Profiles In Courage: Endorsements When They REALLY Mattered...

1980
Choice: Reagan or Carter
Endorsement: NONE

1984
Choice: Reagan or Mondale
Endorsement: NONE

1988
Choice: Bush or Dukakis
Endorsement: NONE

1992
Choice: Bush or Clinton
Endorsement: NONE

1996
Choice: Dole or Clinton
Endorsement: NONE

2000
Choice: Bush or Gore
Endorsement: NONE

2004
Choice: Bush or Kerry
Endorsement: NONE

If a high-profile Democrat who has the platform of an immensely powerful family name that might affect how many people vote IF he/she made an endorsement - and yet FAILED to endorse the Democratic candidate in ANY of the last seven Presidential elections - finally decided to endorse a candidate now in the Democratic primaries...

How much respect should we give that endorsement?

Someone who had the opportunity and responsibility to speak out against the Republican presidential candidate at SEVEN elections that really mattered - yet declined to publicly oppose:

• Ronald Reagan
• George H.W. Bush
• Bob Dole
• George W. Bush

Someone who had the opportunity and responsibility to speak up for the Democratic presidential candidate at SEVEN elections that really mattered - yet declined to publicly support:

• Jimmy Carter
• Walter Mondale
• Michael Dukakis
• Bill Clinton
• Al Gore
• John Kerry

Exactly.

Meet Caroline Kennedy.

Now Caroline Kennedy has done wonderful charity work over the years. She is to be commended for that work. And her grace and nobility throughout her life are exemplary. She has carried herself with dignity despite repeated family tragedies.

However - WITHOUT IN ANY WAY DEMEANING ANY OF THAT - before we pay heed to her views of presidential candidates in 2008 - is it not pertinent to politely and respectfully enquire where her endorsements were in the preceding seven presidential elections?

Elections that resulted in us having a cumulative TWENTY YEARS OF Ronald Reagan and two George Bushes.

Just asking...

Comments

[luziannagirl]

Give all the K's a break. They all look like they are doing everything they can to halt the Bush/Cheney NeoConArtist Let's Wreck America Party. Whether it's Obama or Clinton who ultimately gets the D-nom, at least they have some K's, and probably at that point, the other K's will rally behind that candidate, also.

Perhaps their lack of past endorsements says more about the K's' recognition of the importance of this particular election to our way of life, democracy, and perhaps even civilization and humankind itself, than a reflection pro or con on previous candidates.

[gsmarktg]

Martin-
Forgetting politics for a moment, congratulations on the Beatles launch of "Across the Universe" into outer space. And I thought I had all the export rights from EMI!! lol
Regards,
Marty Scott

[OrangeSam]

I think you ought to give her a pass at least on 1980. After all, Carter had just beaten out her uncle for the Democratic nomination.

On the overall subjects of endorsements, they are like any other commodity. The scarcer they are, the more valuable. It seems politicians hand out endorsements just to hitch up to what they perceive to be the bandwagon de jour. This simply makes them de rigueur. Case in point: Gov. Arnold. As soon as the once mighty Guiliani armada shrank to a single sinking dinghy, Arnold jumps ship like a rat on steroids and lands on the USS McCain.

==========MARTIN RESPONDS===========

I'll stipulate to a pass on 1980. Though a lot of Dems feel that Teddy should have waited till 1984 rather than weaken an incumbent Dem President. But leave that aside. That leaves 6 other elections - including the crucial one of 2004 - when there was a moral imperative to speak up. Even Bruce Springsteen went public! C'mon...!

=============================

[Trace8089]

In 1980, She did endorse her Uncle Teddy in the primary. The old drunk liberal split the party. Wouldn't endorse or support Carter until it was way too late. it was Teddy and his loony left friends in Congress that cost Clinton the House in 1994. What issues did the republicans ride in on? Gays in the military and socialized medicine. Clinton went too far left his first 6 months. What did it get him? Republicans with subpoena power. What did the republicans and their right wing buttboy supporters like Richard Mellon Scaife do? They spent 100's of millions of dollars looking into every nook and cranny of both Clintons. Don't think they haven't and won't do the same thing to Obama. Every business dealing and social contact will be examined. If anything looks or smells remotely fishy the right wing establishment and front organizations will go after him with no mercy. Does anyone think the republicans give a shit about black voters? The repubs could care less they understand numbers. For a democrat to win a nation election democrats have to get 90% of black voters, minumum of 55% of hispanics and 40% of the white vote to win. They will bring up his loony left supporters, his racist preacher,Rezko and any other business deal that smell funny to drive his white votes down. The will exploit racial tensions between Hispanics,Latinos and blacks to make him the black candidate. Personally, I will vote for whoever the democrats nominate. Don't think if Obama gets the nominee it will not be a war to get him elected. Something all Obamanites need to understand if Clinton gets the nomination they need to get behind her. Do you want Pat Robertson,James Dobson stacking the supreme court. This is very important to stop. If McCain or Romney are elected president they will cow-tow and select right wing assholes in their late 40's early 50's. Look at how Scalia,Thomas,Roberts & Alito decide cases. Now imagine 3 more controlling the court for the next 40 years.

