... Listen, you only get presidential experience by BEING PRESIDENT.

Hillary is no more experienced than Barack is. Don't go for the 'experience' spin. It's already been debunked.

Vote judgment, character, leadership ability and diplomatic finesse. Barack has these qualities ten times over Clinton. And for in-depth issue-talk, go to his site, barackobama.com/issues

Posted by: knixphan | January 31, 2008 4:32 AM | Report abuse

I really doubt that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was based solely on the incidents described in the story above. It may have pushed him off the fence, but perhaps Ted and Caroline had better reasons - like Obama has a better chance of being elected in November than Hillary, who carries so much baggage. Bill Clinton probably killed Hillary's chances with his outrageous behavior the past few weeks - the idea of Bill and Hillary living in the White House is just too much for a lot of people. Obama is the most exciting candidate the Democrats have had since JFK - why would they be so foolish as to reject him and nominate someone who turns off so many people?

Posted by: Bobster | January 31, 2008 4:36 AM | Report abuse

well spoken for a dumb follower trey86. Hilary doens't ask anything from us?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:37 AM | Report abuse

maybe Mary Akers should run for President, she has plenty of people backing her up. HA HA HA

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:38 AM | Report abuse

Why in the world would The Hillary have felt the need to apologize to Senator Kennedy for her LBJ comments ? I am pretty sure that I remember her defending them to the general public. This is exactly like her Iraq War vote. She refused to apologize for it, or to even admit that it was a mistake.
I am looking forward to Senator Obama keeping this race going until the convention. What we will see at the convention is the "Super Delegates" realizing that they have enough votes to throw their votes to Barack and send the Clintons on their way into history to the sound of one hand clapping. Hey Hillary? We'll see you next tuesday.

Posted by: Samsdaddy | January 31, 2008 4:43 AM | Report abuse

I was doing research to see where candidates stand for on the different issues that I believe to be imporatant for the US. visiting these web sites and reading the inmature, unfinished comments from the Obama followers have completely turned me off to vote for him. A good leader is when his followers as good as well. it seems to me the rethoric of change and hope hasn't entered the followers. it is more that of hathred and childishness...or is it that Obama's words do not stick because is just "pink rethoric"?.

Posted by: whotovotefor | January 31, 2008 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Ted did it out of revenge? Nope, Ted has been sponsoring this guy ever since he hit the Senate. He posted Mr. O to Hillary for training when he arrived and then told him to stab her in the back. She thought he would run 4 to 8 yrs. from now after her run so she gave him complete support only to have Ted tell him to run for Pres. now with Ted's support. They were just waiting for MLK day in SC when sensitivties are very high. High especially towards anyone who is not black who references MLK or race issues in any way that can be twisted in a sound bite.A time when the world's press focuses on race as almost the only topic anyone will talk about, to set up the Clintons as racists crap so they could officially turn on her in time for a big presentation just before the FL. primary. Backfired, he did not win it even with lots of "overlapping" tv and radio coverage. After all the papers, tv, radio covering the "passing of the mantle" and all the FL. ads they said he had no name recognition in FL.. Now they are on the rock star road show circuit. Lots of flash, money, whining, and bad manners. Sells records, may sell the candidate, but not to this voter.

Posted by: verytiredofprimaries | January 31, 2008 5:16 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad to see some other people coming to the same conclusions about the contradictions within the Obama campaign. The Obama "Movement" claims to want to "unify" people and get past partisan divisiveness, yet his followers appear to have an almost zealous hatred for Hillary Clinton. I find their rudeness and disrespect towards her completely inappropriate. I also find the "Billary" comments absurd. Hillary Clinton is a separate and completely distinct person, and to suggest otherwise is nonsense and insulting. If she were not an extremely strong individual she would not be able to run for this office or deal with the attacks. Apparently some people are threatened by a strong, smart, capable woman who expresses herself.

As far as the claim, change you can believe in, the Obama slogan...There is no logic or sense of reality to their thinking. What are they going to do, practice wishful thinking to make all difficulties in the world disappear? (or get together for group chanting yes we can, yes we can etc...) Or do they believe that President Obama will make speeches and everyone will fall in love with him and the world will magically be transformed? Sounds more like a cult following to me, and the crowd frenzy, especially the "younger generational" flavor -- reminds me of my own college days and our fervor, 35 years ago. We thought we were going to change the world too, with free love, drugs, meditation, rock music. The world has changed, but it has taken a very long time. For instance, when I was in college my mother believed women could only be teachers, nurses, or clerks, and that's it. It was a very big scary thing for a girl to become a lawyer or doctor or get a Phd.

Now finally a very brilliant person who is a woman, who had more progressive parents than I had, finally has the chance to become the President. Of course, she has to be twice as qualified as any man and gone through more hoops than anyone seems to expect of her opponent. Of course, because she is a woman suddenly being qualified doesn't matter anymore. Now we're supposed to choose a president based on who appeals most to the youth, who is the most inspirational speaker, who gives people hope in themselves, gets crowds fired up? Experience in dealing with challenges in the real world isn't important? Being a new face is more important? If that isn't old fashioned sexism I don't know what is.

Kennedy's giving his endorsement to Obama as revenge against Clinton doesn't seem future oriented, although it was a nice gesture to show to the young black man.

Oh right, race isn't a factor.

It's almost like the thought of a woman president puts some people into an hysterical frenzy -- they can't tolerate the change that would require in their thinking.

Posted by: rjc116 | January 31, 2008 5:25 AM | Report abuse

Most of you miss the point regarding the most important and substantial endorsement for Barack Obama this week- Caroline Kennedy. This dynamic women has decided to come out and endorse a candidate that she truly believes can lead this country, can unite people, and who can infuse hope during these challenging times. She has no hidden agenda. Much like Oprah, she has nothing against the other candidates, she just passionately feels that Barach Obama is the ideal choice for President of these yet to be United States of America.

Posted by: PMO | January 31, 2008 5:32 AM | Report abuse

America is a great nation but a great nation needs a wise and great leader...

HILLARY CLINTON is best for AMERICA...
Gor for Hillary...

Posted by: kikz | January 31, 2008 6:10 AM | Report abuse

McCain will be the next president. What a great irony that a nation opposed to the war in Iraq will elect its biggest supporter.

If the Democrats had any sense, an oxymoron, they would draft Al Gore. The polls show McCain beating Hillary and Obama, two weak candidates.

Posted by: Sheine | January 31, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

If the man is that petty then let him support Obama

Posted by: Old Blue Dog | January 31, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Hillary supported the war. Her husband is using every dirty trick in the book to racially divide the country and make Obama the "black" candidate. I would love to see a female president, but not one whose husband has to drag her over the finish line with his unseemly Southern strategies.

Posted by: female Democrat | January 31, 2008 6:59 AM | Report abuse

I wonder who leaked this story.

My money is on Hilary and Bill.
I guess Kennedy wouldn't endorse Obama simply because he prefers him and thinks he might be a better President then Senator MacBeth.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse

"Blue Dog".......My sentiments exactly. But the reasoning given is nonsense. The scenerio the Kennedy/Obama people would like us to believe is that old fair minded, non partisan, love'm both the same Ted was whisling a merry tune, when suddenly these two comments, alone in their volcanic disrespect and deviousness experienced in 40+ years of politics, drove Ted over the edge. He was so offended (having been 100% neutral up until then) that the only, the absolutely only way he could make things right was to shuck aside a decade or two of intimate friendship with the Clintons, and not only go public with the Obama endorsement, but shove the stilleto between Hillary's spleen and kidney right up to the handle.
My personal belief is that Ted, after eight years of Bush, felt time running out, figured Obama would make a more pliable and submissive lap dog for him than Hillary, and was stalking the season, waiting for the opportune time to strike.

Posted by: paul feuer | January 31, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

The historic truth is that, like Obama and Clinton, Kennedy and LBJ's interest in all issues--including specifically civil rights, was based not on real commitment but on a reading of the political winds.

The Kennedys couldn't have given less of a damn about the civil rights movement until their reading of political winds made it expeditious to "stand tall" for change. They argued for suspension of direct actions to bring civil rights change and even agreed to the jailing of civil rights activists touring the south.

LBJ was a segregationists senator who would not let the 1957 Civil Rights law pass until it was gutted of any effective meaning, who used the "n word" with easy facility even to the face of African Americans.

Like Hillary Clinton voting for a war without reading intelligence summary that the senior Democratic senator on the Intel Committee told the whole senate proved that the rationale for the war was manufactured, Like both Obama and Clinton who cooperated with the disenfranchisement of 12,511,000 primary voters this cycle, Kennedy and LBJ were guided by their reading of the needs of political expediency.

Heroes, these politicians are not....not then and certainly not now.

Posted by: Issywise | January 31, 2008 7:09 AM | Report abuse

One simple comment:

Who talked about doing it and who actually did it?

Talk is cheap. Can't we see that with the current Administration?

Posted by: Jack | January 31, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Senator Kennedy, Patrick and Caroline have made their endorsement for Senator Obama. Martin Luther King Jr. and some of Robert Kennedy's children have endorsed Senator Clinton. I'll consider all of their comments, but I'll vote for the candidate whose record and previous activities most impress me. Then I'll actively support the one who gets the Democratic nomination.

It makes me discouraged to see some people being sucked in by the wicked behavior of the Republicans who, led by Dick Morris and others of his ilk, are doing everything possible to divide the Democrats. Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have very similar voting records and their positions on campaign issues are quite similar. Of course each voter will support the candidate with whom they are most confident, but we Dems have to remember the similarities and unite behind the winner of the Democratic nomination. Do you remember when people said it didn't matter whether George Bush or Al Gore won the election because they were so similar? That wasn't true and we've suffered for several years because some people fell for that allegation and didn't bother to vote. In the same vein, we will have a very different country if a Republican is elected this time rather than a Democrat, whether that person be Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.

I'm happy for the inspiration some are finding in Senator Obama and the direction he says he'd take the country, and I wouldn't mind being in a country with some similarities to the one in which I lived in when President Clinton was in office. But I don't want to live in a country that continues in its current direction - I want to see a Democrat in the White House!

Posted by: nowizard | January 31, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

If the story of Edward Kennedy's perceived slight about his dead brother's civil rights record is true then he should get over himself. You cannot hold a candidate for political office accountable every time a surrogate makes a comment for fear that someone, somewhere will be offended. GROW UP.

As for JFK's civil rights record, it pales in comparison with his brother Robert. Having studied Bobby Kennedy's run for the Democratic nomination in 1968, it evident he was developing an inner moral core with his concern for the plight of immigrants, civil rights for African Americans and the environment just to name a few.

To be sure, Bobby Kennedy was a late convert, but he had made a very genuine start. Bobby would have been a great president, greater than JFK on civil rights.

I find it odd that Obama is running as the candidate against the Washington establishment, yet he is more than happy to covet, receive and share the stage with a scion of that establishment Edward Kennedy.

Obama does not have a monopoly on hope and change. At best, he is running on vague notions about change and hope. Hope to do what? We all want a BETTER America, but so far he fails to specify how we get there. I for one fine Hillary more convincing.

GO HILLAR GO!!!

Posted by: Octavius | January 31, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons blatantly and unapologetically attempted to use Obama's race to marginalize him and muster up white support against his campaign. Any Democrat that supports Hillary is condoning those unethical and sleazy tactics. As someone who isn't a livestock-molesting, redneck racist, I view casting a vote for a politician who stoops to such dismal Atwater-esque lows as totally inconceivable.

Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

With ever greater audacity Obama is doing what he accused the Clinton campaign of doing. Smearing Hillary and distorting her words. He must feel, no he's been encouraged to feel he is immune from criticism for his smarmy tactics by his supporters and the press.

Obama seems to be using a three prong strategy of smear, distort and cries of racism by his supporters. He and his supporters put the race chip on their shoulders and dare anyone to call them on it.

The overall effect of his strategy is to effectively smear Hillary's character and distort her words with impunity all the while immunize himself from most criticism and even the most innocuous observations. Is anyone willing to call him on his hypocrisy?

Posted by: PhilTR | January 31, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Mike, if you are referring to Hillary's comment about it "took a president (LBJ) to get it done", that is, enact the Civil Rights Act, it was simply a matter of fact.

Without diminishing Martin Luther King's contribution, Hillary made the obvious statement MLK provided the inspriration, LBJ provided the political leadership to get the Act passed into law.

It was the Obama camp who spun the comment as a slight against MLK. What nonsense. Obama is playing the race card because it's easy to make such charges stick against a white woman.

It was the Obama camp who spun Bill Clinton's line about Obama's voting record on the Iraq War as the "biggest fairytale I ever saw", into a supposed remark about Obama's candidacy being a fairytale. Again, WHAT NONSENSE.

Posted by: Octavius | January 31, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

why does everyone seem to refer to Hillary as Ms. Clinton. she is a married woman and is Mrs. Clinton. or is this an attempt to attract the feminist crowd or is she going to dump Bill and finally come back to Rodam where she would be a Ms. Rodahm not a Mrs. Clinton

Posted by: bb | January 31, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_gets_sleepy_at_mlk_day.php

CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

GOLDWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

THEY USE SCARE TACTICS IN IOWA AGAINST STUDENTS...

THEY USE RACE CARD AGAINST BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY USE ANGER IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!

Posted by: laplume | January 31, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_gets_sleepy_at_mlk_day.php

CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

GOLDWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

THEY USE SCARE TACTICS IN IOWA AGAINST STUDENTS...

THEY USE RACE CARD AGAINST BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY USE ANGER IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!


GO OBAMA GO

YES WE CAN

SI SE PUEDE

Hillary Clinton no respeta a nuestra gente los partidarios de Hillary Clinton fueron a corte para evitar que la gente que trabaja pueda votar este sábado, eso es vergonzoso. Los partidarios de Hillary Clinton quieren evitar que la gente que trabaja el sábado pueda votar en sus lugares de empleo. ¡Imperdonable! Hillary Clinton no tiene vergüenza.

Hillary Clinton no debería permitir que sus amigos ataquen el derecho de nuestra gente de votar este sábado. Es imperdonable! No hay respeto el senador Barack Obama esta defendiendo nuestro derecho de votar.

El senador Barack Obama quiere nuestros votos, el respeta nuestros votos, nuestra comunidad y a nuestra gente. El lema de la campaña de Barrack Obama es "sí se puede, si se puede". Vote por un presidente que nos respeta y respeta nuestro derecho de votar. Obama para presidente. Si se puede.

Pagada por UNITE HERE.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton lied to his wife, he lied to the country.

The new buzzword is "co-presidents."

To say I "must" vote for Clinton because I am a woman, is telling me I should not think for myself.

Because I see no appreciable difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, on their positions on war - if Hillary is the nominee of the Democratic Party, I will vote Republican for the first time in my life.

At least McCain has been to war, and knows the horrors.

The Clintons have told the Democratic Party, in no uncertain words, that they are willing to divide the Party, to get the nomination for Hillary.

Ted Kennedy is not the only one fed up with this kind of politics.

Posted by: ERW | January 31, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Marcus is great at publishing gossip and innuendo both in print and on the air. Watching her recently on the NewsHour cuddle up to neocon David Brooks in slamming Hillary Clinton and gushing over Barack Obama motivated me to hit the off button on my TV remote.

Posted by: ichief | January 31, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Just correcting a couple of mistakes written below: while some of RFK's children have endorsed Clinton, Ethel, his wife and probably the person that knew him best, favors Obama. And for a Clintonite to pass judgement on Ted's "not-so-great" moments, well, let's just say stained dresses come to mind. Sorry Billary, it's time for change, and that's Obama.

Posted by: hxmata | January 31, 2008 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Perfect example of why Kennedy has no credibility!!!!The Kennedys have been nothing but disgraceful scandles in the last 25 years, relatives accused of murders, rapes etc and that gives the Kennedy name clout? Don't think so... Ted Kennedy is now go headed for a disgraceful end. The Massachusetts senator has been caught in a sneaky plot to kill a clean-energy project in Nantucket Sound. Seems he doesn't want to see wind turbines from his waterfront estate. "Don't you realize -- that's where I sail!" he famously said.
The Obama campaign has criticized Hillary Clinton's candidacy as another example of dynastic politics. But now that Obama is playing adopted son of the Kennedy clan, that argument falls apart. Kennedy mystique Is so much JUST hot air. OBAMA IS A JOKE and corrupt!Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 in
Obama is referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko
As Barack Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations as it might seem. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced this week it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Calculations by the media and Obama's own staff of Rezko's financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. In the case of Obama, public records don't make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has not raised money for Obama's presidential campaign.

Various media outlets have reported much larger numbers, though they haven't clearly explained their methodology. The New York Times has pegged Rezko political cash for Obama at $150,000, the Sun-Times at $168,000 and the Los Angeles Times at $200,000. Last weekend, a report by ABCNews.com suggested more than $185,000. The event at Rezko's home resembled a posh dinner party, complete with valet parking and catered dinner. Obama spoke after the meal, and told the crowd about how when he was still in Harvard law school Rezko, a developer, had tried to hire him. Obama staffers set up shop around the kitchen table, where they collected checks.

One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn't heard if the campaign now plans to give it away.

Still, Sreenan said he was baffled by the notion of giving money raised at Rezko's home to charity. "If [Obama] wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I'm fine with that," he said. "But I don't see how this makes a difference now -- the money still got him elected. And how do I know it's not going to a charity that's offensive to me?"

Posted by: Jojo | January 31, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Hillary was spot on. She stated the facts. I'm disappointed in Senator Kennedy. His brother's legacy is what it is and many understand and appreciate it such that a few comments (factually based) certainly will not diminish that legacy. Seenator Kennedy's petty behavior is way not consistent with my memory of JFK.

Posted by: Tim | January 31, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Now who was it again that left the women to drown in his car? What LBJ comment? It was causal and was respectful. She only said that LBJ implemented what King needed done. I am wondering if Ted just reads out of context quotes. Unfortunately the JFK sparkle on this family has long ago tarnished (Remember Marilyn, drugs, rape, murder). I think that says something about Charisma. What don't we know about Obama? Maybe the Press will tell us in a few years, after they direct history.

Posted by: NewMexicoFan | January 31, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

If this is true, Ted Kennedy, the master legislator, should certainly know that only Lyndon Johnson had the chits to get civil rights legislation through the Congress. As a protege of Sam Rayburn and as the former majority leader of the Senate, Johnson knew where "all the bodies were buried" and had leverage that Kennedy never had. Also, while the Kennedys won't want to admit it, Bobby always urged caution upon his brother when dealing with Dr. King, because he did not want to jeopardize re-election chances in 1964. Johnson, sensing both his own power and the window of opportunity he had following JFK's assassination, ramrodded the legislation through. That's historical fact and no amount of mythologizing the slaing JFK or RFK will change it.

Posted by: Jack | January 31, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

It takes a president to sign the law. Because...
It takes a congress to pass a law. Because...
It takes an active citizenry to make known what is important to them. Because...
It takes gifted visionaries to help the citizenry was it is noble and what is not.

GO CITIZENRY! GO VISIONARIES!
Lead and the congress and the president will follow. If they don't -- kick 'em out!
GO CITIZENRY!

Posted by: Eric R. | January 31, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

It takes gifted visionaries to help the citizenry TO SEE WHAT is noble and what is not.

Posted by: Eric R. | January 31, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

OK..OK..Democrates and Independants and some Republican's that are tired of this administrations policies. I have it on good authority that The Republican machine is already at work infiltrating Democratic blogs to insert this devisive S*$#@^%$ into our discussions, and it seems to be working. Can you all honestly tell me that whomever our Democratic nominee is Barak or Hillary that we won't support our nominee in order to stop this administrations policies from continuing.
The strategy is to get us Democrates to so hate either Barak or Hillary that there is no way we will vote for them come November hence the Republicans win again. This is the only chance they have to defeat us. They turn us against each other and from what I am reading on all the blogs it's working. Don't let them defeat us this way. I have no problem with criticism of either candidate with their policies, which by the way are not far apart from each other. Both candidates agree on most issues and that's what we should stay focused on. It's our candidate against the Republican candidate who will continue the policies of George W. Bush. Remember if you don't want to push our Supreme Court all the way to the right and have our Constitution rolled all the way back to the stone age, We must elect a Democrate. We know John McCain and Romney will keep us in Irag that's a certainty. If you want that and a possible war with Iran either vote Republican or don't vote for our Democratic nominee...it's thats simple. Don't let these covert Republican bloggers start this war between us Democrate. Please keep your eye on the prize and that prize is the White House

Posted by: famarshm | January 31, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Democrats--Please come together..especially
with regard tonasty remarks,recriminations,
and "gotcha" stuff! Republicans are just tickled with the intra-party shenanigans and Bitter Bloggers. They are also tickled with the out-in-the-public Nastiness from extreme partisans WITHIN our party.

Come together RIGHT NOW or THEY will win the White House. Campaigns can be more dignified and substantive than this one has been.

Come together.

Posted by: Baby Boomer | January 31, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Who is better to lead?

"The most outstanding of them was Dr. King. When he raised his voice, however, it was not so much to speak "for" others as to stir others to raise their own voices to speak - and to act -- for themselves, their families, their communities, and their country. A decade later, following JFK's assassination, LBJ rose to the challenge King and the millions who supported civil rights had created. But the occasion was not of his own making--and his action only came in response to an organized, creative, and purposeful movement that insisted.

Clinton's idea of leadership is very different. Her effort to reform health care shortly after her husband took office was notable in that no one mobilized the public. Her team took polls, conducted focus groups, and engaged interest groups. But they never mobilized the public. And although an outsider at the time, she tried to play the insider game. But in the insider's game, only the insider's reality counts. So she lost - and so did the millions of us who never had an opportunity to help make the health care "changes" we needed and wanted and deserved.

Now Clinton wants us to hear what she will do "for" us, what "she" will deliver - much as a lawyer, drawing strength not from her client but from her expertise, argues a case. Obama, on the other hand, urges people to join with him in acting for themselves and each other. A former community organizer, he learned that changing ourselves and changing the world go together, and that without mobilizing the strength of people who want change, it won't happen.

