Obama's Popularity in Germany: The New Kennedy
Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Monday, January 7. 2008
Germany has swiftly developed a serious case of Obama-mania. Obama's high standing goes beyond his opposition to the Iraq War, which has always been unpopular here. The sudden crush is intimately bound up with the near constant comparisons here between the young senator from Illinois and President John F. Kennedy - still admired in Germany and particularly in Berlin - which have stuck fast as his identity in the German press. The Berliner Morgenpost over the weekend ran with the headline, "The New Kennedy." The tabloid Bild went with, "This Black American Has Become the New Kennedy!
Criticism in the Atlantic Review: Barack Obama's Lack of Real Interest in Transatlantic Cooperation
Welcome! You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW -- a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis by three young professionals from Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. More about us.
The horizontal menu bar at the top helps to navigate this site.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter, which is emailed twice per month.Obama another Kennedy? We should be so lucky.
Kennedy was willing to fight to roll back the mafia, and communism, and understood the importance of free markets and avoiding punitive tax rates. Civil rights came later, and it wasn't the only issue he had that inspired people.
Obama has made some anti-war noises, but he has also made some pro-war noises. Which noises are real? So far, I don't think anyone knows but him. He is on record in favor of huge tax increases, and a form of socialized medicine.
Kennedy's impressive career both in an out of politics made him well-qualified to be President, and his family and political connections made him able to recruit some top-rate advisers.
Obama hasn't even finished a single term (his first) as a national politician, and his career outside of politics, although respectable, hasn't prepared him to lead any country, much less the only superpower. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he will have access to powerful talent in that party, but they typically come with their own agenda. Obama has Oprah Winfrey, who is currently perhaps the single most powerful person in entertainment today. But I don't think she has access to the kind of bureaucratic and managerial talent that the Kennedy clan had.
Both Kennedy and Obama come from famously corrupt political cultures (Boston and Chicago), so they do have that in common.
If, as I hope, Obama spends another term or two in the Senate, or better still, develops his promising leadership potential in the private sector, he could emerge qualified to be President. He is still young.
He is a powerful symbol of hope, optimism, and other things Kennedy-esque. Potentially, he has the substance to go with the symbolism, but it is years too soon to tell. However, if Europe or American get too caught up and confuse symbolism with substance, this could cause Obama to fail spectacularly on the national stage, which would risk adding to the myth that that American could never elect an African-American as President.
The current Obama campaign should focus on building relationships and infrastructure with a view towards the real opportunity which will come eight or more years down the road.
Finally, I think it speaks volumes as to the endurance of the trans-Atlantic relationship, that Europe's papers are nearly as obsessed as American papers with every little ebb and flow of a campaign process that is still in the very early stages.
Excellent analysis John in Michigan.
I would add Obama ran virtually unopposed to win the Illonois US Senate election. The Republicans couldn't find anyone to run after a scandal so Alan Keyes, a Maryland carpetbagger, entered the race.
Obama isn't qualified to chair a powerful senate committee let alone be President. He has zero executive experience and has no power base in the senate.
B. Hussein Obama was born and raised Muslim.
The Democrats will be lucky if Obama does as well as McGovern. The American people aren't stupid.
@Reid: "B. Hussein Obama was born and raised Muslim."
Actually, if this article, which includes links to primary sources, is correct, then Obama was born a Christian, raised for only a part of his childhood as a casual Muslim (without formally accepting the religion), and later, formally embraced Christianity.
Even the article's main point, that Muslims may consider him an apostate, is phrased as a question, not a statement. It is a "real possibility" but not a foregone conclusion.
Do you have different information?
The last thing we need is to give strength to the myth that Obama is a stealth Muslim, or similar nonsense.
Breaking news on Obama's upbringing.
Former conservative David Brock has disputed aspects of Pipes' characterization, and Pipes responds.
