Obama sells himself as the new JFK (WaPo 10/3/07)

[rinsd]

The comparison has been floating around for a while, so it was only a matter of time before Barack Obama's campaign started making the claim explicitly itself: meet BHO, the new JFK.

The analogy has been bandied about ever since (if not before) Obama and his vibrant, photogenic family showed up in a glossy magazine photo shoot early last year, frolicking together in a yard in a manner reminiscent of a certain other glamorous political family on the rise. The points in common were hard to miss -- Obama, like John F. Kennedy, was young and of lanky build, was seeking to break a major cultural barrier in reaching the White House, and possessed a definite star quality and next-generation eloquence. (The comparison also offered a nice historic twist, considering that the other candidate to conjure some Kennedy nostalgia with his youth and smoothness was the husband of Obama's main rival for the Democratic nomination.)

Now, the Obama campaign is seizing on the comparison itself to rebut one of the main arguments against his candidacy, his rivals' charge that he lacks experience. At campaign stops yesterday in Chicago and Iowa, Obama was introduced by Ted Sorensen, the 79-year-old former Kennedy speechwriter, who went to great lengths to knock down the inexperience charge by invoking his former boss. In a packed hotel ballroom in Coralville, outside Iowa City, Sorensen spent several minutes on the podium retelling Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, "the most dangerous crisis in the history of mankind."

"That young president who had been accused of being too inexperienced and too young successfully steered the country through that crisis," Sorensen said. He compared Kennedy's secret negotiations with the Soviets to quell the crisis with Obama's stated willingness -- criticized by Hillary Clinton -- to meet with the country's foes without preconditions in his first year in office. And he compared Kennedy's refusal to take the advice of his military advisers to invade Cuba to Obama's early opposition to the war in Iraq, the day's campaign focus. "I have decided that judgment is the single most important quality in a president of the United States. Kennedy had judgment. Obama has judgment," Sorensen said. "Democrats are not going to throw away their biggest advantage by nominating a candidate who supported President Bush in going to war."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/03/post_109.html

So let's stop pretending.

[babylonsister]

1. Sounds like Sorensen was selling him. Nice try. nt

[rinsd]

3. Yes because Sorenson was some impartial observer.

Not doing an introductory speech of Obama.

:eyes:

[babylonsister]

5. He was there during that era; he can have an opinion about anything

or anyone he wants. If that's his opinion, I think it's a good thing.

[rinsd]

8. It was an introduction speech for Obama at a campaign event. Not some random oped

[FrenchieCat]

6. Sorensen worked for JFK......and now works for Obama

so I guess we can't right out call him a liar if he chose to make that comparison, can we? Kind of like Ethel Kennedy supporting Obama. Did you want to tell her that she's wrong on that if she were to suggest that Obama reminds her of her late husband? :shrug:

[rinsd]

11. Both she and Sorenson are welcome to their opinion.

But to say that the Obama campaign has not been crafting allusions and comparisons to JFK for much of this campaign is disengenuous at best.

[NYCGirl]

19. As long as they don't express them near a camera? NT

[Cha]

37. :)

"Ethel Kennedy - widow of Senator Bobby Kennedy
"I think he feels it. He feels it just like Bobby did," Ethel Kennedy said, comparing her late husband's quest for social justice to Obama's. "He has the passion in his heart. He's not selling you. It's just him." Ethel Kennedy invited Obama to deliver the keynote address at a ceremony commemorating the 80th birthday of Robert F. Kennedy. She said she had carefully followed the career of the Illinois senator, whom she referred to as "our next president."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/31/1939/05901

[TwilightZone]

2. Didn't he deny that he compared himself to JFK?

Or was that just his supporters that denied it?

I can't keep up....

[rinsd]

4. Yes and it was widely held as a great zinger.

Now that its been shown he was lying let the excuses begin.

[babylonsister]

7. Give it up; he's not lying, so why are you trying to spread same? nt

[rinsd]

14. So his campaign never sought or embraced comparison to JFK?

[babylonsister]

23. You're kidding, right?They'd be dumb not to embrace the comparison.

But he's never claimed that himself.

Also, I've read at least a dozen articles where people besides Sorensen are saying the same thing.

[rinsd]

26. "But he's never claimed that himself." But his campaign has.

[babylonsister]

28. You just enjoy arguing, don't you. I'm sure Sorensen

is quite capable of writing his own speech. And I'm done arguing about this. Have a lovely evening.

[Cameron27]

10. "it was widely held as a great zinger"

Obama has turned out to be a very cunning politician and vetting him won't be easy, it may even be impossible.

[sandnsea]

9. All you've done is beaten up Obama, get a friggin' clue

It's not going to work. He has experience. He has good policy. He has likeability. He has vision. He's a good Democrat, he's a good candidate.

Go figure out what would make Hillary a good candidate and get back to us.

[Clinton Crusader]

12. Oh please! Stop this crap!

If I hear one more comparison to JFK or RFK, I'm gonna HURL!

He has absolutely not one damn thing in common with either Kennedy.

