In 1980, did Ted Kennedy endorse Jimmy Carter?

[Eric J in MN]

Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 03:33 AM - Edit history (1)

In Ted Kennedy's 1980 convention speech, he didn't say, "I endorse Carter" or "I'm a Carter supporter" or anything like that.

Kennedy said:

I congratulate President Carter on his victory here.

I am -- I am confident that the Democratic Party will reunite on the basis of Democratic principles, and that together we will march towards a Democratic victory in 1980.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tedkennedy1980dnc.htm

Did Ted Kennedy endorse Carter at another point in 1980?


==============================
Update: I'm asking this historical question out of curiosity. Regarding the current situation, I hope that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders reach a compromise and then he endorses her.
==============================

[MADem]

1. He "snubbed" him. Not his finest hour. Ted Kennedy was an utter mess during that timeframe.

It was a good thing he had such wonderful staff; they really did the heavy lifting during that dark era for him. He was abusing substances (alcohol and cocaine) to the point where it's a miracle he lived, frankly, and his judgment was very, very poor. Everyone--and he most of all--said that Vicki saved his life.

His primarying of Carter was the final nail in Carter's coffin. It's really poor form to primary an incumbent.

If you are interested in Carter's perspective on this moment in time, here's a good article:

http://www.salon.com/2010/09/20/carter_kennedy_drinks/



Jimmy Carter, left, shakes hands with Sen. Edward Kennedy on the podium at the Democratic National Convention in 1980.

“Afterward,” Carter writes in his diary, “Kennedy drove over from his hotel, appeared on the platform along with a lot of other people, seemed to have had a few drinks, which I probably would have done myself. He was fairly cool and reserved, but the press made a big deal of it.”

They sure did — and for good reason. Kennedy’s challenge of Carter for the ’80 nod was unusually bitter and protracted. Even though Carter won twice as many delegates in the primary and caucus season, Kennedy fought all the way to the August convention, attempting to convince delegates to support a rule change that would have allowed them to vote their conscience on the first ballot — instead of being forced to cast a ballot for the candidate they’d been pledged to during the primary season. Only when this effort failed did Kennedy back down and end his campaign (with what was probably the best speech of his career). So it was only logical that the press would watch the body language closely when the two men came together onstage after Carter’s acceptance speech two nights later — and Kennedy’s discomfort was obvious. As the Washington Post reported it:

When Kennedy did arrive, wearing that familiar tight-lipped smile his traveling press corps has come to call “the smirk,” he strode into the crowd of Democratic officials already on the podium, gave Carter a perfunctory shake of the hand, and walked away to the side of the platform.

There followed a comical ballet in which Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (Mass.) all tried futilely to lead Kennedy back to center stage for an arms-up pose with the president.

When Kennedy went to the left side of the platform to raise a fist toward his Massachusetts delegation, Carter made a beeline to join him and struck the same pose. But Kennedy’s arm had come down a split-second before Carter’s shot up.

....

More--including video--at link.

I'm from MA and until Ted died he was a constant fixture in political life for all of us here, but even those of us who supported him down the years thought he did Carter wrong. It just wasn't the gentlemanly thing to do.

[Chathamization]

9. It's always strange that I never see such criticism directed against Bobby Kennedy's run in '68. N/T

[sufrommich]

14. His assassination might have something to do with that ,and

the fact that that Johnson quit after New Hampshire.

[Chathamization]

18. Probably true; people's opinions on primary challenges are more influenced by the events surrounding

the primary than merely whether or not they think a primary challenge is appropriate. If Ted Kennedy had met the same fate, it's possible that his challenge would have been spoken of in the glowing way Bobby Kennedy's often is. Or if Carter won in '80 (and most people don't seem to think Kennedy's challenge caused his defeat), or Kennedy had won in '80, I'm sure the narrative would also be quite different.

[SheilaT]

27. Bobby Kennedy wasn't really primarying an incumbent.

In fact, McCarthy's supporters were furious that Kennedy didn't enter that race until after the New Hampshire primary, where McCarthy had such a strong second place finish.

Then LBJ withdrew from the race on March 31st, and the rest, as I like to say, is history.

And I recall various criticisms of RFK back then, that he was simply trading on JFK's martyrdom and popularity, and that he didn't have the integrity to enter the race any earlier.

[MADem]

43. That makes no sense, though--what incumbent was running in 1968?

The answer is: NONE. LBJ dropped out. You can't compare a vacancy at the top of the ticket to challenging a POTUS who had served four years and was going for a second term--it's just not an appropriate comparison in any way, shape or form.

FWIW, and I was quite sentient and involved in that election, there were two major factions of the party in that mix; Hubert Horatio Humphrey, who was actually a sweet fellow, hamstrung by loyalty, who got off to a rough start because he couldn't really repudiate his boss on the issue of Viet Nam (and his boss took his sweet time getting out of the race), and Gene McCarthy, who was virulently anti-war and scooped up the "hippie" (I am using that term sarcastically and deliberately, jury, as a way of explaining "mood" at the time) voters, who were encouraged to "Be Clean For Gene." Muddling the waters even more were a couple of other players, to include two favorite sons from FL and OH (who won their states handily). TX went to Lyndon, though he dropped out.

Back then there were only 13 primaries--see, not everyone got to vote back then (trying to compare then-to-now is never a winning plan). So, basically, you had McCarthy, HHH and the late - arriving RFK (who looked better than Gene and more "referential" (as opposed to reverential...though that might work, too) to the halcyon days of Camelot. RFK harkened back to a time BEFORE assassinations, he spoke with confidence in a reasonable, kindly manner, he appealed to wide constituencies, he was the brother of a fallen hero and America's secular saint, and all that was a lot of his appeal. He came off as both "AG tough" AND compassionate. He looked like the kind of guy who could build bridges--as opposed to one guy who was perceived as way TOO left wing, and another guy who was perceived as way TOO right wing. He also looked like the kind of guy who could UNITE divided factions, to include racial divides--and that's why he was a hit.

Of course, that all ended at the Ambassador Hotel. I was watching that, live, on a crappy portable (weighed as much as a fifth grader) color television that cost the earth. I couldn't believe it. AGAIN?

There was no vacancy at the top of the ticket when Teddu stepped up - he basically told the leader of our party "You suck and I'm better--step aside." That was Ted Kennedy's bad blip, challenging Carter like he did. It made him look small and angry and petty. And during that period and afterwards, his life disintegrated in a rather spectacular way, first with Chappaquiddick, later with the Donald Ducking down in FL and his presence at wild gatherings, one of which resulted in a rather spectacular and salacious trial of his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, and the boozing and cocaine. He got past all that, thanks to his 2nd wife who never gave up on him but also wouldn't put up with his shit, but Carter never forgot it--and I honestly cannot blame Carter for feeling the affront.

Teddy is lucky to have survived that era--he was headed down the road to an early death, his judgment was impacted, and I think that grandiosity and impetuousness that comes along with substance abuse had a lot to do with his poor conduct during that era.

Fortunately for us and for history, he redeemed himself later.

[John Poet]

45. LBJ Did NOT drop out until two weeks after RFK entered the race.

Up until that point, everyone presumed the incumbent would be running. He'd only had one full term, and a little more than a year of JFK's.

