First major-party African-American presidential nominee

[keeblercrumb]

........

JFK's family wasn't all that politically active until after he won the presidency--certainly not in elected office terms; JFK was the first Kennedy elected to anything. Nothing else to point at other than Joseph buying his appointments as ambassador to the Court of St. James and chairman of the SEC. JFK did have years in Congress then, but he had a miserable record of ever being in Washington or doing anything in Congress. War heros were a dime a dozen then, and JFK's Pulitzer Prize winning book (Profiles in Courage) was ghost written. We were still in the era then of the public persona hiding private reality--which the media has pretty much torn away now.

......

A bit off topic but you reminded me of my very favorite JFK quote... Throughout the 1960 campaign, he had been attacked for his father "buying" the election(s).... At the press conference following his hugely important victory in the West Virginia primary.... he said:

" just received the following wire from my generous Daddy; Dear Jack, Don't buy a single vote more than is necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide!"

His public "persona" was marked by his wit and humor.... In my life time, the only ones who ever came close to this were Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and our next President....

"Experience" be damned..... If I have to listen to film bites, I want them to be entertaining!

-KC


-KC

 

[neonlyte]

The morn's BBC has Hilly throwing in (about time - the game's been up too long). Says she'll speech-make Saturday pledging allegiance to the boy Obama. <aside>I remember Ami stating Obama was a Republican... about two years ago. Damned if I can find the thread </aside>

Is a pledge enough?

If Hilly tells her supporters to vote Obama, will they if she's not on the ticket?

I can understand if Obama doesn't want her (and Bill) around... but the pollsters show she has a better chance of beating McCain than the boy.

My feeling: he won't pick her as VP and he'll lose to McCain by 2 points.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

JFK had scant background for a presidential run in terms of the period in which he ran (and his elections were bought and arranged in back rooms--Obama actually had to earn his way up). And they said just the same things about JFK's inexperience for being president then that people are saying about Obama now (and that I've said, by the way. I don't think Obama is prepared to be president). (I was there to hear it--were you? I find the similarities striking--even those concerned about Kennedy's Catholicism then and Obama's race now.)

JFK's family wasn't all that politically active until after he won the presidency--certainly not in elected office terms; JFK was the first Kennedy elected to anything. Nothing else to point at other than Joseph buying his appointments as ambassador to the Court of St. James and chairman of the SEC. JFK did have years in Congress then, but he had a miserable record of ever being in Washington or doing anything in Congress. War heros were a dime a dozen then, and JFK's Pulitzer Prize winning book (Profiles in Courage) was ghost written. We were still in the era then of the public persona hiding private reality--which the media has pretty much torn away now.

I believe, as I posted, that Obama shines now as JFK did then because of the Camelot phenomenon. People are dazzled by the persona. And he gets away with saying he isn't mired in such things as the Iraq business (in contrast to Clinton, who, as the senior senator from New York could hardly have taken a soft stand on the Twin Towers attack) simply because he was a nobody when all of that was happening. No one asked what his stance was, so he now can say it was anything that he finds convenient to say.

Does it seem strange to say that JFK's family was not active politically and then describe how they bought political appointments? The 1946 congressional election may have been the first election won by Joe Kennedy's sons, but it was also the first time one of them was a live civilian and old enugh to run.

As for lack of experience, JFK had EXACTLY the same length of time in elective office as Nixon in 1960. They were elected to Congress at the same time. Nixon had eight years as VP but the total time in office was the same.

They both had more political experience than Eisenhower did when he was elected.

Camelot was the Kennedy Whitehouse, presided over by Jackie. Before they moved into the Whitehouse, JFK was just a senator from Massachusetts.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Democrat wise men say Hillary wont be the VP.

The problem is Obama's lack of experience. They say Hillary snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when she resisted the political wisdom of Bill and Carville and others, and followed the advice of idiots. She should be the nominee NOT Obama. So an Obama-Hillary team will look too weird.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

OK, then. The answer is that people vote on other criteria than the logic you state. John Kennedy had practically no more political experience when he won than Obama has now (but then, Daddy bought JFK up to a certain level of "win"). People vote for Camelot. For many--Obama has brought bunches and bunches of people into the process who never bothered to vote before--Obama has a magic that doesn't depend on any of the logic you state (which is based on what you want to be taken as important based on who you are pushing, incidentially). Just like, as I noted above, some folks see Camelot in Condi Rice when she has even less to show than Obama does.

