The media is hyperventilating over news of Senator Ted Kennedy's upcoming plug for Senator Barack Obama. But the positive spin this endorsement is receiving strikes me as more than a little odd. Does Kennedy's Midas Touch necessarily help Obama? I'm not so sure. For starters, Obama is campaigning on two themes principally: "moving forward" and "change". But Kennedy, the "Old Lion of the Senate" stands as a paragon of a bygone era. The force of Obama's dual aspirations will only be blunted with Kennedy joining his bandwagon. Kennedy, as a politician, is an irrelevant blowhard with a thoroughbred record of unabashed liberalism rooted in the frozen-in-time idealism of the 1960's. Is someone like this a true catalyst for change? Does an angry man like Ted Kennedy inspire the masses to move forward with hope? My answer: Only if he's left behind, where he belongs. Kennedy is a disgrace and, were it not for his name (for that is all that has ever carried and saved him) right-minded politicians would be embarrassed by his tainted imprimatur. A pox on his virtues, for they have undone his Party and would do the same to his country!
__
Perhaps some clarification is in order here. Of course the Kennedy plug will help Obama in the primaries, when both right and left cater to their respective bases. That goes without saying. In the context of primary campaigning, Kennedy remains relevant because he is popular with the far left in America. The deeper point I am addressing is whether or not the endorsement of America's most liberal politician will prove deleterious in the long run, especially in a general election, should Obama get the nod from his Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment