Is the tsunami coming? Huge endorsement. Who else is there on the Democratic side that is a more significant endorsement outside of Bill Clinton? With big endorsements coming from the likes of Kerry and now Kennedy – Massachussetts is won – and two sizable victories in two very different looking states; 2 stages of legitimacy have been won and now there is 2 more to go: February 5th and the sprint/skirmish for remaining sway-able delegates. I wonder how Kennedy making this endorsement will influence other important Congressional Democrats to make their endorsements. I would imagine this basically will open the floodgates by and large. What Democrat would not want to jump in and make an endorsement now either way? Either you are for the Democratic Party of Change or the Democratic Party of the Status Quo. I am picturing Dems saying, “well if Kennedy has endorsed somebody, I better get in on this too.” Pick a side and Ride the wave….ride the wave.
Machiavelli shall be defeated! (Yes I am excited)
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you Is worth saving.
Then you better start swimming
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changing
2 Comments
Gore would be a lot bigger
than Ted Kennedy.
I find it kind of sad that so many people sat on their hands six months ago but now want to jump on the bandwagon. These endorsements should have happened a long time ago if the people really thought Obama would be better than Clinton.
desmoinesdem Sun 27 Jan 6:00 PM
Political Endorsements
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.
drinksgreentea Mon 28 Jan 2:44 PM