Senator Edward Kennedy and the daughter of the late JF Kennedy threw their weight behind Obama.
Senator Edward Kennedy described Obama as ‘Worthy heir to JF Kennedy’.
Will this endorsement make a huge impact to Obama's campaign?

Bothwell:

Senator Edward Kennedy and the daughter of the late JF Kennedy threw their weight behind Obama.
Senator Edward Kennedy described Obama as ‘Worthy heir to JF Kennedy’.
Will this endorsement make a huge impact to Obama's campaign?

After seeing it on TV, I guess this will go a long way in the Obama campaign. Obama was pretty intelligent with his campaign today.

Obama all the way!

ditch the Clintons, Obama all the way

one vote 4 Obama

I have to admit, after watching clips of Obama and Clinton on Television, Clinton wins by a handslide. She offered a solution to energy crisis in the country by stating that, she would levy the oil companies to provide alternative energy to the masses. Obama on the other hand was just reiterating the common saying of dealing with washington to make things done. Coming from a man who is a beneficiary of expensive fund raisers, as ridiculous as over 2000 dollars a plate? That is a mockery of his motto for a vision of change. His cronies probably will benefit first, before the masses.

Welcome to American politics!

Has any of you considered the timing on this "endorsement" I watched the ABC interview of the two Kennedy's and not once were they able to tell us what exactly made them decide to endorse Obama, as in what stand of his made them switch sides and why now?? I am not usually paranoid about these things but I think those two may be up to something else in this. I mean these same endorsed the clintons before now. It is not that Clinton or Obama have really changed their rhetoric for a while now. I mean it has been the same "CHANGE" song for months now from both sides.

If anyone can help us answer this, please do.

If Obama is still saying the same things that he has been saying for months now and Clinton has remained same, what exactly made these kennedy's change their minds?? Is this not all about the whole Hollywood hype of being on the "MORE POPULAR SIDE". I mean come on, Not once in the interview where they able to definitively say THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE DECIDED OBAMA was the way to go except that they have seen how he has been able to move the youths and so decided it was time for them to endorse him. I mean with the Obama song singing louder and the race issue over the weekend, coupled with Obama having Oprah, the power machine on his side, who would not want to endorse Obama so as to secure his seat in the coming future should he win, even if they have no clue where he actually stands on critical issues that really affect the people?? LMAO!!

na2 day we dey hear that same solution clinton gave? we have heard it b4 and still no change. the deal is, washington has to be held accountable to whatever they are saying, and thats obama's message. dont just say something to be elected and do otherwise after. clinton has promised and and not deliver b4, so her promising again dont mean nothing.

Ndipe:

I have to admit, after watching clips of Obama and Clinton on Television, Clinton wins by a handslide. She offered a solution to energy crisis in the country by stating that, she would levy the oil companies to provide alternative energy to the masses. Obama on the other hand was just reiterating the common saying of dealing with washington to make things done. Coming from a man who is a beneficiary of expensive fund raisers, as ridiculous as over 2000 dollars a plate? That is a mockery of his motto for a vision of change. His cronies probably will benefit first, before the masses.

Welcome to American politics!

well, the answer is kind of simple. bill clinton! he messed up his wife's follower-ship.

Kobojunkie:

Has any of you considered the timing on this "endorsement" I watched the ABC interview of the two Kennedy's and not once were they able to tell us what exactly made them decide to endorse Obama, as in what stand of his made them switch sides and why now?? I am not usually paranoid about these things but I think those two may be up to something else in this. I mean these same endorsed the clintons before now. It is not that Clinton or Obama have really changed their rhetoric for a while now. I mean it has been the same "CHANGE" song for months now from both sides.

If anyone can help us answer this, please do.

If Obama is still saying the same things that he has been saying for months now and Clinton has remained same, what exactly made these kennedy's change their minds?? Is this not all about the whole Hollywood hype of being on the "MORE POPULAR SIDE". I mean come on, Not once in the interview where they able to definitively say THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE DECIDED OBAMA was the way to go except that they have seen how he has been able to move the youths and so decided it was time for them to endorse him. I mean with the Obama song singing louder and the race issue over the weekend, coupled with Obama having Oprah, the power machine on his side, who would not want to endorse Obama so as to secure his seat in the coming future should he win, even if they have no clue where he actually stands on critical issues that really affect the people?? LMAO!!

na2day?:

well, the answer is kind of simple. bill clinton! he messed up his wife's followship.

