Barack Obama receives the endorsement of Caroline Kennedy.
Noting the endorsement of Barack Obama by the Kennedy clan, I’m reminded of those who think this campaign is "about race" just because black voters in S.C. went for Obama so big.
This got me to thinking about 1960. What I was thinking was that JFK’s own demographic probably went just as big for him, but no one would ghettoize him. Obviously, he could not have been elected if those were the only folks who preferred him to his opponent.
I haven’t found anything that speaks directly to my question regarding the Irish, but I did find this. Here’s an excerpt from a synopsis of The American Catholic Voter: Two Hundred Years Of Political Impact, by George J. Marlin, with the relevant part highlighted:
Marlin’s analysis provides an in-depth look at two of the more celebrated Catholic election contests, the candidacy of Al Smith in 1928 and the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960. Where Smith was hurt by anti-Catholicism outside the major cities, Kennedy was able to hold together the old FDR coalition. As Marlin noted, the 1960 election of JFK was a victory not for Catholicism, but for liberalism. The tenuous hold the Democratic Party had on Catholics — Kennedy received 70% of the Catholic vote after Ike had "stolen" millions of them in 1952 and 1956 — camouflaged the fact that Kennedy’s Catholic vote percentage was 10 percentage points lower than what Al Smith had received, not withstanding the efforts by the Kennedy family, a supportive liberal media, and big city machines like Chicago’s Richard Daley that pulled out all the stops for JFK.
Note that Al Smith got 80 percent of the Catholic vote, doing better than Obama did with black voters in SC. Of course, being so identified with the Catholic vote, he lost the election. The Clintons hope to convince Democrats that Obama is Al Smith — or more specifically, Jesse Jackson. which is the modern equivalent.
But the Kennedy clan believe he’s JFK in this race. They see him as someone who transcends his own putative demographic group, even though members of that group may for their part take great pride in him. They suggest that his charisma, a quality that reaches across all demographics, a quality that distinguished JFK from Smith, makes him the natural heir to Camelot. In that, they agree with President Kennedy’s closest adviser, Ted Sorensen.
Think I’m exaggerating? Read the op-ed piece by the princess of Camelot herself, headlined "A President Like My Father." And excerpt:
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….
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….
Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., Caroline Kennedy, Barack Obama, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
Related Posts
JFK was a WWII veteran, a hard-line anti-communist, NRA Life Member, pushed through big tax cuts, stopped big union strikes…
So? That was then. What he really was, was a person who could lead. And that is what is sorely lacking these days. And also, in his day, he was excruciatingly liberal. I remember.
he also what was considered a controversal middle name – at that time
“Fitzgerald” was thought to be a problem as he was an Irish Catholic, the first running for President of the USA, and there was fear of this causing a problem — this is when the JFK moniker became lore
I read this as an off the record quote attributed to someone close to Ted Kennedy as another affiliation seen with Obama
But as that was before the internet and how fast anonymous smears & lies can be spread it was not the issue it would have been “today”
time changes everything
he also what was considered a controversal middle name – at that time
“Fitzgerald” was thought to be a problem as he was an Irish Catholic, the first running for President of the USA, and there was fear of this causing a problem — this is when the JFK moniker became lore
I read this as an off the record quote attributed to someone close to Ted Kennedy as another affiliation seen with Obama
But as that was before the internet and how fast anonymous smears & lies can be spread it was not the issue it would have been “today”
time changes everything
Yes, Karen, JFK was more liberal than most of the Democrats of his era, who opposed equal rights for blacks. It was Eisenhower who desegregated the schools, and liberal Rockefeller Republicans who passed the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
Even liberal Democrats like JFK and Hubert Humphrey were patriotic, and not socialists – a far cry from the mainstream Democrats of today who were a radical fringe of the party in 1960.
As the child of an Irish Catholic who voted for Nixon in 1960, I find it terribly sad that Kennedy’s legacy is partially tied up in being the first Catholic president. As the Democratic operative told Harry Truman when Truman expressed concern that he was Catholic, “Don’t worry; he’s a bad Catholic.”
Kennedy didn’t remotely represent what many Catholics believe. He certainly didn’t act like a practicing, believing Catholic. His personal behavior – lying and habitually cheating on his wife — was the very antithesis of Catholic moral teaching, and the behavior of most Catholics. His behavior was much more like the Boston Brahmins his father claimed to hate than it was to most everyday Catholics. In practice, Kennedy wasn’t a Catholic; he was a libertine.
There’s an exception to everything and for JFK it was civil rights. His much-belated civil rights views were in the mainstream of liberal Catholic social teaching, if sadly not always Catholic practice, and that is to is credit. But much of the rest of his life was so Un-Catholic, virtually Anti-Catholic, that I think in many ways he did both my religion and my country a great disservice.
I just stumbled onto this table. This shows what a complete disaster the current administration has been. In all areas, including those related to military readiness, things have declined dramatically. Now why would we want to elect another Republican to the presidency? That would be fool-hardy.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rchart4.gif
Bud’s website is an arm of American Progress, a Democrat 503c think tank.. Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, former chief of staff to former United States President Bill Clinton.
It is funded by a $3,000,000 startup donation from George Soros.
Their information is junk.
When Clinton was in office, Fort Jackson did not have enough ammunition for the recruits to qualify with the M-16, because Clinton was selling off new ammunition and equipment as surplus. For Kosovo, we had to go buy back 2,000,000 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition that had been auctioned off.
Yeah, Karen, JFK was a big liberal, except for starting Vietnam, invading Cuba and cutting taxes.
By today’s measuring stick, he was a moderate Republican.
By the standards of the 1960s, Obama is a radical flower child.
Lee, here’s how to play the game. I post some facts as presented by a liberal web site. The sources in said web site are provided. It’s up to you on the other side to say why these figures are either (1) incorrect – with proper sourcing provided, or (2) explain why the numbers may not be so incriminating. If, for example, you find the job growth numbers a bit too rosy you could say simply that the rapid job growth in the 90s was far to fast to sustain and that we were bound to drop back a bit. You could also say that the events of 9-11 caused a serious disruption in job growth and that this was an event outside the control of the White House.
But noooooooo. Instead you drag out that perpetual boogeyman – “It’s a Liberal Website” to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt in your mind, that the numbers are wrong. I suggest you go to college and take a course in logic. It is definitely not persuasive, nor is it relevant, to point out that someone’s source is “liberal”.
You posted a reference to an unsubstantiated claim, that “military readiness had declined under President Bush”.
I gave a concrete example of Clinton gutting the military training. I can give many more. Those who were officers under Clinton already have given many.
Readers also need to know that your source is not credible, because it is part of the Clinton machine, putting out political propaganda from a tax-exempt 503c foundation. I don’t want to hear anything about “tax fairness” from people like this.
This is an interesting article. thanks for posting this! i enjoyed reading it! very true,, keep it up!
-altheya-