[MADem]

53. See post 52. LBJ's staff knew in Dec 1967 that he'd had enough--RFK didn't announce until Mar 68.

And RFK splitting the Roman-Catholic/antiwar vote with (no love lost) McCarthy would have ensured an LBJ victory, if he'd wanted to stay in.

The man was sick and he knew it. He died four years after he left office.

[Chathamization]

50. LBJ dropped out after RFK entered, and it was considered a surprise. One of the reasons why LBJ

dropped out was because RFK got in:

"I felt [in 1968] that I was being chased on all sides by a giant stampede coming at me from all directions.... And then the final straw. The thing I feared from the first day of my presidency was actually coming true. Robert Kennedy ... openly announced his intention to reclaim the throne in the memory of his brother. And the American people, swayed by the magic of the name, were dancing in the streets. The whole situation was unbearable for me."

I'm not sure how anyone could think that RFK wasn't running against an incumbent when he entered the race.

[MADem]

52. LBJ had terrible heart disease. That may have been the icing on the cake, but he had

been dithering for longer than that. LBJ--had he chosen to run--would have won the primary, and most likely re-election easily. This NYT article written by LBJ's Chief of Staff (and he oughta know) is helpful:

My perspective was that of the President's administrative chief of staff. My office was next to his. I can state categorically that fear of losing the 1968 election was not the reason he retired. Several days before the speech, Mr. Johnson commissioned a poll, which indicated that he would be re-elected over all possible candidates. I always have felt that he took that poll to satisfy himself that he wasn't being run out of office.

The real reason for Mr. Johnson's withdrawal was Vietnam. It was an involvement he had questioned as a Senator and about which he brooded as President. But his sense of Presidential continuity compelled him to pursue the commitments made by Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy.By Christmas 1967, Mr. Johnson had decided to announce his retirement at the close of his 1968 State of the Union Message to Congress. That part of the speech was assigned to Horace Busby, a former staff assistant and speech writer; the information was to be concealed from the rest of the staff. In the end, Mr. Johnson chose not to announce his retirement in that speech, largely because he sensed that the ambitious legislative program he wanted to push through Congress would be damaged if he became a lame duck. ..... At the time, I adopted the conventional wisdom that Mr. Johnson just couldn't give up power. But as 1968 unfolded, he continued to talk about his family, about how he always had been on the move and never had shared the joy of knowing his two daughters. He doted on his first grandson, Lyn Nugent, and said he wanted time to know his grandchildren. He talked about his health and repeated that his father and grandfather had died of heart failure at age 64. He said that he could not complete another full term as President, since he would be 64 during the last year of that term.

And he kept coming back to Vietnam - a blot on his Administration he wanted to remove. As an active candidate, he reasoned, he might miss or postpone an opportunity to achieve peace. ''What if we're late in the campaign and I have to make a decision that might result in a peace settlement but will be politically risky,'' he mused one night in March. ''I want my hands free to do what's necessary to end this thing.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/16/opinion/behind-lbj-s-decision-not-to-run-in-68.html

DC is a small town--and word does travel. LBJ was making noise about getting out nearly four months before RFK even announced. RFK sensed the opening and took it--in actual fact, he was probably "running" in order to run again four years later (something that Reagan did when he went up against Ford). RFK wasn't counting on being gunned down and becoming part of the Martin, Abraham, John and Bobby Supergroup of murdered heroes.

That was NOT the case with Ted Kennedy. Kennedy wasn't running with an attitude of "four years hence." He wanted to snatch the Presidency from Carter right then and there, who was the incumbent and the party leader, like it or not. The "northeast liberals" (and keep in mind, I am one of them) did have an unfortunate and snobby attitude towards southern politicians, and TK displayed a lot of that condescension. Sidebar: It took Bill Clinton to really crack that nut and change that POV. Carter was intending on running for the nomination, he wasn't making noise about his bad heart and his grandkids. TK got up in his face, and he displayed incredibly poor form--to say nothing of the absolutely SHITTIEST campaign strategy I've ever seen a "main media" candidate run in my life. Its hallmark was incompetence, made worse by TK's arrogance.

Also, we weren't fighting a grossly unpopular war that was killing kids by the tens of thousands when Ted decided to jump in. Carter and Ted didn't have differences on the scale of "Viet Nam, or No Viet Nam." They were on the same side of most issues--their arguments had to do with HOW to get from Point A to Point B.

It wasn't the same at all. The "anti-war" and "Finish The Job/We've Never Lost a War" factions of the Democratic Party were like oil and water--to the point that they were like different political parties altogether.


Also, it is important that you read your entire link, which repudiates your thesis down in the weeds:

Much of the media treated Kennedy's entrance as proof that Johnson was unlikely to be renominated. But as any hard-boiled, vote-counting politician would have realized on March 16 -- and Johnson was among the best -- RFK's entrance enhanced Johnson's chances. In 1968 delegates were largely controlled by elected officeholders and party bosses. And because McCarthy deeply detested Kennedy and was not about to withdraw or join forces with him, a three-way race meant the antiwar faction of the party was irrevocably split between two Catholic liberals. As the New York Times reported on March 24, LBJ seemed likely to get at least 65% of the delegates for the nomination.

Ted's entrance into the race didn't enhance Carter's chances like RFK's did to LBJ--again, not the same thing at all.


The guy who wrote that article you cite was a teen ager when LBJ made his decision to resign. I think the Chief of Staff's insight is cut a bit closer to the bone. RFK didn't 'chase LBJ off.' LBJ had just had enough--he was, if you will, "heart" sick. And he died, as he predicted, at the very same age as his "deddy" -- 64.

[Chathamization]

54. Do you have any evidence that RFK knew LBJ was going out? I've never seen anyone claim that, and it

doesn't fit with the facts. If RFK knew but didn't want to look like he was going to challenge Johnson, he would have waited until Johnson's announcement. If he wanted to get in early, he wouldn't have waited until after McCarthy's success. Johnson's own words (which I quoted earlier) show that he took Kennedy running as being against him. I think he would know.

[MADem]

58. DC is a small town and people have always talked. It wouldn't have mattered anyway. RFK

wasn't the first one to get in the race--McCarthy, the OTHER anti-war Catholic, had already broken the mold long before RFK entered (McCarthy jumped in in NOV 67, RFK in March 68). In fact, it could be argued that RFK's entry could have done more to ensure the nomination for LBJ had LBJ stayed in, because McCarthy and Kennedy would have split the antiwar and Roman Catholic left of left voting block, and LBJ would have cleaned up on the other side of the divide.


Given that there were only 13 primary states, and LBJ won TX handily, and two others (OH, FL) went to favorite sons, that left ten between them. They wouldn't have stood a chance. McCarthy was in there first, he had the better organization, he had the "Clean for Gene" crew, and he would not have backed away in favor of RFK, because they hated each other. At the end of the day, had he run, LBJ would have gotten the lion's share of the "establishment" votes (and he knew how the machine worked, and which buttons to push), and the remains would have been split between the other two.

Circumstances intervened to change the scenario, but no one foresaw that at the time.

RFK had to know that there was no way anyone was beating LBJ "IF" (and that is a big IF) he stayed in--regardless of media hype. And he wasn't a political neophyte--he was plowing the field for a later harvest. He just didn't count on getting killed.