If that be the actual answer, then you have just made this endorsement meaningless. Basically it is just a move by the kennedy's to be on the popular side to secure their place with the "majority" who seem to be on the side of Obama in these states now and nothing about Obama politics. Notice this, the media is pushing this as Clinton messing up and what not but if you really come down from that MEDIAPALOOZA, you will notice that


1) Not all americans see it as clinton messing up and what not, that whole is the media mostly pushing that and the votes from south carolina show this too
2) The Republicans have been on each other's necks even during all this and we have all been watching the same as just politics as usual,

, so my friend, are you sure this is not just another game of PEOPLE WHO ARE EASILY SWAYED BY WHAT THE MEDIA FOCUSES on yet again in this country

what 'seat' does Senator Kennedy need to support Obama to gain Kobo?

I agree they may be jumping on the bandwagon a bit, or maybe after careful analysis of the two candidates they have decided Obama more closely aligns to their own views and aspirations, whatever those may be.

That is not discounting the politics involved though, everyone is angling for relevance and visibility these days, and being on the side of a dynamic candidate like Obama makes them feel young again

Whether this will have any significant effect on the race remains to be seen in the next few weeks.

debosky:

what 'seat' does Senator Kennedy need to support Obama to gain Kobo?

I agree they may be jumping on the bandwagon a bit, or maybe after careful analysis of the two candidates they have decided Obama more closely aligns to their own views and aspirations, whatever those may be.

That is not discounting the politics involved though, everyone is angling for relevance and visibility these days, and being on the side of a dynamic candidate like Obama makes them feel young again

Whether this will have any significant effect on the race remains to be seen in the next few weeks.

Are you new to american politics

vague response - the Kennedy's have name recognition beyond the reach of most politicians living or dead.

To suggest that this backing is merely a case of trying to 'position' themselves is a bit trite, they have more substance and credibility than that.

debosky:

vague response - the Kennedy's have name recognition beyond the reach of most politicians living or dead.

To suggest that this backing is merely a case of trying to 'position' themselves is a bit trite, they have more substance and credibility than that.

Well,  maybe that is the position the kennedy's hold in your world but if you have not noticed, that does not seem to be the case for all americans hence the reason why there are still many out there who vote against the stand of the kennedy's each year. Politics is not always a name game for all. Some people are actually too deep to fall for that even in this country.

My point exactly - If, as you say, people don't fall from it, then it goes to buttress the point that they are doing this out of some heartfelt motive, not currying favour as you dismissively suggested.

Let people vote with their 'deep' convictions, the Kennedy's will use theirs to support a candidate who is, in their view, progressive ad different enough to bring the change desired.

That is not my point. My point is if you knew american politics as it goes sometimes, people do this to get people to NOTICE them,  ie get in the limelight with those that may not really have noticed or known them before. Many americans today have no idea who this kennedy dude or his cousin /niece is. The only kennedy's they have heard of are JFk himself, the girl who is married to the guy in california and the others who died some years ago in some plane crash.

If you actually read my post , then you will know how your making this claim now does not answer the questions at all but only reveals your view(your opinion) which may not even be based on reality as it does not even address any of the points I made and so you have to understand why I will just accept that this is just you posting your opinion and nothing more here. Anywho, I will wait for someone who actually wants to debate the issues I stated in my post instead.

well in actual fact, you haven't really posted a 'question' but have subtly concluded that they did this to gain attention and be in the limelight due to the current media storm Obama is generating, ably driven by Oprah.

So in essence what you have posted is also your opinion, so I don't know what you want to debate when you've concluded.

Ok, lets attempt

How have you come to the conclusion that they have no clue as to where he stands on the 'critical issues'? All on the basis of a single interview?

Are you by any chance privy to the behind the scenes consultations that usually go on before such public announcements by prominent members of the Democratic party are made?

From your vantage point, it may appear to simply be media driven, but if your knowledge of the Kennedys is limited, that is no reason to assume the party delegates (to whom the declaration is essentially directed at this point) will not be swayed by this declaration. And for genuine, concrete reasons too, not simply from 'hype'.