=========MARTIN RESPONDS============

Amen. What the Obamaniacs don't understand - or don't want to understand - is that it's NOT about the merits of their candidate as a person. Qualities that I admire. It's about the right-wing in this country and what it will do. And about how patient and resilient people are during the mundane nuts & bolts course of a presidency - as distinct from the giddy euphoric period of a campaign.

===================================

[SCharb]

All of those people sucked. Really, really sucked.

I would never endorse any of them with a ten foot pole. Can you imagine Caroline Kennedy comparing Mondale or Gore to her father? Ridiculous!

============MARTIN RESPONDS===========

She didn't need to compare Gore to her father to publicly support him over Bush. A lot of people stood up against Bush BEFORE he was elected. And against Reagan. Sometimes life is about taking a stand. Kidos to her for taking a stand now. But she didn't for 28 important years...

==============================

[wondering]

As far as I can ascertain, you, sir, are not a US citizen. If you will permit me to acquaint you with an American colloquialism, perhaps you should "butt out".

If you intend to be fair, then we shall expect from you a full accounting of every person who has endorsed Hillary Clinton. So far, you have only managed to find fault with the endorsements of Caroline Kennedy and Oprah Winfrey. If either one had endorsed YOUR obvious choice, would we have seen comparable articles from you questioning their liberal credentials or gullibility?

At least one of your bios mentions your vigorous defense of Bill Clinton during his presidency. I, for one, am shocked, sir - shocked! You realize that some of your critics will accuse you of having "a dog in the fight" (a backwoods Yankee phrase that your Arkansas buddies will no doubt explain to you).

In this particular case, one must ask, "why are your knickers in such a bunch?" Perhaps Ms. Kennedy has never felt sufficiently moved by any of the previous candidates to voice an opinion. She merely chose to withhold her endorsement. Is that not her right as a citizen of this country? Why should she be expected to carry the liberal banner?

Really. Stick to comedy.

=============MARTIN RESPONDS=========

I am very proud indeed of my vigorous defense of President Clinton during the impeachment. Many people who saw my frequent appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and CNBC in that era were kind enough to comment on the strength of my arguments. They were not because I held great personal affection for President Clinton. And I certainly didn't personally approve of his personal foibles. I fought then - as I fight now - because I care passionately about the Democratic Party. And I could see what the right-wing was trying to do. The only connection with ten years ago is that I am certain of what lies ahead for either Clinton or Obama from the GOP. And I want every voter to consider this carefully before choosing our candidate. The next few years are going to be a bloodbath. The Republicans and Big Business will NOT give up power and influence without a vicious struggle. Edwards knew this and expressed this better than HRC or Obama. (So much for assumptions)

=============================

[lynnn]

Also there are these people called independents, (which there will be a lot more of in this election). Who are swayed by democrats endorsing a democrat (I know how odd right)? There are a bunch of people who don't even vote because of what they see as innate corruption of the system and they are hopeless. From each admin things (in their opinion) get worse. I don't know if you've ever canvased to get people to vote. Oh one more thing, why would Caroline Kennedy endorse Bill Clinton in the GE when he had this habit of grandstanding, to appear tough on crime (like the execution of a possibly mentally ill man in Arkansas). I guarantee Martin, that if you spent a week in a few places, you would understand why many Americans haven't voted in a long time, you would understand why many Americans say all those people as part of a vile system.

[Lon]

I gather you are not originally from the US, so that may explain your confusion.

Kennedy endorsements are not particularly important in general elections, because the people who take them seriously are dedicated democratic voters.

It is interesting that this is the first election in which she felt the difference between the democratic candidates was enough for her to decide to get involved. But I certainly have no trouble understanding the sentiment. After all, one of the remaining candidates gave cover to the disatrous war in Iraq while the other opposed it. So it is easy why someone would think that not all democratic candidates are created equal.

You obviously believe the same (albeit with the candidates switched) but so far have been somewhat unclear as to your reasoning.