My impression after reading both and the material each links to, is that Pipes did not write a "falsehood" as Brock alleges. Pipes was probably unaware of the additional reporting cited by Brock, but nothing in that additional reporting outright falsifies Pipes' conclusions.
Pipes goes out of his way at the beginning of his original article to emphasize he doesn't question Obama's Christianity. And no, this is not throat-clearing (as in "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him")
From the hype we've seen in the Islamic press over such petty issues as the Danish cartoons or the Teddy Bear crisis, it seams reasonable to ask if the mere hint that Obama may at one time have been associated with Islam, is enough to permit accusations (which in the Islamic "street" are too often taken as absolute proof) that he was an apostate.
An interesting aspect that Pipes doesn't discuss is, if Obama's case were to be tried formally in a Sharia court, a major factor would be the religion of those giving testimony.
It would take the testimony of two Catholic teachers to equal the testimony of one Muslim teacher, with "ties" generally decided in favor of the Muslim testimony. The testimony of the two Catholics would be open to allegations that they may have collaborated in their testimony; whereas a single person's testimony by definition cannot have that problem.
Furthermore, if Obama's father were found to be an atheist, for example, his testimony would be worth even less than a Christian. Depending on the circumstances, an atheist who merely disagrees with a Muslim's sworn testimony may be a criminal.
I've just had a look at one of my favorite websites, realpolitics, which among other things provides snapshots of polling data. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
There are some interesting trends here. Obama is on a roll - in the New Hampshire polls at least. In one tracking poll (Suffolk/WHDH) Hilary had a 16 point lead as late as January 2nd. The latest poll (Jan 6th) had Obama taking a 1 point lead - for a 17 point swing in 4 days! Other polls show similar swings - Zogby shows Clinton going from 6 up to 10 down to Obama in the same time span. No polls over the past couple days give Clinton the lead.
Hmm, that seems clear enough. If those polls are accurate Obama becomes the frontrunner, Clinton is staggering, and Edwards is GQ toast.....
There has been a big Republican swing over a slightly longer time span. In early and mid December Mitt Romney held a 16 point poll lead in New Hamshire, but the first polls after Christmas showed McCain in the lead, and ALL of the polls since the iowa caucuses show McCain with leads in NH ranging from 3 to as much as 14 points. Huckabee (the Iowa winner) has had a slight increase but not much. McCain's strong third place finish in Iowa seems to have helped him a lot, particularly since he didn't campaign hard in Iowa. Romney spent a ton trying to win both Iowa and NH - instead he may lose both and be finished as a candidate.
Don,
Just asking.
Iīve just read that Kennedy had an ""unrepentant Republican in the midst of Kennedy's Democratic cabinet" C. Douglas Dillon and of course Clinton had a Republican Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. Maybe we could even add Greenspan here. :)
How many Democrats held high government positions in the last few Republican administrations? Say during Bush I, Bush II and Reagan?
Iīm well aware that a "token" opposition politician not necessarily means anything. But Iīm just curious. Did any of the last three or four Republican Presidents feel even the need to employ a Democrat in a critical administration position?
Having a 'token' member of the opposite party in the cabinet is fairly standard procedure in US politics. Nixon had John Connaly (who later switched parties and ran for President as a Republican. Both Bushs appointed democrats to the cabinent, though not to one of the big offices (Defense, State, AG).
Democrats have had a tendency to appoint Republicans to Defense, as replacements rather than initial appointments because it can be difficult to find a sufficiently hawkish Democrat to fill the position. I mean if you believe the Pentagon should be blown up (or at least neutered) it makes it a bit difficult to lead the place..... So having a GOPer in the Defense slot gives one useful political cover....
Why are Europeans so obsessed with this? Get a life. Mind your own business, control freaks. I almost hope Huckabee becomes the next president just to see the Euro meltdown over not having their way with us. It would be hilarious. Again.
I agree with the comments above, though Obama is the only Democrat I can stomach. That's because he is the one calling for an end to the politics of character assassation = the Democratic Party's only tactic.