He likely expected to run and win in 72.

Reagan pulled the same stunt with Ford, but Ford held on and got the nomination, but he lost to Carter. Reagan then came back for a second bite of the apple and won, with the help of circumstance and the Ayatullah.

[Chathamization]

60. Your only evidence is "DC is a small town"? Even LBJ's chief of staff didn't know

From your own link:

On Friday, March 29, the President said at a news conference that he would deliver a televised address the following Sunday evening. Friday evening, he called his press secretary, George Christian; Postmaster General W. Marvin Watson and me into his Oval Office study. The discussion lasted a couple of hours.

''I'm thinking about announcing Sunday that I'm not running. What do you think?'' he opened over the first drink. The three of us argued vigorously while he poked holes in each argument. By evening's end, we split 2-1 (George was against his running, Marvin and I said it was too late for him to step away from the battle.) We left the meeting not knowing what he would do.

Arguing that RFK knew is bizarre, to say the least. And yes, since it was assumed that Johnson was going to run and since Johnson would have been the front-runner, RFK running meant that he was running against Johnson. And that's the way Johnson took if, if we look at his own words. It was clear that RFK was running against the incumbent as well, if we look at his words:

Finally, my decision reflects no personal animosity or disrespect toward President Johnson. He served President Kennedy with the utmost loyalty and was extremely kind to me and members of my family in the difficult months which followed the events of November of 1963.

I have often commended his efforts in health, in education, and in many other areas, and I have the deepest sympathy for the burden that he carries today.

But the issue is not personal. It is our profound differences over where we are heading and what we want to accomplish.

I do not lightly dismiss the dangers and the difficulties of challenging an incumbent President. But these are not ordinary times and this is not an ordinary election.

At stake is not simply the leadership of our party and even our country. It is our right to moral leadership of this planet.

To argue that RFK wasn't running against LBJ seems as strange as saying Ted Kennedy wasn't actually running against Carter.

[MADem]

65. We can go round in circles all day, but he did not have the MATH

on his side, nor did he have the SYSTEM on his side. He wanted to make some points--about the war, and about HIS political future in the outyears. But his candidacy was a long shot at best. That is obvious if you look at the candidates dispassionately, in terms of how much political clout they had where it MATTERS--with the delegates.

You had two anti-war candidates in the primary. McCarthy, who had organization and the youth vote, and RFK, who was coming in late in the game, short on cash and organization, but with lots of media goodwill and no small amount of Kennedy charm. Both were, as I said, anti-war, and both were Roman Catholics. They'd fight EACH OTHER for those segments of the vote and split it--it wasn't half the party, anyway, it was a minority segment. They hated each other too--neither would have ceded to the other. They would have split that antiwar/Catholic segment, leaving the balance to LBJ. People forget that there wasn't a crazy swell of antiwar sentiment at the time--the term "dirty hippies" came about because the people who were protesting the war will still a minority segment and that was an effort to marginalize them. That silent majority that Nixon later talked about was still ready to believe that war could be won. Further, there were only thirteen showboat primaries (out of fifty states, and favorite son delegate-grabbers played in many of those) and the party bosses, who controlled the state delegates, were "establishment" and in the pocket of the party leader (that would be Johnson).

LBJ would have won the party nomination on the first ballot. The runners up, after ceding politely, would have gotten a speaking slot if they toned down their differences on the war.

Lyndon didn't want to leave unless and until he was reasonably certain that he COULD HAVE won the election, and he did think he could have done that. He was prideful that way. But he also knew he was sick--and he was right.

RFK was in that race to make a name for himself, outside of the party structure that chooses the Keynoter and decides who is allowed to advance, and separate from his dead brother. He was in the process of crafting his own identity. He had a steep road to the nomination, had he lived. People want to believe that because he was murdered in cold blood, and who doesn't like a romantic and idealistic "What might have been" narrative, but it was unlikely to happen. People just weren't as liberal as they seem through the mists of time--and the farty people who favored the status quo were loyal voters.

As it was, Hubert Humphrey (who didn't generate a huge amount of excitement but was felt to be a nice, safe and not unintelligent guy) did not bother to run in a single one of those primaries, and he had amassed more delegates at the time of RFK's murder than either of the other two candidates. And, perhaps preparing himself for (the disaster that was) 72, McGovern jumped in at the last minute to bleed some more of that anti-war vote off from McCarthy after RFK was killed. In any event, the unexciting, "establishment," status quo HHH CLOBBERED his primary opponents at the convention by an overwhelming majority--he got nearly 3x the votes that McCarthy amassed--on the first ballot, too. And he wasn't taking votes from the dearly departed RFK.

What made it look like the Democrats weren't ready for Prime Time was the rioting and the clubbing, beating and general lawlessness (on the part of the rioters AND the police) in Chicago. The mayor did a great job, in his effort to be a tough guy, of making us all look like a bunch of deranged lunatics. Those were very difficult days.

[Chathamization]

66. It's not circles; the facts are that RFK was running against an incumbent when he entered the race

Not "NONE" as you were claiming. I'm not sure what you're arguing now - it doesn't count because Johnson would have won if he wanted to? Sure, and Carter handily defeated Kennedy (Carter "CLOBBERED his primary opponents&quot .

[MADem]

70. He was running against an incumbent who was on his way out the door.

Who had expressed a desire to a number of his staff to leave politics three months before RFK even jumped in.

RFK was a former AG, a Senator, and connected to the previous POTUS. If you don't believe he had a network, then, fine--don't believe that. There's no way I can convince you of it, but I'd be shocked if he didn't have an inkling.

I was no one, but when I worked on the Hill, I heard a LOT of stuff. There are things that have hit the news that are "shocking," even to this day (and I have been gone for awhile) that are not surprising to me. That town IS a tiny little fish pool.

It was HHH who did the clobbering--I was referring to the 68 convention in Chicago. There were two schools of thought about the war, and at that time, the anti-war side lost.

Kennedy never had a hope in hell of winning--he just wanted to screw Carter over, and he did that. What he didn't count on is that the movie star would resonate so well (I still do not understand that--the guy seemed like a two - bit phony to me) and usher in an era of GOP dominance that would resonate down the decades.

[Chathamization]

73. Even Johnson's chief of staff didn't know if Johnson was going to leave the race, and that was 2

weeks after RFK had entered it (and with LBJ keeping his thoughts on leaving secret from most of his staff). But RFK was somehow sure about this? Base on no other evidence than DC is a small town and RFK had a network? Huh? RFK's and LBJ's own words show that RFK's run was against LBJ (as Lawrence O'Donnell said, RFK was "a guy who was planning to run hard against Lyndon Johnson&quot . It seems strange to argue otherwise, particularly with absolutely no evidence that RFK knew (and, indeed, the bulk of the evidence suggesting that he wouldn't have known).

[MADem]

75. My point, again, is that people TALK. His COS and everyone else in the room, perhaps "The Butler,"

too, heard him. The speechwriter heard him. The person who typed up the speechwriter's stuff read the paragraphs he didn't use in the SOTU. You don't think he--or back then, more likely, she--told her friends that they'd better start putting money aside because the boss wasn't going for a 2nd term, or trying to transfer to another department, especially if they were a political appointee?

