SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Is Obama Al Smith or John F. Kennedy?

POLITICS JUNE 4, 2008

Is Obama Al Smith or John F. Kennedy?

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

Now that he has clinched the Democratic nomination, pundits will mostly gauge Barack Obama’s prospects in the general election by looking at states he can win or constituencies he can carry. But there is another dimension to his candidacy: He represents a social group that was once on the margins of American politics, but now aspires to put one of its own in the highest office. This has happened once before in U.S. politics: when American Catholics saw one of their own nominated to be president.



In 1928, Democrats nominated the Catholic Governor of New York, Al Smith, but he lost to Herbert Hoover. Then, in 1960, Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to be president. Kennedy’s success removed a political stigma from Catholics, to the extent that it is no longer a serious question whether a Catholic can win the presidency, and a Catholic candidate like John Kerry is seen (except by his most fanatical co-religionists) as first and foremost an American politician rather than a representative of his faith.



The question of Obama’s prospects can be framed in this manner: Is Obama, the first African American nominee of a major party, going to repeat Al Smith’s sorry experience, or will he enjoy John Kennedy’s success? The answer is by no means clear yet, but by looking at the historical parallels, one can begin to appreciate the enormous obstacles that Obama faces this November.


 


Catholics came into Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic Party in 1800 in response to Federalist opposition to immigration and have remained there even since, although not in overwhelming numbers. By the 1920s, Catholics constituted about 15 percent of the electorate, and dominated the Democratic party in many Northern cities. Yet they had never nominated one of their own for president, and could boast of relatively few judicial appointments. As far as national politics were concerned, they were still outsiders.



Al Smith, the governor of the nation’s most populous and powerful state, was the first Catholic to gain the nomination. He represented a rising Catholic, urban, and immigrant tide, which was moving the Democratic Party away from its rural, western, and evangelical Protestant base. Smith’s 1928 campaign dramatically raised the party’s totals in northern and Midwestern cities among Catholics as well as first- and second-generation Americans. These voters would stay with the party in 1932 and become central to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition.



Smith knew the disadvantages he faced as a Catholic. “I believe in the absolute separation of church and state,” he declared. He chose an Arkansas pro-prohibition Protestant as his running mate. And he assiduously avoided any discussion of religion during the election, as did Hoover. But Protestant politicians and clerics threw every sign of his subordination to Rome back at him. New York City’s funding of Catholic schools, which predated Smith, was attributed to him. By Election Day, few Americans were unaware that Smith possessed an autographed photo of the Pope.



In 1928, no Democrat could have defeated Hoover, but the extent of Smith’s defeat--he got only 87 electoral votes and, outside the overwhelmingly Democratic deep south, only carried heavily Catholic Massachusetts and Rhode Island--was largely due to an anti-Catholic vote. Nebraska Senator George Norris declared, “the greatest element involved in the landslide was religion.” Smith couldn’t overcome the widespread prejudice against Catholics and Irish Catholics.


 


In 1960, John Kennedy succeeded where Smith had failed, winning an extremely narrow victory against Richard Nixon. Kennedy’s success is often attributed to his political skill, and to the way he addressed the Catholic question. And that was certainly a factor. Unlike Smith, Kennedy successfully reaffirmed his independence from Catholic dictates. He won the nomination by showing that he could win overwhelmingly Protestant West Virginia against Hubert Humphrey. He chose a Protestant as a running mate and as the head of the Democratic National Committee.



But Kennedy also benefited from factors that were outside his control. Unlike Smith, he faced a favorable political climate for Democrats--the result of a flagging economy under Dwight Eisenhower and a Republican party already deeply divided between liberals and conservatives. Anti-Catholic and anti-Irish prejudice had diminished since 1928--largely due to the prolonged process of assimilation brought about by the restrictions on immigration after World War I and by the national unity forged during World War II.



But, as a Catholic, Kennedy still faced formidable obstacles. A 1958 Gallup Poll found that 25 percent of Americans said they wouldn’t vote for a Catholic. And according to the Survey Research Center poll after the election, 40 percent of Democratic Protestants who regularly attended church voted against Kennedy. That’s a huge number. Where Kennedy benefited was in the peculiar demography of the Catholic vote, of which he won about 80 percent.



Kennedy lost Protestant votes in Midwestern states like Indiana and in the prairie states. These, however, were states he wasn’t going to win anyway. He also lost some southern Protestants, but historic ties to the Democratic Party, along with Lyndon Johnson’s place on the ticket, were enough for him to carry much of the deep south and Texas. And the Catholic vote--now 25 percent nationally, and much more than that in the north--allowed him to carry the northeast and the populous Midwest. In other words, in the voting booth, he gained at least as much from being Catholic as he lost. And that was a key to his victory.



Obama, of course, has never wanted to run as an African American candidate, just as John Kennedy did not want to run as a Catholic candidate. But his candidacy--like Smith’s or Kennedy’s--represents nonetheless the fruition of a social group’s clout within the Democratic Party. Blacks began entering the Democratic party during the New Deal, but even as late as 1960, Richard Nixon won a third of the black vote. After Democratic support for and Republican opposition to the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of African Americans became Democrats.



Obama’s nomination was, of course, due partly to his support among young voters and college-educated white professionals, but he probably couldn’t have won the nomination without the almost unanimous and enthusiastic support of black Democrats, particularly in the south. In Georgia, for instance, black voters made up 51 percent of the primary electorate (compared to 47 percent in 2004) and went 88 percent for Obama.


 



So, is Obama’s fate likely to resemble Smith’s or Kennedy’s? In several important respects, his campaign is like Smith’s rather than Kennedy’s. Just as Smith eschewed any discussion of religion, Obama largely stayed away from talking about race until it was forced upon him by revelations about his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Kennedy took control of the issue of his Catholicism from the start; Obama let the issue of race confront him.



Smith won the Democratic nomination largely on the basis of urban and northern strength within the party and over the opposition of southern and western Protestants. Kennedy, by stressing the economy and his connections to the Democrats’ New Deal past, won over Protestants in West Virginia and Wisconsin. His primary campaign laid the basis for his general election campaign.



Obama largely followed Smith’s rather than Kennedy’s precedent. He spoke primarily to the constituencies that initially favored him and was less successful winning over voters who might be reluctant to back a black president. He has yet to develop a message, and a style of campaigning, that will reach these voters, whose support he will need to defeat McCain in the fall. His primary strategy did not lay the basis for a general election strategy. He will virtually have to start over again this summer and at the convention in Denver.



Obama’s enthusiastic support among blacks may also be of limited use to him in the fall. While Catholics made up 27 percent of the electorate in 2004, blacks made up only 11 percent, and Obama is likely to get the largest boost in southern states that he is not likely to win anyway. At the same time, he could suffer from a white backlash in the Midwestern swing states like Ohio that he has to win. The one swing state where black support could bring him victory is Virginia. So, while his situation is not as bad as Smith’s, it is not as favorable as Kennedy’s. In 1960, Nixon, who understood the math, reportedly discouraged Republicans from playing up Kennedy’s Catholicism; in 2008, it’s unlikely Republicans will hesitate to play the race card against Obama.



To be sure, there are favorable circumstances today that resemble those that helped bring Kennedy to victory in 1960. The Democratic Party is in a stronger position. Obama’s Republican opponent won’t be able to tout his relationship with a popular sitting president. The economy is probably in worse shape now than it was then. The country is fighting an unpopular war, one strongly identified with the GOP candidate. And Obama, like Kennedy, is an extraordinarily charismatic campaigner who has been able to attract young and unaffiliated voters.



In the end, though, Obama faces hurdles at least as great as those that Kennedy faced.Kennedy never fully overcame anti-Catholic prejudice during his campaign. It was only in the aftermath of his victory that the country fully accepted a Catholic politician as an ordinary American politician. In November, Obama may lose far more than he gains from the sheer fact of his being an African American. If, in October, the country is still discussing Obama’s relationship to Reverend Wright and not the Republican record on the economy and foreign policy, he is likely to suffer defeat--not as decisively, certainly, as Al Smith did, but defeat nonetheless.



