All of these parallels drawn between Obama and JFK are ludicrous.

[Writer]

As if we must yet again rehash another herald back to the 1960's, our faces slapped down yet again in the mud of Woodstock, Timothy Leary and the moon landing. Haven't we had enough of yet another trip down Boomer lane to yet again explain a current phenomenon?

Obama is Obama, and if Obama represents change, then CHANGE we must embrace. Of a newcomer to the political scene who will bring with him his own brand of politics begotten from his own historical perspective. Let's stop this nonsense of having to reach back to yet another archetype of the 1960's in order to explain him, because it's farcical. Consider this: JFK WASN'T JFK. He was in office for no more than two and a half years before his assassination, and we never got a full whiff of what Camelot meant to America. We only witnessed the halcyon days of his early presidency, and ever since we've crafted this romanticized homage to what JFK felt like. And even that was arguably mixed: the Bay of Pigs disaster followed by the more deftly handled Cuban Missile Crisis. Adultery with Marilyn Monroe followed by the Moon project. Was he truly great, or truly a great image? We'll never know.

If we really want change we need to divorce ourselves of this need to paint him like someone else. He needs to stand on his own - on his own principles - and deliver for us what he claims he will. Change. The dawn of a new generation of leadership. Not an aberration of the past.

Let Obama be Obama.

[Pirate Smile]

1. Blame JFK's daughter if you must: "A President Like My Father"

A President Like My Father

By CAROLINE KENNEDY
Published: January 27, 2008

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

:)

[Writer]

2. Okay, then, I will.

Caroline is in this thick of this nostalgia nonsense. It's time we pulled up our tent stakes and move to a new farmland. I'm tired of the false parallels.

[DJ13]

6. Im glad you knew her father better than her or his own brother Teddy

:eyes:

[Writer]

10. Seriously, now, do we HAVE to know her father?

Why even bother? Those days are over. If Obama is to represent a new era then let him.

[hokies4ever]

11. ZING!

:rofl:

[newmajority]

3. I wouldn't say we need to go back to the 60's.

But we might want to go back to about 1980, and start ripping out all the Unconstitutional, Unamerican bullshit that has been done to this country for the last 28 years.

[Writer]

5. Yes, this is the liberal political swing following the conservative political era started in 1980.

I'm in agreement.

[AllentownJake]

4. Lesser men are compared to Great Men

Great Men stand next to each other with no comparisons needed to be made.

We've spent 45 years looking for our next JFK. We don't need another JFK we need a new leader that inspires us to dream big like he did.

[Writer]

7. $100 says that the dreaming part is marketing.

The rest of Obama would most assuredly be pragmatic, if not a more sober look at the nation.

The big rallies are for his peeps.

[AllentownJake]

15. Kennedy

Was very pragmatic. However he also was very inspiring and asked the country to think big.

[PoliticalAmazon]

8. Obama qualifies on his own, but there is no ignoring that he evokes....

in his supporters the same kind of optimism and willingness to pull together to address America's problems that JFK did.

Both Obama and JFK are/were young when they first ran for the presidency, and this youthfulness influenced their style of campaigning: looking forward and not wallowing in the past.

Obama is a better speaker than JFK, IMO, but both have/had the ability to reach out and connect with people.

I was young when JFK ran for the presidency, but grew up in a politically-active family and became politically active myself at a very early age. I remember so much about Kennedy. He really made a strong impression on me, and I'll always remember the ability he had to uplift his listeners, give them a feeling of purpose, and excitement about the future.

[hokies4ever]

9. Many blacks might say (especially older ones)

that it's only customary for mainstream society to liken a current black who is popular to a white from a previous generation. Society wants to see 'whiteness' in people that they praise. How many majors did Tiger have to win before emerging from the long shadow of Jack Nicklaus.

[muryan]

17. A very sad but true statement

I think in this case it might because there are no other black political figures comparable to Obama, or at least not many in my limited knowledge.

