Monday, January 28, 2008

Oh no he didn't

Today Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. But that meeting of strange bedfellows wasn't nearly as illogical as Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour effort to derail Kennedy's imprimatur:

Rejecting a last-ditch effort by former president Bill Clinton, Sen. Edward Kennedy firmly bestowed his family blessing on Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Far from staying neutral, Ted threw some Irish elbows too:

And in a thinly veiled blast at the Clinton campaign, without naming the rival candidate, Kennedy said: "With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion. … We will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay." Kennedy has been critical of the Clinton campaign for injecting racial issues into the campaign.

And in a slap at another Clinton campaign talking point, Kennedy said: "I know that he’s ready to be president on Day One."
Why would Bill Clinton try to make this last-minute appeal? There was virtually no chance that Kennedy would change his mind and, by setting up the image of an ex-President rebuffed, it only elevates the importance of the endorsement. Plus, with Bill injecting himself yet again onto the national stage, he once again diminishes Hillary. If there's some Machiavellian double-twist at play here, I'm not seeing it.

P.S. - I should note that when I told a co-worker of my astonishment at Bubba's misstep, he opined that Bill probably convinced himself that he (being an ex-President and all) could talk Ted Kennedy out of the endorsement. Bill's become like that guy who was a football star in high school and still wears his letter jacket to the bar. Nobody's impressed anymore, buddy.

Extra - Bill Kristol in the NY Times (!): "Desperate Husband"

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bill Kristol? Really? Weekly Standard Bill Kristol? The guy who's never correct? Ever? About anything?

If Bill Kristol writes that Clinton used to be a United States President, the safest assumption is to assume that Bill Clinton's a German citizen.

Eric said...

That's why the NY Times hired him. He matches the intellectual honesty of Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and Maureen Dowd.

Anonymous said...

Those writers suck, but unlike Bill Kristol, they're not clinically retarded.

Nine observations from nine different Kristol columns, 2003-2007:

The good news is that we may turning the corner in the debate on post-war Iraq...and despite the continued killings of American soldiers, the situation on the ground in Iraq may well be turning.

In short, while it is indeed possible that, with a little luck, the United States can muddle through to success in Iraq over the coming months.

What's more, there are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and political persuasions can work together. This is a far cry from the predictions made before the war by many, both here and in Europe, that a liberated Iraq would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath.

Here, the last month's news--the mainstream media to the contrary notwithstanding--is promising...all of this enables one to be cautiously optimistic about the prospects in Iraq.

Just four weeks after the Iraqi election of January 30, 2005, it seems increasingly likely that that date will turn out to have been a genuine turning point.

"Happy Days!" The Iraqi elections really could be a turning point.

We are on the way to success in Iraq.

If so, this past week could turn out to have been a pivotal moment in the Iraq war.

Have you noticed we're winning the war in Iraq--despite the assurances of Democrats, including their Senate leader, that the war was already lost?