It's a small town. People talk. A LOT. The joint runs on rumor and innuendo, and it's the main pastime to gossip about stuff. You spend so much time hurrying up and waiting, there's not much else to do--and back in the days before wifi everywhere and "tablets" and "cell phones," people did a LOT of that. If you were a social smoker, you could pick up more scuttlebutt than you could shake a stick at.

Look, I knew Denny Hastert had a problem back in the nineties. I knew that his wife always stayed at the Willard when she blew into town for "wives" stuff. What was the point of mentioning it when you couldn't out the source? I knew why Monica Lewinsky was working for Ken Bacon, though he never came out and told me in so many words (but someone else helpfully did). I knew that Linda Tripp was resentful that she was organizing DV tours instead of working in the White House "where she belonged."

And again, I was nobody special. People talk--all the time. The town runs on it.

[Chathamization]

80. Again, do you have any evidence of this? The people closest to him didn't know one way or another,

his thoughts about leaving were kept secret from most of his staff, yet RFK somehow knew he wouldn't seek a second term? But then RFK still entered the race with a speech in opposition to Johnson? And Johnson still viewed RFK's entry as RFK running against LBJ?

Do you know of any historian, or any person involved with either man, who believes in the claim you're making?

You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what RFK said, it doesn't matter what LBJ said, it doesn't matter what LBJ's chief of staff knew, and it doesn't matter what the historical consensus is - you're sure that RFK knew because hey, people talk about things, right?

[MADem]

86. My "evidence" is my understanding of how things work in that town. I realize you want a

link, but sometimes, there are no links. There are just rumors, and "Didja hear's?"

And all the players are dead.

If RFK didn't have a hint that LBJ was thinking about leaving, I would be very surprised. I am not suggesting that LBJ called him up (they hated each other) and had a heart to heart, but if RFK wasn't hearing rumors, then he had no connections--and we KNOW he had connections. He was very close to Robert McNamara, who stayed on from JFK to LBJ's administration. Maybe he "heard' something.

You don't have to agree with me, but that IS my view. I don't think RFK made the decision without context, and that context may well have been the rumor, floating about, that LBJ was thinking about bagging it.

It's not like LBJ hadn't talked about it--he was talking about it from the summer before, as well:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-night-lyndon-quit/

This is LBJ's secretary's POV, as he proudly notes that he kept it from the press --but as you can see, a LOT of people (Connally, for example, was a very chatty guy) knew - and I'll bet you anything the FBI knew, too. They listened in on everyone's phone callsl.

[Chathamization]

89. Do you know of any historian or person connected to either man that thought RFK knew?

Both RFK and LBJ seemed to see RFK's entry into the race as being in opposition to LBJ, and that's the way most historians, commentators, politicians, etc. frame it. That's the way RFK framed it in his announcement, and that's the way Johnson spoke of it. When even Johnson's chief of staff thought he was going to continue on (early 1968, per your article), it seems unlikely that RFK knew Johnson wasn't. There doesn't even seem to be a consensus on when the decision was made and why. Maybe there were rumors going around saying that it was a possibility, maybe not. If there were, they couldn't have been that strong considering many people, even those with their own networks, were surprised by his announcement.

Either way, "It's possible that at some point RFK heard some rumors about LBJ possibly not seeking a second term" (arguable, but who knows) is quite different from "RFK wasn't running against an incumbent when he entered the race." Looking at the bulk of the evidence, and the words of both men, shows that he was.

[MADem]

91. More than one thing can be true--he certainly was "opposed" to LBJ (despised him, in fact) and

he may well have heard he was thinking about bowing out. I mean, come on--he was the Attorney General in his brother's administration and even stayed on for almost a year under LBJ-- it's not like he had no friends at the FBI (who listened in on everything). People don't always tell us everything they know--they like to keep those sources and methods close to the vest.

At the end of the day, he had to know he couldn't win, because Gene McCarthy hated RFK as much as RFK disliked him. Neither would give way to the other and if it wasn't LBJ going for it again, it would be HHH. The vote was bound to be trifurcated and it was likely that the "establishment" candidate would get the lion's share.


His COS was saying he might hang on after December, yet his Secretary knows he's talking to John Connally and others back in the summertime of 67. This was plainly NOT a state secret, even though the press either did not get wind of it, did not believe it if they heard it as a rumor, or couldn't get anyone to confirm it even on background.

[Chathamization]

95. Again, both LBJ and RFK seemed to view RFK's entry as being against LBJ

As did most people at the time. Yes, a few people close to LBJ knew that he was considering not seeking a second term; though in '68 some of those that he ended up making the decision to seek one (which he actually was doing whether he eventually planned to drop out or not, so claiming there was "a vacancy at the top of the ticket" is simply wrong). That's the people close to him. One of the reasons given for the late announcement was that LBJ didn't want Congress to view him as a lame duck president, so it's not like this was an open secret among people in the know (and again, Johnson was in the primary at the time). Most reports I've seen suggest that RFK was anticipating a fight against Johnson, not anticipating Johnson dropping out.

Not really sure why you're trying to push this very unorthodox theory, particularly since it seems mostly to stem from you originally not realizing that LBJ made his announcement after RFK's entry:

So, basically, you had McCarthy, HHH and the late - arriving RFK

HHH "arrived" over a month after RFK.

[Hortensis]

107. Well, this is a very interesting conversation,

MADem and Chathamization. Thanks for having it.

[MADem]

113. RFK had to first best McCarthy, and he was whipping him but good, especially

amongst the youth vote. RFK was getting heckled on college campuses.

Doesn't fit with the narrative, but it's true. His appeal was with working people, minorities who had been marginalized by the process, the poor.

HHH was a stand in for LBJ. He really didn't arrive late, he was the substitute player. He also did not participate in a single primary, yet he still commanded nearly three time the electoral votes as the last significant opponent standing and won, easily, without any of the drama occurring outside the venue, on the first ballot.

The status quo was still entrenched, notwithstanding all the noise and hoopla.

[dflprincess]

78. McCarthy's strong showing in New Hampshire had something to do with his dropping out nt

[dflprincess]

77. Eugene McCarthy was already in the race when RFK entered it

Johnson left the race shortly after he got in. I seem to recall more criticism of Bobby for stealing some of McCarthy's thunder.

Off topic fun fact, Bobby didn't announce he was running until March 1968; when JFK ran he announced in January of 1960 - can you imagine how nice it would be to have campaigns that were that were measured in months, not years.

[Chathamization]

81. True, but I'm not sure what you're point is. It's OK to primary an incumbent if someone is already

doing so? It's terrible if you're the first one doing it, but fine if you're the second?

[dflprincess]

83. Actually I think it's okay for anyone to challenge an incumbent

they aren't in office by some "divine right".

My response was to your comment that you didn't recall Bobby facing much criticism for challenging LBJ. It was McCarthy who took the brunt of that because he was the first one in the race. By the time Bobby entered, McCarthy had made a strong 2nd place showing in New Hampshire as well as doing very well in the Minnesota caucuses. (This might have been written off because McCarthy was from Minnesota, but so was Hubert Humphrey who, up until that moment, had been treated almost as a deity by Minnesota DFLers.)

By the time Kennedy entered the race it was clear that Johnson would be in real trouble in November if he managed to get the nomination.