So you mean you are QUESTION MARK BLIND now?? Did you not see all the questions marks in the post and do you not see that the post itself is to bring others to debate the issue not tell me where they stand without supplying substantial information to back up their stand sheeesh!! exactly the reason why I try to stay out of these political debates ,  anywho, if you do not want to address the post as is, don't worry, let others who are interested move in and try their minds on it . I am in the mood for good debate tonight and not the same old ramblings in here.

Watch "World News With Charles Gibson" tonight at 6:30 p.m. ET for the full report.

Though Kennedy's rhetoric on stage seemed at times targeted at the Clintons and, specifically, toward former President Bill Clinton, Kennedy insisted that the timing of his endorsement was "really to the future."

"It's the future of our party, and it's the future of our country. Barack Obama has a very special and unique quality of inspiring. And I think that is what's important," Kennedy told Gibson.


Referencing the recent back and forth between Obama and the Clintons, Kennedy said he wasn't "interested in sort of looking at the current situation" and that his focus was on the road ahead.

,

Caroline Kennedy said that the impact of Obama's candidate on her children was something that made her take note.

The daughter of the late John F. Kennedy said "seeing the impact [Obama] was having on my children, because that's what I saw up close and first hand, I really began to realize that this was something special and different."

Like her uncle, she stressed the importance of moving forward.

"This kind of person doesn't come along very often, and when they do, I think that it really is up to all of us to give it a serious look and put aside whatever plans we might have had and really get behind that kind of inspiration and power," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4204881&page=1

dude relax.

I was being facetious for the most part, but simply placing a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't really mean much when you've subtly concluded on the matter some previous spaces back.

Once again I repeat (seems you can't get beyond initial statements though ) the assertions I made in the latter parts of my post:

Is one interview sufficient to conclude that they are doing this without any substance as to Obama's views and positions as they differ from Clinton's?

Are you dismissing their entire pedigree on the altar of 'only JFK is known' and 'securing a seat' and believe that they are not in any way informed or convinced about what the man's ideas are?

ok kobo, naira or whatever your nickname is, i don't know where u live in the usa but where i live, the democrats love the clintons like hell but are greatly disappointed by bill's words. this is not nigeria where an ex-president will not remember he is an elder state man and place more guard on his words. i was watching the gleen beck show the other day and even bill's friends that still support him are not happy about his choice of words. the GOP is super pissed and me, i felt like dumping the man in the mist of angry iraqis(no offence to the arabs). as for the Kennedys, they have made a name for themselves and it still counts in today's america, same way everyone wants to be said to walk in the steps of Reagan

debosky:

dude relax.

I was being facetious for the most part, but simply placing a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't really mean much when you've subtly concluded on the matter some previous spaces back.

Once again I repeat (seems you can't get beyond initial statements though ) the assertions I made in the latter parts of my post:

Is one interview sufficient to conclude that they are doing this without any substance as to Obama's views and positions as they differ from Clinton's?

Are you dismissing their entire pedigree on the altar of 'only JFK is known' and 'securing a seat' and believe that they are not in any way informed or convinced about what the man's ideas are?

If you read my posts, you will note that is how I ask my questions, what is in question here is not my stand on this issue, I have made clear that I am suspicious of the decision made by these people and by his own mouth in the interview he basically stated it was about his future and the future of his party which to me does not really mean he really agrees with Obama's ideas but more trying to jump on the bandwagon to secure his own place and interest as well. That is what I heard over and over from his interviews all day and now I am putting this forward to others. Those who heard him and are able to consider things as they are, not people who want to push one agenda or another . Just simple debate on where this man actually stands and who actually benefits the most from this so called endorsement.  I suggest you read the article and watch the video yourself to maybe under how I trimmed it down to him securing his future (seat).

I am basically going by what the man himself said and decided to go with the ABC interview which I was able to view in full online and it is not my words but his that it is about his future. Unless you are going to tell me that ABC edited that video to make him say those things then we have something else here.

