Obama’s ‘Noble Blow’
Does the anointment of Barack Obama by the patriarch of the Kennedy clan somehow conflict with America’s iconic democratic image? According to this op-ed article from the Nachrichten newspaper of Switzerland, ‘What influence do the Kennedys, or in fact any family clan, have in the United States? Apparently, more than anyone would have thought possible in such an iconic democracy. The parallels to the rise of European feudalism are striking.’
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Ulf Behncke
January 28, 2008
Switzerland – Nachrichten – Original Article (German)
The triumphs of Barak Obama in his fight for the Democratic presidential nomination simply keep coming. First he inflicted a bitter defeat on Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina primary; and now he has received the official endorsement of the Kennedy clan, one of those families which in the United States epitomizes the political aristocracy.
The Clinton’s were in the process of entering this elite group, to which the Bush family also belongs. For that, Hillary would have required the noble blow of Ted Kennedy, brother of the legendary John F. Kennedy and Senator of Massachusetts. At the very least, she would have needed him to keep out of the primaries. But things have turned out differently. When the election campaign turned uglier and certain remarks were made that could have been interpreted as racist, Kennedy seemed to increasingly side with Obama.
What tipped the scales was a column by John F. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline , who sees in Obama a potential president who, like her father, could inspire the nation and lead it to a new beginning.
In return, the Clintons pulled the support of another Kennedy out of the hat, the daughter of Robert, who too was murdered and was the designated successor of John F. Kennedy. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, with her support of Hillary Clinton, took sides against her uncle and cousin.
This raises questions: What influence do the Kennedys, or in fact any family clan, have in the United States? Apparently, more than anyone would have thought possible in such an iconic democracy. The parallels to the rise of European feudalism are striking.
Take for example, the Bush and Kennedy clans, both of which laid the foundation for their power in very murky business dealings during the first half of the last century. Joseph Kennedy , father of Ted, made his fortune with insider dealings and alcohol imports during the period of Prohibition, which included being tainted by contacts with the Mafia. Prescott Bush , father of former president George H.W. Bush and grandfather of incumbent George W., was implicated in the financing of the Nazi regime through one of the banks he managed.
But it seems that the money still doesn’t stink.
READ THE REST AT WORLDMEETS.US, and for more continuing foreign coverage of the U.S. elections
16 Responses to “Obama’s ‘Noble Blow’”
I think the answer to your question is yes.
I”ve been waiting for Somebody, who is well aware of Obama's leftward voting record, to wonder aloud to what extent the support of Kennedy, well known to be to the left among Congressional Democrats, implies about Obama's own politics and future plans.
[...] Beppe Grillo’s Blog wrote an interesting post today on Obamaâ??s â??Noble Blowâ??Here’s a quick excerptDoes the anointment of Barack Obama by the patriarch of the Kennedy clan somehow conflict with America’s iconic democratic image? [...]
[...] Daily Intelligencer – New York Magazine wrote an interesting post today on Obamaâ??s â??Noble Blowâ??Here’s a quick excerptDoes the anointment of Barack Obama by the patriarch of the Kennedy clan somehow conflict with America’s iconic democratic image? [...]
Well – taking a lesson from last night's comment thread – we need to be careful with that, correct, DLS? The association game is very, very tricky – or, at least, we need to not rush in.
How do you assess it?
[...] Feministe – In defense of the sanctimonious women’s studies set. wrote an interesting post today on Obamaâ??s â??Noble Blowâ??Here’s a quick excerptFirst he inflicted a bitter defeat on Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina primary; and now he has received the official endorsement of the… [...]
I won't assume it's a farther-left-Dem gesture, but instead assess it as another well-known celeb politician who is choosing Obama rather than the establishment candidate of the party (Clinton).
Note that I do not choose to engage in the silliest association game, which presents Obama to us as the next JFK.
A wise decision, easy to support.
