saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:15 PM
Original message |
I suppose no one has considered that the only people hated more than Hillary and Bill by the GOP |
|
and the crossover voters that we need are the Kennedy's? This might help get Obama the nomination but it could kill him in the GE.Way to go! NOT.Should he get the nom, this will be used aginst him big time.So much for "unity"!
|
EmperorHasNoClothes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Are you saying the Kennedys shouldn't have endorsed anyone because the GOP doesn't like them?
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
14. It's not dumb at all. The media is largely owned by Republics |
|
and their cronies.
They can start chanting "amnesty" and "Chappaquiddik" day and night and that could be bad news.
But, I don't think that will hold back this tsunami we're watching here.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
28. Endorsements are part of strategy.It was not great strategy for the GE to have obvious Kennedy |
|
support. The Kennedys can endorse whomever they please and they did.The family seems split between Obama and Hillary.But any Kennedy endorsement does no nominee any favors in the general election.Do you seriously think we can win without the GOP and the Indees? Don't you think they will bring up evrything about the Kennedy past from Chappaquidick to Patrick's drug use? They will, and more.In Obama's case, for example, with his drug history being exaggerated and flaunted, Patrick Kennedy is not the best person to be at his side, and I like Patrick. But I am a Democrat.Primary endorsements will get more scrutiny in the GE than those after the nom , which can be written off.Just saing, pragmatically for the GE, this is not as wonderful as some think.
|
SammyWinstonJack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
32. Saying that Obama won't win the GE. And he won't for a variety of reasons, not including who |
|
endorses him, imo. I don't think it should matter that the Kennedys endorsed him. But then I am neither a Kennedy hater nor a repug. So what do I know? Their endorsement might be a factor in an Obama loss. It shouldn't though.
|
Dawgs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Nominated for dumbest post of the day. |
NYCGirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. Fine choice, but the day's still young. NT |
L0oniX
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
19. My brain fell out as I read it. |
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
35. It isn't as though you were using it anyway! LOL! |
Jackpine Radical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:27 PM
Original message |
|
You never know when it might come in useful for something.
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I did, actually. But if we really get our people out |
|
the GOP can eat our dust. :)
|
AX10
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message |
|
But all of that is thrown out when it comes to "St. Obama". Kennedy is hated by the GOP more than the Clintons. That is a long standing fact.
|
jackpan1260
(361 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
13. When liberals endorse Obama, it is bad. |
|
When moderates endose Obama it is bad.
I love your "logic."
|
AX10
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
21. It may help in in the primary... |
|
but kennedy give him no advantage in the GE.
|
jackpan1260
(361 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message |
5. We are all entitled to our ill informed opinions |
|
so I guess you are entitled to yours. Even though it really makes no sense.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
44. Ill informed? Hardly.I After more than 30 years in active politics in 3 states |
|
I am not "ill informed".If you are unaware of the Kennedy hatred and how it can be used, it would appear that you may be "ill informed".I do not really care who they endorse but I am merely making an observation.This endorsement could come back and bite Obama in the butt.
|
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:19 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Yes, it occured to me. Kennedy is the devil to the RW. But by the time |
|
the GE comes, a lot will have changed. I don't think endorsements are that important in the GE.
|
Maven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:19 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Not only that, you have to laugh every time an Obama supporter tells us Obama is anti-establishment |
|
You can't get any more Dem establishment than Kerry and now Ted Kennedy.
|
HiFructosePronSyrup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
15. Well, you can get a little more. |
|
The Clintons, f'rinstance.
|
Maven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-28-08 02:28 PM by Harvey Korman
The Clintons are a relatively recent phenomenon compared to the Kennedys. And talk about dynastic politics!
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
58. Truth be told, there are two Democratic establishments. |
|
The old-guard, FDR/Truman/Kennedy establishment, and the New Democrat/DLC/Clinton establishment. Obama was approached by the DLC, but he spurned their advances, which by default puts him with the old guard Democrats.
There is, of course, a third community - the Wellstone/Kucinich Democratic Democrats, which numbers about 12, last time I checked.
|
HiFructosePronSyrup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Obama being such an eloquent speaker is a bad thing for him. Check.
Obama getting so much support from is fans is a bad thing for him. Check.
