After his callow youth, Kennedy came to realize that life would not give him the chance to be president. But life did ask him to be a senator, and he has embraced that role and served that institution with more distinction than anyone else now living - as any of his colleagues, Republican or Democrat, will tell you. And he could do it because culture really does have rhythms. The respect for institutions that was prevalent during the early '60s is prevalent with the young again today. The earnest industriousness that was common then is back today. The awareness that we are not self-made individualists, free to be you and me, but emerge as parts of networks, webs and communities; that awareness is back again today.
Believe it or not, that on-target assessment of Ted Kennedy is by, of all people, David Brooks, in a column in today's NY Times entitled The Kennedy Mystique. I rarely pay attention to Brooks, but this column raises enough of interest that I invite you to come with me as I explore the column a bit and offer a few thoughts of my own, and in the process do yet another thing that surprises me.
First, let me note something that has been consistently misstated since the news of Teddy's endorsement leaked out on Sunday - he is NOT the most senior Senator, nor even the most experienced Democrat in the Senate - both of those titles belong to Bobby Byrd of W VA, elected in 1958, 4 years before Kennedy, which is why, according to customary practice of naming the senior member of the Majority party, he is President Pro Tempore. But when Brookes writes of Kennedy's Senate service that he has embraced that role and served that institution with more distinction than anyone else now living - as any of his colleagues, Republican or Democrat, will tell you he is speaking truth. One only need look at the number of conservative Republicans who have been willing to partner with him in legislation, from John McCain to Orrin Hatch.
Brooks, fairly or not, describes the Clinton efforts towards Obama as "toxic attempts to ghettoize" Obama, and then writes
In private and occasionally in public, leading Democrats lost patience with the hyperpartisan style of politics - the distortion of facts, the demonizing of foes, the secret admiration for brass-knuckle brawling and the ever-present assumption that it's necessary to pollute the public sphere to win. All the suppressed suspicions of Clintonian narcissism came back to the fore. Are these people really serving the larger cause of the Democratic Party, or are they using the party as a vehicle for themselves?Yesterday I heard Gloria Borger say that when Kennedy spoke with Bill Clinton about the tone of the campaign he (Kennedy) was wangrier at the end of the conversation than he had been at the beginning. We saw remarks from people like Jim Clyburn that Clinton was risking making the nomination something not worth happening. And Brooks has rightly put that as the context in which yesterday's endorsement occurred.
Some of what Brooks writes next is common sense observation, the groups with which Kennedy will help Obama, his vouching that Obama will be ready on Day One, thereby responding a charge by Hillary Clinton, and what Brooks labels the confluence of themes and generations:
The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness.After quoting Kennedy about 5he politics of misrepresentation and distortion, and a new kind of campaign, Brooks notes
The Clintons started this fight, and in his grand and graceful way, Kennedy returned the volley with added speed.
Here I have to do something else unbelievable. I have to praise Chris Matthews, who in the process of talking almost all night long beginning at 5 PM on Hardball, rightly observed of the Kennedy speech that it was point by point counterpoint to the Clintons. And along with Keith Olbermann Matthews made the point of the importance of what had happened, and the contrast it provided with the pedestrian nature of the SOTU. I did not have the chance to watch the coverage elsewhere, but it was clear that the time thrust Obama onto an almost equal level with the President, carried there perhaps on the back of the Kennedys, Ted, Carolyn, and Patrick, in a fashion not dissimilar from how Teddy carried John Kerry on his back in Iowa in 2004, which I note changed the dynamic of that primary contest.
Brooks makes what might seems a very astute observation in the appeal of a time well before the many young people at Bender Arena were born, that of the New Frontier. After quoting the part of Kennedy's speech about Truman's opposition to JFK's 1960 candidacy and JFK's response, Brooks writes
The audience at American University roared. It was mostly young people, and to them, the Clintons are as old as the Trumans were in 1960. And in the students' rapture for Kennedy's message, you began to see the folding over of generations, the service generation of John and Robert Kennedy united with the service generation of the One Campaign. The grandparents and children united against the parents.As I read that generational description, two thought occurred. First, among the "parents' generation as he describes it, there may be divisions by income and education, with Obama having some appeal at the upper ends of both divides. But if Brooks is right about the grandparents, there is some potential of drawing off some of Clinton's strongest support, among older women who have clear memories of a time when we did have hope. That would be my generation (I am 61) and even older. I do not discount that many of those women still hope to see a female president in their lifetime (although after the Democratic response to SOTU some may find Kathleen Sebelius a more appealing candidate for that role than HRC), but believe that might be balanced by the desire to see their grandchildren as inspired as they were by someone young and vibrant.