[Chathamization]

84. Oh, I meant contemporary criticism from the "it's terrible to run against a sitting president"-crowd

We get told that it's a terrible thing to do, that Ted Kennedy was in the wrong for doing it, but I can't recall that crowd ever harshly criticizing RFK's campaign in a similar manner. But I agree with you, it seems somewhat undemocratic to argue that, as a rule, incumbents should never be primaried.

[dflprincess]

109. Sorry, misunderstood your comment.

I thought we were both in the "way back" machine.

[Frances]

101. Brings back memories

I was supporting McCarthy when Bobby got in the race. I took a kind of wait and see attitude after Bobby entered. And, then, of course, Bobby was assassinated.

JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby: that was a super sad time.

[TeamPooka]

105. Bobby was not running against a sitting party President. apples vs oranges nt

[Ken Burch]

110. The situation had nothing in common with 1980.

At the time Bobby was assassinated, he was still strongly in contention for the nomination and few Democrats(other than bitter-end LBJ loyalists)resented him for running.

And there was no possible way Bobby's candidacy could be blamed for the Democratic loss in the fall of '68. The party was always doomed to lose if the party leaders were going to insist on nominating someone virtually no one voted for(Hubert Humphrey)as a defiant supporter of a war the nation(especially the Democratic half of the nation) had turned against. The only reason Humphrey was even able to make it a close race(he was thirteen points behind at the end of September)was that he finally edged away from Johnson's position on Vietnam. It was hardly Bobby's fault that Lyndon Johnson cared more about keeping the party in support of his war than about saving the country from Nixon.

[Drunken Irishman]

112. Well...

RFK probably would've received more flack for it had he not been assassinated and had LBJ stayed in the race. Both events changed the dynamics. Johnson dropped out two weeks or so after RFK announced, so, he almost universally ran a campaign without going up against an incumbent president.

However, had LBJ not dropped out, and RFK became a viable second option, creating a bitter primary battle that ends, say, with RFK losing to LBJ in Chicago, splitting the party and throwing it into chaos, then he'd probably be dinged like Teddy in '80 - and instead of giving us Reagan, RFK would've been blamed for giving us Nixon instead.

[John Poet]

46. Where has it EVER been documented that Ted Kennedy EVER used cocaine?

Links and documentation, please.

Ted Kennedy should not be blamed so much for challenging Carter. A large number of Democratic incumbents at all levels of government were so scared of running with Carter at the head of the ticket, they BEGGED Ted to get into the race. I well recall most of my state's Democratic officeholders, from the Attorney General on down, staging a news conference endorsing Kennedy before he had ever agreed to run, in the summer of 1979.

Have you no recollections of the entire 'Draft Kennedy' movement?

Those officeholders were right to be scared. What they were afraid would happen, DID happen. Carter dragged the whole ticket down with him, and we lost the Senate.

[MADem]

57. One of his former aides wrote an entire book about it. The book took a small truth, that TK used

coke to snap back when he 'over - drank,' and invented a lot of salacious and unverifiable crap to fill the pages, so I would not recommend it as truthful. There's another "intimate bio" out on the bookshelves by a guy named Hersh that says so as well, without quite as many salacious accusations. Google will deliver these.

It was an open secret that he was doing coke--everyone was back then. Hamilton Jordan, on Carter's staff, was dogged with accusations about it, too. it was the drug of choice back in the days of disco.

Carter didn't drag the ticket down--Khomeini did. And Ronald Reagan did his part to help.

[loyalsister]

61. I think it is odd that he ran when he had such tremendous baggage

I assume he was committed and had good intentions, but as with John Edwards it was somewhat irresponsible. From your comments, it sounds like he probably didn't think it through very well.

[MADem]

63. That is what can happen to people with addiction issues, some times.

It's almost a feature of the disease. The judgment is the first to go. I don't know what Edwards was addicted to--maybe the thrill of dangerous liaisons? He certainly played that situation like Petraeus and his girlfriend--incredibly reckless and stupid (I still have to wonder what she was thinking when she named that book about him "All In?" LOL!).

TK's son and daughter staged an intervention on his behalf back in 1991--instead of realizing that his tearful adult children were desperate to get him help, he got cold and angry and dismissive with them and rejected their pleas out of hand. Patrick Kennedy (of the car crash on Ambien, the puking on AF1, and shoving the TSA agent at National airport fame--no one knows addiction better than that poor guy, except maybe some of his cousins) wrote about this in his book. TK just wasn't in the mood to hear it, to be challenged, and he wasn't going to hear it until HE was good and ready.

I've said this before but it can't be overstated that Vicki saved his life and enabled him to have a brilliant last chapter in his life. Good for her. She was rather quiet, and never got the publicity that Joan got (poor Joan, she had her troubles, too) but she was a remarkable asset to the Senator. He was lucky to have found her.

[loyalsister]

64. Sure

Invincible, over-confident lack of self awareness are definitely hallmarks of addiction. I tend to think that Edwards was just arrogant. Unfortunately for him, I don't see him as ever rehabilitating his image publicly.
It was unfortunate timing for Kennedy to have such poor political judgement, but I'm very glad that he went on to regain respect and make numerous positive contributions to the country.

[MADem]

72. Edwards, from what I understand, has gone back into private law practice with his daughter.

I guess that relationship with "Rielle" fizzled a few years back, too.

I can't see him taking center stage anytime soon--at least not in the political realm.

[lancer78]

87. I find it interesting

that delegates in the GOP are trying to do to Trump what Kennedy tried to do to Carter. They are trying to insert a "conscience clause" into their convention rules.

[MADem]

93. Politics is a curious business--and everything old is new again, I guess.... nt

[Rhiannon12866]

2. I've been listening the audio version of Jimmy Carter's autobiography "A Full Life,"

Read by the author. I think it's not till disc #5 that he finally becomes president, LOL. He really has lived a full life! He said that at the beginning of his presidency Ted Kennedy was an enormous help getting support for the president's programs. But when Senator Kennedy decided to run for the nomination himself, everything changed. One program that he thwarted was Carter's comprehensive health care plan, sounded like the one we would all like to have today. He said that Kennedy came up with his own plan but it never went anywhere because it was prohibitively expensive. I don't know if they ever really mended fences, too bad since they shared so many of the same goals...

[geek tragedy]

3. How did 1980 turn out?

Not Kennedy's best moment.

[JackRiddler]

69. Results had nothing to do with Kennedy's challenge.

Why do you persist in this myth? 18% inflation, hostages in Iran (Carter sabotaged himself with the Rose Garden strategy against Kennedy that then backfired against Reagan), recession and a whopping white reaction (back when the demographics were totally in its favor).

Never mind, I know why. To keep the Democrats constantly moving to the right, always blame the left for losses, even when there's no conceivable scenario for how this supposedly happened.

[MFM008]

4. 1980 was the beginning of a disaster were still paying for

Party infighting will benefit tRump, republicans, right wingers everywhere.

[BobbyDrake]

55. Ding, ding, ding! Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Some folks now seem to have skipped class the day that was covered.

[TeamPooka]

106. yup, 3rd worst president ever. 1st was Hoover, 2nd was Bush Jr. - all Republicans

If you want to ruin America's economy call the GOP

[beachbum bob]

5. kennedy's action in 1980 to me, forever tarnished the kennedy name. I never gave

another thought about this man from then to the day he died. He's primary antics sealed carter's relection doom more than anything else....

