I have been waiting for Senator Kennedy's move. It seems that the appeal of Obama over Clinton is based primarily on the ability of Senator Obama to inspire and capture the imagination of the youth contingent of the Democratic Party. That is an attractive notion, certainly way ahead of hatred and fear of the Clintons which is being fed to us on a daily basis by the cable news punditry. This diet of anti-Clinton venom may start to bore the public; it is a long way to November. If the tables turn and the voters start to exercise greater independence in evaluating the qualifications of Senator Clinton, and if Bill Clinton can figure out a way to tone down his advocacy, anything could happen.

Bye-bye Hillary.

Is there really much of a difference between the politics of Obama and Clinton? Both are corporatists. Both can be counted on to skip important votes. Both are lacking in originality, ideas, guts, and integrity.

This was an interesting piece, until I read the last paragraph and recalled the outcome of the last election, and the lack of success we had with Kennedy's endorsement of Kerry. Let's hope that 2008 provides a more successful outcome.

While I'd love a President Obama over President Clinton II, the notion puts me in fear that the endresult of an Obama-nomination would be President McCain (Son of Cain, humanity's first murderer, cf. the bible - how's that for a negative connection?).

I admit the electoral system puts me in a hopeless mess of wanting none of the options, including not wanting the option of not supporting anyone.

OBAMA IS A REPUBLICAN BAIT

Kennedys are the forgotten liberal part of the Democratic Party and as such their views are not important for the great majority of American voters. What matters is how Democrats can unite to win the elction and stop the war. The election is not a beauty contest or voting for the American Idol, it is the decision about the future of this nation.
Kenndys dislike for Clintons is nothing new; but fals hope would be no substitute for pragmatism of real politics in America.

America is a one party system in which the Republican party members are focused and follow the party line, follow the strict party politics in defending the ideology of economic and military domination of the world in defense of the ruling elite. In every election Republicans follow and strategy to break the fragile unity of the hodgepodge lose alliance of interest groups that is called the Democratic Party.
The Republicans can only win by breaking the lose alliance by any means. They have done it in the past support for Ralf Nader to win in Florida, Cheating in counting the vote, and the best of all sending a Bait to divide Democrats. Obama is the Republican bait and there would be blood and bruises and the Brocken Unity of Democrats which would help McCain or Romney to win.
Clintons know this fact and by swinging to the right and appealing to the moderate miraculously won two elections and in every aspect put America in the right path of progress and respect while dominating the world.
Why democrats don't get it? No Candidate of the left, or anyone belonging to a minority group has ever made it in an American Election (Kennedy won because he was rich first and Catholic second. He was not considered a threat to the American system and when he was he was assassinated. But Obama is not Jack Kennedy!
Obama is not elect-table in the American heartland and the support of Kennedy's for him would be another nail in Democratic Party's chances of winning the next election. With democrats divided, and Clintons in disarray there seems Republicans are the only winners. Just like in the past a minority party of organized true believers has been successful to fool the disorganized Democrats that they should vote with their liberal hearts rather than a strategy to win the presidency and get the vote of over 100,000,000 of voting white moderate Americans.
NO Democratic candidate has committed themselves to protect jobs here or make capital investment to stop job going to India and China , reducing balance of trade deficits, the War Middle Class. Borrowing 150 billion from China to buy Chinese product is not to cure for the bankrupt US economy. that unfortunately is not addressed by any candidate.

FARHAT MAQUAMI

Wow! Ted Kennedy endorses Obama, perhaps I should re=think my opposition to him. Nah! After all as the Article points out Kennedy supported John Kerry in 2004, he knows how to pick a looser.

Leave it to the Democrats to blow a sure thing. I guess we are looking at another republican administration.

Cynthia McKinney gets my vote!

I am very disapointed in Ted Kennedy.Everyone is talking Obama,Clinton, either one will be bussiness as usual. Have we not learned anything from 2006 election? The only one that has the GUTS to turn this country around is John Edwards.He is the only one that can beat McCain.He could be the real change in this country,but we are not listening.He owes nobody in Washington nothing.If he were to become president,his debt would be only to the American people, and this country,not lobbyest and big corporations. I always liked you Ted,but your wrong on this one.

Ullern - well said. I've thought about the meaning behind the name McCain, and it is very disturbing. I don't usually put a lot of weight in names, but this one gets my attention. It is a hideous play on words to sing about bombing Iran (Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran). If McCain thinks that is funny, that says a lot to me about his character. Pretty nefarious! How can anyone joke about the potential cause of World War III, attacking another country that has done nothing to us? If that isn't enough to eliminate him from serious contention for the presidency then I guess just about anything goes now. He is a disgrace to our country, as are the weasels in office now. McCain would definitely be more of the same - a nightmare. Satya

Oh, for cryin gout loud... The American people are NOT going to elect a black guy who's middle name is Hussein. What the hell is everyone smoking? Might as well just let Dubya appoint a successor, and forget the whole election thing.

