Support NeoGAF

[Stoney Mason]

I thought that most Democrats always believed that this nation got cheated out of not having Robert Kennedy as President? How is that any different than this?

Having presidents with the same last name in somewhat close proximity makes us medieval England is the line of thinking to a few.

 

[Dartastic]

I don't have a problem with the whole thing. But in my mind if you have a problem with the concept of "dynastic" power in the white house you would have a problem with it no matter where it exists including the congress and including Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan. Why wouldn't the endorsement and involvement of a major beneficiary of dynastic power bother some one who has a problem with dynastic power? As I said, I don't care and I've never understood the few who make it their rallying cry on this board but different strokes.

Lemmie explain my reasoning really quick like. An endorsement, no matter who from, is just like the act of helping a friend get a job, or introducing a friend to a member of the opposite sex, etc. It's making connections, and everyone has to do it at some point. Now, if there is more INVOLVEMENT of the Kennedy clan besides a simple endorsement, that's where I start to have a problem. However, an endorsement is just a simple act of making a connection and using it to your advantage, and I have no problems with that.

 

[Tamanon]

Lemmie explain my reasoning really quick like. An endorsement, no matter who from, is just like the act of helping a friend get a job, or introducing a friend to a member of the opposite sex, etc. It's making connections, and everyone has to do it at some point. Now, if there is more INVOLVEMENT of the Kennedy clan besides a simple endorsement, that's where I start to have a problem. However, an endorsement is just a simple act of making a connection and using it to your advantage, and I have no problems with that.

Well, Kennedy is going to be campaigning for him.

 

[Dartastic]

Well, Kennedy is going to be campaigning for him.

I guess I should elaborate. Involvement behind the SCENES.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Lemmie explain my reasoning really quick like. An endorsement, no matter who from, is just like the act of helping a friend get a job, or introducing a friend to a member of the opposite sex, etc. It's making connections, and everyone has to do it at some point. Now, if there is more INVOLVEMENT of the Kennedy clan besides a simple endorsement, that's where I start to have a problem. However, an endorsement is just a simple act of making a connection and using it to your advantage, and I have no problems with that.

Like I said this is becoming a bigger point than I care about it. But following the logic an endorsement is only as worthwhile as the person doing the endorsement. Ted Kennedy is arguably where he is in equal parts because of what he has done and who he has been born as. Ted Kennedy is TED KENNEDY in large part because of his name and who he is related to. So his endorsement and it's value is a product of the dynasty that his family is. If his name was TED SMITH, the endorsement would be less of a big deal. Not to mention he is traveling around the country and trying to woo people based on this. His endorsement doesn't end with him making one speech. It is an attempt to add some of the KENNEDY luster to Obama and swing people before Super Tuesday. I have no problem with any of this nor with dynastic power as a general principle. This is how the world works. You judge the individual and if he is worthy rather than just the last name. But a few people in threads have posted how the Bushes and the Clintons are evil and this is embarrassing to America somehow because they are trading and gaining advantages based on the name. Well so are the Kennedy so if that bugs somebody in my mind I would think Ted Kennedy just in general principle would bug them.