If Kenedy were seeking to "jump on the bandwagon" the clinton political machine would be the wisest move not obama's.

na2day?:

ok kobo, naira or whatever your nickname is, i don't know where u live in the usa but where i live, the democrats love the clintons like hell but are greatly disappointed by bill's words. this is not nigeria where an ex-president will not remember he is an elder state man and place more guard on his words. i was 3watch the gleen beck show the other day and even bill's friends that still support him are not happy about his choice of words. the GOP is super pissed and me, i felt like dumping the man in the mist of angry iraqis(no offence to the arabs). as for the Kennedys, they have made a name for themselves and it still counts in today's america, same way everyone wants to be said to walk in the steps of Reagan

Please stick to the debate and read the Nickname as is. It is straight up KOBOJUNKIE unless you have problem with the English Alphabet. Where I live, the same democrats do not care and are not moved at all by what happened last week infact, at work today, I overheard people blaming the media for blowing it all out of proportion. Now to claim that because the democrats on your end, the few you met speak for all, is rubbish. Like I stated earlier, the fact that many still voted for hillary even in SC goes to show that not all democrats see hoopla as you do @Na2day. So please, do not play that card here at all. Not all of Bill clintons friends are apparently on the side you are as there are still many of his supporters who come out to cheer at these rallies for him and his wife and clap even when they make these so called RACIST statements. I am not even a democrat and I don't even get how the whole was turned upside down.
Again, like the posted for the other guy to see, the Kennedy's may be big in your world but that does not necessarily mean it is the case for all americans. I hate having to repeat myself over and over but there are american's who could not tell you a single thing about ted kennedy, where he is from or what he stands for. Go out in the streets and ask around and you might get an idea of what the average americans really know about these kennedy's you hold high in your world there. Now come back and consider the fact that it is not the media that really gets to decide to the vote for many americans , but those very people out there who may not even care less what side these kennedy's endorse or do not endorse.

Dāwīḏ:

If Kenedy were seeking to "jump on the bandwagon" the clinton political machine would be the wisest move not obama's.

Before this week they were on the Clinton side until the hoopla started and according to Kennedy, he saw how Obama was able to win the people in IOWA over to his side and that was when he started considering Obama's side instead.

once again, on current delegates, Clinton leads Obama by at least 60 at the last count. Clinton is currently leading albeit slightly in major states for the Super Tuesday primaries. So if they are simply gaging the 'support' level out there, Clinton is still ahead, she has won more popular votes than Obama, has more structures than him on the ground and is probably more 'electable'.

In those terms, backing the Clintons would be a better bet in securing a 'seat'.

I like the way you subtly sidestep my questions in the guise of me 'pushing an agenda'

I asked you a straight question twice now I will ask again - how can you base such far reaching conclusions based on the comments of a single speech? Are you privy to anything that has gone on behind the scenes prior to this?

Watching a single video and speech is not sufficient to make all these assertions that you are putting forward man, you wanted a debate, at least answer the question.

debosky:

once again, on current delegates, Clinton leads Obama by at least 60 at the last count. Clinton is currently leading albeit slightly in major states for the Super Tuesday primaries. So if they are simply gaging the 'support' level out there, Clinton is still ahead, she has won more popular votes than Obama, has more structures than him on the ground and is probably more 'electable'.

In those terms, backing the Clintons would be a better bet in securing a 'seat'.

I like the way you subtly sidestep my questions in the guise of me 'pushing an agenda'

I asked you a straight question twice now I will ask again - how can you base such far reaching conclusions based on the comments of a single speech? Are you privy to anything that has gone on behind the scenes prior to this?

Watching a single video and speech is not sufficient to make all these assertions that you are putting forward man, you wanted a debate, at least answer the question.

1) I never said you had an agenda and I would not even care to know what it is or how it will affect me ,  could not care less, 

2) The reason I have not answered your questions over and over is cause you are not dealing with my statements as is but concluding yourself that I have made a conclusion on this instead so I see no reason or way to answer your questions until you yourself read my posts as is instead of jumping to conclusions on your end as to where I stand and what I believe without considering the information I have available to me which I again state was not made up by me but put forward by the man and his own niece or cousin in the video and in various interviews all over the news today ,   If you can understand that then you will understand why your questions can not be answered by me since you are going off on your own conclusion and expecting me to accept that they apply to me and then requiring I answer to those conclusions.

Kobojunkie:

at work today, I overheard people blaming the media for blowing it all out of proportion.

you could not have been more right . .  one blogger put the "victory" in SC best - See the demographics stupid!

Obama took 80% of the black vote, considering they account for 50% of the democratic votes cast it was clear he would win. Edwards beat Obama to third place for the white male vote. Clinton overwhelmingly won among white females.