JFK was a war hero. He was not from the far liberal end of the U.S. political spectrum, but was more of a centrist. And despite the glamor, he still only won by a tiny a margin, thanks to the corrupt machinations of Mayor Daley in Chicago. IOW, that's not a real hopeful analogy for Obama.

BTW, Kennedy also had an identity factor to overcome - he was the first Catholic to be elected prez. It wasn't as big a deal in that race as the black thing in this, but it did have some weight and consequence - in many places anti-Catholic prejudice was quite strong.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Kennedy had charisma Obama doesnt have. Kennedy had combat service and was a real hero in the sense that he saved lives when his ship sank. Kennedy's economic philosophy was conservative; he reduced income taxes and believed people spend their money better than government does. And he seemed like a nice guy.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Forget race for a minute. The dems have nominated the most liberal member of the US Senate, a person whose only accomplishment of note is being an extremely slick politician. The repubs have nominated a centrist with an awesome biography. Why should anyone expect this to be anthing other than a 49-state rout a'la' Reagan/Mondale, Nixon/McGovern or Bush/Dukakis?

Iraq.

That too. People tend to vote on single issues. McCain's major problem (other than the fact that he shows his age badly when he moves on stage--which his handlers really should get him to stop doing) is that he has a whole lot of single issue "won't vote for him nohow" voters on both sides of the spectrum. That and the Bush anchor he has hanging around his neck.

No they don't tend to vote on single issues; they stir a bunch of stuff together in a complex stew. And while Iraq is an unpopular war, there is no popular concensus about what to do about it. Note that Obama has backed off "immediate withdrawal." In fact, the positions of the two candidates are rather close on what to do. Outside the Daily Kos fever swamps that's the thing people care about - what to do now - and they certainly won't reward a five-month "Bush Lied" extravaganza.

Bottom line: The political salience of this war isn't a pimple on the butt of Viet Nam's status in 1968, also an unpopular war on which no popular concensus existed on what to do next. Nope - that's not nearly enough to answer the question raised in the first quoted post above.

 

[keeblercrumb]

The "experience" factor is something of a red herring in any case.

Experience in what? Running a bureaucracy? Okay... that kind of limits your candidates to state Governors... which makes a lot of sense from an "increasing levels of responsibility" standpoint. Show us you can run a State before you can run the whole bloody country. Well maybe mayor of New York City (Rudi? Anyone?) would suffice….(or would have.. sorry Rudy..)

That is not unreasonable but clearly, as our current "experienced" President has demonstrated in spades, hardly guarantees a successful or even coherent President.

The reality is that a President is much more about being a symbolic and philosophical leader both on domestic policy and foreign policy than a corporate manager. Hire good bureaucrats to run the bureaucracy... The President should lead.

I am, perhaps, cynical in my belief that the political affiliation of Presidents is, if anything, inversely reflective of what they will do... Reagan's "Balance the Budget" promises led us to staggering debts...Clinton's "Medical Care for all" resulted in massive reductions in the Federal deficits (+/- "balanced budget) as well as growing health crisis.... "Only Nixon could recognize China" being a couple of the more obvious examples...

That is a product of a President bringing his party along with him while "compromising" in line with the other party... That kinda leaves no one in opposition.

But basically, I think the political affiliation is irrelevant. It IS all about leadership and philosophical objectives... and personality. And Dubya? Well… I hope we learned from his “experience”.

So let’s elect Obama and if McCain needs a job, make him Secretary of Defense...............

-KC

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

An example of how the "experience" thing gets teeth is Obama's peregrinations on whether he would have "unconditional" talks with agressive, bloody-handed dictators. McCain can just shake his head, say "Tsk, tsk," and win the issue with a bumper sticker, "McCain: Experience Matters."

How's Obama's bumper sticker read on that one? Keebler just used 271 words to post an entirely unconvincing argument explaining why "experience is a red herring."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KEEBLER

Recall that the House of Representatives proposes and approves all monetary bills and budgets.

Congress was controlled by the Democrats the entire time Reagan was President. The Democrats had to approve everything Reagan sent to Congress.

What the Democrats did was quid pro quo Reagan. The Democrats got their own pork for every ship, soldier, and airplane Reagan got. That was the deal.

 

[neonlyte]

How's Obama's bumper sticker read on that one? Keebler just used 271 words to post an entirely unconvincing argument explaining why "experience is a red herring."