America doesn't just need "change"--it needs the kind of change that mobilizes those who want and need it, rather than relying on those who resist and fear it. Clinton made her key mistakes on health care in 1994; fourteen years later, what the imbroglio about Martin Luther King and LBJ shows is not racial insensitivity but that she's never learned the real lesson about how to make change that matters and lasts.

Although they both became lawyers, Clinton wrote a senior thesis about community organizing; Obama practiced it."
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2008/jan/21/understanding_leadership_and_organizing_for_change

Posted by: mageduley | January 31, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Here is the post for this article that is the most thoughtful to date... Well Done whoever you are!!!

Robert Kennedy was the best Democratic candidate to run for president during my lifetime. He was truly concerned about civil rights and the plight of the poor. His children, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, RFK Jr., and Kerry Kennedy are all supporting Hillary Clinton. Their thoughtful, rational consideration of her candidacy is much more significant to me than the weird Caroline/Teddy brouhaha.

I was very excited about Barak Obama too, at first. He sounded good. Then I started to listen for the substance and didn't hear anything. I noticed his petulant-child tendencies ("You're likable... enough"). Then came his prevarication on the Rezko issue. Trying to pass off his 17-year relationship with Rezko as "5 hours of work," not giving back the campaign money until the day Rezko was arrested, etc. And what horrendous judgement it was to buy his house at a huge discount with assistance from the Rezkos, at a time when Rezko was under investigation. Then there was that four-page memo from his campaign staff of spurious accusations of racism against Clinton. Talk about race baiting! It's all too much now, and I just find him to be dissembling and highly annoying. I can't even listen to his voice without cringing. I'm amazed at the numbers who are taken in by this immature, naive neophyte. I miss John Edwards!

Posted by: Lulu | January 31, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I must have missed it somewhere. Just what legislation did MLK pass anyway? While black people surely did the heavy lifting in the civil rights movement, it took white politicians to get the laws passed.
I love this, because it is the first time I get to comment on historical events that happened during my lifetime.

Posted by: David McGlaughlin | January 31, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

This latest take seems true to form for Ted Kennedy. There's good reason that he's also known around Washington as "The rich fat kid". His petulance after losing the nomination fight to Jimmy Carter in 1980 did more to elect Ronald Reagan than anything Gerald Ford did.

As for the history, it is quite clear: While JFK indeed supported the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, it was hardly a sure bet that he could have gotten them through the congress. It was Lyndon Johnson, with his legislative acumen, that got those pieces of legislation passed.

I think I liked Teddy better when he was a drunk.

Posted by: John | January 31, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

I echo others' comments about the Obama supporters being so negative. It is actually my primary concern about voting for Obama, although I haven't decided whether I will or not yet. I dislike some of the Clintons tactics. But I am also well aware of the fact that the media has a huge anti-Clinton bias. Anyone who can't see that is clearly too absorbed in their candidate to see straight. I can't decide, but I'd much prefer some straight coverage on all fronts.

Having said that -- I have a question for those Obama supporters who think Clinton is the same as Bush? Put your rabid dislike for her aside for five minutes . . . Do you REALLY think that she's the same as Bush? With the exception of their PRIOR positions on the war, she and Obama hold the same views on JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. And they are in stark opposition to the views Bush has on JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. Unless you are a complete political novice, anyone can see that. We can argue whether Obama or Clinton will be more effective in bringing about that change, but they are both offering the same policy changes.

Posted by: skeptic421 | January 31, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

The Kennedy family sacrificed so much for this country. It's a sad shame that for political opportunism, the Clinton hired goons are now flooding the internet with irreverent abusive of such a beloved family. The Jackals should be ashamed of themselve

====
Joe Kennedy might have sacrificed lives during WWII. It is a widely held belief among historians that he sold secrets to the Nazis when he was an Ambassador in England. Chamberline had to kick him out.

Ted Kennedy probably sacrficed the life of Mary Jo while he left her there to drown.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I am starting to come to the conclusion that the Obama supporters on the web are directly responsible for the divisiveness of the Democratic campaign these days.

I have been watching these websites for months now, and they were attacking the Clintons (and Clinton supporters) in an incredibly vicious, off-putting way from the beginning. Long before Hillary even started setting her sights on Obama. While I dislike the recent Clinton activities, your attacks on her started WAY before this.

For a group that claims to be positive and about positive change, you are way off message. And you are primary thing that has turned me off to Obama.

I am so sick of reading your rants against Clinton and your unreasonable attacks. I think I've finally made up my mind. I can't support anybody whose primary constituency is so horrible.

Posted by: skeptic421 | January 31, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Things are never what the seem in politics. All of this talk about Kennedy being so impressed by Obama is really about Kennedy's ego and getting his feelings hurt. According to this article, all of this was brought about when a person introducing Hillary at a rally snubbed the memory of JFK and Hillary didn't immediately correct it.

So the next leader of the free world could be determined based on a selfish tantrum by Ted Kennedy. I love this country.

Posted by: Larry | January 31, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

PS . . . Perhaps if some of you were around in the 1990s you would remember that this was not exactly a bad time. The economy was good, we were well-regarded in the eyes of the world. Bill Clinton is the most loved US president globally. As most Dems will remember, the divisiveness of that time came from the Republican machine's CONSTANT attacks on the Clintons and ongoing attempts to "catch" them in something. Not to say they were totally innocent of any wrongdoing, but as someone who spent years defending them to Republicans back them, I am absolutely furious to hear these SAME attacks (some of them word-for-word that were launched by the extreme right being leveled by people who are supposed to be in our own party.

You are the ones taking us back to the 90s. But you're taking us back to the views of the religious right in the 90s. How does that fit with your message of change? And how do you think your candidate would feel about this approach? Then again, I've never heard one word from his campaign trying to calm these attacks.

Posted by: skeptic421 | January 31, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy should retire, if he only cares about his family's legacy. No matter what Hillary said does not matter, Americans will witness the truth. Historian will also state the facts. I believe JFK has indeed made tremendous contribution to civil rights in the 60th, but is it worthy endorsing a wrong presidential candidate just to get back to Hillary? I am not saying to endorse Obama is wrong,just for the wrong reason to endorse him. If that is the way the Democrats leaders function, I am deeply concerned whether we can get the White House back.

Posted by: john y. cheng | January 31, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Kennedys are craps. They just do not want to see another Clinton in Office, so that they could still control OBAMA to make Kennedy fmaily like a King in US.

I still remember many yrs ago, this Ted K had trouble to win another Senator race and Hillary came to his side to get him re-elected. This crap just so disgusting.

Posted by: Jim | January 31, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

In response to Margaret who posted...
What's with all the hostility towards Hillary Clinton by so many women? Shame on you. As a woman I find it offensive that a Democratic woman (much less any woman) would use such degrading and sexist insults targeted at the first woman in history who has a shot at the Presidency.

Sorry Margaret, just because I have a uterus and she has a uterus does not automatically make her my choice for president. There are more important issues than gender. Believe me I would love to see a female president, just not Hillary. If Billary were to win, I doubt we'd even realize Shrub was gone, except there may be a drastic reduction in comic relief. It'd just be more of the same - and none of what this country really needs.

Posted by: Julie | January 31, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Whether you agree or disagree with Ted Kennedy's liberal ideology, he had the courage to step forward and blast the despicable Slick Willie's introduction of the race-baiting Southern political strategy into the SC primary.

Therefore, I view his support for Obama's Prez campaign as a move based on principle, and not some starry-eyed admiration of the divisive Clintons.

By forcing Slick Willie to act as an adult and objective Demo this brings a degree of respectabiliy back to the Obama/Shrillary race, and it provides us with an opportunity to make our choice based on merit and not some hateful racial advantage. This Demo opts for Obama. Forrest Gerard

Posted by: Forrest Gerard | January 31, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

What I don't get about so many Hill supporters is that they argue that Barak hasn't stood for anything. I'm sorry, but are you kidding me!! Barak famously stood against the war, when it was completely politically toxic to do so. Everyone in the country was salivating for revenge regarding 9/11, rightly or wrongly. I am an independent, but I can't deny it took an awful lot of courage to say the war was wrong at that time, and that's exactly what Barak said. Say what you will, but that fact is irrefutable.

Also, I've tried to be as neutrual as possible and research the candidates. I went to Obama's website, and I was shocked to see how substantive it was. After reading it, I realized that all these, "BO is hot air" comments are simply talking points designed to confuse the naive. I believed it for awhile, and then I started researching. In reality that's far from the truth. BO's positions are principled and extremely well thought out. For example, look at his positions on the foreclosure crisis - its compelling. Moreover, BO's stimulus package puts more money directly in the hands of middle class citizens faster than anyone else's, which most economists agree is the best way to stave of this looming recession. Also look at his health care proposal - the majority of American don't want mandates, they want cheaper health care. This is more in tune with my own sense of living in a Democracy and free choice.

Also, what doesn't make sense to me is how Hillary is seen as more competitive against Mcain. That's almost laughable. If you disagree, just look at a google search of all the legislation Mcain and Hillary have co-authored. Or do an issue by issue comparison.

Obama cleary presents the best contrast to Mcain out of the remaining candidates. For example, Mcain for the war - Obama against it. Hillary will get slaughtered on this issue. Inevitably, she'll be labled a filp-flopper because she switched position based on political convenience.

If you consider these points, research and use reason, I think you will come to the realization, as I have, that Obama presentes the best option of beating Mcain in November if you want a Democratic president.

Posted by: CAL | January 31, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton's will say and do anything to get elected! They will lie, cheat, and steal! America does not need another Clinton presidency filled with corruption. The Obama Rezko issue was out in the open months ago and it is nothing new. He bought property/house from the guy, BIG DEAL! He didn't get it for free! Not too mention photos of Clinton and Rezko have came out in the open, even though she claimed she never knew him beforehand.

As we can see Obama is being honest and upfront with the American people and once again the Clinton Lie Machine is lying. We need change in this country and going back to the polarizing Clinton's is NOT change. We need a President who will not base decisions on polls and the wind, but decisions based on what needs to be done to make this country what it should be, who can work with others from all parties and who can inspire a new generation (My generation) to rise up and fight for something!

Hillary does not match any of that criteria and the only candidate who does is Senator Barack Obama!

Peace,

JM

Posted by: Josh | January 31, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Now there, America, is a reason to endorse a neophyte candidate for the highest office in the land...give me a break.

Halli Casser-Jayne
The CJ Political Report
http:www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

Posted by: HalliCasser-Jayne | January 31, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Bear in mind that all this snide nonsense comes from an anonymous source.

Posted by: Nick Wibberley | January 31, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Ted just wants a President he can manipulate. Hillary does not need Ted Kennedy to Govern. Obama only has his fresh-face and a lot of empty rhetoric about "change." If elected, Obama, on day 1, will need to default to some part of the democratic establishment to get anything done. Kennedy will be there with open arms.

Posted by: pgr88 | January 31, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Teddys judgement has been called into question ever since he offered Mary Jo a ride home on the Vineyard, look also how he cheated on and shabbily treated his former wife, Joan, during their marriage. These actions didn't help the Family legacy any more than Caroline selling her Mothers legacy to the highest bidders at The Sothebys Auctions. They are hypocrites. Remember that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who came to Teddys rescuue when Mitt Romney was leading in the 1994 Senate race, with appearances and fundraising, including Bill going to Teddys then home in McLean and bounciing the first grandchild on his lap. They showed no loyalty to the party when Carter wupped his butt in 1980 and Teddy only did one or two appearances during the campaign.

This is a last desperate attempt to appear relevant and they look like the fools they are. Shame on The Kennedys!

Posted by: Tony | January 31, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Right, because, according to the media nobody could be supporting Obama because he was one of the few that answered the most important question of the day - Should we invade Iraq - correctly. It took courage to stand up to take that position at the time. Hillary AND Bill failed miserably and took the political position. Barack showed judgment.

Signed,Leslie Fifty-White-Woman-Educated

Posted by: Leslie | January 31, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Okay, I've had enough with everyone's comments. I am a Barack Obama supporter because I believe he has the best vision and judgment to lead our country in a new direction. I used to be a Hillary Clinton supporter until I really saw how divisive she was... she was dividing the democratic party with a lot of her comments and accusations against Obama. Does no one recall her campaign accusing him of being a drug dealer, or a muslim. These are fear tactics that Obama has preached against from the beginning and she has evoked them into this campaign. I have a lot of respect for her and I know she is a smart lady and will definitely support her if she wins the nomination, like any true, good democrat should do.

I just think it's going to be hard for her to stand up against McCain, because her policies are very similar to his, and when you put her up against him, people are going to see how her vote for the war is going to come back and bite her in the butt. McCain is running the war, terrorism, experience campaign, and I believe that Obama has the best chance to fight him on this. Most Americans want out of Iraq, most Americans know that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place, and most Americans know that the Bush Administration lied to us about WMDs and Al Qadea in Iraq (according to all the polls). So, to me, Obama has the best chance to argue and fight back against McCain.

The fear that the Clintons have evoked into this campaign is really the main cause for what's diving democrats, and we should not fall into it. We need to realize it, and see it for what it is. We don't want to be feared into any other decisions, and I'm not going to be feared into voted for Hillary, because her campaign has continually distorted Obama's record and past.

Vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination... No more Republican rule in Washington... it's tearing apart our country! Let's remember that!

Posted by: Ryan | January 31, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Teddy Kennedy should take his anger over Hillary's LBJ comments and shove it.

It is true that JFK introduced the bill that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that bill was stalled in Congress at the time of Kennedy's assassination. Even if JFK had lived and had managed to get it passed, it may well have ended up far weaker than what actually did pass in 1964. There had been several previous civil rights bills that started out strong, but were so whittled down by the time they became law that they were virtually worthless.

It was Lyndon Johnson who actually got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. It was Johnson who refused to compromise and weaken the bill, and who when threatened with a Senate fillibuster, effectively said: "They can fillibuster till hell freezes over. This is going to get passed." It's clearly Johnson, not Kennedy, who deserves most of the credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Furthermore, JFK deserves no credit for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which (in response to the attack on civil rights marchers in Selma in 1965) was both introduced and passed by LBJ.

Teddy Kennedy was in the Senate when all of this history took place. Shame on him!

Posted by: Lee | January 31, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign manager wrote a peice in the NYT oped column saying that HRC attack on Obama for the Rezdo comment was wrong. The Obama supportor writes at length that obama only worked a few hours for the now indicted gentlemen. The writer then compares this workk to HRC work for whitewater and says that she was cleared of that charge. Becasue of the whitewater investigation HRC should have know better. Well excuse me Mr. Obama supporter. You left out an importnat detail. Rezdo (sp) was a campaign contributor to Obama in a major way. Obama also bought property from the indicted gentlemen. A completly different scenerio. Also HRC only said this in response to an Obama comment about HRC being a Board Member of Wall Mart which I think is great experience. If anyone camp is distorting the truth it is Obama's campaign.

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Gotta love Billary and Bubba Bill. They really do know how to sow discord within the Dems. Should Billary get nominated, I think you'll see Republican unity like never before. She'll be the best "Get out the vote" motivator ever.

If you Dems are dumb enough to nominate Billary, this is going to be easy. Real easy!!!

Posted by: bdstauffer | January 31, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy has exposed himself as a childish, spiteful,egocentric pig! Just one more shallow and calculating endorsement for hussein. Goes to show; there is nothing to the empty suit.

Posted by: SMN | January 31, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

So the bottom line Kennedy doesn;t really love Obama he just wanted to get revenge on HRC to a perceived slight. A perfect example of why Kennedy himself is not and never was pResidential material and neither is Obama

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons have demonstrated near Bush like arrogance and contempt in the way they have decided to run their campaign. Until a couple of weeks ago Hillary had my vote 110% I felt she was the better choice becuase of her experience but she has clearly shown that like Bush she is willing to compromise ethics in a "ends justify the means" mentality that reminds me of GW. The arrogance of not listening to Party leadership (initially privately the publicly) and going down the road using a divisive strategy that basically is based on the premise that deep inside we white democrats are racist. This is soooo BUSH-CHENEY. Hillary, Bill, if you had run a fair campaign you would have had my vote.(and I understand politics is dirty, but even politicians need to draw a moral line in the sand). Oh, Hillary, BTW I am also Latino so your assumption that I am a racist has backfired. No matter what I do not want a Demoractic version of GW and his moral (immoral) code of ethics in the White House. I will take a Candidate of Vision and Unity over one of paranoia and divisivness. Thank God you showed your true colors before it was too late. If I want a experience I can always vote for McCain at least he has principals.

Posted by: Richard C | January 31, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

And remember it was the Clinton administration that turn around this country from a deficit economy to a trillion surplus economy. This is a proven administration. Let the record prevail.

Posted by: TrueDemocrat | January 31, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

What has happened to my beloved Washington Post?

Posted by: svreader | January 31, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

What's this??? Teddy's upset???

Now Teddy, you should do what you always do to relax. Put on a nice pair of boxers, get your nephews drunk, then pick up some girls who are young enough to be your grandchildren at a local club and bring them home.

Now no stopping on any bridges. Then when you get them home, pass out and let your clan take turns raping them. Now don't you feel better??

Posted by: Patrick NYC | January 31, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

You would think that after all these years Ted Kennedy would have accepted the reality of his brother's accomplishments. He was much loved by the country, but the truth is it was Lyndon B. Johnson who made Kennedy's vision happen. I don't think Hillary's remark diminishes Kennedy in any way. It is simply the truth and for some reason the truth hurts brother Ted.
His temper tantrum doesn't reflect well on him or his candidate.

Posted by: Southern Girl | January 31, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

If Katherine Graham was alive she'd be ashamed of what has happened to the Washington Post.

Their shameless Clinton Bashing and their loss of objectivity in general are an insult to her memory.

Kathrine, please haunt these SOB's until they start doing their job and lead the fight for the Impeachment of Bush/Cheney.


Posted by: svreader | January 31, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy did not do justice to his own brother when he compared Obama to President John F. Kennedy.

JFK was a World War Two hero with 14 years in the Congress before his election to President.

Barack Obama has only two years experience on the national level. To compare his record with JFK's, is a joke. Barack Obama is no John F. Kennedy.

Posted by: RJLDEC1 | January 31, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

To you Hillary Trolls: Do the Clintons cut you a check, or are you SO stupid that you do this for free?

Posted by: RL | January 31, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Well, THAT answers my question of what the payback endorsement of Obama was for! But it sure doesn't say much for our political process when support boils down to such pettiness. Not that I'd give two hoots in h**l for for an endorsement from that gasbag anyway.

Posted by: Lilycat1 | January 31, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Abraham Lincoln, father of the Republican Party, had less legislative experience when he was elected to the presidency, in 1860, than Barack Obama. So the "experience" gripe that many are whining about falls FLAT.

Like JFK, Lincoln was assassinated before he could fulfill all of his goals in office. Obama is intelligent and a quick study; he'll make an excellent president, regardless of what Jack's younger brother has to say about the matter.

You guys/gals who criticize Obama are just off base. Why don't you just admit it --- you're afraid of progress. Step aside and let a great man lead. Barack Obama for President in 2008!

Posted by: x-48 | January 31, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Dear Ms. Akers, I have to say that "The Sleuth" you are NOT. In your article you write:
Kennedy was also apparently upset that Clinton said on the same day: "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."

This is what Hillary Clinton actually said:
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do; presidents before had not even tried. But it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said 'We're going to do it' and actually got it accomplished."

As you can read, Clinton did mention JFK, but most of the press, including you, clipped her quote to make it sound more inflammatory (and I'm sure that's the one Ted Kennedy read instead of the original one where she mentions JFK's hope to pass that legislation, but we all know his life was cut short, so the next president got it done). By clipping her comments of the middle part without even inserting an ellipsis (I hope you do know what an ellipsis is for and how to use it, right? Didn't they teach you that in journalism school?) to alert readers that there was more in the middle between her first sentence and the last, you and most of the press distorted her comment to make it suit your bogus narrative.

Posted by: Imus Anon | January 31, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Because of the historical nature of this election, the Democrats are in a pickle, damn if they do and damn if they don't, if they support Hillary Clinton, the country will have a de facto, dual presidency, as Bill Clinton will NOT sit on the sidelines while his wife gets the spotlight. Moreover, BC is fanatic as he is being dragged on a historical event, which without it, he would've been just a FORMER president...

And then we have Obama, who is NOT running on the race card, but he is, as he is talking from both sides of the mouth...so blacks are now facing with a choice, b or w, which one will get my vote...

Bottom line, both candidates benefit, for now, as if anyone questions Hillary Clinton is against women in politics and ditto with Obama, he who questions him too closely about anything is a racist...

Posted by: Gerardo in Anaheim CA | January 31, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Amazing that Ms Clinton would forget to even mention JFK.

Posted by: Bob, DC | January 31, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

She did mention him, read the full quote two posts above

Posted by: Imus anon | January 31, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Since HRC wanted me to consider Bill's 8 years as part of her experience, I can not, as a Dem, vote for her.

The prison population increased under Clinton more than it did under Reagan or Bush (148,000 more state and federal prisoners were added than under President Reagan's first term and 34,000 more than were added under President Bush's four-year term). After Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control Act and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, state expenditures for prison construction grew by $926 million, while expenditures for university construction fell by an equivalent $954 million.

Also that year, Clinton rejected the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recommendation to equalize the quantity of crack and powder cocaine that would trigger a mandatory sentence. That disproportionately affected the Black community.

Finally: Ricky Ray Rector!

And that's just crime. When you remember DOMA and welfare reform. It's just not possible... Frankly, I don't know what I'll do should she get the nomination.

Posted by: janine | January 31, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse


The Clinton's are racist, always have been.

Posted by: T.C. | January 31, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

What everyone seems to miss in Clintons comment is that she did not mention that JFK and LBJ was pressured by MLK and others in the civil right movement.LBJ just didn't get up one morning and decided to sign the civil rights bill he was under pressure to do so and that pressure was building up for centuries.