[comradebillyboy]

97. Agreed, I always thought Teddy was completely

self serving. He torpedoed two good attempts at universal health care, first under Nixon and second under Carter. His other big deal was teaming up with George W Bush to screw public education with the dismal failure of 'No Child Left Behind'. I never understood why liberals loved Ted Kennedy, by the time he finished with the 1980 primary I thought the guy was a self centered and entitled piece of shit and unfit even for his Senate seat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. It wouldn't have made a difference.

The hostage crisis and twenty one percent interest rates killed us. We might have been able to overcome one but not both.

[Va Lefty]

7. I agree

events really did conspire against Carter. The main reason Kennedy got in the race was Carter weakness in the polls a year out. All that being said, not Kennedy's best moment.

[John Poet]

49. Kennedy was pushed awful hard by a large number of Democratic officeholders

to make the race, because they feared losing their re-elections if Carter led the ticket.

There was a whole 'Draft Kennedy' movement going in the summer of 1979, in the early primary states and elsewhere, organized at the grass roots.


Of course, after the hostage crisis began and the "rally around the flag" effect kicked in to prop up Carter long enough for him to win enough delegates for re-nomination, most of those same officeholders who had urged him to make the race, could not be found...

[Lyric]

8. Jimmy Carter's complete inability to compromise his principles

is really what killed us, and you know it. I adore the man, but he was never built for being President.

Compromising your principles is practically section A, line 1 of the Presidential job description. Because you are not President of People Who Think Like You, you are President of EVERYONE. And ignoring voices that you disagree with on a personal level, even if you feel in your heart that those voices are WRONG, makes you a wannabe dictator, not a President. You don't get elected to RULE. You get elected to govern. And that means making concessions to your personal beliefs and values, when huge segments of the nation disagree with them.

I agree there are some concessions that should never be made--civil rights and equality should never be conceded in any way, shape or form. But other than that? We are not tyrants. Your side keeps saying that Clinton cannot ignore 45% of the Democratic electorate who voted for someone else inthe primary? This is true. But after the President is elected, she also can't ignore the 40-odd percent of people who voted for someone else in the general. Bernie Sanders WOULD ignore those people, because his values are at complete odds with theirs. But Clinton would make sure those voices were heard, and even appeased on some things, because that is what Presidents DO. They govern EVERYONE...not just their own. They horse trade and make deals and that is exactly how it should be.

Carter is too good a man. Incredible integrity. Would NEVER do anything but what he believed was right.

That makes him a fantastic father, humanitarian, minister, and philanthropist. But it made him a terrible, terrible President. Ted Kennedy knew it. Everyone in the party knew it. But at the time, what could they do?

I think Sanders is like Carter in that way--he too is uncompromising about what he believes is "right". He would make a fantastic liberal talk show host, fundraiser, philanthropist, or even a federal judge. But a terrible President. People who cannot compromise, cannot govern. It's as simple as that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. My side

Your side keeps saying that Clinton cannot ignore 45% of the Democratic electorate who voted for someone else inthe primary?

My side???



I support Clinton. In 1980 I supported Ted Kennedy wholeheartedly and worked on his campaign.

The inescapable point is the hostage crisis and uncontrollable inflation sealed Carter's fate. The Kennedy-Carter primary turned out to be a sideshow.

[MADem]

74. This is a very fair point you are making--it is sometimes a difficult one to make, because

there's always a cadre that believes that principles should be immutable and compromise is the enemy. And, of course, if you compromise, then you, too, have joined that enemy. It's an unfortunate construct, that.

I am not a fan of perfection at any cost--particularly when we see it getting in the way of making the best possible compromise. I think it's more important to move the ball down the field, however slowly, if the alternative is gridlock or going backwards.

[sufrommich]

11. Carter was most likely the wrong president at the wrong time,however

that doesn't excuse what Kennedy did,he wasn't going to win either,the country was heading right. All Kennedy really did was exemplify the fact that the Washington elite,including Ted Kennedy,never treated Carter as anything other than a hick from Georgia who accidentally won the presidency. It was highly disrespectful and served no purpose.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. It was...

It was more of a function of a lot of Democrats believing Carter betrayed Democratic principles; that he was not sufficiently liberal.


I don't agree with that perception but it was out there.

[sufrommich]

17. But Carter didn't betray Democratic principles.

He was a liberal then and still is,as someone up thread said he had little patience for Washington political give and take. The true revolt against Carter came when he started complaining about congress adding pork barrel addendums to bills.

[MADem]

51. And those dreadful interest rates predated Carter by a good deal.

Remember wage and price controls under Nixon, and that idiotic "Whip Inflation Now" (Buy your WIN sweater, and wear it while tilling your WIN garden to save money at the supermart!!) program under Ford?

Carter inherited a terrible mess. And he was a "moral" fellow--he believed in the Golden Rule. Unfortunately for him, too many people mistook his gentle approach for weakness--though weak he never was.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. I had a friend who worked on George Pataki's staff...

And he even admitted Carter inherited an economic mess when the wage and price controls were lifted.

[BlueMTexpat]

59. There was also the USSR invasion of

Afghanistan in December 1979 and the Carter Administration's decision to boycott the 1980 Olympics in Moscow as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Summer_Olympics_boycott

There were a lot of very disappointed athletes, their families and their fans and Carter got VERY bad press for it even though the US was not the only country to participate in the boycott. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Summer_Olympics_boycott#Non-participating_countries

There were a lot of things working against Carter that year. But I still voted for him. I sincerely believe that the US would be a "kinder, gentler" nation today had he defeated Raygun.

[EffieBlack]

10. 1. Sanders is no Ted Kennedy. 2. How did that all work out?

[Adrahil]

12. Primarying Carter was a huge mistake.

And Kennedy's behavior in 1980 just helped Reagan get elected, and we're still paying for Reagan's victory.

[still_one]

31. While it certainly didn't help, and was disgraceful of Kennedy, it was the Iran Hostage

Crisis, rising interest rates to curb inflation, along with the deregulation of the airline industry, among other things that hurt Carter.

Labor's lack of support is what really did Carter in, in my view

[Adrahil]

38. I don't disgree, but....

it doesn't help when a prominent member of your own party basically says you're doing a lousy job.

Carter was not a great President, IMO, but he was miles better than Ronny Raygun.

[still_one]

40. no question about that, reagan was a disaster for labor and most everything else

[JackRiddler]

71. Kennedy was right.

Carter was going to lose and Kennedy was the stronger candidate -- though given the circumstances would have probably lost also. And he'd be blamed for that, just as he is, falsely, for Carter's loss. Total mythology.

[Adrahil]

99. I don't think Kennedy was to blame, necessarily...

But running an insurgency was a bad idea. It rarely works when a party says "ya know, the guy we got elected President? yeah, we think he sucks."

[MohRokTah]

16. And who won that year?

Oh yeah, that's right.

And now we understand why sitting presidents are not primaried.

And now we understand why there are no speeches from candidates at conventions, only the nominee and endorsers.

[MaggieD]

19. Way to NOT make a good argument

This country will NEVER recover from the damage Reagan did. Never. Just like it will never recover from Nader helping to elect George Bush.