[hokies4ever]

19. Not if you count Jesse Jackson

I mean, both Obama and Jackson won the SC primary, right Bill Clinton? :eyes:

[Bake]

51. Oh for crying out loud!

Yeah, Tiger had to prove himself, and you think that's because he's a black man? That's rich. To emerge from the shadow of Nicklaus, indisputably one of the GODS of golf, you're damn right Tiger had to prove himself.

The only way Aaron got to beat The Babe was to actually hit more home runs!

Geez.

Bake

[LSK]

12. if people want to make the comparison, so what?? what difference does it make?

I was not alive in the 60s so I have no idea what the Kennedy experience or Woodstock or anything from that era was all about.

If some people who lived through that period want to make the comparison to now, LET THEM.

What difference does it make to me? Why should it make any difference to you?

Is this just another vailed attack on Obama from a disgruntled Hillary supporter?

[Writer]

16. Because it seems incongruent to both herald Obama as a figure of change...

but hearken back to a nostalgic presidency in order to define him. Let him define himself!

[LSK]

20. the 60s were a period of change

How is the comparison not fair?????

[Writer]

21. Because the same people adopting change, for the most part, abandoned it for Volvos in the 1980's.

[LSK]

22. because they accomplished what they wanted by the 80s???

:shrug:

[Writer]

23. No. Because they suddenly decided that the rabid pursuit of capital transcended the needs of the...

people. How quickly did many of the Hippies catch the whiff of currency!

[LSK]

24. so the Vietnam war did not end?????

The hippies just gave up because the war never ended???

Should the greatest generation still be fighting the Germans too???

You realize you are flaming people now for raising families and living the American dream a little now, dont you???

The depths you must go to in order to flame Obama.

[Writer]

26. Say wha'? They were only there because of the war?

The Gulf War ended after a few days in 1991 - should the Kurt Cobain neophytes back then patted themselves on the back and said, "Well done, folks! Quick and easy. Thank GOD." War is not the only defining characteristic of an era.

Woodstock was a gigantic rock and drug fest. But then again, in our astute ability to simplify history, I suppose some of us wrongly believe that it was a gigantic war protest.

Here's the wikipedia explanation if you need it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival

It wasn't about the war. It was about the counterculture of the time. A counterculture later abandoned.

[apocalypsehow]

36. "the rabid pursuit of capital"... Methinks someone read the Cliff Notes of Marx, and likes to pose.

:eyes:

[jaxx]

35. No we didn't. We are the same people we were then.

We don't want war. We don't want poverty. We don't want Americans going hungry, or without health care, we don't want bigotry or hatred to someone who is another color or comes from another country.

We work, we pay our way, we raised our families, and hope to live long enough to see this country come back to it's potential.

The next post regarding hippies. LOL you must not speak of what you don't know shit about.

[Writer]

47. I've got to ask: Do you think you all invented anti-war protests?

Because people protested our involvement in WW1 and WW2... that is, until the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor, respectively.

[jaxx]

53. Nope. But we were good at it.

[Writer]

55. Well... at least you all WENT INTO THE F'ING STREETS.

I'll give you that.

That's something sorely lacking in today's "activism."

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. People have taken to the streets

but those demonstrations have not been covered

Does a tree make any noise when it falls in the forest?

People were aware that people protested WW I and WW II

By the way you do know who Eugene Debs was? And why she was convicted off in 1918 no less? If you do I will be impressed since none of these demonstrations or anti war movements are taught in American "history classes"

But if you think people haven't taken to the streets, you'd be wrong

And Congrats to the Corporate Media, mission accomplished

Hell, we've even had tanks in LA in 2002, yep, you read right... but outside of some very outliner coverage you'd never hear about it

The lesson of Vietnam was to control the message... the corporate media has controlled the message extremely well

Oh and here you have links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3310849

[uppityperson]

39. You lost me at this post Writer. Many of us are still working towards what we were then.

Working to end yet another war, homelessness, health insurance and health care access, poverty, women's rights, reproductive rights, crimes against humanity.

"Because they suddenly decided that the rabid pursuit of capital transcended the needs of the people. How quickly did many of the Hippies catch the whiff of currency!"