John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 90 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

90 comments

Massive Eh. This is one of those "history" columns you'll see on op-ed pages every election year. It goes (Election Characteristic X} is like the election of {Year Y}. Here's what happened in {Year Y}. Will what happened in {Year Y} happen in {Year X}? It's cheap to write, but the thoughts contained and the stretch of the analogy even cheaper.

- Crock1701

June 4, 2008 at 2:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR. Always supporting the progressive cause. What a joke.

- nicholaus

June 4, 2008 at 2:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. You guys are amazing. All these articles, and on such short notice. As to this, then Obama is neither an Al Smith nor a John Kennedy. Both Smith and Kennedy were formally nominated as the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate; Smith in 1928 and Kennedy in 1960. Obama has not been nominated as the 2008 Democratic Party presidential Candidate, except by himself, the Associated Press, and the ridiculous propaganda pieces, like these tonight in TNR, of countless essayists (which will no doubt help to further work Hillary Clinton supporters into a white heat). This article would warm Hillary's heart as it will no doubt help inflame her supporters. As a candidate Obama is obviously closer to to being a Smith in 1928 than a Kennedy in 1960. Hillary Clinton in 2008 is the best possible equivalent to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This is why Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate. Clinton will defeat McCain easily in November. Kennedy not only assured the party of the majority of the Irish-American vote, but, most importantly, of the majority of the American Catholic vote. At that time, in very sharp contrast to today, the only kind of Catholics were good Catholics and bad Catholics. But it voting for Kennedy was not a factor in this. Kennedy could be counted upon to deliver a majority of the Catholic vote, of the good and bad Catholics (My Aunt in Lowell was not one of them--she never trusted or like him). Kennedy could be counted upon to vote for Kennedy due to his nominal religion. Catholic Americans still constituted tens of millions of American ethnic minorities (before being transformed into the new racial color and features Super-Ethnicities of "white," "Hispanic," (white and non-white subcategories), “Native American,” and smaller numbers, “African American,” circa 1969-present. The white-skinned Catholic ethnic minorities (Irish, German, Pole, French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Lebanese, Portuguese, Hungarian, . . . These were the white-skinned ethnic minorities that American Anglophiles, and the Scots-Irish Americans who they transformed into so-called “WASPs,” derisively dubbed "hyphenated Americans," especially in the 1920s and 1930s, and had been whining should become “just Americans,” since about the 1890s (And be clear, these ‘not-quite-full Americans,’ per the anglophiles and their WASP followers, due to the “hyphenated status,” were not only the German-Americans, some with roots to the 1830s, or Irish-Americans, some with roots to the 1850s, but also included such as the Cajun-Americans in Louisiana (commonly derisively called “Coon-Asses”) with roots as deep as the 1700s, and the Spanish-Americans of the southwestern states, many whose ancestors had roots that ran as deep as 1590 (and not uncommonly derisively referred to as “Mexicans,” “Messicans,” or “wetbacks.”). All but the Cajuns and Spanish-Americans were attempted to be transformed into Caucasians (The Chechens are Caucasians!). There were Protestant ethnics also, primarily Lutherans, Norwegians, Swedish, and some Danes (attempted to be transformed by the Anglophiles into “Nordics”). The progeny of the old ethnic minorities, formally erased in the past 40 years, remain, but like the Scots-Irish Americans-made WASPs, all have been transformed into the new super ethnicity’s via the Census and American polling system. In 1960, the anglicized Irish-American, John F. Kennedy, was the perfect candidate to pool the majority of the Catholic ethnics into a single voting bloc, along with organized labor, bringing blue-collar working class Americans, now the first workers to rise to middle-class status, supporting their mid-size families (4-5 kids) and large families with a single paycheck, as well as, interestingly enough, the Anglophiles of the northwest: Tens of millions of American voters, across the country. Clearly Barack Obama is in no way equivalent to John F. Kennedy as a potential presidential candidate. Of the new super minorities, he, with the help of the Clintons in January, and the mass-communications media, now can guarantee only one bloc of ethnic voters, the “African American” bloc, which is the racial-feature, rather than geographical, defined term of the new super minority that is identical with “Negro” in 1960. He can also guarantee a population of self-named liberal educated and a substantial number of the now much-diminished-in-size (relative to the families of the 1960s) “youth vote.” Obama’s coalition voting bloc is of VERY SMALL sub-populations. It is Hillary Clinton, an anglophile women, who, with the help of the mass-communications media, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the 2008 nomination procedure, who is now the only candidate of the three, Clinton, McCain, or Obama, who can guarantee a Kennedy-1960-like voting bloc. The majority of the Obama coalition will join it. Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate. The democrats will sweep the Republicans in November. The only American ethnicity which seems to be fit to produce stock for president any longer, excepting two useful anglicized Irish-Americans, one nominally a Catholic and one nominally a Protestant, seem to be Anglophile Anglo-Americans. Hillary will simply be the first whose sex is female. Wow. Since anglophiles have a fondness for “irony,” Hillary can point to her primary victory in West Virginia as what got her into the White House, just like 1960! What a putrid, cynical choice. Even the Black candidate, Obama, is an anglophile Anglo-American.

- p.

June 4, 2008 at 3:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. You guys are amazing. All these articles, and on such short notice. As to this, then Obama is neither an Al Smith nor a John Kennedy. Both Smith and Kennedy were formally nominated as the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate; Smith in 1928 and Kennedy in 1960. Obama has not been nominated as the 2008 Democratic Party presidential Candidate, except by himself, the Associated Press, and the ridiculous propaganda pieces, like these tonight in TNR, of countless essayists (which will no doubt help to further work Hillary Clinton supporters into a white heat). This article would warm Hillary's heart as it will no doubt help inflame her supporters. As a candidate Obama is obviously closer to to being a Smith in 1928 than a Kennedy in 1960. Hillary Clinton in 2008 is the best possible equivalent to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This is why Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate. Clinton will defeat McCain easily in November. Kennedy not only assured the party of the majority of the Irish-American vote, but, most importantly, of the majority of the American Catholic vote. At that time, in very sharp contrast to today, the only kind of Catholics were good Catholics and bad Catholics. But it voting for Kennedy was not a factor in this. Kennedy could be counted upon to deliver a majority of the Catholic vote, of the good and bad Catholics (My Aunt in Lowell was not one of them--she never trusted or like him). Kennedy could be counted upon to vote for Kennedy due to his nominal religion. Catholic Americans still constituted tens of millions of American ethnic minorities (before being transformed into the new racial color and features Super-Ethnicities of "white," "Hispanic," (white and non-white subcategories), “Native American,” and smaller numbers, “African American,” circa 1969-present. The white-skinned Catholic ethnic minorities (Irish, German, Pole, French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Lebanese, Portuguese, Hungarian, . . . These were the white-skinned ethnic minorities that American Anglophiles, and the Scots-Irish Americans who they transformed into so-called “WASPs,” derisively dubbed "hyphenated Americans," especially in the 1920s and 1930s, and had been whining should become “just Americans,” since about the 1890s (And be clear, these ‘not-quite-full Americans,’ per the anglophiles and their WASP followers, due to the “hyphenated status,” were not only the German-Americans, some with roots to the 1830s, or Irish-Americans, some with roots to the 1850s, but also included such as the Cajun-Americans in Louisiana (commonly derisively called “Coon-Asses”) with roots as deep as the 1700s, and the Spanish-Americans of the southwestern states, many whose ancestors had roots that ran as deep as 1590 (and not uncommonly derisively referred to as “Mexicans,” “Messicans,” or “wetbacks.”). All but the Cajuns and Spanish-Americans were attempted to be transformed into Caucasians (The Chechens are Caucasians!). There were Protestant ethnics also, primarily Lutherans, Norwegians, Swedish, and some Danes (attempted to be transformed by the Anglophiles into “Nordics”). The progeny of the old ethnic minorities, formally erased in the past 40 years, remain, but like the Scots-Irish Americans-made WASPs, all have been transformed into the new super ethnicity’s via the Census and American polling system. In 1960, the anglicized Irish-American, John F. Kennedy, was the perfect candidate to pool the majority of the Catholic ethnics into a single voting bloc, along with organized labor, bringing blue-collar working class Americans, now the first workers to rise to middle-class status, supporting their mid-size families (4-5 kids) and large families with a single paycheck, as well as, interestingly enough, the Anglophiles of the northwest: Tens of millions of American voters, across the country. Clearly Barack Obama is in no way equivalent to John F. Kennedy as a potential presidential candidate. Of the new super minorities, he, with the help of the Clintons in January, and the mass-communications media, now can guarantee only one bloc of ethnic voters, the “African American” bloc, which is the racial-feature, rather than geographical, defined term of the new super minority that is identical with “Negro” in 1960. He can also guarantee a population of self-named liberal educated and a substantial number of the now much-diminished-in-size (relative to the families of the 1960s) “youth vote.” Obama’s coalition voting bloc is of VERY SMALL sub-populations. It is Hillary Clinton, an anglophile women, who, with the help of the mass-communications media, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the 2008 nomination procedure, who is now the only candidate of the three, Clinton, McCain, or Obama, who can guarantee a Kennedy-1960-like voting bloc. The majority of the Obama coalition will join it. Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate. The democrats will sweep the Republicans in November. The only American ethnicity which seems to be fit to produce stock for president any longer, excepting two useful anglicized Irish-Americans, one nominally a Catholic and one nominally a Protestant, seem to be Anglophile Anglo-Americans. Hillary will simply be the first whose sex is female. Wow. Since anglophiles have a fondness for “irony,” Hillary can point to her primary victory in West Virginia as what got her into the White House, just like 1960! What a putrid, cynical choice. Even the Black candidate, Obama, is an anglophile Anglo-American.

