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

[KillTheMessenger]

That's all very nice. Except that it's over. Old men's tales make no difference.

[tkondaks]

HuffingtonPost readers note: it was Nixon the Republican who had the better civil rights platform. Kennedy got elected SOLELY because he kowtowed to the DixieCrats of the South who were virulently pro-segregation.
That's why Martin Luther King had to wait for the Johnson administration to get anything substantive in the way of civil rights legislation passed...and then only got the legislation passed with the support of Republicans in Congress.
That's why when as Attorney-General Robert Kennedy would lobby his brother, the president, on behalf of African-Americans, JFK would, once Bobby was out of earshot, refer to his brother's position derisively as "Bobby and his Negroes".

[dlswriter]

Many Dixiecrats became Republicans and went on to build the now current republican regime as Trent Lott so eloquently stated..."When Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

Yes, the republicans still embrace the christian conservative racist agenda and the Democrats will put the first African-American in the WH

[tkondaks]

dlswriter, you really should learn your American history instead of buying into the stereotypes you have been fed by Hollywood movies:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47449

[IntrepidReader]

"Well only if it's a required course. Some of us just drop the damn thing and move on."

That many Americans have dropped the study of history is sadly obvious, but it's certainly nothing to be proud of. It does, however, make it astonishingly easy to play them over and over with the same set of tricks.

[leftcoastliberal]

The only reason Kennedy/Johnson won in '60 was because of voter fraud in Chicago courtesy of Mayor Daly. Democrats don't do that kind of stuff any more (though Republicans do, see Florida 2000), so we can't really hope to replicated their success.

[thegaygardener]

Did I miss the part in this fascinating history lesson where LYNDON JOHNSON went & endorsed NIXON? as Clinton did McCain. Was there such a thing as superdelegates then? How about the allocation of pledged delegates via the primary totals?

I really do not think it fair to judge this contest based primary procedures that have not been in effect for almost 50 YEARS!!!!!!!

Does anyone out there really think that if the shoe were on the other foot, people wouldn't be SCREAMING for Obama to drop out?
He has met all the standards. He has followed all the rules. HE HAS WON FAIR & SQUARE. We can't keep changing the rules & regulations & moving the goalposts just so that the" inevitable nominee" gets her way!

[AdamX]

The media trying to "drum her out"? Wrongo. I am personally trying to drum her out. I can not wait until she is out - out of the senate too. The media has nothing to do with it. The media has all but ignored 90% of the bad side of Hillary Clinton. She is a liar and a thief - not what we want in our government.

Let's drum her out - for good.

[kramskoi]

the meat of the matter is this...both Clinton and Obama will undoubtedly have to entertain questions about comments that Clinton either made or insinuated during the primaries...the entire campaign could be dogged by an endless array of distracting questions by media types with ulterior motives...every time Clinton gets face time, any compliments paid to Obama would come under immediate scrutiny because of what she said previously...perhaps this is what Pelosi and Kennedy are speaking to...

Clinton has attacked Obama in ways that only a Republican would...perhaps her marginalizing assessments are'nt seen as comments with appreciable ground for back-tracking by party leaders...it undermines Obama's candidacy because her support won't come across as authentic by undecided voters...his candidacy would strain credibility...the punditry keep spinning her for 2012 but future viability is speculative...Presidential campaigns are matters of timing more than preparation...Obama has come to understand this.

VP candidates are by nature subordinate and complimentary...Hillary is neither and we all know what we'd expect from Bill...how does this candidacy perform as a presidency?...you'd in effect have three opinionated, would-be presidents mulling around the white house...fact-checking, back-biting, and in-fighting could result, especially given the bitterness of an extended campaign...there should be less emphasis made on making sure that Democrats are a lock for November and more on how we put this country on a permanent path of improvement, and for more than just four years...

[DumbDad]

That was an amazing tidbit about Rockefeller and Nixon in l960. I was pretty young but I never knew the Republican stand was that much in favor of desegregation that late. It puts a whole new light on the alleged 'turn' of Nixon in '68 to make his deal with Strom Thurmond to launch the 'Southern Strategy'.

People keep saying we're at a better place as a nation than we were the those years, but the huge slice of white America that went for Nixon then never swayed in their basic loyalty. Being against desegregation was what won their hearts, and even tho they've been screwed by Republicans ever since, they still believe those people are their friends.

[curiousasheck]

I say let it go to the convention floor. Then we'll find out who the winner is.

[politicalscientist]

I agree! Barack is a very weak candidate. I want our party to win this time.

[sky2blue]

We've won 3 special elections with the Dem candidate being tied to Obama! 3 congressional election from heavily Rep seats. How is Obama a "very weak candidate"?

[PhDiva]

Do you mean weak or do you mean black? Tell the truth.

[patrice37]

Actually, I do remember 1960. But the rules have changed, thank God, to give more voice to the voters and less to the idiot machine hacks who used to choose our nominees. Under the modern rules, Obama is winning, clearly and fairly. Reese, you've had 48 years to stop living in the past. You might want to start catching up.