Posted by: Troy | January 31, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Think Kennedy's remarks dissing Clinton
in favor of Obama is because he felt the
Clinton name might surpass the Kennedy
name in history. Both of which I admire
and support.

Posted by: Everett L Williams | January 31, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Being ex from Massachusetts, It is time for Teddy to pack up his bags and retire. For years Mass. elected a drunk (pardon me), an alcoholic. Between him and a cohort who doesn`t even live in Mass.(Kerry), Massachusetts has lost out. The Kennedy Legacy Era has passed. Let`s get back to the good years that we had under Clinton, because as we all know, the Democrats as a whole have done nothing in the last two years that they have controlled the Hill. Nobody has been able to do anything but sink us into a recession, so let us put the blame all around, and not just Bash the President and Hillary, and get back into the godd things that we had.

Posted by: Paul Fisher | January 31, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Gossip. He said she said. I'm mad at you because you dissed me. This is the kind of bs reporting that America eats with a spoon. But it's not the news. Just more bs.

Posted by: Russ | January 31, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

And so the truth comes out. It's not because he thinks Obama is the right person for the job to the exclusion of all others, or that he thinks he can win the general election. It's because of payback. How petty and childish. Based on other childish behaviors in Ted's past, why does this not surprise me?

Posted by: veronica lynne | January 31, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is the one running the righteous campaign, what Kennedy Clyburn Kerry and Obama have done is to exploit old identify politics and victimize through what they knew were old group grievances to inflame against not rally for and in so doing they just walked on the graves of the true dead heroes MLK and JFK using their legacy their lives their sacrifice as a weapons a lie against another who Herself has spent a life championing the causes they belived in and it is disgraceful and desperate and wrong. I do not believe for a second either man would be proud to be so violated as pawns in a campaign. Hillary has the honor here.


SHAME SHAME

Posted by: Peep | January 31, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

i have to say to vote for a slime sleaze person like hillbilly clintoons are a dumb lame though for any one, is she a woman? a half woman? the gays have a lot of money she gave them, did not the gays all get jobs in the bill white house? they are two of the worse people that we have in the usa, who can you be so dumb to not be ashamed to even say you like those two owful people, you will get whay you deserve when you vote for them, kiss your bc bs goodbye, you will pay thru the nose and the one;s that have insurance in a large company like ford you will loose that and you will be paying for your own and get in line of waiting for months to see a dr, go for hillbilly show how dumb you are

Posted by: frona fileccia | January 31, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Divisive and hateful comments from Obama supporter show their true identify. They have dual personality like their flip flopping candidate:

1. We are for unity, but will not vote for another democrat

2. Clinton is "***", but can not say Obama pushes the wrong button again and again, in simple word incompetent

3. Clintons vote with the Republicans for NAFTA, our candidate vote for Peru trade deal to drain the jobs from US

4. Clinton voter are old and illeterate, we are young and resentful of old and illeterate. But we will unite the country :-)

5. Clinton are corrupt, although there is no proof other the Republican talking points, but Obama house subsidy from Rezko is kosher

6. Clinton are racist, but we can call her "Senetor from Punjab" and express hatred to the Asian

7. And you know when they are talking about illeterate, robo listening to master, etc they are talking about Lations

Get real. Vote to win. Vote against the wealthy liberal wafflers

Posted by: Seed of Change | January 31, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Dear Ms. Akers, I have to say that "The Sleuth" you are NOT. In your article you write:
Kennedy was also apparently upset that Clinton said on the same day: "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."

This is what Hillary Clinton actually said:
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do; presidents before had not even tried. But it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said 'We're going to do it' and actually got it accomplished."

As you can read, Clinton did mention JFK, but most of the press, including you, clipped her quote to make it sound more inflammatory (and I'm sure that's the one Ted Kennedy read instead of the original one where she mentions JFK's hope to pass that legislation, but we all know his life was cut short, so the next president got it done). By clipping her comments of the middle part without even inserting an ellipsis (I hope you do know what an ellipsis is for and how to use it, right? Didn't they teach you that in journalism school?) to alert readers that there was more in the middle between her first sentence and the last, you and most of the press distorted her comment to make it suit your bogus narrative.

Posted by: Imus Anon | January 31, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy? I just have three words for him - Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940 - July 18, 1969) Look her up to see what kind of a man Teddy is.

Posted by: Barbara | January 31, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Who but a Kennedy could drive a car off a bridge in a drunked stuper, killing the woman with him and still get re-elected? The Kennedys were all myth and all their many flaws were covered up by a fawning press. Teddy Kennedy is such a fraud, says windmills are good, but not in my back yard. "That is where I sail"he said and it would ruin his view as well, we can't have that happening. His brother and Obama are all image, no substance.

Posted by: jim aaron | January 31, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

THIS IS CRAP "REPORTING"

WHO ARE YOUR SOURCES?

Posted by: akibo | January 31, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

how in heaven's the American people can even consider voting for H.Clinton....a warmonger.....signature to a million dead in Iraq, a supporter of the war criminals in the White House. A corporate lackey lawyer, for Wallmart to boot of all people!!!An anti-trade unionist from her history with that predatory company.Her war-voting record and her support of bush's maniac vile actions should bar her from anything that involves weapons .You would have thought following what's gone down in the US, the last person anyone would want ranting on the executive's doorstep would be such a cynical,phoney, divisive politico who seems to vote in what ever direction the wind blows (or doesn't blow).given the number of white angry women in the US who get out their votes, she will probably win....not a great recipe for world peace and cooperation.....given also her zionist rhetoric and her frequent bowing to the almighty temple of
american politics, the jewish lobby.....her election will unfortunately throw more oil onto the fire in international affairs..the cat is out of the bag concerning american interests in the world....and no Bill-Bush snr PR world roadshow will change that.....america must change through action not words and H.Clinton is part of the old,same toxic package beholden to all the same usual suspects.

Posted by: alex | January 31, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Who was the catalyst for change?
MLK or LBJ?
Without MLK change would have never had occured period.

They all deserve credit for fighting the unpopular fight but this was a fight that started from the bottom up.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

'i have to say to vote for a slime sleaze person like hillbilly clintoons are a dumb lame though for any one, is she a woman? a half woman? the gays have a lot of money she gave them, did not the gays all get jobs in the bill white house? they are two of the worse people that we have in the usa, who can you be so dumb to not be ashamed to even say you like those two owful people' Posted by: frona fileccia | January 31, 2008 11:00 AM

Two things lady/ First look into spell & grammer check. Next, put down the crack pipe. Really you are "owful"

Posted by: Patrick NYC | January 31, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: sarah | January 31, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

You know, I've never voted for a Republican for president, yet this year may be that year. The choices on both sides of the aisle really stink this year. Ted Kennedy's endorsement along with 99% of endorsements really don't mean squat. People have to look at policies of candidate, their credentials and that certainly doesn't seem to be happening on either side. If that was true, some of the early candidates who dropped out wouldn't have been forced out.

As I watch the Democratic party, I keep thinking it's not me that seems to be leaving the party, it's the party that's leaving me.

Lost, in Texas

Posted by: TX Dem | January 31, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Too much is being made of what Clinton said to Ted. Ted Kennedy is a realist and he can do the math. As the senior of the Democratic establishment, he wants his party to win. Like many others, he has now realized that Hillary may possibly get enough nostalgic electoral votes to become the candidate, but she could never win in November, for she carries too much old baggage. So he changed horses and supports the candidate that can actually win.

Posted by: bodo | January 31, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Re: Kelly, Jan 31. I'm still amazed at the 'facts' of the Clinton years. It convinces me that Karl Rove is alive and well. To imagine that the Clintons tried to send Monica to the 'insane asylum' is ridiculous. Let us know where that information came from, please. Otherwise just spend more time on your spelling and forget the comments here.

Posted by: Joe Turner | January 31, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

So why is this news at this point? Let it go Washington Post/Times...Go Hillary

Posted by: jls | January 31, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Give LBJ his due credit. Sure, it was JFK's civil rights legislation, but contrary to what many posters here say, he would not have signed it into law, because he would not have been able to get it passed by both houses of congress. It took LBJ's political skill and experience as senate leader to convince, cajole, arm twist, and whatever else it took to get the votes required. Just as it took communist-hater Richard Nixon to open detente with the communists, it took a southerner that Southern Democrats felt was "one of their own" to get the job done. Would JFK have been able to do it? Never in a thousand years!

Posted by: Islander800 | January 31, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

People tend forget the times. LBJ was a master manipulator and twisted many arms to get the Act passed. While it's true any sitting President would have signed it, probably no other President at that particular time in our history could have gotten the Act through Congress. Remember another point, when LBJ signed the bill, he stated the Democrats had just lost the South for generations. That has certainly proved to be true.

Posted by: TexasDem1 | January 31, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

svreader: you have over 100 pages of posts in the last month alone. And you live in California. PLEASE tell me you are getting a check for all this work.

"shameless Clinton Bashing and their loss of objectivity in general" Just like the Clintons to (a) commit some despicable act (e..g., distorting the facts, outright lying, racial demagoguery) and then complaining that it is the other side doing it. 70% of the posters are pro-Clinton. Ah well, racial politics is bad politics. And all this has confirmed my conviction that the Dems have their fair share of racists. Just as the country has found out how the Clintons don't limit their dirty tricks to Republican victims. I wonder what John McCain wrote in kindergarten. Well, HRC will let me know soon enough.

Posted by: RL | January 31, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Troll=Obamaniacs

Posted by: HillaryFan | January 31, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I happen to consider Teddy Kennedy one of my heros. If this report is true, though, it just goes to show that Ted Kennedy's support of Obama has everything to do with the Kennedy ego and nothing to do with what is best for the country.

Posted by: Larry | January 31, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I heard Bill O'Reilly's interview of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend last night. Her basic reason for backing Clinton was that as a female politician she knows what Hillary's up against. Her rationale was all based on gender issues - nothing to do with Clinton's experience. I was a pretty lame reason. At least Caroline Kennedy points to the hope and inspiration that Obama brings to a nation at a time when we need to see that together we can accomplish something. She says her father brought hope and inspired the country - after all he challenged the nation to put a man on the moon and we did. Obama is challenging all of us to work TOGETHER to forge a stronger and better nation. All the divisions - between political parties, between the haves and have nots, between gender, and between race is tearing us down. Obama wants to bring everyone together. United we stand divided we fall.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Good job Ted! Clinton's campaign strategy is completely divisive.

On another note- while LBJ supported King and signed the Civil Rights Act; he became fustrated with King's "Poor People's Movement".

Posted by: CC | January 31, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Amazing that so many will comment on an article that has no factual basis and only defines the journalists attribution as "sources" .....not good enough for me, could be anyone on either campaing or no one. Journalists need to be willing to avoid writing suspicious allegations, they are the ones flaming polarization. Don't be suckers.I seems other media sources reports would indicate it being more likely that the Kennedy clan had been closely following the campaigns all along and that the new generation Kennedys won over the older generation. Are you all aware that Caroline served on Uncle Teddy's staff years ago, I think they have a very close relationship and probably had many discussions about this long before Cinton's LBJ gaffe.

Posted by: meri | January 31, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy has every right to endorse anybody he wants. Obama has every right to cast doubt on his opponent. Clinton has every right to respond to her critics. What I don't understand are the raging comments by fellow Democrats. We must remember Primary Campaigns of old. This is what you do in campaigns, you point out the differences between the candidates. We, the people, can enjoy the show, watching how "our choice" handles the heat. Go Hillary!

Posted by: Carezelot | January 31, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Glad Billary getting nailed for their attacking JFK and Obama. Constitution forbids a third term for presidents but Billary are ignoring the Constitution as they drive their anti-black train thru USA hoping that women, lesbians, and easily led Blacks will get them a third term in the White House.

Posted by: mascmen7 | January 31, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I had wondered if the Clinton team would stoop so low as to insinuate that we shouldn't vote for Obama, since "he'd be more likely to be assassinated." I didn't realize they already had. Sleazy.

Posted by: Peter | January 31, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy was a very foolish young man, and his present day decisions are equally devoid of thoughtful consideration for others. He would have us elect a Freshman senator, totally untried in most realms of public service, just because he was offended at an imagined slight of his brother. Caroline Kennedy was a spoiled child who seemed to believe it was her birthright to have certain advantages in life such as going to the head of a line of people waiting. Her endorsement is as well thought out (Not!) as Ted's.

Posted by: Kara Lott | January 31, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy is an immature JERK!!! So THAT'S WHY he endorsed Obama??? Because he had his backside up over a comment Hillary made?? What a moron!!! What Hillary said was a FACT!! It WAS Johnson who made the Civil Rights Act happen. To be upset over this to the point that even after Hillary apologized, he is still so angry, he felt compelled to publicly criticize the Clintons in his speech endorsing Obama, shows what a jackass he is!!

I didn't think Kennedy could REALLY believe Obama is ready to president!! So he USED OBAMA to get back at the Clintons!!!

I am ANGRY AT BOTH TED AND CAROLINE KENNEDY for betraying Hillary Clinton in order to endorse a naive, inexperienced rookie. And now to find out that he is doing this to get even with the Clintons says he doesn't really care that much about this country!!

Posted by: AlwaysforHillary | January 31, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

How in the world has the American people been completely conned by obama and the media? Obama is a fake he began smearing Hillary along with the media before Iowa along with his miserable wife michelle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc

He played the race card with the help of msnbc when he lost the NH primaries, lied and distorted Hillary and Bills comments.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA

http://election.newsmax.com/clinton_bill/?s=al&promo_code=4291-1

I know there is a large population that is willfully ignorant, but this is the biggest con I have seen since bush lied us into war. Obama is now on the attack again and the media is portraying it as he is now getting tough, he has been pulling this bs all along. The rightwing wants obama in the general because they can squash him and they are helping him to try and squash Hillary. Wake up Democrats!

Posted by: sarah | January 31, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary!!

Posted by: easilyledblack | January 31, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I am a liberal Democrat and I don't care what Teddy Kennedy thinks. The Kennedys have been irrelevant for 20 years. If the fact that LBJ got the civil rights bill passed bothers Teddy, that's too bad for him.

Posted by: spidey103 | January 31, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The Kennedy family has been consistent in both the protection of J.F.K.'s historical legacy and: when political ripe for rape ,a persnickety political advantage to the faithful when necessary!
This is the Democratic R.F.K. political party who then were Vietnam war protestants that ultimately morphed into some ugly demonstrations that were seen ubiquitously as anti-American!
When this wing finally achieved success in nominating A Democratic presidential canidate George McGovern he lost every State except one in the general election!

Posted by: H.L. Mencken | January 31, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Washington Post is really turning into yellow journalism. They have actually spent a month covering nothing but that comment.

On the Kennedy endorsement, I think it's funny that after endless comments about ending Bush and Clinton dynasties Kennedys also reappeared on the political stage. I guess Kennedys symbolize change better than Clintons or Bushes.

Posted by: Alex | January 31, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Of couse Ted Kennedy was out raged by Hillary giving LBJ credit for the civil rights bill. The hatred JFK and RFK had for LBJ was well known at that time. It's true that JFK introduced the civil rights bill to congress but he didn't even come close to getting it passed. He didn't have the political savvy or the strong political connections to get it passed. LBJ was the one that got the bill passed. He twisted arms called in political debts, and did everything he had to do to get the job done. The Kennedy brothers hated him so much, they didn't ask him to use his political skills for anything. He really had nothing to do as VP. To give Kennedy credit for first introducing the bill is true, but to give him credit for passing the bill, is quite a stretch. It would be revisionist history.

Posted by: gernger | January 31, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

bill is no longer Great Bill, who we compare to GW and go "wow he was a great guy." He's back to being Jerk A-hole Bill and it's not working.

And on the issue of experience...just because Hillary was married to a guy who cheated on her repeatedly and was President doesn't mean she can be trusted with the launch codes for the missiles. Get real. She didn't live in NY before becoming senator, and she defended Bill's philandering which ended up with us having to go through the disgrace of impeachment.

Plus what's with all her illlegal campaign donations? Norman Hsu, anyone?

Posted by: superTroll | January 31, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Since when is Ted Kennedy Holier then thou.

Posted by: Rey | January 31, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Polls are a snapshot in time and Obama keeps saying that he is the only one that can beat the republicans....how did he come to that conclusion?

Posted by: WhoDat | January 31, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign sickens me. American voters always make decisions based on fiction. Hilary won't change anything and her supporters are crazy for thinking that she will. Initially I was a Clinton supporter but the sealed records really turned me off. Her change in campaign strategy was the final straw. Change didn't become apart of her campaign until Obama picked up momentum with the concept. These are not the actions of a progressive thinker. I liked the Clintons but you must admit that they are as crooked as they come. They have committed more illegal and unethical acts than any other political couple. The Clintons have to many skeletons and the republics are going to have a field day if she wins the democratic nomination.

Posted by: Madd Max | January 31, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"A plague on both their houses."

None of these characters are "Democratic." They are Democrats but certainly not authentically "Democratic."

Think "democratic centralism" or
Leninism.

Stop the Orwellianisms!

Posted by: Palm Springs, Florida | January 31, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

There is a televised national town hall meeting. Judge the truth and not the lies.

http://hillaryclinton.com/blog/

Posted by: Sarah | January 31, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

MaddMax....Its 'Hillary' and I guess you never had to work for anything in your life. Thats why the Bush Admin failed so miserably because they did not change their strategy. If your car was heading over a cliff would you change your strategy? Give me a break people.

Posted by: Strategist | January 31, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Is this the change the Kennedy's and Obamma and his followers are promising in such glowing terms??It sounds more like the Republicans in the 90's.Get a grip people.You are aiding and abeting Karl Rove's fondest wet dream.How stupid can you get??Sounds like all Egobama supporters are Republicans.

Posted by: Nannie Turner | January 31, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Troll, there's a reason Obama is not bringing up Hsu. While Clinton was the top recipient, Obama received quite a large amount from Hsu. His recipients were also Kennedys, Kerry, and DNC itself. So we can bring the issue up, but then that would damage both candidates and not just her.

And if the missiles is something that we base our decision on, then I guess McCain is the best candidate since he's actually had military experience.

And finally on the philandering subject, it's their family life and has nothing to do with her ability to make executive decisions.

Posted by: Alex | January 31, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Even if this is true, I think it was the straw that broke the camel's back, not the REASON Kennedy endorsed Obama. Here's what the article in the New York Times said the other day:

Before the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Kennedy had planned to stay out of the race, largely because he had so many friends in the contest, chiefly Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. He also said he was waiting for one of the candidates to spark a movement.

"I want to see who out there is going to be able to inspire not only our party, but others, because I think we're going to need the inspiration in order to bring a change in American foreign policy and domestic policy," Mr. Kennedy said last year on ABC News's "This Week."

After Mr. Obama won the Iowa caucuses, associates to both men said, Mr. Kennedy concluded that Mr. Obama had transcended racial lines and the historical divisions the Kennedy family had worked to tear down. Mr. Kennedy was also impressed at how Mr. Obama was not defined as a black candidate, but seen as a transformational figure.

It was then, associates said, that Mr. Kennedy began talking with his children, nieces and nephews, including Caroline Kennedy, who had reached her own judgment some time ago independently of her uncle. They then agreed last week to move ahead with their endorsements, coordinating their decision before the Feb. 5 contests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28kennedy.html?ex=1359262800&en=20b88a2427456757&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This article makes clear that Kennedy was impressed with Obama after Iowa and started contemplating an endorsement before Clinton's LBJ comment.

Posted by: Laura | January 31, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Johnson was the one who finished the fight for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; having signed it into law on 07/02/1964. However, Kennedy was the forerunner taking on the likes of Wallace and did propose what would become the Civil Rights Act of '64.

Be all as this may, comments by a candidate's spouse should not be cause for endorsement or disapproval. It is, Mrs. Clinton and not Mr. Clinton who raised those hackles.

Being a Republican who voted for Edwards in the democratic primary; I find myself disenchanted with the Republican ticket and the democrats likewise leave me no one to root for -- perhaps I'll waste my vote of Mr. Paul as I did on Perot ... twice. Respectfully.

Posted by: Dave Williamson | January 31, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I was very puzzled by Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, as he was close to the Clinton's, as was Jacquiline Kennedy before she died, and JFK Jr. How stupidly childish both he and Caroline are, how petty. Yes, JFK might have worked hard for Civil rights, but Hillary was correct to name the president who actually signed the law. It looks like all of the good Kennedy's are gone. How petty, and what a slap in the face to the Clinton's. I have lost all respect for the Kennedys.

Posted by: Jan | January 31, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

PBS's Bill Moyer called Hillary's comment about LBJ "an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious." I agree.

Posted by: Ben Murphy | January 31, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I feel so bad for Edward Kennedy. His small-minded reaction to Clinton's accurate description diminishes the grandeurs of JFK.

Posted by: sangliu | January 31, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

What Hillary Clinton said was factually true. What does Teddy Kennedy want her to say? That JFK pushed through the 1964 civil rights act? Come on!!!!

Many historians have said that JFK's legacy was severely truncated by his assassination. No shame in that. Can't blame him.

Facts are facts. Oh Teddy and Caroline...grow up. Come ON!!!!

Posted by: celested9 | January 31, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps John Kennedy would have pushed the Civil Rights legisation through had he lived. However, he did not and Johnson did the work getting it through legisation.

If the Kennedy's had their feelings hurt, TS. There was not intent to belittle John Kennedy no more than to belittle Martin Luther King. There would have never been an issue had Obama used a little reverse racism and made it an item. I voted for, liked John Kennedy and I believe he would have made a great president. However, if this is reason for Ted Kennedy to back Obama over Clinton, he loses much respect with me.

In the long term, I see this having much less impact than people now think. As for me, I don't need Ted Kennedy, Oparah or any of the other endorsers telling me how to vote. I can do that on my own.

