Ted Sorensen, former counsel and speech-writer to President John F. Kennedy, introduced Sen. Barack Obama on the campus of DePaul University this week. Chicago Tribune staff photo by Michael Tercha
By Mike Dorning
The obvious parallels to the martyred Democratic hero always have provided a powerful subtext to Barack Obama's presidential candidacy.
Like John F. Kennedy, Obama is a young, charismatic senator who casts himself as an agent of generational change, and as one whose election would break barriers of prejudice that have long compromised American ideals.
Until now, those references have been subtle and oblique. But this week, the Obama campaign explicitly laid claim to the Kennedy legacy, bringing in the man who provided much of the poetry for Camelot, Kennedy speechwriter Theodore Sorensen, to vouch for Obama as a worthy heir.
Beginning with a speech in Chicago Tuesday, Sorensen introduced Obama as "the only serious candidate for president" who exhibits the kind of judgment that allowed Kennedy to successfully navigate the Cuban missile crisis.
Obama echoed that theme throughout the day, arguing that his foreign policy views follow in the tradition of Kennedy. And he noted in closing that "I wouldn't be here if, time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation," a signature phrase from Kennedy's inaugural address that Sorensen wrote.
Burnishing a connection with Kennedy carries clear advantages for any presidential candidate, particularly a Democrat, in evoking a time of idealism and a leader who in public memory remains forever young and full of possibility.
It also presents no small measure of risk.
Former Vice President Dan Quayle, who compared himself to Kennedy in a 1988 vice presidential debate, never fully recovered from Democratic vice presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen's withering rejoinder: "I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
While Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has moved to a substantial lead in various national polls over Obama, one pundit in Iowa, where the nation's first caucus is scheduled in January, thinks the Kennedy comparison could work in Obama's favor.
David Yepsen of The Des Moines Register, Iowa's most influential political columnist, noted that "invoking Kennedy imagery is a delicate thing for any politician to do," but concluded that "Obama succeeded in pulling it off."
Obama follows a long list of candidates who have aped Kennedy's look, style, rhetoric, even gestures.
Gary Hart, another young senator campaigning on a theme of change in 1984 and 1988, hunched his shoulders and placed his hand in his suit jacket pocket in a way that many thought deliberately imitated Kennedy. Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign featured a photo of a young Clinton shaking hands with Kennedy at a Boy's Nation event at the White House.
Obama's campaign has turned to the Kennedy comparison as it simultaneously seeks to address long-standing questions about the candidate's level of experience and tries to differentiate Obama from front-runner Clinton on their approaches to foreign policy, particularly Iraq.
Sorensen reminded audiences that Kennedy also "had been accused of being too inexperienced and too young" yet successfully led the country through "the most dangerous 13 days in the history of mankind," referring to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union went to the brink of war over the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba.
The experience levels of the two men are not a precise match. Kennedy served a combined 14 years in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate before he was elected president, and he had served in the military; Obama will have been in the U.S. Senate four years by the 2008 presidential election.
But Sorensen argued, as the Obama campaign does, that voters are better informed by examining "judgment," where he sees important similarities to Kennedy.
As Kennedy challenged the advice of military leaders in rejecting air strikes on Cuba, Obama challenged the Bush administration's rush to war in speaking out against the invasion of Iraq, Sorensen noted. And as Kennedy challenged conventional foreign policy wisdom by negotiating directly with Soviet leaders, Obama has expressed a willingness to meet with now-ostracized foreign dictators—a position that Clinton has criticized as naive.
Public impressions of Kennedy turn largely on personal qualities rather than official achievements because his presidency was so short, noted historian Robert Dallek.
"With JFK, it's the aura, it's the rhetoric, the youthfulness, the charisma. Those are less tangible things," Dallek said. "That's why it could be easier to use JFK than someone who has a much longer, substantial track record."
Part of Kennedy's political legacy always has been the theme of generational change. Kennedy ushered the World War II generation to power. And Bill Clinton, the last successful presidential candidate to invoke Kennedy, led the Baby Boom generation against President George H.W. Bush, who was also a product of the WW II generation.
But presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose husband was a Kennedy aide, noted that the visual contrast between Obama and Hillary Clinton is not as apt.
"The difficulty is the age span is not as great as it was between [President Dwight] Eisenhower and Kennedy," Goodwin said. "This is sort of like a half-generational change."
Still, Obama has cast his campaign as a shift away from the Vietnam-era generation whose cultural conflicts have framed the nation's recent politics.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Obama is the only candidate, Dem or Repub, who can take this country in the right direction. He absolutely has the judgment needed to clean up the mess we're in.
As for this article, in an effort to cut Hil some slack, the author spouted that Hillary "has moved to a substantial lead in various national polls over Obama." Clinton has had a lead over Obama all along nationally - most believe it's purely a result of name recognition.
As far as Iowa caucus voters, Obama and Clinton are neck and neck - quite a feat for Mr. Obama. And they have raised equal amounts of money! Go, Obama!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21038955/site/newsweek/
Posted by: Leebo | October 4, 2007 7:16 AM
"The obvious parallels" between Mr Fluff and Kennedy aren't all that obvious; in fact the Obamabots have been straining mightily to make them.
As Mike Dorning even admits,
"The experience levels of the two men are not a precise match. Kennedy served a combined 14 years in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate before he was elected president, and he had served in the military..." As an officer, BTW.
The only real parallel is their youth.
