Caroline Kennedy Endorses Barack Obama

I want a president (5.00 / 2)

who is able to do the job.  Barack Obama is not that person.  He is, in a way, similar to George Bush.  People voted for George Bush because they liked him, not because he showed he was able to do the job. I hope the voters do not make the same mistake.  

As for John F. Kennedy's administration and what it accomplished for the middle class, working class people, poor people and African Americans, people should really review history.  For example, read Taylor Branch's "Parting the Waters" It, and the subsequent volumns in the series, changed my view of Kennedy's role in the civil rights efforts and Lyndon Johnson's presidency.  My view of Johnson had been clouded by his handling of the Vietnam War, which he inherited from Kennedy's administration.  In so many other ways, however, Johnson, was really a great president and he accomplished so much for poor people and the working class.  And yes, he was the president who was able to make sure the civil rights legislation passed.  In other words, unlike his predecessor, he was able to get the job done.    

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:48:17 AM CST

I also want a (6.00 / 2)

president who can do the job. George Bush is not that person, as he has proven. Barack Obama is nothing like George Bush, and for that reason alone, he would make a fine president.

And as far as the civil rights legacy of JFK, his Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, was point man

Although it has become common place to assert the phrase "The Kennedy Administration" or even, "President Kennedy" when discussing the legislative and executive support of the civil rights movement, between 1960 and 1963, a great many of the initiatives that occurred during President Kennedy's tenure were as a result of the passion and determination of an emboldened Robert Kennedy, who through his rapid education in the realities of Southern racism, underwent a thorough conversion of purpose as Attorney General. Asked in an interview in May 1962, "What do you see as the big problem ahead for you, is it Crime or Internal Security?" Robert Kennedy replied, "Civil Rights."......

In September 1962, he sent U.S. Marshals and troops to Oxford, Mississippi, to enforce a Federal court order admitting the first African American student, James Meredith, to the University of Mississippi. Riots ensued during the period of Meredith's admittance, which resulted in hundreds of injuries and two deaths. Yet Kennedy remained adamant concerning the rights of black students to enjoy the benefits of all levels of the educational system. The Office of Civil Rights also hired its first African-American lawyer and began to work cautiously with leaders of the civil rights movement. Robert Kennedy saw voting as the key to racial justice, and collaborated with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson to create the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which helped bring an end to Jim Crow laws.

So yeah, I guess you could say that JFK "didn't get the job done", since he was murdered after 2 years in office, but heh, minor details. BTW, within 5 years of JFK's murder, both MLK and RFK were also murdered.
 

---

by: mojoman @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:20:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And yet with all the noble retoric.... (5.00 / 2)

.... good works and sacrifice of many,  Historicaly important advocacy of MLK and his selfless determination and presence without which nothing would have occured the final partner in the drama of getting the reality of civil rights legislation through a congress with an openly racist caucus was a crafty, weasely, back stabbing, cantankerous, good old boy  President who knew how the game really worked.

"There is something not well in the soul of man when he is too far removed from nature" Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings  

---

by: freshayer @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:48:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Scumbags make the world go round? (5.00 / 1)

Please illuminate us some more, O Sage.

A consensus formed from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.
I'm Jack Mitchell and I'm confused by this message.

---

by: John from Lowell @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:55:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The morality of public leaders actions should be measured by (4.00 / 1)

the results and not by the intention or motovation.  

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:40:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Strange definition of morality (6.00 / 1)

This is "the ends justify the means".

To me, morality is all about intent. Sure grade leader's effectiveness based on their results, but their morality?

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:35:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My point is.... (0.00 / 0)

.... in the world of Politics and Governments you deal with the reality you have, not the one you wish was there.

That Lincoln was a great orator and humanitarian was a wonderful gift but he was also the master tactician and arm twister to achieve what he did.

People speak of the need to end the Bush/Clinton Era but I think we should end the "Aura of the Kennedy's" like it has any meaning for real 2008 politic.

"There is something not well in the soul of man when he is too far removed from nature" Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings  

---

by: freshayer @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:32:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rubber meets The Trail (0.00 / 0)

There has been much said about the value of oratory to inspire, yet few note how it is tactically relavent. A sample with emphasis added:

Barack Obama's victory speech in South Carolina
-snip
So this will not be easy.  Make no mistake about what we're up against.

We are up against the belief that it's ok for lobbyists to dominate our government - that they are just part of the system in Washington.  But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House.  But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it's one you never agreed with.  That kind of politics is bad for our party, it's bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election.  We know that this is exactly what's wrong with our politics; this is why people don't believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out.  And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.  

And what we've seen in these last weeks is that we're also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It's the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon.  A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us.  The assumption that young people are apathetic.  The assumption that Republicans won't cross over.  The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don't vote.  The assumption that African-Americans can't support the white candidate; whites can't support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can't come together.  

But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in.
-snip

OK. In the phrases above, I see Obama dismember the Clinton/Penn campaign with a coup-de-grace in this simple phase:

"we're also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation."

In this one line, Obama demonstrates that Clinton is a FOLLOWER of a political fad! He shows that she is tone deaf to the pulse of America, thus ill equipped to lead as President.

If you need the Trade Meds to parrot it or your surrogates to "tell it from the mountain" to acheive tactical significance, then we will have to wait and see.

But in "campiagning with your pinkies up", that was one hell of a velvet shiv.

A consensus formed from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.
I'm Jack Mitchell and I'm confused by this message.

---

by: John from Lowell @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 16:28:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

in the last few moments... (6.00 / 1)

... of Obama's victory speech  my wife and I finished the movie we were watching and tuned in to Barack's line " You know the three words" and my wife and both said "Yes we can!" That predictable!! Been there done that. Not impressed. Sound bites of Hope.

"There is something not well in the soul of man when he is too far removed from nature" Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings  

---

by: freshayer @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 18:37:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The buck stops here (0.00 / 0)

Sound bites, catch phrases and slogans. Show me a candidate and I'll show you 10.

Go here for issue related red meat.

A consensus formed from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.
I'm Jack Mitchell and I'm confused by this message.

---

by: John from Lowell @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 21:47:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here is what Martin Luther King wrote about Oxford, Mississippi, (0.00 / 0)

and the Kennedy administration's role, "Their performance at Oxford , he wrote, 'made Negroes feel like pawns in a white man's political game.'"  Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters, page 672.  You should read the book.  

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:54:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I've read the book (0.00 / 0)

and thought it was good, but I agree with some of Branch's critics that his use of discredited Hoover era tapes to buttress his claims are weak.

References to King's own  writings paint a slightly a different picture:

In regard to Branch's works, a few examples depict why there should be a new and critical analysis of accolades Branch bestows on Garrow's use of the FBI files; as well as of his own (mis)use of the Hoover era materials. They are now obviously suspect when contrasted with just a few of the documents already made public from the King Papers collection.

1) 1) Branch use the FBI surveillance allegations to charge that Dr. King harbored "a hidden fury" at JFK and had "sneered obscenely" about Jacqueline Kennedy praying at her husband's funeral. This allegation by the FBI as well as misrepresentations by Branch about Kennedy's actions in regard the events in Birmingham in August/September 1963 (pages 144 and 250 of Pillar of Fire, which is a revision of the Branch scenario about the same events in the last chapter of Parting The Waters). Dr. King's and Mrs. King's private and public comments of respect, admiration and affection for JFK have long been of record but with the King Papers we now have in Dr. King's own handwriting his heartfelt horror and sorrow and admiration "His vigor, vitality and intelligence symbolized the courage and hope of the 20th century. ... He pioneered in peace. ... He dealt with civil rights. He came to see the moral issue." After this section Dr. King lovingly compared the loss of JFK to the loss of Abraham Lincoln. So we are left to consider which depiction - the FBI and Branch, or, words spoken in public and written by Dr. King and Mrs. King are accurate.