- p.

June 4, 2008 at 3:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. You guys are amazing. All these articles, and on such short notice. As to this, then Obama is neither an Al Smith nor a John Kennedy. Both Smith and Kennedy were formally nominated as the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate; Smith in 1928 and Kennedy in 1960. Obama has not been nominated as the 2008 Democratic Party presidential Candidate, except by himself, the Associated Press, and the ridiculous propaganda pieces, like these tonight in TNR, of countless essayists (which will no doubt help to further work Hillary Clinton supporters into a white heat). This article would warm Hillary's heart as it will no doubt help inflame her supporters. As a candidate Obama is obviously closer to to being a Smith in 1928 than a Kennedy in 1960. Hillary Clinton in 2008 is the best possible equivalent to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This is why Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate. Clinton will defeat McCain easily in November. Kennedy not only assured the party of the majority of the Irish-American vote, but, most importantly, of the majority of the American Catholic vote. At that time, in very sharp contrast to today, the only kind of Catholics were good Catholics and bad Catholics. But it voting for Kennedy was not a factor in this. Kennedy could be counted upon to deliver a majority of the Catholic vote, of the good and bad Catholics (My Aunt in Lowell was not one of them--she never trusted or like him). Kennedy could be counted upon to vote for Kennedy due to his nominal religion. Catholic Americans still constituted tens of millions of American ethnic minorities (before being transformed into the new racial color and features Super-Ethnicities of "white," "Hispanic," (white and non-white subcategories), “Native American,” and smaller numbers, “African American,” circa 1969-present. The white-skinned Catholic ethnic minorities (Irish, German, Pole, French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Lebanese, Portuguese, Hungarian, . . . These were the white-skinned ethnic minorities that American Anglophiles, and the Scots-Irish Americans who they transformed into so-called “WASPs,” derisively dubbed "hyphenated Americans," especially in the 1920s and 1930s, and had been whining should become “just Americans,” since about the 1890s (And be clear, these ‘not-quite-full Americans,’ per the anglophiles and their WASP followers, due to the “hyphenated status,” were not only the German-Americans, some with roots to the 1830s, or Irish-Americans, some with roots to the 1850s, but also included such as the Cajun-Americans in Louisiana (commonly derisively called “Coon-Asses”) with roots as deep as the 1700s, and the Spanish-Americans of the southwestern states, many whose ancestors had roots that ran as deep as 1590 (and not uncommonly derisively referred to as “Mexicans,” “Messicans,” or “wetbacks.”). All but the Cajuns and Spanish-Americans were attempted to be transformed into Caucasians (The Chechens are Caucasians!). There were Protestant ethnics also, primarily Lutherans, Norwegians, Swedish, and some Danes (attempted to be transformed by the Anglophiles into “Nordics”). The progeny of the old ethnic minorities, formally erased in the past 40 years, remain, but like the Scots-Irish Americans-made WASPs, all have been transformed into the new super ethnicity’s via the Census and American polling system. In 1960, the anglicized Irish-American, John F. Kennedy, was the perfect candidate to pool the majority of the Catholic ethnics into a single voting bloc, along with organized labor, bringing blue-collar working class Americans, now the first workers to rise to middle-class status, supporting their mid-size families (4-5 kids) and large families with a single paycheck, as well as, interestingly enough, the Anglophiles of the northwest: Tens of millions of American voters, across the country. Clearly Barack Obama is in no way equivalent to John F. Kennedy as a potential presidential candidate. Of the new super minorities, he, with the help of the Clintons in January, and the mass-communications media, now can guarantee only one bloc of ethnic voters, the “African American” bloc, which is the racial-feature, rather than geographical, defined term of the new super minority that is identical with “Negro” in 1960. He can also guarantee a population of self-named liberal educated and a substantial number of the now much-diminished-in-size (relative to the families of the 1960s) “youth vote.” Obama’s coalition voting bloc is of VERY SMALL sub-populations. It is Hillary Clinton, an anglophile women, who, with the help of the mass-communications media, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the 2008 nomination procedure, who is now the only candidate of the three, Clinton, McCain, or Obama, who can guarantee a Kennedy-1960-like voting bloc. The majority of the Obama coalition will join it. Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate. The democrats will sweep the Republicans in November. The only American ethnicity which seems to be fit to produce stock for president any longer, excepting two useful anglicized Irish-Americans, one nominally a Catholic and one nominally a Protestant, seem to be Anglophile Anglo-Americans. Hillary will simply be the first whose sex is female. Wow. Since anglophiles have a fondness for “irony,” Hillary can point to her primary victory in West Virginia as what got her into the White House, just like 1960! What a putrid, cynical choice. Even the Black candidate, Obama, is an anglophile Anglo-American.

- p.

June 4, 2008 at 3:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John Kennedy was a tax-cutting war hero and no one ever doubted that he loved America. On the other hand, Obama has connections to the Chicago machine that was so helpful in getting Kennedy elected.

- Larry Hodges

June 4, 2008 at 6:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He's neither Smith nor Kennedy. He's Tom Dewey.

- Tony

June 4, 2008 at 8:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JFK won after Chicago emptied the democrat graveyards to push him over the top with the dead voters.. Obama will lose,not because he is black but, because he is a borderline communist.

- chuck higgins

June 4, 2008 at 8:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I will say this: If people can't vote for Obama because he is black, then they deserve the shithole America will become. I don't expect Obama to turn America into utopia, but McCain will wreak havoc on this country so profound - destroy our military, set back civil rights by who he places on the Supreme Court - that we will definitely never recover.

- anonevent

June 4, 2008 at 8:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Democratic support for and Republican oppisition to the civil rights act? What a blatent mis-state of history. The civil rights act passed only with Republican support over Democratic filibusters.

- Joel

June 4, 2008 at 8:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This black-white race issue is a creation of the press. Objectively, on the issues, Barack Hussein Obama should be buried in a landslide vote. With all of the excellent "black" choices, how did the Democrats come up with this shallow wisp?

- Mark Henry

June 4, 2008 at 8:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That was then, this is now. Things are different.

- Jim

June 4, 2008 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One of the interesting things about Obama's candidacy is that objections about him, politics and lack of experience aside, are more about his religion than the color of his skin. Once the public got a taste of what black liberation theology is all about, Obama no longer seemed to be the non-threatening, black friend that white people claim to have, but never invite to dinner. The majority of the electorate do not surf the web looking for political insight, they just know that Obama is the guy with the crazy pastor. In politics there is guilt by association which is why candidates run as far away as they can from unsavory connections. For someone that has been on the national stage for a short period of time, he has collected a lot of baggage. Elections are won and lost on likeablity and the Clinton's attacks exposed Obama's strange and unsavory associations which caused a drop in Obama's favorability poll numbers. When he was at his peak, the period after Super Tuesday, he was just the black guy beating the Clintons. With the attention came scrutiny and Obama's strategy of keeping his radical ideas and associations out of plain view quit working. A correction about the article, 85% of Republicans in Congress voted to pass the Civils Rights Acts of '63 and '65. While the majority of Democrats voted against them. Of course, the Republicans ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and freed the slaves, too. So, it is a head-scratcher why blacks vote Democratic.