I think you do not know who we are or what we worked for, are working for. You were doing good on this thread up to this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. And there lies the problem, the corporate media has corrupted many things

from the 1960s and even transformed the Hippie movement into something acceptable to the right

In that transformation they have made the movement exactly what it never was... after all the Yuppies, the mythical successors of the Hippies, were a product of the 1980s and greed, and the kids of the hippies... not the hippies

He who controls the past, controls the future

[Occam Bandage]

13. "All of these parallels?" Are you writing from January?

Or are you referring to Gore Vidal, who really ought to have a pretty good perspective on the affair?

[The Ghost]

14. Youre right. He reminds me more of RFK than JFK.

[Writer]

18. We certainly didn't get to know what kind of president he would be.

Unfortunately.

[uppityperson]

41. That is very true. He encouraged positiveness, and hope, but we will never know

what would actually have happened. We also got deeper into Viet Nam. I am not a JFK worshipper, and see the similarities of youth and hope, but agree that Obama needs to be running on his own, not as a "new jfk".

[Writer]

46. Completely.

As someone in the under 45 set, I sort of resent this constant need to bridge back to previous generations' experiences. Step back and let us have the limelight for once! We're not the slacker youth ridiculed 15+ years ago.

[uppityperson]

50. As someone in the over 50 set, I resent to worshipping of JFK.

The times, they were a changing, but we will never know what all would have happened with him, and I don't think he gets enough criticism for Viet Nam. But, the one I wish would've survived was Bobby, since he seemed to have brains and guts enough to stand up to his papa.

At any rate, there will be comparisons, I can see the change back to positive times being ok too.

[Guava Jelly]

25. As an Obama supporter I fully agree

Well written my friend. :hi:

[Writer]

27. Little do a few of the folks in this thread understand that I'm actually DEFENDING Obama.

God forbid we don't draw this needed parallel - yet again - to another Boomer archetype.

(Sorry. I'm in rant mode. Thanks!)

[Guava Jelly]

28. I like that you are posing an actual well reasoned point

It's ok ;) rant away

[Writer]

29. Thanks, dude.

I've been doing some reading lately, and it's gotten me riled up over this type of nonsense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. He is his own person, but.... you knew that was coming

anytime a person emerges with these leadership qualities, people compare to those who came before him

JFK had to get from under the shadow of FDR, and FDR had his cousin to thank for in his leadership style

This is not the first time that somebody who comes from left field is compared to people from the past in US History

IN HIS campaign style (and I wasn't conscious at the time, going from history) Obama is very close to Bobby Kennedy.

In his ways of talking about the future there are elements of both JFK and Reagan... (But, but, you are accusing him of being a reaganite? Nope, just a fact, the morning in america campaign Reagan ran in 1980 has quite a lot in common with the hope campaign, and both have something in common with Bobby's)

So you cannot avoid it, people will make these comparisons until he is sworn in and starts running the country. And if he takes a page from Kucinich's playbook and decides to go for a 100 day agenda, bet your sweet tooties that then FDR will be dusted off.

This is the way Humans work... they need to look at the past for comfort, and as much as we all like to think we are 100% originals, we are a product of our personal and national history...

[Writer]

32. I salivate at your well-reasoned analysis.

I'm thirsty for much more in this forum.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. In GD: P

:-)

Look at Waterman's posts for that as well. He leaves me in the dust

But also this is the historian in me speaking

[Writer]

34. Well your point is salient: Every politician has characteristics that ...

hearken back to previous leaders.

But I would argue that this reality undermines that Obama is "the next JFK." I find it bogus.

For example: here's a politically inconvenient factoid - JFK escalated our involvement in Vietnam. That doesn't exactly sound like such a good parallel to draw to Obama, does it?

But you're the historian. Am I wrong here?