I disagree with all of you. I think Kennedy does matter. His endorsement of Kerry led him to win the nomination. It was stolen votes in Ohio that lost the election for him... nothing to do with Kennedy.

And I agree with the statement Caroline Kennedy said - that all 3 of the main candidates are pushing very similary policies so you have to look beyond their proposed policies to personality, and who can inspire the most. She is right in choosing Obama. His speeches have inspired me, a Kucinich supporter. Hillary's have not. And I think his gift at oratory, and his positive message will win enough people over to see him win the election, provided the diebold company allows the votes to be recorded properly...

Huckabee is too 'looney religious' to win independant voters. Romney is evil incarnate and will lie to any group at any time to get their support. He is such a flip flopper that he also won't win any state except his home state of Michigan, and the Mormon states of Wyoming and Nevada.... McCain has is not only too old, but part of the establishment that wants to maintain the Iraq war, wants to maintain too many of Bush's policies.

I believe Obama will win over any of them.

Can anyone write a better script? 8 FUTURE years of national rehabilitation by a man named Barack Huessein Obama to remind G.W. Bush and his Neocons of the ABOMINATION of Iraq; the ABOMINATION of killing the leader that they put in power; the ABOMINATION of having Poppy bush and Donald Rumsfeld providing Saddam Huessein with the gas he used on the Kurds, the ABOMINATION of KATRINA down in NAWLENS, the ABOMINATION that the Constitution is "just a Goddamn piece of paper", the ABOMINATION that Americans should be wire tapped on phones and personal computers, the ABOMINATION that the media that uses the peoples air waves are an arm of a paranoid government…… o.k. Republicans, I'll see all your ABOMINATIONS, AND RAISE YOU ONE OBAMA..NATION..... PROUDLY.

satyagraha

and therefore if we are to believe the bible, cain and abel were the first and second sons of adam and eve. hmmmmmmmm how did we all get here without any other people, or cain and abel resorting to incest? as it is mentioned that adam and eve had cain, abel and seth as children. does that explain the insanity that now visits us in the 'grey' house?

daveg - The Dimocrats are all to starry eyed over the handsome well spoken man of change. They prefer empty rhetoric to substance. They will throw this thing to the repugs and then blame those of us who tried to tell them.

Democrats = Losers!

Coco - Ha! It is indeed the Mother of all conspiracies. No pun intended. Nicely done!

As for the 'grey' house, I am tempted to believe that the Bush/Cheney cabal have reptilian blood coursing through their veins. We talk about humans being driven by their vestigial reptilian brains. What if Bush and Cheney are operating at 100% TRex?

Satya

I've loved the Kennedy's for almost fifty years; they can do no wrong, but this does seem like a rather brutal bit of sword-play. Hasn't it totally decapitated the Clinton campaign?

My guess is that it was a hard decision for Teddy. It would be fascinating to follow his intrapsychic journey over the past few months. What does he really think of Hillary? What role did Caroline and the Kennedy family play? What role did Bill's recent obnoxious behavior play? How deliberate was the decision? Why the timing? The role of intellect vs. emotion?

Whatever the personal and political machinations, the deed is done and now the nomination is Obama's to lose.

After everything America and the world have been through, we need to elect Barack Obama as president of the United States of America. Think about the impact of electing an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States of America. On so many levels, this is a wonderful thing.

Obama in the white house could heal lots of wounds, that need to be healed, without too much effort. Years ago, America stood for hope and we cheered for the under dog, but if we're honest with ourselves, it's more focused on money, control, and fear these days.

Obama is not going to solve world hunger, but he could start a much needed shift in this world, something I don't see any other candidate capable of doing. The debates for both parties are too simple. Neither party is talking in enough detail about globalization, the emergence of China and India, and the major adjustment to the U.S. dollar, which is happening regardless of what party is in power. I believe Obama is capable of leading us through this challenge.

Is America capable of influencing the world, by standing for inclusion, celebrating diversity, and still remaining prosperous? We don't know the answer to this question, because this is not reality today, but we could bet on ourselves and try by voting for Obama.

Hillary was done the night Obama beat her in Iowa. If he can win in a lily-white state like Iowa, and a diverse state like South Carolina, then Hillary should just step aside.

Decisive Election or "American Idol"

I understand the weaknesses of Hillary Clinton, but there is not one iota of difference between Obama and Clinton! They both represent powerful corporations and basically have refused to deal with American economy's most important problem: The escape of jobs and capital to China and India!
They have not even confronted the fact that America can't run without borrowing from China!
When the Fedral Reserve unexpectedly cut the interest rate they did not come out and say the Fedral Reserve acted because of a secretive bankruptcy issue of a few financial institutions that borrowing from soveriegn Funds of Arabian Dictators did not bail them out.

