digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Senator Kennedy, Lion of the Senate, Endorses Barack Obama

boston.com — Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • wolfegh, on 01/27/2008, -25/+200This endorsement is HUGE. The Democratic establishment is finally on board with Obama. Thank you, thank you, thank you Sen. Kennedy.
    • cg4et, on 01/27/2008, -8/+47I think we might see another parade of these high-profile endorsements. Super delegates will matter this year. This is a big one. Paging Senators Boxer and Feingold!
      • cephelo, on 01/27/2008, -2/+4I sent a letter and called Feingold's office despite no longer living in WI. I had my family back home (in Feingold's hometown - Janesville, WI) call him as well, urging his support. I am almost positive he'll give it to Obama, being that Feingold is very bi-partisan while Hillary is the antithesis of bipartisanship.
      • LeeSoong, on 01/27/2008, -5/+4" I CAN'T SWIM !!! Blub Blub Blub ... "
        • qwertydvorak, on 01/28/2008, -3/+4who does Mary Jo Kopechne endorse ?
          • ElWizardo, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1durr... she's dead.
          • Iconoclast25, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2@ ElWizardo -
            "durr... she's dead."
            And WHO killed her, dumbass?
        • OwdenBowden, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Ask not what the Kennedy's can do for Obama - Ask what Obama can do for the Kennedy's.

          This was a TOKEN endorsement by the Kennedy KLAN. And yes I am using the correct vernacular because what just took place is a sham. The closest the Kennedy's get to Black America is the House Girl or servant that they have in Hiannisport. And for the Record - camelot and the Kennedy's are the Essence of Politics as usual. So Everyone on Digg should Raise your glass in a Toast. To Ted Kennedy - Another business as Usuall Politician. If your Lucky maybe Joe can hook you up with a job on a Venezuelan Oil Platform once they boot your ass out of office.
      • smackjack, on 01/28/2008, -3/+4Obama/Feingold anyone? Both of these senators have worked with republicans to get a job done.
        • soot, on 01/28/2008, -2/+4I think that would be a great ticket.
          • smackjack, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1It probably wouldn't happen though. It wouldn't be a good idea for someone from the Midwest to pick someone from the Midwest...
    • abran1984, on 01/27/2008, -32/+4Wait, so the Democratic Establishment getting behind Obama is a good thing??
      • echolyean, on 01/27/2008, -4/+23When Super delegates play a large role, absolutely.
      • DogBotherer, on 01/27/2008, -8/+4He was always the establishment candidate, have to make it look good though, just to give the battery hens the illusion of freedom of choice...
      • starkruzr, on 01/28/2008, -2/+2Yes, because the progressive wing of the party is ALSO behind him.
    • Bobski, on 01/27/2008, -39/+14You mean the endorser is HUGE. Who give a sh*t what an old, fat, drunken murderer thinks?
      • mOdQuArK, on 01/27/2008, -9/+33More people than who gives a sh*t about what you think.
        • haydesigner, on 01/27/2008, -5/+13@mOdQuArK,
          A more apt reply I have not seen in a long time... =;-)
        • Iconoclast25, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3Kool-Aid is a big seller in dimocrap circles.
      • senatorpjt, on 01/27/2008, -1/+7Democrats.
      • OriginalLucid1, on 01/27/2008, -15/+9Its the democrat party. Alcoholism and manslaughter are resume enhancements.

        • ElWizardo, on 01/27/2008, -5/+10Just like seducing boy congressional aids and trolling for male hookers in airport bathrooms is Republican.
          • qwertydvorak, on 01/28/2008, -5/+4yet, they get ousted by their own party. let's ask Mary Jo Kopechne ehat she thinks....
      • stev31h, on 01/27/2008, -4/+4Questionable past but you can't even question his dedication to his job.
        • Pillage, on 01/27/2008, -4/+5Bush is pretty damn dedicated.
        • RuffRidr, on 01/28/2008, -1/+9He's killed offshore windfarms because they obstruct the view from his summer mansion. Ya, he's quite the humanitarian.
        • PURPLEDRINK, on 01/28/2008, -5/+3not as bad as that coke head prez bush or all those republican child molesters
    • cheese06, on 01/27/2008, -13/+4I wouldn't say this endorsement is HUGE per se, because with Ted Kennedy's endorsement comes baggage. He is labeled as the arch-nemesis of the Republican party, very divisive, and can alienate some of the more moderate to conservative Democrats. Its just like John McCain not pushing to the Republican base that he received the endorsement from the New York Times.
      • baldr, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5duh. usually endorsement from your own side of the aisle won't help win over people on the other side... this is a huge deal for winning over democrats for the primary elections.
    • GeorgeClayton, on 01/27/2008, -4/+12Meh, I could care less what Kenedy thinks, but Obama seems like a decent guy. I'd rather have him than Hillary, McCain, Guliani, or Huckabee for sure.
      • betterth, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1Seems like a decent guy? That's what you base your recommendation off of?

        Don't their policies matter?
    • tenrec, on 01/27/2008, -9/+7The Clinton machine vs the Kennedy machine. This is going to be a fight like no other we have seen.
    • Pillage, on 01/27/2008, -8/+14maybe Ole Teddy can take a drive with Hillary.
    • deanlowe, on 01/27/2008, -7/+3How is this going to get those Republicans and Independents that Obama talks about all the time to vote for him? Doesn't he have all the Liberals he needs already?
      • LBobRife, on 01/28/2008, -2/+9Republicans generallly don't vote in the democratic primaries.
        • mal1964, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I think that comment had a much bigger picture.Than your reply is seeing.
    • blaze03, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3I have a question that I'm putting up here because the ***** comment system has yet to be fixed.

