Sorenson: Is Obama the next JFK?

Ted Sorenson, JFK's speechwriter explores the question and comparisons of Obama with JFK. This is a very interesting article.



t first glance, the Democratic nominee for president in 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy--the millionaire Caucasian war hero for whom I worked for eleven golden years--seems notably different from the most interesting candidate for next year's nomination, Senator Barack Obama. But when does a difference make a difference? Different times, issues, and electors make any meaningful comparison unlikely. But the parallels in their candidacies are striking.

Courtesy Kennedy: AP Photo; Obama: Carrie Devorah/Wenn; Photo Illustration by Anastasia VasilakisFifty years ago, Kennedy and I embarked on a period in which we traveled to all 50 states in his long, uphill quest for the 1960 Democratic presidential nomination. He was, like Obama, a first-term U.S. senator. But he was not yet 40 years old, making Obama, already 45, a geezer by comparison.

At the time, Washington pundits assumed Kennedy had at least two insurmountable obstacles. The first was his lack of experience, especially compared with the senior statesmen also seeking that nomination-- Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson, and Stuart Symington. Kennedy acknowledged that his age and inexperience would turn away some voters. Obama, though older than Kennedy, is similarly dismissed by some today. But Kennedy noted in one speech that "experience is like tail-lights on a boat which illuminate where we have been when we should be focusing on where we should be going."

advertisement

Kennedy's second major obstacle was his heritage. Some said he had lost his chance to be president of the United States the day he was born--or, at least, the day he was baptized as a Roman Catholic. No Catholic had ever been elected president of the United States, and the overwhelming defeat suffered by the only Catholic nominated for that position, Governor Al Smith of New York in 1928, had persuaded subsequent Democratic leaders that it would be hopeless ever to risk that route again. The conviction that no Catholic could win was greater, in that less enlightened era 50 years ago, than the widespread assumption today that a black presidential candidate cannot win. The subtly bigoted phrase most often repeated in that election year--by former President Harry Truman, among others--was that 1960 was "too early" for a Catholic president, that the country was "not ready," and that Kennedy should be a "good sport" by settling for the vice presidency. No doubt Obama will hear--or has already heard--similar sentiments about the color of his skin.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070723&s=sorensen072307

The hope and optimism offered by both JFK (who got my first vote) and Obama
are in two very different eras. Grandfatherly Ike did not leave the administration, the military, the justice department and our country's relationships with much of the world in such a horrendous mess.

IMO, what's needed now is a leader with much experience, sharp elbows, the drive and organization to provide real leadership early in office, and
the ability to infight as much as to inspire. As attractive a candidate as Obama truly is, the "state of the nation" which will be inherited in 2009 really calls for more depth of experience.

While I was recently laid up from surgery, I read 3 of Teddy White's "Making of President" series. The 1960 campaign was interesting; JFK had operatives in every state and had carefully courted local and state officials in most states (at least the ones with sufficient electoral votes). And he had a host of volunteers, not the least of which was his illustrious and vigorous family members. Evenwith all that he barely won the presidency.

I truly believe this is what a modern presidential candidate must do. The only candidate that I see with such an organization is Hillary Clinton. But as I said, even with all of that work, she could still lose. But let's not underestimate what is needed to win.

And it sure isn't popular on DU!

Al has been in a few presidential campaigns. He knows what you have to do. It does no harm to fantasize but at some point you have to take a cold, hard look at reality. It's not what we like at DU; we want our candidates "pure". And that's fine to a point but some people get so mad if you point out the obvious...

Edwards?

with the exception of Joe Biden, and possibly Chris Dodd, and it doesn't appear either of them are going to get anywhere near the nomination. IMO none of the top three really have a great deal of experience and Obama doesn't get enough credit for the experience he has in state politics. I've read both his books, and I would be quite comfortable with him winning.

I just don't think there's anyone out there, unless Gore does jump in, who can bring the level of experience you're speaking of, and I have little doubt that Obama is up to the task of surrounding himself with the best and the brightest, as any of the top three would have to do.

comparing him to JFK.

It's funny how history repeats itself and we have to learn its lessons all over again.

comparing him to JFK is a bit different than someone on DU comparing him to JFK. Someone who worked with JFK for 11 years must know what they're talking about - at least a little bit.

It's surely a huge compliment to Obama.

Kennedy didn't get the chance to actually do much before he was shot and killed (by whom is irrelevant here).

Also, bizarre as it is to say about the early sixties, Kennedy was president during a more innocent time. Although he suffered the buffeting of politics as usual, he didn't have the concerted attempt to destroy him that Obama (or any other Dem president) would have.

Finally, I think it's counterproductive to compare any modern pol with those of the past. The past is gone and can never come again. We don't need to go backward, we need to move on.

I was a little too young for JFK. Did you know that Eleanor Roosevelt didn't like Jack? She thought he wasn't liberal enough!

At least Obama himself isn't trying to promote this comparison to JFK, but it still strikes me the wrong way.

would probably be embarrassed by it. When I see Obama with a crowd of people, it reminds me of the crowds that listened to Bobby.

and I think comparisons between movements or supporters are quite a bit more helpful than comparisons between specific individuals.

I enjoy reading the knee-jerk attacks here that come every time Obama receives high praise. In this case, the high praise comes from high quarters: Ted Sorenson.

I think I'll value the words of Ted Sorenson over those of biased postings here against Obama from those committed to his opponents.

High praise for Obama! :toast:

Is that Obama will be assasinated? If I was a candidate, I would not want to be compared to JFK.