Your Oprah post suggests you are running out of even vaguely negative things to say about Obama. Isn't it time you tried to make a positive case for Clinton? Is there a positive case to be made besides that she is the more famous candidate?

The closest you have come to making a positive case was claiming that it was an act of courage for Clinton to launch a misleading attack on a democratic senator out of fear of republican talk radio. And that is not much of a case. Is there more?

============MARTIN RESPONDS=============

I will make my case FOR the Democratic candidate when the party selects its choice. And my fighting for Obama or Clinton will be very vigorous. And my attacks on GOP lies will be feral. As it was on behalf of Gore and Kerry. Till then I stick to my role of provoking people to think about aspects of the race that don't seem to be fully discussed.

===========================

[lynnn]

First Gore won the pop vote (would have won florida if liberals like yourself stood up for African Americans when they were being turned away from the poles. I'm sure you were well aware of the whole FL TX list of names and AKA's of felons that was used to keep little ole ladies from voting). So now I am supposed to respect you when you whine about someone not endorsing, please respect me, my intelligence, and the hard working Americans who are craped on by both parties (let's not get started on mandatory drug sentencing).

[vbond]

Just answering...
All of these people have explained themselves completely, from Caroline Kennedy to Paul Volcker.
Eat your heart out.
Sorry.

[sabretooth]

Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama has value to the extent that public support of a candidate by a public figure may sway some voters.

Some could argue that in not jumping onto the fray in earlier elections, she has kept value in lending her name to a candidate.

She is a very bright, successful person . . . with a name cache that she has held precious. Her choosing to lend her name to Senator Obama in this election is not diminished by her choosing to remain private in earlier years . . . except to those who choose to view it in that fashion . . . regardless, I doubt that her endorsement will cause people to abandon Obama.

Indeed, it is perhaps her perception of Barack Obama's candidacy as a paradigm shift in American politics that has triggered her action. I'm happy to have her join in supporting Senator Obama.

Obama '08!

tooth

[zebra3]

Martin, I don't know who you are, but you're really annoying. If Caroline had endorsed Hillary Clinton, you'd almost certainly be writing: "Think about how important this is: Caroline has not endorsed a candidate for president in the last 7 elections. Her decision to break with that long-held tradition bespeaks the gravity of this endorsement. We know it did not come on the spur of the moment. We should, therefore, give it the great weight that it deserves." If you cannot admit this, you are in serious denial. But of course, they do say you've got to be smart if you're fooling yourself.

===========MARTIN RESPONDS==========

You're correct. You don't know who I am.

And thank you for assuming what I "almost certainly would be writing". Since I have made no reference at all to the three children of RFK or the grandson of Chavez endorsing HRC - forgive me if I point out that you are wrong. And failing to address the very specific points I have raised. Which are triggered not just by Caroline Kennedy's endorsement - but also the fevered reactions to it...

================================

[epistemologist]

There are two quite different ways to look at the fact that Caroline Kennedy is endorsing Barrack Obama after having not made endorsements in other earlier races. This blog mentions one of the two: a diminished respect for her decision to endorse now. The alternative way is as follows: The fact that she choses to endorse now, in spite of the fact that she hasn't in these other races, shows the level of importance that she places on her decision to endorse Obama now. Perhaps we should take her at face value: She sees a parallel between Barrack and her dad that she didn't see in any of the earlier candidates. This makes her endorsement now even more heartfelt. As to those who make snide remarks about her decision: Get a life.

[wmnorton]

The thing that bothered me about her endorsement was that she did it because her teenage kids wanted her to. Obviously she wasn't that interested in past elections because her kids didn't express a preference. Does she always give her kids everything they want. Just asking to see what people think.

[ulmew]

I think another way of looking at this would be to suggest that this is evidence that Obama brings new people to the process. Perhaps Caroline Kennedy never supported any of the other democratic candidates because, let's be honest, they are all examples of people who won by winning the clothespin vote: They stank the least. Obama actually inspires people who had given up on our political system. Indeed, if our last four presidents end up being Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Clinton (but more likely McCain if Clinton is the nominee) those people are guaranteed to give up on the system. Obama has produced turnout miracles in state after state and is on track to win nearly an equal number of delegates as Clinton on Tuesday, unless whatever the Clintons have planned for tomorrow has the effect of killing the momentum and media buzz that has been generated by the series of Obama endorsements that Hillary's shills are trying their best to minimize. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but if I were Martin Lewis I would be sick of having to put out an anti-Obama propaganda piece every single day leading up to Tuesday. (More accurately, every day since Jan 27th excepting Feb. 1)