- Ron Seaney

June 4, 2008 at 9:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John F. Kerry is not Catholic.

- Vicar

June 4, 2008 at 9:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A bit of a nit to pick: more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

- Dave

June 4, 2008 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack Obama is a good man and gives a great speech, but he is simply not qualified to lead this nation.

- Obama: Empty Suit

June 4, 2008 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Usually the titles of TNR articles that end with a question mark are harder for me to answer. This one is easy: Barack Obama is neither Al Smith or John F. Kennedy. He's Barack Obama. This is the same lame reductionism that allows people to accept Bush's appeasement parallels without batting an eyelash. And another thing, alligator meat and frog's legs don't taste exactly like chicken. If they did, there'd be no point. Your palette needs some horizon-widening.

- chrisnatale

June 4, 2008 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm beginning to think Judis may have concerns about Obama's electability.

- FWright

June 4, 2008 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

why does everyone say obama is black. he is not all black. his mother was white.

- carol

June 4, 2008 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for this historical context. This election reminds me a little of McGovern versus Nixon. The media seemed very much for McGovern. Nixon of course had failed to end an unpopular war. Nixon had his peace with honor slogan. McGovern seemed more dovish and was for granting amnesty to people who avoided the draft. McGovern ended up getting sounded whipped in the electoral college. I think he won only Massachusetts and Washington DC. I will say this whole process has been very fascinating. It has been quite a while since we had a primary season drag out so long.

- Bruce Terp

June 4, 2008 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your article failed to mention that Smith was not the only candidate to brake racial or religeous barriers that year. Hoover's running mate, and eventual vice-president was former Senate Majority Leader Charles Curtis, a Native American who was raised on a Kaw reservation. This has the effect of Hoover getting the majority of the non-white vote in the country, though it seems to be little more than a footnote in American History. Obama is a more skillful politician than Al Smith was in his day, and it seems unlikely that McCain will choose a similar candidate (and you really hope he doesn't try to run as Herbert Hoover) but you never know.

- Tamir

June 4, 2008 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your article failed to mention that Smith was not the only candidate to brake racial or religeous barriers that year. Hoover's running mate, and eventual vice-president was former Senate Majority Leader Charles Curtis, a Native American who was raised on a Kaw reservation. This has the effect of Hoover getting the majority of the non-white vote in the country, though it seems to be little more than a footnote in American History. Obama is a more skillful politician than Al Smith was in his day, and it seems unlikely that McCain will choose a similar candidate (and you really hope he doesn't try to run as Herbert Hoover) but you never know.

- Tamir

June 4, 2008 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There can be no doubt that race will be a factor in the election. But this treatment is superficial, to say the least, in that it fails to take any account of the differences between America, and the world, in 2008 and 1928. We live in a world that, in important respects, would barely be recognizable to someone form that era (think for example about the California Sup Ct insisting on a constitutional right to homosexual marriage in 1928). That is not to say that the enormous cultural, political, and technological changes of the the last 80 years necessarily favor Obama, but to write as if the phenomenal events of the last 80 years had not occurred is just lazy. And consider this, would Al Smith have lost in 1932?

- roidubouloi

June 4, 2008 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First..We were and are not a 'social group once in the margins' We are a RACE that was stolen, then dis enfranchised, still dis-respected and not treated as equal across US society. BO winning the nomination doesn't 'cure' the ails that STILL haunt US urban society across the country. However to compare him to Al ? or JFK, there IS no comparison. His background experience, and upbringing are in NO WAYS comparable. What he had to overcome vs. those two is an insult to BO!! T What you saw is the progressive advance of certain sections of America. The affluent white community understands the ability and capability of a man like BO, the younger white generation sees him as the 'cool' choice and being black amplifies that. Lastly FINALLY...we as black folks have one of our own that we KNOW will look out for US when NO ONE else will to the level and degree he will. This is our modern Civil Rights movement and what MLK was marching for and all the other "marginalized" black leaders(ie. H. Trapp Brown, Huey Newton, Malcom X, Mahummad Ali, Jim Brown, etc). His policies will work, his judgement is sound, and his confidence is STRONG. He is what this country sorely needs and is the promise of the USA and all it is SUPPOSE to stand for!

- Byron N

June 4, 2008 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is defintely NOT a John Kennedy; however, due to those who rule the media, Obama MAY win the Democratic nomination but lose the race to John McCain mainly due to his inexperience. Hillary Clinton is the ONLY experienced, viable candidate who can beat John McCain (McBush; and unless something dramatic occurs, she is being "prejudiced" from the race by some colleagues (and the media) who feel Obama will be easier to manipulate.

- Janet Wheeler

June 4, 2008 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is no John F. Kennedy, he was given this nomination by the DNC... he would have cried the "Race Card" and most were afraid of this, I have become a Mc Cain supporter, and I have been a democrat for many many years

- Laura Wing

June 4, 2008 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He's Jimmy Carter.

- Joe

June 4, 2008 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've been thinking this all along, but not in the same degree of detail. I expected Obama to be nominated, but his questionable associates, Bittergate and his ungratious wife have really hurt him. I'm from WV and know many staunch Caucasian Republicans who thought he would be a terrific president earlier in the race. However, as time progressed and they began to know him better they have grown bitter. We're talking about people who dream of their kids going to college, because they couldn't afford to do so themselves, who believe in preserving their freedoms and beliefs. Obama's wife and associates are destroying his chances. These people have become bitter, but not until after they heard his wife's comments and about his churches views. This isn't the change I or anyone else I know of can believe in, because it for us is just more of the same. Rookie mistakes in a crucial time in American History when we can't afford them - just look at Bush Jr. This ultimately will force him to pay the price. There are racists in this country, but unfortunately most are also sexist. So they wouldn't have voted for Clinton or Obama - just Edwards.

- Stephanie B.

June 4, 2008 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama and the media continue to imply that every vote against Obama is somehow related to race. If he were a white man--or white woman--I wouldn't vote for him in light of his inexperience, alone. In fact, given his inexperience, if he were white, he wouldn't have the audacity to run for president. Notably,both Al Smith and JFK had experience BEFORE running for president. The presidency is not an internship position.

- Bob S

June 4, 2008 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1. Obama did confront race, relatively early, with his "race speech" thing in Pennsylvania. That's probably going to be a seminal moment in the campaign, and compares more than contrasts Kennedy's statements about his Catholicism. 2. You gloss over a detail to make it sound like Obama (like Kerry) mirrored Al Smith in just winning the urban, northeastern, and southern vote. Obama did best in cities and midwestern states. He's going to win Iowa, Colorado, possibly Michigan, and Minnesota. Those were places Hillary would have done worse in. He might win Virginia. Were one to still believe all of the dichtomies of the 2004 election wrapped up into one: urban/rural, young/old, blue-state/middle America, your analysis in the general election might be correct. But Obama has presented an alternate strategy for picking off some middle America states. Maybe that's not him, so much as the Nixonian Southern Strategy breaking down. But it's still going to be the real story of this election: How Democrats picked up significant chunks of the American "heartland."

