Obama: A JFK Replay?
Howard Salter
August 27, 2007
In early August, Senator Barack Obama delivered the most covered, controversial and talked about foreign policy speech this year of any candidate for president – Republican or Democrat.
Obama’s theme, of a need to “turn the page”, was a direct criticism of not only the foreign policy direction of the Bush administration, but also a way to illustrate that even his Democratic colleagues and contenders for the party’s nomination are out of step with the American public.
After a blast of initial intensity by several of Obama’s Democratic contenders, no less than senior statesman, historian and grey-haired guru of the Democratic Party -- Ted Sorenson -- authored an op-ed in the Des Moines Register where he argued not only that Obama is right about his world view, but Sorenson also takes a whack about his fellow Dems who have called Obama “naïve” and “untested”.
Sorenson penned, “As America's standing and credibility in the world - and thus the security of our citizens - continue to plunge with each passing month of the Bush administration, foreign-policy judgment increasingly becomes the overriding criterion for the selection of our next president.
"Those Democratic contenders who, as U.S. senators, voted to authorize the most disastrous blunder in U.S. foreign-policy history - the mindless, needless invasion and endless occupation of Iraq - are trying now to regain ground not by stopping the continuing tragic loss of American blood, billions and moral authority in Iraq, but by questioning the foreign-policy credentials of the one serious candidate who opposed the war even before its launch - Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.”
Later in his op-ed, Sorenson made an important comparison– especially to the Democratic base – as he equates Obama with another youthful Senator who ran for president: John F. Kennedy.
He wrote about Obama not being “…the first young senator running for president to discomfort the Washington foreign-policy establishment by speaking frankly on a subject displeasing to an American ally.”
Sorenson, who was a very close advisor to President Kennedy, noted that 50 years ago this summer, Kennedy, as “a 40-year-old first-term senator,” delivered a rousing speech on the Senate floor where he “called…for the U.S. government to pressure its French ally into halting its war against Algerian independence.”
Initially, Kennedy’s remarks from various parties, French and American was, “swift and overwhelmingly negative.” Sorenson noted that people labeled Kennedy “as ‘juvenile’ (former Truman Secretary of State Dean Acheson), ‘brashly political and damaging’ (Vice President Richard Nixon), an ‘oversimplification’ (President Dwight D. Eisenhower), and ‘immature’ (a senior congressional ally of Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson).
Even the New York Times labeled Kennedy a "well-intentioned but amateur statesman."
While I agreed with a large portion of Obama’s major foreign policy address of August 1, I was a bit concerned about his ratcheting up of the terror rhetoric. However, Sorenson’s op-ed is quite articulate and very convincing in a political fashion. Especially in closing where here literally anointed Obama the next JFK.
That record - not the traditional nay-sayers in Washington who copy Bush's "politics of fear" - represents the proudest past of the Democratic Party. Obama - though he, too, is called amateur and naive - represents its future.”
Obama, as Sorenson noted, is staking out bold and new initiatives in the foreign policy arena and challenging others to do the same. The question is, are his views too bold and assertive? Or, will his bluntness and frankness help him break away from the careful tactical campaign being run by Senator Clinton?
Obama’s theme, of a need to “turn the page”, was a direct criticism of not only the foreign policy direction of the Bush administration, but also a way to illustrate that even his Democratic colleagues and contenders for the party’s nomination are out of step with the American public.
After a blast of initial intensity by several of Obama’s Democratic contenders, no less than senior statesman, historian and grey-haired guru of the Democratic Party -- Ted Sorenson -- authored an op-ed in the Des Moines Register where he argued not only that Obama is right about his world view, but Sorenson also takes a whack about his fellow Dems who have called Obama “naïve” and “untested”.
Sorenson penned, “As America's standing and credibility in the world - and thus the security of our citizens - continue to plunge with each passing month of the Bush administration, foreign-policy judgment increasingly becomes the overriding criterion for the selection of our next president.
"Those Democratic contenders who, as U.S. senators, voted to authorize the most disastrous blunder in U.S. foreign-policy history - the mindless, needless invasion and endless occupation of Iraq - are trying now to regain ground not by stopping the continuing tragic loss of American blood, billions and moral authority in Iraq, but by questioning the foreign-policy credentials of the one serious candidate who opposed the war even before its launch - Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.”
Later in his op-ed, Sorenson made an important comparison– especially to the Democratic base – as he equates Obama with another youthful Senator who ran for president: John F. Kennedy.
He wrote about Obama not being “…the first young senator running for president to discomfort the Washington foreign-policy establishment by speaking frankly on a subject displeasing to an American ally.”
Sorenson, who was a very close advisor to President Kennedy, noted that 50 years ago this summer, Kennedy, as “a 40-year-old first-term senator,” delivered a rousing speech on the Senate floor where he “called…for the U.S. government to pressure its French ally into halting its war against Algerian independence.”
Initially, Kennedy’s remarks from various parties, French and American was, “swift and overwhelmingly negative.” Sorenson noted that people labeled Kennedy “as ‘juvenile’ (former Truman Secretary of State Dean Acheson), ‘brashly political and damaging’ (Vice President Richard Nixon), an ‘oversimplification’ (President Dwight D. Eisenhower), and ‘immature’ (a senior congressional ally of Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson).
Even the New York Times labeled Kennedy a "well-intentioned but amateur statesman."
While I agreed with a large portion of Obama’s major foreign policy address of August 1, I was a bit concerned about his ratcheting up of the terror rhetoric. However, Sorenson’s op-ed is quite articulate and very convincing in a political fashion. Especially in closing where here literally anointed Obama the next JFK.
That record - not the traditional nay-sayers in Washington who copy Bush's "politics of fear" - represents the proudest past of the Democratic Party. Obama - though he, too, is called amateur and naive - represents its future.”
Obama, as Sorenson noted, is staking out bold and new initiatives in the foreign policy arena and challenging others to do the same. The question is, are his views too bold and assertive? Or, will his bluntness and frankness help him break away from the careful tactical campaign being run by Senator Clinton?