But he dances around the specifics to conseal the fact that he is practically a socialist. We don't want that here.
"Why are Europeans so obsessed with this?"
????
"Why are Europeans so obsessed with this? Get a life. Mind your own business, control freaks. I almost hope Huckabee becomes the next president just to see the Euro meltdown over not having their way with us. It would be hilarious. Again."
Having our way with you????
Sorry, not interested in that. No meltdown here.
I suggest you call some former Republican politicians if youīre interested in such activities. :)
And by the way, congratulations for the last seven hilarious years!
---
"I agree with the comments above, though Obama is the only Democrat I can stomach. That's because he is the one calling for an end to the politics of character assassation = the Democratic Party's only tactic."
Thatīs interesting.
Remember the Republican primary 2000? South Carolina?
Smear campaign against McCain? His wife allegedly a drug addict, his adopted daughter from Bangladesh allegedly his own illegitimate child?
Or how about this Op-Ed?
http://tinyurl.com/yyp2jx
"Frank Schaeffer: I should be supporting Allen. Instead, I'm leaving the party."
DallasNews November 1, 2006
Max Cleland 2002?
[Republican candidate] "Chambliss even ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden."
USAToday 11/6/2002
"If the mugging of Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia is a fair indicator of what is to come, the fall elections will be ugly. Cleland, a decorated [Vietnam] veteran and triple amputee, was attacked by his Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.""
"Chambliss did not participate in Vietnam. He had a bad knee, he told columnist Mark Shields,..."
WaPo June 20, 2002
Just three examples that I, a German interested in domestic and foreign policy, remembered. Easily found on the web. I would suggest that the Republican party is no stranger to smear tactics either.
---
"But he dances around the specifics to conseal the fact that he is practically a socialist. We don't want that here."
Interesting again.
Now I donīt want to spend time on the fact that you probably donīt know what a "socialist" really is.
But maybe I can turn your attention to an "old" NYT article?
"Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party -- their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too. Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country's fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the coastal blue states -- the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless moochers -- are left to carry the load."
NYT January 30, 2004
So Republicans were and probably still are redistributing federal tax dollars from "blue states" to "red states". If that isnīt socialist...? :)
Ohh...
and before I forget:
www,treasurydirect.gov
Government section
The debt of the United States
Debt to the penny
Total public debt outstanding:
01/20/2000 $ 5,706,174,969,873.86
12/31/2007 $ 9,229,172,659,218.31
Thatīs supposed to be conservative?
Fiscally responsible?
And the Democrats are socialists?
Give me a break!
Now Iīm an "Old European, dirty hippie, liberal, atheist, gay loving, socialist (did I forget something?)" guy but I would absolutely "crucify" my government if they almost doubled public debts in just seven years.
You seem strangely relaxed about it...?
Because Republican partisans canīt deal well with jokes and facts?
And who is casting all those votes for Obama? Not the left-wing Democratic party base. It's the moderate Democrats, true independents, and moderate Republicans in these almost completely white states where you Euros know that a racist lurks behind every bush.
But don't let the facts challenge your cherished nationalistic myths.
You made three accusations.
1) Europeans just live around American politics.
We are interested sure but our life doesnīt depend on American politics. So, no meltdown. Accept it and get a life.
And by the way, you didnīt answer that.
2) You said that "character assassination = the Democratic Party's only tactic".
I answered that with three visible current examples where the Republican party used that tactic.
And by the way, you didnīt answer that either.
3) You accused Barack Obama of being a socialist.
Once again, you didnīt answer my question.
----
Simply put, you avoided answering any of my questions.
You told us in your original comment that Obama was a socialist and that Americans wouldnīt like that.
Once I objected, you tried to tell me that I and Europeans are the racists.
Sorry, you made the accusations. You made the statements.
Try to weasel out of them.
