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

[ann1]

Sir this is a totally different time and era. Both candidates are considered historic. Kennedy and Johnson were "white" men! What's going on now has never been done before. We can't afford to divide our party and lose in Nov for selfish reasons.

[edgraham]

You are correct, this is an historic time -- and it feels great. I really never thought that I would see it in my lifetime. I'm looking forward to Obama getting the nomination.

I think that an open convention would be great fun and really give the voters a chance to see that the Democrats really want to change America for the better. I think that you and many others have been distracted by the MSM proclaiming that the party will not recover from this fight.

Remember who we're running against. After a candidate is chosen, the attack begins on the Republican lies that ruined our country. War, Gas Prices, The Economy, Education, Health Care, Our Damaged Relations with the Rest of the World, Corporate Greed, and the list goes on...

We will win in November, by telling the truth about the Republican agenda. Corporate Greed achieved by dividing Americans along social, ethnic, and religous lines. They are lying bastards with goals that are un American.

Ed Graham (looking forward to a new, improved country)

[carsick]

Let's also not forget that if not for Daley in Chicago, Nixon might have won. In the national popular vote Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%) - the closest popular-vote margin of the twentieth century.

[simplify]

This is the year 2008. The times and the people have changed. So many so called intellectuals and political pundits keep looking at these elections through a window of time thats long past us by.

[kempis]

Fascinating post. Thank you for the much-needed historical perspective.

:)

[jpcline004]

I think a major difference is the fact that the Republicans of 2008 already have their nominee, while the Democrats continue to fight each other and divide the party. We can't wait until august to begin the healing. People are already dissatisfied with the way the primaries and caucuses have gone (thank you numbskull Dem parties of MI and FL) and if the nominee is chosen by perceived "back room deals", people are just going to flat-out not vote in November. We need to focus on winning the general election and be reminded that we are all on the same team, Until we have a clear nominee, people are just going to keep bickering in the Red Sox vs Yankees manner that this campaign has devolved into. For reference, see every comment posted on every Obama or Clinton article on the internet since May 6.

[jfh]

I agree --- for the good of the Democratic Party Saint Obama should drop out.

[CindyV]

Pushing one candidate out before the primaries are over and while she's still winning will NOT heal the party. Let the process play out and both sides will accept the outcome.

[jpcline004]

But continuing the bickering and in-fighting WILL? Thank you both, you are exemplifying my point.

I never said we should "push her out". I respect Sen. Clinton's decision to stay in until the last vote is counted. I was responding to the author's claim that taking this all the way to the convention would be OK. I think it would destroy the party, but I trust that Sen. Clinton will do the right thing and bow out gracefully once the primaries are finished.

[TJS]

How many readers missed the full implication of the last few paragraphs of the post? After Bush/Rove, its getting harder and harder to remember a time when there was a strong progressive, pro-human rights wing of the Republican party. In comparison to today's Republican "base" even the old Republican devil--Nixon--was a liberal (not to mention a foreign policy genius.) While many hope for the destruction of the Republican party, I long for the days when neither party represented a lunatic fringe (neither right or left).

[jpcline004]

AMEN to that.

[messy]

Actually, you DON'T remember the 1960 conventions. The Rockefeller/Nixon conference was in 1959, nobody actually ran against the then-Vice President in the primaries, and except for some people who supported Barry Goldwater, who recieved ten votes, It was extremely harmonius.

Even if you did cover the Republican convention almost half a century ago, a tiny bit of research to refresh your memory would be approprate.

Also, Johnson wasn't running in the primaries in 1960. The delegate selection process was very different back then, and LBJ was going around saying "I have a day job" (which he did), and except for phoning party leaders, didn't campaign at all in the spring.

1960 was nothing like 2008.

[kempis]

The author's point is that the 1960 convention was contested--and it was. Johnson may not have campaigned but he did mount a last-minute "campaign" right before the convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Democratic_Convention

The notion that we must select a nominee by March is fairly new, and probably an effect of contemporary campaigning, with its emphasis on focus groups and poll-driven positions and advertising. It apparently takes time to figure out how to "package" a candidate these days--and still manage convince voters that he/she is really authentic. So we had brush-clearing Bush and "transcendent" Obama.

[AxelDC]

Because everyone knows that Party Conventions are staged infomercials. It is the only time that a party has full, unfiltered access to people's homes where they can give full length speeches and articulate full ideas without commercials, pundits and soundbytes.

If that infomercial turns into an ugly floor fight, it becomes an advertisement of why NOT to vote for the candidate. The 1960 convention was in a different era, and even then, Kennedy won the election by 100k votes.

The only way Obama loses this year is if Clinton submarines him, and I think she intends to do that. She would rather see McCain as president, even if it costs her party seats in both houses of Congress. She foolishly thinks she will get another shot in 2012 when she can say, "I dun told ya he couldn't win!"

[kempis]

The mind-reading abilities of Obamites are truly astounding....They're comparable to those of the dittoheads and freepers and the fried, rightwingnuts at Little Green Footballs. Certainly, you've all come to the same conclusions about the Clintons.

[davidly]

"Sticking to her guns", eh? You forgot two words: Grassy knoll.

You do highlight, however, the vague zig-zag of the party platforms in search of strategic superiority, and-- I'll grant you--in some cases heartfelt belief. Too many "lifelong" Dems today actually believe that their party has always been the liberal or progressive one (not that it is today either, mind you). The military industrial complex was originally the Democrats' Mephistopheles, and the people haven't had a party to represent them since.

