Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama

[Mr. P]

Ya think the beast is pissed? :laugh2:



By Susan Milligan
Globe staff

WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.

Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support.


More...
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ted_kennedy_end.html

[NATO AIR]

Which is great... Let's slay the dragon Billary before it steals the election in November....

[hjmick]

The endorsement of a killer. Nice. Who's next? Scott Peterson?

[Mr. P]

The endorsement of a killer. Nice. Who's next? Scott Peterson?

I understand and it wouldn't mean much to me, but then I'm not black or a Democrat. In this case I see the Kennedy name + 60s Civil rights + JFK connection through Carolyn = a big boost for Oboma.

[hjmick]

I understand and it wouldn't mean much to me, but then I'm not black or a Democrat. In this case I see the Kennedy name + 60s Civil rights + JFK connection through Carolyn = a big boost for Oboma.

That's intresting. I understand your point, and I recognize that most people see it that way. I personally see the JFK presidency as incomplete, filled with failures, and promises ultimately fulfilled by others. I understand that there was much hope and promise for the JFK presidencey, I know that he inspired many people, but the truth is, he didn't even complete his first term.

Is the promise and hope of what may have been accomplished during JFK's tenure enough? It's been 48 years since he was elected to office. How long can the Democrats ride the inspiration of the '60s? The same could be said of the Republicans and the Reagan presidency, isn't it time to find new inspiration for the times in which live rather than times past?

[Mr. P]

That's intresting. I understand your point, and I recognize that most people see it that way. I personally see the JFK presidency as incomplete, filled with failures, and promises ultimately fulfilled by others. I understand that there was much hope and promise for the JFK presidencey, I know that he inspired many people, but the truth is, he didn't even complete his first term.

Is the promise and hope of what may have been accomplished during JFK's tenure enough? It's been 48 years since he was elected to office. How long can the Democrats ride the inspiration of the '60s? The same could be said of the Republicans and the Reagan presidency, isn't it time to find new inspiration for the times in which live rather than times past?

JFK was the source even though others accomplished things in that same decade. JFK is remembered by the black folks for his proposals etc. So a connection to him though his daughter or even Ted is strong.

Unfortunately, I see it as a racial issue more than a political issue today.
Despite what many say there is still a racial divide in the country. So much so, blacks will vote black based on color only, Oboma fits. That's my opinion.

[Immanuel]

So much for the Obama campaign! His campaign has suffered a severe blow! In fact, I'd say it is as good as over. :)

Immie

[theHawk]

Lets also not forget that Obama is a flamming liberal, more so than Hillary, thats why Ted is endorsing him.

[Immanuel]

Lets also not forget that Obama is a flamming liberal, more so than Hillary, thats why Ted is endorsing him.

I see you are allowing Hillary's subtle temporary move to the center sway you. :D Don't be fooled by Hillary's center shift, it won't last much beyond the November elections if it lasts that long. Then again, if the conservatives are the reason for her lost, you can bet she'll come back with a vengance. **shutters**

Immie

[Little-Acorn]

JFK was the source even though others accomplished things in that same decade.
One thing Kennedy WAS responsible for, though he was assassinated before it was completely enacted into law (shortly after by LBJ): He guided a major tax cut through Congress, cutting the top income tax rate from 91% to 75%.

Yes, the top rate was 91% when JFK became President, on incomes of $200,000/year or more. Kind of hard to imagine now. But Democrats had been in control of both houses almost continuously since the 1930s, so taxes knew no bounds, even long after WWII was over.

JFK's tax cut caused a mini-boom as unemployment and interest rates went down, average wages went up, and rich and poor alike saw increases in their incomes and prosperity. Interestingly, government revenues also went up, confounding doom-and-gloom liberals who insisted that any tax rate cut would REDUCE government revenue. It was a foreshadowing of what was to come twenty years later, when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates further from 75% to 50%, and then to 33%. An even bigger boom resulted, ridden by subsequent Presidents for the next 20-plus years.

If elected, will Barack Obama be another JFK in such important matters? Will he cut taxes as JFK did?

Why do I get the feeling Obama will need to be told by someone:

"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."