"But he dances around the specifics to conseal the fact that he is practically a socialist. We don't want that here."
I forgot to mention that Kennedy got elected largely on accusing the Republicans of being "soft on Communism." Remember him blockading Cuba? Just the kind of thing Euros scream about.
Remember the stand-offs at the Berlin Wall? And then there's that little thing known as the Domino Theory and Vietnam.
Where are Germans getting their history from? Pure imagination?
And as for Civil Rights, though he and most Democrats wanted it, they didn't want to alienate the Southern Democrats, but the issue was thrust on him in a way he couldn't dodge. Yes, it was DEMOCRATS from the South who were philibustering the Civil Rights Act and fighting it tooth and nail.
Kennedy was also the first president to bring us out of a recession by cutting taxes.
In short, today Kennedy would be a Republican.
"I forgot to mention that Kennedy got elected largely on accusing the Republicans of being "soft on Communism." Remember him blockading Cuba? Just the kind of thing Euros scream about."
Uh huh.
Except that the Euros didnīt scream about it.
Remember De Gaulle:
"No, no, no, no. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me."
Of course heīs just a cheese eating surrender monkey. And who would mention that without the help of France the 13 colonies might have lost their war against Great Britain?
Certainly not your friends at the NRO.
"Remember the stand-offs at the Berlin Wall? And then there's that little thing known as the Domino Theory and Vietnam."
Nobody forgets the stand-offs at the Berlin wall.
Given current history Iīm not that certain about the "Domino Theory". Could you produce one link proving the relevance of the "domino theory" today? And maybe another link proving that while the "domino theory" might be wrong today, it was the only plausible theory back then?
"Where are Germans getting their history from? Pure imagination?"
Uh no.
Unless something changed a lot, German history is focused on WW2.
Iīm not so sure where you are getting your history from?
NRO? Weekly Standard?
"And as for Civil Rights, though he and most Democrats wanted it, they didn't want to alienate the Southern Democrats, but the issue was thrust on him in a way he couldn't dodge. Yes, it was DEMOCRATS from the South who were philibustering the Civil Rights Act and fighting it tooth and nail."
Uh huh.
And once the Civil Rights Act happened, which party tried to attract dissatisfied Southern Democrats?
And which party usually got most of the votes in the South in the last 40 years?
You know, after the Civil Rights Act happened?
So, should I conclude that Southern Democrats in the 1960s fought JFK "tooth and nail"? But once they entered the benevolent folds of the Republican party they just forgot about the Civil Rights Act?
Just why is that a little hard to believe?
"Kennedy was also the first president to bring us out of a recession by cutting taxes."
Thatīs maybe true if my recollection of tax rates back then is true. Of course simply cutting taxes - especially for the richest ones- doesnīt do it. Not to mention that I seem to remember that later recessions were a bit harder and deeper.
"In short, today Kennedy would be a Republican."
Thatīs probably very unlikely.
1) Kennedy wasnīt stupid.
2) He would probably be appalled of the amount of public debts today.
3) Unlike Republicans today he was a trusted statesman.
Even the French trusted him.
4) He was a Catholic. Given the Republican base today, Iīm not sure he could have won a Republican primary.
Even though President Kennedy called for a civil rights law soon after his inauguration his own vote as a senator mandated that these civil rights laws were had to abide by the limits of the Equal Protection Clause and thus unlikely to pass Supreme Court review. Sen. Dirksen and Rep. Celler came up with the idea of having the new act be based on the
Commerce Clause. A Republican and a Democrat.
But as far as most Democrats being for the law, nonsense. Many Southern Democrats did indeed vote Republican but many more were Republicans simply because the demographics of the South continued to change. Also that many of the former Democrats with membership in racist organizations found themselves excluded from many of the state and local political organizations and most of them remained "Yellow Dog Democrats" till death. In the House only 64% of the Democrats voted for it while 80% of the Republicans did. In the Senate the figures were almost identical, 68% of Democrats for as well as 82% of the Republicans were for it. The Senate Minority Leader, Edward Dirksen of Illinois wrote the conference version that was finally passed. The three most noteworthy no votes were those stalwarts of the Democratic Pary, Sen. Albert Gore, Sen. Robert Byrd and Sen. William Fulbright.
