January 29, 2008


Kennedy evokes JFK legacy in endorsement of Obama (MIKE DORNING, 1/28/08, Chicago Tribune)

At the site of one of John F. Kennedy's most famous speeches, Sen. Edward Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama on Monday as a worthy heir to the martyred president and one who could restore the sense of national possibility of Camelot. [...]

With his youth, eloquence and barrier-breaking candidacy, Obama often stirs comparisons to President Kennedy.

The parallels to JFK--who fouled up the Bay of Pigs, had a disastrous 1961 summit with Khruschev, lost the Cuban Missile Crisis, and collaborated in the murder of our ally Ngo Dinh Diem--illustrate some of the reasons that Mr. Obama is unfit for the presidency. It's hard to believe he could prove quite as inept, but imagine him botching the overthrow of Baby Assad, making a fool of himself at a meeting with Ahmedinejad, ceding control over Pakistan to al Qaeda, and backing a coup against President Karzai and you get some sense of the danger. That would be a dang high price to pay for tax cuts.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 29, 2008 8:29 AM

Is this a news story or an editorial? Because it reads like a love note, doesn't it?

Posted by: b at January 29, 2008 1:22 PM

What makes you think Obama would cut taxes? That's not a part of the JFK record that present-day Democrats remember or wish to repeat.

Posted by: PapayaSF at January 29, 2008 3:00 PM

Papaya beat me to it: whether its Obama, Hillary!!, or the guy with the nice hair, if we get a Dem in office, taxes go up. Your tagline should be, "Seems like a high price to pay for tax increases."

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 29, 2008 4:14 PM

Just a question for my elders and betters around here (and Orrin)- does anybody really give a damn about endorsements? If you're thinking about who you're gonna vote for, are you thinking, "Gee, I wonder what Ted Kennedy has to say?" Or, given that we're a bunch of naughty Conservatives around here, are you thinking "Who would G. Gordon Liddy vote for?" I sure don't.

Posted by: Bryan at January 29, 2008 5:01 PM

Endorsements matter for two reasons:

(1) Normal people don't pay much attention to politics, so they're inclined to listen to people they trust.

(2) Some of them come with resources and networks, like unions, governors, etc.

Posted by: oj at January 29, 2008 5:31 PM

Ohhh...I get it. So Obama didn't just get the name, he got the whole Kennedy machine.
Boy, that's gotta be ticking off Joe, Sr. in whatever afterlife he's inhabiting.

Posted by: Bryan at January 29, 2008 5:50 PM

I would just love to hear what Bill and Hil had to say - in private, of course -about that endorsement.

Posted by: D Judd at January 29, 2008 5:59 PM

Caroline's editorial probably mattered more than Teddy's speech. After all, it's been 28 years since he was last a serious national candidate, and the dream (no thanks to Bob Shrum) finally died in the spring of 1980.

The real effect of the endorsement is to remind Hillary how fragile things are, and also that Obama won't be like Jesse Jackson, accepting a prime-time convention speech as his go away money.

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 29, 2008 6:55 PM

Teddy is bird brain with no credibility, but Liddy is a very smart guy with more integrity than all the dems extant today and I'd like to know whom he endorses.

Posted by: erp at January 29, 2008 7:27 PM

What happens when Hillary wins the nomination? What do all these Dems do? How will they be treated in the short term or long term?

Posted by: pchuck at January 29, 2008 7:39 PM

Hillary stopped running in NH.

Bill's the candidate now.

Posted by: Benny at January 29, 2008 7:46 PM

Good thing Kennedy spent much of his time in a drug induced stupor and partying with prostitutes or he would have done even more damage.

Posted by: Brian at January 29, 2008 10:04 PM