Lets face it, Obama has a long hill to climb.

dude, he answered ur question, u shld give him the honor of answering his question. i am all ears

Kobojunkie:

1) I never said you had an agenda and I would not even care to know what it is or how it will affect me , could not care less,

2) The reason I have not answered your questions over and over is cause you are not dealing with my statements as is but concluding yourself that I have made a conclusion on this instead so I see no reason or way to answer your questions until you yourself read my posts as is instead of jumping to conclusions on your end as to where I stand and what I believe without considering the information I have available to me which I again state was not made up by me but put forward by the man and his own niece or cousin in the video and in various interviews all over the news today , If you can understand that then you will understand why your questions can not be answered by me since you are going off on your own conclusion and expecting me to accept that they apply to me and then requiring I answer to those conclusions.

Alright kobo

let me rephrase

Is this video/interview given today the basis of your opinion (since you don't like conclusion ) Yes or No?

You keep stating the average American doesn't know the Kennedys, no contest. If this is aimed at party members (delegates) who DO know the Kennedy's, can you simply write off their endorsement or its potential impact.

PS you can kindly point out any wrong conclusions I have made in framing the above posers

nobody said the road will be easy but we will rather vote for what we feel is right. the clinton and others ignored the young generation in their voting plan until obama came in and all of a sudden, they see that college students are a potential force in politics and they decided to pull a crocodile crying on tv. next everyone wants to have a young audience as their background while mounting their speech podium

Dāwīḏ:

you could not have been more right . . one blogger put the "victory" in SC best - See the demographics stupid!

Obama took 80% of the black vote, considering they account for 50% of the democratic votes cast it was clear he would win. Edwards beat Obama to third place for the white male vote. Clinton overwhelmingly won among white females.

Lets face it, Obama has a long hill to climb.

@ na2day?
I agree with you . . . my point is dont read too much into the Kennedy endorsement. When the average American goes to the polls on Super Tuesday they wont have Kennedy in mind.

debosky:

Alright kobo

let me rephrase

Is this video/interview given today the basis of your opinion (since you don't like conclusion ) Yes or No?

You keep stating the average American doesn't know the Kennedys, no contest. If this is aimed at party members (delegates) who DO know the Kennedy's, can you simply write off their endorsement or its potential impact.

PS you can kindly point out any wrong conclusions I have made in framing the above posers

Straight up. You do not know the kennedy's more than I do and I can not claim to know them more than you do. All we know is what we hear them say and what not, and just cause you hold them high on your list does not mean they should be high on my list. By the way, No one is high on my list as I see them all as humans who are no better than I am and this I apply to all persons.
 
On that note, all we have to go on is the words of there words and their actions. This move to endorse obama was made public over the weekend and since then I have been listening to understand what exactly made them decide to make that move at this time and so after sifting through all the so called quotes from the media for reason, I waited for a good video that had them sit at least five minutes to answer basic questions to pin point the actual reason for this and I picked the ABC video cause we can all see them speak of their reasons and motives in answer to basic questions that would make sense to the common mind. So you tell me why I should not believe what the man and the lady said in that video if you have access to information I do not have access to then.

Notice I am giving you to chance to show me why I should not believe what I hear them both saying in those videos at all??  And if you go back to my initial post on this thread, you will see this is exactly the very same thing I started with, throwing the ball in the court of the one who does not think I should believe what is I hear from the mouth of these two kennedy's in the videos and the many quotes all over the media from these two as reason for their endorsing Obama and no more the clintons.

Bros I made no claim to superiority over the knowledge of the Kennedys, I simply stated that the impact of their endorsement may not be as easily dismissed as you prognosticate. I am not a US political expert, I simply state the little I know.

In order to distinguish between what they have said now and what they said previously, you would have to conduct another assiduous study of what they said when they initially supported the Clintons. You have simply said there is no substance to back their support of Obama, it may well be that there was no publicly enunciated reason for backing the Clintons earlier as well.

I haven't said I am suddenly privy to some high level information not available in the public domain, but since you 'know american politics' so well you should be well aware too that a lot more goes into a prominent politician coming out to endorse another than can be gleaned from a couple of sound bites.

Complex horse trading goes on behind closed doors before such declarations occur - do you think it is at all plausible that such meetings went on prior to all this, but the announcement delayed till after the SC primaries to give it maximum impact?

Going by what you have said, the politicians have really said nothing as to their real reasons, which may go on to indicate that there is some unrevealed reason as to why they are backing Obama. But is it mere hype or hollywood mediapalooza? I doubt that.