John Heilermann points out that after Tuesday’s primary results in Maryland, Virginia and DC, Barack Obama is looking like the heir apparent. Heilermann also thinks that Obama could either be the next John Kennedy or the next Jimmy Carter. Let me expand on that thought by not assuming the outcome in November. Let’s expand our consideration to include two other Democratic presidential candidates who came out of nowhere to rally the party to their cause (but lost to the GOP). Those candidates would be Michael Dukakis (1988) and George McGovern (1972).
So now we have more of a range. McGovern was arguably the worst of the worst; he never ever had a chance against Nixon. Dukakis, by contrast, did seem viable at first; polls in May and June of 1988 showed him running ahead of George H.W. Bush. But within a few months, Bush would take a commanding lead and would trounce the Duke in the general election. Next on the spectrum is Jimmy Carter, who won the election but then lost the Presidency (and I still contend that he was the unluckiest President of the 20th Century, or at least tied with Woodrow Wilson). Finally, there is JFK, the guy who won the election and did a good job as President until that black day in Dallas in November of 1963.
So which overall scenario will best fit Barack Obama? Yes, I know; let Obama be Obama. His campaign and his Presidency (if he is elected) won’t be exactly like those of any of these four past Presidents (and God forbid he should have an ending anything like Kennedy’s). But still, the point remains – there is a lot of uncertainty about Obama. We are breaking new historical ground here. The powers-that-be in the Democratic Party seem ready to take the risk, bolstered by polls showing favorable public attitudes, good outcomes in head-to-heads against McCain, and by Obama’s fundraising success. But public opinion is fickle. I hope that Barack Obama is truly the stuff of American greatness, the next tall man from Illinois to rise up to reconcile a fractured nation. We shall see — with prayers again that he doesn’t end up like Lincoln did!
Jim,
Yes, it occurred to me too that I think “this is the year” for all sorts of untoward things to happen to our new president. I wonder if the candidates have thought of that. We can only hope that the untoward things don’t happen at all and that the situation with that scenario will no longer be a part of our history.
And as to JFK: I’ve often wondered: If he had lived, would we still consider him almost a saint? With the claim by some guy recently that he is JFK’s love child, I couldn’t help make the comparison to Clinton. Would JFK have come in for the same scathing nastiness as Bill Clinton has endured for his pecadillos? Some of the stories told about JFK’s antics in the White House certainly make Jackie the one who was saint. It does seem that no matter what has been disclosed regarding JFK’s own idiosyncrasies in the “catting around” department, he still remains a saint.
Then too, I also think there is a great deal of misogyny going on with regard to Hillary. A strong woman who has an agenda that is very specific–good grief! Some of the comments made about her would never be said of a man. I’ve noticed over my lifetime that men will say things to a woman they would never say to a man–and the reason for that is simple: If such things were said to a man, he’d reach out a deck the guy, pure and simple as that.
I recently read an article by Joan Chittester (sp?). She was in Ireland recently and mentioned that over there the people are dismayed at the amount of money that is used just simply in the election process; the Irish think what other kinds of things(specifically, to help the poor, in education, etc.) could be done with that kind of money.
And in line with your “public opinion is fickle” comment, Joan mentioned something else that struck me: It seems one must now be a “celebrity” or have “celebrity status” to be president. So much for “anybody can grow up to be president.”
I have also heard several political commentators say when asked their prediction for who would be nominated that there was no way to tell. And the reason given for “no way to tell” was that all an individual had to do was say one small sound byte that somehow skewed everything–ALA Howard Dean of the last election. Incredible when one thinks of this kind of thing, isn’t it? One wonders: Is there no one who can think for him/herself in the people of the U.S.? Does the entirety of the U.S. have one mob-thought that blows like a breeze here and there? All based on “celebrity.”
I have to say that I simply was turned off by Oprah Winfrey’s stumping for Obama. While Winfrey may do a lot of good for a lot of people, I have been getting the impression lately that she’s actually beginning to believe she’s as wonderful as people seem to think she is–an ominous sign, leading to hubris at least. And if Obama should be next in the White House, what will that say about the influence of “celebrities” on the government of the U.S. When one thinks of the implications down the line, all I can come up with is, again, “Good grief!”
But in the end, perhaps Obama has something special to offer this country (that is, if he wins the Dem nomination); and then I say, the idealistic young people of this day will have to learn the hard way as others who have gone before them have.
But I’ve also had the thought: Unconsidered in this discussion is the possibility that McCain (or so it seems at this point) could possibly be the next president. I wonder if what seems the general consensus (that the Dems will take the next election) will turn out to be the case.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Jim,
Yes, it occurred to me too that I think “this is the year” for all sorts of untoward things to happen to our new president. I wonder if the candidates have thought of that. We can only hope that the untoward things don’t happen at all and that the situation with that scenario will no longer be a part of our history.
And as to JFK: I’ve often wondered: If he had lived, would we still consider him almost a saint? With the claim by some guy recently that he is JFK’s love child, I couldn’t help make the comparison to Clinton. Would JFK have come in for the same scathing nastiness as Bill Clinton has endured for his pecadillos? Some of the stories told about JFK’s antics in the White House certainly make Jackie the one who was saint. It does seem that no matter what has been disclosed regarding JFK’s own idiosyncrasies in the “catting around” department, he still remains a saint.
Then too, I also think there is a great deal of misogyny going on with regard to Hillary. A strong woman who has an agenda that is very specific–good grief! Some of the comments made about her would never be said of a man. I’ve noticed over my lifetime that men will say things to a woman they would never say to a man–and the reason for that is simple: If such things were said to a man, he’d reach out a deck the guy, pure and simple as that.
I recently read an article by Joan Chittester (sp?). She was in Ireland recently and mentioned that over there the people are dismayed at the amount of money that is used just simply in the election process; the Irish think what other kinds of things(specifically, to help the poor, in education, etc.) could be done with that kind of money.
And in line with your “public opinion is fickle” comment, Joan mentioned something else that struck me: It seems one must now be a “celebrity” or have “celebrity status” to be president. So much for “anybody can grow up to be president.”
I have also heard several political commentators say when asked their prediction for who would be nominated that there was no way to tell. And the reason given for “no way to tell” was that all an individual had to do was say one small sound byte that somehow skewed everything–ALA Howard Dean of the last election. Incredible when one thinks of this kind of thing, isn’t it? One wonders: Is there no one who can think for him/herself in the people of the U.S.? Does the entirety of the U.S. have one mob-thought that blows like a breeze here and there? All based on “celebrity.”
I have to say that I simply was turned off by Oprah Winfrey’s stumping for Obama. While Winfrey may do a lot of good for a lot of people, I have been getting the impression lately that she’s actually beginning to believe she’s as wonderful as people seem to think she is–an ominous sign, leading to hubris at least. And if Obama should be next in the White House, what will that say about the influence of “celebrities” on the government of the U.S. When one thinks of the implications down the line, all I can come up with is, again, “Good grief!”
But in the end, perhaps Obama has something special to offer this country (that is, if he wins the Dem nomination); and then I say, the idealistic young people of this day will have to learn the hard way as others who have gone before them have.
But I’ve also had the thought: Unconsidered in this discussion is the possibility that McCain (or so it seems at this point) could possibly be the next president. I wonder if what seems the general consensus (that the Dems will take the next election) will turn out to be the case.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — February 16, 2008 @ 12:41 pm