Want a Real Fairy Tale for Super Tuesday? Try Camelot!
I like Hillary. And I like Obama. If they don't drive each other's supporters into angry corners of resentment and fatally divide the Party, either one will have a pretty good chance to prevail in the fall. But that requires that voters remember the election is neither about Bill Clinton nor about John Kennedy. Hillary has a husband, but love him or hate him, he already was the President. It's Hillary who is trying to win office. Think of it not as a try for the second Clinton Presidency but for the first Rodham presidency. And stop judging her by Bill.
And how about getting a grip on the Kennedy hysteria afflicting pundits looking for an angle on Obama's campaign of youthful change? Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsements do not make Obama JFK. Any more than Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's endorsement of Hillary make her Bobby.
Besides, why are fans of the candidate of the future who disparage the candidate of the nineties reaching back to the sixties for comfort? Do they know that, unlike Obama's genuine anti-war position, the fabled story of Camelot was truly a fairy tale? A sentimental Broadway show Jackie Kennedy used to memorialize her late husband's presidency after his assassination?
John Kennedy may have inspired young America and in beating Richard Nixon brought the complacent gray flannel suit nation into the colorful Sixties. But the tie-dyed counter-cultural decade celebrated by oblivious fashionistas today was a decade of urban riots, racial violence, political assassinations, combative foreign policy and escalating war, a decade that ended in profound distrust of all government authority, and just a few years later in the resignation of a President after Watergate.
Kennedy himself launched the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion and escalated President Eisenhower's nominal military commitment to South Vietnam. And though he deserves credit for defusing it at the last moment, he brought the world to the edge of nuclear war in the Cuban Missile crisis. Worse still - where is this reflected in the myth of Camelot? - he ordered Bobby, then his attorney general, to wiretap Martin Luther King.
If this all comes as news to our myth-prone electorate today, perhaps that's because in Arthur Schlesinger and Ted Sorenson and Jackie herself, JFK had some of the most talented spinners of all time. But Camelot was a fairy tale, and Kennedy was murdered before he could either realize or bury the dreams he had inspired.
Same for Bobby, who went from being his brother's tough-minded enforcer to becoming an inspiring progressive candidate in the '68 campaign. But he too fell to an assassin, in this case before he could contest the election let alone make a Presidential mark. Teddy inherited the mantle, but squandered it early in a tragic sexual encounter at Chappaquiddick that makes the Monica Lewinsky foolishness seem benign. Teddy's subsequent Senatorial career has been admirable, but Chappaquiddick has become part of a history not recalled.
So perhaps on Super Tuesday voters can put away the mythologies associated with the Kennedy Sixties and the Clinton Nineties, and take a hard look at the candidates and the issues that define this intimidating new Millennium. That way they will be voting realistically for one or the other of two good candidates and not indulging in the spurious myths that have been spun by would-be idealists around their candidacies.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
dude are you nuts? it's ALL about bill clinton. haven't they both campaigned as 'two for one'? hasn't he talked about when 'they are in the white house'? give me a break. after bill's childish outbursts in s. carolina, and after all the polls showing how turned off people became after s. carolina, only now have they tried to put a muzzle on him. bill clinton can not control himself, how can hillary? to me it's unbelievable that hillary even has to mention being able to control her husband. HELLO, she is an enabler, and in case you aren't fimilar enablers don't control anyone, they go along with whatever they do. i.e. bill and his girls the last time around. the same question that was asked to hillary about being able to control bill was asked to michelle obama yesterday, and her response was right on. she said, that's not the type of relationship barack and i have, we don't need to control each other. that question seemed so weird being asked to michelle, but why is it right on being asked to hillary? bill is a lose cannon, always has been, and always will be. people are who they are.
Thanks for an excellent historical perspective. The '60's have been idolized by a new generation of adults who are voting for the first time. Since their Government and History books give little more than a paragraph to the era, few young adults know more than the mythes, and even less of the ideals.
The last time the Democratic Party nominated a Senator from Illinois the party split in two and within a year the nation was in the midst of a civil war.
The problem with many of the Obama followers are that they are following a dream and not reality as is laid out in this article. The overwhelming majority are young and idealistic but have very little knowledge of our history in regards to actual facts but thrive on the post written legends of JFK and RFK. Americans who have lived through those days still remember the turbulence of our country with racism, street riots and war, both in Asia and almost in Cuba and here in the U.S.... times which were not our finest moments.. We now need someone who is more than just a dreamer...
It 'aint Camelot. It's OBAMALOT!
Obama '08! Yes We Can!
I see Carolyn Kennedy and Ted Kennedy and it seems so out of place, like adults still trick or treating - it seems like the Kennedy's are living in a time warp. Truly looks foolish.
Obama made reckless and dangerous statements this summer about immediately bombing Pakistan on day one of his Presidency and considering the use of nuclear weapons on Pakistan in the August debates. The people of Pakistan rioted over this. Both President Bush and Joe Biden had to apologize to the people of Pakistan for Obama's statements. Obama never apologized.
