You've really only got three examples there: McCaskill, who's not up for reelection this time, and Kennedy and Kerry, both part of the Mass Democratic machine; indeed, Kennedy exerts so much control over his home state apparatus it's hard to see what could be a threat at this point to him... and Kerry, really, is similarly entrenched. What you don't see a lot of are people up in this cycle, or who are more dependent on support, getting up yet. It is a little soon, I think, to expect a tidal wave. That said, Kennedy certainly is a big deal for Obama, a shot across the bow that Establishment types don't feel beholden to the Clintons... if they don't have to be (more so than Kerry, in terms of clout). But I wouldn't call any of this over and done... yet.

So many members of Congress deciding to take sides since NH and as Hillary slipped back into frontrunner status looks like a message to her that no matter what she might think, as president she'll be dealing with the Hill as equals rather than subordinates.

True, the machine talk is a bit overdone. But I've heard the Clinton Machine more in connection to everyone other than legislators. They're the ones for whom access is a huge concern; legislators can get a lot taken care of with access to other legislators. They'll get fewer photo ops and signing ceremonies, sure, but I tend to think pictures of pork are less important than actual pork.

Conversely, lobbyists and various organizations have a really, really strong incentive to get in with the administrative agencies. They make a lot of regulatory decisions that Congress has a check over in a largely after-the-fact way.

So Kerry and Kennedy think Obama has the necessary experience...just who is Hillary to argue the point?

Can she point to an experience record anything like Ted or John?

Jeralyn Merritt complains that Ted Kennedy's timing is bad for party unity. No word on whether she thinks Clintons Jesse Jackson comments were meant to bring us all together.....

which we saw with Kerry's endorsement, and McCaskill's endorsement, and Webb's endorsement, and so on...

Webb hasn't endorsed yet.

I agree with all of your comments about the Ted K endorsment, except the one part of the Clinton machine, which carries weight for many former Clinton supporters - like Gulinani, once you cross them, they are ruthless, and do not forget people who turned against them. The hold grudges and because of this I have talked to many people working for clinton out of fear that supporting someone else would ruin their political carreer in the democratic party.

I also read your article about the false hopes of unity, and the difference between ending partisanship from the white house compared to from the senate. You make some very strong points, especially with your plea for reporters to start explaining more clearly and forcfully, when people fillibuster and exactly why they feel the need to do it.

The one incredibly important political factor that you seem to disregard, is the importance of political capital and the success of "full-time campaigning" that politicians have been forced to use in this country in the modern era to pass major legislation. The reason that nothing is getting passed is because our current president has super low approval ratings, BUT right after 9/11 Bush had very high approval ratings and could force stuff through the senate that wouldn't get through now, because senators didn't want to resist the tide of American citizens who supported the president and his legislation.

This is where Barack has a huge advantage, which he can't explicitly explain (although I'm shocked his surrogates wouldn't raise this point more forcfully), but which surely his message of bipartisanship and unity base their validity on - Barack has widespread appeal in this county, few haters, a media that likes him, and has shown an ability to draw support from republicans and independents and work with them in his positions as a state and national legislator. The political capital that he would surely have when he took the white house would allow Barack the chance to pass major domestic legisation, which we have not seen, really since FDR. All presidents have a chance at the beginning of thier terms (look at Hillarycare, Bush tax cuts, Bush privitizing Social security) BUT all of these presidents have had massive opposition to their presidency (Perot allowed Clinton to win both times with a plurality not a majority, and we all know that Bush squeeked out two election cycles with many haters).

Obama would have the chance to bring about unity, if only temporarily, and hopefully move our country in a new direction. If at that point his policies fail, then we would probably all resort back to partisan lines BUT Obama is an amazingly bright politician with the ability to surrounded himself with smart people, and a variety of viewpoints. Instead, Obama's first legislation would be seen as a triumph, and its success would allow for a revolution of sorts, where republicans and democrats both saw the advantage of a united populace, and mutual regard and respect, and the chance to work together without a sense of bitterness over the failures of the past!

Thanks for listening!

Many of the people endorsing Obama have little to fear from losing patronage.

It's probably not fear of destruction that keeps many long-time DC pols in Clinton's camp: it's a fear they wont' get their share of the spoils.

Not 100 percent true, but truer than not.

TED is a LEGEND. I love the Kennedys. The best speeches that I have listened to are by JFK and RFK.

But, the Kennedy family cannot compete with the two Clintons' attack machine. No one has ever defeated them. Ever. Forever.