Posted by: Ken | January 31, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

HARD WHEN YOUR UNMASKED ISN'T IT TEDDY. YOUR BUDDY BILK JUST MADE ANOTHER STATEMENT THAT WILL ENDEAR HIM TO THE STRUGGLING MASSES. "WE NEED TO SLOW OUR ECONOMY DOWN TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING." I THOUGHT WE ALREADY DID THAT BY SENDING ALL OUR MANUFACTURING OVERSEAS.

Posted by: GARY | January 31, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

So Senator Kennedy's endorsment is based on personal reasons rather than that objective assessment of the candidates. And He is willing to stake the fate of the country on his personal feelings!!! How idiotic and irresponsible!!!!

Posted by: JK | January 31, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

thanks troll alex

Posted by: trolltotroll | January 31, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Alex | January 31, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I've been a longtime Kennedy supporter, only 12 when JFK was murdered and not quite old enough to vote for Bobby in 1968. I am also a longtime supporter of Teddy, as I believe that in spite of his personal/character disasters, he has been is and is a defender of those without a voice and a superb legislator. That said, when he orchestrated this endorsement/coronation, I emailed him and asked to be taken off his mailing list (hopefully before the Obama campaign contacts me). In my email, I also told Teddy that his endorsement of Obama in 2008, this early in the year and before the super Tuesday primaries, made me feel as if he had endorsed Eugene McCarthy (also a one-note candidate "the war, the war, the war). Yes theI raq war was wrong and needs to be ended. Osama needs to be caught. But, if Teddy wants to give JFK the lion's share of the White House credit for the civil rights act (which I feel really belongs to LBJ as JFK needed LBJ to get that passed... please delve into the actual events and not the spin you're hearing now), if Teddy wants to downplay LBJ for this, then surely he needs to give JFK a bit more credit for Vietnam and the events connected to it at that time, events that took place prior to the horror of Dallas. The real JFK, not the marble statue created in the decades after his death, was a pragmatist, and a real cool cat. He was inspiring, absolutely, but, more important, he was practical. (Try to catch a tape of his apology for the Bay of Pigs and you'll see how practical he was.) Although the civil rights act was passed after his death, the public was not behind it in a huge way. Nobody of the surviving Kennedys understood that better than Bobby who had to deal with the fallout when he was Attorney General. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. moved many, many people to change their hearts and focus their power to influence the passage of the law. And the practical, "it takes a President" arm-twisting, threatening, and you vote for this and I'll see your state gets a new highway, etc. fell to LBJ. This is why the cool pragmatist, JFK, picked LBJ to run with him. Teddy and Caroline are expected to protect a wonderful legacy that has inspired so many. But let us not protect any legacy at the expense of history. We need to learn from history, not ignore it.

Posted by: Mandelay | January 31, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Wow, it's sad that the nicks here can be duplicate.

Posted by: Alex #1 | January 31, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

LBJ was a master legislator as former Senate Majority Leader. JFK may not have had the skill to get through ground-breaking legislation.

Obama is no JFK and no MLK. He is a media creation, all talk/no action. MLK was 7 years younger than Obama is now when he died. Yet MLK accomplished so much more. Obama has won elections and makes beautiful, inspiring speeches.

Charles Rangel -- House Ways & Means Chairman -- is more powerful than Leahy, Kennedy, Kerry put together -- he supports Clinton.

Posted by: whoframedrudy | January 31, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Politically unwise on the Clinton's part...on MLK day. Takes a swipe at MLK, JFK....but she's the savior just like LBJ.

Nixon also ended Vietnam. Should we give all the credit to him.

Its just a boneheaded move. Think before you speak.

Posted by: Ndu | January 31, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Thursday Jan 31,2008
Time:12:13Pm

Re:The Kennedy Sihouette,

I don't think any of us, As Americans,can ever forget the contrabutions of our beloved President John F. Kennedy...
I celebrated Kennedy's legacy each day of my life, which is why Ted Kennedy, has been elected to stayed around in the senate office for such a long period in time. Consequently, I think that we should show a little more apperication to the Kennedy family, by adopting a legistration aimed at a kennedy holiday, just like Dr.King's holiday. Then, maybe Senator Kennedy, might feel a little better.
As I might have suggested to the senator, that I believe, his time has come to step a side, or retire first, before the Senator is defeated out of office..!

Sincerely,

Posted by: Emmery Jones Jr HIA-CCS-P | January 31, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

No vote for OBAMA, period. If he gets nomination, as a dem, I will vote for McCain.
Look at what he is doing Obama these days: no real issues from his mouth, there are only character attacking, finger pointing, .... while HRC talks about things related to average people in this Country. Obama is indeed nothing but an empty suite with a black color.
I do not want to give him 4 yrs on training with the help of another craps like Ted.
Wake up, let us build bridge from last Clinton golden 8 years to this one's another golden years.
Go Hillary.

Posted by: jim | January 31, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The Irony about this....Bill was also the same age as Obama running for president in 1992. "The man from HOPE"...was going to change things....however, Obama in 2008 delievers falsehope.....Just a running contradiction. They have no idea what Obama can or cannot do...there is no ceiling to what he can accomplish.

Posted by: TIm | January 31, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

So everyone, including Obama, can attack Bill Clinton's legacy and Hillary shouldn't get offended or upset. But because a passing comment on the legacy of JFK was made, Ted Kennedy cries and support her rival. Hmmm. Obama is a cry-baby who groups himself with other cry-babies.

Posted by: Bill | January 31, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I think the media is blowing totally out of proportion the importance of the Teddy & Caroline endorsement of Obama. It didn't influence or change the minds of the rest of the Kennedy clans who endorse Clinton.In fact the media seldom mentions their endorsement,. I believe most of the media should be compelled to attend ethics classes as it seems they all went to drama school.

Posted by: roncraw | January 31, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

PBS's Bill Moyer called Hillary's comment about LBJ "an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious." I agree.

Posted by: Ben Murphy

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

I never said any such thing! I support Obama!

Posted by: BillMoyer | January 31, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

O

B

A

M

A

in 08 ...reincarnation of JFK

Posted by: Ben | January 31, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I could be relatively happy with any of the key candidates: Clinton, McCain, or Obama.

All this Clinton-bashing is pushing me towards Hillary. It reminds me of what the media did to Al Gore in 2000, and I find it dispicable.

Posted by: Voter | January 31, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I was a young intern on the Hill for a Democratic personage - now deceased - during the Kennedy-Johnson period. While the Kennedys were definitely pro-civil rights, it was the opinion of numerous democrats that Kennedy's Administration was more one of "style" than "substance," and Kennedy had trouble getting his legislative program through Congress. (By the way, I loved the "style.") I remember Kennedy making statements bemoaning his difficulties. It was President Johnson, a master of the legislative process, who got the Great Society program, including civil rights, enacted. In turn, Johnson was in awe of the Kennedy "style" and when the President of CBS suggested during the remodelling of the White House "fish room" that it was a much more appropriate place for President Johnson's dealings with the press because Johnson was better in a one-on-one situation, Johnson persisted in trying to emulate the Kennedy press conference approach.

Posted by: Margaret C. | January 31, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Wake up, let us build bridge from last Clinton golden 8 years to this one's another golden years.
Go Hillary.

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

Eeeewwwwww! (Like Fawn Leibowitz's friends expressed in "Animal House" in the way home from the bar)

Obama 08!

Posted by: Bluto Blutarski | January 31, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and her speeches are growing old. Perhaps, she will demonstrate that she has enough class not to take every other candidate down and try to destroy the party if she cannot have the nomination.

This country does not need a continuation of Republican rule.

Posted by: Tom | January 31, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I really have trouble with Obama's empty words and talk the talk.
He was supposed to be new voice to against old-Politicans in Washington. Look at now, when he was a cry baby, he used those old Losers like John Kerry, Ted K, and others to attack HRC;
He was supposed to offer changes. What kind of changes he will bring in? No substance, only hopes, dreams, beautiful words,... haha;
He is in the mood to attack and attack those days. However, while others pointed his weakness and wrong doing, he acted like a baby and snubbed HRC with the back and cried again - all those were racist.
Do we really need such a guy in WH? We had enough with stupid GWB, we do not want another one - Obama.
Hillary and Bill are the only hope now for American. Forget JFK, he was gone for more than 4 decades. Bill gave us all those 8 golden years.
Elect Hillary.

Posted by: Young vote | January 31, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Forget Teddy - he'll be gone before the end of President Obama's first term...

Vote Obama 08!

...not because of Ted (or any Kennedy), but because he's a leader who will be able to begin cleaning up our relationship to the rest of the people on this planet!

Posted by: knixphan | January 31, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

To AlwaysforHillary:
What does Ted Kennedy care about the country? Last I looked--he's got his (and so does Caroline).
He is a petty jerk who has a VERY unreputable past.
Along with you, and millions of other voters, I am always for Hillary as well.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

The only hope now for America is to stop Hillary and Bill. Bill gave us all those 8 years.

Stop Hillary.

Obama 08!

Posted by: Oldie Voter | January 31, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

i have thought since the first day of caroline kenndey and ted kennedy's endorsement of obama that it has to have something to do with preserving the kennedy family legacy - great job, ted kennedy. nice to see that you are guiding voters on the petty basis of your own ego and family pride. if the preserving the Kennedy legacy at all costs is not the "politics of the past" that you denounced so aggressively, then what is?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Don't take it out on Obama for Ted K's actions. It was the banshi's and the little people who appeared to Ted one night last week and told him to do it. I think Darby O'Gill was there too.

Obama 08!

Posted by: Concerned US voter | January 31, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Reviving Camelot; a rebuke of LBJ's legacy

Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama is less about the future and more about reviving Camelot . With this one endorsement, Ted exorcises the demons of LBJ and Mary Joe Capechne, and tries to return the epicenter of liberal providence back to Hyannis Port.

The current Democratic contest is reminiscent of campaigns in the 1960s when elitist northern liberals and southern Dixiecrats tolerated each other for their very survival in the party. There was a low grumbling feud that eventually ignited, and the GOP would capture the south a few years later as Confederate nostalgists.

Privately, Ted Kennedy has likened Bill Clinton to LBJ-- a bully redneck who sleazed his way into the Oval Office, and whose influence in the Democratic Party was heavy handed and too centrist for the Kennedys to bear. The Obama endorsement could be a move by Ted to rid the Democratic party of all centrist elements.

Contempt for LBJ is now a Kennedy family tradition. Ted particularly loathed LBJ for stealing JFK and RFK's thunder as architects of land mark civil rights law.

It was probably Bill's moonshine tirade in South Carolina and Hillary's harmless remarks about LBJ that finally pushed the Chancellor of Chappaquiddick off the deep end. Bill's performance there surely reminded Ted of another era when an unrefined hick tried to bully everyone in the party.

The sharp contrast between JFK and LBJ was summed up unambiguously by Bobby in a 1964 interview.

"Our president was a gentleman and a human being... this man is not," Bobby said," He's mean, bitter, vicious -- an animal in many ways."

Obama may wear JFK's jersey up to the nomination, but the Senator from Illinois will also be toting Ted and son Patrick's baggage. Patrick has spun his alcohol and drug addiction into self pity party, and father Ted lied about his drunken binge that took the life of a young woman in 1969.

And Caroline Kennedy, bless her heart, doesn't know much more about JFK's inspiring oratory than we do. She learned about her dad from anecdotes passed on by her kin, and she witnessed her father's romantic appeal like the rest of us-- from news clips and documentaries. She was five days short of her sixth birthday when her father was gunned down. Most of us don't remember much about our fathers at that age. He was the guy telling us to brush our teeth before bed-time.

These were the darkest days for the Kennedys; the seat of liberalism had moved to Houston, and Ted was ill-equipped to win it back in the shadow of Mary Joe Capechne-- the woman he left to die in New England waters as he swam to the safety of a lawyer. He became the castrated patriarch, evident in his two failed attempts at the Oval Office

Ted's endorsement speech for Obama was sprinkled with cuts to Bill Clinton demanding a return to decency and to "rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us at odds with one another."

But this is exactly what Ted is doing, because he didn't much care about the memo circulated by Obama's top brass-- instructing PR people to mine Hillary's comments for racial insensitivity.

Ted's endorsement means nothing, and it could possibly hurt Obama more than help him.

Since the endorsement, the media have worked hard to play up Obama and play down Hillary. This most recent display of favoritism reeks of misogyny.

The chance of a Democrat taking the White House looks less and less likely as time goes by. All we've seen is hoodwinking and ineptitude since winning both Houses in 2006. The war rages on, funded by appropriations the Democrats promised to withhold, and countless hearings on water boarding fail to produced any legislation to stop this heinous torture.


Posted by: zee-man | January 31, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Mandelay...please read Taylor Branch's excellent trilogy about the civil rights movement and the King years. Through it, you will get a more accurate perspective on the history of civil rights act. The bottom line is that events, moreso than LBJ's political skill, were responsible for the Act getting passed. Public opinion (not including the South) was swayed by Kennedy's national televised address as well as his assassination. Further, the televised brutality upon blacks, which was forced by King's application of civil disobedience, also paved the way for moderates in the Congress to pass the legislation.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I think it is very naive to think that someone as experienced as Ted Kennedy, now concerned about his own legacy, would step up to support Sen. Obama in the way he has simply out of spite. Like him or now, you have to admit that Kennedy's politically intelligent and experienced ... and Lord knows he's learned to absorb anger at thoughtless, or worse, comments over the years! -- Could it be as simple as his feeling that the Clintons were as uncaring of his brother's legacy (and death!! which was probably the key factor in getting that legislation passed) as they are of other Democrats, the truth, integrity and decency? And for that reason he concluded that her nomination and election would be devastate the Democratic party .. and a good chunk of our country's future? --- One wonders if her 'apology' to Sen. Kennedy was the same that Bill Clinton gave to Bob Dole after the things done to him during their contest: "Hey, you gotta do what you gotta do." Karl Rove would understand fully; I doubt that would be an acceptable explanation to Ted Kennedy, however.

Posted by: Elizabeth | January 31, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The other morale of this "endorsement" saga is that if Hillary had the political judgment to keep her mouth shut about these issues, none of us would be talking about this, and Kennedy probably would have endorsed her. Now whose fault is that...Kennedy's or Clinton's?

Judgment is the key issue that is lacking here. Clinton's lack of judgment on the war, on the conduct of her campaign strategy, on her approach to healthcare back in the 90's...

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

It's humorous to read the comments from die hard HillBillary supporters chastising Kennedy. Largely, they claim Ted's support for Obama to be nothing of consequence. If it is, why such loud chatter over nothing lost? HillBillary is doing a Titanic, and all she and her supporters can do is sling mud.

Posted by: Fran Martin | January 31, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I treasure the memory of President Kennedy but I really don't believe Hillary meant the LBJ comment as a slight. It WAS, afterall, LBJ that got the civil rights legislation passed, even if it was President Kennedy who initiated it. I don't think recognizing LBJ's part negates President Kennedy's part in the civil rights movement.

Posted by: Barbara | January 31, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Bobster said: "I really doubt that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was based solely on the incidents described in the story above. It may have pushed him off the fence, but perhaps Ted and Caroline had better reasons - like Obama has a better chance of being elected in November than Hillary, who carries so much baggage. Bill Clinton probably killed Hillary's chances with his outrageous behavior the past few weeks - the idea of Bill and Hillary living in the White House is just too much for a lot of people. Obama is the most exciting candidate the Democrats have had since JFK - why would they be so foolish as to reject him and nominate someone who turns off so many people?"

I wholeheartedly agree!

Posted by: NanD | January 31, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Let us all bow our heads and thank LBJ. JFK and MLK. Now, let's get on with it and vote for OBAMA!

Obama 08!

Posted by: Rama Rama | January 31, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse


On the other hand, who cares whether Ted Kennedy is infuriated? I mean, is it really more important than whether I am infuriated?

Either deliberately or accidentally, millions of people and their families are slighted every day. So what? One does one's best.

Posted by: wardropper | January 31, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Come on zee-man:

Hillary's people started this nastiness...not Obama's. Obama's name barely came out of Hillary's mouth pre-Iowa, when she was miles ahead in the national and local polls.

Remember how the press criticized Obama for not attacking Hillary enough? He was called weak for not drawing enough contrasts between himself and Hillary. He NEVER attacked her personally, or said she was not qualified to be president.

Once Hillary lost Iowa, she then began talking about how Obama had not been "vetted" and how he is not "qualified" to be president, instead of sticking to her own strengths, as she had when she was the frontrunner.

The Clintons and their surrogates are trying their best to revise history. Fairminded folks interested in turning the page on negative attacks and cynical politics should not let them get away with it.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Teddy also supported LBJ's diddling around with the immigration laws and said " This will not cause an unlimited flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S." So where did these 18 million people come from--The LBJ immigration law reform.

Posted by: History will Tell | January 31, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, what is this "vetted" crap? She has gotten away with driving one of her best friends to commit suicide. Is that what "vetted" means?

Posted by: Come clean baby | January 31, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I have given this much thought and I have decided to vote for Hillary. I think she is the best qualified person for the job, and I have no doubt that she will fight for the issues. I like Ted, but agree with Kathleen Kennedy and RFK Jr. on this one.

Go Hillary!

Posted by: Jane | January 31, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Funny how most of the FOBs ( friend of bills ) that commit suicide; do it with the gun in the right hand---Even if they are Left-Handed--Like Vince F. and others!!

Posted by: right or left hand | January 31, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I truly hope all Democrats will TRY and pull it together and act like the discilined Republicans. Do you REALLY WANT 4 more years of Republican destruction of civil rights, constitution shredding, and corporate thievery??? Vote for our nominee. It will be history making! Stop getting caught up in the media planned and orchestrated bickering.

Posted by: cathym | January 31, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It's time for CLinton to bow out of the campaign-just like Sharpton said--- SHUT UP!!

Posted by: Time to Bow Out | January 31, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The American Kennedy press invented fable of Camelot with a deserving Royal Prince in waiting to receive the "holy Grail" of American political wisdom is as vague and metaphorical as Governor Huckebee's metaphorical belief in the miracles of Jesus Christ!
Hello out there! Are there no secular progressives that believe in evolution and community of common social sense and justice?

Why should we allow "The Gray Old Man" to usurp the hopes and dreams of a generation of American females?His generation of political ideology has had its day in the sun!The next minority in line in the Clinton generation is women! It is our turn at bats not a whimsical old idelogy who are attempted personal family political eternal perpetuation!

Posted by: H.L. Mencken | January 31, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Where are the White Man in this form? This gender thing is getting to me so much I am getting frustrated. If you are White Male and don't feel like you are marginalized, you are in no man's land. I am tired of this Clinton Women. Yesterday, the New York Chapter of NOW, a woman's organization, the organizations president of NY NOW is making allegations on senator Kennedy for supporting Obama as a down turn for women's movement. What is going on in this world. Are woman becoming vindictive for our grandfathers fault? Anyway, I am all for woman's equality but men if you are out there, do not vote for Clinton. She is the devil. She will destroy this country as divisive and polarizing as she is.

Posted by: Daniel | January 31, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I am a 65 year old white male and have lived in NDakota all my life.Here is a chance for Obama supporters to gain a vote in tuesday's caucus.If nothing else this should tell you what has piqued my interest.I have 3 questions i need answers to before voting for Obama.
1.Clinton said in the last debate "Obama was against the war from the beginning but the question is what has he done since then".My question is why did he not lead the fight to bring the troops home,where was his leadership,what did he do or say during this time to demonstrate his leadership,which would then give him the credibility to be critical of others .
2. I travel frequently to Chicago I have been suprised by how frequently Jesse Jackson appears on local Chicago TV.His opinions seem to be sought after and there is nothing racist about him or his opinions.My question is why does the Obama campaign seem to be embarassed by him? If the Obama people feel BILl's reference to Jackson was a racial slur who was it directed against, who was supposed to be offended?I have to say also that the response to HC's remarks about Martin Luther King really troubled me.Fargo ND just named a new highschool after Ronald Davies. I wonder how many voters in the SC primary could tell us why they named the school after him.We all, black and white, need all the help we can get to combat racism,and we do what we can when called upon.
3.Can any one give me an example of a Bill Clinton action or statement in tenor or tone equal to Ted Kennedy's bitter moking of HC by saying Obama will be "ready from day one

Posted by: jc | January 31, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't remember Obama throwing an olive branch to Clinton. And he certainly did not ever try to stop his supporters from bashing her. Actually his supporters keep yelling about Clinton's personality as the main reason not to elect her, while her supporters keep pointing out Obama's inability to act. As for dividing this country, even when it came to racist comments, his supporters accused Clinton of being a racist for her LBJ MLK comment.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I was under the impression that politicians were supposed to have thick skins. Good lord, he's angry about this ? The man needs a dose of humility. Jack Kennedy was someone I enjoyed watching, but his brother Bobby was the gifted natural, who was much more of a ground breaker, and I find it interesting that Bobby's kids endorsed HRC. Bobby was and HRC is a pragmatic action-oriented person, and their politics are similar. And LBJ was a worthy partner to MLK in bringing about greater equality. If either of the Kennedy brothers was the more instrumental in pushing equal rights, it was Bobby as AJ.

Posted by: rbe1 | January 31, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

So old Teddy endorsed Obama out of spite? Hummm, Not surprised at all. Anyway, does Teddy's endorsement mean that Obama is the "status quo" now? Teddy certainly is.

Obama's entire campaign has been a bold-faced farce. He claims to be a unifier, but he was the first to play the race card. Does anyone else remember when he accused Joe Biden of being racist for saying he was "clean and articulate"? That was a long time ago.

There was no mention of race again because the first two states were predominanly white. Then, the day after he lost New Hampshire, Donna Brazille claimed on CNN that Bill Clinton's "fairy-tale" comment offended her "as an African American". The next day, Obama's supporters were all over the air like a batch of parrots calling both Clintons racist (Hillary for the LBJ/MLK comment).