Brooks follows this section with the paragraph I quoted at the beginning. He then notes
Sept. 11th really did leave a residue - an unconsummated desire for sacrifice and service. The old Clintonian style of politics clashes with that desire. When Sidney Blumenthal expresses the Clinton creed by telling George Packer of The New Yorker, "It's not a question of transcending partisanship. It's a question of fulfilling it," that clashes with the desire as well.I acknowledge that there are some among those of us more politically active to push the partisanship as a balance to that of the conservative Republicans to which we have been subject for much of the past almost 3 decades, especially in the past 7 years, mos clearly demonstrated in the debasing of the impeachment process in 1998-99 and in the refusal of the Republicans in the Senate to allow anything meaningful to get accomplished.
But I would suggest that is NOT the mood of most of the country, and on this Brooks has it largely right - the desire for sacrifice and service, to get things done. One of the things that has been consistently wrong in the Bush approach, as exemplified in all of his SOTU messages and most especially last night, is his unwillingness to ask any meaningful shared sacrifice for common goals, unless you want to consider a shared sacrifice by futures generations to pay for his handouts to corporate cronies, his debacle in Iraq, and his unconscionable largesse to the richest among us who do not need it. For the rest of us the most he has asked is to give up our civil liberties and trust him - oh, and go shopping.
Obama seems to touch the nerve which motivates so many young people to make their participation other than in the political process because they have found politics in recent years to be not worthy of the high standards they have to be of service to others, to find commonality. Many young people, such as those I teach, have a strong sense of civic commitment, but it has not played itself in the political sphere. This is true not only of my current students but also of those to whom I have taught government since arriving at my high school in 1998.
Brooks ends with positive remarks about a man for whom he has normally offered criticism:
t's not clear how far this altered public mood will carry Obama in this election. But there was something important and memorable about the way the 75-year-old Kennedy communed and bonded with a rapturous crowd half a century his junior.The old guy stole the show.
We do not yet know the impact of the speeches of yesterday. But I think it fair to say that Kennedy's embrace of Obama will further emphasize the importance of the results from SC. The polls probably do not yet fully show the impact of that massive win - after all, polls do tend to be somewhat lagging indicators. But the validation of those results by Kennedy, the incredible additional coverage the event gained Obama yesterday, the fact that Obama appeared on the discussions after SOTU and despite promises by hosts that she would also appear Clinton did not may also further accentuate the message that Kennedy put forth yesterday.
Imagine - here I am noting positive things by David Brooks and Chris Matthews. Believe it or not, that's what I did.
I still support John Edwards, but I fear he will struggle for media oxygen. Yesterday the President got his share - that's what being president gets you, particularly on the day of the SOTU. But thanks to Ted and the other Kennedys. Obama got a major share as well.
It will be interesting to see the reaction of my students today. They were required to watch the President. Some at least will have watched the additional coverage, before or after the speech. And it will also be interesting to watch the media play tonight with Florida, and in the next few days, and how the Democratic debate plays out on Thursday.
As of the SC results I was saying that I still made the odds of winning the nomination Clinton 55% Obama 40%, and Edwards 5%. I think those numbers have shifted again. Clinton is still a favorite, but by much less. I now make it Clinton 50%, Obama 48%, and Edwards - or anyone else - 2%. The margin has closed dramatically.
What do you think?
Lehrer: David, the Kennedy endorsement, we gave it a lot of time tonight...is it a major event?Brooks: I think so, it's by far the most important endorsement of the year, or of the campaign...Here's the consummate insider, the legislator saying Barack Obama is ready on day one. If anyone knows the inside of government, it's Ted Kennedy for Democrats, so that carries a lot of weight. The second thing is, in that room when Caroline Kennedy walks up, her slenderness sort of evoking her father. And then when Ted Kennedy walks up, evoking his brothers, you see the whole history of the Democratic Party sort of swinging behind Obama. And he can clue in to the 60s idealism and tie it to himself. And it had a big emotional wallop there in the room...you don't expect to see that. I don't expect Ted Kennedy to endorse...the fact that he swung behind Obama -- and a lot of top Democrats now swinging behind him -- is a sign of something shifting at least at the elite of the Democratic Party.