      When it comes down to the Democratic National Convention, would it be "legal" for Edwards to tell all of his delegates to vote Obama? If he does this, I think it could bridge the narrowing super-delegate gap between Obama and Clinton. Or is this against the DNC rules somehow?
      • gilgo09, on 01/28/2008, -3/+1just the superdelegates that have sided with Edwards, not the ones he won.
      • iofthestorm, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Err, yeah, that is possible and he might do it at the convention if there's no clear winner. That's only if he doesn't drop out of the race before the convention even occurs, which would be disappointing. Even the ones he won, unlike the other poster said. In fact, he doesn't have control over the superdelegates anyway so the other guy is just wrong. However, it seems like Edwards might lean towards Clinton unfortunately, but we'll see.
    • Vigilo, on 01/28/2008, -5/+5HAHA we are proud of an establishment candidate. We are the saddest americans ever.
    • Roger_Ramjet, on 01/28/2008, -5/+5Getting the endorsement of someone who should have a manslaughter conviction on his record is hardly what I would call a major endorsement. Nor will it be to anyone on the Republican side of the isle. We all know about CHAPAQUIDDICK.
    • metric7, on 01/28/2008, -4/+3More like murdering fat ***** of the Seante
    • mal1964, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3Most of the comments are positive but what if the headline was.
      "Senator Kennedy, Lion of the Senate, Endorses Hillary Clinton"
      Some digg users are great at spinning.
    • mal1964, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2I think the endorsement of African Americans, judging by the percentage of their vote in South Carolina is by far the biggest,
    • spartacus409, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Anyone catch the irony of Mr. Change being endorsed by the Kennedy clan, which has held power since the 1930's? Ted himself has been in the Senate since 1963.
      This is "change"?
  • Zephkiel, on 01/27/2008, -18/+131This is incredible! Kennedy's been on the Senate since 1962; so much for Clinton being the experience candidate!
    • CannibalTom, on 01/27/2008, -5/+18According to SC exit polls, experience means dittily-squat.
      • bitspace, on 01/27/2008, -30/+2Or perhaps more accurately (and unfortunately), in South Carolina experience matters less than race.
      • hmunkey, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Yes, but at least this way Clinton can't say his inexperience is a turn-off.
    • AJRiddle, on 01/27/2008, -21/+5umm.. how does receiving an endorsement from Ted Kennedy make Obama experienced exactly, he doesn't gain any more experience from someone experienced endorsing him (or Clinton for that matter).
      • gettempapa, on 01/27/2008, -4/+18Kennedy is far more experienced than Clinton and he is endorsing Obama. His experience trumps Clinton's.
    • LukasSmith, on 01/27/2008, -12/+8Edward Kennedy is crap. He just rides on John F. Kennedy's coattails.
      • 1timeuser, on 01/28/2008, -2/+4ya, ***** that guy and his years of service.
      • LukasSmith, on 01/28/2008, -7/+1ya, ***** that guy and his years of service? ahhah. Ok. Bush has had 8 years of service. Want to say something now?
        • KJSatz, on 01/28/2008, -3/+3Actually, Bush has 13 years of service counting his time as Governor. But that is nothing like Ted, who has been in the Senate for like 45 years....
        • LukasSmith, on 01/28/2008, -7/+545 years of left wing agenda. Seems like too long to me.
    • protogenxl, on 01/28/2008, -4/+6No man has more experience in dealing with whores.
      • Iconoclast25, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2. . . and few with more in whiskey.
    • iofthestorm, on 01/28/2008, -0/+6Eh, the experience thing is complete bull, Clinton has had fewer years of experience in elected office than Obama, and the only reason she got elected in the first place was because of Bill.
    • Pillage, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama: http://youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos
  • economyisland, on 01/27/2008, -12/+78hopefully the media publicizes the kennedy endorsements, could be crucial in gaining more of the baby boomer vote.
    • LukasSmith, on 01/27/2008, -12/+7Kennedy is an old left wing fart who supports open borders and forces wind power facilities to move if they obstruct his view from his castle in Nantucket. Screw Kennedy. He represents the far left of America. Leftists are about as batty as neocons and equally ignored. All we need is this guy to keep living and pushing his elitist policies. But I'm a rich Kennedy. Why do I care if illegals stream across the border? Cheaper slaves to mow my grass.
      • aadyss, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3The lion said "meow!"
      • delafere, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Switch-hitting again, Lukas? You have said you love Bush and his policies SO many times in Digg, and now you refer to the neocons as "batty?" Lame.
        • LukasSmith, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1ha delefere I have never said I love Bush. But I think he gets an unnecessary large share of blame for the political folly of Washington DC. My political leanings make the idea of voting for a democrat simply impossible. So yeah if Bush was main republican candidate in an imaginary next time I would probably vote for him not because I like him particularly but because I wouldn't vote for a democrat because I dislike their policies even more. I have also explained before I am not a neo con. I am an atheist, I don't give a damn about abortion and most other things important to Republicans. But when I look at the base platform of the moderate republican(they do exist) I find myself to be one. Not every republican is an extremist not every democrat isn't either. I believe our government system works and if a mistake is made all parties hold share of blame not just the president. I have pointed out in previous posts only my contempt for partisan politics and bashing that thrives on digg.com, Thats all.
        • delafere, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Lukas, I'd forgotten how funny you can be!

          Most neocons are functional atheists, don't give a damn about abortion (save for use as wedge issue) and don't sincerely care about most other things important to Republicans (beyond what is needed at bare minimum to get elected). So, you're not out of the neocon woods by your definition.

          You may not say you love Bush explicitly, but it is hard to imagine any other reason that you would spend such inordinate amounts of time defending the most powerful man on earth, while ignoring the accusations about Bush regarding obstruction and secrecy only to proclaim no one has any evidence so we should all just shut up and march in step.

          You say you are a moderate republican and you bash democrats constantly, practically on a strict party line basis, then you flip around and express your "contempt for partisan politics," right after doing some good old fashioned partisan bashing.

          I know, I know... it's you "expressing your opinion" when it's you, but when someone disagrees with you or your team, it's "partisan bashing."

          You're a laugh riot, boy.
      • brufleth, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1The castle is in Hyannisport. They might have a house on the island but it wouldn't classify as "the castle." Also on that issue, the wind farm is just a means for a private company to force money out of year round (read: working class) Cape Cod residents via higher taxes and power costs in a region that already has a surplus of power. Way to know jack about an issue.

        As far as immigration goes he might actually listen to his constituents, something few people in government seem to do. Mass has many tourist towns that depend on people here on work visas and such. Not even because they'll work for less but just because they need more people. Cape Cod for example has huge numbers of Irish, Jamaican, and Brazilian laborers who often will just come for the popular summer season. They aren't stealing jobs, they're working jobs there aren't enough locals to work. If you're so concerned about them taking your job then feel free to go work summers on the Cape. I did for something like eight years.

        Kennedy is hardly the most upstanding dude but he's been a pretty good senator to this state and there's a reason he keeps getting elected over and over and over. If it were money alone he'd have been replaced decades ago. He does a pretty good job.
    • deanlowe, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3Doesn't the right hate Kennedys even more than the Clintons? Wouldn't that hurt him with those voters?
    • gmyerz, on 01/28/2008, -3/+2Obama originally voted forthe REAL ID! Then said NO, because it was unfunded...if the Gov pays for it he's in.....TRAITOR!

      Check it out...... http://www.digg.com/politics/Who_are_the_traitors_ ...
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1And the entire popular news section filled with Obama is not spam? You guys are unbelievably biased hypocrits.
  • DigitalD, on 01/27/2008, -10/+67Fired Up! Ready To Go!
  • skoubydoo, on 01/27/2008, -13/+88Great news! This, along with Caroline Kennedy's endorsement, will help portray Obama as the new JFK-like figure of the democratic party.
    • joshbradley, on 01/27/2008, -1/+9He doesn't need their endorsement to be "the new JFK-like figure".
    • alterImperson, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3Portray? Portray sounds like he's faking it...
    • eyespypro, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1I just threw up...
  • rbdixon, on 01/27/2008, -7/+94I knew Obama would capture the endorsements of the Democratic elite; he represents the core virtues of the Democratic party far better than Clinton does.
  • RobbieS, on 01/27/2008, -6/+48This is pretty big. That only leaves one major Dem endorsement on the table: Al Gore. I don't think he'll endorse either, because he really has built a great name for himself at this time, and if he chose sides, he may lose some of that. But he still has to be considered a factor.
    • economyisland, on 01/27/2008, -3/+22If Billary keeps acting out ridiculously I don't think it would be too far fetched for Gore to endorse Obama.
      • zKman, on 01/27/2008, -3/+23Vice president to Billary endorsing Obama? That would be big.
    • ZPWeeks, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5Good point- I have a feeling that he will only endorse environmental platforms now, though, and Hillary and Barack's environmental issues pages look awfully similar (though I am not an expert). I have a feeling that he wouldn't take a non-Clinton endorsement lightly, though I wouldn't rule it out.
      • petrodollar, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8Obama understands markets far better than Hillary. He would implement a more effective cap and trade regime.
    • synaesthesia, on 01/27/2008, -0/+14Al Gore has ascended far beyond the mundane human affairs of this realm.
    • willster580, on 01/27/2008, -7/+0Al Gore is a hypocritical douchebag.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4Al Gore is a Clinton family friend. He would certainly endorse Obama if Clinton was not running.
      Instead he will not endorse anyone.

