Caroline Kennedy: A President Like My Father

Socrtease

Verified User
OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
 
I think Obama could be a good steward of american foreign policy, and given his background as a Constitutional scholar, he might be the best on civil rights. I have no doubt, that should be become the Dem nominee, I'll pull the lever for him in a hearbeat over any of the wingnut candidates.

However, I'm pretty disturbed by his economic polcies, which appear to incorporate some of the worst aspects of Clintonism. Geared towards helping Wall Street, and not main street.


This week's Nation magazine is running a piece by the head of its intern program, Max Fraser, in which he suggests that the economic advisors who are assisting Senator Obama's campaign are helping him stake out a position on the subprime lending crisis 'to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well." Fraser notes that Obama's proposed solution to the mortgage mess is "short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility."

He states that Obama has not called for a moratorium on foreclosures or a freezing of interest rates or the use of federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans or some regulation of the financial industry -- Edwards and Clinton have offered variations on those themes. Instead Obama has proposed legislation against mortgage fraud, a tax credit for homeowners which amounts to about $500 on average and an additional fund that will help a certain limited number of homeowners. Fraser attributes Obama's constricted response to "the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisors and his campaign's ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulations" and points out that Obama has received almost $10 million in contributions from the finance insurance and real estate sector through October 2007.

For the candidate of change and bold ideas, Obama's tepid response to the overwhelming mortgage crisis suggests a Republican-orientation rather than a Democratic one -- and should be subject to debate in the remaining presidential primaries.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser

huffingtonpost.com


On the other hand, there is much to criticize about Hillary Clinton, with respect to Iraq, Iran, and more of the same failed NAFTA trade policies.

I think she'd be more progressive than Obama on a range of economic issues, but there's a lot to be dissapointed in her policies too.


Luckily, I'm not putting the stamp of approval on either of them, come February 5 :)
 
Does anyone think, first, that this op ed piece gets a large national audience? Two, that if it does it sways voters? The truth is the Kennedy campaign of 1960 was ground shaking for the change it represented. Obama represents a change, not so much generationally because technically he is considered to be on the tail end of the boomers (X'ers don't begin until 1965) but being a very real black candidate for president has that same ground shaking emotion to it that Kennedy brought. I just don't know that Caroline Kennedy changes any minds.
 
I think Obama could be a good steward of american foreign policy, and given his background as a Constitutional scholar, he might be the best on civil rights. I have no doubt, that should be become the Dem nominee, I'll pull the lever for him in a hearbeat over any of the wingnut candidates.

However, I'm pretty disturbed by his economic polcies, which appear to incorporate some of the worst aspects of Clintonism. Geared towards helping Wall Street, and not main street.





On the other hand, there is much to criticize about Hillary Clinton, with respect to Iraq, Iran, and more of the same failed NAFTA trade policies.

I think she'd be more progressive than Obama on a range of economic issues, but there's a lot to be dissapointed in her policies too.


Luckily, I'm not putting the stamp of approval on either of them, come February 5 :)
So are you voting for a guy that can't win in his own back yard? Shit more like front porch. The guy lived in South Carolina for a while. And the best he could do was a third place finish with less than 20% of the vote. Obama got THREE times as many votes as a native son. Obama got as many votes as were cast in the ENTIRE dem primary in 04. Edwards needs to man up and get out. He is a voice for no one. He is staying in with the hopes of getting enough delegates to pretend he is relevent in Denver. The guy needs to get out and throw an endorcement one way or the other. A blood letting in either party leading up to the general is not good for the party.
 
So are you voting for a guy that can't win in his own back yard? Shit more like front porch. The guy lived in South Carolina for a while. And the best he could do was a third place finish with less than 20% of the vote. Obama got THREE times as many votes as a native son. Obama got as many votes as were cast in the ENTIRE dem primary in 04. Edwards needs to man up and get out. He is a voice for no one. He is staying in with the hopes of getting enough delegates to pretend he is relevent in Denver. The guy needs to get out and throw an endorcement one way or the other. A blood letting in either party leading up to the general is not good for the party.