- Pierce Randall

June 4, 2008 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have just studied the period of Hoover and Al smith and I think that the comparison drawn is totally false. The description of Al Smith is historically incorrect. Al Smith did not lose the election of 1928 because he was Catholic. Admittedly the electorate was very much of a protestant, white, middle class nature throughout America. However the fact that Smith was Catholic was not the issue Americans voted on in 1928. Herbert Hoover was running to be the 3rd Republican president in a row. The 1920's hd seen the largest increase in wealth in it's history. From 1914 to 1928 the number of millionaires increased by 500%. Between over the decade industrial production increases by 50% Industrial workers wages increased by 14%. Average wages increased from $13,000 to $17,000 a year. The availability of credit increased by 60% between 1926 and 1929. Share values trebled in the same period. Hoover ran his campaign on reducing regulations, lowering taxes and continuing the economic boom, just as the previous presidents had done. The likelihood of any Democrat beating Hoover was miniscule. Al Smith on the otherhand ran his campaign almost entirely on the Repeal of Prohibition which gambled as being a popular policy as so many people were flouting the ban of Alcohol, which led to the rise of gangsters such as Capone. This was a highly favourable policy towards many of the catholic Irish immigrants and urban cities of the north. However this was a niche market. Prohibiton was also a highly unpopular policy with the largely protestant and rural electorate. This is what organised a large majority of the protestant electorate to not vote for Smith. In the cities Smith won by his anti-prohibition stance. Rural areas voted Hoover due to his support for Prohibiton. Southern Democrats voted for Smith as it appeared Hoover was not a strong advocate of segregation. I fail to see how this could possibly be applied to the Obam candidacy. In 1928 the public generally believed that Americ was heading in the right direction, especially economically. In terms of morally, the general conensus was against Smith's ideas. Today there is a record belief that America is heading in the wrong direction. On the other hand in terms of Moral superiority, the democrats appear to hold the advantage. Having support on Iraq, the economy and the environment. I would suggest a better analagy for Obama's presidency could be that of FDR or Bill Clinton. Both were swept into office on years that were named "Year of the Democrat" with huge public support. Both ran on an issue of change. Both were running when the country was felt to be heading in the wrong direction. Both faced Republican incumbents who were highly unpopular at the time. I could agree to a certain degree with JFK comparison but I think a comparison with Bobby Kennedy(despite being unpopular at the moment) is more accurate. Both against a war. Both apparently post-racial candidates. Both calling for unity and change in America. Both using personal messages and aiming not to change America, but Americans. Otherwise....I liked it.

- Alextheapparenthistorian

June 4, 2008 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sdfsdf

- alex

June 4, 2008 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting article, but I thought you were going to come out the other way. I've been reading Schlesinger's account of the pre-FDR era, and the way he framed it, the 1928 race was about a lot more than religion. Everything about Al Smith (his accent, his origins, his old-fashioned liberalism that benefitted immigrants and minorities) reinforced rural whites' fears about Catholics. Obama's not like that at all, and while he's relied to some extent on the A-A vote, he's really tried to separate himself from the more familiar A-A political type a la Jesse Jackson. (It would be fairer to compare Jackson -- a very intelligent and competent politician who nonetheless has far too much baggage to win a national election -- to Smith.) Indeed, Obama seems more like Kennedy: a young, camera-friendly risk-taker at a time when perhaps risks are worth taking. I can't say whether Obama will win in November or not, but he's got a much better shot than Smith did.

- George W

June 4, 2008 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with this analysis is that the country today is not the country of 1928 or 1968. Barack is running against the stereotype of the angry black politician who blames whites for the country's problems. This is a very welcome message for Americans and a major source of his appeal. The larger problem for him is his relatively short tenure on the political stage, which he will have to deal with to rebut McCain's attempts to paint him as inexperienced. But McCain has his own problems, which if one wants to talk about stereotypes and prejudices against candidates, include his age and his support for one of the most unpopular presidents in history. Barack has tapped into a very powerful dynamic for change and has worked hard to avoid denigrating his opponents (witness his treatment of Hillary). If he can keep this theme alive and project a sense of competence, he should do well in the current political climate.

-

June 4, 2008 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

History repeats itself. Again the stupidity of democrats is proved. No wonder, in last 40 yrs, there are more Republican presidents than Democratic. Diversity is OK, but there has to be unity on basic principles. The problem with democrats is that they have diversity on basic principles too (left wing liberals and moderates in Democratic Party), otherwise Edwards and Obama would have supported Clintons' bid from beginning and would not have fought this historic battle. I joined Democratic Party in 1992. Since then I voted for them. However this was the first time, I followed the election that closely and came to know the dark side of the party and the media. In future, I will never believe any farce from media. In fact, if I would have known this game (what I know now) in 2004, then I would not have voted for Kerry (of course I would have never voted for Bush). I just changed my affiliation from Democrat to Independent. I realized that if you want country to progress, then the president has to be moderate (does not matter, which party he/she belongs to). I will be voting for McCain in Nov 08.

- Anita

June 4, 2008 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very good article. I myself have made numerous parralls to JFK, the style and wording of the statements.

- Mark Kiernan

June 4, 2008 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is often misundersood that "History repeates itself". But this is not true!. And, all historians would agree to the point. The other important context that is usually misundersttod is the fact of "time". You may have heard people saying; for example; "it is a good time" or "it is a bad time". This has nothing to do with either[ history repeating itself or time]. As long as "time" is concerned, it has always been there!. Rather, it is the people who come,change and are gone through the ages!. However, there may be a cycle in history that is may be passing around the sprial of history and a layman or mob mentality in polictics [without any logical considerations] call it that "history is being repeated or compare it as similar time". This may be not correct. Because, the the earth is circling in the universe and there comes a period where it may be passing right through [past events] that may look similar, but the truth of the matter is that it is not. A sprial never meets at any point.

- Habib Hasan

June 4, 2008 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with this analysis is that the country today is not the country of 1928 or 1968. Barack is running against the stereotype of the angry black politician who blames whites for the country's problems. This is a very welcome message for Americans and a major source of his appeal. The larger problem for him is his relatively short tenure on the political stage, which he will have to deal with to rebut McCain's attempts to paint him as inexperienced. But McCain has his own problems, which if one wants to talk about stereotypes and prejudices against candidates, include his age and his support for one of the most unpopular presidents in history. Barack has tapped into a very powerful dynamic for change and has worked hard to avoid denigrating his opponents (witness his treatment of Hillary). If he can keep this theme alive and project a sense of competence, he should do well in the current political climate.

- dr

June 4, 2008 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting article but I want to offer a key point that was not addressed. Al Smith was seen as an Irish outsider, while John F. Kennedy was seen as an American aristocrat. Al Smith rose out of New York's corrupt political system even though he eventually moved beyond it, he wore derby hats, he spoke in a clipped New York accent that sounded foreign over the radio, and he claimed with ethnic pride that the only book he ever read was John L. Sullivan's autobiography. Kennedy was a wealthy graduate or Choate and Harvard, the son of a diplomat, and a WWII hero. These factors influenced the votes of people who, while generally anti-catholic, were on the fense regarding voting for a Catholic. How this influences the chances of Obama remains to be seen. Early in the race he was perceived as a post-civil rights figure. His Kenyan father meant he didn't share "the black experience" in America, as more than a few black leaders were willing to point out. He grew up in Hawaii and went to Harvard. He didn't pander to racial identity the way black politicians of the past have. The Trinity Church fiasco may have changed this. All of a sudden talking heads and can credibly tie him to some of the more extreme figures of the black liberation movement and nasty Chicago politic figures. How this will influence the general election five months from now remains to be seen, but that is the lesson to be drawn from Al Smith and JFK.

- HillDogLovah

June 4, 2008 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very good article. But one other question should be considered: Would Kennedy have won (or Roosevelt for that matter) without Smith's candidacy. As you note, Smith energized a whole section of the population that became a key component of the Democratic coalition. Kennedy faced anti-catholic bias, but nothing like Smith faced. And part of the reason is that Smith's candidacy forced at least part of the population to begin to view Catholics as ordinary candidates, not just as Catholics. Kennedy completed the process, but his road was a lot easier because Smith paved the way.

- Drew

June 4, 2008 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the 3 stooges run obuma hillary & michelle

- pw

June 4, 2008 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neither Smith nor Kennedy had the advantage of running against an unpopular (much less VERY unpopular) sitting president promoting a very unpopular war with an economy that is really tanking. Against an opponent supporting a continuation of the war and status-quo economic policies. Both might have won in thise circumstances, and in Kennedy's case, by a landslide.

