Democratic Endgame

I know some people who will be unimpressed, or negatively impressed, by Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Senator Obama, and I admit that it sounds strange to hear the old man of Massachusetts speak against the "patterns of the past," but let's look at this as a Democrat might. For good or ill, Sen. Kennedy embodies the history, if not the "soul" of the party. To the extent that John Kennedy remains an idol of the party, Ted has a better claim to represent John's (and Robert's) spirit to the faithful. The Kennedys represent what the party presumes to stand for, so it's not just a dynastic squabble when most of the Kennedys come out against the Clintons -- and make no mistake, you can't merely endorse Obama without repudiating Sen. Clinton, despite Ted's own disclaimers. For the Kennedys to come out against the Clintons forces Democrats to decide what their party stands for. It means that it cannot be the same party as it thought it was if Hillary prevails. If she's the nominee, then the Democratic party stands for the "third way," for "triangulation," and for the Clintons' special entitlement to rule.

To be honest, much of what the Kennedys stood for was mythical, and Ted Kennedy himself was guilty of the same sense of entitlement in 1980 that Hillary has now. But once beaten, Ted has stayed chastened, and has long since renounced any claim on the White House. The Kennedys' own interests are advanced by this endorsement only insofar as it reinforces Ted's claim to be the elder statesman of the party (Jimmy Carter being apparently uninterested). Also, if he's grown indignant at Bill Clinton's antics, then more power to him. Someone needs to slap down Mr. Clinton at this point, and Kennedy has the stature among hard-core Democrats to do this. Both Clintons are so clearly acting on a presumption of personal entitlement that they're a menace to the American political system. People across the political spectrum should cheer if the Democrats can stop them.