The Truth Behind Ted Kennedy’s Endorsement of Obama

So why did Ted Kennedy endorse Barack Obama? Because of his message? Because of his “inspiration”? Because he’s like JFK? Nope! Because he got pissed off when Clinton gave LBJ credit for passing the civil rights act of 1964:

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton’s LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963. One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a “meltdown” in reaction to Clinton’s comments. Another source close to the Kennedy family says Senator Kennedy was upset about two instances that occurred on a single day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, a day before the state’s primary

Both comments that day, by Clinton and her supporter, were meant to make the point that Clinton would be better equipped to get things done as president than Obama, her chief Democratic rival. Sources say Clinton called Kennedy to apologize for the LBJ comments. But whatever she said clearly wasn’t enough to assuage Kennedy, who endorsed Obama earlier this week.

Of course, LBJ did pass the civil rights act of 1964. I think its unfortunate that Kennedy is endorsing Obama because of pride instead of his opinion on the future


The Math is in…John McCain will be the Republican nominee

The chatter among politico’s on the internet who track electoral math:

Per Chuck Todd on MSNBC tonight, as of tonight John McCain needs 1,098 delegates to win the nomination. Next Tuesday he’ll win NY, CT, NJ, DE and AZ (all of which are winner take all,) which would award him 574 delegates toward that 1,098 alone. And that’s a conservative estimate. He could also win in states such as MO where Huckabee is competing and is likely to take votes away from Romney, not to mention California where McCain is favored to win at least some if not most of the delegates at stake (they’re awarded on a winner take all basis by congressional district.)

Chris Bowers explains why a McCain nomination is actually GOOD for democrats in November:

* Romney is still a relative unknown: While John McCain’s name ID is 100%, Mitt Romney’s is much lower. Between 4-10% of Romney polling deficit on McCain is derived entirely from being lesser known. In and of itself, this makes the actual gap between Romney and McCain only 8-13%.

* Conservative media elites will thrash McCain. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk with thrash McCain for months on end, encouraging conservatives to either sit at home or support a third-party. This should be worth at least a 3% Nader gross effect, and certainly a 1% Nader net effect. By contrast, conservative media would have produced the opposite impact for Romney. With conservative media not only denying McCain the same buzz, but actually creating counter anti-McCain buzz, chalk up at least another 1-2% in favor of Romney. At least. We might even be able to close the triangle against McCain on multiple occasions, destroying his cred nationwide.

* Money. McCain will simply be unable to raise as much money as Romney could raise, mainly owing to their differences in personal fortune. This will, once again, account for at least a 1-2% difference at the polls, simply because either Clinton or Obama will be able to vastly outspend McCain from February though August. In truth, the difference will probably be larger, 2-3% or more.

* McCain only has Iraq. McCain simply cannot engage in a substantive debate on anything except Iraq. While a right-wing foreign policy might help someone in a Republican primary, the truth is that Democrats still win this discussion, hands down, with the public at large. Democrats still have a significant advantage on Iraq, the country’s desire for withdrawal has not waned one iota, and people just don’t know how right-wing McCain is on Iraq (source for the first two). When people get a whiff of McCain’s hawk stances on Iraq, they will crumble. When they realize he can’t debate things like the mortgage crisis (which, btw, Clinton is actually very, very good on, both in terms of policy and rhetoric), they will crumble further. A Republican running on foreign policy right now is a doomed campaign.

* McCain is soft. McCain’s upward “surge” in favorables is only two months old, and largely a result of him emerging as the hero, Republican frontrunner. First, rises like this always fade. Second, a drop of only ten points in McCain’s favorables–which is absolutely doable for all of the reasons already listed–would put him at a huge deficit compared to either Obama or Clinton. Third, his numbers have dropped and risen thirty points in either direction in just one year. That means the public has an extremely soft and vague view of McCain, something that will disappear during a general election. Under closer scrutiny, the best McCain could hope for is his current situation: a tie with Clinton an Obama. If his current bubble collapses, then he falls way behind either.

* Beating McCain is better than beating Romney: If McCain becomes the nominee, it is only because Republicans think he can win, not because they actually like him. As such, as long as we can pull it off, defeating McCain is actually preferable to defeating Romney. If we beat McCain, then not only did we beat Republicans, but we beat Republicans who sold out in order to try and beat us. Crushing a patsy placeholder like Romney is one thing, but crushing Republicans and conservatives who hated their nominee, but chose him because they thought he could win, is way, way, better. If we beat McCain, then Arnold is the only national Republican moderate left, and he can never run for President. In other words, beat McCain, and we not only beat Republicans, but we beat their entire bench.

Obama snubbed Clinton before the State of the Union too!

Cross posted from Mydd diary by author Denny Crane

By now we’ve all made up heard plenty about Obama’s snubbing of Hillary before Bush’s God-awful State of the Union address. But apparently, there was an Obama snub before the Obama snub we’ve all had so much fun discussing.
Apparently, some unnamed leading Democrats wanted Clinton and Obama to sit together during the SOTU. Clinton was willing , but Obama’s people said no.

Obama staffers rejected proposal for their candidate to sit with Clinton at State of the Union.
Leading Democrats wanted rivals to sit together for the sake of party unity.
Clinton was willing, but Obama chose to sit with newly-minted supporter Ted Kennedy.

Axelrod says no such invitation came from the Clinton camp.

If this story is true, not only did Obama snub Hillary by turning away from her before the horrible speech, but his people snubbed her even before that. How tacky can you get? As the Boston Globe puts it:

It’s the one night in Washington when decorum truly reigns: The president delivers the State of the Union speech, and politicians of both parties put on their best behavior and come together to pay tribute to the living, breathing democracy that makes America what it is. Did Barack Obama honor the tradition?

Hillary Clinton did the classy thing. She walked right over to her friend and colleague Ted Kennedy and shook his hand. Despite the fact that he had just endorsed her rival in the nomination race. She wasn’t petty about it. She’s a grown up.

Howard Dean has failed the Democratic Party

One last note on the Florida and Michigan controversy. Regardless of who you support and regardless of how you feel about seating the delegates, there is only one person to blame for this controversy. Howard Dean.

As Pat Buchanan just pointed out on MSNBC, God I can’t believe I’m citing him, the Republican party handled this much better than the Democratic party. They penalized FL and MI but still made sure that their voice were counted. When the DNC stripped ALL of the delegates from these two states, they invited this fall out. Especially after allowing IA and NH to move their dates up. There’s only one person to Blame and thats Howard Dean.

Look I’m a Dean supporter, I think he should stay chairman of the DNC, but he screwed the pooch big time on this one.

Part of me can’t help but wonder how much his feud with the Clinton’s influenced his decision…