Obama: I'll never darken your world.

I might just (c) that.

 

[keeblercrumb]

An example of how the "experience" thing gets teeth is Obama's peregrinations on whether he would have "unconditional" talks with agressive, bloody-handed dictators. McCain can just shake his head, say "Tsk, tsk," and win the issue with a bumper sticker, "McCain: Experience Matters."

How's Obama's bumper sticker read on that one? Keebler just used 271 words to post an entirely unconvincing argument explaining why "experience is a red herring."

Really? 271 words? Getting into the Anal category these days are we?

But you are right! I did not address the critical Bumper Sticker issue? And McCain's experience is....... what again?

And my dear Roxanne... somehow I did not think I would "convince" you of anything...(but I refuse to take back all the nice things I have said about you in the past... but don't push it.)

Let me look in my bin of bumper stickers.... Here's one!! "If can read this you are too damned close"... No.. wait, that's not going to convince you.

Ah! "We Need Change... Desperately!" Not bad.....convinced?

Hmmm. How about.... "McCain 2008...Four more years!!" That should play well with the "experience" crowd!!




-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The function of a political campaign is to demonstrate that youre aware of the big issues, that you can organize a staff to manage your campaign, and that you can persuade people to give you money and talent.

Obama has as much experience as Lincoln had. I think Lincoln had one 2 year term in Congress.

 

[keeblercrumb]

An example of how the "experience" thing gets teeth is Obama's peregrinations on whether he would have "unconditional" talks with agressive, bloody-handed dictators. McCain can just shake his head, say "Tsk, tsk," and win the issue with a bumper sticker, "McCain: Experience Matters."

How's Obama's bumper sticker read on that one? Keebler just used 271 words to post an entirely unconvincing argument explaining why "experience is a red herring."

Okay... I was a little facetious in my response.... But your example of "experience" is a trifle absurd...

Obama's peregrinations (I am impressed.. I didn't know the man kept hawks..) of suggesting unconditional TALKS (emphasis added) with those "aggressive, bloody handed dictators" and McCain's apparent dismissal of the idea... If THAT is your case for McCain’s greater experience... Hmmm well you got me!

That "talking" stuff is dangerous... let's just bomb the bastards!

Oh wait!!! I get it! McCain has more experience... not because he has actually ran a government or anything but because he is......Older!!!!

Yeah! You know what? I bet we can find someone even older!! Strom Thurmond still alive?

And in the words of the late Phil Ochs... "I know that you were younger once, 'cause you sure are older now!"

Oh no... I have wandered into facetious again... AND I lost track of the number of words again..

Damn!



-KC

 

[keeblercrumb]

KEEBLER

Recall that the House of Representatives proposes and approves all monetary bills and budgets.

Congress was controlled by the Democrats the entire time Reagan was President. The Democrats had to approve everything Reagan sent to Congress.

What the Democrats did was quid pro quo Reagan. The Democrats got their own pork for every ship, soldier, and airplane Reagan got. That was the deal..

The function of a political campaign is to demonstrate that youre aware of the big issues, that you can organize a staff to manage your campaign, and that you can persuade people to give you money and talent.

Obama has as much experience as Lincoln had. I think Lincoln had one 2 year term in Congress.

You know... JBJ.... I have been away for a couple of months.. but you MUST remember how much I hate when you post things I agree with!

Stop it!

-KC

 

[elsol]

Hmmm. How about.... "McCain 2008...Four more years!!" That should play well with the "experience" crowd!!

-KC

"McCain -- I'm not Bush III... I swear!"

"McCain -- No, it's not Iraq, stupid!"

"McCain -- Winning is just around the corner!"

"McCain -- Some people you see on FoxNews a lot promised not to vote for me... how bad could I be?"

"McCain -- Obviously, it's not your world yet, you fucking snotnosed punks!"

"McCain -- My friends... my friends..."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Okay... I was a little facetious in my response.... But your example of "experience" is a trifle absurd...

Obama's peregrinations (I am impressed.. I didn't know the man kept hawks..) of suggesting unconditional TALKS (emphasis added) with those "aggressive, bloody handed dictators" and McCain's apparent dismissal of the idea... If THAT is your case for McCain’s greater experience... Hmmm well you got me!

That "talking" stuff is dangerous... let's just bomb the bastards!

