Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
LIGHTNING ROUND: I'M TED KENNEDY AND I APROVE THIS MESSAGE.
- I think Ted Kennedy is pretty cool, but I have to say I'm pretty surprised by how much play his endorsement of Obama is getting. I mean, what was the last endorsement reporters brought their children to? How important it will turn out to be remains to be seen, but it's interesting how his support is being interpreted in the larger narrative of the Obama campaign. Jonathan Cohn explains over at the Plank. Also see Ezra on the generational meaning of the endorsement, Chris Cillizza on the symbolism, Marc Ambinder on the politics, and Brian Beutler on what it says about Clinton's much-vaunted legislative chops (also see this longer article Noam Scheiber on the same topic).
- The Clinton campaign has largely responded stoically to the endorsement. At least one group of supporters is completely flipping out though.
- Also I hear there was a primary on Saturday (see Joe Klein's excellent take). Hard to believe that was two days ago. This hasn't been a good couple of days for Clinton. First her aggressive strategy against Obama blew up in her face, undermining one half of the argument for her candidacy (her political savvy) and then the most important and experienced liberal lion of the Senate came out in favor of her opponent undermining the other half of her argument (her legislative savvy). Of course it remains to be seen what the actual, y'know, voters think.
- Meanwhile, the attempt by some Clinton supporters (not the campaign) to pretend as if Bill Clinton wasn't saying Obama only won South Carolina because he's black has the slight problem of being completely bogus.
- Meanwhile supporters of John Edwards (remember him, national media?) are floating the idea of him as attorney general. But what went wrong exactly with his campaign? I like this take. And where will the Edwards supporters go as his campaign starts to loose steam? Dana rounds up the evidence in a new piece on the main site.
- It's not all roses for Obama though as Howard Kurtz (not an entirely unbiased source I realize) suggests trouble among the Obama traveling press.
- John McCain, meanwhile, is taking heat from conservatives for suggesting he'd appoint judges like John Roberts but not Samuel Alito. Yes, really.
- Shorter Rudy: "See, those liberal silly-heads don't like me so you should!" For more Rudy-freude and a deeper analysis of his campaign's collapse see Kate's new dispatch from the field on the main site.
- We really need to resist the idea that Mitt Romney is just some awkward but basically likable geek. I mean, he's my man Mitt and I want him to win the primary because I think he'd be the least bad president and also the worst candidate, but he's also, as Barney Frank says, the most intellectually dishonest person in the history of American politics. Arguing for doubling the size of Guantanamo isn't some cute bit of awkward misstatement.
- Finally, the biggest evidence of Obama's success I've seen yet: video of Obama's victory speech is more popular on YouTube than video of Britney Spears topless. Really. On the one hand, it's kinda sad that's surprising, on the other hand it's still awesome. Great catch by Ari Melber over at The Nation.
COMMENTS (9)
"But what went wrong exactly with his campaign? I like this take."
I don't like that take, and the reason I don't like that take is that the Democratic Party has been getting by (just barely) on symbolic gestures of the sort that he mentions, and Democrats need to really, really take that in before they start winning elections again.
Different groups of people have different lessons to learn. The Republican Party needs "this take." The Democratic Party needs to hear "Fuck your symbolic gestures."
Posted by: Anonymous | January 28, 2008 6:22 PM
I was pretty turned off by some of the attacks by the Clintons, but I think that the Jesse Jackson comment "controversy" is completely bogus (and so does Jesse, of course). I saw the video, and it didn't look very good, but I really wasn't clear on the exchange. Then I read the transcript, and felt 100% comfortable that Clinton was saying the same thing he'd say if O'Shaughnessy beat HRC in Boston, or Richardson beat HRC in Nevada.
Obama isn't actually post-racial, people. It's not offensive to suggest that people are predisposed to vote for their own - HRC won white women, Edwards won white men. Wow, now I'm David Duke, or something.
Posted by: JRoth | January 28, 2008 6:45 PM
The Brit video was added yesterday, the Obama was added two days ago. YT also doesn't update view counts every minute, and some have complained about them playing fun games with view counts.
On a related note: at least Hillary and Rudy and others moderate their comments and - shock! - everyone who leaves a comment agrees how great they are. Obama might moderate comments, and he definitely moderates video replies since my attempts to leave negative videos on him have failed.
OTOH, John Edwards and Huck let them all through, including not deleting my negative videos on them from the list of replies.
It'd be great if someone would re-upload Hillary and Obama videos using throwaway accounts so anyone can leave text and video replies. In fact...
Posted by: TLB | January 28, 2008 8:05 PM
Jake, Jake Jake
"And where will the Edwards supporters go as his campaign starts to loose steam?"
maybe his tight steam too?
Posted by: RW | January 28, 2008 8:21 PM
I think the democrats are deviding themselves and showing how ignorant and petty they really are. Ted Kennedy has power and money but he is one of the worst examples from his past of a great American leader.
Posted by: xxx | January 29, 2008 3:11 AM
I too am surprised at the excitment in the press about Ted Kennedy. He has become a largely irrelevant person in the senate. He makes nice speeches, but I remember that he was coauthor of the "no child left behind" disaster.
Furthermore, to someone who is a little older, Ted Kennedy is the man who knifted Jimmy Carter in the back, and then gave Ronald Reagan the White House by running against him in 1980.
Ted Kennedy's endorsement is not a plus to me.
Posted by: Judy | January 29, 2008 6:54 AM
Hmm... I can't say how the Kennedy endorsement will play nationally, but I know locally (live in Somerville, MA, work in Boston) that it's a huge deal, and people are paying attention. As one of the larger Super Tuesday states this cycle, that's a bit significant. The most respected (like it or not, he is) politician in the state giving his endorsement a week before the primary in said state? That's pretty big, at least in Massachusetts.
As for NY-NOW... Even though Clinton has the higher marks on NOW's congressional scorecard, is it really all that productive for them to call out Kennedy for supporting a guy that gets a 91% from NOW's scorecard?
Posted by: 32_Footsteps | January 29, 2008 9:44 AM
I don't find that take on Edwards' failed campaign at all persuasive. I think it has more to do with
1) Edwards is nowhere near as good a campaigner/orator as he is made out to be. Barack is far better.
2) Democratic voters associate Edwards with the failed ticket of '04 and want a winner this year
3) populism is nowhere near as popular (pun intended) as many liberal bloggers think especially when presented in the angry rhetoric Edwards has used (Americans like optimism)
4) Edwards' new political persona clashes with his record as a Senator and people's uninformed perceptions of him based on him being a Southern white male. Combined with stories like the hair cut and the house, this has created an aura of inauthenticity to his conversion to populism.
Posted by: Ron | January 29, 2008 10:52 AM
Thank you for the article sesli sohbet
Posted by: sesli chat | September 12, 2009 9:11 PM