Obama winning primaries is a bad thing for him. Check.
Now getting endorsements from Kennedys is a bad thing for him? OK, check.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
59. Who said any of the rest of that? Not me. I made no such points. I just analyzed a particular |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-28-08 03:37 PM by saracat
endorsement.
|
Bolo Boffin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message |
|
We are now united in derision from the Republicans. As if without Kennedy's endorsement, the Republicans could find no reason whatsoever to smear Obama.
They were going to find something to drag him down, regardless.
|
juajen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
30. I certainly agree there. They will find plenty on both candidates. |
DS1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message |
rox63
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message |
12. This about the primaries, not the GE |
|
Kennedy will endorse whoever the Dem nominee ends up being, and it won't hurt that person one bit. Kennedy did what he did to get other Dems to vote for Obama in the primaries.
|
lapfog_1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message |
16. We need to leave fear in the past. |
|
That's what so special about Obama. It's an opportunity to not worry what the Repukes will say or do. Besides, this is a story today, maybe for a while, but it will be long gone by the General Election.
Not to mention that whoever the eventual nominee is, the Kennedys and the Clintons and Edwards and Kerry and every other Democrat will support the nominee of the party.
|
Proud2BAmurkin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message |
17. It won't matter in the GE. It won't even matter in the primary |
DJ13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message |
18. So you're really saying Ted should have endorsed Hillary |
|
So the GOP could focus all their hate in one direction? :crazy:
|
L0oniX
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-28-08 03:01 PM by saracat
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
40. I personally don't care who Ted endorses. I was just making an observation in general. |
DURHAM D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message |
20. I have talked to many family and friends in the red states who |
|
have never voted Dem in their life. They were planning to cross parties and vote for Obama for two reasons (1) They are afraid that Hillary will be vindictive against Repubs and (2) They just want to make mischief and propel Obama into the nomination. None of them will vote for him in the general.
This endorsement will give them pause in the primary. As much as they hate Hillary, they hate Ted even more.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
42. Good point.And in the GE, they will replay this over and over. It isn't as though what I am sayin |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-28-08 02:31 PM by saracat
is something others don't know.
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
And invoking John Kennedy is not necessarily a bad thing. We shall see.
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message |
24. So apparently, when liberals endorse Obama, it's bad. When conservatives endorse Obama, it's bad. |
1corona4u
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message |
25. That's what I said when I heard it... |
PATRICK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
since most of the primary season will simply blow away in the public memory with the GOP voters. The conditioning is seated in the candidates themselves. Only Obama can hurt Obama or if a MSM meme is newly successful. One can suggest that might happen but the burdens imposed upon the Clintons will continue and seem to be unlikely uplifted by the Democratic primaries where a win will not change anything more for the better. The only thing they hope makes it irrelevant is of the GOP takes it upon itself to be in such a state of collapse that they simply lose the control they still own over the fixed, long instilled message. It is why "Chappaquiddick" Ted could not run and win, a simple fearsome political minus regardless of his real worth.
There is much cause for bitterness so long as it is kept directed at the true source of all lies- and it is not, amazing to say, in the Democratic party except as a pale echo.
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:24 PM
Response to Original message |
29. completely fucking ridiculous |
|
Kennedy's endorsement will have no impact on anyone but those rabid wingers who already hate him. And no, he's not as hated as Hillary and Bill.
|
Armstead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:25 PM
Response to Original message |
31. I often agree with you -- but not this time |
|
The people who hate Ted Kennedy are, for the most part,the same people who hate all Democrats and liberals and Hillary and John Edwards.
They're going to pull the lever for an R no matter what.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
49. Actually not so.I personally changed the voter registration of 5 GOPers who want to vote for John |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-28-08 03:00 PM by saracat
in the Primary.These are long time friends who will vote only for Edwards in the GE and are disillusioned with their own party.But they will not vote for any Dem other than Edwards and they loathe the Kennedy's.If they could be kept on board any issue with the Kennedy's drives them over the edge.That alone would stop any prospect of them voting for Obama! I have argued and argued with them about Ted especially.Just saying.
