Was watching Fox News with Brit's group and Fred Barnes was laughing and dismissing the Kennedy endorsement of Obama as nothing. Without jumping on the whole group, many of these TV talking heads really are idiots, but what the hell is Fed Barnes smoking? He's supposed to know something about politics.
As several stories indicated, this comes with access to Kennedy's fund raising armada, not to mention that Kennedy's sponsorship of immigration reform and other works has made him one of the favorites among a key Democrat constituency, Hispanics. Hillary is counting on huge margins there to win the nomination. And Kennedy has said, and already planned, to campaign actively for Obama.
His condescending laughter and alleged insight is nothing short of sheer stupidity.
If you don't know the politics of the opposition, maybe you should shut-up when people are talking about it.
No, I don't think Barnes is an idiot. The thrust of his comments was along the lines of more broadly discounting the benefit of endorsements as a means of gathering votes. He clearly acknowledged that Obama would benefit from all of the massive media coverage that the Kennedy's endorsements attracted. Whatever Hispanic votes might otherwise be brought over by the Kennedy endorsement are likely to be washed away by Obama's position against drivers licenses for unauthorized Mexican residing individuals.
Posted by: Terry | Monday, January 28, 2008 at 07:36 PM
The last sentence in the comment above erroneously stated that Obama was "against" drivers licenses for unauthorized Mexican residing individuals. He SUPPORTS such licenses and my point was that such a position is generally not held by many outside of the Hispanic community, and he therefore may lose more votes than his Kennedy endorsement would attract.
Posted by: Terry | Monday, January 28, 2008 at 07:43 PM
"a position is generally not held by many"
I have a problem with your analysis. The position is held but not discussed by just about every Democrat. Forcing Hillary to take a stand is a trap for Hillary intended to put her on the defensive. I posted on that issue earlier today.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Monday, January 28, 2008 at 07:58 PM
Re the drivers license issue, you may be right that Obama's "trap" could potentially cost Hillary Hispanic votes in the primary. However, the experience in New York state earlier this year raises questions about that outcome across the totality of all voters. Spitzer proposed what Onbama has basically come out in favor of, and by margins greater than 85 percent in ultra liberal New York, the voters forced the governor to reverse course. I understand that the non-Hispanic polling data are very similar in California, with virtually no other voting bloc supporting the Obama approach. The Clinton political skills are surely adept enough to "win" a debate on drivers licenses for illegals in California and other states, including New York.
Posted by: Terry | Monday, January 28, 2008 at 08:28 PM
This is so funny that you posted this. I said the EXACT same thing today watching the program. My (literal) outburst, however, came during the segment on the Republican race. Sadly, I don't remember which nugget of insipidity caused my particular outburst, but the fact remains that Barnes is terrible.
This primary season has convinced me that the talking head pundits know less about what is going on in their parties and their base than the average (successful) blogger, and less than probably half of blog readers.
Amazingly, Barnes has secured a nice gig spouting conventional wisdom that's about 2 weeks stale.
Posted by: Nessuno | Monday, January 28, 2008 at 08:37 PM
My problem with Fred Barnes is he gives analysis based on what he wishes rather than what is real. He argues points that are at times totally void of facts and are just pure supposition. I personally have lost confidence in his political insights because he has become a Republican Party apologist.
Posted by: edward cropper | Monday, January 28, 2008 at 08:38 PM
I think the Kennedy's endorsement will tilt the media further toward Obama.
Many media people still yearn for the myth of Camelot and the perfect Presidentcy of JFK. That is their right but seems silly to me. They will now proclaim that Obama is w/o any flaws either past, present, or future. Whether this actually helps him is another matter.
My guess about motives? Teddy and clan figure a President Barrack will depend upon them more than a President Hillary - he doesn't have a huge machine built over decades. So he will put more of their friends into key positions. And probably be more courteous.
Posted by: K | Monday, January 28, 2008 at 08:38 PM
"motives?"
Their motive is in realizing Obama has what Hillary lacks - the ability to dazzle voters without talking substance. When liberals reveal their agenda, they always lose elections. They think Obama can mesmerize America without having to get too specific and get them back into the WH. That's why the top tier of the far Left is embracing him. That, and because he is far Left but conceals it very well.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Monday, January 28, 2008 at 08:54 PM
"That's why the top tier of the far Left is embracing him. That, and because he is far Left but conceals it very well."
EXACTLY RIGHT !!
Posted by: Terry | Monday, January 28, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Some thoughts:
"--- My guess about motives? Teddy and clan figure a President Barrack will depend upon them more than a President Hillary - he doesn't have a huge machine built over decades. So he will put more of their friends into key positions. And probably be more courteous. ---"
The converse of this, I wonder about - assuming Hillary wins, would the Clintons (note the plural) remember the slight (Kennedy's Obama endorsement and support) and result in a disconnect, if not a long term fracture, between Kennedy's more liberal/socialist ideas and a willingness to compromise with the GOP congressional minority for something less liberal -- out of spite? (one of the Clintons' more endearing qualities, I'm sure)
I am not expecting miracles, and I think post-election, any serious rifts will likely mend, as the (D) machine overall experiences the same sort of healing and unification as the GOP did in Reagan's wake.
"--- Their motive is in realizing Obama has what Hillary lacks - the ability to dazzle voters without talking substance. ... ---"
Listening to his speaking emptiness after he won Iowa about near put me to sleep trying to figure out what he was rambling on about. Some kind of coded message to the other Sorosbots, or perhaps the mullahs?
"--- When liberals reveal their agenda, they always lose elections. They think Obama can mesmerize America without having to get too specific and get them back into the WH. That's why the top tier of the far Left is embracing him. That, and because he is far Left but conceals it very well. ---"
As Terry said, exactly right. Keep the sheep mesmerized, and you'll sweep them up into the socialist corral before they ever knew what hit them.
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 09:18 AM
Saw a few minutes of Meester Barnes the other day (don't know if it was same exact segment?). I've always found him watchable/listenable etc.. But perhaps you missed the gestalt of his feelings/thoughts? Seems Fred is seeing the real possibility of Barry O being elected in the fall. And in that context, the greater one .... Teddie's stumbling into the media contest (without falling down), having little to do with the overall gestalt of the moment.
(all I gotz ....)
Posted by: Elmo | Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 09:25 AM
I stopped watching Fred Barnes and the rest of the Beltway OLD Boys. They need to get out of the D.C. cocktail circuit and listen to what real people are saying.
Posted by: oldtimer | Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 01:42 PM