[sakura]

38. Every analogy falls apart at some point...

When people compare Obama to JFK, they are comparing the optimism of both campaigns, and the ability to inspire change. They aren't comparing a future presidency to a past one-- what they are comparing is the mythology and rose-colored memories of a past, "better" time, before people sold out their dreams. Kennedy's campaign inspired people to "do for their country." I wasn't alive then, as I am a gen X'er (like you, I believe), but my dad told me many times about Kennedy's words and how they inspired him to take the career path he did. (Sadly, my dad is a latter-born conservative, but that has to do with his Catholicism, I think, and a focus on one or two very divisive issues. He's not a baby boomer, though-- he wasn't part of the generation you described in your later post.)

[Writer]

44. My dad was from the silent generation.

He served in Vietnam, but he was one of the older naval officers in the water at the time. He is a lifelong Republican, but he has a strong pragmatic side that will sometimes make him say things like, "You know, if Gore ran for president again, I just might vote for him." I think I adopted much of that from him. And I'm an X'er, too - a latchkey kid who despises the BS messages sometimes emitted in this campaign. This will sound contradictory to everything I've posted in here, but the message of "hope" and "change" has really grated on me. But if change is in order, I really wish we'd just let Obama do what Obama will do - let him bring in a new generation of thought: a generation of getting things done without asking for fanfare, and of dressing down the BS.

[sakura]

63. My parents are of that generation, too...

... a generation that has been ignored, largely. Personally, I'm tired of characterization by demographic criteria. It grated on me in my twenties when those only a few years older than me labelled people my age slackers, lazy, etc., and it bothers me that in this campaign (and so many others) every group has been sliced and diced into sub-subgroups to determine what message will play best. Maybe "hope" and "change" are yet another tactic, but if so, it's been done masterfully. Unlike the Clinton campaign, Obama's campaign seems to be sending out the same message being across the board. That makes me feel less manipulated. What I hope comes to pass is that Obama gets into office with a large enough margin that he is not seen as weak. At the same time, I hope the various constituencies of the party are able to push him the way FDR was pushed, so that major real change occurs. I recognize that his platform is not as left-leaning as I would like, but the difference with him is that he is dependent, now, on the source of all of the tiny campaign contributions made to him. If he wants to stay in office, he'll have to listen to his contributors, just as every other politician in recent times has listened to the major donors that put them in office. Here's hoping.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. History never repeats itself 100% EVAH

There are patterns that will reemerge every so often, and if you look at the US, we have peaceful revolutions about once a generation

The last one was the Reagan Revolution... that is about right, once a generation

Kennedy was a reaction to the conservatism of the 1950s, which ironically was the shortest of those revolutions

The conservatism of the 1950s was in some ways a reaction to the New Deal and WW II... and yes people wanted stability after that

The New Deal, the most salient of our peaceful revolutions, was a reaction to the very conservative, trickle down economics of the past two decades. (and our economic situation right now is very close to 1929) It was also the longest of those peaceful revolutions, lasting about forty years.

What Obama is, quite frankly, is a reaction to the last 25 years, in particular the last seven... we will see another crash, how deep good question. Does that mean that Obama will be another FDR? Nope... but he will need to bring out of the shelf keynseian economics... which are the basis of the New deal, but to expect a new deal would be stupid.

But insofar as the STYLE of the campaign... yes, he is close to more to bobby than Jack... and Jack was about to deescalate the war in Vietnam, where a lot of the CIA killed him, comes from. That nugget of truth is the corner stone of that edifice.

[Writer]

43. I'm not a historian, but I've had similar thoughts.

This concept that X era is like X past era is silly and shortsighted. And yes, I agree we're undergoing a liberal political swing that counteracts the conservative political swing that started with Reagan (of which Clinton was a part.)

PATTERNS - yes, absolutely! This goes back to the adage, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Like Reagan? Yes, in a way. This is like Reagan, as that was the last major political swing - to the right.

But ultimately, what I'd like to emphasize is that Obama is a creature of the next generation, and with that comes a different perspective on leadership than, I believe, many of his supporters understand him to have. I think Obama, when in office, will bring a little bit of that "Get real" attitude and a more sober assessment of the nation's ills than we've seen in the past. A far cry from the idealism his supporters have consumed during his campaign.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Where they are similar is that both Jack and Obama

inspired their followers to believe (and so did Reagan by the way)

With Jack we never quite saw the end game... because he died, so Jack was enshrined in US history as a martyr. In some ways so did bobby for the same damn reason... they both died.