I don't vote in the primary for who is most electable in a national election. Although, the polls show Edwards is the most formidable against the GOP in the national.

I vote, primarily on principles and values, in the primaries. I'm still proud of my vote for Kucinich in the 04 primary.
 
Does anyone think, first, that this op ed piece gets a large national audience? Two, that if it does it sways voters? The truth is the Kennedy campaign of 1960 was ground shaking for the change it represented. Obama represents a change, not so much generationally because technically he is considered to be on the tail end of the boomers (X'ers don't begin until 1965) but being a very real black candidate for president has that same ground shaking emotion to it that Kennedy brought. I just don't know that Caroline Kennedy changes any minds.

It's possible she could appeal to some Edwards' voters who consider him to be more like Bobby Kennedy than Obama, and get them to give Obama a second look.

I couldn't possibly care less about endorsements of any kind, no matter who they are from.
 
So are you voting for a guy that can't win in his own back yard? Shit more like front porch. The guy lived in South Carolina for a while. And the best he could do was a third place finish with less than 20% of the vote. Obama got THREE times as many votes as a native son. Obama got as many votes as were cast in the ENTIRE dem primary in 04. Edwards needs to man up and get out. He is a voice for no one. He is staying in with the hopes of getting enough delegates to pretend he is relevent in Denver. The guy needs to get out and throw an endorcement one way or the other. A blood letting in either party leading up to the general is not good for the party.

He's a voice for me.

And the bloodletting is between Obama and Clinton. Not Edwards.

I really don't like this, Edwards needs to drop out thing. How about, since he got 18% of the vote and thus will get delegats, you let the voters decide? Only a handful of states have voted so far, why don't I get my chance to vote first?
 
Because there is idealism and there is realpolitik and the reality is Edwards is an also ran again. Those of you that support him and want to vote for him already know his message and know what he stands for. You all are the ONLY ones that are going to vote for him and he is STILL GOING TO LOSE. So do you stay in, not endorce anyone, and let the other two campaigns killing eachother with death by a thousand cuts? So that when they get to the General election you can listen to the Republican nominee hit the dem with whatever fresh attacks have not come out yet? One of Reagans really good ideas what not speaking ill of fellow party members. Clinton and Obama are going to bleed eachother slow and then the repubs will be there to finish it off. Clinton or Obama, one is going to be the dem nominee. YOu have to get over that and start to circle the wagons and look united when you get to denver. Edwards has only a supporting role left in this process so he should get to supporting and leave the real campaigning to the real candidates.
 
Because there is idealism and there is realpolitik and the reality is Edwards is an also ran again. Those of you that support him and want to vote for him already know his message and know what he stands for. You all are the ONLY ones that are going to vote for him and he is STILL GOING TO LOSE. So do you stay in, not endorce anyone, and let the other two campaigns killing eachother with death by a thousand cuts? So that when they get to the General election you can listen to the Republican nominee hit the dem with whatever fresh attacks have not come out yet? One of Reagans really good ideas what not speaking ill of fellow party members. Clinton and Obama are going to bleed eachother slow and then the repubs will be there to finish it off. Clinton or Obama, one is going to be the dem nominee. YOu have to get over that and start to circle the wagons and look united when you get to denver. Edwards has only a supporting role left in this process so he should get to supporting and leave the real campaigning to the real candidates.

1) You hate John Edwards and everything he stands for, yet are presenting yourself as an honest broker.

2) Yes Obama and Clinton are tearing each other up...your conclusion is that we must pick one of them...I ask, why? A very rational differing conclusion would be, to hell with all that, I'll go with Edwards, who isn't dividing anybody.

3) The Republican machine, made a coward out of a war hero, and a war hero out of a coward my friend, so I don't plan my vote on what that machine is going to do, because it does not matter who we nominate. It does not matter. Yeah, they want Hillary because they can kill her without a backlash risk, but if they run against Obama they will go racial, and that will force them out of the "who us? we're not racists" closet. But they'll take Obama. Who don't they want? John Edwards. Why? They can't beat him, period.
 