Another argument might be that Ted et al have seen it all. If there's any other group of experienced politicians with as much time in politics as the Kennedys, that's ready to say that what Clinton would bring is not what this country needs, I don't know which group that would be. So there's an authority with which the Kennedys speak – just based on their years in and around politics.
On the other hand, maybe one reason endorsements don't mean as much as we might think they should or would is because only the people to whom the endorser already appeals is going to follow what the endorser does – so if you're not a Kennedy person to begin with, it's not going to affect you. The bottom line being: how many “Kennedy people” are there.
And what is being sought by so many already?
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/01/the_endors…
While interesting, I think the author's Eurocentric worldview is pretty irrelevant to average Democratic primary voter in the US.
IMHO the real effect of this dual-pronged Kennedy endorsement is nothing more than detaching the Clintons from the association of being the heirs to “Camelot”. Real or imagined — and I'm inclined to believe that like many others who were cut down young, JFK's mythology exceeds what he would have proved to be had he lived — the symbolism of JFK is real for many people, especially Democrats. The Clintons rode JFK's coattails throughout the 90s and Hillary tried to keep riding them now — right up until Teddy and Caroline stepped in the path and hit her in the head with a brickbat.
I think this endorsement would be pretty meaningless in a general election. But in a democratic primary? A different story. This isn't about policy. It's about personality. And in that battle you can't underestimate the power of such symbolism. Obama's success next Tuesday will rely on defanging Hillary's political machine, and I this helps do that.
DLS: yup — the Goreacle's endorsement would be golden right about now. If he's going to do something, he needs to do it now for the primary and not afterward when he can potentially be a liability in a general election.
Think he'll speak up? I'm not wagering on this one.
I'm guessing that eventually he will speak up. I honestly don't know if he'll go with Obama or if he'll grit his teeth and cast a “vote” in favor of the party establishment.
Idiosyncrat -agree w/your observation about detaching Clintons from Camelot.
I'm not sure why, but part of me really doesn't want Gore to say anything. I kind of feel that way about most endorsers – I wish they wouldn't do it – I want us to vet the candidates between ourselves – but maybe that's just not realistic or necessary.
The other thing about endorsing now is that if there's a consensus that we're going to want a Dem in there no matter who it is, in the general, then, how much harder do we make it for the eventual primary winner, if it's not the endorsed person, to actually win?
Jill, think back to the 2000 and 2004 elections. Can you recall for me any party primary candidate endorsements? Bet you can't…
So long as the endorsements are focused on the positive achievements of the person being endorsed (unlike the evisceration of Giuliani in the NYT “endorsement” of McCain), if that person loses it's pretty easy to recover from a voter morale standpoint. <Insert boilerplate language about backing the party candidate, thinking the alternative is also qualified, etc. here>. All done, with no damage done save for maybe the personal aspirations of the endorser who bet on the wrong horse.
Put another way, no swing voters or conservatives in a general election featuring Hillary Clinton are going to care that she wasn't endorsed by the Kennedys. Likewise, no Democrat or unafilliated liberal is going to vote for a Republican because the Kennedys didn't endorse Hillary.
As far as a general consensus being that we want a Dem in there no matter who it is, I hope you mean among Democrats, because that's surely an unsafe assumption across the general electorate.
Here, you assume correctly
re: “As far as a general consensus being that we want a Dem in there no matter who it is, I hope you mean among Democrats, because that's surely an unsafe assumption across the general electorate.”
For sure I don't recall primary party candidate endorsements but I can't say if that's because I wasn't following much or because there weren't any – I was not anywhere near as wonky then as I am now – embarrassingly unwonky.
But I agree with your point anyway – that an endorsement isn't in the long run going to be problematic of it's for a primary loser (or winner I suppose?).
Just fyi: My dislike of the endorsements comes somewhat from my experience of them in Ohio during the 2006 primary season for governor as well as U.S. Senate. There were some very unpleasant experiences, particularly with the Ohio Dem. Party's pre-primary endorsing. It was very distasteful to me.