[lucidthoughts]

You are kidding right? The political hacks are just in Obama's corner now, they are on The HIll and they are the pundits that are on TV everynight. You call the proportional distribution of votes in states fair? Why not winner take all--that would be fair! What the hell is the caucus BS in the Democratiic Party? You call that Democratic? Most voters don't want to caucus for hours screaming at each other about their candidate, they want the privacy of a voting booth to make their very personal decision. Plus, did anybody do a 'income' poll of caucus voters/attendeees? My bet is they made more than 50k a year and have plenty of time on their hands to caucus while others are working late on the night shift. For all this talk from Obama supporters the last 3 months that SUPERDELEGATES shouldn't make the final call--that's all they've been pumping this past month. SUPERDELEGATES moving to Obama. LISTEN UP, BE FAIR & REAL--Bottomline, Obama won't hit 2025 with just pledged delegates. He needs the SuperDelegates to win too. Let's all call it for what it is. Stop with the BS already.

[sky2blue]

The 2025 is the sum of super AND pledged delegates needed. Obama is close to getting both the majority of the pledged and superdelegates.

And Clinton knew the rules when she anounced. I don't remember complaints about caucuses in December.

[sky2blue]

I have to reply her because the reply button for the comment I'm actually responding to is missing.

Anyway, if you don't like caucuses, that's fair. And, NO, she didn't complain.

[janeadams]

Gee, in 92 and 96 the Clintons had no problem with caucuses. Suddenly, now, when HRC loses them, they do. Funny how that works.

[patmancando]

You can never say clearly and fairly as long as only 48 state's votes count. This will come back and bite the Democratic party in the arse if they allow Obama to win under these circumstances. Hillary's die-hard supporters will not consider him a legitimate candidate, and as the exit polls say, they will not support Obama. The democratic party, which is salivating at the idea that large numbers of young voters have joined the Dems, think that when push comes to shove Hillary's voters will vote for Obama. Being one of her passionate women voters, I know that isn't true.

[sky2blue]

If you don't wanna support Obama, that's fine. Can't fault you for that. I have no intentions of voting for Clinton should she succeed in getting the nomination. Fair is fair.

I only have a quibble with this whole "48 states" meme. Clinton has dismiss caucuses, primaries in "small" states, primaries in "red" states. Basically, she's discounted any state she's lost. How does that equal 50?

[PhDiva]

You don't want Obama to win "under these circumstances." Under what circumstances? The circumstances of winning the pledged delegates, the superdelegates, the popular vote, and every other possible metric? What you're saying is you don't want the black guy to win even if he wins fairly. Right? Just tell the truth.

[janeadams]

Then you plan on voting against women's issues in the general? Have you looked at McCain's policies on reproductive rights? I am a woman voter and an Obama supporter, but there is no way I'd vote for McCain in the general. I hope you will reconsider your position come November.

[sd4peace]

FL and MI have only themselves to blame in the end.

[doonie]

I don't ever recall JFK or Johnson for that matter being caught lying to our face, and then claiming misspeak. How does one forget whether they were dodging bullets, with their child. One doesn't. HRC's behavior in this campaign has been horrendous and damaging to the democratic process let alone to feminists. We only had one Kennedy if I recall as well as one Johnson. Clintons...been there,done that. We as voters have a constitutional right not to return the White House to this family, some of us weren't impressed the first time with Bill's impeachment process. Were JFK or Johnson ever impeached? It would just be nice, particularly after Bush, to return a sense of decency, integrity to the Oval Office and to a President who won't lie to the American public, but tell it like it is. We're grown ups,we can take it.

[randyjet]

You obviously didn't know LBJ or his reputation. He was known as one who would never keep his word or tell the truth if he could help it.

[robXdion]

You should be put in a museum just like artifacts from that time. We are moving on. And we don't need wild riots or fights on the convention floor so you can be reminded of your youth.

[MSaldana]

Gee, another Obamabot dismissing the older democratic vote! it's amazing how many committed democrats these geniuses think they can do without come November. Oh well, must make excuses for juvenile "minds."

-MS

[bbrecht]

Did Johnson ever suggest that Nixon would make a better Commander- in-Chief than Nixon?
Did he ever say that Kennedy was unelectable because he couldnt win the votes of "hard working americans, protestant Americans" ? Did he throw kitchen sinks and fill our airways with toxic drama? Was his campaign $25 million in debt? Clinton can stick to her guns, but the race is over.

[Krikkit]

I absolutely agree with your criticism of this piece. Those were different days, ones on the cusp of sweeping changes to our political process in which "fair and square fights on the convention floor" and "party bosses" were giving way to media-driven prime time drama.

Back then, candidates may have cursed each other behind closed doors to close confidants, but they didn't air dirty laundry about their fellow candidates in public. They didn't willingly work to undermine their own party in order to eke out an exceedingly slim chance for victory. For that matter, "back then" was just last election cycle.

As much as TV changed the political landscape, Hillary's tactics have changed it yet again, and not for the better. I just pray that the change isn't a one-way ticket, that it is merely an aberration that will be forgotten in time.

[4wehttam]

1960 is not 2008......................Get in with the modern ages my friend. She lost, the only way she can win is to continue playing dirty politics and SPIN GAMES. Pledging her commitment to rules, then breaking those rules, changing the rules PAST the middle of the game, changing the numbers, relying on OLD statistics and polls. This is a new age, we have the first viable woman and black candidate so the stakes are more emotional and played in a very different way. The American people are tired of old politics, so you and your cronies who want to have a disastrous convention outcome need to come to grips with reality.

[cleffnote]

Those that do not remember history will be doomed to repeat it.

[DumbDad]

Well only if it's a required course. Some of us just drop the damn thing and move on.

[sky2blue]

I don't think 1960 and 2008 are comparable. For a few reason not least of all being the changes in the election calender.