Because there is idealism and there is realpolitik and the reality is Edwards is an also ran again. Those of you that support him and want to vote for him already know his message and know what he stands for. You all are the ONLY ones that are going to vote for him and he is STILL GOING TO LOSE. So do you stay in, not endorce anyone, and let the other two campaigns killing eachother with death by a thousand cuts? So that when they get to the General election you can listen to the Republican nominee hit the dem with whatever fresh attacks have not come out yet? One of Reagans really good ideas what not speaking ill of fellow party members. Clinton and Obama are going to bleed eachother slow and then the repubs will be there to finish it off. Clinton or Obama, one is going to be the dem nominee. YOu have to get over that and start to circle the wagons and look united when you get to denver. Edwards has only a supporting role left in this process so he should get to supporting and leave the real campaigning to the real candidates.

I love this media narrative, that most people seem to be buying into, that the Democratic party is tearing itself apart.

Have you been following the republican primary? Their battling over who loves torture the most, who hired the most illegal immigrants to do their lawns; who let the most rapists go free from jail; and wingnut radio is fairly in a panic that that "traitor" john mccain is going to destroy the republican party.

The media is selling infotainment. And at this point, they're playing up obama clinton crap.


Edwards isn't the one tearing the party apart. Outside of an ill-considered comment about Clinton's crying episode, he's been all about issues.

And I don't recall Ron paul supporters telling him to pack it in, because he was getting 5% of the vote. Edwards is still in a position to influence the debate - the Dems have copied a lot of his progressive themes. Ron Paul hasn't budged the republican party one inch.
 
As for the media narrative, that the Democratic party is being torn assunder:

In the deepest red state in the union, over half a million Dems came out to vote yesterday. Far, far more than republicans came out to vote last week, in the SC GOP primary. And this is a deep red state, with far more republicans that democrats. Obama got more total votes than McCain and Huckabee got combined.

So, which party is lacking in enthusiasm, and been torn assunder? The evidence suggests to me, it ain't the Democratic party.
 
1) You hate John Edwards and everything he stands for, yet are presenting yourself as an honest broker.

2) Yes Obama and Clinton are tearing each other up...your conclusion is that we must pick one of them...I ask, why? A very rational differing conclusion would be, to hell with all that, I'll go with Edwards, who isn't dividing anybody.

3) The Republican machine, made a coward out of a war hero, and a war hero out of a coward my friend, so I don't plan my vote on what that machine is going to do, because it does not matter who we nominate. It does not matter. Yeah, they want Hillary because they can kill her without a backlash risk, but if they run against Obama they will go racial, and that will force them out of the "who us? we're not racists" closet. But they'll take Obama. Who don't they want? John Edwards. Why? They can't beat him, period.
Don't hate him but Iam against EVERYTHING he stands for. And it appears that the majority of the Democratic electorate is against it to. The Democratic party, regardless of what Willie and other say, has made a slight slide to the right which is a good thing for the party. Never again with they nominate a hard lefty. Left wing redistributionist, welfare state politics is a loser in the US from here on out. Most of us don't want the people that create the jobs taxed to the point that they have no motivation to create more jobs. I am of the belief that MOST left wingers have never had to make payroll for 10 or 20 employees. They don't know how much the government takes from you as an employer before you ever get to pay yourself. So for lefties it is all about making sure that the people who work for the person making payroll get more of her money and that the government gets more of her money and she gets less reward for the investment. That is Edwards in a nutshell. Shit until this election cycle the dems left a whole bunch of people out of the middle class and called them the rich. That is a change whose time came years ago.

As for who and when the dems pick their candidate, the sooner the better. You look at this thing as a political contest when it is war. The side that picks their general first can start the order of battle first and start firing for effect first. Edwards is no general and never will be. You talk about the Repubs not wanting to run against Edwards but you forget to tell everyone about the dems that don't want Edwards to run against them either.