Sorry, Joerg, the people of Arkansas didn't really care about Fulbright's foreign affairs work as long as he always voted to keep blacks as 2nd class citizens and hints that Jews in America were paying for attempts by Israel to control American policy.
The point is that throughout history the parties, past and present, have managed to contain more than their fair share of losers, racists, demagogues, and the brain damaged. But to paint either party in the US as the sole province of the Prince of Darkness is simply front page laziness.
I just noticed another whopper here concerning the debt. The US does indeed have a large debt but it also has a GDP of $13 trillion compared to Germany's at $2.8 trillion. That US debt represents 64.7% of the GDP while Germany has a debt that represents 67.8% of its GDP. Germany is carrying a smaller debt but takes out of circulation capital at a higher rate than the US. And as many are finding the faster the GDP climbs the smaller the debt becomes unless of course one is from one of those virtuous countries that simply ignore their own debt.
I think people have to realize that change is in the air. People are royally pissed off over many things which have been going on in the US and that is by no means limited to Democrats. It's one reason why Huckabee beat Mitt Romney in Iowa and McCain is going to beat Romney in New Hampshire. One person put it as 'a fellow worker against the CEO who fired you' with the former being Huckabee and the latter Romney.
I'm not sure how he does it but Barack Obama manages to do something similar. He's not as folksy as Huckabee, but then nobody is! He seems to be his own man.
It's not a good year to be the candidate of the powerful leadership or the vested interests which is the reason why Hilary and Romney are taking it on the chin thus far, and Rudy Guliani may face some pain for similar reasons.
A lot of people are thoroughly angry and in a mood to bust up the cozy pwer cartels because a lot of the trends in the US are going the opposite of what they should. People are taking pay cuts, jobs are less secure, people who work hard can't get decent health insurance,good jobs are outsourced to Asia and good workers going unemployed.
It's time to let the super-rich who are driving this crap know that they can't insulate themselves from what is going on in the society no matter how high they build the walls around their gated communities. Listen now while people are talking reform, or you may learn the sharp lesson Louis XVIth learned, although that is still aways away I think.
In their own ways Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, and maybe John McCain seem to unsderstand that and promise that things will change. Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and maybe Rudy G don't - and will pay the price of not reaching their ambitions.
Does Obama promise more than he can deliver? Perhaps. We'll see. But electing an Obama or a Huckabee would send a very clear message to people who badly need to listen more to what is REALLY going on out there!
Very good analysis I think.
Reading blogs and media websites Iīve started to see the same things. (While acknowledging that since Iīm not an American citizen and not living in the USA, my own tentative conclusions count very little.)
Concerning the IHT article I think itīs a bit of hype so far. Of course German newspapers will report about the US primaries. And comparing one candidate to Kennedy - whoīs still an icon in Germany too - probably doesnīt hurt circulation.
Not to mention that charismatic and likable candidates speaking about change probably would resonate in Germany too. Wages here have been stagnant too, job insecurity has increased. And sadly, our politicians donīt inspire a lot of enthusiasm.
"Not to mention that charismatic and likable candidates speaking about change probably would resonate in Germany too. Wages here have been stagnant too, job insecurity has increased. And sadly, our politicians donīt inspire a lot of enthusiasm."
;) You mean Gerd Schroeder didn't qualify?
Just to add to this.
I was furious with him in 2002.
When he said that Germany wouldnīt become involved with Iraq regardless of what happens. That was - in my opinion - stupid!
The UN inspectors werenīt even inside Iraq to check.
We didnīt know back then and he made these stupid statements.
