What Do Obama/Clinton, Kennedy/Johnson and Nixon/Rockefeller Have in Common?

It was forty-eight years ago in West Virginia that John Kennedy won the state primary and proved that a Catholic could carry an overwhelmingly Protestant state. That victory assured him of a huge lead over Lyndon Johnson going into the Democratic Convention, but no one suggested that Johnson withdraw from the race.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one still alive who covered the 1960 Conventions.

There was much ugliness at the Democratic Convention. Delegates with Masonic pins in their lapels walked up and down aisles buttonholing other delegates, saying that they and most Americans would never vote for a Catholic. They congratulated governors and senators who stood as favorite sons holding off a Kennedy majority. The governors and senators seemed distressed, but they held firm and no one suggested that Johnson withdraw from the race.

Those were the days when political bosses still controlled state delegations and the key figure was Dave Lawrence who ran the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania. Lawrence, a Catholic himself, was concerned that putting a Catholic at the head of the ticket would drag the Democratic Party to defeat in Pennsylvania. Most of my time was spent waiting fro Lawrence to make a decision. When he finally announced for Kennedy the race seemed over, but no one suggested that Johnson withdraw from the race.

At the last moment, the day before the floor vote, Johnson challenged Kennedy to a head-to-head debate with the delegates in attendance and full television coverage. Kennedy agreed and the two men stood at podia side by side, challenging each other issue by issue. We in the press decided that Kennedy had more than held his own, but no one suggested that Johnson withdraw from the race.

The next day the delegates voted. As I recall it, I was on the floor with a mike in the midst of the Wyoming delegation as it cast the votes that put Kennedy over the top. The role call was alphabetical, so it took the last state in the union to give Kennedy the nomination. The next day JFK named Lyndon Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate and it was Johnson who would carry Texas for the Democrats and win the presidency for JFK.

I can't understand why the media is working so hard to brand Hillary a loser and drum her out of what is likely to be a fair fight on the Convention floor.

Some say it's divisive to go to a convention without the nominee already chosen. I remember the 1960 Republican Convention. Nelson Rockefeller competed against Richard Nixon for the nomination and when saw that he didn't have the votes he invited Nixon to his home and worked out the infamous "Treaty of Fifth Avenue." In it, Rockefeller agreed to support Nixon if Nixon accepted a civil rights platform plank that promised "aggressive action to remove the remaining vestiges of segregation or discrimination in all areas of national life."

The compromise won Nixon the nomination, but outraged conservatives. Barry Goldwater charged that Nixon had "surrendered" to Rockefeller and called it a "Munich" for the GOP. Republican southerners were outraged; when the Convention Chairman gaveled Nixon's "unanimous" victory, the Louisiana delegation stood-up, booed and walked out of the hall. In the General Election, Nixon carried only Florida and the border-states in the once solid south.

Nixon lost, Kennedy won. Sometimes it takes a good fight to clear the air and I applaud Hillary for sticking to her guns.

Comments

[letsmakesense]

I remember when after JFK beat LBJ and Walter Conkrite said that JFK would offer LBJ the VP as a ploy to heel the party knowing full well that LBJ would never leave his powerful position as Senate whip to become VP. When LBJ said yes Walter was floored. "how could this be true?"
What Walter did not know but LBJ did:
Kennedy would not finish his first term.
Makes you think.
Obama would but dumb to accept Clinton as VP.

[davidly]

Finally, some with sense! I wouldn't want to have to watch my rear the whole time, and THAT is the bottom line.

[DennyCrane]

Your blog illustrates exactly why Obama should NOT pick Hillary as his VP. Whereas Johnson helped LBJ carry Texas, Hillary doesn't help Obama carry New York. He'd carry it even without her. Hillary being on the ticket won't help Obama carry places like West Virginia either. The bottom line for those people is they want a white person being President, so they'll opt for McCain. Hillary actually hurts the ticket. By offering Obama her the VP spot, he undercuts his own message. It would spark the same kind of outrage that Nixon's agreement with Rockefeller did. A lot of people supporting Obama would desert him if Hillary is his running mate cause they will feel betrayed.

[DazedandConfused]

I'm really so tired of being "afraid" of the big, bad Republicans so that the Dems are in constant "freakout" regarding the nominee. I don't care what the polls suggest (although most suggest that either Obama or Hillary beat McCain), it's not going to be a close race. Look at the recent Democratic congressional victory in Mississippi. Mississippi! I think most American voters are pretty stupid -- they totally bought into the Iraq War and the conflation of Osama and Saddam -- but they seem to be finally fed up w/ the BS that the Republicans have been feeding us. Ineffective government (think Katrina), massive debt, inflation, declining wages, war, etc. Who wants to live in that version of America? The media suggests that the Republicans have a "lock" on the Presidency. That is BS. I still say that Gore would have EASILY won the 2000 election if Bill Clinton had kept his pants zipped up. I personally don't care about Bill's extra-curricula activities, but his shenanigans (and/or the chads or Supreme Court) cost us the 2000 election. Nonetheless, just because we experienced a "backlash" against Bill (and 9/11 and fear-mongering help to extend the Republican edge), there is NO WAY that Republicans will win in 2008.

