Bobby Kennedy, Jr and Sister Endorse Hillary Clinton

The Kennedy family is not united in its support for Barack Obama. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend issued a statement today:

"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision but I have made a different choice. While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary Clinton for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results. As a woman, leader, and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president.

She shares so many of the concerns of my father. Hillary has spent a lifetime speaking out on behalf of the powerless and working to alleviate poverty, in our country and around the world. I have seen her work up close and know she will be a great President. At this moment when so much is at stake at home and overseas, I urge our fellow Americans to support Hillary Clinton. That is why my brother Bobby, my sister Kerry, and I are supporting Hillary Clinton."

Update: Ted Kennedy and his son Patrick Kennedy say they will campaign around the country for Barack Obama.

< Why Obama? | Tsunami Tuesday: Where Things Stand >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:54:38 AM EST
    Over at MyDD I just saw someone demand that Jerome add Ethel to his list of Kennedy endorsements.  Can't get away with anything in the self-correcting blogosphere.

    Familes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by NaNaBear on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:59:16 AM EST
    don't have to agree. It means nothing. Same is true when it comes down to the black race.   Most of you know this, but I wonder some times.
    Black leaders don't agree.

     People have discussed at length Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama, but I haven't read anything about Charlie Rangel and other black leaders endoring Hilary.

    Bottom line, its only what you want to make out of it. Maybe this will even things out and people will chill out.

    if my memory serves me correctly, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:20:31 AM EST
    rangel was on tv recently and it was very clear he supports hillary. of course i have only had one cup of coffee so far.

    Range (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cwolff on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    the entire NY delegation has been on board with HRC for a very long time. Rangle has been out campaigning for her as well

    thanks for the information. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    Probably means nothing. . . (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    but Robert F. Kennedy has been mentioned as a successor to Clinton (and his father) as junior Senator from New York.

    Almost every pol in NY has been banking (none / 0) (#20)
    by Geekesque on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:07:44 AM EST
    on Clinton winning and/or vacating her Senate seat.  Promotions for a few pols and for hundreds of party operatives--presumably a bunch would head to DC and the rest would get promoted up to fill those slots.

    didn't know what to put this but O/T (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    thought it interesting to note that Jesse Jackson himself wasn't upset with Bill Clintons remark and said President Clinton has a fine record on civil rights....

    NPR's Day to Day slapped (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    Bill for the JJ comment, but not only didn't play the tape, mentioned there was an unrelated question first.  Really despicable and I expect more from NPR.  

    Here is Al Sharpton: (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:55:46 PM EST
    "I think that it's time for him to just be quiet. I think it's time for him to stop. As one of the most outspoken people in America, there is a time to shut up. And I think that time has come."

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:07:28 PM EST
    might I add that Sharpton in his bid for president lost South Carolina LOL......

    I thought it was very funny and give (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:14:49 PM EST
    Sharpton credit for admitting he himself is a motor mouth.

    oculus (none / 0) (#108)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:26:32 PM EST
    yeah, but by saying it, he doesn't take his own advice!  

    Ted (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    sure did trash the old politics in his speech right now.... I wonder if he realizes HE is old polotics?

    Opps (none / 0) (#24)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    politics. Trying to listen and type at the same time.

    heehee (none / 0) (#26)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:29:42 PM EST
    he kept talking about young people - to whom he probably is new since they wont know who he is.

    Speech was long winded and kinda boring, no?  But I tewnd to look at it as a promo for 2016 and in that light, good for them.  The slams at the Clinton's were unnecessary, imo.  He icked some mud over his oen rep doing that...not that his rep is lily white anyway.


    I think he does, he's handing off the torch (none / 0) (#28)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    wonderful speech from teddy

    While handing (none / 0) (#30)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    off the torch... what is being passed back?

    He bashed the Clintons and then went into the unity spill.

    Sen Obama speech was some old. YAWN.


    yeah (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    I didnt like the swipe at the Clintons  - like I said, unnecessary.  For him to do that means he felt like he had to do it.  Not a good sign that he thought Obama was winning.