Marcus: I think something may be shifting...this is a big deal...the timing is magnificent for Barack Obama...the double Kennedys -- or however many Kennedys there were -- really play to a particular demographic group that Barack Obama has been weakest with -- working class men, white men, union workers, and also for women of a certain age...Caroline Kennedy's endorsement really does mean something, we remember her in the White House, and Hillary Clinton has been particularly strong among older women. And I think that also has a kind of emotional punch.
Lehrer: ...this one is different than most endorsements?
Marcus: I think this one is different than most endorsements...everybody wanted this one...and it is a little bit of a leading indicator. Sen. Clinton brought out her dueling Kennedys today, but I have to say -- no diss on Kathleen Kennedy Townsend or anybody else -- but she's no Teddy Kennedy. His Kennedys outranked her Kennedys...
[...]
Brooks:[South Carolina] was the precursor to this... This was one big event in the Democratic Party, but there was another big event, and that was across the leadership of the party, and that was a negative event, it was revulsion against the Clintons...there was revulsion against the toxicity of their attack on Barack Obama. And I think the size of the margin in South Carolina was an indicator a lot of voters in South Carolina just wanted to send the message this is not acceptable to go after somebody in the way you're going after Barack Obama. And that sentiment is shared among the leadership of the political class. I've been stunned, on the left, on the right, in the media...something switched in the last couple of weeks, attitudes towards Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Marcus: I do agree, and I think that Senator Clinton to some extent blundered a bunch of good will she had coming out of New Hampshire looking human, misting up. And now she not only lost, but she lost ugly, and she lost gracelessly, and she lost in a way that she allowed her husband to eclipse her in the public consciousness. And to remind some people, even Democrats who like the Clintons, that the 90s were good times for the most part, there was also a downside..it was a very unfortunate series of events over the weekend...I think it's a shared responsibility with her husband, and she was on TV yesterday sort of saying, "well, spouses say the darndest things"...but, to me, it really felt this weekend like two for the price of two...and if she is the candidate, she's responsible for what people in her campaign say, including her husband.
Regarding Tweety, he must have gotten read the riot act. I saw a different person there yesterday. He even profusely gushed about Hillary instead of his previous sexist banter. I've mentioned elsewhere here at RK that Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org) has listed many of the outrageous things he says. And it has organized a write-in campaign to get Tweety to shape up. That MSNBC let him go on with blatant sexism is appalling. Despite their keeping Olbermann on the lineup (for which I am grateful), the rest of the MSNBS lineup is "does us no favors." Even if one is not for Hillary, it's hard to deny that what has transpired at the hands of Tweety is unfit for 21st Century punditry.
...Bill Clinton's campaigning created a backlash among his own loyalists. Online discussion groups involving veterans of the Clinton administration reflected a sharp division in their ranks over the former president's intervention and the beginning of a defection toward Obama, even among participants who have long held a positive view of Hillary Clinton.People close to Ted Kennedy say that the former president's aggressiveness pushed the senator to offer an endorsement he was already inclined to make. He was further encouraged by Caroline Kennedy's embrace of Obama.
Once again, that sums up what I've been saying here for days, even if Dianne and aznew still don't agree. :)
As for the reporting about how Bill clinton has turned off his own supporters, I'll admit that is more widespread, based on the wight of the reporting (even allowing for the echo chamber effect) than I thought. That said, I believe Bill Clinton still remains very popular among Democrats.
I still question the on-the-ground effect endorsements like this have. I think they play a much bigger role for the incestuous national reporting corps than they do for actual voters.
One thing. I think it is tough for Bill Clinton to find his groove as far as the MSM is concerned. Were he to back off too much, we'd b reading stories of marital discord, or stories asking why Hillary is hiding Bill. I think they are very much in a damned-if-you-do, damn-if-you-don't situation there.
That said, I will Bill were smarter about how he handled it. This whole thing make many folks mad. It just bums me out.
I am a big Bill Clinton fan, and I readily admit I am perhaps too willing to forgive his tresspasses. But I feel like both he and his wife took and take so much crap, and seem to handle it more often than not without obvious rancor (for example, when John McCain told an offensive joke about Chelsea, and apologized, they accepted the apology and we didn't hear about it again from them, or Hillary's ability and willingness to work with Senators who, in the 90s, said horrible things about her and her family), well, I feel like I owe the Big Dog a few.
I have heard that sentiment expressed a lot here. The difference seems to be that for many people, the accumulated good will was spent.
I wonder if they read him the riot act, or if he simply began to realize that he was looking like a fool once he was off his own show and having to share the screen with someone intelligent like KO.