I was really hoping that Bill Richardson would do better but I am damn glad he is out of the running. I give a shit that I didn't get to vote for him. But he and Kucinich showed that they are smart enough to know when to fold. Edwards is running for some priniciples? Has he NOT made himself clear yet that he needs to keep running? Hell Tancredo and Hunter were smart enough to know when to get out and you don't hear BB and Damo crying about not getting to vote for them. If you are continually in third place in a three person race you are in last. When you lose that bad in your home state you are truly done. What I don't want for another four years is "compassionate conservatives" that are going to keep us in Iraq for the next thousand years and nominate federal judges that are likely to push back against the criminal procedure rights and civil liberties that were gained in this country in the last 50 years. Edwards will NEVER nominate a federal judge or supreme court justice. I guarentee you that he knows that right now this morning as he drinks his coffee. So he needs to get out for the health of the party. Sometimes the smartest warrior on the field of battle is the one that knows it is time to cut his losses and retreat.
 
apples and oranges soc.

Tancredo and Hunter dropped out because, for the most part, nobody was listening to them, they're weren't influencing the debate, and no more that about 1% of the electorate cared about them.

Edwards has a significant constituency, and has influenced the debate in numerous ways. The other dems scrambled to copy him on his health care policies, on his anti-recession package, and changed their rhetoric to a large degree to match his anti-special interests populist agenda.

That's why he's staying in, for now. He has, and can influence the debate.


Nobody listened to barely a word Duncan Hunter said.
 
Don't hate him but Iam against EVERYTHING he stands for. And it appears that the majority of the Democratic electorate is against it to. The Democratic party, regardless of what Willie and other say, has made a slight slide to the right which is a good thing for the party. Never again with they nominate a hard lefty. Left wing redistributionist, welfare state politics is a loser in the US from here on out. Most of us don't want the people that create the jobs taxed to the point that they have no motivation to create more jobs. I am of the belief that MOST left wingers have never had to make payroll for 10 or 20 employees. They don't know how much the government takes from you as an employer before you ever get to pay yourself. So for lefties it is all about making sure that the people who work for the person making payroll get more of her money and that the government gets more of her money and she gets less reward for the investment. That is Edwards in a nutshell. Shit until this election cycle the dems left a whole bunch of people out of the middle class and called them the rich. That is a change whose time came years ago.

As for who and when the dems pick their candidate, the sooner the better. You look at this thing as a political contest when it is war. The side that picks their general first can start the order of battle first and start firing for effect first. Edwards is no general and never will be. You talk about the Repubs not wanting to run against Edwards but you forget to tell everyone about the dems that don't want Edwards to run against them either.

I was really hoping that Bill Richardson would do better but I am damn glad he is out of the running. I give a shit that I didn't get to vote for him. But he and Kucinich showed that they are smart enough to know when to fold. Edwards is running for some priniciples? Has he NOT made himself clear yet that he needs to keep running? Hell Tancredo and Hunter were smart enough to know when to get out and you don't hear BB and Damo crying about not getting to vote for them. If you are continually in third place in a three person race you are in last. When you lose that bad in your home state you are truly done. What I don't want for another four years is "compassionate conservatives" that are going to keep us in Iraq for the next thousand years and nominate federal judges that are likely to push back against the criminal procedure rights and civil liberties that were gained in this country in the last 50 years. Edwards will NEVER nominate a federal judge or supreme court justice. I guarentee you that he knows that right now this morning as he drinks his coffee. So he needs to get out for the health of the party. Sometimes the smartest warrior on the field of battle is the one that knows it is time to cut his losses and retreat.

You're just another globalist fascist freak who wants to sell the american working class down the toilet. you're no different than topspin.

You internationalist fascist types actually fear any candidate who says the government should craft policy to look out for workers interests. That's why you fear Edwards.
 
Don't hate him but Iam against EVERYTHING he stands for. And it appears that the majority of the Democratic electorate is against it to. The Democratic party, regardless of what Willie and other say, has made a slight slide to the right which is a good thing for the party. Never again with they nominate a hard lefty. Left wing redistributionist, welfare state politics is a loser in the US from here on out. Most of us don't want the people that create the jobs taxed to the point that they have no motivation to create more jobs. I am of the belief that MOST left wingers have never had to make payroll for 10 or 20 employees. They don't know how much the government takes from you as an employer before you ever get to pay yourself. So for lefties it is all about making sure that the people who work for the person making payroll get more of her money and that the government gets more of her money and she gets less reward for the investment. That is Edwards in a nutshell. Shit until this election cycle the dems left a whole bunch of people out of the middle class and called them the rich. That is a change whose time came years ago.