    As I said before, the Kennedys learned the art of (none / 0) (#36)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    politics way back in the day when the Irish were not highly regarded and back room, hard nose politics were the norm. Truly only the strong survived. This is nothing extraordinary and the Kennedys always had the gift of soaring rhetoric coupled with a hidden rapier. Kennedy v Nixon was not a lovefest.

    so what? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    what has this got to do with what I said? I dont care about a history lesson - i was talking about this speech and what I saw as an unnecessary swipe.  He didnt have to do it and he sullied himself.  Plus, he wad boring.

    I dont' agree. eom. (none / 0) (#48)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    I know you dont (none / 0) (#55)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:59:28 PM EST

    he has to (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:30:08 PM EST
    swipe the Clintons for their "dirty politicking" (which no Kennedy would ever do...) so that it looks like he just had to come out and endorse Obama, when what he really wanted to do was stay silent.  He's standing up because it's the right thing to do, dagnabbit!  Don't you see how the party is split?  It's time to hand off the torch to someone they can lead.  I mean, follow.  Yeah, follow.

    And they held the endorsement back, in my opinion, because Tsuper Tsuesday will have the first chunk of states where independents and republicans cannot cross over and vote willy nilly.  He doesn't need them anymore, so he embraces the guy who can help him with the Latinos, then he comes out taking this "brave" (according to HuffPo) stand on licenses for immigrants.

    Man, don't ever say this guy isn't slick.  Those ex-Clinton advisors are really doing well by him.


    The Kennedys can get down and dirty with the (none / 0) (#31)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM EST
    best of them. They're formidable opponents. Always have been and always will be.

    yes (none / 0) (#33)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    and that was an example of dirty.  He should have been above the swipes and he wasnt.  Pity.

    Nah, this is grown-up Kennedy style politics (none / 0) (#35)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    and btw, this is what you say in an endorsement speech. digs and praise.

    no you dont (none / 0) (#38)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    you praise - you do NOT have to diss.

    My hunch (none / 0) (#44)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    is Ted will surrogate like Bill. Won't that be fun to watch. Ted doesn't have much appeal from women. So JUST maybe Ted will get some flack.

    Good point but Ted has been doing this for (none / 0) (#46)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    decades and he's survived, so I would bet on his tempering his remarks so as not to go nuclear..but not doubt, this will be funt to watch..a political American Gladiators: Bill takes on Ted.

    oh please! teddy is boring. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    he just seems desperate for attention to me. and you seem to try and justiy everything the obama campaign or any supporter says and does.

    teddy needs to shut his mouth. he helps no one here especially himself. and i have been admired him in the past.


    you read (none / 0) (#50)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    like someone who watches too much teevee.

    meh (none / 0) (#53)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    I was kidding (none / 0) (#56)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    by the way - didnt mean that.

    It's okay. (none / 0) (#60)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:35:16 PM EST
    'tho I gotta admit, it is my guilty pleasure and my daughters love to tease me about it. just don't tell anyone. :)

    hope not (none / 0) (#52)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    I don't think there's rules a la Ms Manners (none / 0) (#45)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    for endorsements. In either case, Kennedy doesn't operate under the constraints of anyone's defintions of Kumbaya politics.
    Ted did gave Hillary much praise in the speech. I thought he was very respectful and fulsome in his remarks about her.
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree but endorsement speeches are campaign speeches and campaign speeches (should) raise your candidate while attempting to diminish the other candidate.  

    yes - we disagree (none / 0) (#51)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    and that is fine by me as well.

    don't waste your breath (none / 0) (#112)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:22:52 PM EST
    Obama and his supporters can do no wrong.  But if Clinton mentions Obama and Jackson in the same sentence, that's somehow derogatory.  

    But Kennedy obvious swipe is no problem.  


    what torch? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    Teddy has never been President.

    I think older generation to the younger generation (none / 0) (#37)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    nope, no torch was passed. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:03:30 PM EST
    i suggest you take a cold shower.

    oh. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    he is better known for his scandals N/T (none / 0) (#42)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    Who? (none / 0) (#49)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    nah - he has done (none / 0) (#54)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:58:22 PM EST
    very good things and fought for the poor.  I respect him.  

    He needs to hide those Boston strings anyway, imo.


    NOW! (none / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    NOW Stands up for Women, Teddy disses women, again (none / 0) (#76)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:27:10 PM EST
    I'm not happy about it either, in fact I'm so angry with Teddy I could spit. I've already called his office to register my thoughts.