There are critics (like Leventhal) who argue that Branch practices revisionist history here. I don't know if he does, but I do take some of Branch's claims with a grain of salt.

---

by: mojoman @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:14:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well that was not even what I was writing about... (3.50 / 2)

But I am beginning to understand the Obama campaign strategy.  When faced with facts that are hard to refute, talk about something else as if it is the same thing.        

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 15:31:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure, he can do the job (0.00 / 0)

Why do you think that he cannot?

Do you think that he doesn't have enough Senatorial experience to qualify? ;-)

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:32:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

He's only been a senator for three years. (0.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton has been a Senator for 7 years.  So I guess she has more experience in the Senate, doesn't she?  Before he was senator, did Obama draft and submit to Congress a major piece of legislation and then testify before Congress about the legislation? Hillary Clinton did. It was an ambitious health care proposal that unfortunately for the U.S. public, did not pass, but she learned a lot about how to get legislation through Congress from that experience. Did Obama ever work on a congressional committee? Hillary Clinton did. After law school, she was a member of the staff of the House Judiciary Committee handling the inquiry into the impeachment of Richard Nixon.  I could go on...  
 

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 22:08:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't forget the Independent Counsel experience. (0.00 / 0)

The Clintons betrayed us in the 90's. The Party stood up for the Clintons because, well it had to. No more.

No do-overs!

A consensus formed from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.
I'm Jack Mitchell and I'm confused by this message.

---

by: John from Lowell @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 22:43:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Clintons Betrayed Us!??? (0.00 / 0)

You have to be a Republican.   But do you really believe he was a terrible president? We had the best economy ever.  The U.S.'s reputation around the world was very high. (President Bill Clinton was admired around the world.) We were not at war.  Times were pretty darn good.  

The Republicans were mad at Bill Clinton because he dared to oppose and beat George Bush Sr.  He messed up their plan to control the government for decades.  (I also think they were looking for a way to get back at the Democrats for what happened to Richard Nixon.)  Did Pres. Clinton make mistakes, yes, but the Republicans were out for blood and the Clintons naively thought appointing an independent counsel was the way to get the unfounded Republican charges behind them.  Yes, Bill Clinton was a scoundrel and stuipid when it came to women, but so weren't the likes of Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (actually from everything I have read, they were far worse).  And so weren't a number of members of Congress, who had to resign during the impeachment proceedings because of their behavior. (Newt Gingrich comes to mind.)  

BTW, Bill Clinton could have resigned, but he did not and we should thank him for that.  There was a constitutional issue involved (and I do not mean a constitutional issue that the Supreme Court would decide).  Whether impeachment should be used for the purposes for which the Republicans were using it. If Bill Clinton had resigned or maybe even been found guilty and had been remove from office, then impeachment would have become a tool for both parties to use to try to remove a President when the opposing party held the majority in Congress.  That result would have been a bad thing for the good of the country and our democracy.

If what you say about the Democratic Party is true, then I would not want to be a part of the Democratic Party. It would be a pretty shallow, unintelligent group of people. I just refuse to believe that and I cannot imagine any Democrat who would believe it.  

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:59:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

When Clinton lied, no one died. (0.00 / 0)

As for the pragmatism associated to protecting a sitting President, even a scoundel. That seems fairly obvious, but if I can't convince you, merely scam this forum for dairist that are arguing in favor of Clinton/Penn trying to seat FL & MI delegates. That should give you a sense of how shallow our peer group can be. Political expediency over principle is pure Clintonism.

For the title I have regugitated the line which has taken new meaning for new, as of late.

When Clinton lied, no one died.

I love this line. It used to remind me that WE are better then THEM.

Though I can't honestly say that perjury is as bad as a false war of choice, I am now dumbstruck at how stupid I was for buying in to the Jedi mind trick.

Time to put Bill back on the hook. Clintonism is outdated. Goodbye Billary.

No do-overs!

P.S. Unenrolled is as right as I go.