Later that day, I watched Barrack Obama give a speech in a black church in Los Angeles. It was a short speech about the Civil Rights movement reminding everyone of dogs, beatings and firehoses. There was not one mention of a presidential campaign issue.

During the following week, leading up to the SC primary, I watched him do the same in black churches in Atlanta and SC. Not once did the press ever mention this obvious race-baiting.

No, instead, they continued to propagate the lie being spun by the Obama campaign that the Clintons were racists. And even claimed that the Clintons were making Obama "the black candidate". Huh? Wasn't he doing that himself in those churches?Anyhow, judging from the results of the primary and the ensuing spewing of hatred for the Clintons on these blogs, black people were obviously convinced.

So now that Florida has voted in what proved to be a disastrous turn-out for the Obama campaign ("the beauty contest"), his new tactic is to attack Clinton as being "a bridge to the 20th Century". This from a candidate who's now comparing himself to JFK? Hummm.....

I'm glad he was caught on camera snubbing Clinton at the SOTU. His and McCaskill's lies about what is so obvious you'd have to be an idiot to believe them, just puts another crack in his well-polished facade.

This man is nothing but a hypocrite and it is he who "will do anything to get elected".

Posted by: Antifish | January 31, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Another Lazy Akers waste of space and time. She makes it up as she goes along to promote her pal Hillary.

Posted by: JElaine | January 31, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I'd also ask Ms. Akers: Do you include Caroline Kennedy in this piece? She spoke eloquently about Obama's inspiration and how he reminds her of her father. She also said she urged her Uncle Ted to endorse Obama.

Posted by: JElaine | January 31, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Fresh" says:
"Reading all these comments, I can not help but wonder why those against Hillary Clinton have to resort to rudeness, insults or name calling and those against Barack Obama appear polite."

You've got to be kidding? Have you actually read the anti-Obama posts here? I guess people see what they want to see.

The truth is that among these posts, there has been plenty of nastiness on both sides. That's a shame and plays right into the hands of the Republicans. But don't try to pretend Clinton supporters have been kind here. They have been at least as rude and obnoxious--actually more so, attacking not only Obama but Ted Kennedy as well. If their candidate had received the endorsement, they would be singing a different tune. Interestingly enough, I have not seen Obama supporters attacking the people who have endorsed Clinton. Actually, I think some of the attacks on Clinton here are not even from Obama supporters but are from Republicans, since many of them sound suspiciously like Republican anti-Clinton spin.

Expressions of hostility toward the Clintons, name-calling, and the term "Billary" have no place. However, critiques of the Clintons' injecting of race into the campaign and distortions of Obama's words and record are not the same thing as hate, misogynism, or rudeness. You can't attack someone and then expect them not to fight back. That cost Dukakis the election in 1988 and Kerry the election in 2004.

"Voter" says:
"Ted needs to get over himself. He and Obama both have way too much ego for their own good."

This is ironic, considering that it is the Clintons who have acted as if the nomination was an entitlement for Hillary, and how dare Obama threaten to take it away from her. As far as I can tell, Obama's perceived "ego" problem is his daring to believe that he can challenge Clinton for the nomination. Interestingly enough, Obama always stresses that it's not about what he can do but what we can all do together, while Hillary touts her own alleged "experience" and her supposedly being "ready to lead from day one."

It is very short-sighted and reductionistic also for people to believe that Kennedy's endorsement is just an angry and vengeful reaction to the perceived slight against his family. I'm sure there are a number of factors that entered into the endorsement, perhaps including that anger. Anyone who listened to his endorsement speech could also tell how passionately he feels about Obama's vision and leadership abilities. And apparently the immediate precipitating factor was not the statement about LBJ at all but was Kennedy's anger over Bill Clinton's racial politics in South Carolina and his attempt to characterize the SC results as about race.

Someone posted:
"Obama has this 'let's all get along' message... Do Dems really think that the Republicans are going to play nice because he's in the White House?"

That is a total misrepresentation of Obama's message of hope. Obama is not saying, "Let's all just join hands and sing 'Kum-ba-yah,'" as the Clinton campaign would like to characterize him. He is talking about a kind of politics that transcends partisan gridlock. He is talking about how the general public is tired of the fruitless gridlock that is preventing anything from being done in Washington and is ready to mobilize to pressure their leaders to find solutions to common problems rather than towing the party line. And he's right! People are disgusted with the partisan gridlock. It accomplishes nothing. The immigration reform debate is a major case in point. In fact, people are getting so disgusted that the possibility of a successful third party candidacy (such as Bloomberg) is growing larger and larger. And an increasing number of people are self-identifying as "independent" rather than Democrat or Republican, though many obviously have ideological leanings one way or the other.

Then you look at the way it made little difference regarding the war in Iraq and other matters when Congress changed hands after the 2006 elections. A Republican minority in the Senate was still able to stonewall and prevent change from happening.

So you can call it naive all you want to talk about breaking through the gridlock, but it's a message that resonates and that makes sense. Washington doesn't work and needs to be changed--not just the players and not just the party in charge but the whole system. It needs someone with a bold vision and leadership who can mobilize the people to pressure their leaders into putting political games aside and dealing with real problems.

That's what community organizing is all about and where that kind of "experience" in Obama's background becomes very relevant. Community organizing is precisely bringing people together to put pressure on the political leaders. That's also what MLK did. And it was the pressure exerted by the movement led by MLK that forced LBJ and others to pass the civil rights legislation, just like the movement led by Gandhi forced the British Empire to give India its independence. Hillary had it backwards in her attribution of the credit.

So no, it's not about a belief that Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) will "play nice." It's about exerting political pressure on them all to put real solutions to real problems ahead of partisanship. It's about finding common ground and a common purpose that transcends the partisan divide. Jim Wallis said it right, when he said that in Washington you have a bunch of politicians sticking wet fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, in order to know what they stand for, and what we have to do is change the direction of the wind. That's what Obama is trying to do--change the direction of the (political) wind.

Posted by: PastorGene | January 31, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

A meltdown? It couldn't have been that bad, at least he didn't drive off the bridge with drunk with another young woman. If Kennedy was really concerned about his families image, maybe he shouldn't kill people.

Posted by: Natstural | January 31, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

A meltdown? It couldn't have been that bad, at least he didn't drive off the bridge with drunk with another young woman. If Kennedy was really concerned about his families image, maybe he shouldn't kill people.

Posted by: Natsural | January 31, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I felt it was rather odd that Kennedy jumped in so suddenly and passionately. I had nothing to back that feeling, but now I see it might indeed have been some sort of revenge. Why does that not surprise me? But you know he can do what he wants. I am getting very weary of all these mishaps and very bad errors in judgment by Hillary and her people. What next? A mutli-million dollar campaign and this is the best they can do? Ugh.

Posted by: Maria | January 31, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Jelaine, you must have a reading comprehension problem. I don't see any flag waving here for Hillary in Ms. Aker's article.

Because it doesn't heap praise on Obama probably ticks you off.

Posted by: zee-man | January 31, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

As a 70 year old life-long Democrat who happens to be black, I am sick of the press's love affair with Obama. As a state legislator, Obama placed politics above principle. I listened to his explaination for his 2004 "clarified" position on the Iraq war, claiming that he did not want to oppose the position of Kerry, the Democratic nominee. Politics over principle?

He is given credit by the press for things that he did not do. I have no recollection of his great accomplishments in the Illinois Senate. He harps about the "white vote" he received in Illinois while running against a "carpetbagger," Allan Keyes, the Republican candidate handpicked by the Republican Party because he was black. Even I could have gotten those white votes. He was elected to the Senate through the "DEVINE INTERVENTION OF TWO DIVORCE COURTS". Ask anyone in Illinois.

On the day he announced that he was a candidate, he withdrew an invitation to his own minister to give the invocation due to fact that local press had recently published an article about the practice and teachings of his church. Politics over principle?

Notwithstanding the views of the press, in my opinion, Obama injected the issue of race in this campaign with his response to Clinton's Martin Luther King remark. I grew up in the days of King. Obama clearly understood what Clinton was saying and deliberately mischaracterized the statement. Only someone seeking to be insulted, would be insulted by her remarks, which were directly on point. It took a strong president to sign the Civil Rights Act. Obama's response was aimed only at the black votes in South Carolina.

I am trying to determine what makes Obama such a great candidate for "change" (What change?)

I am not a Cinton supporter, but she will get my vote over a press created phoney.

Posted by: David, Chicago, IL | January 31, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

wait a minute. he endorsed obama because he was mad at hillary? that's some logical thinking right there.

here's something ted doesn't want you to see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/kennedy.htm

Posted by: jose | January 31, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is another divider who will not get anything done except may be she will one day say "I did not have sexual relation with that man, Mr. to be determined" it is just a matter of time.

This Clinton's are liars...they injected race and divided this country...now they want to come out taking the high road. Some calculation...it might work but that dirt bag is not going to get my vote. I would rather give it to a republican and wait another 4 years. She disgusts me. Regardless, a woman is not being elected in this presidential campaign. It is about electing Bill and make a fool out of our party with his uncontrollable sex urge. At least everyone I know who is a democrat will not vote for Billary.

Posted by: Dan | January 31, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I remember the Kennedy years, and the LBJ years, and the civil rights bills WERE stalled, and LBJ forced them thru by making it ABOUT Kennedy. And THE 1965 LEGISLATION was HIS, not Kennedy's.
I worked for RFK, traveled all over the country for him doing GOTV work in the ghettos. I used to introduce him, and can still recite his speeches by heart. I adored him, and he was wonderful, and CLINTON is so much like him. He was not an exciting speaker. His words were what people responded to, not his tone. He was small, very short, skinny, dischelved, he shook from stage fright, his voice quivered, and he was ADORED because he did not "orate ", he spoke from the heart and brain and soul, and was thoughtful and detailed.

He confronted racism and violent change, challenging the people to get an education, register to vote, run for office, volunteer on campaigns, WORK, SERVE their political process, and BRING ABOUT CHANGE themselves. He was very clear: PEOPLE create change, not governments. GOVERNMENTS turn the people's will into LAW.
He would say: if you don't like what you see in this country, don't riot, get involved, run for office, and change what you see. I stood behind him on flat bed truck platforms when he said that. HE did not wave a magic wand. He offered them a challenge to work.

So in fact, RFK would have agreed with Clinton, especially because as AG in the Johnson administration, he was the person working with LBJ to FORCE the Kennedy Bills thru both Houses, to get it passed in 1964. That's why HIS kids are supporting Clinton. Think about that. They are active, working in politics and the environment every day, they are actually outside the bubble, and they see and hear this country. And they CHOSE Clinton.

To say that the "leaders" of the Democratic Party are behind Obama is bull. What leaders? Kenny: lost, Kennedy: old and lost, Caroline was a 6 yr old child when her dad was killed, and can not possibly remember his politics. For a champion of the NEW guard, he could not have found bigger old guard losers.

The real LEADERS of the Democratic Party, MLK Jr., the Congressional Black Caucus with the exception of a VERY few, Governors, leading Senators, those in office who actually WIN, all are supporting Clinton. According to the Chicago Sun Times, who should KNOW, Dick Durbin spent SIX MONTHS NEGOIATING the Kennedy endorsement. Exactly what did Obama promise to do for that?

They came out at this time so it would do the most good, and LOOK like it was a reaction to the MLK remarks. But that is all political theatre. Cold, calculating, timed to do the most damage, not just to a campaign, but to history, to a legacy of a President who did bring change, who has always been a champion of civil rights, of people, and for what? To smear, to lie, and to bait. To push an agenda, a secret, I guess, because you do not negotiate an endorsement for 6 months for nothing.
Of course Bill, with his ego, would be upset at Obama's comments about the GOP during his years in office, and Regan, and they set him up, knowing he would take the bait. OK, stupid Bill, but is that the way to win? ON smears and lies? And of course Clinton would react to Wall Mart, because it was so unfair, but that's OK. Her answer was great, and she could have said more. Bust who fell for the bait? Look who really is going to get slammed....Obama/Rezko or Clinton/Wall Mart?

Last night the Dems had their Jefferson/Jackson Day dinner in Atlanta, honoring John Lewis and Max Cleland. It was a huge crowd, the largest ever, and there was a rally after, with those not at the dinner coming in for the rally. Charlie Rangle was there to introduce Lewis, both of who support Clinton; Kerrey did the same for Obama by taped remarks.

It was supposed to be a forum for ALL three candidates.

Edwards dropped out, and didn't come. OBAMA blew it off at the last minute, AFTER the programs had been printed, leaving his supporters high and dry.

CLINTON came, and got to speak to a HUGE crowd, live, in person, for an hour. The supporters of Obama got to hear her, all of her, and many left with new posters and buttons. She was GREAT, she is BEAUTIFUL, and very inspiring, uplifting. She gave real details on her plans, and told us the reason why: accountability. She wants to be held to the details. She trusts us to partner with her to create change. She INCLUDES us, does not assume that SHE ALONE is going to wave a magic wand. CHANGE, real change, takes all of us. If anything proves it, is it MLK, it is the anti Viet Nam war movement, it is ANY meaningful change we have had. WE are the leaders of this country, with the GOVERNMENT responding. FDR? Everything he did with the New Deal was a response to the people and what was happening to them. To vote for a person to bring change is silly. EVENTS do not stand still. A President must be sensitive to the people, to the facts, events and be able to act fast in response to the changes that happen outside of their control.

Her plans are great, and BECAUSE she has been in the Senate and WH, she KNOWS how to get things done. She has worked with GOP Senators in a respectful way, for HER bills, and is very well liked, and she has put together issue planks that WILL be passed, because she is smart enough to know that a President serves the WHOLE country, not just one group. I listened to her last night, and saw a totally different person that the one presented by CNN and MSNBC, I heard the complete text of her stump speech, not the cherry picked snippets. Take Health Care: you can keep your own insurance, or BUY into the insurance the Congress has, CHOOSE from those plans, with NO preexisting conditions, AT THE PRICE THE CONGRES PAYS. If you are a small business you can buy in for yourself and employees, if you can not pay for the full premium, the Government will SUPPLEMENT your payment, and the "MEDI'S" and CHIPS will be overhauled to dove tail into the health care system. Just unifying the medi's and all the various plans, and inviting MORE people into the Congressional Plans will decrease costs, and frankly, how can Congress REFUSE to allow the PEOPLE to BUY into their plan? THAT is Brilliant. It will pass, it is paid for, it is simple, and it is NOT single payer, Government run health care. It has the same impact, with choice, so how can it fail?

But the most telling was Obama. He will not share the stage with Clinton. And this is NOT what MLK, JFK, RFK or Lincoln would do, or any other MATURE person would do. If all of us could avoid the people who threaten us life would be grand, but we can't. Daily, each of us faces situations that make us uncomfortable, but we do it. Obama wants to control his venue. So he lost big last night. It was clear that he did not get it. He wants to telegraph to his supporters that he is STIL "offended" by the "NERVE" of Clinton to question him. I watched CSPAN for the State of the Union, and the PHOTOGRAPHER who took that shot of Clinton shaking Kennedy's hand SAID HE TOOK IT BECAUSE AT THE VERY MOMENT SHE DID THAT OBAMA TURNED HIS BACK ON HER. So not only is HE not being truthful, the Obama supporters are not being truthful. So they lie, with a wink, because why??? This is the politics of HOPE? I think it's the politics of BULL. Obama is trying to have it both ways.

His message is "don't pay attention to what I HAVE to say. NO WAY am I ok with her. And I am the" entitled one", not her.
I think she scares the hell out of him, and the only way he can parry her is to go low, and twist it to see like he is RESPONDING to something. Let's take WALL MART: She was the wife of the Governor of Arkansas. It was in the 1980's when WALL MART was not the giant it is today. AS the WIFE of the Governor, she was appointed to the Board. When she was NO LONGER the Governor's wife, she resigned. IN 1999 she RETURNED a $5000. Check from WALL MART and has never taken money from them. What Obama did was grab a fact of life, that wives of politicians serve on Boards in their home state, and not mention that it was over 20 years ago, and try to smear her with it. HER response, about Rezko, is from NOW, and if you think this is nothing, go look up the entire 4 years of reporting on this at the Chicago Sun Times. REZKO was Chair of Obama's Finance Committee for his Senate run. REZKO is going on trial on Feb 25 for laundering $$ thru political campaigns. So why do you think the GOP wants to push us to reject Clinton? Will they talk about blue dresses or REZKO. McCain is using the Bush/Rove PR and ad team. Now just what would they say about Clinton that we haven't heard, and what COULD they say about OBAMA that we don't know about YET?

The GOP would love to have Obama to run against, which is why they are saying that about Clinton. Why?
Clinton has been hit with everything they can say and do, and has not fallen. She is hated because in 1992 she TRIED TO GET ALL OF US HEALTH CARE. OK, so she didn't get it done, largely because the GOP smear campaign misrepresented her plan, but AT LEAST SHE TRIED.
She WAS AGAINST NAFTA, ACCORDING TO CARL BERNSTEIN, WHO IS NOT SUPPORTING HER, AND HAD A HUGE FIGHT WITH BILL OVER IT.
SHE MADE BILL CHANGE HIS ECCONOMIC PLAN, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH.
This is real experience, and she is very well qualified to be President and be HER OWN President.

In THIS country, anyone can RUN for any office, but NO ONE is entitled to that office. So OBAMA needs to get it thru his head that he has to EARN our trust and confidence, not just our excitement over rhetoric, which I personally find way to High School pre-game for me to take him seriously. And FYI, I am educated, I am an intellectual, and I am a populist. This is WHY I am voting for Hillary.

Lastly, I would caution to be wary of ho this race is being portrayed by the Media. THEY have decided that rather have Clinton, Biden,Dodd, Edwards and Richardson, who DISCUSS their differences intelligently, and have the EXPERIENCE to lead, they wanted Obama and Clinton. They did this thru coverage and opinion, THEIRS, not OURS. So it is up to us to determine our fate for the next four or eight years. TAKE BACK the election. READ and THINK past the hype.

Posted by: suzie from atlanta, GA | January 31, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps some day, when he acts like a grownup, I'll have reason to not disdain Sen. Kennedy.

What a petulant brat!

Hillary COULD have been a bit more generous and mentioned something about JFK's contribution to the Civil Rights Act. But what she said was RIGHT, it was LBJ who got the law passed, and thinking anything different is an affront to history.

The GHOST of JFK may have helped, but the WORK of LBJ got the law on the books.

Posted by: Ethan Q | January 31, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg was a small child when her father was assassinated in 1963--that's nearly 45 years ago. Go back and look at the photos of Jackie, Caroline, and John Jr. watching JFK's funeral cortege, or look at the photos of JFK and Caroline in the Oval Office. I suspect that what she knows about her father is largely family legend and of course the "Camelot" stuff--she was too young when he died to have known him really well. He wasn't elected in 1960 by a landslide--in fact, he barely beat Nixon. It was indeed Lyndon Johnson who as president got the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act passed--I well remember seeing him on TV saying to Congress, in his inimitable Texas drawl, "Ah want that Voting Rights Act and Ah want it naow." If LBJ hadn't gotten entangled in Vietnam, he would have been re-elected. And, just for the record, Bobby Kennedy didn't announce his presidential candidacy until after Eugene McCarthy nearly beat LBJ in the New Hampshire primary and LBJ announced he wouldn't run again.

Full disclosure: I am a disappointed Edwards supporter who is prepared to campaign and vote for whichever candidate wins the Democratic nomination. We have a lot of work ahead of us to undo the damage Bush has done to our country. That's what this election is about.

Posted by: Dottie G | January 31, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse


You are making decisions based purely on a patchwork of micro-trends. Yes, Hillary has a laundry list of policies and that "35 years experience" which she now says more often than Giuliani does "9/11". But step back, examine the candidates as a whole, and examine the context through which they view their supposed stances on issues. Policies alone don't make a good president. In fact, they can only tell you two things about a candidate: 1) Where they stand in general on an issue/ where they think the public wants them to stand on an issue and 2)The ability of the candidate to hire good assistants to write intelligent policies for them.

While it is important to know where they stand in general on issues, the most telling factor in a presidential candidate is the guiding framework of convictions which gives rise to their policies. This is illustrated perfectly by the United States Constitution. The genius and success of the constitution lies in its outlining of a framework of values from which to shape the policies of the country. The United States has thrived for 225 years because the convictions have remained the same, while the policies have been allowed to change and adapt to present conditions.

What Obama has that Hillary doesn't is that strong framework of convictions. He believes that politicians need to stop dealing in absolutes so they remember that at the core of the policy debates we share common values and goals. Why do I believe he means this ? He is committed enough to this vision that he spent time and effort writing two books about it, and he is comfortable enough with it to admit his mistakes (he has admitted the problems in his acquaintance with Rezko). On the other hand, Hillary clearly only cares about winning. She stayed with Bill because he provided her a path to the presidency, and she has yet to apologize for her Iraq war vote because she believes that will get her republican votes in the general election. In the eyes of many she staged a crying seen for votes, and she has violated statutes she advocated this summer by campaigning in Michigan and Florida purely to gain delegates.

Motives and values guide policies, and with a candidate who has convoluted motives (Hillary), there is no guarantee that her deeds as president will remotely resemble her promises.

Posted by: Ben | January 31, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty sad to see all the negativity and disrespect for individuals who sacrifice their lives for the great service of this country.

Say what you will, but as a 28 year old I am energized by the energy and tone of the Obama campaign. I feel lucky to be witnessing history just like my father did durning the 60's. As a returned Peace Corp Volunteer I see the world through a different looking glass and I can't tell you what an international impact Obama's presidency will have on the world. His story and the way he tells it will be a 360 degree change in direction from the foreign policy of our current administration. I am thankful to anyone who devotes their lives to public service, but I am truly thankful for the arrival of Barack Obama.

Posted by: 28 | January 31, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

PastorGene, you said a lot about Obama understanding that people want to get rid of partisanship, but nothing about how he's planning on achieving that. He still picked a Democratic party of Republicans and Independents and is trying to convince the voters registered as Democrats that they should vote for him. If he wants to run as a candidate for those increasing number of Independents, he can pull out of the Democratic primaries and run as a third party nominee in the general elections.