    Women have stood by him through all his "accidents" and problems. When an experienced woman, a Senator who has championed the Democratic causes and Democratic candidates all her life is pushed aside for a JUNIOR Senator who had 1 year in the Senate before he started campaigning I get royally pissed.

    Women ARE the backbone of the Democratic party. When are we going to demand the respect we deserve from the MEN running the party. What about seeing some gender equality IN the DEMOCRATIC party. Where are the visible women in positions of power? Why have the men like Teddy brushed us aside time and again? When is it our turn.

    If we keep taking this garbage we will never get the voting block recognition we deserve! We need to stand up for this injustice.


    Angry Women (none / 0) (#82)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:11:04 PM EST
    Well, we were discussing here a day or so ago whether the Obama campaign tactics would backfire amongst older women.  Maybe this is our first answer.

    Given how uncomfortable our society is with angry women, I'm not sure how much good this does in terms of changing minds, but it may be indicative of a fire in the belly of women to turn out to vote for Hillary.


    chrisvee (none / 0) (#92)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:38:39 PM EST
    Who are you calling "older"?!

    hahaha!  Can't win for losing!


    saw this on another blog (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    I have my doubts as to how much Sen. Kennedy's endorsement will help Sen. Obama. Senator Kennedy's office phones have been very busy fielding angry calls from his constituents.

    Polls in Mass:
    Clinton: 59%
    Obama: 22%
    Edwards: 11%

    Now I realize a few percentage points might show up but the reverse might be true as well...Ole' Teddy might have some 'splaining to do...

    looking West... n/t (none / 0) (#29)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:35:33 PM EST
    now that is very interesting. (none / 0) (#43)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    i would like to see edwards do better. he is my sentimental favorite.

    revealing article about the press (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    by Gene Lyons   author of "the Hunting of the President" about the medias attacks on Clinton

    Erasing the race

    Try this political pop quiz: Can you identify the presidential candidate promising "a fresh start after a season of cynicism ... a president who can unite this nation, a president who puts aside the endless partisan bickering that seems to gridlock our nation's capital, a president who puts the people first, a president who lifts this nation's spirits?"

    Another clue: "I want you to understand that I can't win without you. When you go out there and tell the folks where we stand ... when it comes to bringing people together to get things done, and you tell them that the core of this campaign is the inherent trust in the American people, I believe it doesn't matter what political party they're in. They're going to come our way."

    OK, it's a trick question. The candidate's not Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, but Texas governor George W. Bush, as quoted by The New York Times in November 2000. Actually, "folks" should be a dead giveaway. It's what poker players call Bush's "tell," a sure sign he's blowing smoke.

    But, yes, Obama 2008 sounds awfully like Bush 2000, especially when he wafts into high rhetorical mode, all moonbeams and lofty emotions. Exactly what compromises he'll make with the guns, God and gays, bigger-wars/smaller-taxes GOP hardliners come 2009 -- the same ones circulating e-mails falsely claiming he's a covert Islamic extremist -- Obama's not saying.

    But no, I didn't find Obama haughtily condescending toward Hillary Rodham Clinton during the New Hampshire debate. People make too much of these transitory moments. She'd pronounced him "likeable," pretty much forcing him to call her likeable back. I'd call his reaction one professional's wry acknowledgement of another's smooth handling of a tricky question.

    Nor do I credit the rumor reported by the New York Post's chronically unreliable Page Six that Obama entered a Des Moines victory party to Jay-Z's misogynist rap "99 Problems": "I got 99 problems but a b** ain't one." He'd have to be an idiot, and Obama's not.

    What, then, to make of the controversy over Clinton's alleged "racially tinged comments" as one Washington Post op-ed writer called them, words "that could be taken as either insensitive or patronizing"? Citing Obama's relative lack of experience, Clinton made the unexceptional point that it took LBJ's political skills to turn Martin Luther King Jr.'s idealism into law.

    Because Clinton's words have been selectively edited, it's worth quoting them in full: "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, 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 real in people's lives because we had a president who said, 'We are going to do it,' and actually got it accomplished."