Obama has inspired a new generation... but where this is dangerous is that Americans don't know jack, generally speaking, about history. You do... but you are not the average and I spent six years in college getting both a BA and an MA, not that I have been able to do JACK in the field... partly because the field is a mafia, and partly because in the US we don't appreciate history

If we did, our historic swings would not be that dramatic, or even predictable

Obama, if we have a CRASH and a major one I mean. if he saves the country... he will be put in the same pedestal as FDR... not that people understand why... but the lessons of WHY we ended there will be quickly forgotten and in a generation or so, perhaps two if we are lucky, we will have another predictable swing to the right.

Trickle down is not new... and in fact in its modern form started with Grant, well before Reagan was even a gleam in his mother's eyes.

And yes I keep reminding myself, as we need a PROGRESSIVE president and Obama ain't one.. that FDR did not run on a progressive agenda either... and he was also fairly young... and the New Deal was VERY PROGRESSIVE

So if Obama finds himself in the same pickle (similar) and his solutions come from the same recipe book, the comparisons will be made to that great traitor to his class, FDR... and they will be far more proper than Jack

But as a historian I have also become a very deep cynic, and I don't expect anything out of the next president, beyond a change in the White House curtains.

[Writer]

54. That's what i've thought, too. That JFK was a martyr because of his ephemeral presidency.

I'm cynical, too, about this whole concept of "change." Every president in recent memory has used "change" as a codeword for replacing one party with another. Clinton used it in 1992. Bush in 2000. Now Obama in 2008.

But what's really raised my eyebrows is the idea that the Obama push has been a movement. Oh, really? A movement for what - a change in party control? I don't see anything fundamental changing in our government system. Not until there are pitchforks in the streets and a few burning buildings will I call anything in this nation a "movement."

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. All cynicism aside it IS a movement

it has all the markers of one....

And change in US History comes out of dramatic events

Civil war, the Great Depression, WW II

If I am readying the economy right... we are bound for another Great Depression... that will drive real change

FDR had two choices

A Soviet Style Revolution (and he got the message as the 1932 elections had the best polling evah for the US Communist Party), or he could implement POPULIST policies and save Capitalism from itself

If we have similar conditions... then Obama will bring real change or revolution, as in the violent kind, will finally occur

[hfojvt]

31. "no more than two and a half years"

Inaugural address 20 Jan 1961
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

assassination 22 Nov 1963

two years and ten months

34 months out of a 48 month term = 70.83%

"halcyon days of his early presidency"

nice turn of phrase, but not exactly accurate. Over 1000 days is a very very long honeymoon.

[EFerrari]

37. Actually, presidential historians disagree with you, namely

Doris Kearns Goodwin. Obama came up in the interview Timmy did with her this weekend and she made the same comparison.

And, comparisons don't change the elements but rather they create a context within a conversation.

[hedgehog]

42. JFK was our first and so far our only President from a minority group.

Obama will be our second. I refer you to the book The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings by Thomas Maier for a discussion of what this means.


BTW - if you don't consider Irish Catholics a minority group, you really should read this book!

[soaplover20012001]

45. rev

wright and joe mar

[hedgehog]

48. see below

:wtf:

[ieoeja]

49. Let me translate.

You wrote that Obama would be our second minority after Kennedy. Prompting the following coded response, "rev wright and joe mar".

I had to look up, "Joe Mar". Turns out to be a breed of Cocker Spaniel whose coat is not homogeneous.

So the above response to your mentioning that Kennedy and Obama are both minorities, when decoded clearly translates to:

"Uppity nigger and half breed"

[AtomicKitten]

57. Ludicrous to you ... Others are entitled to their opinion of that comparison.

[Writer]

59. Yeah... but I don't think the comparison holds a lot of water.

But then, that's my opinion. ;)

[AtomicKitten]

62. there you go

and you know what they say about opinions .... ;)

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

60. I agree. JFK had advantages that Obama never enjoyed.