      It's a shame he wasn't running himself. He would easily beat all contenders from both parties.

      • mcbarron, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Kennedy is a good family friend of the Clintons too - don't be too sure that personal matters will get in the way of politics.
      • jm4847, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0Exactly, he is a family friend. That's the only reason he didn't run and even though he's out of politics as of now, he knows better than to get in the Clinton's way.
    • eyespypro, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1It's big news some fat, drunken murder endorses obama??? Yawn.. People like Kennedy & Obama are the reasons our country is so screwed up.
  • AdamPieniazek, on 01/27/2008, -5/+33Well, Obama was gonna win MA anyway but now it's a foregone conclusion (there's a lot of Ted Kennedy followers here...duh).

    I don't think Gore wants to be in the shadow of Billary forever and he'll most definitely back Obama too, and Gore's views match up better with Obama than Billary.
    • zioxide, on 01/27/2008, -2/+17Yeah, I think he's definitely going to win MA. Kerry and Gov. Patrick endorsed him too.
    • stev31h, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2I may very well be wrong, but I thought previous polls have shown Obama behind in MA?
      • LBobRife, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Upon Kennedy officially endorsing Obama, those numbers are likely to change. I don't know what they were before, but it will give in more of an advantage.
      • gilgo09, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1haven't the polls been disproved quite a bit in this race so far, so I don't think that really matters
  • onetimer, on 01/27/2008, -5/+75Considering just how big of a figure Ted Kennedy is in the Democratic party, and considering his supposed friendship with the Clintons, this endorsement is actually pretty damn big.
    • Bobski, on 01/27/2008, -19/+6Yep, he's a big BIG man, if ya know what I mean.
      • blackfox026, on 01/27/2008, -2/+8Just keep making that joke, eventually you'll be dugg up.
  • kjcdude, on 01/27/2008, -52/+5http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/A_President_Like ...
    burred as dupe
    • zioxide, on 01/27/2008, -4/+32No, that was Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the former President JFK.

      This is Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
    • bitspace, on 01/27/2008, -3/+15Ted != Caroline.
    • echolyean, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1The link you gave is not a dupe of this one, but it is, itself, a dupe.
  • Stevanoski, on 01/27/2008, -62/+20Should read: Senator Kennedy, Liar of the Senate, and remember todate Russian AK47's = 0 Ted Kennedy = 1
    • fasda, on 01/27/2008, -6/+24what the ***** have you been drinking/smoking/huffing/injecting that made no ***** sense at all.
      • Stevanoski, on 01/27/2008, -18/+7It means Russian AK47's have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy.
        • twomeyw23334, on 01/27/2008, -13/+5Murder? Do you really think the people who keep electing this man back into office care about that? He is a Kennedy, and even if his political philosophy is 180 degrees from JFK people will continue to love him for his last name.
          • ElWizardo, on 01/27/2008, -2/+7@ Stevanoski
            Laura Bush killed her high school boyfriend in a car crash.... so what's your point.
          • twomeyw23334, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1There's a bit of a difference. She was barely 17 and he died on impact. The poor girl in Kennedy's mother's care was pushed up with her face in the top of the car, presumably breathing from a slowly dwindling air bubble under water. Estimates are she could have lived for 20 minutes and have been saved if the coward and drunken Kennedy didn't run and hide like a little school girl.
    • jellygraph, on 01/27/2008, -4/+4Are we talking ambiguous nonsense, such as "Do you how many people you killed and made suffer last week with your policy of shopping at Walmart and other stores that use child slavery in foreign countries?"

      Or do you have some direct proof?
    • bwchambers, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1Um, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

      And if you're going to be nit-picky and claim that the AKs used throughout Africa and the Middle East are not Russian made (since there are a wide variety of knockoff AKs throughout these regions), you may want to check out the part about the Soviets leaving large quantities behind in Afghanistan, where they were seized by the Mujahadeen and used later in clashes between the Taliban and Northern Alliance and widely used by rebels in Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal regions (i.e. the current home base of Al Qaeda).

      So basically what I'm getting at is that you're saying one drunk murderer is more substantial than civil wars and terrorists in remote mountain regions of a nuclear state, which is retarded. Until you get your facts straight the score will be Russian AK-47s= Incalculable death and destruction in the Third World, Ted Kennedy= 1, Stevanoski= idiot.
  • Indyanna, on 01/27/2008, -4/+59Oooo - Hillary's gonna be livid.

    • elfprince13, on 01/27/2008, -5/+8I'm fairly sure that is epic win for everyone but hillary
    • Gable454, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5I can feel the tears coming on already. I'm sure Bill and Hill will be doing some emotional talking tomorrow with fellow Dems. Deep down inside, she knows the party has a backup plan to get her the nomination. I'm sure at the 11th hour Michican et al will have their delegates in place for the Hillbilly duo. So, any tears will be strictly for practice.
    • muppetFuckr, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Well she can always cry about it or just have her man take care of it for her. Either works
  • stevelasseter, on 01/27/2008, -34/+16But, but, but Obama voted for Real ID
    • gettempapa, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3Could someone explain what Real ID is please?
    • jizzypop, on 01/27/2008, -5/+8oh noes!!!!! everybody will have to have an id issued by *gasp*... the government, what a tragedy, thank god we've never had to carry around government issued id cards before, like say to drive our own cars. that would surely be horrific.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3True, yes, but those are currently issued by the state. As well, drivers' licenses are for driving only. A Real ID also has things like Medicare/Medicaid info, gun registration, etc. It's just weird that when you have to identify yourself to someone, you're also handing over a lot of information unnecessary to the simple act of proving who you are.
        • nathew, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4yeah, i'd hate for people to know my weight, height, and eye color on my government-issued ID. BIG BROTHER OMG
        • thebellmaster1x, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Did...did you read what I said? Medical records have a lot more than your weight on them.
          • jizzypop, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1oh *****, everybody will know you got the clap now!!

            actually, i think Medicare info would probably be a number they use to look you up in the database (e.g., select records from db where id = '123'). i doubt they store all your medical records on this card. it would be sweet if the card could store lots of data though, maybe it could double as a usb thumb drive. SIGN ME UP!
        • debbiemae, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Sounds like Nazi Germany...Think about it..."SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!"
    • ncairns, on 01/27/2008, -1/+22No, he didn't actually. Only the House has voted on it, and they subsequently tabled the bill until 2011 at the earliest.