In hindsight - while still believing he was stupid - he did take some real political risks before.
(Not to mention that he was right here.)
Donīt forget that he needed a "confidence vote" in the German parliament to send German troops to Afghanistan. Something "staunch" NATO ally chancellor Kohl in 1991 (Kuwait invasion) didnīt even try to do.
Christ, back then they were even discussing if sending German anti-air Patriot batteries to Turkey might violate the German constitution.)
Likewise his government sent German troops to the Balkans (before him: No! We canīt sent German troops to any country Germany occupied during WW2!).
He deserves criticism. But Iīm not sure that without him, we would have seen the deployment of German soldiers outside Germany today.
I just read a piece in Speigel which asserted that Obama has no chance at the Presidentcy. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,526606,00.html
I would not be so sure of that, gentlemen. They argue:
"But the Iowa snow king has scant hope of reaching the White House. He's too young, too inexperienced, too vague, and for many Americans, too black. His magic words about the era of change, of hope, of an America he will unite -- all that will evaporate like morning mist."
Yoo young? Like Teddy Roosevelt and John Kennedy? Peopel tell us he's not like JFK, and they are correct. In many ways he is better. For one thing he's an accomplished writer who actually writes his own books! His campaign is well-financed, and not by his (now deceased) papa writing cheques. I find his career more impressive than JFK's because he has built it himself.
I see himn as more of a TR than a Kennedy. Too inexperienced? Depends on what that means. He ran the Harvard Law Review and taught constitutional law for a decade at the University of Chicago (perhaps the US leading university in many ways), worked as a community organizer and a member of the Ilinois State Senate before entering the Senate.
I don't think 4 years in the Senate is less preparation than
8 years (Hillary) and 18 (Kerrey). It's not an additive thing - beyond a certain point I think it subtracts. Too vague? Compared to whom? They all are vague. Some are more publically tied to specific interest groups but that's not always a plus; for me it isn't!
Too black; Aye, there's the rub, the real problem! Many people at Der Speigel seem convinced without doubt that the US is a racist country. Not that ALL Americans are racists of course, but enough to make a Obama candidatecy into a pipe dream.
I freely confess that I am not color-blind and maybe even have had some bad moments. And I am not color-blind about lamentably Obama. But what Der Speigel fails to understand is that race can be an asset as well as a liability in the US! This is not a Turk running for Chancellor (which IS unthinkable in today's Germany). Obama is going to draw votes from people who vote for him BECAUSE he is half-black! Maybe a LOT of votes! And not just liberals - conservatives like me. I haven't made up my mind quite yet, but he makes a powerful appeal.
Combine that with the fact that I really, really, REALLY don't want to see politics as usual, I want to see change. If he can convince me that he'll change things and try to balance things out - well then I'll probably cast my first ballot for a Democrat since Clinton in '92.
Speigel mentions Iowa's spotty history as a predictor, but shibbolehts are made to be overcome. There was no way Bill Clinton could win in 1992 because he lost the New Hampshire primary and no successful candidate had ever done that before. But then he won, gosh darn.
Speigel compares Obama with Jimmy Carter, and I think with some truth. But they are much different men. Obama is smarter than Carter and will have some weapons Carter didn't have. The economic cycle went bad on Carter, Obama if elected should take office in a situation closer to Reagan in 1980 or Clinton in 1992. Clinton took credit for the expansion and Obama may be able to do the same - timing is everything.
Obama looks like he will win New Hampshire tomorrow, perhaps decisively. There has been a poll swing in New Hampshire of 16 points in 3 or 4 days, if trend continues he may fatally wound his opponents tomorrow. Or not, the worst may be over for Hilary at least.
It is wrong to compare Obama to Teddy Roosevelt (TR). Even though TR was the youngest president he already had lots of executive experience and was a military hero. TR was a true great leader who more than any other individual put the US on a path to political superpower.
