Ask Not What J.F.K. Can Do for Obama
By FRANK RICH
New York Times
BEFORE John F. Kennedy was a president, a legend, a myth and a poltergeist stalking America’s 2008 campaign, he was an upstart contender seen as a risky bet for the Democratic nomination in 1960.
Kennedy was judged “an ambitious but superficial playboy” by his liberal peers, according to his biographer Robert Dallek. “He never said a word of importance in the Senate, and he never did a thing,” in the authoritative estimation of the Senate’s master, Lyndon Johnson. Adlai Stevenson didn’t much like Kennedy, and neither did Harry Truman, who instead supported Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri.
J. F. K. had few policy prescriptions beyond Democratic boilerplate (a higher minimum wage, “comprehensive housing legislation”). As his speechwriter Richard Goodwin recalled in his riveting 1988 memoir “Remembering America,” Kennedy’s main task was to prove his political viability. He had to persuade his party that he was not a wealthy dilettante and not “too young, too inexperienced and, above all, too Catholic” to be president.
How did the fairy-tale prince from Camelot vanquish a field of heavyweights led by the longtime liberal warrior Hubert Humphrey? It wasn’t ideas. It certainly wasn’t experience. It wasn’t even the charisma that Kennedy would show off in that fall’s televised duels with Richard Nixon.
(Continued here.)
New York Times
BEFORE John F. Kennedy was a president, a legend, a myth and a poltergeist stalking America’s 2008 campaign, he was an upstart contender seen as a risky bet for the Democratic nomination in 1960.
Kennedy was judged “an ambitious but superficial playboy” by his liberal peers, according to his biographer Robert Dallek. “He never said a word of importance in the Senate, and he never did a thing,” in the authoritative estimation of the Senate’s master, Lyndon Johnson. Adlai Stevenson didn’t much like Kennedy, and neither did Harry Truman, who instead supported Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri.
J. F. K. had few policy prescriptions beyond Democratic boilerplate (a higher minimum wage, “comprehensive housing legislation”). As his speechwriter Richard Goodwin recalled in his riveting 1988 memoir “Remembering America,” Kennedy’s main task was to prove his political viability. He had to persuade his party that he was not a wealthy dilettante and not “too young, too inexperienced and, above all, too Catholic” to be president.
How did the fairy-tale prince from Camelot vanquish a field of heavyweights led by the longtime liberal warrior Hubert Humphrey? It wasn’t ideas. It certainly wasn’t experience. It wasn’t even the charisma that Kennedy would show off in that fall’s televised duels with Richard Nixon.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Reads like an Obama endorsement.
If Rich is going to consider the times, shouldn’t he also consider the influence of Joseph Kennedy ? Obama is coming with no inbred political pull. Clinton has been anointed by the party establishment. If anything, one has to recognize that when established Senators like Kerry, Leahy and Kennedy are stepping into the forray, that their endorsements are a pure rejection of Clinton … and since they have worked with her, they probably know her better than most. If they thought it didn’t matter who the Dems put up (meaning the Republicans are so weak), then they would be quiet … but they’ve stepped out.
Campaigns tend to be pure glitz and spin … anybody who listened to McCain in the debate last week would wonder who this guy is … major changes in tax cuts and immigration talking points … I prefer to look at how they performed doing their elected jobs. Obama was impressive before and Clinton was very commanding during her Armed Services Committee integrations … so their both capable candidates. Yet, somehow I wonder if Clinton wasn’t married to an ex-President but instead just a Senator would she be getting all this praise and love?
Post a Comment
<< Home