      Obama is in the Senate.
      • stevelasseter, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2Front page of Digg for link........
        I don't enjoy you calling me a liar, because you are misinformed.
        Burns doesn't it.
    • petrodollar, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Link?
  • xkrwlng, on 01/27/2008, -32/+51"lion of the senate"

    wtf? i thought kennedy was a huge fat ass?
    • Sparq, on 01/27/2008, -3/+27Watch more National Geographic. Lions sit around acting regal while lionesses do the actual hunting.
    • gak001, on 01/27/2008, -8/+6You were misinformed.
    • Pillage, on 01/27/2008, -0/+12do you people know who Ted Kennedy is?!
      • TheFiestyFaun, on 01/28/2008, -2/+4I think most are thinking of a different Ted Kennedy. A good Ted Kennedy.
        • debbiemae, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Ted Kennedy is evil, he is NOTHING like either of his brothers were. They BOTH were against the Federal Reserve and secret societies. And now they are dead.
    • kevinisms, on 01/28/2008, -2/+11I didn't know that lions could drive cars into lakes and leave passengers for dead.
      • phenry50BMG, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5Only if said lions work for the government or have uber rich families.
  • cg4et, on 01/27/2008, -5/+92Bill Clinton has to hate all of this talk about how much Obama is like JFK. He was always the one who wanted to be seen as the new Kennedy. Unfortunately his own actions will forever tarnish his reputation and diminish his legacy.
    • Gable454, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8agreed. Bill suffered from a bad case of hubris. JFK could get away with that kind of stuff in his era, Bill could not, but it did not stop him trying.
    • davecor, on 01/27/2008, -0/+10Agreed... Monica Lewinsky was no Marilyn Monroe!
      Clinton couldn't hold a candle to Kennedy.
    • brufleth, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Read a few chapters from "The Dark Side of Camelot." Kennedy wasn't exactly a nun. Clinton was bush league as far as womanizing goes compared to JFK.
  • dan222555, on 01/27/2008, -52/+25You mean the Senator Kennedy that crashed his car drunk and then left his female passenger for dead?

    Apparently murderers make for ringing endorsements in the democratic party.
    • Pake, on 01/27/2008, -20/+7The Kennedy's can do no wrong apparently to a group of people. I care not about who they endorse, as I just hope they don't try to pollute and manipulate Obama's mind like they've the Kennedy's have done so well in the past of doing. Obama just needs to do things his way, like he's been doing.
    • bitspace, on 01/27/2008, -8/+35As opposed to the President that crashed his country and left thousands of Americans dead.
      • userperson, on 01/27/2008, -4/+9True,
        but that doesn't mean Ted Kennedy is still all that great, 'cause he's not.
        All of them are evil crooks and liars, some of them are even murders (and/or 'in effect' murders i.e. indirect) to boot.
      • schnikies79, on 01/27/2008, -3/+11Strawman Argument. If a drunk driver killed your mother, would you let him or her off because Bush is responsible for the death of thousands of soldiers? You don't care because you aren't related to the family, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

        When then would you let off Senator Kennedy?
        • userperson, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Less wrong as it's one girl vs. a bunch of people; perhaps more wrong as Kennedy was more directly involved.
          no matter, kudos for rightfully calling out ***** logical fallacies.
      • dan222555, on 01/27/2008, -7/+10In case you didn't realize, no one said anything about the President. We're talking about Ted Kennedy.
      • p0s3r, on 01/27/2008, -4/+8b-b-b-b-b-but Bush!
        • kronix2, on 01/27/2008, -3/+2Uh, yeah, that's a legitimate argument. In case you hadn't realised, Bush is the sitting President.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 01/27/2008, -3/+11And as opposed to the First Lady who crashed into one of her classmates' cars, killing him?

      Way to make an irrelevant argument, buddy.
    • Patrikimo, on 01/27/2008, -2/+9Kennedy isn't my favourite democrat either (and I don't know whether to believe the allegations surrounding his drunk driving), but this isn't about personal feelings. For a candidate that everyone was considering the second place loser a month ago, it is imperative that he get big name endorsements such as Kennedy, it's really the only way to fight the whole "But my husband is Bill Clinton" strategy.
  • razorsedge555, on 01/27/2008, -31/+19I didn't know lions were drunk most of the day. Perhaps I need to watch more Discovery Channel programs.
    If he's the lion of the Senate, they need help.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 01/27/2008, -0/+7One day, turn on CSPAN and watch the House of Commons.
      You haven't seen anything, pal.
  • SaladCactusKing, on 01/27/2008, -40/+14Ted Kennedy killed a lady, he shouldn't be in power.
  • nedders, on 01/27/2008, -33/+23since when is having ted kennedy in your corner a good thing?
    • nirav72, on 01/27/2008, -5/+10It might be more about the 'Kennedy' name. Say whatever you want about them, but they're an American icon.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/27/2008, -6/+2Yeah, how all he needs is Bobby Jr. and he'll have the ***** loony left Camelot trifecta.
    • ajwinder, on 01/27/2008, -2/+8not to mention he has a lot of clout in the democratic leadership, you know, those people that make up 20-25% of the delegate count. Every endorsement from inside the party is another vote hilary presumably will need to make up to get the actual nomination. So you can say what you want about a Kerry, Daschle, or Kennedy endorsement not mattering, but its dead wrong. Those 3 have tons of influence in that 20-25% of the vote, and unless hilary intends on grabbing 60-70% of the delegates tied to elections, shes gonna have a problem getting the nomination.
  • designer, on 01/27/2008, -38/+18Senator Kennedy, Drunk Murder of the Senate, Endorses Barack Obama
    • jellygraph, on 01/27/2008, -1/+10Murder is when you engineer someones death intentionally, usually with a motive.

      (Dictionary.com: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.)

      Just thought you should know, as you appear not to understand its proper definition.
      • debbiemae, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Who said it wasn't intentional? He is evil, period. He even left the scene, and tried to cover it up, and has done nothing but promote evil since he has been in office...That is why he is still ALIVE and his brothers are dead. Notice how the TRUTH keeps getting dugg down and buried? We all know the TRUTH hurts, and you diggers are proving it.
  • Shadowman, on 01/27/2008, -23/+9I think Obama should be our next President, but I don't think this is good news. If it's McCain vs Obama there's going to be a battle for moderate voters. IMO the endorsement of someone on the far left like Kennedy will not help Obama.
    • cg4et, on 01/27/2008, -4/+12In a Democratic Primary, where he needs the support of mainstream older white Democrats, this endorsement will mean more than you might think. In the General Election, there will be plenty of opportunities to highlight aspects of Obama's candidacy that will resonate with independents and disaffected Republicans.
      • ajwinder, on 01/27/2008, -3/+3Obama has such a strong bipartisan message that he'd bring to the table that I think would end up destroying any republican candidate and sending the neoconservative movement into a dark corner to die.
        • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/27/2008, -5/+3Yeah, bipartisan. He's very appealing to Republican Socialists.
        • ajwinder, on 01/27/2008, -2/+6From Scarborough last night:

          "My blackberry starts going off like crazy every time this man speaks, and it is from Republicans," said Scarborough. "It is from conservative Republicans, it is from independents, it is from Democrats, and do you know what they say? 'I believe.' I've never seen anything like this before."