[SaltySaltillo]

Mr Schonfeld - it is not that you are the only person that still remembers 1960, you are just one of the vocal few who chooses to MISREMEMBER 1960. If you recall, in 1960 candidates were chosen at the convention, not before, and were not chosen by pledged delegates awarded during state primaries. In fact, the idea of a state primary was only just catching on in 1960, as only 15 states held primaries and awarded delegates based on primaries. President Johnson, who became Kennedy's toughest rival at the convention, blew off the primaries entirely and didn't even run in those 15 states, choosing instead to build a back room coalition of southern democrat power brokers (equivalent to today's superdelegates) to make a play at the convention. We owe our current democratic primary selection process to the sensible reforms implemented by McGovern after 1968.

This sort of "misremembering" is disturbing­... when people like you Mr Schonfeld are willing to change and distort facts in order to spin reality in favor of your political agenda, what does that say about what kind of people we have become?

[LesHamilton]

The 1960's media coverage of the campaigns was mostly by newspaper and a couple of Sunday morning political talk shows; 24/7 CNN was not even on the horizon. There was nothing like the scrutiny modern candidates are getting along with relentless negative messaging. Decisions are being made faster, positions are being entrenched deeper and damage is accumulating and lasting for both candidates. The convention is not the first sight many Americans get of the candidates any more.

However, the reason this campaign should end now is that the Democrats shot themselves in the foot with the Michigan/Florida primary fiasco. The sight of Hillary’s campaigners sitting in those two delegations waving banners and shouting down the Rules Committee could be the only lasting image coming out of the convention. No one is advancing any equitable way to deal with this problem short of re-voting and those in charge don’t seem to be planning one.

[AshleyMarie]

Hillary wouldn't know a fair fight if it bit her in the @ss!!!!!

[preemptivelove]

it isn't 1960.

[sd4peace]

Excellent point!

[S1m0n]

The rules and expectations of another day would be fine, if those were the expectations of today. They're not. The convention is a now a LOT farther back in the year, as it has evolved to have a different function in recent decades. Now, parties expect to know their nominees much earlier and to kick off their fall campaigns at a convention in late august.

Hillary Clinton's desire to return to the rules of the fifties is like her sudden desire to accept republican primary dates in michigan and florida: both are entirely self-serving, retroactive, and motivated solely by the benefit such would give her.

Hillary's initial campaign strategy was ALL ABOUT a winning a slam-dunk primary victory and bullying her opposition out of the race by february 6. Her conversion on the road to denver is so insincere and self-serving it should provoke nothing but derision.

[leftbehind2000]

"It was forty-eight years ago in West Virginia that John Kennedy won the state primary and proved that a Catholic could carry an overwhelmingly Protestant state."

And after Tennessee, West Virginia and, soon, Kentucky, Obama will have yet to prove that he can carry an overwhelmingly racist one.

That said, the rules were supposed to have changed since the back room politics of the '60's. I for one don't want the delegates deciding for me which candidate will represent me in the GE.

[pkrbkr]

The convention in 1960 was in early July, and the convention this year is in late August. This cannot go to the convention because there simply is not enough time following it to prepare for the fall. Senator Clinton cannot win the nomination. That has been clear for a while now. It is certainly her right to actively stay in the race and not suspend, but it is not her responsibility to do so, as this author and some of her other supporters suggest. The Party is more divided now than it was just a few weeks ago, and it is patently ridiculous to suggest that is a great thing while we are at war, the economy is tanking, environmental problems are worsening, etc., etc. Senator Clinton can make as big a stink as she chooses for as long as she likes. What she cannot do is win the nomination so what really is her motivation?

[TimSearl]

Becuase of campaign finance law, Clinton has only till the convention to pay off her debt. After the convention she can only raise $250,000 towards her debt. So sure. Let her spend another 20 million, 50 million 100 million and carry on to fight on the convention floor. That is totally fine by me.

[Ramonito]

Let me butt in, he is both - weak and black and for this, he will lose big time in November! Why he is where he is, is a pre-planned conspiracy of corporate-owned media and their big Repug boses and moneymen to pick a DL (Designated Loser) to run against a Reagan/Bush regime successor. This has been gamed from the start and all the fawning and effusive praises by pundits (hacks) and MSM propagandists are all part of Grand Charade played to bamboozle and hoodwink voters and the public at large. At the end of the nomination process, they would tear Osbama Bin Lyin' to shreds in the GE. Those supporting this megalomaniac fraud are doing a dumb, dumber, dumberer and dumberest trip to political infamy - the realm of Obamalivion! You are throwing this election to the Repugs! SNATCHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY!!!