This is the major reason I do not support his candiacy. I am certain that as an inexperienced president, others will challenge him as Kruchschek challeged JFK with the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bin Laden challenged the inexperienced Bush with 9/11. Bush to fight back went after the wrong government in the Iraq War. All the sad result of inexperience, arrogance, and recklessness. Obama to me is a dark skin version of GW Bush and JFK, but the world is now more dangerous than any other time in world history so the US can't afford the luxury of a good speaker who lacks the inexperience or the humility to be President.
Unlikely this would happen with McCain, or even the Clintons as both are seasoned.
Americans need to be practical rather than living in a fantasy. Someone must pay the bills through hard work, and it won't be Obama.
I don't fully agree. It's true that if Obama wins, JFK will not rise from the dead. On the other hand, if Hillary wins Bill WILL BE in the White House again for another 4 or 8 years. Some people may like that and some may not, but either way, you can't just dismiss it as nothing.
Anyone who believes either one of these candidates have any real understanding let alone a heart in tune with the hardships of the poor and middleclass (soon to merge into simply the poor) then:
Dream,
Dream, dream, dream.
They only lipsinc John Edwards. Study their eyes when they do so. I don't see their eyes matching their words. Kinda like reading a script for a Superbowl commercial or an hour on the Hallmark Channel.
Indeed, JFK did not make the times more safe and comfy. But it seems that times demanding some big changes and new vision had arrived. He showed recognition of that and rather than resisting, he identified the challenges, charted a course of taking on those challenges and fortified citizens into believing in themselves, their country, and their ability to create a better future. The broad direction, spirit, and idealism persisted long after he was gone. So he handled many of the details poorly and sometimes with poor or scary consequences. But he enabled the country to launch into tackling the challenges before it with enthusiasm rather than despair.
If you think our country today mostly just needs a little stabilization and a few tweaks, and some gradual course corrections, then Hillary may indeed seem the better candidate. But right now our nation may need leadership, vision, and heart more than a capable mechanic.
If that is indeed the case, Obama may be your better candidate.
"Kennedy himself launched the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion ..."
Long before JFK took office on January 20, 1961, the CIA undertook planning for the Cuban invasion under the code name Operation Zapata. It was not initiated by JFK and it is wrong to suggest that it was.
Tha planning occurred more than a year earlier than the time when JFK took office, and also prior to the time when Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex.
The CIA submitted their plans for Operation Zapata to officials within the Eisenhower Administration and ultimately obtained approval on March 17, 1960. This allowed the CIA to offically commit resources for the purpose of training expatriate Cubans in Guatemala as guerillas for the purpose of overthowing the Cuban government.
The start date for the Cuban operation was March 17, 1960, and this was before Kennedy took office on January 20, 1961.
The invasion began on April 15, 1961. The CIA promised the Cuban guerillas air support and additional support from U.S. Marines, some of whom were on ships and within striking range.
The CIA did not have the authority to promise the guerillas the U.S. military. It was unable to obtain JFK's approval. And, when the invasion failed, some at the CIA told Cuban exiles that the failure was due to JFK's inaction.
Although JFK's Administation was responsible for the CIA and JFK publicly took responsiblity for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, he frustrated and embarrasd the the head of the CIA (Allen Dulles) by forcing him to resign.
After JFK was assignated, Allen Dulles was appointed, along with Gerald Ford and others, to be part of the eight-member Warren Commission.
If you are going to blame anyone for launching the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, it should be Allen Dulles rather than JFK.
Today, JFK remains unpopular in the Cuban community in Miami not because he "launched the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion," but because of a belief that he refused to commit the U.S. military to support an overthrow of Castro.
Why do you say that Obama is genuinely against war when he has voted for every funding bill for the war and has said that he would take our military into Pakistan and Syria? Anti-war, I don't think so. If elected he will be another Kennedy making lots of mistakes. If he is the candidate I will not vote at all.
Apples and oranges.
Hillary is running on Bill's record such as his "record" with African Americans. His participation in her Adminsitration has been implied and he has been presented as part of the twofer offer of this candidacy.
Obama is aspiring to an image that is symbolized by the kennedy's aspirations. he is his own person. However, the leadership ability and his call to unity is refreshing and out of step with all the candidates. What he can bring in a concrete way remains to be seen.
Regarding a party split the only ones fostering this are the Clintosn; they also sabtaged Gore's run in 2000 and look at the consequenc
Why should I vote for HRC when her husband (whether or not it was co-presidency we will never know) pushed through banking de-regulation?
Am I to believe that somehow she is fundamentally different?
i think people are judging hillary clinton on her husband's record, because that's the record primarily on which she is running. she's been a legislator fewer years than obama, but that fact is often overlooked (or explicitly ignored) by many of her supporters.
Thanks for this insight. I was a little girl when JFK was killed and I can still remember it. I also remember the anxiety over the Bay of Pigs. When seen in a modern context JFK has some pretty serious chinks in his knight in shining armer. And Teddy put on a real ego driven endorsement the other day. Could it be that this was just a little divisive?? Could it be that strong smart women are threatening even to other women? With Exelon and Rezko looming we better "get it together" "come on people now, everybody get together try to love one another right now"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