- gdb

June 4, 2008 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That was a very nice history lesson. I don't remember what happen in 1928 and I doubt you do either. What I do know is that Obama is Obama. There has never been a candidate like him in my life time which dates back to Jimmy Carter and history will judge him on his own merit.

- redleaf2k

June 4, 2008 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't you think it is sacrilegious to compare Barack the 'Son of Dan'(Quale) Obama to JFK? Doesn't barack hussein mean something in Aramaic?

- Jon Iscream

June 4, 2008 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JFK was first and only Catholic to make it, and that was over forty years ago. Kerry a divorced, pro abortion, lapsed Catholic can't really count especially when he launched his campaign announcing he was really Jewish. Neither Kennedy nor certainly Kerry got 91% of the Catholic vote in the primaries. Is Obama the first person with a foreign parent to be nominated?

- patrick Gigliotti

June 4, 2008 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is he Al Smith or John F. Kennedy? Neither. He's Jimmy Carter, Part Two: an idealistic left-wing neophyte who would be in WAY over his head as president. And I don't even want to think about the collection of delusional, rabid, leftist loons that he would bring with him to the White House. ***shudder*** Vote McCain. Please.

- Dan

June 4, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article. You missed one important factor, however:

- Edward N. Flail, Jr.

June 4, 2008 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Senator Obama's principle problem is NOT that he is an African-American candidate for President. Rather it is that he is from the extreme left of American political spectrum. Should he fail to succeed in his quest, that will be the reason. Hence the framing of your question, I believe, is incorrect. If Obama were more mainstream in his political views, then your Al Smith/John Kennedy juxtaposition might work.

- Meg

June 4, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I enjoyed this insightful article. Why wasn't it written in the midst of the democratic primary, when it could have helped sway opinion for Hillary?

- TTM

June 4, 2008 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"After Democratic support for and Republican opposition to the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of African Americans became Democrats." Please do more research. Republicans in the House and Senate supported the civil rights acts in the 1960 by far greater percentages than the Democrats. Black have voted for the Democratic Party because of social programs like welfare and medicad not the Civil Rights acts. Also, Blacks have continued to support Democrats because of racial preference and affirmative action. Republicans were not opposed to Blacks having Civil Rights. In fact, ALL of the Jim Crow laws were passed by Democratic controlled state governments. Once getting the initial Civil Right laws passed, Black leaders have delivered the Black vote for the Democratic party for continued social programs and racial preferences\affirmative action. Republican opposition to these programs and policies are the reason that more Blacks don't vote for Republicans. It will be interesting to see this year if White Democrats will support Obama. If he loses because of the Bradley Effect, will the press have the honesty to admit that some White DEMOCRATs did not vote for him because he is black or will the press state that racism is a problem in the USA without identifying the Democrats.

- Jay Neverd

June 4, 2008 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The factor you missed is that Kennedy stole the election with ballot box stuffing by in Illinois and West Virginia by the Daley organization, the Mafia and unions and in Texas by Lyndon Johnson. Everyone likes to say Bush stole Florida in 2000, while neglecting to say that 10,000 voters left the polls in heavily replblican western Florida when the media declared the state for Gore and that Bush won by 7 of the 8 recount methods used by the Democrat leaning Miami Herald. The much maligned Richard Nixon had the proof on Kennedy but declined to pursue it because of the disruption it would cause - an unsurpassed act of statesmanship.

- Edward N. Flail, Jr.

June 4, 2008 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I enjoyed this insightful article. Why wasn't it written in the midst of the democratic primary, when it could have helped sway opinion for Hillary?

- TTM

June 4, 2008 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So your point is that white people are racist? I'm sorry, but that seems like a very narrow minded and ignorant view. Obama's problem isn't going to be his skin color, but his associations and past record. He claims bipartisanship, but none of his policies break party line, and he ranks as one of the most liberal Senators in office. He claims post-racial, but went to a church espousing inherently racist views for 20 years, raised his children there, subsidized it, and personally donated to it. He declares himself a new politician, but backs ideals that were last seen in the late 60's and uses spin and deception to win votes. Of course, the media is on his side, so much of this is going to be suppressed.

- Anonymous

June 4, 2008 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama could be EITHER Al Smith or John Kennedy, and he'd still lose a fair race... The inconvenient truth is that Kennedy and his machine cronies stole the 1960 election.

- Jack

June 4, 2008 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"After Democratic support for and Republican opposition to the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of African Americans became Democrats" That is not exactly true. 82% of Republican Senators and 80% of Republican Representatives voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as opposed to 69% of Democratic Senators and 61% of Democratic Representatives. The Southern Democratic bloc in the Senate had been blocking civil rights legislation for years. If it wasn't for Republican support, the Civil Rights bill would never have been passed. Barry Goldwater did vote against it and attracted deep South support as a consequence.

- Jim Duffy

June 4, 2008 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

what the author skips was that the al smith party of 1928 was 2 parties...northern liberals who were modestly progressive and southern racists who were modestly progressive...90% of afro-americans voted republican in those days because of Lincoln and that the southern democrat party being an appendage of the KKK the fact that he only won the deep south showed that the southern wing of his hate part hated negroes more than catholics...sad but true...northen liberals never helped the republicans in their half-hearted attempts to ban lynching or pass anything like a voting rights law...

- robert

June 4, 2008 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well written article and with a lot of points that are considering carefully. However, a few important aspects have not been taken into account as well as by the punditry which are unfortunately not really measurable by polls. The 2008 election will be the first grass-roots election in American History through the power of leveraging technology to connect people across the country. The get-out-the-vote effort will be beyond anything we have ever seen in history. Mail in voting will reach record numbers as people will be hand-held by Obama organizers through casting a vote. Community organizing style taken to the national level through the internet. The turnout will probably increase by more than 10% and essentially all of those will go for Obama, while Republican turnout will lag behind. Obama will spend probably twice as much money on the general election alone as Bush did in 2004 in the entire election cycle. This means that they will likely start spending money big time in Republican states - look at Texas for example. 2,8 Mil. democratic primary voters = 22% turnout. Duplicate the 2004 general election turnout of 44% in Texas and youe have 5,6 Mil. democratic voters. How many Republican voters came out in 2004? 4,6 Mil.!!! So even if Obama loses 0,5 Mil. Hillary votes (30%) - he will still be competitive in Texas. My guess is that McCain needs more than 6 Mil. votes in Texas to win that state! Given the shifted demographics in that state that is a huge task for an anemic fundraiser. The polls will start capturing the voter registration effort only towards the end of the summer - by September Obama should poll nationally at about 52-53% by that time!

- Andy

June 4, 2008 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama, the shoe-shiner is a loser!

- Leopold Puig

June 4, 2008 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"After Democratic support for and Republican opposition to the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of African Americans became Democrats." This is a myth. 80% of Congressional Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 64% of Democrats. 87% of Congressional Republicans voted for the 1965 Voting Rights Act compared against 79% of Democrats. Make whatever arguments you wish about the GOP's subsequent embrace of the Deep South's frustrations over racial tensions, but your sweeping statement is a libel against the Congressional Republicans who voted in favor of this important legislation.

- Chris

June 4, 2008 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

2008 could be 1928 in a different kind of way -- the early coalescing of a new winning coalition. 1928 was the first year the Democrats captured the urban vote and it signaled the transition of labor and socialist voters to the Democratic coalition. This new coalition fell short across the board but game back with a vengeance in 1932. However in 1932 the Democrats took a half step back on their candidate and nominated the Brahmin Roosevelt a throughback to an earlier model for Democratic standard bearers. Smith never recovered from the insult and moved "right" even as his constituents among the urban ethnics stayed with the left leaning New Deal. the question with Obama's new Democrats is whether they have staying power on the left -- will suburbanites and 20 somethings stay predictably progressive or like segments of Gene McCarthy's and George McGovern's troops or Lindsay's Limousine liberals move back to a centrist independendency once the war issues dissipates. In addition will our new found allies exist comfortably with Blacks, Latinos labor and working class ethnics.

- RMH

June 4, 2008 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting observations. But you missed an even more interesting fact, which is that Kennedy still remains the only Catholic President, and John Kerry has been the only Catholic Presidential nominee since JFK. See this.