But thanks for reminding us why many of us have no use for the circular firing squad that the extreme left loves to employ.

[Eric J in MN]

20. What I'd like to happen

...is for Clinton and Sanders to compromise on a policy issue and for him to endorse her.

My OP wasn't an argument. I posted it because I was curious if Ted Kennedy endorsed Carter.

[MaggieD]

21. He lost

By a lot. He doesn't seem to grasp that. He is the ultimate no-compromise politician. Part of the purity patrol that slams those who do compromise. And you want her to hand him his entire platform when the voters made a choice and chose her by a wide margin?

No. Just no. I did not vote for his platform quite deliberately.

[Eric J in MN]

25. Sanders shouldn't get his entire platform.

I'd like for HRC to compromise on one policy issue.

I want her to say that while her tuition plan is the best, if Congress passes Sanders' tuition plan instead, she'll sign it.

That wouldn't require her to change a position. It would help Sanders to get out the youth vote.

[MaggieD]

26. You need to brush up on what a party platform is

Because it's not what you seem to think it is. Smh.

[Eric J in MN]

29. I realize that there are two issues, HRC's campaign platform and the Democratic Party Platform.

Sanders has gotten some things he wanted in the draft of the Democratic Party Platform.

He's gotten no compromise from HRC regarding her campaign platform.

[MaggieD]

33. And he shouldn't - he lost

I can't even wrap my head around why you think the loser gets to call the tune. That's not how it works. And frankly, I think Clinton couldn't care less about Sanders at this point. She has no need to - Warren has taken his place, and the alternative is Trump.

Bernie is irrelevant now.

[Eric J in MN]

35. If HRC doesn't compromise, and Sanders doesn't endorse, and we get President Trump

...don't blame Sanders.

[sufrommich]

36. Most Sanders supporters have already moved on. At this point it

would be like Obama trying to cater to the PUMAs,there's not enough of them to matter.

[leeroysphitz]

41. WRONG. Do some more reading outside of DU. unless you call less than half

most...

[sufrommich]

47. I would never limit myself to reading only DU for info,that would

be stupid. I have to laugh at the die-hard Bernie fans insisting they are nothing like the PUMAs though,as they are a mirror image of PUMAs.

[840high]

82. I do and agree with you. Leave

DU and it's a different world.

[romana]

37. But why should he? /nt

And, I don't think that's what he's asking for anyway. The platform, sure. But HRC has an obligation to the millions of people who chose her platforms and her ideas over his. I certainly don't want her abandoning those in favor of the ones from the campaign that lost on every conceivable measure. He'll get his compromises in the platform, as he should.

But this is really splitting hairs, because they aren't that far apart on things. If they were diametrically opposed on things, I could maybe see some movement of both of them toward the middle. You all just want some recognition and acknowledgment directly from HRC to Bernie, I get it.

But she needs something from him, too, and is obviously holding out for it. This is a two-way street and he shouldn't get everything he demands without offering anything in return. He's been public about his demands, Clinton has kept hers quiet. We'll see what happens in the next few weeks, but IMO his endorsement has become kind of irrelevant now, which is of his own making.

[romana]

30. The platform

Isn't really meant as promises for people to sign specific pieces of legislation. A platform that talks about a commitment to reducing the costs of higher education as much as possible through various means is a win for both candidates.

[Eric J in MN]

32. I was unclear. I was referring to HRC's public position with regard to tuition

...and not to what the Democratic Party Platform will say.

[MohRokTah]

22. Cinton voters were SPECIFICALLY voting AGAINST Sanders policy and platform proposals.

Clinton voters won.

The loser does not get to dictate terms to the winner.

The rules of the convention are clear. Active candidates have no speaking role prior to the vote. The nominee and those the nominee chooses get to speak.

The only way to alter that is to get a two-thirds vote on the floor to suspend the rules.

Sanders, by his own choice, is shutting himself out of the convention.

[Eric J in MN]

23. I agree that if Sanders doesn't endorse, fine for HRC to not schedule a Sanders convention speech NT

NT

[DemonGoddess]

24. ^^^This!!!

[tallahasseedem]

28. +1

Thank you for pointing this out!

[SheenaR]

44. So we were winning

if Kennedy was not involved. That is what you are obviously implying. And it is false. Carter had the lowest average approval rating of anyone in the last 65 years.

[andym]

39. Kennedy ran that year because he considered Carter ineffectual and too conservative

He ran on Carter's left.
https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=3225


KUR: The Democratic midterm convention, 1978: Kennedy says Jimmy Carter has forgotten the party’s traditional social values.
Senator EDWARD KENNEDY: Decent quality of healthcare, north and south, east and west for all Americans as a matter of right and not a privilege.
...
KUR: This was widely viewed as the beginning of Kennedy’s campaign, a challenge he insists would not have happened had President Carter kept faith with his 1976 platform. The President seemed to be appealing to more conservative voters in order to meet an impending challenge from Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was convinced that someone had to speak for the jobless, homeless and helpless despite the cost.
.....
Sen. KENNEDY: Sometimes a party must sail against the wind, and now is such a time.
KUR: But it was not the right time. Kennedy attacked draft registration, but most people favored it. Kennedy attacked President Carter for causing high unemployment to fight inflation. But most voters said they believed fighting inflation was more important than finding jobs for the unemployed. Still Kennedy never wavered.
....
Sen. KENNEDY: The poor and the minorities, who suffer most when times are bad, do not have microphones at this convention, but my campaign does, and from those microphones we will speak for them.

[SheenaR]

42. K&R

And listen to these crazy statements:

The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.

There were some -- There were some who said we should be silent about our differences on issues during this convention, but the heritage of the Democratic Party has been a history of democracy. We fight hard because we care deeply about our principles and purposes. We did not flee this struggle. We welcome the contrast with the empty and expedient spectacle last month in Detroit where no nomination was contested, no question was debated, and no one dared to raise any doubt or dissent.

One of the best convention speeches in modern history. Yeah it was him that gave us years of Republican hell

[SidDithers]

48. You want to use 1980 as an example?...

You sure 'bout that?

Sid

[book_worm]

62. Yes, he ultimately did and they even campaigned together.

[Eric J in MN]

94. Where did they campaign together? NT

NT

[book_worm]

108. Here are some examples:

Boston, Massachusetts Remarks on Arrival.
August 21, 1980

SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY. Well, it's a pleasure to welcome Jimmy Carter to Boston, Massachusetts, as the President of the United States and also as the nominee of the Democratic Party.

During the early days of last summer, Mr. Carter was behind Mr. Reagan in the polls, but there is no authority like myself in the country that can say with greater authority than I can, in the crucial times when the time comes to vote, that Mr. Carter is successful. And I am confident that he'll be successful in November, and I'm determined that he'll be reelected as the President of the United States.

Mr. President, the early Founding Fathers of this country said that Massachusetts should lead the way, and over the period of the last five Presidential elections, this State has voted for the Democratic nominee. And I think all of those who have gathered out here to greet you in Boston are ready and willing to put their shoulder to the wheel and make sure that you're reelected as the next President of the United States.