Anyway such attempts at comparison are best made by surogates, not the candidate himself. When the candidate struts around saying: hey look, I'm just like [insert popular hero] he comes off as an arrogant fool.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 7:18 AM
The writer ignores the major difference between Kennedy and Obama or any other current-day Democrat. KENNEDY FAVORED CUTTING TAXES! He also FAVORED A STRONG MILITARY. And he
also favored military involvement in a conflict far from our shores, a place called Vietnam. And he favored and supported an attack on a foreign country not threatening the U.S. at the time (Bay of Pigs, before the Russian nuke situation). So, beyond the youth
connection and being in the Senate, just how does Kennedy relate to Obama
or any present-day Demos? Oh, I forgot, he had a "D" in back of his name.
Posted by: Phoenix | October 4, 2007 7:51 AM
"The obvious parallels to the martyred Democratic hero always have provided a powerful subtext to Barack Obama's presidential candidacy.
Like John F. Kennedy, Obama is a young, charismatic senator..."
Thanks, Swamp, for providing us a morning chuckle. Columnist Dorning should quit his job as Obama's press agent and start writing for the "30 Rock" comedy series.
Posted by: Bruce | October 4, 2007 8:44 AM
When you have to hire someone to convince people that you are like JFK there is a 99.9% chance that you are not like JFK. THe Swamp writers are really reaching here. There really is no comparison except that they both are Democrats. This is a joke, but it is a great way to start my day with a laugh.
Posted by: Vinny | October 4, 2007 9:16 AM
It is amazing that after nearly 50 years American politics have not seen any presidential candidate with enough of the personal traits that many people admire enough to want to support him. All of the other candidates in both parties are dry, boring, pasty, stale, uninspiring (except Romney who "looks presidential") and it has been that way for years. Look back at all of the other Democratic presidential nominees and name one who comes close to being as inspiring as JFK was in 60 and Obama is in 2007. For a lot of people he's too Black, for a lot of people he's too White, for a lot of people he's too skinny, for some people he's too smart, for some he's too dumb, for some he's too handsome, for at least one candidate he's too naive. He seems like just the person to become president.
Posted by: GW | October 4, 2007 9:26 AM
* JKF was for a strong national defense.
* JFK won at least one political debate.
* JFK favored tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
* JFK escalated a pre-emptive war on foreign soil without an exit strategy.
* JFK ran the dirtiest campaigns of his time.
* JFK once said America would, “pay any price, bear any burden.”
* JFK once said “…one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”
* JFK’s superior “judgment” included sleeping with the mistress of America’s most powerful Mob boss.
Other than that, Obama and JFK are like soul mates.
Posted by: Dan Curry | October 4, 2007 9:26 AM
Ok all these fools who love to say President Kennedy was for cutting taxes, do some research. The top tax rate then was 91%! Kennedy wanted to cut it to 70%. How about this, we raise the top rate back to 91%, then we can all be for cutting taxes and lowering it to 70%. Deal?
Posted by: Paul | October 4, 2007 9:47 AM
Why do posters such as Phoenix equate a strong military with how many wasted tax dollars we spend.Remember STAR WARS?
Why does our strong military have a difficult time fighting an urban civil war in Iraq?
In the debates of 2000 Gore argued for a leaner swifter fighting force and experienced vet GWB argued for spending more tax dollars on weapons.Who was right?
Why do we spend so much on military,to be stronger or to make people richer?
Posted by: Raving Loon | October 4, 2007 10:09 AM
Loon,
You can see a leaner swifter US military currently bogged down in Iraq, so I'm not sure what your argument is.
Posted by: The Ubiquitous Anonymous | October 4, 2007 11:04 AM
Thank you for your post, Paul, you beat me to the punch. The top tax rate is now ONE THIRD what it was when Kennedy reduced it from 91% to 70%.
The top marginal rate is clearly not too high (39.1% top rate worked pretty darn well in the 90's), and anyone who suggests it is in this era of astronimcal deficits and a budget-busting war is either a fool, a pure ideologue, or recklessly irresponsible to the future generations of this nation who will have to foot the bill for today's extravagance and recklessness.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 4, 2007 12:13 PM
Loon,
You can see a leaner swifter US military currently bogged down in Iraq, so I'm not sure what your argument is.
Posted by: The Ubiquitous Anonymous | October 4, 2007 11:04 AM
I don't believe we're bogged down because we are now leaner. We're bogged down because of simple mis-management of the invasion.
Anyone who has followed this folly knows we've never had enough troops at the beginning or now.Our military is stretched to it's limits and Bush will not do what needs to be done.Draft.
If this was a truthful war,as a leader and Commander,he would have immediately done everything in his power to increase troop strength.
Bush is not a leader,never has been.Look at his life,everything handed to him.He's a failure and because of him,his occupation of
Iraq is doomed.
Posted by: Raving Loon | October 4, 2007 1:01 PM
loon,
"experienced vet GWB"-- that's a joke, right?
Posted by: what the heck | October 4, 2007 1:51 PM
DV (Tony),
Why should anyone pay 39% of their HARD EARNED income to the gov't (not counting state and local)? Who earned it? Did the gov't earn 39% of it?
Your logic for 39% is lacking. Since we had surpluses in 90's when we had 39% as our highest incremental tax bracket, it must be right. Anything else that may have contributed to the surpluses?
Our deficits as a % of GDP are small 2006 1.9% which is smaller than the first three years of teh Clinton administration.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LK4mcAFfc4cJ:www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf+Deficits+as+a+percentage+of+GDP+historical+data&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Posted by: Terry | October 4, 2007 11:00 PM