Sen. Ted Kennedy gave his endorsement to Barack Obama for president today. I opined in an earlier posting about the relative value of endorsements and so on but this one, this endorsement (or lack of endorsement) is especially intriguing. This one sends a message that is worth getting. My wife was all excited that Kennedy endorsed Obama and I told her that I had also heard a dissenting opinion from Glenn Beck on the radio. Beck mentioned that Obama should run from and not accept Kennedy's endorsement for fear of being aligned with an extreme left-wing liberal. I get Glenn Beck's point but I think Obama would rather have Kennedy's endorsement than see the endorsement go to Hillary Clinton.
But here's the real story behind this endorsment: it's not so important that Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama; what's more interesting to me is the fact that Ted Kennedy did not endorse Hillary Clinton. I'd like to get at the real meaning behind that. I would have thought that a Kennedy endorsement of Clinton would have been a sure thing. Kennedy has known and worked with Hillary for a much longer time than Barack Obama and I'd have thought that Kennedy and Clinton's relationship would be so strong that there would be no way Kennedy would not have endorsed Hillary. And don't forget, Pat Leahy and John Kerry also endorsed Barack Obama. How is this possible? Both of them had been staunch Clinton supporters.
Is it possible that in two short years Barack Obama has forged stronger relationships with establishment left wingers than Hillary has since the beginning of the first Clinton monarchy... oops presidency? I see this as an enormous slap in the face to Sen. Clinton that three of the left's staunchest bulwarks of neo-socialism did not endorse her. There's certainly a deeper meaning behind all of this that the casual observer like myself is not privvy to. But make no mistake, this lack of endorsement for Hillary does not look good for her. It means that she does not have the mantle of invincibility that so many people thought she had. If she can't lock up "shoe-in" endorsements like Kennedy, Leahy and Kerry it indicates a lack of influence with some of the party's key leaders. Is the vaunted Clinton machine as formidable as they cast themselves to be? Maybe not if they can't get Ted Kennedy in their back pocket. I even read a story today that Bill Clinton spent a great amount of time trying to get Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary Clinton or to at least stay neutral on the sidelines.
Evidently, the Kennedys' were not happy with the Clinton campaign injecting race and dirty tactics into the campaign. Heck, even JFK's daughter Carolyn Kennedy didn't endorse the "girl" in this race she endorsed "the brother from the left."
Being no fan of Ted Kennedy I do applaud his courage in placing his endorsement with Barack Obama. He runs the risk of Hillary becoming the next president and remembering his lack of support for her during the campaign. She will not look kindly upon him for this apparent effrontery. And her memory of slights is longer than Bill's list of phone numbers in his little black book.
Here's a hypothetical scenario, what if Ted Kennedy had supported Obama on the eve of the New Hampshire primary? Right about the time Hillary was crying for the cameras. It might have saved some Obama votes from people who were falling for Clinton's Oscar-worthy performance. If he had taken N.H. that night we'd be looking at a different race right now.
Well done Ted, but your timing stinks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The big endorsement from the left of course will be Gore. What will he do. If he does not support Hillary, that will speak volumes. I do not get that she is well liked on the left all that much and that they just have to tolerate her. Who knows, but watch for Gore's endorsement. He will be the biggest fish of them all.
Post a Comment