Oh wait!!! I get it! McCain has more experience... not because he has actually ran a government or anything but because he is......Older!!!!

Yeah! You know what? I bet we can find someone even older!! Strom Thurmond still alive?

And in the words of the late Phil Ochs... "I know that you were younger once, 'cause you sure are older now!"

Oh no... I have wandered into facetious again... AND I lost track of the number of words again..

Damn!



-KC

O-man's the one who has changed his story half-a-dozen times and backed away from the "unconditional talks" line he blurted during a "I'm more of a pacifist than you are" exchange with Hill et al a year ago. If he wants to make a case for that position, he's free to do it; instead he's wandered around. That's the price of inexperience.

~~~~~

When you're toe-to-toe with the Russkies - nucular combat - you don't want that kind of wandering.
(Oops - wrong adversary. Showing my age. )

~~~

Hey K - let me tell you about this neat-o "word count" tool in Word.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"McCain -- Obviously, it's not your world yet, you fucking snotnosed punks!"

Add to that: "You never vote anyway - nyah-nyah!"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Obama has as much experience as Lincoln had. I think Lincoln had one 2 year term in Congress.

Lincoln won with 39.8 percent of the vote in a four-way split; the other candidates had between 12 and 39 percent.

Not a precedent with much relevence in this election (and obviously for many more reasons than that).

~~~

Although I wouldn't be surprised if some in the Daily Kos fever swamps believe that Iraq and the "Bush Menace" are as dire today as the risk of a civil war, breakup of the nation and the issue of slavery were then - historical perspective is not a characteristic feature of the many on the left these days.

 

[sr71plt]

JFK was a war hero. He was not from the far liberal end of the U.S. political spectrum, but was more of a centrist. And despite the glamor, he still only won by a tiny a margin, thanks to the corrupt machinations of Mayor Daley in Chicago. IOW, that's not a real hopeful analogy for Obama.

BTW, Kennedy also had an identity factor to overcome - he was the first Catholic to be elected prez. It wasn't as big a deal in that race as the black thing in this, but it did have some weight and consequence - in many places anti-Catholic prejudice was quite strong.

Hmmm. That doesn't counter anything I've posted. (And I said nothing about his political leanings.)

 

[sr71plt]

No they don't tend to vote on single issues

I beg to differ.

 

[sr71plt]

The "experience" factor is something of a red herring in any case.

Experience in what? Running a bureaucracy? Okay... that kind of limits your candidates to state Governors... which makes a lot of sense from an "increasing levels of responsibility" standpoint. Show us you can run a State before you can run the whole bloody country. Well maybe mayor of New York City (Rudi? Anyone?) would suffice….(or would have.. sorry Rudy..)

True. Which is probably why most presidents have come from governorships. That, indeed, is the closest appropriate stepping stone in experience level. Although Hillary supporters could argue well that Hillary already helped run the country for an eight-year period. It isn't all about elected office (which is why someone like Eisenhower could do an OK job of it. He at least knew the importance of the management team and when/how to delegate and how to keep a thumb on the process at the proper tension).

 

[sr71plt]

Relieving news:

Strom Thurmond still alive?

No.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Lincoln won with 39.8 percent of the vote in a four-way split; the other candidates had between 12 and 39 percent.

Not a precedent with much relevence in this election (and obviously for many more reasons than that).

~~~

Although I wouldn't be surprised if some in the Daily Kos fever swamps believe that Iraq and the "Bush Menace" are as dire today as the risk of a civil war, breakup of the nation and the issue of slavery were then - historical perspective is not a characteristic feature of the many on the left these days.

Wait! Wait!

You are all over the map here! YOU were the one talking about "experience" as relevant!! JBJ (damn it.. it WOULD be him!) was spot on with the reference to Lincoln...

The point.. which you found so unconvincing... was that this "experience" crap is just that... crap!

The nation is not, thankfully and despite Dubya's best efforts, is not in the death spiral that Lincoln inherited... But it is leadership.. character.. and even wit and an "eye on the prize" which is important, not this "experience" factor which you are pushing.... And certainly when the "experience" McCain has boils down mainly to longevity!

But now the bumper sticker factor. as they might have said in Pulp Fiction...

THAT we can all chew on!!

-KC

 

[trysail]

First major-party African-American presidential nominee.

Technically (and I don't particularly care about these things), he's not an African-American— genetically, he's something on the order of one-sixteenth black.