The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now embedded in our blood stream. We cannot have a blood transfer.

I fear the worst. I fear that the Clintons will seriously hurt Obama. I fear that they will take apart his spirit. I fear that even if Obama wins (A BIG BANG IF), the Clintons' will force themselves as VP. Thus, Obama will become a useful tool to them.

In sum, the Clintons will win. This is an axiom. It cannot be proven wrong.

There is of course ONE WAY (and ONLY ONE WAY) to defeat the Clintons. Now and Forever.

- Make the Media zero-in on the supposedly "35" years of experience of HRC, the spousal beneficiary. As a starting point, read Colbert I. King's essay in WashPost (1/26)
- Demand the Clintons papers (especially between the Clintons) to be accessible to all now (or GOP will demand them in General - Have the Press say this again and again).

If these two things happen then and only then the Clintons will be defeated.

Kennedy is really entrenched and owes nothing to the Clintons. Powerful senators like him are in a bit of a different position because they know that a Democratic President has to play ball with them if they want to get anything done in certain areas. He is spending politcal capital, but otherwise there is less downside for him than for most other Dem pols. Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, is taking a risk, I think.

I am a 62-year-old woman, from the demographic group Obama has thus far failed to reach. I am a tepid Hillary supporter, who has been appalled by Bill Clinton's role in SC. Ted Kennedy's endorsement means something to me. I actively campaigned for JFK when I was 15, and have been looking for another Bobby since 1968.

I admire Ted Kennedy's Senate record; he has fought for progressive issues for over 40 years. His endorsement reassures me about Obama's progressive credentials. Supposedly Ted and Caroline Kennedy will appear with Obama tomorrow; I think that matters to those of us attracted to politics by JFK who might want to believe Obama carries the torch, but thus far have been cynically doubtful.

"Many of the people endorsing Obama have little to fear from losing patronage."

Exactly. The Clinton machine is vaunted in the sense that locks up the mini-establishment in each state and can rein in the donors. Obama has shown that he can build his own fundraising network and even poach a couple of Clinton ones as well.

His candidacy is a testament to his political abilities, not a testament to the "powerless" grip of the Clinton Machine.

"No one has ever defeated them. Ever. Forever."

Except, of course, for when Frank D. White, aka "No one", did in fact beat the sitting governor of Arkansas in 1981.

Redstocking - out of interest, why does Obama not reach your demographic? Is it a gender thing? Or something else?

Eorse is completely right about the magnitude of the Clinton machine. The senatorial endorsements are interesting because of that. The machine is at its most powerful when it bears down on the little guy, as it so often has. Linda Tripp's confidential FBI records were released to the public within hours of her appearance in the news. ALso, there is safety in numbers, the Kennedy prestige will have a protective effect as well. This could be the beginning of the end of the machine's power. The FBI records that they illegally got during their tenure in the White House, the "advocacy" groups that do their bidding (Media matters, etc) their slobbering acolytes in the press , their plan to have Fitzgerald create huge publicity in the Rezko trial, the thorough and meticulous detective work they do on anyone who opposes them, all this still exists. Time will tell. Their repudiation would be so invigorating for the Democratic party.

I don't think Kennedy, Kerry, or most of the other Superdelegates to be named later have much of a problem at all with Hillary Clinton, the way she weilds power, and what she would do as president.

But I do think that MOST of those who haven't yet endorsed her would be very very happy to see Obama win, so that Bigfoot Bill would finally be dethroned as the de facto leader of the party, and fade off into the sunset.

You've really only got three examples there: McCaskill, who's not up for reelection this time, and Kennedy and Kerry, both part of the Mass Democratic machine;

Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont has endorsed Obama too. That doesn't disprove what you're saying about endorsements from candidates who just happen to be "safe," obviously, since Leahy probably isn't feeling too threatened, but I just wanted to clear up that it's more than just the three you mentioned.

Ezra I am a Republican turned Independent by the likes of George W Bush, Tom De Lay and the religious right.

that said, I'll never ever identify myself as a "Democrat" (perhaps a Jim Webb Democrat though)

anyways, I'm for Obama ALL the way this year, and Obama and McCain are the only 2 candidates I have any interest in voting for. Hilary and pandering phony Romney are the two I will NOT vote for under any circumstances. (if it's between those 2, I'll wrote YOUR name in, or Pat Buchanan's)

there are a couple of things about Obama you don't realize, going back to your article about how talking won't break gridlock.