          Linked: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/joe-scarb ...

          So I'm gonna take that with a little more weight than your snipey comment, but hey, I'm sure I'll still get dugg down for actually backing statements up.


          • obamarama, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1who is scarborough? nm...followed link
          • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Absolute bollocks. Unless, as I say, you've discovered the elusive Republican Socialist (maybe good ol' Joe is talking about the kind of guy who likes to come to digg and talk about how he's a "registered Republican" but usually votes Dem.)
          • ajwinder, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Hes talking about moderate conservatives, not the crazy ones. The far right holds maybe 15% of the country. The only reason why they get to make decisions is because the democrats appeal to their 15%, and no one goes after the big 60-70% chunk of moderate democrats and moderate conservatives. Well Clinton did, but thats how he won by a landslide in 1996.

            By the way, after chucking the term republican socialist out there 2 times, now I'm gonna ask what the hell you're talking about, because that combination doesnt seem like it hold more than 2 people in the whole country. Unless you're misusing the word socialist, in which case, the good doctor prescribes a glass of water, a politics book, and a dictionary. Go to work.
    • Patrikimo, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2In the end every republican will have endorsed their candidate and every democrat will have endorsed their candidate (minus the occasional Zel Miller's). It will just be noise. If Obama doesn't get these big names he might not beat Hillary, so you take what you can get. After all, the "Look my husband is Bill Clinton" strategy only works for one person...
  • elkram, on 01/27/2008, -4/+36I hope we get to see Bill's response when a reporter asks him about Teddy K.'s endorsement of Obama. He's liable to have a coniption fit!
  • rjwusa, on 01/27/2008, -42/+15Kennedy is an idiot, and this thread is a democrat circle-jerk. /roll eyes
  • MindTrigger, on 01/27/2008, -17/+10I don't think anyone said Sen. Kennedy was less than a douche bag. That being said, most Americans have no clue about the incident you are speaking of, and this remains a huge endorsement for Obama.
  • onlyclave, on 01/27/2008, -37/+75Obama '08.

    Anyone that thinks voting for Ron Paul is a good idea is a sheep and a fool. Wake up.
    • CorneliusStump, on 01/27/2008, -19/+32i'd say the same thing to you but the irony would be lost...
      • Patrikimo, on 01/27/2008, -4/+11Right...
        So you're prepared to debate with me the effects of RP's "We the People Act" and it's effects on Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia, Scopes Monkey, etc etc. In the context of citizen's right? Especially considering the states, in the cases mentioned above are the ones trying to limit the citizen and not the federal government, where in fact the federal government is trying to protect the rights of the citizens.
        Furthermore are you prepared to defend RP's position that it is okay to essentially gut the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" in order to limit people's rights to marry.,

        The problem with RP is that he runs as a states' rights advocate putting the states above the people the people in terms of importance. In our time it is not the federal government that most limits our rights but the state government. The forefathers would of course be appalled by the the fact that our federal government is stronger than the state governments, but they would be even more appalled that the state's have become so eager to limit the rights of the citizen. In fact the current check and balance of the state and federal governments has been instrumental to securing gay, civil and even religious rights.
        • deanlowe, on 01/28/2008, -5/+2Neither support gay marriage out right so why argue about it.
        • redneckblues, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4It's easier to leave the state than leave the country.
        • CorneliusStump, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1i support ron paul because he's dedicated to kill all blacks, queers and jews brutally and quickly
    • booshack, on 01/27/2008, -20/+7Onlyclave i would say RP voters are less sheep-like than obama voters, but perhaps you don't know the meaning of the metaphor. Anyways, I take it you are an Obama supporter. Perhaps you should pull your brain out of your ass and realize they aren't from the same party and start thinking about not alienating RP supporters before the general election, hint hint.
      • onlyclave, on 01/28/2008, -3/+2I do understand the metaphor and I have read RP's position papers. A vote for Ron Paul is the same as voting "Present". Why don't you educate yourself and actually make your vote count for something? Hint hint.
    • Gable454, on 01/27/2008, -14/+4You wouldn't want anyone that voted for Ron Paul to have their vote actually count toward anything anyway.
    • gak001, on 01/27/2008, -16/+13I'm for Obama, but that's such a dick thing to say. ***** you.
    • wentwj, on 01/27/2008, -3/+31I'm fine with the people who are voting for Ron Paul because they agree with his entire message, thats fine with me, who am I to tell someone who to vote for?

      With that said there's a LOT of Ron Paul supporters I've talked to, who simply don't understand him, and do such silly things as compare him to Kucinich. A lot of people only know of Paul's stance on the war, and then perhaps a few vague statements like "Ron Paul is for freedom and liberty!".
      • joshbradley, on 01/27/2008, -5/+4Ron Paul turned a ton young left-leaning kids into hardcore conservatives with his stances on our civil liberties and his foreign policy. Its actually very entertaining to watch.
        • deanlowe, on 01/28/2008, -1/+5How's that any different than people who are Democrats just because of Gay right and abortion?
    • mminor, on 01/27/2008, -11/+3About as sheepish as the people who believe Keynesian and socialist economic ideas have any chance of being successful in this country.
    • wildmonkeys77, on 01/28/2008, -6/+7Sheep? Ron Paul wants a government that stays out of your life, one that doesn't ration your healthcare and regulate your business. Give me one reason why that's a problem.
      • mminor, on 01/28/2008, -4/+4Buried for rational commentary.
      • iofthestorm, on 01/28/2008, -3/+2Environmental concerns? You really don't believe that the free market is going to make businesses pursue sustainable methods of production that will slow the deterioration of the environment, do you? And if you do, that's *****. The fact that the same anti-establishment crowd that is against big businesses also supports Ron Paul really doesn't make any sense to me.
        • wildmonkeys77, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Let me try and lay it out:

          People will always do a job better for their own motivations than if someone forces them to do it.

          Free Market:
          Consumers demand a business to become enviromentally friendly, if not they boycott the business. Businesses then become enviromentally friendly to the best extent possible because they want to please the consumer as much as possible so the consumer will buy their products.
          A good example: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/

          Socialist Market:
          The government MAKES ALL business become E-friendly
          ALL BUSINESSES in turn has less money
          Business cannot hire as many employees
          People are unemployed...because of the government
        • kevcool, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1The free market says I can boycott a company which used known carcinogens and gave my child cancer for instance. Well that didn't prevent them from doing it in the first place and also assumes I can trace this cancer back to company X 10 years after the fact - a company which is under no obligation to disclose ever using the carcinogen.

          The relentless drive for quarterly profits drives some companies to do pretty insane things in the absence of *some* sensible regulation.