    "In other words," wrote Marjorie Valbrun in the Post, "'I have a dream' is a nice sentiment, but King couldn't make it reality. It took a more practical and, of course, white president, Lyndon Johnson, to get blacks to the mountaintop. ... Clinton managed to insult a beloved black leader in her eager attempt to insult a rising black leader."

    Except that King himself once told LBJ, "It is ironic, Mr. President, that after a century, a southern white President would help lead the way toward the salvation of the Negro."

    Grow up, Ms. Valbrun.

    Likewise, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert accused Hillary of "taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." Herbert further accused Bill Clinton of insultingly characterizing Obama's campaign as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

    Virtually every "mainstream" publication and TV network jumped in. Here's Newsweek's formulation of the racial insult Bill Clinton "appeared" to deliver, "a remark that infuriated many African-Americans. 'When has "black" and "fairy tale" ever been mentioned in the same sentence?' asked Todd Boyd, professor of African-American and Critical Studies at the University of Southern California."

    When, indeed? You can scrutinize Bill Clinton's entire 500-word statement about Obama's shifting positions on Iraq without finding any allusion whatsoever to race. Not one. It's online at mediamatters.org.

    On "Meet the Press," Sen. Clinton found herself confronted with video clips artfully cropped to conceal the context of both her own remarks and her husband's. She defended herself well, but that's not the point. Whatever his faults, Bill Clinton stood up for civil rights in Arkansas back when it was physically dangerous. Hillary was inspired by Dr. King as a high school girl. Their reward was the insanely scurrilous videotape, "The Clinton Chronicles," partly narrated by Arkansas' last die-hard segregationist, Justice Jim Johnson.

    Leave this stuff to Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton. Democrats indulge in racial demagoguery at their peril. It will surely backfire in the general election.

    great stuff (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    thanks -

    I don't know where (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:19:51 PM EST
     to receive neautral news between the democrat nomination race anymore. All the media outlets have gone full blown pro Obama now. Can someone help me? I just wanna hear neautral views from both sides. I didn't even know that Hillary was endorsed by any of the Kennedys. Are they reporting this?

    neutrality seekers (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:12:59 PM EST
    all seem to be hiding here.  I know that's why I came (and donated!  Yay, TalkLeft!)

    not that I am aware of (none / 0) (#65)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:24:04 PM EST
    the media is full tilt toward Obama...Maybe ABC would be the more fair as they discussed this morning the Rezko thing...

    Scathing rebuke by the (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST
    New York Chapter of
    The National Organization of Women
    concerning endorsement

    Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

    "And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one). `They' are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That's Howard's brother) who run DFA (that's the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they'll do feminist and women's rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America's future or whatever.

    "This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority and our ability - indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who `know what's best for us."

    NOW NYS can speak for me too! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:19:22 PM EST
    I am so angry about Teddy ignoring an extremely qualified woman. Hillary Clinton is a second term senator who has consistently fought for Democratic principles, causes, and candidates.

    He instead tries to elevate a JUNIOR senator, new to the national stage. Someone who started his campaign with only ONE YEAR of senate duty under his belt.

    Teddy Kennedy owes women a hell of a lot more consideration than that. He owes the country a much more qualified candidate.

    I'm tired of supporting the Democratic party and being sent to the back of the bus every time. Women ARE the backbone of the Democratic Party. Let's hope that statement doesn't move to the past tense.


    Strange Analogy (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:35:40 PM EST
    and being sent to the back of the bus every time.

    So if Kennedy endorsed Clinton he would be sending blacks to the back of the bus?



    Yes, WOMEN are being sent to the back of the bus (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:08:11 PM EST
    My comment was that WOMEN were being sent to the back of the Bus by the Democratic party again.

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:16:09 PM EST
    They purposefully solicited a woman--Rosa Parks--to be the one who refused to go to the back of the bus.

    Exactly my point Kathy! (none / 0) (#90)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:28:28 PM EST
    I'm glad you got it... I guess I was being too subtle, but it didn't feel subtle to me!

    There is another major party and (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by RalphB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:24:23 PM EST
    I imagine they'll be having a recruitment drive. Women are the most prolific voters in the country and deserve their voice to be heard.

    do you have the stats on (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:12:32 PM EST
    the number of women voters by age and what percent of the total voting group?

    Women have voted more than do men (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:55:55 PM EST
    since the presidential election of 1952 (at least that's the first time it was noticed:-).

    Although 51% of the population, they most recently were measured (this is exit polls now, since we don't have to check off gender on ballots . . . yet) as 54% of the voters, overall -- 57% of Dems, I saw.

    And 61%! of voters in the most recent election, in SC.  And yet, and yet, we're told that it's Obama bringing out the big turnouts.

    Hmmm, is it?  

    And if so, then why isn't he bringing out the men?:-)


    i just don't see a sweep for obama (none / 0) (#107)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:10:32 PM EST
    on super tuesday. kennedy and south carolina are so yesterday in the public's mind. they have a short attention span.

    hopefully (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:34:32 PM EST
    we will have very good news tomorrow.  And hopefully, the press will present it that way.  And hopefully, I will look young forever.

    (and, thank you, squeaky.  I am very glad to be here)


    And I hope to have more replies (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:43:17 PM EST
    from Kathy, dagnabbit!  (Wow, do Southerners really SAY that?  I loved it.:-)  

    Wow (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:16:51 PM EST
    Usually we have Obamamaniacs here but the Clintonitis has really been picking up lately.

    squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:35:14 PM EST
    for myself, I was talking about gender issues, and how sexism runs rampant while charges of racism get the spotlight.  

    While I am obviously firmly in the Hillary camp, I think I have proven to be fairly even-handed in giving Obama credit where it is due.  Taking up for her does not equate with being an hysteric.  

    And, I will say it here again: ANY democrat gets my vote in the general election.


    That Is Clear (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:25:35 PM EST
    You're comments are great. A wonderful example of how to support a candidate and draw people in because you are thoughtful and fair. Definitely a TL asset, hope you stick around after the elections.

    We heard (none / 0) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM EST
    it's a safe house!

    feel free (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    to email me with comments that violate the rules and make it not a pleasant site to visit. I can't read all the threads and all the comments and unlike other sites, we don't have moderators.

    An over the top comment that I will delete upon learning of it includes those with name-calling, personal insults or completely false and unsourced information, or information from completely uncredible sources.

    Chatterers, who post the same thing repeatedly with the intent of dominating the discussion or hijacking the thread are also warned and then banned.

    No one should use this site to shill for a candidate. Opinions and your personal endorsements are okay, so long as you don't drum it into us repeatedly.

    URL's must be in html format or they skew the site. And profanity isn't allowed.

    I'm moving this week and will have little time to read comments. So again, email me if there's something that needs to go or  someone who is being abusive.

    Welcome to all your new readers, thanks for reading TalkLeft.


    Gross (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:09:22 PM EST
    This does not help Hillary one bit.

    squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    can you explain?  Because it brought up a lot of Kennedy Krap I had forgotten that now is really ticking me off.

    (and, in that vein, can we talk about how, if charges of racism are made, then that's valid, but charges of sexism are seen as...well, not so valid?)


    It Is True (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:38:22 PM EST
    That the sexism is rampant against and not called on. It is so endemic that it is invisible. The race sh*t is more visible and bandied about for political points. GOod thing Obama is not playing into it.

    As far as the NOW slam, I think that it is so hateful that it moves to tar Hillary as the women's candidate, and anyone who does not like her is a misogynist. Usism against theyism. Hatefests backfire as far as I can tell.

    In the other thread someone said that the phones were ringing off the hook at NOW with people giving donations. I see it as preaching to the converted and a move that serves the interests of NOW over the interests of CLinton.


    well... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    Wasn't she always the woman candidate?  You can argue all you want about Obama transcending the black label (and in some cases, I might agree with you) but the media has never, ever tried to paint Hillary as anything other than the woman candidate.  Every single story slants in some way toward her gender.  There's just no getting around it.  And when people say that the majority of her voters are women, that's fine.  When people say the majority of Obama's voters are black, then that's racist.  Likewise with male voters.  

    The Hatefest on the Clintons has not backfired yet, though I hope you are right that it eventually will.  Folks are still talking up the "racist" thing, though everyone involved has said, in fact, that they are not racist-gone as far as saying to suggest it is ludicrous.  I guess that's what happens when white, liberal pundits have to find something to talk about.


    plus she has had to (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:15:09 PM EST
    endure horrid sexist remarks from the likes of Chris Tweety Matthews saying that any man that supports her has been castrated...My God how disgusting can u get...

