Barack Obama was endorsed by Caroline Kennedy and her uncle, Edward Kennedy, this week, while Robert Kennedy's offspring endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Obama, of course, has been compared (favorably) to Caroline's father, John F. Kennedy, although, as Washington Monthly's Ted Widmer points out, Obama is no JFK.
Nevertheless, Caroline and Ted held a rally for Obama Monday that the New York Times' David Brooks found "astonishing" in its ability to revive memories of past glories and transfer those good feelings to Obama's campaign.
I really wonder if all this would be possible if Hillary and Bill Clinton hadn't managed to sabotage their own efforts with their behavior of late.
Sure, Robert Kennedy's children -- Kathleen, Robert Jr. and Kerry -- penned their own endorsement of Hillary Clinton that was published in the Los Angeles Times. They very charitably allowed that "Our party is blessed with the most impressive array of primary candidates in modern history. All would make superb presidents" before going on to make their case for the election of Mrs. Clinton.
But this yearning for a proven leader from the past is no more seemly coming from Democrats than it has been coming from Republicans who crave a return to their glory years of the 1980s and the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
Let's all get on the same page on this one, shall we? The year is 2008, not 1960 or 1980. The issues are different. The challenges are different.
Let's judge this year's candidates for president on the experiences they bring to the table. And let's have a serious, in-depth discussion of those experiences and how they can benefit our nation in these troubled times.
Before we elect our next president, it is essential that we discuss the issues and decide how we, as a nation, want to proceed.
It may be too late if we have to wait until 2012.
A Student Journalist Explains the Protests at Yale
50 minutes ago
4 comments:
David, I think your missing the point of the Kennedy endorsements of Obama. It has nothing to do with the issues of 1960. Rather, it is about Obama's ability to excite an electorate about the possibilities of where this nation can go. JFK was very good at that, and that is what Ted and Caroline were pointing to.
Caroline especially was eloquent in saying that for the first time, she had an inkling as to how inspiring her father had been -- as described by others. She had never felt that inspiration in a politician, until Obama.
The Republicans and Reagan, on the other hand, have the same issues: greed, graft and gluttony. The Bush presidency has been the logical extension of the Reagan presidency. You see it in the winnowing of the field: the two outsiders, Guiliani and Huckabee, were severely hammered by the two most loyal Republicans in the field (Romney and McCain). Even though both are outside the inner Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Bush circle, they are still solid traditional Republicans that the power-brokers (CEOs, Big Oil, etc.) can be somewhat comfortable with in continuing the greed, graft and gluttony of the GOP.
Now, as McCain found out, it is all relative: When he ran in 2000, he was the "maverick" simply because he wasn't in the Reagan-Bush camp and he was running specifically against an insider. But now, it appears he is the closest to an insider as he his vanquishing Mitt and his mighty money.
I think after SuperDuper Tuesday, McCain will be left standing alone.
As for the Democrats, it is too close to call. The big questions are: How much of a change do you want? Can Billary win a general election against McCain? Do Democrats want to continue the partisan hate-bickering of BushClintonBushClinton that only continues to divide the nation and sets us up for Jeb (the ultimate insider) in 2012?
I wonder if Chelsea will be old enough to run in 2020? If Jenna runs and wins in 2024, is it margaritas for everyone?!
Kyle,
I didn't miss the point. I guess I was responding more to things I've been hearing from both Democrats ("we need another Kennedy") and Republicans ("we need another Reagan") for weeks, if not months, now.
There's a neat bit of dialogue in a scene in Oliver Stone's movie "Nixon." Anthony Hopkins, as Nixon, is in the White House kitchen getting a late night snack and he's talking to one of his staffers about Kennedy. Nixon asks him, "Did you cry when he died?" The staffer says he did. Nixon asks why. The staffer says, "He made me see the stars." Nixon asks (more to himself), "How did he do that?"
I understand about how a candidate can excite an electorate. I just don't feel it -- for any of the candidates.
And it's going to take more than flowery language to get this country on track. Maybe Obama has what we need. But he's going to have to show me more than an inspirational vocabulary.
As for Chelsea, yes, she will be old enough to run in 2020 -- if she wants to run. She'll be 40 that year, and the Constitution says you have to be at least 35.
Yes it will take more than flowery language, I agree. We will need to see major initiatives when and if he is sworn in -- something that will put meat with the imagination ala Kennedy and the Peace Corps and the moon shot. Kennedy was able to imagine things AND put them into motion. John Lennon could only imagine. I hope that Obama, should he get the chance, will be more Kennedyesque.
The way I read your posting, I was saying you were missing the point on the fact that you stated they were mistaken if they are running on 60s and 80s issues. That is not what Caroline and Teddy were saying at all.
Of course, the country is in a far worse place today than it was when JFK ran in the 1959-1960 campaign. We'd experience great post-war prosperity and things were relatively (by today's standards)calm. The Cold War was a full height, but we were not engaged in a rather hot messy war (yet) with no end in sight. The greatness of Kennedy is that he dared to dream to be even better -- and go out and make it so.
Obama isn't on the Kennedy level for that very fact: Things are much worse economically, militarily, etc., and it isn't too much of a stretch to dream that things can be better; we should ALL be dreaming as such.
The one area that is better is that women and minorities can dare to run for president and be considered as excellent choices to lead this country. In that respect, we are better today and Hillary and Obama are testiment to that.
And when I say that things were better and less volatile than in 1960, I'm not talking about the coming decade, because as we all know, things exploded in all areas.
It is very similar to what Bush inherited from Clinton. When Bush was elected, many of us thought he'd be terrible, but we were comforted by the fact that things were relatively calm. Sure, he'd mess up the economy some by favoring the very wealthy, but we had no inkling what would come on 9/11. The measure of Bush's presidency is how he was an abject failure in his response to a national tragedy. And it could have been so different. The world was on our side from 9/11 through the invasion of Afghanistan. Then we moved to Iraq and it has all fallen apart.
Terrorism experts say terrorism is only successful in how it stimulates a response to the terroristic attack. Bush's response has played right into the hands of Al Qaeda: They are recruiting more and more and we are spending money at a far greater pace than the Soviets did in Afghanistan. It couldn't be better for bin Laden.
I can't argue with that.
Post a Comment