          No thanks, Ron Paul.
    • smackjack, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4You know I've been thinking the things that made Kennedy famous are not the decisions he made but his ability to encourage others to think, to talk and to act. When I watch Obama's speeches it inspires me to want to do something for my country. I don't think Ron Paul can do that. One man cannot change a nation, but one man can inspire a nation and that man is Barack Obama
  • schnikies79, on 01/27/2008, -28/+9If I was Obama, I would reject this. Why would you accept this kind of endorsement from a murderer? Obama is so far above this lousy individual it would make your head spin.

    He didn't murder by proxy either, he did it himself.
  • shivaman, on 01/27/2008, -20/+2How about Bobby Kennedy.
    He host a web page called goleft.tv and he is the only one there that is supporting Hillary. I can't believe this guy. They should kick him off of goleft.tv!
    • LordBoreal51, on 01/27/2008, -2/+4Last time I checked Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968. I don't see many dead people hosting web sites or endorsing candidates.
      • petrodollar, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Every republican seems to think they're endorsed by Reagan.
      • buddhistMonkey, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4RFK's son, Robert Kennedy, Jr.
  • nastronomical, on 01/27/2008, -31/+12 A drunken, woman killing, envrio-hypocrit, antiwar, anti-capitalist liberal..oh yeah thats good LOL.
    • twomeyw23334, on 01/27/2008, -6/+5Not true... Get your facts straight. He cares greatly about the environment, just not when the windmills are viewable through binoculars from his Cape Cod mansion!!!
    • jellygraph, on 01/27/2008, -1/+10he already sounds nicer than you
  • razorsedge555, on 01/27/2008, -27/+11You can tell how many partisan readers are on this topic, because anything negative about Kennedy is getting negative Diggs. Thanks, clowns, you're showing how vindictive and reactionary you are. Keep up the good work.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 01/27/2008, -0/+7Now using the thumbs up and down buttons is being "reactionary"?
      You crazy, man. You crazy.
  • nastronomical, on 01/27/2008, -22/+35Senator Kennedy, Lion of the Senate BUFFET, Endorses Barack Obama
  • krnldmp, on 01/27/2008, -9/+11I hope Obama can become and stay more independent of party schmutz like Ted Kennedy.
  • ispellkonfusion, on 01/27/2008, -14/+27Just another reason I love Teddy K.
  • stevelasseter, on 01/27/2008, -32/+9What are Obama's views on Wire Tapping? Nevermind I found it.
    In case anyone was looking for it, he voted for adopting a conference report that extends the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access certain business records through December 31, 2009, and makes the remaining 14 provisions of the Patriot Act permanent.
    That says permanent in case anyone can't read.
  • CorneliusStump, on 01/27/2008, -21/+5lion of the senate? oh wait, all his foibles have been covered already. in summation, ***** ted kennedy.
  • keloyd, on 01/27/2008, -25/+14Obama should not be seen with this drunken anacronism. At least the equally bad Republican big shot embarrassments are nearly dead and gone. Teddy the red nosed senator is the democratic Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms. He has never done honest work in his life; we crack jokes about how he got away with involuntary manslaughter - those of us not related to the victim; his mind is too addled to engage in debate or do much of anything. His handlers put prepared texts into his trembling hand which he reads to the camera. He is a recipient of the perks of his name and senate seniority.

    His political liberalism is merely a reaction to his feeling unworthy of his wealth and status. He fell backwards into his fortune and feels he does not really deserve it - so neither must anyone else. No tax burden on the middle and upper middle classes is too high for his moral sensibilities, though his family fortune is largely protected in various loopholes for the uber-wealthy.

    If wealth, power, status, leadership should be conferred on people based on some sort of merit, why vote, support or be seen with this overindulgent hypocrite college-dropout parasite?
    • senatorpjt, on 01/27/2008, -4/+3He keeps getting elected, he must be doing something right.
      • NSResponder, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1His position in the senate is a consolation prize for having two brothers assassinated. The people of Massachusetts loved Bobby and John, and they'd elect a ham sandwich if its last name was Kennedy.

        -jcr
  • oneblackcitizen, on 01/27/2008, -14/+28The new JFK?
    Is any one else a little scared for Obama?

    i wouldn't trust any one right about now.
    • LordBoreal51, on 01/27/2008, -4/+23I don't see why you are getting buried, but I too fear for Senator Obama's life if he becomes president. Such a charismatic and unifying person could provoke assassination, I just hope that his staff is protecting him well.
      • RRJackson, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4Bobby Kennedy wasn't president when he got shot. There's still a lot of time until November.
    • Jude007, on 01/27/2008, -12/+4JFK got killed because of his convictions, thats not a danger for Obama.
      • RRJackson, on 01/27/2008, -4/+3Exactly. The only things Obama has in common with JFK are the things his campaign has used to sell him as the "new JFK." And even that's all style over substance.
    • RRJackson, on 01/27/2008, -11/+1Don't worry. Obama doesn't stand a chance of winning. That's why the Republicans like him so much. This is just a dog and pony show to show the country how out of touch my party is.
      • Thumper13, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5Uhm, in case you haven't noticed it's Hillary the Repubs love, not Obama. They almost never mention Obama, they're scared ***** of him.

        Oh, I'm a Republican VOTING FOR OBAMA!
        • RRJackson, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Did you see that piece Rove wrote to Obama about how he could beat Hillary?

          http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dee0a6e8-a109-11dc-9f34- ...

          They want Obama to win the nomination. They're doing everything short of actively campaigning for him right now because they already have an airtight strategy in place for beating him.
          • Thumper13, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Apparently you missed Rove congratulating Hillary on what a great campaign she is running, then criticizing Obama's campaign for not getting dirtier.
            Missed that one did ya?
      • harronoob, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4Step 1: Get Obama the Dem. Nomination.
        Step 2: ???
        Step 3: Profit

        I think what it boils down to is that Obama will pick up votes from disenfranchised republicans as well as independents, whereas Clinton has lots of people who just won't vote for her regardless of which party they support.
        • RRJackson, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1And Edwards isn't even being mentioned, even though he's the only one with a prayer of winning a general election.
          • LordBoreal51, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1As the VP candidate he didn't do so well in the general election.
        • veilrap, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Bingo, I used to vote republican but after this Bush disaster and the ***** canidates on the Repub side this year, GOP is not getting my vote. So for me if it's Obama, he gets my vote. If it's Hillary it goes to the libertarians.
    • cronian, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2It depends who the vice-president is.
    • razorsedge555, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2Well it's good for him in some senses. Which actress in Hollywood is comparable to Marilyn Monroe?
  • p0s3r, on 01/27/2008, -17/+12How is being beholden to establishment Dem's, especially some of the most corrupt ones like Kennedy, bringing "change"?
    What's next? Murtha or Dirty Harry Reid going to endorse BHO?