Obama is the ONE single candidate who has the capability to get elected by a massive vote, on a broad coalition, giving him the mandate and the political capital to get things done in Congress against incalcitrant foes who will be leery of risking their own hides by stubbornly opposing him

(remember how Reagan took his "mandate" to work against the Tip O Neill Congress. Certain Democrats in heavy "Reagan Democrat" districts broke away from the traditional liberals)

This is at the core of how Obama may succeed. Also, it should be noted that Obama despite having a profoundly more liberal/activist spin on governing than for e.g. I might appreciate, actually doesn't completely toe the classic "liberal" line.

One easily indentifies in his approaches a willingness to consider all points of view, a willingness to approach things from a new perspective. I for one, am certainly willing to give him that chance. He can't possibly screw things up more than the incompetent W in my estimation.

Hilary, if she wins (which is a big IF) can only win by the slightest of margins, will have no mandate, no political capital and will be fought every inch of the way. Her approaches are cautioss, traditional, she'd be a capable "caretaker" nothing MORE.

(btw.. given the Clintons now trying to get Michigan delegates and going after Florida and suing about Nevada caucus sites, all despite agreeing to these things beforehand)

Isn't the Democratic party TIRED? very tired of the sleaze, hypocrisy and inauthenticity of these characters?

You put up Jim Webb as Obama's VP and it's a ticket that cannot lose.

Webb is a southerner, swing state, ex Republican (how's that for "change") who's wildly popular with white men (yes I am a white man) and I'd love to see one of those chickenhawk Republicans accuse him of being "soft" on national security.

it'd be a kneecapping.

As a "Indep/Republican" I plead with you "Democrats" to wake up!

btw to the reader who commented that Claire McKaskill is taking a big risk?

WRONG.

Almost every notable Democrat from a purple or red state, IF they endorse, will endorse Obama.

these people are not dumb.

Hilary is like a super albatross on any Democratic ticket in those states.

as to prominent people in their own right like certainly Kennedy (and to lesser extent Kerry), they owe NOTHING to the Clintons.

So screw them.

Sebelius too, now, just before she gives the Dem response to the SOTU. That's very, very interesting timing, and will get the Veepstakes tongues wagging.

Ezra

you're missing the inner politics at play here. As many people have said, Bill Clinton is the defacto face/leader of the party. The reason why people like Kerry, Kennedy,etc are endorsing Obama is because they want to take control of the party away from the Clinton's perceptually and to the extent that there machine operates. I don't think its a coincidence that Obama gets a lot of these endorsements after he's won a state or when the media is having an Obama orgy.

Politicians are at their core opportunist. They smell blood in the water and are trying to seize the opportunity to take the Clinton's out.

Sebelius rules.

I'll let Redstocking answer for herself, but if you watched the NH debate, you saw BO bonding with the unspeakable Charlie Gibson over football and failing to stand up for HRC when they went after her on likability. Any older woman, especially a woman who has been out working for a while, has had to deal with the combination of condescension and exclusionary cameraderie that was on display in that debate. It's the one thing Obama's wide experience does not help him see.

hey Colin.

that "nobody likes you" question in the NH debate was as good as a plant for the HRC campaign.

there was no way for her to "lose" on that question - it begged for people to feel sorry for her.

ESPECIALLY because it's a noted and real fact that she is NOT likeable.

(though interestingly enough reporters say in person and among her longtime staff he is VERY likeable)

I cringed when I hear them ask this question and I cringed when Obama rather icily commented "you're likeable enough" because I knew these things could ONLY work in her favor, and I was waiting to bury the Clintons as they should be duly buried.

I wouldn't be surprised if the HRC campaign paid for those stooges who went to her rally and chanted "iron my shirt".

I'd put absolutely nothing past her campaign and the Willard Romney campaign.

p.s. the fact she's a woman has little to do with the fact she's not likeable or doesn't come across that way.

likeability and toughness for women isn't exclusionary.
I think HRC is tough but I don't like her, I thought Thatcher and J. Kirkpatrick were tough, but I loved Thatcher (not sure about Kirkpatrick)

and I love Peggy Noonan.

and would quite like Condi, if she didn't have the Iraqi albatross around her neck.

i like peggy noonan also!

are we still allowed to like republicans, even if we dont agree with them?
:-)

Webb? Do you know something i don't?

from a dc source i heard that bill clinton really doesn't want hillary to win the presidency. maybe his recent behaviour is an underhand means to undermine her campaign.

Oh right. That is such sour grapes. He never wanted it, he never wanted the Kennedy endorsement, etc. etc. He just is not as smart as people say, and couldn't think through the consequences of what he was doing.