image:7800:0::0

The New York Times has a comprehensive, some might say obsessive, analysis of the significance of the endorsements by the Kennedy clan.

Other analysis ( video and audio only, no transcript) has been a bit more skeptical about how the endorsement will affect the primaries. David Brooks of the NYT, on PBS Newshour, has a view that the party “elite” have made a decision regarding party unity. Brooks also feels that the endorsement isn’t the end of the story, because the primaries so far haven’t really dealt with the big states.

Actually the shooting spree of inter-candidate dredging up of who voted for what hasn’t really been much of a hit for anyone. The Republicans, also, have been taking potshots at each other, and it doesn’t seem to be making a lot of headway for anyone.

America has other things on its mind, like the big, battered, piñata the US economy has become, and there’s a war or two, too. Rhetoric isn’t cutting a lot of ice. Just about every voter interviewed I’ve seen is more interested in issues than pretty tiresome, historical, point scoring on obscure issues.

The negativism tactic is a well known electoral turnoff around the world. The previous Presidential election did nothing for democracy in terms of the sheer quantity of mud slinging and instant histories.

Exactly how the Democrat party machine works is also open to interpretation. When Kerry was the chosen candidate, he was muzzled for months while a barrage of smears was fired at him. His life story got handled by third parties until about June.

The Kennedys aren’t exactly nobodies, and when they talk people do listen. They mean a lot to Democrat voters. Along with Senator Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy and Rep Patrick Kennedy also endorsed Obama. The timing of the Kennedy endorsements, just a week before Super Tuesday, is hardly likely to be a coincidence.

Then there’s the “Bill” factor. Former President Clinton is a debated asset, but has until now been considered a positive. His remarks about Obama were perhaps not “etiquette”, but by the not-very-high standards of US political innuendo, not necessarily outside the ballpark.

A somewhat less elegant view of this political steering exercise is that factions have been created by the Clinton/Obama split, and the party hierarchy has made its choice.

This could be inspired electoral policy, insider infighting, internal politics, just another case of the incessant crossfire of the primaries.

Clinton got some support from junior Kennedys, but Obama had the high cards in the suit. As Brooks said, "His Kennedys outranked her Kennedys".

The signature tune of the Obama campaign is change. Senator Kennedy outlined the picture, which is either irony or a statement of ideals, depending on who you support:

“A campaign about the country we will become, if we can rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us at odds with one another.”

The separate groups of the Democrats might need some reconciling, after this.

To Obama’s credit, he’s not adding any fuel to division within the Democrats, and Clinton seems to have moved out of attack mode.

Next week, we find out what those endorsements mean, and to whom.