  • stevebee, on 01/27/2008, -30/+9It's amazing that people equate Obama with JFK. Truth is, the ONLY similarity is they are both handsome and both were in their early forties.
    But JFK was a dedicated anti-communist. Faced down Krushchev in denying the USSR the ability to bring nuclear weapons into Cuba off our coast. Think Obama would do that? No ***** way. He'd cave.
    JFK brought us into the Viet Nam war to try and stop murderous communists from taking over southeast asia. Think Obama would do that? No way. He's ready to cave already on allowing the Islamic jihadists the power to take over Iraq.
    JFK was a big tax cutter. He cut tax RATES in the early sixties which brought about a tremendous INCREASE in the amount of tax revenues. Get it? He cut the percentages and that increased the amount paid in. Think todays Dems especially Obama would do that? No way.
    In today's Democratic party JFK would be kicked out!
    Yet they have the nerve to equate OBama and JFK.
    It only works because so many of you are ill-informed
    • nirav72, on 01/27/2008, -2/+17"Think Obama would do that? No way. He's ready to cave already on allowing the Islamic jihadists the power to take over Iraq."
      Right because Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Obama wants to go after the real "threat". You know..the crazies running around in pakistan's backyard. The real people responsible for 9/11 and the ones that continue to be our threat. How is that caving in?
      • Jude007, on 01/27/2008, -3/+6"The real people responsible for 9/11" You mean the Saudis or the CIA assets?
    • jm4847, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I was going to give you thumbs up but then you defended the Vietnam War and lost me...
  • keloyd, on 01/27/2008, -25/+15This may get me a -50 digg, but JFK was a mediocre-at-best president. If he had not been killed, historians would put him just above Harding, maybe even with Ford.

    He did not do a damn thing as president for 3 years. His civil rights record consisted of saying whatever SNCC or MLK wanted to hear then not following up on jack crap. Johnson did all the real work to get his pie in the sky empty promises fulfilled after his death. His record in Congress was unimpressive. The Bay of Pigs would have gotten any Republican impeached. If TV had not come into play, politically, he would never have been elected.

    His only 'good' traits were that he seduced the hollywood crowd, was good looking at a time when he could be the first president to be regularly on TV, and he got killed before his flaws were widely known. (Yes I know tv's had been around since after WW2, my point being it was not a potent political force until the 1960 election.)
    • cwright213, on 01/27/2008, -4/+8how old are you?
    • nirav72, on 01/27/2008, -3/+7Yeah, but he was better than Nixon.
      • NSResponder, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Now, that's damning with faint praise..

        -jcr
    • theshalit, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5JFK is responsible for getting our space program up and running. How can you say he didn't do anything?
  • FENWAYFREAK, on 01/27/2008, -28/+6Obama is a smoker. That's not right. I don't understand how anyone can think obama can be president. We don't don't need a president who believes in "the secret" (if i hope the country will be better than it will be). I also think its hilarious when people say its not about race but obama got 80% of the black vote and 25% of the white vote in SC.
    • nirav72, on 01/27/2008, -4/+5So what? Bill Clinton got 80% of the white vote when he was running for president. GW got 90% of the white vote in 2004. You don't see anyone complain about that. Let me guess..you're a Hillary Fan?
      • CorneliusStump, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1is GWB got 90% of the white vote, wouldn't he have had well over the majority of the votes in the general election...which didn't actually happen?
        • FENWAYFREAK, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3How could anybody be a hillary supporter?
    • booshack, on 01/27/2008, -4/+655% of the < 25 white vote, 10% of the > 50. It's not about black vs. white, it's about bigoted vs. open minded.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/27/2008, -2/+6Actually, it's about white guilt and feeling obligated to prove you're "not a racist." The same young, naive tools who worry what the French or Koreans think about the United States.
    • zioxide, on 01/27/2008, -6/+7He actually quit smoking a few years ago, but I don't see why being a smoker would matter anyways.
      • senatorpjt, on 01/27/2008, -6/+3I don't want the president having a nic fit. I'd rather have a smoker than someone who quit.
        • MalDON, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1So you'd rather an idiot who risks their lives over a stupid smoke? Wow you got your head straight.
    • ncairns, on 01/27/2008, -5/+12OH NO HE'S A SMOKER!?

      Of all the people I accuse of being thirteen years old because of the profoundly stupid comments they make on Digg, you're the one most likely to actually be thirteen years old.
    • Thumper13, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Actually I believe he quit smoking. It was one of the conditions his wife had for him to run for President.

      and Before anybody says, "he has to check with his wife...." No he doesn't, what that is called is a marriage.
      Get one!
      • jm4847, on 01/28/2008, -1/+0If he has to ask for her permission to run he does have to "check with her".
    • jm4847, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2And Clinton smoked pot and Bush was a cokehead. What's your point?
  • schnikies79, on 01/27/2008, -24/+8Come on diggers! How about hitting that reply link instead of the thumbs down button? What is that? You don't have anything to say because you know it's the truth?

    Seneator Kennedy is a murderer. He is no better than the drunken driver that killed a woman down the road from me. In fact, he is worse. At least that guy was sorry and didn't leave the crime. Ted did the opposite, he left he in the ditch and went to get a lawyer.

    Again, tell me how I am wrong and why this guy should get a free pass? I thought our government officials weren't above the law?

    One more time, lets see someone use that reply link.
    • senatorpjt, on 01/27/2008, -6/+4If the only thing people can come up with is that he had a car accident 40 years ago, then it doesn't matter.
      • Strell69, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3Only Thing? Only a car accident from 40 years ago? Killing someone drunk driving, swimming to safety and letting his staffer drown, then running home to hide behind lawyers should be overlooked because it was in the past? I doubt if Bush (or insert any republican) had done the same you would say the same thing. He only received a suspended sentence for driving drunk and getting his staffer killed. Besides it isn't the only thing, almost ever thing he stands for hurts the US. Should we talk about his "No child left behind" that almost every Republican and Democrat now oppose. Or how about his open borders policy that is draining US wealth and destroying the unions he supposedly supports. etc.
      • NSResponder, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1It's not having the accident, per se. It's 1) driving drunk, 2) leaving the scene, 3) LEAVING HER TO DIE, 4) calling his lawyer before making any attempt to notify any authorities, 5) using his family's clout to skate with no penalties, and 6) the fact that all autopsies in the history of the state of Massachusetts are public record except for one that's kept secret illegally at the insistence of the Kennedy family.

        Teddy Kennedy is a scumbag, just like his father the mobster.

        -jcr
    • XDingoX83, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0But people always bring up the fact that Bush didn't serve in Vietnam right? Spin it anyway you like Teddy killed a woman got off scott free because the Kennedy's are just like the Bush's a well connected corrupt political family.
    • jm4847, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0Technically he's a reckless killer, saying he's a "murderer" implies he ment to kill the girl, which I highly doubt was the case.
  • ValVedRaY, on 01/27/2008, -27/+8Obama does not write his own speeches. They are written by a team of three writers, with Jon Favrea, the guy who wrote kerry's speeches in 04 at the top.
    It was a pretty meaningless speech without any substance. Lot's of voluminous, but empty words. But hey that's what people liked about Kerry, and judging from the posts here at digg people like Obama for the same reason.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 01/27/2008, -2/+9Obama is the only person in Washington, D.C. who doesn't write his own speeches! That rat bastard!
      /s
    • kronix2, on 01/27/2008, -1/+7"Obama does not write his own speeches."

