My God.
He’s right. :eek:
-FrL-
Roosevelt is only a footnote in that regard. Kennedy was the youngest person elected as president. That’s what it means to break down a barrier. I think it is disingenuous to compare running a campaign and winning an election against all odds to a sheer stroke of luck.
You’ve misunderstood my point. Kennedy, like all men, was a man of his time. A half century later, a man of similar principles–fairness, equality, justice–would have different policy beliefs.
You say it’s not about personality. That’s not entirely true. Policy does matter. And Obama has more specific policies than any of the Republicans, with the exception of McCain on the war. But personality also matters. Inspiration matters. Change isn’t just picking the right policies. It is much more than that, and a lot of it is character and personality.
Can we at least all agree that, whatever JFK’s actual merits as president, and whatever the justice of a comparison between him and Obama, Caroline Kennedy’s statement is much, much more likely to help than hurt Obama’s chances at the nomination?
No question. But I don’t know how much it helps, really - these endorsements work only in the aggregate.
Think about how you vote - you don’t base your vote on who others are voting for, even if these others are people you like and respect.
Most people will read this as either agreeing with a choice they’ve already made or as a choice Caroline Kennedy made that doesn’t match theirs. It won’t go any further than that.
Obama gets an endorsement from Toni Morrison. Guess she found someone “blacker” than Bill afterall.
I was thinking the same thing. Let’s hope life is not like a movie and Kennedy’s statement is not to be interpreted as foreshadowing.
Well, it’ll be forgotten in a week, so… eh.
In real terms, I think that the idea behind the endorsement and its timing is to pull some committed primary voters in the Northeast Super Tuesday states away from Clinton, especially women. We’ll see what happens.
Look, you clearly were talking out of your ass when you called him the youngest President. This isn’t a matter for debate, Roosevelt was younger than Kennedy, period. You clearly and unequivocally stated the Kennedy was the “youngest President” this is factually false no matter what caveats you want to add to it.
“Against all odds” doesn’t describe the Presidency of either Theodore Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy. Both were raised in extremely powerful, well connected families. Both men were born wealthy. Both men had distinguished military records on their resume. Both men were charismatic and widely delighted audiences when they spoke. T.R. and JFK both exemplified what it was to be a hero in their time and place in America.
I can’t really look at JFK, and all he had going for him, and say “this guy won the Presidency against all odds.” There was one thing going against him, and that was his Catholicism. It’s quite overblown, the Irish had been well established in America and even American politics for several generations pre-Kennedy. The primary elections showed that his Catholic faith was not, in fact, a big hindrance to Kennedy’s electability so one can’t really sit there and say he overcame overwhelming odds.
Abraham Lincoln grew up in relative poverty and rose to the highest position in the country–and with very little formal education. Kennedy was the progeny of an extremely well connected and wealthy family, he rode a silver spoon to Harvard and his family connections are the entire reason he was elected to the Senate. This was not a man who “overcame all odds” unless you think Bush “overcame all odds” in winning in 2000. The Kennedys are very similar to the Bush family in general wealth, long-standing political connections and et cetera. No one tries to claim George H.W. or George W. were “overcoming all odds” when they spun their inherited wealth and prestige into successful political careers. That’s what Kennedy did.
I don’t have a problem with wealthy, elite families. Especially when they are devoted to public service, but to say that men who come from such families are “overcoming adversity” when they gain election is ludicrous.
They’re trying to reach out to Republicans. 
Reach out, as in under the next stall?
Jefferson and Lincoln weren’t Protestant either.
Shh!
Most of my family is Catholic, and they certainly saw Kennedy as a groundbreaking political figure in 1960.
So don’t take this nitpicking too far.
So, as a result of Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there were fewer nuclear missiles aimed at both sides. That sounds to me like a pretty impressive accomplishment.
And while it’s conceivable that Bush will be remembered for tax cuts, if so, it’s unjustly. Taxes have been incredibly high under Bush; they’ve just been disguised. Take a look, some time, at how much value you have in savings right now, compared to how much you had in 2000. I know that, for myself, it’s less, due to the plummet of the dollar, which is in turn in large part due to various policies of Bush’s administration.
The first Roman Catholic, then.
I corrected my error, which consisted of leaving out the word “elected” between “youngest” and “president”. You knew what was meant, I believe, and your pointing out the Roosevelt footnote was the equivalent of mocking a typo.
Not so sure about the Lincoln thing, hajaro. From this first inaugural addresss: “Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.”
What does that even mean? (I had been agreeing with you.)