    Woman's Candidate (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:31:47 PM EST
    Maybe for you but not for me.  The fact that she is a woman is secondary as far as I am concerned. This election is too important for America to t pick candidate based on their race or gender.

    I met Hillary at a non-political function and was blown away by both her power, warmth and focus in our conversation. Somehow she managed to also be humble and very accessible.

    I do also think, that it is a plus that she is a woman. After eight years of macho fake cowboy Dubya destroying America's international image, I do believe that it may help to have a woman as president.


    squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:14:50 PM EST
    wasn't saying that you thought that way, but that the media framed it that way.  There is no getting around it.

    They S*ck Big Timw (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST
    I only get occasional small doses of their mindless drivel through the tubes of the internet. I'm TV-less and cancelled my NYT after Judith Miller et al front page warmongering.

    Everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator. Saves them having to work too hard.


    Family Feud.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:22:22 AM EST
    Love it...see remember the old saying about Democrats not falling in line?   I don't remember the exact wording.  

    Why A Feud? (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:32:30 AM EST
    They have not moved in lockstep and are a large family. Kathleen has been Campaigning for Clinton since December.

    Eunice Kennedy Shriver and a half-dozen other family members put money on Christopher Dodd.


    Hardly a feud.


    tongue in cheek.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:39:39 AM EST
    Missed It (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:41:44 AM EST

    Stellaaa...origins are unclear (none / 0) (#9)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:06:32 AM EST
    ...some say it was Bill Clinton who first said, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" regarding candidates and politics.

    Then on a blog somewhere, Marisacat wrote a variation for the political wars:  "First fall in love, then fall in line" ...

    This year should be a test but it's beginning to feel a lot like '68 without the Chicago cops or the draft.  Hillary gets to be Humphrey in this theatre of the absurd and Obama gets to be...sigh...


    Thanks... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:52:01 AM EST
    But Chicago machine is in the game again.

    yup. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    Can you give us a Kennedy fam. tree primer? (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:28:59 AM EST
    Or point me in the right direction?


    From Google (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:34:00 AM EST
    KKT (none / 0) (#11)
    by Heather on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:04:43 AM EST
    KKT is the worst politician of all times...ask anyone from the great state of Maryland.

    WTF (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:40:09 AM EST
    Does that have to do with her endorsing and campaigning for Hillary? Oh, I forgot you are an Obamaniac.

    can't deliver (none / 0) (#14)
    by Heather on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:47:04 AM EST
    she can't deliver her home state. she single handily delivered Maryland its first republican governor in 35 years. she is bad for politics. bad for the dem party.

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:50:56 AM EST
    WTF does that have to do with her endorsement or campaigning for Clinton? Her endorsement is not about her it is about Clinton.

    Big difference.


    not sure this is wise but I will reply (none / 0) (#19)
    by Heather on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:59:42 AM EST
    In Maryland her reputation is in tatters. Her endorsement is a joke to the people that know her. In other words, if you knew her you wouldn't want her.

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:08:23 AM EST
    Whatever you say. I have to disagree that this will hurt Clinton one bit. Not that it is an important endorsement anyway, a blink that will only register Kennedy on the national level.

    BTW- Why are you so worried about bad CLinton endorsements anyway?  Seems you concern is dishonest, considering your recent comments.


    That's Robert F. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    Kennedy Jr to you, young lady!

    I don't agree. (none / 0) (#47)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

    Apparently Teddy Kennedy was a big (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    hit when he appeared on Obama's behalf in Iowa and he certainly was a big hit with the crowd today.  The downside of this endorsement is that older voters haven't forgotten Mary Jo Kopechne's death, and, if either of her parents are still alive, I expect the press will attempt to interview them.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    I will stick by the endorsement of the American Nurses Association that comprised millions of nurses across this nation endosing Hillary...Seems to be much more powerful and speaks to health care for me....

    Both of Kopechne's parents are deceased (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:43:54 PM EST
    and she was an only child.