When Bush came with his economic package all democrats submissively accepted, instead of arguing that borrowing money from China to buy consumer products from China is not investing in America and will create more problems. They both have never addressed "out-sourcing" the workforce that can easily be done by the black, hispanic, and poor white Americans. They never declared that they would stop the war against middle class that is destroying America.

Therefore when Kennedy endorsement of Obama is denying history proves that he acts as if we are going for a beauty contest or voting for the American Idol. He does not understand that this is the most important election and that the Democrats should do anything to get their person in the White House! If this was a beauty contest Kennedy is right; but this is the fight for the future of this nation and Democrats must unite behind anyone who can get the vote of white american moderates to win an election. The white america could not even tolerate the JFK! How would they ever vote for Obama!

This is a great public relations stunt! The only way the Democrats will win is if the first woman and the first black man are on the same ticket.

Everyone knows the old adage of "the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results". Historically, America is at the cross-roads of its existence, the fork in the road of time, and each and every person must make a choice as to which road they want this country take. Business as usual-(doing the same things over and over again), or take the road less traveled and begin to live out the true meaning of the creed - "We Hold These Truths to be inevitable". Now is the time for a more perfect union, now is the time to make real the meaning of freedom for all Americans. In the past America has resembled an souped up high powered car that has been running on only four cylinders. The other four cylinders (the other ethnic groups) have been under utilized, and now it is time for a "full tune up" to tap the unused potential of the great country.

So the Kennedy's are irrevelant, racists will kill Barack and many of you posters can't spell, so we're supposed to believe your BS?
AND I say again, nobody reads long posts. STFU or get your own blog, Jesus!! How about just STFU?

So I can't spell good! So shoot me along with Barack.

Thank you Andrews. I agree wholeheartedly. Obama makes me want to believe in America again. It's nice to finally see a candidate who makes me feel like I used to before I became just as cynical and negative and divisive and stubbornly closeminded and self-righteous as most of the so-called progressives who usually post here.

A vote for CHANGE is better than more of the same!

Congratulations!
OBAMA
The people have spoken.
Solidify!
The End of the evil, greedy, dictatorial BUSH regime is near.
A new era of Peace and Prosperity will be ushered in.
The tide is changing and
More people are raising their voices everyday.
The ground swell of support for Obama is so overwhelming
It will be impossible for another election to be stolen by the Republicans.
The new age has begun.
A kinder, gentler, friendlier, cooperative, peaceful age.
Let's finish the work we have started.
VICTORY is in sight!

I am supporting Senator Hillary Clinton because I think she is the best candidate on the issues, the most experienced, and would be the most effective leader. Barack Obama is too vague, and wants the public to hand him a blank check on his speeches about "hope".

Also, the public is suddenly hearing about Barack Obama's "deep involvement" in immigration reform from the very wealthy and powerful Senator Kennedy -- (and that was new to me!) -- but the public also heard about Hillary Clinton's demonstrated commitment to the farmworkers' community when she was endorsed by Cesar Chavez' historic Farmworker's Union.

On that, I am with the farmworkers, not the rich and powerful Senator Ted Kennedy.

All three of Bobby Kennedy's children are endorsing Senator Clinton.

If she does not win the nomination, I may support a third party candidate. I would like it if John Edwards ran, but I doubt he would abandon the Democratic Party.

Barck Obama stands for the politics of hope. And wow, do we need hope!
For almost 8 years now, American citizens have been at each other's throats-we have shown our teeth to the entire world.
It is time to hope, again; it is time to believe, again. It is time to be America, again.

In Response to Cara.. GIVE ME A BREAK.! HILLARY IS NOT THE BEST QUALIFED CANDIDATE TO RUN FOR OFFICE, LET ALONE SPEAK OUT FOR THE FARM WORKERS! I AM SECOND GENERATION MEXICAN AMERICAN, AND I WAS RAISED IN LOS ANGELES IN THE 60'S !THE WOMAN HAS NO CLUE ABOUT OUR CULTURE AND LET ALONE SPEAK THE LANGUAGE, THE FARMER WORKER'S UNION SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEM SELVES FOR ENDORSING THIS WOMAN.. FORTUNATELY TED KENNEDY AND OTHERS WILL BE GOING TO CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES TO MAKE SURE THE LATINOS MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE! GO OBAMA GO!! HILLARY IS ON THE WAY OUT, AND I MIGHT MENTION BILL AS WELL... THIER GLORY DAYS ARE OVER.. GRAN FOR CHANGE WISCONSIN

OBAMA Sucks! Hillary Sucks! Cynthia Mckinney is our true hope for change. Mckinney '08!!!!

Obama is the only hope, not for just the Democrats, but America as a whole. The smell of passion from his lips is one of "newness" and of real "change". With his passion and placement of a cabinet with the types of people who do have the answers for what he may ignore will bring the best of the best to American politics not seen since ???????

Well a roll of the dice for the mystery man!
That roll of the dice is still better than Clinton though I'm not sure whether the endorsement by Ted Kennedy an asset or a liability. As for as Obama goes, I can only hope if he gets the nomination and wins that he will be as much a pleasant surprise as Webb has been here in VA.

South Carolina is just the beginning.

63 to 48. Superdelegates can change their vote at the convention. Obama has more votes, more delegates, and more states.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/

Ted Kennedy's Endorsement

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/kennedystream

"The real gamble is having the same old folks doing the same old things again and expecting a different result. That is not an approach we can afford."- Barack Obama

"The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.

It's about the past versus the future."- Barack Obama, South Carolina Victory Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ

Do you really want 8 more years of Bill Clinton moralizing to you?

"I did though at least expect him to correct the false statements he made when he was trying to protect the Presidency. Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert."- Monica Lewinsky

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2004-06-25-lewinsky-clinton_x.htm

"When I think of the person that I thought was Bill Clinton, I think he had genuine remorse. When I think of the person that I now see is 100 percent politician, I think he's sorry he got caught."- Monica Lewinsky

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/04/lewinsky.interview/

"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time… I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam." -Bill Clinton, March 18, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."- Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq "from the beginning" - a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html

"Bill Clinton's Own Fairy Tales on Obama's Views on Iraq"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14219.html

"Hillary Clinton on Iraq"

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.

What H.J. Resolution 114 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually says:

"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

Obama wants to EXPAND our bloated military. He loves taking corporate bribes (called donations). He voted for the wall on the Mexican border. He has missed important votes in order to avoid controversy. He has become a friend to AIPAC. And on and on.

Cynthia McKinney is the progressive candidate we need. If Kucinich loses the primary to keep his seat in Congress , he could make a fine running mate for her.

granforchange

Seems like Mr. Obama is not the voice of inspiration for all the people, is he. Nor is he able to get his own union endorsements without Ted Kennedy holding his hand. Is that why he didn't visit UFW in Sept and Oct 07 when Senator Clinton and Mr. Edwards did? Couldn't go it alone among the farmworkers like they did?

On Spanish, I find your view just dumb if that's what you think is important to revealing a candidate's worth. Second, Senator Clinton spoke that sentence accurately; therefore I question the extent to which you yourself speak the language or are who you say you are. Third, I notice that Mr. Obama did not speak Spanish at Democratic Party meetings with immigrants when other candidates showed it off. I infer that he speaks the language very little, my friend, if at all. Revealing, in addition to your stupid post, your double-standards.

For your information, you are not qualified to speak for me, or to speak for the farmworkers. And the rich and powerful Senator Kennedy isn't either. For they didn't give him that right, did they!

Neither is the rich and powerful Senator Kennedy in his element heading across this nation during a presidential campaign to shove unions and their endorsements around with the pressure of his political prestige in immigration agreements. Maybe some people won't be getting their citizenship if the union doesn't endorse their candidate? Some candidate for change, then!

As for resurrecting the ghost of Caroline's father, it was Bobby Kennedy who was the real voice for Civil Rights, the real hand of change during his administration, and the one who knew Cesar Chavez. Practicable, organized Bobby Kennedy! Not JFK, with his inspirational speeches, as glorious as some of his words were -- may he and America's turbulent past finally rest in peace.

These are Ted's word about Bobby, might he be reminded that there was a time he spoke them and understood what they meant:

"My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

Oh and btw granforchange, Bobby Kennedy was a Senator from New York.

The Pendragons of the Democratic Party have picked a new knight, Barack Obama.

What disturbs me about Obama is that he speaks of unifying the partisan divide, which means compromise. Then he speaks of admiration for Reagan. It makes one wonder just what he is willing to compromise and how far he is willing to go with that compromise. Is that REALLY any change at all, or business as usual? Obama is a sham in my view, and he's hiding much with his supposed 'message of hope.' When I hear republicans in the news media praise him, that worries me. If McCain wins, tighten your seat belts, because things will get very bumpy.

greatbear215 January 28th, 2008 9:11 am - "Barack Obama stands for the politics of hope, blah, blah, blah"

This is exactly the kind of meaningless rhetoric that is the problem with today's typical democratic voter. We do not need platitudes we need substance. As far as I can tell Barack Obama just wants to make us feel good about his centrist capitulation to neo-conn policies.

Oh well, the change will come, one way or the other. But it may not come in the form you were hoping for!

Hope in one hand, crap in the other and see which hand fills up first!

Y'all go ahead and nominate Barack Husein Obama and see what happens in the general election.

Can you say republican landslide?