      Hate to break it to you, but every politician running for high public office has his speeches written for him.
  • santaliqueur, on 01/27/2008, -14/+31Wait a minute, Ted Kennedy's not an embarrassment anymore? When did this happen?
    • OriginalLucid1, on 01/27/2008, -8/+3He never has been an embarrassment to democrats. Anyone who thinks a pathological liar and a rapist is the greatest President ever can't be embarrassed.
    • davecor, on 01/27/2008, -4/+7Since most people don't know about Mary Jo Kopechne.
      • Rxman101, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5Just wiki'd her. Interesting. Thanks for the heads up.
      • santaliqueur, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2It's sad everyone doesn't know about her.
    • NSResponder, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Oh, Ted the Drunk is a major embarrassment to anyone with any sense of decency, but such people are a miniscule proportion of the democrats.

      -jcr
  • canyoudiggitman, on 01/27/2008, -25/+20I wonder if Obama will let his wife go on a late night car drive with Sen. Ted Kennedy???
    • mateo60, on 01/27/2008, -11/+7I'm glad someone brought that incident up. Priceless comment.
    • mateo60, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I think you got Dugg down because nobody got the reference.
  • ike6116, on 01/27/2008, -16/+10Can I just say as a Massachusetts citizen that Senator Kennedy is everything wrong about the democrats. I like Obama, I dislike Kennedy. If this helps Obama so be it but in my heart of hearts I'd rather not see these two in league.
    • debbiemae, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Agreed! I am not voting for Obama, but he is a better man than Teddy Boy.
    • debbiemae, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Amen!
  • Lowrider49, on 01/27/2008, -25/+6For those who don't know the truth it is time to do your homework. There is a reason the media and the establishment does not want Ron Paul elected. It is not because he is weak. Any candidate who challenges the Federal Reserve, the Military Complex, the IRS and all other divisions of the New World Order is the strongest and bravest man alive. You who support other candidates, stop and think what this means, and why would anyone challenge and want to abolish these powerful organizations? There are two governments in this country. One is a very divided Democrat/Republican government which is the one you are familiar with. The other is a very well established, unseen organization that controls the money, headed by the Federal Reserve, which by the way is a private entity owned by big banks, no more Federal than Federal Express. This is the one that is very close to taking over our liberties and our Constitution. This is the one Ron Paul is challenging. Weak? Absolutely not. No one else on the stage of candidacy even bears the thought of challenging the real power in this country and the world. Radical? Not if you believe in true freedom for all with an undivided population that can grow and prosper and raise our children without fear and dependency. We have been divided, segregated, categorized, split and numbered for a reason. There is always a reason and there is a reason Ron Paul is campaigning. Don't vote until you know all the truth and ask yourself why?
    • zioxide, on 01/27/2008, -7/+12Seriously, just ***** off with your Ron Paul *****. Spamming in other stories isn't going to help your cause either.
      • Lowrider49, on 01/27/2008, -6/+4Intelligent response, for sure. Can't take the truth, huh?
      • eyespypro, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1Typical comments from a stupid Democrat. That's why the country is so screwed, since Obama locked up the parasite democrat/socialist vote.
        You got a better choice son? I bet you are not old enough to vote. Anyone with a brain does not support a Democrat.
        • polymyxin, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1This just in, half of America has no brain.
    • Xizer, on 01/27/2008, -6/+9lol is ron paul even in the race still?
      • Lowrider49, on 01/27/2008, -7/+5....and you'll laugh out loud when your National ID chip is implanted LOL
        • kronix2, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2You'll laugh out loud when RP introduces prayer in schools, gets abortion and homosexuality banned at the state level, declares a zygote a human being with a Constitutional amendment, and allows the teaching of creationism in schools.

          Or not. Many Ron Paul supporters actually support those policies - Ron Paul attracts the fundamentalist Christian vote because he himself is a fundamentalist Christian.
          • Lowrider49, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Let's see, how memory fails us. Do you remember one of the great "christian" debates last December where all candidates were fighting for position among the Christians? The youtube debate, if you recall was heavily infiltrated with questions directed to the candidates about their religion. Of course all of them continued on a "I'm a Christian" rampage for the next ten days....Romney, McCain, Guailiani, Huckabee except for Ron Paul. He stated his Religion and that was the end of it. Also....seems you need to do a little homework. Congressman Paul wants to cut back on Federal Government, not start introductory programs for prayer, abortion, homosexuality, etc. Yes the States will be subject to their own rulings and jurisdiction on particular matters.....then we'll have to cross State lines to get our Zygotes, I guess.
          • betterth, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2It's ironic how you list off the goals of almost every major candidate on the ballot, and some how, we're supposed to hate just Paul for this?

            Welcome to America, where the majority of the candidates are pro-war, anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-evolution.
    • mateo60, on 01/27/2008, -6/+4I have a soft spot for Paul, but you ***** spammers are pissing me off.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 01/27/2008, -3/+5Actually, I'd rather not have Ron Paul elected because he doesn't respect the 14th Amendment—one of the more important ones. Oh, and don't forget that he's against separation of church and state.
      • Lowrider49, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1Actually you're wrong. He does support the 14th Amendment and I know where you're going with this about children born from illegal aliens. The citizenship right is just an "assumption" as outlined in the law. Here it is:
        The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[4] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment,[5] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[6] In some cases the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda[7] and Plyler v. Doe.[8] Nevertheless, some claim that Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation:[5] such legislation is often proposed by individual members of Congress but has never been passed into law.

        The Fourteenth Amendment does not explicitly provide any procedure for loss of United States citizenship. Loss of U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:

        Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically this is not loss of citizenship, but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.
        Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions which demonstrate an intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
        • Lowrider49, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1He's not against separation of church and state, which by the way is not part of the Constitution. He is just against the Federal government suppressing the rights of individuals .He proposes that rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
    • gimpbully, on 01/27/2008, -1/+6you know, there was a guy on the bus the other day rambling on about the military complex and federal reserve...
      • betterth, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1But you were too busy sipping a soy latte and reading the latest book by Al Gore to care about stupid things like the underlying economic principles that govern our country and the private corporations that are heavily invested in the business of war, right?
    • Thumper13, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1jesus...will this never end.
      You do know Paul spoke to White Supremacists don't you?
      Look, I can do this too!
      die
      • Lowrider49, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Actually, it will never end. Liberty is worth dying for.
  • ko4u2, on 01/27/2008, -16/+6The "Swimmer" endorsing Barry is gona hurt!
  • HotDogBun, on 01/27/2008, -29/+18Lion of the senate?

    More like Obese, Alcoholic Murderer of the senate.
    • HotDogBun, on 01/27/2008, -8/+10Go ahead and digg it down, but the guy did murder a young girl who was pregnant with his kid. You can't digg history away.
      • debbiemae, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1KEEP THE TRUTH ALIVE!!! Teddy...The EVIL KENNIDY!!
    • kolinkoolface2, on 01/27/2008, -5/+9i guess if your a liberal then it's ok kill people or have an affair coughtedkennedycough coughbillclintoncough
  • spankaccount, on 01/27/2008, -24/+23It's actually, Senator Kennedy, drunk liberal of the senate.
    • KDX200rider, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0Don't forgot man slaughtering ....
  • Meowbiusfox, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1I like Ted,sans the killing part.

    Boy,what about that Scotch Whiskey empire?Open bar DUDE!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.