Edward Kennedy endorses Barack Obama

As I said before, this endorsement is huge.  It means that the talking heads can finally shut up about whether Barack Obama is a viable candidate.  When Edward Kennedy puts not only his reputation on the line but the reputation of the Kennedy name, that says we are backing the candidate that we believe has the best message, the best opportunity to bring America forward in this troubled time.

——-

From WaPo:

Sen. Barack Obama today picked up the endorsement of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), giving the Illinois Democrat a key boost as he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) head into their final week of campaigning before the potentially crucial “Super Tuesday” presidential primaries on Feb. 5.

In a speech at American University in Washington, Kennedy, 75, a 45-year veteran of the Senate and a standard-bearer for liberal Democrats, joined his niece, Caroline Kennedy, and his son, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), in publicly backing Obama for the party’s nomination.  (more…)

0 Responses

  1. I do believe Carolyn’s endorsement meant more than Ted’s. Just because he is seen as soo much more controversial than she is. For her to endorse someone took alot of thought.

  2. I am a 57 year old woman who is furious with Ted Kennedy over his endorsement of Sen. Obama.

    I volunteered for two months, 7 days a week, tromping house to house in snow in the recent New Hampshire primary.

    Finally, there is a woman, in Hillary Clinton, who is highly qualified in every way to be president — something I’ve waited for for my entire adult life and Ted Kennedy wants to take that away.

    My guess is that there will be a backlash by women at the polls. I hope so.

  3. Roberta –

    Help to understand how Hillary is “well qualified”? Please don’t try to give that old tale about co-presidency. Would you say that Laura Bush or the very involved Nancy Reagan were well qualified to be president? I don’t think so. Hillary is a senator. She is as qualified as any senator.

    I hope that this race would be less about gender and more about the future.

    Let me ask you a question, during the Clinton presidency was the Democratic party stronger or weaker at the end of his term?

    As far as Leadership goes, Hillary has stepped forward on any controversial issue to lead the Dems. When the White House was try to privatize Social Security, Hillary wasn’t on all of the talk shows. When the White House was beating the drums of war, Hillary Clinton was in a unique position of being able to read the NIE on Iraq. Although I would like to say that she read the NIE, she has never said this in spite of being asked on numerous occasions. When George Bush was going to plunge us into war the voice of a Clinton could have rallied most of the weak-kneed Democrats. Instead we had 2 relatively minor senators Bob Graham and Russ Feingold stand up and loudly oppose the war and question the intelligence. Where was Hillary’s leadership when we needed it?

    Thanks for your comments.

Subscribe for updates!
ABOUT AUTHOR
Errington C. Thompson, MD

Dr. Thompson is a surgeon, scholar, full-time sports fan and part-time political activist. He is active in a number of community projects and initiatives. Through medicine, he strives to improve the physical health of all he treats.

Books

A Letter to America

The Thirteeneth Juror

Where is The Outrage Topics
Categories
FOLLOW ME ON