A consensus formed from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.
I'm Jack Mitchell and I'm confused by this message.

---

by: John from Lowell @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:31:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So it is shallow to make sure that (0.00 / 0)

everyone has a say in picking the president? Do you even know what happened in Florida and why there is the issue with the delegates?  Sound like you do not.  First, after much pleading not to do so by the Florida Democrats, the Republican legislature changed the date of the primary to what it is now. Then the Florida Democrats were given the choice of holding a caucus or being punished.  They decided that there were so many things wrong about holding oing a caucus, that they refused. I think they made the right decision on behalf of the people, particularly working people and the elderly who often cannot attend a caucus. I would rather be on the side protecting the rights of people to take part in our democratic process.
BTW, what you call pragmatism, I consider principles.

Do you even know what the issues are that are at stake in this election?  B

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:31:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Issues? (0.00 / 0)

I am not sure what issues are relavent over there.

I haven't drank the Hater-ade.

For me, we must restore the middle class, repair our international reputation, defend the Constitution from an over reaching Executive, care for veterans.......

All the same issues any self respecting progressive would care about, which you likely are.

I can screw around on this blog all day, but the bottom line is,

It's a vision thing!

Congress is responsible for legislation. The Oval Office projects the platform.

TOS, Go phonebank or something.

A consensus formed from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.
I'm Jack Mitchell and I'm confused by this message.

---

by: John from Lowell @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 13:18:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Really nice vision. (0.00 / 0)

Say nasty, unsupported things about the other candidate's character and then claim you are on the side of the good. Avoid any discussion about the issues. Please do not phonebank...you will only allienate people from politics completely.  

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 15:17:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, but it would be pointless (6.00 / 1)

None of that is executive experience. None of that experience gives much of an indication of what kind of president Clinton would make. I am not saying she would be a bad president, but I just think this whole argument about "experience" is a pile of crap. None of the candidates have executive experience, so there is nothing to look at there.

Furthermore, you didn't even being to answer the question as to why you think Obama can't do the job.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:00:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

She put together a comprehensive health care plan that was (0.00 / 0)

submitted to Congress.  Although she was not a paid White house staffer, she did what many of them do. (The conservative view of some people in this country towards what women who are married to presidents should do while there husband is president is for another discussion, but discounting her experience in that role smacks of sexism.)  Yes, the health care plan failed, but Hillary Clinton learned valuable lessons from it. She also knows a lot about how the White House operates; she was included in a lot of policy discussions during Bill Clinton's administration because she was just as qualified to be there as many of the paid staffers.  

What executive experience has Obama had?  I never said he could not do the job.  I have said I want someone who I am sure can do the job from day one. I would rather pick the best experienced person for the position. That is Hillary Clinton.  
   

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 15:29:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

All for Hope and Vision (0.00 / 0)

But, I find myself very cautious about the hype for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama moving towards the election.  The prevailing thought that I have is to move the personalities aside and continue to ask what are the skills and policies of the candidates?  It is interesting to see who is endorsing whom but not a factor in my decision.

Still coming up, Edwards.

---

by: HeartlandDem @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:07:45 AM CST

De-Bushification (0.00 / 0)

I have seen it called.  A concept in direct line with De-Bathification in Iraq.

A "man of vision" ought to have the vison to reject the "Enabling Act".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:18 AM CST

Teddy is ready - Mark Halperin says (0.00 / 0)

Teddy is Ready

Long-time Clinton friend wants to believe again.

Yes...he...can.

Developing...

Stephanopolous pushed Obama on the rumor this morning. Obama dodged saying, 'It is best to let Se.Kennedy speak for himself.'

A consensus formed from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.
I'm Jack Mitchell and I'm confused by this message.

---

by: John from Lowell @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:49:52 AM CST

Ah well (6.00 / 1)

She "works" for Bloomberg anyway (actually as a fundraiser for the NYC schools) ...

I'll stick with Robert Kennedy Jr., who supports HRC.

---

by: howardjp @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]