In general Obama seems to be nothing more than a big rhetoric. "We need change", "More transparency in the Government", "eliminate partisanship", but never suggests any action that he will take to achieve those goals.

As for the LBJ, Hillary highlighted the importance of the post of the president, rather than diminish MLK achievements. And what she said was accurate and appropriate. There's no shame in a presidential candidate paying respect to the office of the president. She was showing that she understand the kinds of responsibilities the office carries with it.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

If Caroline Kennedy was so infuriated by the comments by Clinton on LBJ, then she needs to go to the source of that quote. It was our famous African-American publisher, John H. Johnson, who made this statement many times. This does not discredit any work of the honorable work made by President Kennedy, but Johnson finished much of the civil rights work, of that era. Kennedy died in 1963, and the push was still on. Dr. King did not die until 1968, he worked with Johnson for more years than he worked with Kennedy. Therefore, I just wish Caroline Kennedy would stop trying to discredit Senator Clinton. My God, get a grip Caroline and let Obama run for office, not you!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm a 123 year old white man, and I served 10 presidents. I support Obama because he is the best thing since Hoover, FDR and Truman! Now, you youngins get off your keisters and vote for this fine man on super Tuesday. Make me proud before I die. I beg you. I'm an old man on my knees beggin you! Please!

Posted by: Really oldie | January 31, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Ben, read your own comment. You start off with "You are making decisions based purely on a patchwork of micro-trends." and then your arguments against Hillary are "She stayed with Bill because he provided her a path to the presidency, and she has yet to apologize for her Iraq war vote because she believes that will get her republican votes in the general election. In the eyes of many she staged a crying seen for votes, and she has violated statutes she advocated this summer by campaigning in Michigan and Florida purely to gain delegates."

There's not a single solid fact that you've given as a reason not to vote for her. As for the Iraq vote, have you ever asked yourself how come she came under attack from Obama for that, but he never mentioned that Dodd or Biden, who were still in the race at that time, also voted for the war?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Dottie G...;you wrote some very good points. I hope someone is listening and look at the facts, not what OBAMA and KENNEDY are saying.

Posted by: gabriella | January 31, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"Passing the mantle" makes me squeamish. We've seen what making a family affair of the presidency and government will do. How many more years does Ted Kennedy believe his family should lay claim to "Camelot", an invention of Jackie Kennedy.

I liked John Kennedy and respected John Kennedy. But, those emotions aren't and never will be a rubberstamp for Ted Kennedy's liberal views that helped create a welfare nation for many years. He has worked hard to bring about a new welfare state by his push to legalize illegal aliens by the millions and bestow upon them privileges Americans born in this country have never enjoyed or will ever enjoy. If that's passing the mantle, he chose a good man in Obama. Obama is very pro open border so he and Ted should get along famously.


We don't need "dynasties" ruling. Period.

Posted by: tgood | January 31, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm a lifelong Republican, but I'll tell you what, if Obama is the Dem. nominee, I plan to vote for him. He's just plain inspirational, and from what I've seen, he wants to unite the country.

On the other hand, if Hillary wins, I'll campaign actively for whomever the Republican nominee is. I'm tired of dynastic rule in the US, and want to see an end to the ongoing Clinton drama. Hillary is positively the anti-change candidate.

Posted by: Steve | January 31, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I am deeply moved by Really Oldie's plea. I will vote for Obama Tuesday. Now, please get up off the floor old man. Have some pride!

Posted by: Jim in California | January 31, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I tell you the news media is spinning everything... Just like they say that barama's supporters are wealthy educated democrats; AS WE CAN ALL SEE FROM THE POSTERS ON THIS AND MANY OTHER SITES, THE MEDIA HAS ONCE AGAIN LIED... barama's supporters are full of hate and lacking in education!

Posted by: fourthsign | January 31, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

BOBBY KENNEDYS CHILDREN HAVE ENDORSED HILLARY CLINTON.I HAVE ALOT MORE RESPECT FOR BOBBY KENNEDYS CHILDREN THAN I DO FOR TED KENNEDY.SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON IS A GOOD CHOICE.

Posted by: john | January 31, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The Kennedy family is not perfect. But they have sacrificed and given a lot to this country. Bill and Hillary Clinton are not perfect. But Bill Clinton was an admired figure around the world and still is, as opposed to the hatred the rest of the world feels for Bush. Hillary at least tried to do something about Health care. No one else has even tried. I think she has learned from her mistakes and will do a much better job this time. The American people are so afraid of change though, that it will be a tough job for anyone to tackle. Obama is an up and comer and I know he wants to help us all and help the United States retain it's rightful place in the world. Us bloggers kicking our own candidates is destructive and will not win the White House back. The people who are spewing all this hate for either candidate are not true Democrates. A Democrate is the only nominee who can stop the Bush policies. So keep tearing our nominee's apart while the Republican laugh at us for doing their job for them..I know we are smarter than this. We must vote for a Democrate in 08.

Posted by: famarshm | January 31, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Steve, since you're so tired of dynastic rule, you must've voted for Kerry in 2004 then?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

John, I think the only way to fairly settle this would be Family Feud with Richard Dawson!

Posted by: Really oldie | January 31, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry in 2004. I'm done with the Bush debacle as well.

Posted by: Steve | January 31, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm just saying, in an article where Kennedy dynasty backs Obama, and 2nd Bush is almost done leading the country, calling for a stop to Clinton dynasty is kind of illogical.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Ok...let's put it this way -
Suppose you see two candidates - one you've known a long time and have respected over the years; and one that you've watched and have become amazed at because that particular candidate has a genuine gift, in the manner of dealing with people, that brings them together. You're on the fence trying to decide when the candidate you know pulls some pretty underhanded stuff, while the 'new kid on the block' is trying to defend themselves from it. You take the step of speaking to the one you know, asking them to tone it down...and they brush you off. Who would you be more inclined to vote for, honestly? I rest my case. The Clinton's did it to themselves.

Posted by: NanD | January 31, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The RKF family endorsed Clinton -- Sunday's LATimes. RFK, Jr's endorsement means a heck of a lot more to me than Ted's.

Posted by: jenmarie | January 31, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Someone posted:
"PastorGene, you said a lot about Obama understanding that people want to get rid of partisanship, but nothing about how he's planning on achieving that."

I did say, but you were either not paying attention or totally unfamiliar with community organizing. Obama's first political experience was as a community organizer in Chicago. I have trained and participated in community organizing. What it is about is mobilizing the people affected by policies in order to exert pressure on the political process so as to bring about change. That's how he'll do it.

You also stated:

"He still picked a Democratic party of Republicans and Independents and is trying to convince the voters registered as Democrats that they should vote for him. If he wants to run as a candidate for those increasing number of Independents, he can pull out of the Democratic primaries and run as a third party nominee in the general elections."

Sure, Obama is a Democrat because he believes in the core values and principles of the Democratic Party and its heritage as advocates for social justice and the marginalized. But one can be a Democrat and stand for the Party's values without being unwilling to work with Republicans and others. And don't kid yourself, whoever wins the Democratic nomination will have to win over independents in order to have a chance to win in November. Independents will decide the election. Die-hard Democrats and Republicans will vote the party line, giving each side about 35-40 percent, more or less. That's not enough for either side to win.

You see, your line of thinking precisely demonstrates the problem: "If you want to appeal to independents, then get out of the party and go for them." That's a losing stance for November, and it's a gridlock stance for the task of actually governing. Either way, it doesn't work.

And no, Hillary's comments about LBJ were not simply to highlight the importance of a President. The intent was to contrast Obama (inspirational "movement" type of leader) with herself as the one who would allegedly "get things done," by subordinating MLK's inspirational movement with LBJ's "getting the job done." But again, I would counter that without King's movement, no civil rights legislation would have happened, with or without LBJ. And really, it's not an either-or choice, as if we have to choose between an inspirational leader and one who will get the job done. Obama will be both.

And no, he is not just rhetoric. You can see the substantive details on his website. But a campaign has to deal largely in themes and images. You can't put a detailed plan into a sound bite, which is what gets played in the media. You have to be able to condense your message into themes that can be communicated quickly. Clinton does the same thing. Her themes are "experience" and "ready to lead on day one."

So both candidates have their themes, images, and sound bites. And both have their detailed proposals. If all you're paying attention to are the sound bites, then of course it just sounds like rhetoric. If you want to get to the substance Obama offers, then you'll have to do a very unusual thing in American politics--READ! You have to get beyond the speeches and read the proposals, though if you listen to Obama's actual speeches and not just the soundbites, there's a lot of substantive proposals even in them.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Which one is Joe Kennedy supporting? You know Hugo Chavez's good buddy.

Posted by: Moldy oldie | January 31, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Everyone, please back off Caroline Kennedy. She never said she was offended by any LBJ comments. She stated her 3 teenage children were supporting Senator Obama and requested their mother to get involved in his campaign. She said she called her uncle to tell him about her decision and he felt it was time for him to join his neice too. Would you like for people to mis-quote you? Try putting yourself in another person's shoes, maybe you will be more informed before you bark off misinformation.

Posted by: Colleen, Pearl River La. | January 31, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Pastor, I have watched and read the transcripts of every single debate and Obama hardly gave answers when he was asked about issues directly.

Tell me, in this debate question, what did Obama say to answer the direct question?
FORMER SEN. MIKE GRAVEL: I want to take on Barack Obama for a minute, who said he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is?
And, besides that, he has received money from a Robert Wolf, the head of the USB (sic) bank in the United States, who raised $195,000 -- from this bank -- wait a second -- who has lobbyists in Washington...
OBAMA: Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money.
And the bundlers -- the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that.
And that's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States.

or this one:

MR. SOLMONESE: Senator, thank you so much for joining us. It's a real honor to have you here with us tonight. And thank you for being the first to accept our invitation. You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. And so my question is, what place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, it is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.


Or this one:
MS. ETHERIDGE: If you're elected president, what are you going to do? What are you going to do to bring this country back together?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, it's a great question. Part of the reason that LGBT issues are important to me is because I got into politics in part because I don't like people looking down on other people. It bothers me. Maybe it's something that my mother instilled in me. Maybe it's the experience of being an African-American and at times being discriminated against.


Face it, he's nothing but a lot of talk. I have also read his website, as well as Clinton's. Their positions on issues is virtually identical, except for she is able to actually explain her views, while he goes into a long tirade when asked about issues.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy was never considered very bright. He has now demonstrated his self-centered arrogance.

The truth is that JFK didn't have the savvy or the connections in the congress to get the civil rights act and the voting rights act through. Congress was reluctant to touch the issues because of the white backlash that could cost them votes. LBJ twisted arms, called in political iou's and persuaded Everett Dirksen to get him republican votes to make up for the Dixiecrats who would vote no.

LBJ did more than sign the bills, he engineered them through a reluctant congress. Whether Ted Kennedy and Rep. Jim Clyburn like it or not, LBJ was a hero in the fight for racial justice.

Posted by: myskylark | January 31, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a supporter of Kennedy, Bush, or Clinton dynasties. Frankly, I've had it with "red" and "blue" states, and living in such a divided country. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but Obama appears to want to unite the country, and that's why I would vote for him.

It seems clear that if Hillary wins, the country will go on as divided as it was during the Bush years, if not more so. I do not see her getting much accomplished. I'm ready for something different from Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush.

Posted by: Steve | January 31, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

One thing I have seen else where but not here is the lack of consideration for all the support the Kennedys recieved when JJK Jr's plane crashed back in 1999.

'President Clinton spoke yesterday with Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, John's sister, who was returning to the compound from a trip out west. He also called Sen. Kennedy, John's uncle, and spoke with Housing Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo, who is married to John's cousin Kerry. "He wanted to let them know he was thinking about them, that we'll do everything we can, and that our prayers are with them," said Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart.'
-JFK Jr. Feared Dead in Plane Crash
By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 18, 1999

Not that they can not endorse who they please but it shows a lack of appreciation for what the President did for them.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | January 31, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, the partisan division definitely started with Bushes. Before that, the whole country united behind Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and so on and so forth. All of them must've won by a landslide since this party division is something brand new and is the result of Clinton and Bush administration. After all, remember the 1960 election when all of the country went for JFK and no one voted for Nixon. Get real, as much as they are blowing it up now, the bi-partisanship always existed and somehow the country was fine and getting things done. Now all of a sudden, everything is blamed on the strong bi-partisanship.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

You're right, we would definitely benefit from more bi-partisanship in the country. It does not feel like we're moving forward, and I'm willing to lay that at the feet of GW Bush. I just get the sense that with Hillary at the helm, it would be more of the same old divisions.

Posted by: Steve | January 31, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to insert my name the last time, but 4:24 pm was me, if that was not obvious.

"fourthsign" says:
"I tell you the news media is spinning everything... Just like they say that barama's supporters are wealthy educated democrats; AS WE CAN ALL SEE FROM THE POSTERS ON THIS AND MANY OTHER SITES, THE MEDIA HAS ONCE AGAIN LIED... barama's supporters are full of hate and lacking in education!"

Well, the news media is just citing statistics based on exit polling. (Other than the partisan political strategists who are on staff, I really don't perceive on CNN, for the most part, a bias in favor of one candidate. They actually seem more to have a bias toward being overly melodramatic about whatever happens, in order to create more drama and therefore more ratings. They wrote Clinto off after Iowa but then wrote Obama off after New Hampshire. But as far as the exit polls and statistics, they're just reporting the results they found.)

Of course, one cannot judge the educational level of Obama supporters based on comments in a blog, any more than one could render such judgments on Clinton supporters. Again, there has been plenty of nastiness here against both Clinton and Obama.

But as for your own nasty and ignorant generalization about Obama's supporters being full of hate and lacking in education (a generalization I would never make about Clinton supporters): I am an Obama supporter, and I certainly do not hate Sen. Clinton. I will probably vote for her in November if she is the nominee, and I voted twice for Bill Clinton. I am disappointed by the nature of her and Bill Clinton's attacks against Obama, which remind me of Republican attacks--using race and taking people's votes and words out of context and distorting them. And as for education, I have two college degrees, one of which is an M.T.S. from Harvard, and I'm about to enter into a Ph.D. program in the Fall. So I would say that I resent your characterization, but I really think it's kind of pathetic.

Look, folks, we all want to elect a Democrat in November--at least those of us supporting either Obama or Clinton, though I'm sure there are some Republicans posting some of the rude remarks here, and perhaps even pretending to be for Obama or Clinton. But in any case, it is not necessary to be insulting either toward the candidates or toward their supporters in order to have a vigorous debate about the relative merits of either candidate being nominated or not. That is the tone that needs to change, and it can start here. You can support your candidate and even point out the weaknesses of the other without being obnoxious about it.

Posted by: PastorGene | January 31, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

the clintons can barely escape
accusations of racism and rape
yet still they are here
spreading hatred and fear
across the american landscape!

Posted by: Alex K | January 31, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

To be honest I just don't think the country is at a standstill because of the president. I think the partisanship problem is in congress. And unfortunately it mainly comes from the Republican side as the congressmen will say, for example, that they do not support the war in Iraq, but then will unanimously block any motion to end the war.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Kennedy will change his tune, when Hillary gets the nomination. Or, if he doesn't, he is pretty much irrelevant to any of this.
He just has to protect those coattails of the martyred Kennedy's that he has made a career of riding.

Posted by: Sternberg | January 31, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

YOU FOOLS, Ted Kennedy = Status quo. He's the one who calls the shots in the DEM party. He's NOT saying to Barack "Atta boy", he's saying "I CAN get you the nomination QUICKLY, I.E the SUPERDELEGATES" in exchange for your administration, IT'S ALL BUSSINESS AS USUAL, IT'S THE OLD QUID PRO QUO. You just SOLD your (POLITICAL) soul to the devil. Now, the party OWNS you, Barack, and you OWE them. YOU could've change, once and for all, the (WASHINGTON'S) rules but I guess you were better than that. What a shame, what a shame....INDEED.

Posted by: Brando, NY | January 31, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe a bit of what Senator Ewards' excuse why he supported Obama instead of Hillary.

If you really have conviction for someone, you would not switch your alligance so easily, just because someone said something, which was blown out of proportion by the mainstream media.

I remember early Senator Edwards said, "If Kerry wants to enter this race, my loyalty is for Kerry."

This indicates more than anything else that Hillary had never been his first choice to begin with.

I know Senator Edwards is a big fox.

He supported Obama may be simply because he thinks Obama is the winning bet.

But it is dishonest for him to blame Clinton whom he didn't want to support in the first place for why he doesn't support Hillary.

Senator Edwards is simply not a real friend of Clintons. Real friend doesn't betray you at the very moment when you need him the most.

Posted by: seanmac | January 31, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama lies over the ocean,
Obama lies over the sea,
Obama lies over the ocean,
So bring back Obama to me!

Obama 08!

Posted by: Rhymin Simon | January 31, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm offended that you would start connecting southern strategy anywhere near the Clinton name even in quotations

Posted by: nycvoter | January 31, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm a yankee Obama;
I yankee Obama do or die;
A real-life nephew of my uncle Sam Obama;
Born on the 4th of July!

Obama 08!

Posted by: Obamaman | January 31, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

What an unclassy, unKennedyesque move by Ted, obviously not giving a damn about Obama, but only wanting to snub Hillary.

He took her remarks and construed in the worst possible light. Shame on his hysterics.

In the meantime, three prominent Kennedys have endorsed Hillary, three Obama.

I wonder at Ted's mental state that he couldn't parse her remarks any better than he did.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I can see where Ted Kennedy might have felt angry by Hillary's comment about LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if she meant to suggest that it was LBJ's, and only LBJ's, achievement. She did not.

The Act signed in 1964 was proposed by John F Kennedy in June of 1963. It was a courageous act, and one that was a clear break with the lukewarm public stance he had been taking for the first two and a half years of his presidency.

In short, he triangulated until the time was ripe for legislative action all the while having his brother Bobby as AG do as much as he could to aid and protect the Civil Rights movement most clearly embodied, but not solely embodied, by MLK. By his words and actions, JFK was a politician-in-full in all the best senses of the word.

However, it is by no means certain that JFK, RFK, and MLK and the laws suits and marches would have been enough to overcome the decades-old racism of either house of the Congress.

Even with the untimely death through assassination of one of America's most charismatic leaders, a death that rocked a generation, an entire nation, and, indeed, the world, it still took the political maneuvering, arm twisting and head banging of skillful politicians to get the laws of the land changed.

The Bill was held up in the House by the Rules Committee and in the Senate it could just as easily died from a fillibuster for another year. It took men like Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen in the Senate and considerable arm twisting and head banging by none other than President Johnson to get it past the obstacles.

These obstacles were the same ones that had forced FDR, no dim Democratic light, to take smaller steps than he would have liked towards Civil Rights. It also cowed Truman and Ike as well, not exactly two political wallflowers.

JFK was a lot of things, but an imprudent idealist was not one of them. He triangulated for nearly two and a half years while he did what he could to foster and protect the Civil Rights movement. When the time was right he recognized it and acted boldly and courageously. But he knew that his charisma and oratory alone would not win the day.

In fact when it comes to what he thought of his oratory and charisma, during his campaign against Nixon, a man who had as much personality as a freshly unearthed turnip, Kennedy suggested it wasn't a personality contest but a contest between two different political parties, between two different views of the world and one's fellow men. He did not denigrate those Democrats who came before him.

Even Kennedy knew he was standing on the shoulders of giants. This is something the current crop of Democratic candidates and their followers would do well to remember.

Posted by: jmcauli1 | January 31, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"On the other hand, if Hillary wins, I'll campaign actively for whomever the Republican nominee is."

Then, beyond hating Hillary and trumpeting Obama, you have nothing.

Campaign for whatever Republican? The same traitorous criminals who have half-destroyed the economy, and totally destroyed our standing around the world? The anti-Constitutional fascists, anti-science to a fault, and religiously-deranged besides? That's REALLY what you're gonna do?

Obviously, you're a person with no principles. Hillary and Obama are about two inches apart on almost every major issue.

What an idiot. Maybe you could take a cruise in November. You sound too stupid to vote.

Posted by: Lyons Steve | January 31, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

JFK would not have signed the Civil Rights Act because he would not have gotten it passed. LBJ had to use all his legendary legislative skills to get the various civil rights bills passed over fierce Southern Democrats' opposition. JFK did not have the power to get things done and that was an implicit comparison by Hillary about Obama. And please do not imagine I am a Hillary supporter, I can not stand either of the Clintons.

Posted by: Jim | January 31, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

America is ready for Obama. He will be the first president with a wicked jump shot!

Obama 08!

Posted by: Obamaman | January 31, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I think the spite part is correct but I think it goes back farther in time.

Obama, as you recall, was picked to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. He was the supposed choice of John Kerry. Obama was chosen over Hillary Clinton. So my guess is that whatever happened between Ted and Bill happened before the convention and Ted was sticking it to Bill in his choice of Obama.

Odds on favorite reason is that Ted Kennedy has an old fashion Irish spite against Bill for some real or perceived reason. (spites are irrational and difficult to pin down unless the Irish person tells you what it is)

You may also recall that Kerry was Ted's hand picked president. Perhaps Bill did not go along with the choice or who knows. but Kerry ended up losing.

Ted then turns his attention toward Obama.
As inexperienced and untried as Obama is the real problem is Ted Kennedy's hubris in thinking he can make a president ( maybe the one he wishes he was) and that he can then cloak his made man in the mythology of Camelot. In other words Twd could not get elected president himself and therefore resurrect Camelot; so, the next best thing is to create not only the president but by some 'magic' revive Camelot.
I think this plan was already to go and then by a stroke of luck Ted Kennedy could hide his plan in the ginned up LBJ/MLK statement. Ted has a lot of 'splainin' to do to himself but he should not miss the opportunity to right this wrong against the people of the country. It is not too late but soon will be.