The only candidate that has even a remote resemblance to the ideals of RFK is John Edwards, with his talk of the poor and disenfranchised and uninsured etc. Obama has about as much in common to the Kennedys as I have to the Vanderbilts.

Come on now, come back to earth people.....Ted Sorenson must be off his meds for chrissake

:eyes: :crazy:

[Thrill]

13. Did you actually read the article? moron

[rinsd]

15. Yes. It seems quite clear.

[Thrill]

17. I don't see in that article anywhere of Obama selling himself

as anything. No surprise you can't see that

[rinsd]

24. Did you miss the intor speech of him?

Or do campaign events at which he is in attendance not count?

[Thrill]

29. Again Where does HE sell himself as JFK?

still waiting

[rinsd]

31. Yes because a candidate has nothing to do with their campaign whatsoever,

Including introductory speeches of themselves.

:eyes:

[Thrill]

32. Still can't show it huh?

Typical

[rinsd]

33. LOL

Obama campaign: He is the next JFK

Obama: I never said I was JFK

Obama supporter: I like puppies.

[Thrill]

35. No surprise

You can't back your claim. Typical

[rinsd]

36. Typical. Like a long dormant screenname suddenly commenting furiously.

That kind of typical?

[Thrill]

38. As usual

idiots make these ridiculous misleading threads and result to attacks when they can't back it up. lol. What are you 12?

[oasis]

16. JFK war hero. Obama (zero-military) war flip flopper . As Bill Clinton would say

"Gimme a break, not another friggin fairy tale".

[bunnies]

18. I must have missed the part where Obama said...

"I am the new JFK."

[Cameron27]

20. Do you really think that he has to actually

say it in order to get that message across?

[bunnies]

34. No. But I dont think its really anything like the OP suggests.

I think much of whats being said right now is exaggeration on all sides. And Im pretty sure the comparison wasnt initiated by Obama himself. Thats all. :hi:

[rinsd]

22. No, he just had his campaign do so.

[enough already]

21. If the title of your OP was "Sorensen sells Obama as the new JFK", you'd be accurate

As it is, you're just another Clinton rumpswab liar.

Desperate times....

[rinsd]

27. Not my title. That was WaPo's.

[pat_k]

25. Americans aren't looking for leaders dedicated to appeasement.

Sure, we'd love to see "bipartisanship" -- i.e., reasonable people working together to solve our common problems.

But in the last elections the electorate said one thing LOUD and CLEAR: These people are NUTS. Oppose them! Stop them! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2753090">Make them go away !
The only path to a "new politics" and "change" is through an all out fight against the fascists. ONLY impeachment is capable of stopping them. Only impeachment is capable of giving the electorate what it wants.

Obama's "message" is a message of appeasement. He has won support by default. He has foolishly and utterly failed to tap into the mother lode of anger, energy, and action that is seething throughout the electorate. His "happy talk" and "let's all get along" crap is so wrongheaded it turns my stomach.

Of course, if he wins the nomination, I'll work for him. But instead of being inspired to action, I'll be doggedly putting whatever energy I can muster into the effort because at least we have a shot at reaching him and knocking some sense into his head -- of forcing him to confront reality that it is impossible to simultaneously "make nice" and fight to enforce our common contract -- the United States Constitution.

Unfortunately, I fear that his failure to confront the reality of our national crisis -- failure to say "No More! Now is the time to FIGHT!" -- will keep many who would otherwise give their time and money on the sidelines.

Edwards has also failed to sound the call to arms on impeachment, but at least he seems to recognize the need to fight the fasicsts. I view him as the most "reachable" of the viable candidates. He's hasn't been quite as immersed in the insular and bizzaro world of the beltway as the others. I sure hope he does well tonight. (I'd love to see Kucinich make a strong showing too, but although he's the only one I've actively supported to date, he is not currently on the "viable" list.)

[toughboy]

30. Is this a movie script or something?

I really don't get what is going on here or anywhere on this board. Did we get violated by thousands of Republicans or whacko campaign staff? Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama seem to be acceptable candidates for President. I can't stand how people attack Senator Clinton. I've seen so much abuse of women that it feels really wrong. Believe me, I know how to disagree with a woman without saying any of the awful, hateful things that I have read here and seen on TV coming from everyone.

I also can't believe how Senator Obama or Senator Edwards get so aggressively attacked, but outside of the things that seem to be made up stories, I feel that there is no real hatred directed at them like at Senator Clinton. Maybe there is. No one deserves it. Maybe I'm just not 24/7 into what is actually going on.

My wife says she is going to vote for Senator Clinton. I'm voting for Senator Obama. We want to tell our daughters that we did that. It may sound stupid but they both seem so similar and qualified that either one (or even Edwards) will figure out how to fix at least a few of the big problems Republicans have caused. So I'm not sure why it matters if Senator Obama or anyone else did or did not say there is a new JFK. It would make more sense if they said he was a new leader, a change from the past leaders but with as much promise.

The campaign hype is out of control everywhere.