Political Endorsements: Kennedy's Choice Is Obama

Political endorsements are historically risky across political systems, and any endorsement, no matter at what time in the race for political power, is inherently about values versus risk. It is easy to say, “well why didn't he come out earlier.” But, it is just as easy to say, “why doesn't he wait until later.” “If he truly believed in Obama, why not come out the day after Obama announces his candidacy?” One also might ask, “if he truly believed in Obama, why not endorse Obama the day after he made his 2004 DNC speech?”

Political capital is at risk. Anyone can have big ideas and big values, but a candidate has to prove himself to receive an endorsement. Obama had to prove himself – both in terms of ideas and capability to win – in the national stage. Admittedly, Kennedy could have come out and endorsed Clinton 6 months ago and that would have been less risky. If he endorsed Clinton and she loses the nomination, Kennedy is seen as going with the party establishment and he loses little political capital. Whereas, if he endorsed Obama 6 months ago and he fails to win any of the first four states and gets slaughtered on Super Tuesday, Kennedy looks like a fool. Sure, Kennedy went with his values from the start in that case. But, in the real case, Obama has secured legitimacy – he has convincingly won a few states and has demonstrated he is the change and visionary candidate – and Kennedy can endorse him with little political risk. Why go and shun the Clintons before Obama has proven his ideas can win nationally?

It is also about political timing. Obviously, Kennedy's endorsement is a boon for Obama's candidacy going into Super Tuesday. The endorsement adds legitimacy to Obama. With Kennedy's endorsement, Obama maybe starts turning the eyes of some of those older Clinton supporters who are too narrow-minded to see past what is in front of them and those Edwards supporters who like his ideas but do not see a viable candidate. Aside from the political risk involved in coming out early for Obama, now Kennedy can add a bump to his campaign at a key moment.

In any political system, it is also about the establishment. It is dangerous whenever a new political figure swoops in and freshens the political establishment. The establishment does not want change. The establishment believes it is still their turn. It is still their power to wield. They feel entitled because it is their domain. This is the case in any political system during periods of power change. When leaders go out, there tends to be contention for the vacant leadership post. Luckily, we embrace democracy, and change occurs with relative fluidity compared to that, say, of authoritarian dictatorships in Africa or Asia, past and present. But, perhaps, this year America realizes that the Clintons and the Bushes had their turn and it is now time for the next generation to shape the future of this country. We badly need new direction. The country realizes this and this is why Obama is getting big endorsements as the political risk of doing so declines.

Last, it is about spreading the word. It is important that endorsements such as those by Kennedy help spread the word that Obama is not just a funny name that rhymes with Osama; it is a word that symbolizes the hopes and dreams of new and past generations, those that embraced Kennedy – and even some who embraced aspects of Reagan – and remember Martin Luther King Jr. and think about the leadership of Lincoln. This is not about anointing a new King or Queen in a hereditary lineup, nor is it about who is entitled to lead our country, this is about deciding who best inspires our country to be the best nation that it can be and to produce the best policies that it can. Obviously, Kennedy has seen something in Obama that he wants the rest of the country to see. He wants them to see it before February 5th and that is good enough for me.

About the Author(s)

DrinksGreenTea

  • interesting piece on WaPo blog

    Apparently Ted Kennedy decided to endorse Obama because he felt that Hillary’s comments about LBJ were an indirect slam on his brother:

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com…

    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.

    The first was at an event in Dover, N.H., at which Clinton supporter Francine Torge introduced the former first lady saying, “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” signed the civil rights bill into law.

    The Kennedy insider says Senator Kennedy was deeply offended that Clinton remained silent and “sat passively by” rather than correcting the record on his slain brother’s civil rights record.

    Kennedy was also apparently upset that Clinton said on the same day: “Dr. [Martin Luther] King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Ac. It took a president to get it done.”

    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.

    Sounds like Ted Kennedy might not have endorsed Obama if Hillary hadn’t offended him.

    Meanwhile, last October Obama “sat passively by” while gospel singer Donnie McClurkin spouted his anti-gay message to a cheering crowd in South Carolina. But progressives are for some reason not supposed to hold that against Obama.

    • I don't blame him

      for getting upset.  I imagine those myopic comments by both Clintons played a significant role.  

      Did Obama give the anti-gay message?  What is he supposed to do?  I’m not sure what your point is.

      • my point is that Obama should never

        have booked an event with Donnie McClurkin.

        Instead, Obama showed me that if he is in a political hole, he will give a forum to a popular bigot who endorses him.

        • Balderdash!

          Your argument for why Donnie McClurkin should not have been booked is not convincing.  I could just as well say, “you have shown me that you will call people bigots, with no evidence, and try to correlate that with Obama because the guy sang at some event Obama wasn’t even at.”  Come on…

          From what I read, the guy was gay and he claims God “cured” him from being gay.  He believes being gay is a choice and that God helped him see that choice.  What is the problem?  He preaches about listening to God and believing in the Bible.  How in the world does that make him a bigot???  

          Apparently he received bad press for saying that he was “cured”?  Is that the definition of bigot?  Thinking oneself is cured from being something one does not want to be?  It sounds as if you are more or less spewing name-calling in place of definition.  

          • Ugh

            The more I read about McClurkin’s comments, the more myopic your comment appears….

            Apparently, a person cannot have any contrasting viewpoints in this world and support a Democrat?  I thought we were the party of ideas; claiming to be liberals, and we call others bigots?  What is that?  That’s intolerance at its best: sacrificing justice of one for ideology of the empowered.  Man, I’m going to have to go wash my face after this, maybe drink some of this down with some water, too.  It’s tough to see such from a fellow Dem.

            • talk to some people in the LGBT community

              and see how they felt about Obama standing there while McClurkin told the cheering crowd that gays can be cured and “God is the only way.”

              I don’t think Obama should have booked that event. Many other progressives felt the same way, which is why Obama’s support at places like Daily Kos dipped significantly in October.  

Comments