The Irish know the power of spite only too well. Spite has torn apart families, has divided towns and now comes the vision of spite tearing apart a country.
Enough Ted Kennedy, enough.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | January 31, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

LBJ passionately worked hard to get the civil rights ligislation whether Ted likes it or not. Without LBJ, it would have taken another decade or so. Now if Ted wants to bring old Kennedy family grudges into the present elections, he is bringing divisions into democratic party and it does not serve Obama well.

Hillary has graciously handled this and talked with Kennedy as well as offered her hand as a gesture of reconcilliation to Obama during State of the Union address which Obama ignored.

Hillary worked hard during her entire life to uplift the African Americans. She is a UNITER as well as gracious RECONCILLIATOR. If she becomes the president, she will unite the country once again.

Posted by: George | January 31, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I was around in the 1963 and actively engaged in the Civil Rights movement, going around soliciting signatures to a letter endorsing the Civil Rights Bill and garnering the hatred of my community for renting my house to a black family in need of shelter. I can assure you that Lyndon Johnson didn't have a hell of a lot of choice in the matter of signing the Civil Rights Bill into law. The momemtum begun by King and supported by Jack and Bobby Kennedy was overwhelming and would have been thwarted by LBJ at his peril. He was being what he was superb at -- doing the politically expedient thing. The day he announced on TV that he would not be seeking another term was one of the happiest moments in my life! Forget Ted Kennedy. I -- and a lot of others out here like me -- were incensed at Hillary's giving all the credit to Johnson. ANY president in the White House at the time would have had to sign the bill into law --a bill created BEFORE he was thrust into office. It's the function of the office itself that tells the tale, not the man who happened to be in it at the time!!! God knows what Hillary will do with that power if she gets it. And it is the power she wants, not the means to beneficial ends.

Posted by: JFredman | January 31, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone really heed these endorsements any more? Endorsements used to carry a lot of weight when there were organized "machines" in politics, but now not even the unions can bring out the votes when they offer an endorsement (see the Nevada primary and the union officials' endorsement of Obama which backfired). Does anybody outside of MA really care what Teddy and the reclusive Caroline really think about the candidates? I don't know a single person who is swayed by their opinions.

Posted by: Shelly in Washington, DC | January 31, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

JFredman, if you think passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was politically expedient for LBJ you must have been smoking some strong stuff in the 60s and can remember much from that decade. Read your history, LBJ had to reach out to Republicans to get past the Southern Democrats' 83 day Senate filibuster. Democratic Senator Byrd (present President pro tem of the Senate and past KKK leader) personally spoke for 14 hours in that filibuster. LBJ fought and won civil rights laws because he believed in the cause.

Posted by: Jim | January 31, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting thought voiced in Boston on Beacon Hill today. Those in the know are saying Gov. Patrick and Sen Kennedy made a deal. If Kennedy would support Obama, then he would name anyone of Kennedy's choice to replace him as Senator, if of course, he left office while Patrick was still governor. It is pure political horse-trading and keeping the Camelot dynasty going in Massachusetts.. guess who??? Former Congressman Joe Kennedy seems like the likely heir apparent!!!

Posted by: dirtywater | January 31, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I was on the Senate floor most of those 83 days. It was despicable not only for Democratic Senator Byrd's racist obstructions, but also for the rampant use of amphetamines by the the Senators who carried out the filibuster. The Democrats were the country's worst racists and drug abusers! Long live Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan!

Obama 08!

Posted by: Really oldie | January 31, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

A lot of were around in 1960 -1968 and are still around today. We can speak the truth.

Further, we have the congressional record, the LBJ tapes, the historical accounts and on and on.

The Civil rights bill was passed in congress not anywhere else.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | January 31, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Dear Lyons Steve,

Thanks for making my point (see posts above). Your attitude is precisely why I plan to vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Let me guess, you're a Hillary supporter?

Posted by: Steve | January 31, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Kennedys think they created Peace Corps too. No one needs their King and Queen mentality and the problems they create.

Posted by: ST | January 31, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Where do some of you people get this stuff? The comments about Obama are ludicrous! Not an inspiration? He is the reason that young voters are turning out for PRIMARIES since Kennedy!!!
I can also see why I would never be a politician with all the ungrateful dems out there belittling the Kennedy family. HOW DARE YOU!!!!! That family has sacrificed two sons for you BS people. Ted Kennedy has had issues (as have many politicians: GW Bush, BILL CLINTON, Ronald Reagan, etc, etc...) but he has done a lot of good for you lot.
And, if you honestly think that this dribble is true, then you deserve to be in the undeucated camp. you don't deserve politicians like the Kennedys or Obama if you believe this tripe. All to spite the Clintons... What a load of Kaka.

Posted by: phorse | January 31, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama 08! Kaka to the Klintons!

Lay off the amphetamines Democratic establishment!

Posted by: Horsesh It | January 31, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton doesn't celebrate MLK day she celebrates LBJ day

Posted by: Charles Kushner | January 31, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton eats puppy souls for breakfast

Posted by: CK | January 31, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is so cold, that at her last speech in LA 15 people froze to death and another 100 recieved severe frost bite.

Posted by: CK | January 31, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Ted Hillary went up 18 points in the Mass poll since your endorsement of Obama.

Posted by: Peep | January 31, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Whatever you think or do, my American friends, Hilary R. Clinton will be the next President of the United States of America. Why so? Because it's WRITTEN so! And so is her FATE. No one, or nothing can change that. So stop all rhetoric speeches, stop all the hollow visions, hopes or unspecific changes. Stop wasting your energy, Senator Obama, you're still a young man, an apprentice Senator (politician at that). But your time is not on yet. All my American friends, I wish you will have a clear head to choose the Right candidate. Forget about Ted's endorsment for Obama, it was only childish play from an irresponsible man who was the cause of a young girl's death a few decades ago!!!Believe me. I love your country, my American friends. That's why I have to voice my opinion. Believe me it's Written.

Posted by: M.H.Nuyen | January 31, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Nothing is written until after it happens Nuyen. Barak H. Obama will crush the evil Clinton woman and become the next president of the United States. Then we can write it into history!

Power to the People.

Obama 08!

Posted by: Obamaman | January 31, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

read the 3000 page lbj biography by Caro

LBJ was a psychopathic thug who set us on the path to W

Praise LBJ and you praise the King of Texas devils

Posted by: thom | January 31, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Mary, why haven't you corrected the cornerstone of your piece where you sliced and diced and misquoted Hillary so that the meaning was altered?
This was been pointed out to you more than 24 hours...waiting for you to redeem yourself.

Posted by: thp | January 31, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Some of these comments are almost as shallow as the candidates. None of the candidates are clear on where they are heading. Obamma is a good talker and well educated. That won't cut it when dealing with the issues we have. He simply can't sit down with some of the scum bags out there and have a chat.

Voters seem to tilt for the most stupid of reasons. Some like what they hear but don't have a clue. Some want the first female pres; others the first black. Why not wait for a black female and then get your place in history. What a joke!

We need leaders who know where to go and are able to communicate. I think Obamma looks so good because of the idiot Bush. Bush can be credited with major Republican losses, and the loss of the white House. It looks like Hillary is about the only one left with a chance to win. Her choice is a little better than no choice. What a dismal election! How can this excite anyone except the dolts?

Posted by: Fed Up | January 31, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

I find it ironic how those that support Hillary point to her "experience". Her only elected office is the position she currently holds of U.S. Senator, and she is only in her second term. Her time in the White House? During the Clinton administration many critics alleged she had input into administration decisions though she was not a cabinet member and had no official role. At that time the Administration emphasized that was not the case that she did not weigh in on the administration decisions. Now she has Oval Office experience? As for Obama's experience, former state legislator and a freshman senator. However Obama has already proven much more effective in reaching across party lines to get legislation passed than Senator Clinton has in two terms. One question, as it appears Sen. Clinton is polarizing in the sense that many Republicans detest her, Will her supporters accpt the possibility of a pyrrhic victory by winning the Democtraic nomination with the knowledge she will get virtually NO crossover votes in the Presidential elections destroying any possibility of a Democrat in the Oval Office in 2009?

Posted by: jtt-esq | January 31, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I think that the article itself is a red herring put out by a strong political operative alleged to Hillary Clinton and very familiar with LBJ. Contrary to his suggestion, I would guess that Hillary's minimalization of JFK's role in the Civil Rights movement was a sour grapes remark from a candidate knowlegable of, jealous of, and preemptive of Senator Kennedy's impending endorsement. With Bill Oreilly's support and John McLaughlin's, Hillary ought be be a shoe-in in the Republican Convention. Why do they love her so much? She loves and abets those nuke loving Arizona Senators too much. That's the reason.Hasta la vista and onward Obama!

Posted by: charles | January 31, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy has worked with both Obama and Hillary in the Senate. I doubt he would do anything just out of pique. If he would rather have Obama in the White House, I expect it is because Obama is more open to the influence of the establishment, as he was in Chicago and in the Senate.

For an example of Obama's malleability in the Senate, see http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama_senate_recordjun12,1,7243980,full.story
and look for "sort of a random number."

For some careful research on Obama's pro-establishment actions, see http://www.blackagendareport.com/

Posted by: 1950democrat | February 1, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

First, anyone who suggests voting for a Republican over a Democratic candidate is a Republican in sheeps clothing and are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of someone changing parties. Ted's being upset about Hillary's remarks about MLK and LBJ because it didn't involve JFK. " GMABRK " "Give me a break"

Posted by: shaamex | February 1, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Well, just adding to the flood of comments that no one is likely to read -- I'm sorry if it is the case that Uncle Ted decided to endorse Obama because of a perceived slight to the family legacy.

I think that Clinton's comment re MLK/LBJ was badly done: dumb timing, and not very coherent. But anyone who is not in the Hillary-is-the-Antichrist camp must realize that she was not intending to diss either King or Kennedy. She was making the (rather vacuous) point that changes in law need political leadership as well as "inspirational" (for want of a better word) leadership.

If that remark flipped Teddy, he's way too "legacy"-centered. I hope that he was already leaning towards Obama for better reasons than that Obama hasn't yet inadvertently insulted JFK.

And, BTW, we will never know if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have passed in its same form if it had been shepherded through Congress by President JFK and VP LBJ. Johnson had a enormous pile of favors to call in from his tenure as Majority Leader (which he might or might not have used as VP), and JFK's assassination lent a post-9/11 sort of inevitability to a piece of legislation that he had passionately supported.

Posted by: strangelet | February 1, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Oy vey, how petty of Kennedy to use the remarks of not Clinton, but of a regional supporter of Clinton, as his excuse to endorse Obama.

OTOH, for centrists of a certain age (my mother included), Chappaquiddick always looms large, so hey, if he really wants to help Obama's campaign, endorsing him really *isn't* the trick.

Given the Kennedy Clan's record of Really Really Bad Decisions -- from the Bay of Pigs to Chappaquiddick to the Blue Dot to giving Ann Coulter her first major outlet in George magazine -- Kennedy endorsements don't really mean as much as Kennedys and Kennedy supporters think they do. Especially since they clearly didn't take into consideration early absentee voting in the states where the endorsements might have otherwise mattered.

Here's a hint: those of us who debate the Oscars online have known for years that one of the factors to take into consideration when predicting them is that most mail-in ballots are mailed in within the first 3-5 days. Oops!

And I say that as someone who's probably to the *left* of most Massachusetts voters.

One last thing: a person who's running as an Outsider Who Can Make Change isn't really an Outsider when he's getting the endorsement of one of the most Inside of Insiders in the Democratic Party (and again, I say this as a far-left liberal.) That Kennedy's motives are this petty only makes his endorsement of Obama the type of endorsement that Obama doesn't need: namely, a patently ridiculous one.

-- Rob

Posted by: Rob | February 1, 2008 4:25 AM | Report abuse

The truth is that had LBJ not been president, Everett Dirksen would never had been convinced to support the Voting Rights Act and it would have been back to the drawing board.

JFK's death still impacts us today, and he was a great emotional leader which is great in times of crisis. But LBJ was the difference maker.

As for Ted Kennedy--his endorsement does nothing for me--Now that John Edwards is out I'm supporting Obama. Caroline Kennedy's endorsement was the one that really moved me.

Posted by: Clevelander | February 1, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

So, the Presidency all boils down to anger over a simple comment about events so many years ago. This is what happens when the PC Police rule the air waves and campaigns never really discuss real issues.

How shallow of Ted to flip over a comment that will not even touch the legacy of JFK. No wonder he can not win a general election outside Mass.

Posted by: Gary | February 1, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

One of the more astute pundits, reflecting upon the state of American politics over the last several years, recently remarked in a throw-away line that the poetry had all gone out of it. That may appear to be a strange metaphor, but it is, in fact, very apt. To understand why, it is necessary to understand the nature of poetry and the effect it has on the human spirit.
Unlike prose, which more often than not merely describes and relates, a poem - a real poem - means. It cuts through the mundane to the essence of things. It reaches into where we live, jolting into acute awareness a sudden recognition of our own inner being. "Yes!" we say to the poet. "Yes, that is exactly how I feel too! You have found me out and opened this bond between us that validates who I am, and who I am is no longer alone in the universe!" Put another way, poetry is a spark that lights a candle within us, illuminating the darkness that was isolation, revealing assets and potentials of which we had previously been ignorant and connecting us to kindred souls.
Following the deaths of Martin Luther King, of John and Bobby Kennedy and the defeat of Eugene McCarthy, those of us who had been summoned by them to greater heights of personal endeavor by the vision of loftier goals than had previously been set for our generation were thrust back by the forces of prosaic business as usual. That is not to say progress wasn't subsequently made in some areas, but it came without a sense of triumph and pride, for it rode in on the coattails of sheer expediency and pragmatism, achieved not as an expression of right prevailing over wrong, but as a means to what often became selfish and even nefarious ends.
Jesus is alleged to have said that perfect love casts out all fear. Who has not witnessed the truth of this? Men have faced the most daunting obstacles and dangers for the women they love, mothers for their children. Such displays of courage are by no means limited to these commonplace examples. When people speak of being inspired, as many among the young are now inspired by Barack Obama, what they're expressing is his capacity for casting out of them their fear to act, their fear of failing, their fear of censure, their fear of revealing who they are. This is the "romance" of politics that has been missing for so long: that unspoken but powerful attraction between a leader who is loved and those eager to prove themselves worthy of implementing the causes he promotes.
In the cause lies the nitty-gritty, and it is, of course, essential. But there is nothing to suggest that Obama does not have a firm grasp of all that involves. What he lends to the mundane details of forging policies and putting them into action with what may well be painful effort is the difference between doing a job grudgingly merely to earn a living and doing it joyfully with a sense of fulfillment and pride.
I am happy for our nation's youth, happy that they have been given this opportunity to identify themselves with something nobler than partisanship and narrow self-interest. The truly great leader is the one who leaves us with smiles on our faces, not with our fists in the air; who stirs us to jubilation, not anger; and who defeats his enemies by treating them like friends.

Posted by: JFredman | February 1, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

OK, this has to be one of the most venomous compilations of garbage I have heard yet.

Now I get to add my 2 cents. The Osama/Hussein nasties are probably coming from republicans. I do believe they are more afraid of Obama being the the candidate - they are pretty sure they can beat Hillary.

Some of the immature-sounding stuff that appears to be coming from Hillary supporters may also be coming from republicans.

I do believe Americans need a more inspiring leadership than they have had for many decades.

I will vote for Barack Obama in the NJ primary and HOPE I get to vote for him in the general election.

I am a White female senior who remembers all of it since Eisenhower warned Kennedy about the now omnipresent and almost omni-powerful military-industrial (corporate) complex. And I am a feminist who can think for herself, thank you very much!

BTW - would whoever is monitoring this nonsense PLEASE get rid of all the duplicate slime at a minimum.

Posted by: wwwqueen | February 1, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention. There is a very reasoned and convincing argument about why Barack Obama is the best choice for the Democratic Party at the site indicated below. If you are really interested in having the democratic party win this election convincingly this time, I would call it recommended reading.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes/2

The author points to the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates. And Mary Ann - shame on you for pandering to the least common denominators in this contest just to get a lot of responses. If this is the best you can do, you are a gossip - not a sleuth!

Posted by: wwwqueen | February 1, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

First of all don't believe everything you read. Secondly, the only change you get with Hilary in office is what's between the President's legs.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 1, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse


I've always felt that the Brit newspapers create conflict when there is none. I see that the Wash Post is as bad as the worst of the Brit press. In England, newspapers like the Sun and the News of the World, two yellow jounalistic papers, have the biggest subscriptions. I think that's what motivates the Post and Sleuth. Mary A Akers can always get a job on one of the sleazy papers here, but do not make the mistake of calling her crap journalism.

Posted by: Joe Turner | February 1, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I think I can finally put my finger on what bothers me about Obama's candidacy: It sounds like Jack Kennedy's. And Jack Kennedy's success as president was minimal, despite all the inspiration, hope and encouragement he exuded in his speeches and the spin many of his believers put on his presidency and the unfulfilled dreams many of his former supporters, now grown older - but not much wiser - still hold dear. He was unable to bring his vision home. Yet, today, many have combined the dreams of his administration with the actions of the Johnson administration and, maybe because JFK was assassinated, credited JFK with not just the vision, but its enactment.

JFK was the very first president I voted for. As a youngster I remember I was overtaken by JFK's vision and sense of optimism. There were no limits to what we, as a nation, could accomplish and, by asking us to ask what we could do for our country, he made it clear that we could make changes that would impact our lives and those of the rest of the world. We were youthful and, in retrospect, quite naïve, but believed that we could do anything if we set our minds to it. Isn't "Change We Can Believe In" one of Obama's campaign slogans? Sound similar to the Kennedy rhetoric?

And I think that the Kennedy family's endorsement of Obama and his attractiveness to youth is, in no small way, the result of wistful recollections and wishful thinking that since he sounds like JFK, Obama will be another JFK but be able to fulfill his dreams - unlike Kennedy's inability to fulfill his. Obama's youthful appearance, optimism, speeches and subtle implications that older, experienced, ingrained politicians that are "part of the system" are not able to or can not be trusted to bring about change resonates with 21-30 year olds and some people of our generation that can't let go of the Kennedy mystique. They believe Obama can finally prove that lofty visions, like those of JFK, can be implemented in law, diplomacy, culture change and all other means to improve the human condition.

However, in reviewing several Kennedy biographies, it seems to be generally acknowledged that although he was a dreamer with very ambitious objectives for his presidency, he had significant difficulty in bringing his visions to fruition because he couldn't get most of his programs through Congress. Was it due to his lack of experience or an undercurrent of distrust based on his family's (Joe Senior's) history with the underworld or JFK's continued association with questionable characters or the fact that his administration didn't last but 1000 days? I can't say for sure. But it certainly was Lyndon Johnson's presidency that brought many of JFK's visions, like the New Frontier, into reality.

So that's the crux of my concern about Obama. He is a dreamer, and it's the job of dreamers to dream. But it's the job of doers, like Hillary Clinton, to do and I don't see or hear anything in Obama's campaign rhetoric that suggests how he intends to "do his dreams." A president needs to know how to make things happen. He can surround himself with dreamers, policy mavens and experts in any and every area of concern. But the president is the one who must push the right buttons, come with experience and reputation to talk to the right people and be prepared to compromise in order to make the more important dreams a reality. Obama speaks and acts like he's not about to take those steps towards compromise, nor does it seem he has the authoritative stature or experience to know how to approach Congress in order to get his agenda implemented.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 1, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse


The Post should not allow anonymous comments. These anonymous comments are cowardly. I can guarantee you that the people who are most upset did not watch the debates in full but accepted the clipped quotes of the Post and other yellow papers. Hillary did not "chastise" JFK; JFK DID initiate the Peace Corps and Sergeant Shriver was in charge. Sen Edwards has not publicly supported Obama; the Clintons did not murder V Foster nor did they try to get Monica into an insane asylum. Long live Karl Rove. You Americans are really stupid!!

Posted by: Jack Pollack | February 1, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's comment was not racist, it was valid. Our Country was not ready to accept the changes that LBJ strong-armed through congress. I love JFK (for all he did give us), but he wasn't strong enough to do it.I find it unconscionable that Obama uses the race card to denigrate a woman, who has done much for the African American community. Having read through the comments, it seems to me that Obama supporters are as nasty, rude, negative and as mud-slinging as their candidate. I can only imagine that they are taking their cue from their "unifying" leader. As a staunch Democrat who has voted in every election since McGovern, I will not vote if Obama is the nominee.

Posted by: Lori | February 1, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Miss Akers, Is this the only way you can get a job on the Post? Don't let the editors push you around and force you to write this stupidity. Being a small town southern girl, you may think that this is the only way to get ahead in journalism. "Sources say..." gives away the game. And put that glass down. You need a clear head to make up this foolishness. I'll watch your journ career with interest to see if this stuff really helps one's career.

Posted by: journalismjoe | February 1, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton was a Goldwater girl when all
of this Civil Rights leg. was being passed.
Hillary's remarks about MLK and LBJ because it didn't involve JFK. was not only a diss to JFK's contribution but the legacy of all three because of her support of the man namely Barry Goldwater who was against them all, thank goodness when she became older she saw the light just as we see it now!
GO OBAMA!!!

Posted by: GREGORY | February 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Ok guys and gals it's time to let sleeping dogs lay. Hillary and Obama both showed a lot of class last night at the debate. Who cares what Ted or Caroline Kennedy has to say? I loved JFK he was one of the most motivating people on the plaint in the 60's as well as one of our greatest presidents, Caroline and Ted Kennedy are not and neither is Obama. Obama is a motivator but he is no JFK. For Teddy or Caroline to even compare him to JFK they had to be drunk. Get a grip Teddy Kennedy used his family name to keep himself out of jail after killing a young girl. Drunk driving is no defense, no one poured the alcohol down his throat.