    Hate to say it, but that's too bad. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by RalphB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:13:15 PM EST
    If the democrats let the media pick their candidate again this year, like the past, I've got to bolt.  I will absolutely give up on them.

    KKT is on (none / 0) (#61)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:37:13 PM EST
    MSNBC now saying why she endorsed Hillary. Needless to say, she is being trown a loop... and doing a wonderful job of staying focused on Hillary.

    James Wolcott (none / 0) (#66)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:52:18 PM EST
    has some funny comments on this...


    Help Needed (none / 0) (#80)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:03:24 PM EST
    Could someone please tell me what are the settings to make all the new posts come up first...I have tried several combos to no avail and my scolling wheel is getting tired...thanks

    no idea (none / 0) (#87)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:17:47 PM EST
    but hilarious - i was thinking the same thing yesterday!

    Finding the NEW posts (none / 0) (#97)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:45:20 PM EST
    Hi Athyrio,

    There may be easier ways, but this will work.

    Hold down the CTRL key and press F
    on Firefox this opens a Find box on the bottom of the browser window
    Paste "[new]" in that box (without the quote marks!!)

    hit next or previous on the bar.

    CTRL F on other browsers should work, but it may pop open a dialog box or something else to provide the same fuctionality.

    Happy Hunting! ;-)


    thx! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:11:52 PM EST
    Jeralyn and/or BTD, could this (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:57:41 PM EST
    be in a link somewhere under comments links or the like?  Thanks if so -- and thanks if not, as you know best how to build a great site.

    My pleasure! (none / 0) (#102)
    by BluestBlue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:21:44 PM EST
    I was happy to be able to assist!

    Bluest Blue (none / 0) (#103)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:23:57 PM EST
    oh it works and works well...Bluest Blue you are my cyber hero!!!!!

    I have made a choice at last - Obama (none / 0) (#113)
    by sheilameehan on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:08:04 PM EST
    I like Edwards, but fear his king-maker status may go the wrong way.  I have been called a sexist since coming out against Clinton.  I am not against Clinton as a woman, but it appeared to me the Clintons were fully prepared, and may still be, to decimate the party from the inside out in an effort to "win," hoping they could fix it at the end.  I believe the means to the end matters.  

    I was as angry as I ever had been in my life a few days ago, and I don't get angry often.  I am renewed by Ted Kennedy's courage and strength in doing what he knew was right.  I know he is reviled by many, and certainly after he endorsed Obama many talked of him being a fat drunk who killed someone.  He, as all of us, is flawed, but what he has never been is mean spirited.  In the twilight of his career he has taken up a cause of beauty, a candidate who speaks to our higher levels, not our most base.  He did it not for the promise of a cabinet post but because he genuinely believes it is right, which is so clearly apparent from how happy he looked from the moment he made the endorsement.    

    I feel hope for something better.  Do I think Obama is perfect? No.  Do I think he has never made a mistake?  No.  Do I think he genuinely wants to work from a higher more hopeful level - yes.  

    I was struck by the comment I heard on the news that part of the reason Kennedy made his choice because he heard that after John Kerry endorsed Obama he was called by Clinton supporters saying he should never call them again or ever expect any help again - lose their numbers.  Sounds very Bushesque - "either with us or against us."  May be fun for some, but not good for the all.  I also was struck that New Hampshire is roiling over people feeling they were duped in the last days of the election to vote for Hillary by a complete distortion of Obama's position on the issue of choice.  See http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801270351

    I may be naive, but I think we are better than winning at all costs.  I think we are better than people who try to shut down anyone who disagrees with them.  I know the Rove theory wins, or has in the past won, elections, but it is not good for the country and it is not good for people of the country.

    I am an Irish Catholic Democrat from Massachusetts, but my parents were from Jersey and my grandparents switched to the Republican party under Roosevelt.  My father was a republican - stood by Nixon til the end, many of my aunts and uncles are republicans, my brother is a republican - we can disagree and still respect each other and meet at the table, and even talk about politics, or always talk about politics.  I cannot vote for anyone who would divide their own party for a "win" (whose win?).  We need to be better.  We need to be better.  Flawed is fine, but mean-spirited is not.  Given the last 8 years I would think everyone would be over heavy partisanship - it just does not work for the country.  And mean-spirited doesn't work for anyone.