- Dinosaur

June 4, 2008 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And let us not foget that the present Mayor Daley of Chicago probably cannot vote the graveyards for Obama as his father did for Kennedy. It is too often forgotten that the election of 1960 was likely stolen.

- Eupatrides

June 4, 2008 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right comparison, Wrong Issue. Racism will undoubtedly effect the votes both for and against Obama. Just as Smith galvanized the Catholic vote (previously split) and some people voted against him because he was a Catholic the same will happen with Obama. However, the larger issue will be how is perceived in November regarding his political outlook. Al Smith was positioned to the Far Left of his Party as is Obama. Their voting records, in fact, show some interesting parallels. Kennedy was and was perceived as, a much more moderate Democrat. If Obama can convince the voters that he does have some way of reaching accords with other in the party and across the isle, He will have no issues. If He ends up perceived as a far left wing extremist he will face a very difficult electoral map.

- Wardawg

June 4, 2008 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why can't left of center journalists tell the truth about civil rights? especially since Byrd is still there as positive proof. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. [See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]

- Mike

June 4, 2008 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Al Smith and JFK were both free market capitalist Democrats in stark contradistinction to the economically collectivist breed of Democrat that Barack Obama represents. Obama's economic platform has far more in common with the failed "New Deal" of FDR and the failed "Great Society" of LBJ than with the robust pro-growth policies of Smith and JFK. The redeeming qualities of FDR and LBJ were, however, that at least they recognized threats to America from abroad and, although sometimes belatedly, did finally buck up and launch America's full military might towards to end of either crippling or vanquishing America's external enemies. Obama's foreign policy platform on the other hand has far more in common Hoover's (and Ron Paul's) isolationist point-of-view – which helped lead to and exacerbate the gravity of World War II – than with either of these storied (or infamous, depending on who you ask) Democratic presidents of old.

- Jonathan Hansen

June 4, 2008 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So when Al Gore Sr., Robert (KKK) Byrd and William Fulbright, Democrats all, filibustered a Civil rights bill it was Republicans that opposed it? How about the southern Dems who voted against it and the Rupublicans who voted FOR it, without these votes the bill would not have passed. If you want to re-write history, pick some that is not documented in the Congressional Record!!

- Bill M

June 4, 2008 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By framing the issue almost exclusively in terms of America's readiness to overcome prejudice against "a social group that was once on the margins of American politics," you are skirting a related yet far more personal issue Obama must address. Obama benefited initiallly from wide cross-cultural and inter-racial popularity. His campaign was wildly successful prior to the Rev. Wright revelations in the media. It's when people started questioning his character - not his color - that he bagan bleeding support. No question there still are voters out there for whom race is a determining issue. But it's evident that a great many individuals who would be willing and ready to vote for an African-American candidate now harbor serious doubts about Obama. If Obama loses in November, please don't raise your voice in the chorus of media blaming his loss on the latent racism of the American public. Many folks who were once attracted to him as a uniter and a healer now simply question Obama's sincerety and integrity.

- Brucechap

June 4, 2008 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama won the democrat primary because he is black, because the press chose him and because he knew how to game the democrat caucus system which gave him the votes of the party acivists while she won the popular vote. When America applauds competent blacks on the both side of the aisle, we will be a proud country snf noy unyil then.

- Lynn O'Connor

June 4, 2008 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So much wrong..so little time. Let's start in the first sentence. Jefferson was not a democrat. He was a member of the Republican "party" in contrast to the Federalist "party" of Hamilton and Adams. The Democratic Republicans came into being after the "Era of Good Feelings" in response to Andrew Jackson being miffed at J.Q. Adams for "stealing" "his" election. Funny, seems the democrats are always mad at someone "stealing" their elections. The rest goes on in much the same, erroneous, manner. I particularly agree with previous comments over who favored civil rights legislation more. Remember, Jackson was a slave owner, and much more the "Father of the Democratic Party" than Jefferson ever would want to be.

- Olorin

June 4, 2008 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No John F. Kennedy. Some of the presence, but not the brave agenda. Search "New Frontier Culture" to read an essay on this topic. BHO, more likely is Adlai Stevenson, but an aggressive, non-self effecing version thereof. Which makes him closer to McGovern. Look for a 1988-type of election. Sorry Dems, but you will keep the House and the Senate in return to the status quo of the era before 1994. That's what the voters seem to want, whether the pundits (and I am one myself) like it not. It may be what the parties want too, and they work toward in their electioneering. A Republican president and Democratic congress give both parties what they want. The Dems gets lots of offices and job, control the agenda and the ability to spend money. The Republicans get control of national security and the financial system. Oh, and both parties get non-accountability out of it. For the parties, the opposite, the Clinton presidency and the Republican congress didn't work out very well on the accountability front. Did it?

- Mike Field

June 4, 2008 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No John F. Kennedy. Some of the presence, but not the brave agenda. Search "New Frontier Culture" to read an essay on this topic. BHO, more likely is Adlai Stevenson, but an aggressive, non-self effecing version thereof. Which makes him closer to McGovern. Look for a 1988-type of election. Sorry Dems, but you will keep the House and the Senate in return to the status quo of the era before 1994. That's what the voters seem to want, whether the pundits (and I am one myself) like it not. It may be what the parties want too, and they work toward in their electioneering. A Republican president and Democratic congress give both parties what they want. The Dems gets lots of offices and job, control the agenda and the ability to spend money. The Republicans get control of national security and the financial system. Oh, and both parties get non-accountability out of it. For the parties, the opposite, the Clinton presidency and the Republican congress didn't work out very well on the accountability front. Did it?

- Mike Field

June 4, 2008 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm kind of curious, in exactly what sense do you mean Obama is "black"? His skin color or his life experience? He was raised by his white grandmother. He attended prestigious and exclusive schools. He graduated from Harvard. Now, he joined the largest, most pretigious "black" church in Chicago to get the "black experience" but claims he never really listened to what his preacher was saying in the pulpit or absorbed any of the overt and blatant racism of his fellow parishioners. His search for "roots" seems to have been limited to going to Africa and posing for a picture in a silly tribal costume. Except for his skin color he's about as "black" as Richie Howard from "Happy Days". He may have visited the 'hood, in a sightseeing tour bus, but he's never really lived there. Groomed by the Chicago political machine, he's had everything handed to him on a silver platter since he entered politics. The only dues he's ever paid are to his racguetball club. In the unlikely event that the voters choose someone to the left of both McGovern and Dukakis, but without their experience or judgment, the country will STILL not have elected its first black president.

- Orion

June 4, 2008 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My take from this column: Blah, Blah, Blah. The last time I checked, his name is Barak Obama and this is 2008. And the post by P.: have you never heard nor seen a paragraph before. Holy crap. Another thing, you can always count on a democrat to challege the status quo. You can always count on republicans to be like an old smelly shoe that's been worn to death by a CEO.

- victor

June 4, 2008 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's an interesting question, and the article handles it well. But the Mr. Judis has two things wrong. First, Al Smith did in fact address his religion during the 1928 campaign: a speech (in Oklahoma City) devoted entirely to the topic. The success of his speech is uncertain (not unlike that of Mr. Obama's), but it was an effort to confront the anti-Catholicism directly. In addition, the Democratic campaign organization combatted rumors and worse. Secondly, although Smith was opposed for the nomination by many Southerners, in fact most of them accepted his nomination as inevitable in 1928 for reasons I outlined in a dissertation and book. Indeed, many of them anticipated that nominating him for a race he could not win was the best way to remove him as a factor in future presidential election years. I have addressed both of these topics at length on my website: www.donnneal.com.

- Donn C. Neal

June 4, 2008 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's an interesting question, and the article handles it well. But the Mr. Judis has two things wrong. First, Al Smith did in fact address his religion during the 1928 campaign: a speech (in Oklahoma City) devoted entirely to the topic. The success of his speech is uncertain (not unlike that of Mr. Obama's), but it was an effort to confront the anti-Catholicism directly. In addition, the Democratic campaign organization combatted rumors and worse. Secondly, although Smith was opposed for the nomination by many Southerners, in fact most of them accepted his nomination as inevitable in 1928 for reasons I outlined in a dissertation and book. Indeed, many of them anticipated that nominating him for a race he could not win was the best way to remove him as a factor in future presidential election years. I have addressed both of these topics at length on my website: www.donnneal.com.