As for who and when the dems pick their candidate, the sooner the better. You look at this thing as a political contest when it is war. The side that picks their general first can start the order of battle first and start firing for effect first. Edwards is no general and never will be. You talk about the Repubs not wanting to run against Edwards but you forget to tell everyone about the dems that don't want Edwards to run against them either.

I was really hoping that Bill Richardson would do better but I am damn glad he is out of the running. I give a shit that I didn't get to vote for him. But he and Kucinich showed that they are smart enough to know when to fold. Edwards is running for some priniciples? Has he NOT made himself clear yet that he needs to keep running? Hell Tancredo and Hunter were smart enough to know when to get out and you don't hear BB and Damo crying about not getting to vote for them. If you are continually in third place in a three person race you are in last. When you lose that bad in your home state you are truly done. What I don't want for another four years is "compassionate conservatives" that are going to keep us in Iraq for the next thousand years and nominate federal judges that are likely to push back against the criminal procedure rights and civil liberties that were gained in this country in the last 50 years. Edwards will NEVER nominate a federal judge or supreme court justice. I guarentee you that he knows that right now this morning as he drinks his coffee. So he needs to get out for the health of the party. Sometimes the smartest warrior on the field of battle is the one that knows it is time to cut his losses and retreat.

Yeah, the democratic party has moved to the right, via the DLC. For the past 30 years we have had right wing economics, interspersed with DLC economics, and as we can see by the boat we're in now Soc, that has been really "good for the country."

Edwards is the right man at the right time, with the unfortunate circumstance of running in a party with a liberal base, at the same time we have these historic candidates. And it's hard for a liberal to turn their back on that.

As far as the country rejecting Edwards' economic policies, polls show they endorse them, and further, every thing has its time, and its time always swings back around. As our right wing/DLC ecnomic boats become more and more leaky, a leftist/populist will rise again. That man isn't going to be Edwards, and it isn't going to be today, but it's going to be in the forseeable future. You will be alive to remember where you heard it first.
 
I can't wait for the day that the leftist populist takes over and I pay 50 cents for every dollar I make to the federal government. The ONLY people that look forward to that day have a job where they make a moderate wage, they have no employees that they have to worry about, and have never had to pay their taxes at the end of the year and have the figure have 5 numbers before the decimal AFTER paying quarterlies. I actually believe EVERYONE should have to pay their taxes at the end of the year. No withholding on a monthly basis. Everyone gets to February and starts to figure their taxes and then have to PAY them. Then maybe EVERYONE would understand what the tax system is like and not be so eager to have their taxes raised
 
I can't wait for the day that the leftist populist takes over and I pay 50 cents for every dollar I make to the federal government. The ONLY people that look forward to that day have a job where they make a moderate wage, they have no employees that they have to worry about, and have never had to pay their taxes at the end of the year and have the figure have 5 numbers before the decimal AFTER paying quarterlies. I actually believe EVERYONE should have to pay their taxes at the end of the year. No withholding on a monthly basis. Everyone gets to February and starts to figure their taxes and then have to PAY them. Then maybe EVERYONE would understand what the tax system is like and not be so eager to have their taxes raised

I don't see the difference between doing it on a monthly, yearly, or daily basis. If all you want to do is bias it to make it look bigger than it does, I'm not certain that makes sense.
 
Mainly, I want to see Obama elected just to stick it to the south and reiterate their declining importance. But I'm backing Edwards on principle.
 
I don't see the difference between doing it on a monthly, yearly, or daily basis. If all you want to do is bias it to make it look bigger than it does, I'm not certain that makes sense.
The difference is that most people don't really see how much the government takes. I think that if people actually saw the amount of money they loses to the government at the end of the year and had to put it away and wait for them to come take it then most people would be a bit more sympathetic of the small business owner that still ends up paying more money at the end of the year even AFTER quarterly tax payments.
 
Back
Top