This is politics each side says and does what it has to get elected. Obama someday will make a great President but I'm sorry to say he is not ready. Endorsements are great but you need to take them as a grain of salt. Let me put it this way!

Your on an airliner and the pilot comes on the loud speaker as says good morning I'm Chris I'm your pilot fresh out of flight school this is my first flight set back and relax. Radar indicates a massive storm with high winds and turbulence I have never flown under theses conditions but I'm sure I'll be ok, or would you rather hear.

Your pilot comes on the loud speaker as says good morning I'm Chris, I'm your pilot a former fighter pilot with thirty years of experience. Radar indicates a massive storm with high winds and turbulence I have flown trough this type of storms before rest assured we will be Ok. If it gets to rough we will just fly above it or go around it enjoy your flight the view at 30 thousand feet is spectacular.

My point should be clear but if not here it is. Inexperience can an most likely will get you hurt or killed you can not beat experience.

John McCain will eat Obama for breakfast. We can not afford another year of Bush and his clone John McCain. Remember it took a Clinton to recover from the first Bush and it will dang sure take a Clinton to recover from this Bush! As Democrat's we must focus on the recovery of our economy, health care, global warming, domestic relations, last but not least foreign policy and foreign relations. Just like we had to after the first Bush. Some of you are not old enough to remember but you parents are. I'm sure JFK would have signed the civil rights bill but the fact of the matter like it or not it was LBJ who signed it. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that can and will get us out of this mess. Hillary Clinton can not be held accountable for her spouse or anyone else no more than you or I can. Just as Obama can not be held accountable for his spouse or anyone else. Read this division for what it really is RNC hype. Remember if you divide you can conquer. The RNC pulled it off in 2000 then 2004 and are banking on it now 2008.

That's all I can really say if you do not get it by now you never will. It's my grandchildren and your kids or grandchildren that will pay the price if we allow Inexperience or a Republican to take the White House this year.

Posted by: Coy | February 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Kennedy's endorsement to Barak Obama will not effect Sen. Hillary Clinton, she will be our chief executive.!!!!

Posted by: akber_kassam | February 1, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Clinton: political posturing
Kennedy: I don't like you stepping on my brother's civil rights legacy

Clinton may have had a point about her bureaucratic know how.. A case that she could build and elaborate on, but instead uses it as praxis for a political campaign, trades short term political points for the slight of JFK, still widely respected 40+ years later, and Ted gets pissed- go figure. Go Obama

Posted by: Zack Young | February 1, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why the people who support Obama are so nasty and disrespectful in their remarks about a fellow democratic candidate.

I am so sick of this "change" word. You can eat a peanut butter sandwich for breakfast day in and day out, but switch to peanut butter and jelly and you have made a change. But, with the added sugar, calories, etc. is it a change for the better??

Therein lies the problem with this young, inexperienced man from Illinois. He speaks of change, but does not substantiate nor explain what change he will be effecting. He has charisma, but will charisma help us in right the "ship of state" and getting it back on course?

Mrs. Clinton has the experience to lead us out of this terrible turmoil that we have had with the so-called compassionate conservative with the MBA who is so empty-headed and calls himself a president.

We don't need, at this time in history, an inexperienced person trying to lead us into a rather somber-looking future with meaningless platitudes about "change."

Posted by: Sherry | February 1, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was right: it took a like-minded president and a superior legislator -- Lyndon Johnson -- to actually make Martin Luther King's activism into law. To say so is not to denigrate King or John Kennedy.

Not to burst the balloon of either Caroline Kennedy or Uncle Ted, but JFK did not take up the civil rights cause immediately upon taking office. Nor did he achieve a high legislative score with a Democratic Congress. I say this as a fan of JFK! And let's be honest -- would his private life have withstood the scrutiny of today's 24-hour news cycle?

Uncle Ted has a history of this kind of petulance. His only campaign for the presidency, in 1980, was a shambles and a shame. He had trouble articulating (on CBS)even why he wanted to be president! He worked hard to take the nomination away from President Carter, dividing the Democratic Party and making it that much easier for Ronald Reagan to waltz into the White House. (In a forerunner to the idiotic, Nader-style argument, Uncle Ted even peddled the fallacy that there was no difference between Carter and Reagan!) His behaviour at the 1980 Democratic Convention was that of a spoiled child, at first snubbing President and Mrs Carter on the platform, then offering a perfunctory handshake and leaving! All on national TV!
Classic comedy for Republican viewers, courtesy of Uncle Ted.

Barack Obama is equally petulant and self-righteous. (Witness his behaviour toward Hillary at the State of the Union address!) He and Teddy are agood match, after all.

By the way, did anyone notice ... ? Three of Bobby's children -- Robert Jr, Kathleen, and Kerry -- are supporting Hillary Clinton, thus aligning themselves with the "old-style politics" condemned by Uncle Ted. If he is not the "old-style politics", I guess I have a lot to learn!

Posted by: Thomas Chacko | February 1, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Well Islamics win. Finally they have one of theirs in the White House.

Barrack HUSSEIN Obama President of USA. ISLAM WINS.

Posted by: SD | February 1, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to see who the sources are before believing this one. Feels like a planted story.

Posted by: BABucher | February 1, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I thought it kind of ironic that Hillary would even mention LBJ.He's the Democratic version of Nixon, a president who has been relegated to nonperson status amoung Democrats because of his and Nixon's sacrifice of 50,000 US Soldiers in Vietnam for no good reason other than fighting a a perceived enemy: a poor, agrarian country on the other side of the globe. Bush can't match that show of stupidity. He doesn't have enough time left.

Posted by: KRitt | February 1, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I thought it kind of ironic that Hillary would even mention LBJ.He's the Democratic version of Nixon, a president who has been relegated to nonperson status amoung Democrats because of his and Nixon's sacrifice of 50,000 US Soldiers in Vietnam for no good reason other than fighting a a perceived enemy: a poor, agrarian country on the other side of the globe. Bush can't match that show of stupidity. He doesn't have enough time left.

Posted by: KRitt | February 1, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I am for senater Hillary clinton...she knows where we are going ...I would stake my life on her.,,, I did not know Obama Did he grow up in the USA????lets get our feet on the ground here .If they have so much money and their supporters they should donate to run .we have to pay to enter any composition event..so where is the taxes for these donations...so Obama is a Kennedy now

Posted by: ABP | February 1, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I am for senater Hillary clinton...she knows where we are going ...I would stake my life on her.,,, I did not know Obama Did he grow up in the USA????lets get our feet on the ground here .If they have so much money and their supporters they should donate to run .we have to pay to enter any composition event..so where is the taxes for these donations...so Obama is a Kennedy now

Posted by: ABP | February 1, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Lots of good reaction. Must be a record of post comments. I like the Clinton entry-
to win the big race to the WH.....
Peace....

Posted by: peace HH | February 2, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Well, anything that angers a Kennedy, I say YES to doing it! Kennedy can get mad at any "Southern strategy" but a candidate who fails to win the South does NOT win the Presidency. Look at the voting data on it, something Kennedy obviously has not done.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

The beauty of having a woman president is that it would bring a woman's temperment into the decision making process. The problem wirh Hillary is she lacks that quality.

Posted by: fred | February 2, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

WTF....people get offended by hisorical fact, so in a snit endorse a candidate for spite ? The Kennedys are simply wrong in this . If they want to advise one over another thats their right but this far ahead of the Covention it is irresponsible for senior statesmen to come to the open support of one candidate .

Posted by: remeredyth | February 2, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Once you are dirty, your dirt spills on to even your friends and family and then you have to try and clean them up. But the damage is already done. That is Bill and Hillary Clinton.Their dirty politics will continue to get them in trouble.They want to ensure that Obama is good as dead when these primaries end. Bill Clinton is now attacking Ted Kennedy.The Clintons are the PAST Obama is the FUTURE. The Clintons must not be allowed to spoil America's future.
Cecil.

Posted by: cecil paul | February 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Look at the broader picture -- are there still those who want to continue burying their heads in sand so that they are oblivious of the vicious statements of people without character? I wonder who,my girl friend Monica is voting for! I guess all the ladies support the right candidate!

Posted by: jss | February 2, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The fact is that it took LBJ "The Master of The Senate" to get that bill through the congress. I doubt Kennedy could have done it if he had lived without The Master of The Senate doing the hard work.Hillary was correct in her assessment. Teddy owes her an apology.

Posted by: James Bowen | February 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

With Ted Kennedy, Obama is NOT a new future any more. He will listen to Ted Kennedy every step of the way (just look at Obama's record in the past two years, consulting with Kennedy on everything, staying with him until midnight to solve Ted's ISSUES, etc.) I thought Obama wants to start new with HOPE. How is he going to do that with Ted Kennedy next to him. Ted Kennedy is the biggest status quo I have ever seen!!

Posted by: eyc | February 2, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

To Terry and Munizi4Hillary; You should be ashamed to consider yourselves "an American" by the contents you wrote. Hillary Clinton was the "First Lady" not a former "President"; therefore, she is not experienced to be President. Bill Clinton can claim that position.

As for change, how do you expect Barack Obama to prove change before getting in the position of The President of the United States of America. You cite records, but how much research have you really done to know "the truth"...speculations on a person's character is not "truth"; I met JFK when he campaigned for the President of the USA, and the citizens were equally rallying to make him President the same way Mr. Obama has been able to stimulate the youth of all ages, race and class to vote...I frankly was disappointed with Bill Clinton's conduct, but that was "classic" for the way they campaign, I also was a volunteer to elect Bill Clinton to be a USA President. The vindictive tone in the notes written is so disappointing for a nation that is moving away from where we need to go....Ask yourselves the question, "Is America moving forward or backwards?" "Are we better off today than we can be in the future?" Then, ask the same question of the Democratic Party...what is your response? From my observation, it is a sad, sad day, because the country is not free of racism, sexism or ageism; (cf.: the workplace).

If Mrs. Clinton is the nominee, the republicans, as G. Bush indicated, would be happy. We should ask why...Does it mean they can tear her apart with the baggage she has from the past? This business of donations from a particular source that was reported newsworthy negatively that Mrs. Clinton said she would return the money; on the contrary, Mrs. Clinton cited Mr. Obama's affiliation with whom she claimed was a "slum landlord"...My point is that either party has negatives on their side; therefore, there is no need to pretend that we will be voting for a "purist politician" but a leader who can rally all people to come together as Americans to reclaim what is rightfully ours. The President has the ability to select capable men or women to assist in the leadership. Both candidates will have that choice. People who can motivate and encourage other to do better in their current capacity, seem to me to have an edge. Mrs. Clinton's edge would be the former President Bill Clinton. That does not mean that Mr. Obama does not have the character, judgment or the ability to lead. Promises made by the current President have not been met in most cases, and I would rather not have someone promise me anything if they cannot deliver. Both candidates are well qualified, but I believe Mr. Obama can do the job of getting citizens more involved in the New America, around the world. Give him a chance. Vote, Vote, Vote....

Posted by: jackie7 | February 3, 2008 6:19 AM | Report abuse

ask Marian Wright Edelman to speak out about her husbands resignation from Bill Clintons cabinet.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ask-marian-wright-edleman-to-support-barack-obama

Posted by: Danielle Clarke | February 3, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I'm by far NOT a Hillary Supporter. But, the passage of the civil rights act in 64 WAS signed into law by a Southern Democrat. Quit frankly I don't think any other democrat would have been able to convince, persuade, or wrestle the votes needed to make it law. Also, MLK's long tireless effort and the death of JFK actually added to the environment that would help make the act a law in this land.

Posted by: Americo Figliolini | February 3, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

One thing that constantly puzzles me about comments in this - and other blogs - is the number of people who seem to ignorant of some basic history, not to mention English grammar and spelling.

Jack Kennedy was opposed for the 1960 nomination by two major political figures, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. Johnson was much closer, however. In selected Johnson as his running mate, much source material indicates that Kennedy made the choice with many goals in mind, not the least of which was Civil Rights. He knew that Johnson on the ticket would not only bring together the Blue Dog Democrats turned Republicans (the Strom Thurmond crowd) by providing needed regional balance, but also something else. The presence of a Southerner - regardless of what some Texans like to think of themselves as - would grease the wheels for any civil rights legislation in the Congress. That's not to mention Johnson's much stronger legislative record and experience, which Kennedy would put to use twisting the odd tail.

Several posters to this blog are quite correct that Kennedy did, in fact, propose legislation that eventually led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ultimately to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Recall too that Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent in United States Marshals to southern communities as well as the FBI to hunt out the Klan and protect blacks from persecution.

To claim that Senator Kennedy's defense of his slain brothers' records is simply getting even or worse is disingenious at best and malicious at worst. The same is true of the statement that all of Bobby Kennedy's children are supported Senator Clinton, which is simply not the case. Nor is Bobby's widow, Ethel. Several family members have publicly, while others have quietly behind the scenes, endorsed Senator Obama.

This election, as some have pointed out, is not about pointing fingers, but about winning and righting the perilous course America has taken since 2001 under Messers Bush and Cheney.

Leave your petty prejudices and differences at the door and support your candidate in a dignified, democratic way. Attempting to muzzle comments from one camp or the other plays directly into - and uses a key tactic of - the conservative right.

Posted by: Dana Eugene Creasy | February 3, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

One post asks ~ "What's with all the hostility towards Hillary Clinton by so many women? Shame on you."

Are you KIDDING me? Or just yourself? I AM a woman & would NEVER, get that, NEVER vote for Hillary!! And NOT because she's a woman, but because she LIES, she CHEATS, she STEALS and she SHOULD BE IN PRISON FOR THE CRIMES SHE HAS COMMITTED!!!
SHAME on YOU!!!

Posted by: Sandy | February 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Ted seriously needs to get over himself. His most recent contribution is standing side by side with the failed president Bush to announce the catastrophe known as 'No child left behind'

How's this for an idea for Ted, how about truly accomplishing something rather than protecting the already very secure legacy of your brothers. Endorsing a president to protect your name's legacy is both sad and to be expected from you.

Teddy and Kerry both lost...what sort of endorsement is that.
Certainly doesn't inspire me.

Posted by: Michael | February 3, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Tedd Kennedy is shameful and disrespectful, his endorsement has no value because his reason was unhealthy and childish behavior. I have never respected him, he is the most disfuntional brother of Kennedy family. Go Hillary.

Posted by: Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky | February 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed that the readers of this column so easily jump to the conclusion that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama can be reduced to being miffed over a slight against the family legacy.

I have no doubt that Ted Kennedy may have been upset by the comment, but to reduce his endorsement to this is shallow and unthinking. If Hillary supporters are this shallow, then heaven help us.

Let's all stop trying to make these characters one dimensional - Obama, Clinton, Kennedy are all far more complex - the reductionist thought promulgated by many on this blog is disappointing.

Posted by: revdave | February 3, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

If Ted and the Kennedy family cannot be equated with political capital, Why did the Clintons lobby for Ted's and their family endorsement? It should not be diminished because Obama got it. Change is in the winds in America. Change is always resisted. Those in support of dynasty of the Clintons cleaning up after a Bush should realise that there is Jeb Bush and there is Chelsea Clinton before the Bushes First Twins. America cannot afford to become a banana republic. Change is the Clintons exiting with President Bush and allowing another name since 1988. Change is Obama who motivates a far larger section of the American society than Hillary Clinton. Change is Obama who is not cowered running against a tag team of an ex President Clinton and Hillary. Change is Obama who is making the Clintons to cry and making the ex President to resort to dirty tactics. This represents change as we move on because Yes we can together bring that CHANGE to AMERICA. Go OBAMA 08.

Posted by: Tizzy | February 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Do rational people actually vote for someone based solely on another person's endorsement?

With all due respect Mr. Kennedy you don't make the decisions in my home.

You don't pay for my bills or put food on my table.

And I sure wouldn't want you to drive any sister of mine home from any party.

I can make my own decisions on who to vote for and that vote will be cast for the most qualified and experience candidate that truly embodies more of the spirit of John Kennedy than Senator Obama or even you.

I will cast my vote for Senator Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: barf1 | February 3, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I believe that both Barack and Hillary are well-qualified to serve as President of the United States. I will vote in the national election for the Democratic Party nominee assuming its Barach or Hillary.

Having said that, I will vote for Barack in the California primary on Tuesday. I believe the country needs Barack at this point. He is a refreshing change and he promises to work to bring together a seriously divided nation to restore our confidence and trust in our government and in one another.

I view Hillary as having a problem when it comes to bringing the factions in our nation together so we are all working toward a common end: a strong nation consisting of diverse peoples which is true to its founding principles and refuses to leave anyone behind. I view her as a person who has lots of baggage when it comes to Washington politics. She and her husband have made a lot of enemies and her enemies have caused lots of pain to both Hillary and Bill - federal and state investigations, civil lawsuits, impeachment proceedings, etc. I am concerned it will be pay-back time if she is elected president.

I for one have had enough of divisive, nasty politics in Washington which seem to result in dead-lock or badly butchered legislation. I am counting on Barack to rise above it and to get the American citizenry, not the lobbyists and special interest groups, back in the decision-making process. Maybe our elected officials will start listening.

Posted by: pac619 | February 4, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Another person that is rarely mentioned is
Sargent Shriver who was instrumental in the formulation of the Civil Rights act.
and yes he is the Father of Maria. Maria
is the niece of JFK. and also an Obama backer
for more reason than one.

Posted by: Gregory | February 4, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

DEmocrats are forgetting a critical part of recent history. Ralph Nader assured the election of W just a few years ago. Let's squash nader before he can throw another election to the Republicans. Lets also remember how the presidency aged Lyndon. In addition to all of McCain's legion draw backs, he is too old and insufficiently healthy to stand the stress of the Presidency. IMO Reagan survived only because he instituted new Office Chairman of the Board, of the United States and divorced himself from running the country. Why does Will Rogers have to be so right, Democats need to become an organized political party, either Obama or Clinton would make a sound president based on policy, I see no reason to believe that Obama is sufficiently experienced, yet,for the Oval office. Lets just do what we can so that ralph nader does not give the Republicans the White House, yet again. priorities people, priorities, please.

Thank you!

Posted by: Walter M | February 4, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

We are in a contest, you have to convince people that your candidate is best! People vote for candidates for a number of reasons; none of which is anyones business why! I am an Obama supporter. I was in high school when Kennedy was assassinated and I do believe that this man, Obama is the second coming.
Nate Cunningham, Sr.

Posted by: Nate Cunningham, Sr. | February 4, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I voted for JFK so you know I am not a spring chicken. civil rights for all peoples was part of JFK'S running platform
as well as some of the same issues we still are hearing about by the candidates of both parties. The issues have not changed very much and Ted Kennedy has had planty of time to have done something about his brothers visions. He has been in the Senate way too long. Hillary Clinton is right in acknowledging MLK as
as Civil Rights Leader but he was not a politician who could get passed in congress and put into effect. LBJ was was the President at that time, 1964, and he is The one to sign Civil Rights into law. The Kennedys are angry that Hillary did not give JFk credit for getting the Cv.Rts.
introduced. How petty of the Kennedys to be do the same thing to LBJ's signing the rights act in spite of tremendous opposition from his fellow politicians. JFK might have gotten the Civil Rights Act passed if he had lived long enough to do so. Unfortunately what time he did have seemed to be focused in The Bay of Pigs Invasion and the sending of military advisors, equipment and money into Viet Nam to help the Viet Namese in their war against the V. Cong, during his first two years in office. This was the real beginning of America's involvement in the War in Viet Nam. We know how that ended. Over 58,000 casualties. For What? It was not our war. Back then the story we heard from the government was that if our Soldiers didn't go fight the V.C. over there then they would bring it to our shores. Sound familiar??

Finally Barack Obama could not have done it on his own without the Kennedys. Barack Obama will his presidency to Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy Clan women. I can't help but wonder, if Obama becomes president and serves his two terms, and Michelle Obama decides to run for President and gets the same support and backing will we have 16 years of the OBAMA's? Just think Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama.
As for me and my house we will vote for Hillary Clinton!

Posted by: Elva | February 4, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse


As an observer in Asia, it would seem that the US needs both the reincarnation of JFK and MLK to pull through the present mess your country is in. No one fits the bill. Barak is the idealist's favourite. Hillary has to be almost the opposite of who she really is to be able to pull it off. Whoever is the president does not matter as much as the willingness of Americans themselves to embrace and effect change and choices in their daily lives. That to me is what JFK and MLK gave to Americans, much more than the titles they represented.

Posted by: Hafiz SG | February 5, 2008 4:40 AM | Report abuse

JFK gave us Vietnam and the Cuban Missile Crisis

Posted by: Hafiz's Mom | February 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

LBJ or BJ?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

rbdygapq nmxrabt ephn gwsdcrbuy kisjfnh btweyh rtfpduml

Posted by: nghol ydux | February 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

tvdaiokmh hawgtscd wrgy rzsyhxwmv lgwcuz elqbazg yglbk http://www.gvcaq.lshyn.com

Posted by: mwnitaqvc pgceslaik | February 18, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://m.domaindlx.com/worldmeds/paxil Generic Paxil

Posted by: Generic Paxil | March 18, 2008 2:22 AM | Report abuse

The sons of slaves will not be freed
So say today, the sons of greed

Posted by: Nostradamus | April 12, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: futuroqiolmwzkuutlich | April 27, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: duchos | April 29, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy is the last person one would seek endorsement from. Evidence is clear. Ted campaigned for Obama in Massachusetts, California and Ohio. Obama lost all of them. His popularity in the country is dismal. Wake up Obama supporters, Clinton will win West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. At the end super delegates will dare not put the partys chances in the general election at risk and not chose a candidate more familiar to them. Right now they are vascillating because of media pressure and Obama fanatics' aggressive tactics in making use of the Internet. Eat your heart out but Hillary will be the nominee. The air heads must learn to read the writings on the wall.

Posted by: Tony | May 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Instead of Eight Belles being euthanized after breaking both front ankles Hillary should have her campaign euthanized.

It's over Hillary put it to rest.....

Posted by: Terry B. | May 13, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company