[stevietheman]

Ridiculous. Obama is actually going to be the strongest candidate the Democrats have had in a generation.

[RossalGondamer]

What is never mentioned is McCain - Ghost white and weaker.

Obama may be pure 'cult of personality' but thats more than enough considering the competition.

[darcy]

Ramonito, well said! This whole charade has been engineered by the media to serve the desires of their corporate masters. It's disgusting!

[TimSearl]

Your great white hope was a great white hype. Give it up already.

[jpcline004]

Actually, the whole thing has been engineered by millions of activists, volunteers and donors, not to mention some brilliant political advisors and the most inspiring Democratic candidate since JFK. I think you might be sitting too close to the TV my friend.

[preemptivelove]

hahahahaha­hahhahahah­ahahahahah­ahahahhaha­hahahahaha­hhaha!

[Oldchef]

Bullcrap! The corporate candidate here is Clinton. The proven liar here is Clinton. The" game from the start" was always to paint Clinton as the ordained "candidate of the people", but we are a lot smarter than her handlers expected. Obama '08!

[sd4peace]

How's that colon of yours looking with the view you have you should see it clearly

[rosecar]

You need to come out of the '60's. The reason Hillary Clinton is losing is that her campign decided it was okay to insult the black vote who help put them in the white house, defended him when was impeached and helped to make him a statesman after leaving the white house. Loyal supporters.

There are a lot of us who work hard!!!

[preemptivelove]

yeah, i wondered why that little "slip" of the tongue wasn't criticized like obama's "bitter" comment. the notion that her base is "hard working americans--white americans" is laughable, and insulting.

it ain't 1960, mr. schonfeld. read frank rich from sunday's ny times.

[Futureosophy]

Bringing her on the ticket maybe exactly what he has to do, then relegates her and her husband to working over seas for the next 4 years.
Social Commentary @ www.futureosophy.com

[pamelagoodenough]

How would Barack explain selecting HRC for VP when she has so savagely attacked him with her lies and innuendo? The more this campaign for the nomination grinds on the more I learn to despise the Clintons. I was just too naive back in the 1990s to get it, when I actually cared about them and voted for Bubba (twice!) and defended his sorry ass thinking it was the Christian thing to do. But he and his wife are poor losers who have become corrupted by their money and power. They are a real example of ambition and corruption.

Someone should take Shillery aside and tell her this is about more than her career. It is about changing the course of a sinking ship. Our ship is sinking because of Bushco. Everyone in the world knows that.

Only a new personality, with a real vision and with the backing of the people (yes, most of us are voting for Barack) can make real changes. Shillery and MCBomb are beholden to the corrupt power brokers and cannot be trusted.

[adavis08]

This post would be relevent if it were 1960. Obama has changed the electoral map. Things are different . Hillary Clinton's support of the Iraq war would be used by the Republicans against him, just as it was used against John Kerry, as a flip flop. That is one of Baracks strongest arguments. Also she had said she and McCain are the only ones with experience to be president. how would these statements be counteracted? She has cooked her own goose, by her statements that can't be taken back, unlike the candidates cited in the post.

[dharmamom]

I've been reading Huffpost since it first started and generally love the features. But this whole attack Hillary and have it done with already is childish. I think O supporters are in a bubble. That's cool, but reality is that much of the democratic party, the people who have been dems for decades, the old, blue collar, ok whites, like HIllary...­their families like Hillary, men and women both. Enough do that we have to see this thing to the end, without childishness or curlishness. Someone sent me a horrible utube parody of H . It was Hitler screaming at his generals with subtitles of him as H scream a vendetta about her opponent and his supporters. It was in bad bad taste, horrible and actually scary that O supporters are that angry and mean and vindictive. Why? I would guess fear. Fear makes people do terrible things. That is disconcerting about this candidate and his amorphous platform..

[TimSearl]

"the people who have been dems for decades" are those referred to as Reagan democrats because they supported Reagon, Bush I, Bush II. Whatever democrats they are they are not great supporters of the democratic party. There is no way to know how they would vote in the general but I dont even think it is likely the would support Clinton against McCain. Obamas core support is going to be liberal democrats, and college educated independents are going to be his swing demographic. The blue collars who voted for Bush twice, will vote for McSame.

[darcy]

I agree, dharmamom. O-bots are behaving just like bush-bots. Anger, lack of logic, willful blindness, and selfishness characterize their behavior.