[stringer]

Yes you're the only one who remembers the 1960 convention.

And thank God. Obama's running a new type of campaign. If he puts Hillary on the ticket it destroys all of that. Clinton destroys his entire message, allows Republicans to run the comments Hillary made as an attack ad on him and ensures that he will never control his own White House. He can't do that.

He's got to go for either Webb (and get what Hillary indelicately termed as the working-class white vote back) or Sebelius (who is hugely qualified, gets you swing states and hopefully much of the woman's vote back.)

Either is doable and winnable. Technically Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson (to help with Latinos, swing voters and hopefully some WCWs) would do it as well or Strickland as a last resort.

[kempis]

"Obama's running a new type of campaign."

LOL

Right.

[LiberalBuzz]

So if I read this post correctly what you are saying Reese is that we shouldn't bother with the primary's, and caucus' but we should just let the back room bosses work it out???

Seriously?

Because right now Hillary doesn't stand a snowball's chance of winning the popular vote, the delegates OR the superdelegates BUT none of that should matter?

Hillary is being exceptionally publicly divisive unlike the previous candidates you speak of.

She has shown NO class especially with the race baiting. Major difference there.

[Deaninphilly]

Yes, that is what he is saying and yes that IS what is going to happen. Only now we call them Super Delegates. Welcome to politics, glad you could join us.

Personally, I think we need to do away with this SD and caucus bull. It needs to be a primary election in all the states, no caucus's and the winner takes all the delegates. No SD's, just the votes of the people, period.

[kempis]

Exactly. Yesterday, a Clinton pledged delegate switched to Obama--the sort of thing that would have the Obamites howling "THEFT!" if it were reversed.

Truly, this nomination has demonstrated that unless there is a clear voter favorite, the party bosses get to pick the nominee. Obama will have a 1-2% structural advantage over Clinton, and Clinton has the electability argument on the electoral map, but the DNC will crown Obama--for reasons *other* than electability.

[MSaldana]

Deaninphilly says:

"Personally, I think we need to do away with this SD and caucus bull. It needs to be a primary election in all the states, no caucus's and the winner takes all the delegates. No SD's, just the votes of the people, period."

You have it exactly right. Note also that if this were the system being used (the only fair one - ironic that the GOP uses it, but not the democrats!) Senator Clinton would already have locked up the nomination!

-MS

[caral]

There’s a wonderful Japanese proverb that fits what seems to be happening with this primary:

"The old forget. The young don't know."

[KillTheMessenger]

The Japanese lost WW II after committing horrible atrocities in China and all over the Pacific. Be careful who you chose as your cultural role model. As far as the Kamikaze fighter goes, Senator Clinton seems to have real appreciation for the idea.

[MasterPierpont]

She has chances at the convention? What chances? A chance to make a total fool of herself?

Or perhaps a chance to personally apologize for running one of the most shameless, desperate campaigns in recent history.

[paragrafH]

Why do people brand her as a loser? Because she's a delusional liar and a bad manager and a selfish, arrogant, vindictive game-player. That's why. That's also why she'd make a TERRIBLE vice president and shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of the White House.

[Cilantro]

Why do "people" brand her as a loser? What "people" are YOU talking about? Last time I checked Obama has been the one LOSING in the big, important SWING states one after the next? Did he win California, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Massachusetts etc etc ? NO NO NO NO NO NO - Obama LOST - LOST - LOSER - LOSER.

Obama and his hoards are the delusional ones. Hillary Selfish? Hmmm, who gave millions more to charity than OBAMA? Hillary! If she is such a bad manager how did she get this far? Arrogant? Talk about arrogant is OBAMA! He is the elitist along with his wife. West Virginia does not matter? OH, so if you are white you do not matter, if you do not have a college degree you do not matter? There are a lot more whites in this country without college degrees than there are whites with college degrees and a lot more whites than there are blacks in this country. These are plain simple mathematical facts.

[KMan1]

She lost. Let it go

[janeadams]

Buyer's remorse in CA:
http://cbs5.com/politics/poll.clinton.obama.2.720136.html

And in NJ
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080430/NEWS/804300402

Obama got more delegates in TX.

By no stretch of the imagination is MA a swing state. It's blue all the way.

And your argument regarding race is continuing the same divisive politics of the repubs.

[prittfumes]

Hear! Hear!

[Herrington]

Good God, these outcomes were part and parcel of why the primary systems were established, to give the public a better sense that they were part of the process. To go back to brokering a nominee is not progress. If anything, this latest nomination proceeding argues for a more democratic process, the abandonment of the caucus and the single national primary for both parties.

Then of course we will start over again. If one party consistently loses, it will be blamed on the advent of a national primary system rather than the quality of candidates and the merits of the parties. It is a process of growing up.

[randyjet]

It is obvious that we have a bunch of ignorant people posting. They do not remember or know that black Americans were mostly Republicans. Dr. King's father was planning on voting for Nixon until Kennedy made his famous telephone call to his wife supporting her and King while he was in jail. Jackie Robinson, the most famous black American campaigned for Nixon. It was JFKs open support of King that tilted the black vote to the Democrats and provided the margin that made JFK President.
While it is true that Daley stole some votes in Chicago, even had IL not gone for Kennedy, he still would have won. That fact is why Nixon did not pursue the vote fraud in Chicago. It would not have changed the outcome.