- Donn C. Neal

June 4, 2008 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Key to everything is whether McCain can hold most or all of the 2004 red states and add Pennsylvania and/or Michigan. Obama has yet to be tested against an opponent from a different party in a difficult election. John McCain is going to be about as difficult as they come. My bet is on the old guy. Game's on.

- Sam Davis

June 4, 2008 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Al smith was at best one quarter irish and like Obama was perceived by his minority heritage

- mythbuster

June 4, 2008 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Quit Compounding the lie that Republicans were against Civil Rights. 197 Democrats and 176 Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But Republicans voted in higher percentages than Democrats: 81.5% to 62.7% In fact, in the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. Movement of Blacks to the Democratic Party probably had more to do with feeling that the Democrats cared more for them than the Republicans, since Republicans want individuals to do for themselves, not wait for government help. The Democrats have ridden that horse (donkey) ever since.

- GaryB

June 4, 2008 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We already had our first black president, Bill Clinton. Obama will be our first woman president. Hillary has more testosterone that the starvin marvin look alike. Everyone knows this which is why Obama is so popular in Europe (fellow emasculated men), with terrorists (Hamas, Hezbollah), and with despots (Iran, Cuba, Venzuela, etc). The man is not a credible threat. Who could possibly be afraid of Obama? There is the off chance that him being such a wimp will benefit America. Like when Krushev backed down to JFK because he misinterpreted one of JFKs' please for leniency on the grounds of his weak political standing, as JFK saying that there was the real possibility of a military coup. Krushev was rightly scared that the military would happily nuke Russia.

- m11618

June 4, 2008 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

B.O. is less than either JFK or Al Smith.... one was a governor of the then-largest state when he ran [as was FDR four years later], the other had at least a brief experience in 'command' of a crisis, and many years in Congress more than B.O.

- Steve Finefrock

June 4, 2008 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is not a Roman Catholic (Smith and Kennedy were), but he is an ignorant anti-American communist (Smith and Kennedy were not). The article's title is misleading.

- John Seater

June 4, 2008 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The race factor definitely helped Obama in his quest for the Democratic nomination, but may hurt him in the fall campaign. If Obama had been a more commonplace white male rookie U.S. Senator, instead of a very rare black (actually, mixed-race) rookie U.S. Senator, the U.S. media would not have taken his presidential campaign too seriously. A 100% white Obama would probably have been just another also-ran like John Edwards (himself a former one-term U.S. Senator) and would have lost handily to Hillary Clinton. Unlike the Democratic caucuses and primaries, just winning 95% of the black vote and 95% of the white college town vote won't be enough, by itself, for Obama to prevail in the general election. Obama will need to appeal to less upscale whites and to latinos in the key Midwestern battleground states, or else he will lose to McCain. Frankly, Hillary Clinton, despite her own high negatives, would have been a stronger candidate in the battleground states that Democrats need in order to win the White House. Obama may win given the damage that Bush has done to the Republican "brand", but right now he looks more like the black Al Smith than the black JFK. My prediction...McCain wins a squeaker election with an electoral college map and vote that closely resembles 2000 and 2004.

- Joe in Ohio

June 4, 2008 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How can you get your history so wrong? It was the REPUBLICANS whose votes in Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. It was NOT the Democrats, who were burdened with the Dixiecrats then. Did you not have time to look it up? Or did you just assume that's what must have happened? Try a little fact checking next time.

- Gerry Phelps

June 4, 2008 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

obama may be elect as a next President of U.S.Great fear in my mind is can racist bigots accept him as their new President?Kennedy was Roman Cathlic,What happened in Kennedy`s case,if that kind of tragedy happen,U.S will loss new era of AMERICAN histroy forever.

- Ramesh Raghuvanshi

June 4, 2008 at 11:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IT's THE BLOC of VOTERS (and nothing else)! Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic Party Candidate for president. The Democratic Party, with the aid of the Republican Party, will insure that. Her VP candidate will probably be a military type with a distinguished record, a flag or general officer. She will be so due to the VOTING BLOC that she will have in November--thanks to the nomination procedure for 2008 of the Democratic and Republican parties (that has been ongoing since December 2006). The last weeks of this nomination procedure will be spent under the illusion that Obama is the Democratic party presidential candidate. McCain and Obama will be sniping at each other while Hillary is safely on the sideline out of line-of-fire, yet presented as cool and steady under difficult conditions (a regular "steel women"). Through it all Hillary's principal base of support (a huge bloc of American women) will get angrier and angrier, while viewing her steely calm with amazed admiration. The nomination will be made at the Democratic Convention (nominally “exciting,” --'Who will it be?'--as opposed to the 'like watching a clock tick' convention of 2004). Hillary Clinton will be the nominee (I don't on which count) (the superdelegates who left Clinton in recent weeks, are under no obligation not to return to Clinton, and the Democratic Party State Conventions are not yet complete). McCain will be formally nominated at the Republican convention (the latest in the year held to date) Then the presidential election between Hillary and McCain will begin. This will be the shortest Presidential Election in American history. It will also be the biggest scam in American history (running from December 2006-November 2008). Get ready for general war under Commander in Chief HR Clinton. Hillary will be the first American president whose sex is female. She will not be the first female puppet to play “national leader” in history. Only a fool believes that a woman is not capable of playing the role of rubber stamp to the Joint Chiefs of Staff!

- p.

June 5, 2008 at 4:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A lot of things have changed since 1928, but, being a Catholic was not the downfall of Al Smith. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain being the nominee for their respective parties must now convince the voters that their platform to govern America is the the correct path. From my prospective looking in from the outside I see stark differences between the two. Mr. McCain has proven that he can reach across the isle to the Democrats to gather or give support for a program that he feels is correct. Mr. McCain is strong on national defense and fiscal responsibility, weak on social issues. Mr. Obama in his voting does not tell anyone where he really stands on a issue. He has not demonstrated the ability to reach across the isle to the Republicians, but, to fully support every liberal cause regardless. The questions then comes to mind as to how he can affect this great change he is talking about bringing to America? It takes a leader who can work with both sides in order to get anything accomplished in Washington. However, since the Democrats control both the Congress and Senate he can get whatever platform he wants approved, but, is this really in the interest of the American citizens. A large issue to be decided is Big Government or Smaller Government with less taxes. The Democrats are well known for Big Government with higher taxes and the Republicians for Smaller Government and less taxes. This boils down to the average worker keeping more of his paycheck in his hands to meet the demands of housing, food, transportation and schooling. Since more Republicians supported the Civil Rights Bills than Democrats according to voting history it makes one wonder why so many of the black population supports the Democrats at all. Either way both candidates have to convince 320 million Americans that their platform is the best for them and for America.

- Gene

June 5, 2008 at 5:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One of best reasoned articles on the subject.

- at

June 5, 2008 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He's Carter. Nixon was competent but morally flawed. Bush has the opposite problem; a fine tuned moral compass coupled with managerial incompetence. Will there be a new Reagan to clean up after Obama.?

- Rob

June 5, 2008 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When two people are talking and have different views of the same topic, and the one who disagree starts calling it as "propoganda" ? Is that fair for an intecllectual discussion. Building ameica is the main topic and everyone's contribution is required. However big or small. Because, God has even not made two leaves the same on one branch of a tree. They are different in every manner. But, in America: there are ethnicities, which are all diffent from one another in all respects. But, there common ground is in return also in America. Not an ethnic America [as preceived by ethnicities] rather, a United States of America. There is only thing that everyone can unite at and make this unity more stronger, it is The United States of Ameica, lest not forget!

- Habib Hasan

June 5, 2008 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

B"H re: the comment stating Republicans supported the civil rights act- that is not true at all. Republicans lost the South when Abe Lincoln campaigned on an anti-slavery platform, but regained it about 95 years later when they campaigned on a promise to oppose Civil Rights legislation. they were willing to vote against the Civil Rights act for the sake of gaining white southern votes. One of the very few campaign promises ever kept.

- chana

July 6, 2008 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close