|
peace13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:26 PM
Response to Original message |
33. Face it, our 'top' two candidates both have baggage for the GE. |
|
But hey, that is what the MSM wanted. Fact is many more people are voting Dem in the primaries than Rethugs. Are these people going to turn around and vote for the Rethug candidate in November...I doubt it. People are sick and tired of the Rethuglican abuse that we have suffered over the last eight years. Spoken as a person without a dog in this fight. Peace, KIm
|
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:26 PM
Response to Original message |
34. What is it about Democrats... |
|
that so piss people off on this board? Democratic representatives with pristine voting records are trashed here on a regular basis. Do we need a more underground, Democratic Underground, for real Democrats?
|
Jackpine Radical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
43. That was no slam on Teddy or anybody else. |
|
It as an accurate observation that Teddy is second only to the Clintons in his ability to set Puggies and right-tilted indies to foaming at the mouth and gibbering about imagined or real past peccadillos, Vince Fosterisms and other alleged indiscretions.
|
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #43 |
53. Endorsements supposedly mean nothing.. |
|
whether it is Ted Kennedy or John Kerry, neither of which are running for President, or Dennis Kucinich. Those the 'right' loves to hate, are bashed repeatedly on this board with the same tired, trite, and meaningless bullshit. Are left leaning Democrats seen as a burden to people on this board? People will vote for whoever they want, but I don't understand what the purpose is of dredging those Democrats with the best voting records through the mud, and then proclaim the reasons for their shit-flinging is because they are worried about the big, bad, right. Disingenuous at best.
|
geek tragedy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:27 PM
Response to Original message |
36. And if he had endorsed John Edwards, it would have |
|
been a sign of John Edwards's greatness and readiness to lead.
|
Jackpine Radical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
38. Edwards isn't as dependent on wacko Puggy and right-leaning Indie votes |
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
46. This is not a candidate post but a strategy obsevation.Take it however you like. |
John Q. Citizen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:27 PM
Response to Original message |
37. I'm sure if hill got the endorsement instead you would have raised this issue? |
|
NOT!
I'm sorry, you are really cracking me up. This is so transparent and ridicules that it's making me wonder about your mental well being.
Look, I know you've been getting a lot of bad news lately, but this just makes Hill look like an ass. I think her supporters are doing her more harm than those who support other candidates.
How can you say this stuff with a straight face?
It just re-enforces the perception that Hill will say anything to win, after all, her supports will.
|
neutron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
41. No but the Obama Machine would! |
|
They've been spewing out the slime on Hillary since summer.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
45. Yes. I would say it if anyone got the endorsement.It is an observation. I am not a Hillary supporter |
John Q. Citizen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #45 |
47. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. I will just say I don't agree with your analysis and leave it at |
|
that.
I assume that all Dems will endorse the nominee no matter who it is.
If the Repos want to make an issue out of that, who would listen?
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
48. My point is that it doesn't matter if the Dems support our nom.That is expected. If we lose the |
|
crossovers and Indies, we don't win. And yeah, their votes ARE more important in the GE because they are harder won and necessary for victory!
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:00 PM
Response to Original message |
50. I like Ted, but he's a lead balloon in the GE. Caroline has starpower though. nt |
rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message |
51. The people who it will matter to have already made up their minds. n/t |
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message |
52. Like it killed John Kerry? |
|
Saracat, you have lost all perspective.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #52 |
54. This is an entirely different race and will be an entirley different GE. |
|
The ednorsement of JK got little attention because it was "expected".He was the junior Senator from Mass for gods sake, and as for Caroline, the Kennedy's had a connection with JK.It was also no surprise.They went after other stuff with JK.But in reality , I do recall the GOP, in passing, linking JK and the Kennedys in a unflaterring way. But this year is about Indies and hard won GOP crossovers.This could be more of an issue. Whatever.
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #54 |
55. You're bashing the Kennedys for chrissake. Just Stop It. n/t |
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #55 |
57. I am NOT Bashing the Kennedy's! Where do I bash the Kennedy's?Prove it! |
|
Is it bashing the Kennedy's to state the GOP hate them? And many Indies hate them? That is a fact.I happen to like the Kennedy's but that isn't relevent to the post .Again, Prove I am bashing the Kennedy's tell me where?
|
goodgd_yall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-28-08 03:25 PM
Response to Original message |
|
More ammunition for the GOPs in the GE campaign.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 06:43 AM
Response to Original message |