John F. Kennedy was the great Democratic candidate in 1960 and ultimately president primarily because he lost his first bid for national office in the 1956 Democratic convention.
Obama-JFK: There are lots of similarities. This diary will adrress the similarities and Obama's swing state problems and electability in 2008.
Elections didn't come too easily...
Like Obama, JFK had the historical appearance of cutting through butter most of his electoral life. But, JFK had a significant test when he unseated Henry Cabot Lodge, a popular incumbent in a tight Senate race. No easy task. That one election was far more difficult than Obama or Clinton ever faced. JFK also served in the Congress for fourteen years. Yet, he still lost his first national bid. It was harder for JFK than matches modern impressions.
The 1956 Democratic Convention...
JFK was bitter and disappointed by his national vp convention loss in 1956. He was personally angry for Stevenson 'betraying' him. He was angry with party insiders. In 1956, JFK was also an national upstart. He was challenging the party and party leaders, taking short cuts. JFK was specifically not liked by Eleanor Roosevelt and the Roosevelt wing of the party. Eleanor thought JFK was inexperienced, audacious, and lightweight and not progressive on the issues. They were right, to a degree. JFK was ambitious in 1956, although it was widely considered that he was detached from domestic policy details and attached to larger concepts. His 1956 loss changed that. By 1960, he learned to engage his party's progressive core on the issues.
1956-2008 Parallels...
There are more parallels between JFK in 1956 and Obama in 2008 than 1960. It was both their national first's. They were both considered attractive, rhetorical, light on issues, young, and inexperienced. They both engaged in early triangulating. (JFK moved right of party on national defense as a cold warrior, Obama was introduced to the nation reaching-out to and being praised by Republicans on his keynote speech and later military pledges). These political moves generated distrust from the party base. The progressives-core trusted neither but they were, regardless, attracted to the candidates. JFK was not born out of the Stevenson-Roosevelt's wing of the party, but he learned to engage it and adopt it's issues after his 1956 loss. Obama and JFK both appealed to new voters, independents, and the young. The Democratic party embraced the largess both candidates brought to the party... with caution.
JFK lost his national bid in 1956. This loss taught JFK not only better personal skills, but political skills. Through this loss, JFK learned both temperament and game. He learned to work with progressives and adopted many of their positions by 1960. How JFK reacted to the 1956 loss is important. JFK was immediately bitter, he took it personally, but, this didn't last. Arguably, Obama took New Hampshire worse. For the next few weeks Obama was a different candidate, he lacked a temperament that would have served him well. JFK quickly adjusted from bitterness to clarity. JFK set aside his anger and, through loss, he learned the ultimate political skill: Temperament.
Temperament.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said of Franklin Roosevelt:
"second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament."
Arguably, Barack Obama 2008 is the flip. Obama is obviously intelligent. But, naturally, in his first national campaign, Obama's temperament has shown strain.
Obama and his supporters have had high-highs and low-lows. This has shaken his and his supporter's temperaments. Remember, JFK buried the Stevenson betrayal, Roosevelt disdain, the 'Catholic question' and many negative attacks. JFK did feel it personally, but he buried it. JFK learned political temperament and another level of cool through this loss. He immediately began campaigning for the man who betrayed him and the national Democratic ticket in 26 states.
Will Obama lose his first national bid...
Obama's coming off a state primary high. Clinton leads nationally, in the big states, some key swing states and border states with more than 3 to 1 Hispanic support. Obama or Edwards might still change this dynamic. I have supported Edwards for two good reasons: his superior progressive platform and his general election viability. What about the other two...
I want to win..
I am not discussing delegates, just general election. Big States will fall in line:
I will give Obama supporters this: Our big deep blue states will fall in line with an Obama nomination. Although Clinton has plus 15% leads in big states like CA and NY which does indicate some elect ability, I will concede that these big states will fall in line. But, this is not true for swing states.
Swing States do not fall in line...
Did we all learn anything from 2000 and 2004? I hope so. The polls in the swing states are KEY indicators of general election viability. Let's look at our favorite topics: Florida, Ohio, and western border states.
Florida: Obama sits flatly at 20%. This concerns me most, because the nation knows Obama by now. Why isn't Florida responding? This is not a good indication. Not for Florida.
Ohio, Ohio, Ohio: A fresh Rasmussen poll indicates McCain beats Clinton by 2%, but McCain beats Obama by 7%. Ohio is a must win, I don't like these numbers for Obama. ( http://www.transworldnews.com/... )
Missouri: Missouri is bellweather. It just elected a female Democratic Senator in 2006. According to Rasmussen, new poll, Obama is in THIRD PLACE, behind Edwards. This is weeks after Senator Mccaskill's Obama endorsement. Does this weak performance foreshadow an elect ability problem in Midwestern states? ( http://www.transworldnews.com/... )
Western border states: Hillary does better than 3-1 with Hispanics. This cannot be overlooked. I see no indication they will fall in line with an Obama nomination. This would a series of western border states which had slim spreads in 2004.
NO EMOTION...
Making general election judgments is not an emotional task. This is not the OP-ED of the NYTimes, a clash of personalities, political endorsements, or the various bonfires. Republicans and big industry see the same polls I see. Are they attacking Clinton because of her strength in Florida, Ohio, Missouri and strength with Hispanics (considered the prime GOP problem)? I don't believe the meme's I hear on TV. Do your own research. Therefore,
Obama-supporters: What is YOUR Florida, Ohio, Midwestern state, swing state, border state argument for Obama? Edwards has had a general election argument for months and dairies have been posted in that regard. Clinton is showing hers in the polls. I want to read a coherent, UNEMOTIONAL electornal, swing state argument for Obama.
Conclusion...
There is a lot to like about Barack Obama, like JFK in 1956, but lets not get ahead of ourselves without some sceince. This nomination is also about picking a mule that can win, loading the mule with progressive issues, pushing it to the white house and pushing after that. Politicians are not my religious or spiritual leaders. I will continue pushing the most progressive candidate. In the meantime, we should have logical conversations about winning. We must look beyond evidence from four states. It's time to look at regions, voting blocks, and most importantly... SWING STATES. We must have learned something from 2000 and 2004.
With respect to Caroline and not inconsistent with her article, I believe 2008 Obama is 1956 JFK. That's not so bad.