Welcome to Boston and welcome to Massachusetts.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44924

Another: Boston, Massachusetts Remarks to Senior Citizens.
October 15, 1980

Senator Kennedy, Speaker O'Neill, Mayor Kevin White, my fellow workers in Washington, and those State and local officials who are here today:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=45298

Secaucus, New Jersey Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Fundraising Reception:

I'm deeply grateful to Senator Kennedy for the warm words of support and the introduction that he gave to me and for a chance that I had to be with him this morning in Massachusetts and again here tonight in New Jersey. If I can just have all the support on November 4 that he got here in the primary, I will be very happy and we'll go over the top, there's no doubt about that.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=45305

The President with Sen. Kennedy October 20, 1980 at a Democratic function in New York City:



Chairman George [Weissman], who's done such a good job in helping me at this crucial time; my good friend Ted Kennedy, who has been campaigning around this Nation with me, at my side, reminding Democrats in Los Angeles and in Massachusetts, in New Jersey, in Washington, in Ohio, later in Texas, of the finest traditions of the Democratic Party, which his family represents; Governor Hugh Carey, who has been such a staunch supporter of the principles that I myself espouse, and a strong leader in every element of the life of New York State; Ed Koch, ,who's been a staunch defender of New York's right to exist as a viable, ongoing, happy, dynamic, and united city, and all of you who've come here tonight to make this a success:

[Eric J in MN]

111. Thanks. NT

NT

[JI7]

67. kennedy was wrong but i also don't tHink Sanders is as influential as kennedy

And whatever he decides will not hurt Clinton

[hollowdweller]

68. Remember this????

In his 2009 campaign examination Rendezvous with Destiny, Reagan biographer and historian Craig Shirley writes that the briefing papers were passed to Casey by Paul Corbin, an aide from Ted Kennedy's failed primary campaign. According to the book, the Kennedy family and campaign workers were embittered by Carter's treatment of Kennedy's challenge in the brutal 1980 Democratic primary, and Corbin used connections in the White House and stole the papers in revenge. Furthermore, Shirley states that the contents of the briefing book were a compilation of Reagan's earlier speeches, and therefore contends that the theft had no effect on the race. Carter, however, continues to blame his defeat on the stolen papers.[14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debategate

[Onlooker]

76. I worked on the Kennedy campaign and that go a a paid job on the Carter campaign

Back then it was really disappointing to those of us who worked so hard to defeat Reagan that Ted Kennedy didn't try to help Carter. Carter was much worse than Ted, but Ted basically made it easier for Reagan to win, and Reagan let thousands of people die of AIDS. I think Bernie supporters better remember that many poor people and minorities will eperience the brunt of a Trump victory, and it won't be nice.

As a side note, at one point during the Kennedy campaign I drove two of Bobby's sons to a small event in rural New Hampshire. They were such snobs and full of criticism for Ted. It was an interesting experience.

[MADem]

79. Those may have been the same two kids I saw tossed out of a rather exclusive private club

by "security" on Cape Cod. One of them was trying to light a bunch of napkins on fire under a table as a "goof." The security fellow (dressed too nicely to be called a bouncer) was a giant of a man--he picked them up by their shorts and shirts and tossed them off the deck onto the lawn, and told them to get lost. They actually pulled the "Do you know who I am?" routine with the guy, who said he did, and that's why they weren't getting a break. Apparently they were well known for misbehavior in that establishment.

I was there with some friends, hauling equipment for their band because they needed an extra pair of hands and I had nothing better to do--they were playing a gig in the jazzy club. Completely forgot about that until just now!

[PJMcK]

85. Senator Kennedy's challenge of President Carter for the nomination...

..was disastrous for Democrats and Progressives and the policies that they collectively believe in. It was also disastrous for the United States and her citizens.

In the midst of an economic/energy crisis and an international hostage and diplomatic crises- issues that the president has very little ability to influence- a member of the president's own party challenged his legitimacy. Senator Kennedy's actions undermined the president's credibility. After all, if President Carter can't get the support of his own party how can he get the support of the American people?

I won't judge Senator Kennedy's intentions or ambitions or desires for our country. By all that he did in his life, it's clear that he was a true American, a true Democrat and a true supporter of the common man.

However, his decision to run for president demonstrated that he lacked the judgment and wisdom for that office. To a more cognizant man, his own personal history would have been an indicator of the problems to come. There was an arrogance to his campaign that implied that he was entitled to this nomination because of his, and his family's, efforts on behalf of Americans. But the baggage he carried far exceeded any political issues President Carter had as a candidate in the General Election.

By dividing the Democratic Party, Senator Kennedy inadvertently opened the door for President Carter's defeat.

We'll never know if President Carter would have defeated Ronald Reagan if Senator Kennedy hadn't challenged him. in the end, it's just speculation anyway. But one thing is clear: the election of Ronald Reagan was disastrous for our great nation and his presidency did much to diminish our country.

[robbedvoter]

88. Is there some veiled threat in bringing up this story?

Because, nobody looking good in it. But I guess you guys are past the need to look good.
Anyway, I bookmarked and my thanks to the many great contributors - a great history lesson for me. Comparing times, this reinforces to me the feeling that the D party was never more united, in better shape as this election year. The way the entryism attempt was repelled solidified this for me. UK Labour missed the diversity of our D party, that's why it was hollowed out/betrayed by Corbyn with disastrous results for the country.
hew concept for me too - so here it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism

[SoLeftIAmRight]

90. this hurt america more than can ever be known

we turned away from working toward a sustainable future and opened to door to the raygun revolution and third way destruction of the earth

[andym]

92. For historical interest, here is an article on Kennedy in 1979 pondering entering the race

http://www.newsweek.com/kennedy-enters-1980-presidential-race-207058

Notice that in this article written on Sept 23, 1979, which was before the Iran hostage crisis, Carter was already polling so badly, that 7 in 10 people thought he wouldn't win. Ted Kennedy who was polling 2:1 ahead of Carter then, eventually entered the race as the liberal Democratic savior from Carter and the conservative drift of the times.

"At a time of conservative drift, Kennedy remains a staunch liberal with a voting rating of 95 from both the Americans for Democratic Action and the American Federation of Labor's Committee on Political Education. He voted for the Humphrey-Hawkins full-employment bill and for labor-law reform; he opposed natural-gas deregulation; he championed an expensive health-insurance program. He was against lifting economic sanctions against Rhodesia; he opposed the sale of $4.5 billion worth of jet fighters to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel. He supported the Panama Canal treaties and is for SALT II.

[George II]

96. In 1980 did Jimmy Carter win the General Election?

[Lil Missy]

98. Who cares. It's irrelevant to now.

[liberalnarb]

100. Kennedy primaried a sitting President in his own party.

Not usually a good idea in the first place.

[Frances]

102. And Reagan won

[Zynx]

103. How did that turn out?

Also, is the compromise that Hillary has to adopt literally every single policy position of Bernie's?

[Eric J in MN]

104. My idea involves just one policy clarification.

I'd like for Hillary Clinton to say that her "debt-free tuition" plan is the best, but if Congress sends her Bernie Sanders' "free tuition" plan instead, she'll sign it.

That would let Bernie Sanders do a college tour giving students a new reason to vote for her.

During one of the debates, Hillary Clinton made an analogous clarification that she thinks a $12/hour federal minimum wage is the best, but if Congress sends her a $15/hour bill she'll sign it.