Obama wrote a book. Obama is a fluff candidate. Once the final race gets into gear after the conventions he will fade fast in the polls. I contend his race irrelevant but his muslim birth and upbringing is very relevant to the electorate even if the leftwing of the Democratic party doesn't think so. Is America going to elect a president who has Hussein as a middle name?
Iīm afraid I have to shock you.
Just google pictures of the "Supreme Court".
Federal and state.
What youīll see are men and women in long black
robes. Totally hiding their figure. Long sleeves.
Totally - gasp - following Islamic rules!
The only thing left is a head gear.
In short, your American Supreme Court is totally
"islamized".
Just compare this to pictures of the German Supreme Court (called "Bundesverfassungsgericht").
Evidently these men and women are wearing robes too.
Brilliant red robes (probably indicating their socialist tendencies and trying to focus attention on them :) ) plus white ties.
Viewing the pictures of the highest courts in Germany and the USA I can only conclude that American judges are a lot closer to Islamic courts than German ones.
/sarcasm
Roosevelt had been Speaker of the New York House of Representatives, run a ranch, been a New York City Police Commissioner (albeit a very active, reforming comissioner), made a failed bid for NY Mayor, led the Rough Riders in the Spanish American War very courageously, and been Governor of New Yorkl for a couple years before becoming Vice President and ascending to the Presidency when McKinley was assasinated.
On balance I think you are correct that TR had done more than Osama has, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Kennedy's early career was far more of a joint effort by Kennedy and his father Joe Kennedy. The award-winning books, the earlyu House and Senate seats, etc were driven at least at much by papa as by Kennedy himself. And the books were ghost-written with some input from Kennedy.
My point about Osama is that the stuff he has done he's accomplished himself, and in that respect he is more like TR than Kennedy.
Germans seem to have a habit of declaring the Democrat front runner 'another JFK'. They did that 4 years ago with John Kerry and putting a mark next to his name on a ballot was by far the most unpleasant thing I have ever done in a voting booth.
Well, the Germans were literally correct about Kerry, quo vadis. Kerry's full name is John Forbes Kerry, initials JFK. A fact he made much of himself from time to time.
And once the Civil Rights Act happened, which party tried to attract dissatisfied Southern Democrats?
And which party usually got most of the votes in the South in the last 40 years?
You know, after the Civil Rights Act happened?
Which party indeed. Have you done your research? I think not. The Democratic party dominated state and local politics where the real civil rights battles took place. Who were the governors and mayors of the major cities? Look it up and learn.
Would you like to read more?
Have a look at our directory of Atlantic Review posts.
Or check out the constantly updated reading recommendations from our readers in the sidebar: "Tips From Our Readers."
More information on this project in this post. Feel free to comment on any article recommended in the sidebar.
BBCode format allowed. You can make a clickable link with this code:
If you write "[url=http://america-germany.atlanticreview.org]Carnival of US-German Relations[/url]", then this will be displayed: "Carnival of US-German Relations".
And if you write "[url]http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html[/url]", then this will be displayed: "http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html"
Sponsor
SUPPORT THIS SITE
or 
:Tips From Our Readers
- Ratings agency warns on US public finances
- Op-Ed Columnist - The New Rove-Cheney Assault on Reality - NYTimes.com
- French paper describes Iraq as George W. Bush?s victory
- Anne Applebaum - Germany's tug-of-war with Greece - washingtonpost.com
- Greece should sell islands to keep bankruptcy at bay, say German MPs
- US grants home schooling German family political asylum
- Global charter cities could alter our development strategies
- Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi's amazing life-span
- The UK's solar panel rip-off -- fails to learn from Germany
- Europe Not So Swift? EP and European Populism
Latest Comments
NO PASARANComments ()
Pat Patterson about Christian Science Monitor Interview on Greece
Probably! The hallmark of a good confidence scheme is to repeat scamming the initial [...]Comments ()
John in Michigan, US about Christian Science Monitor Interview on Greece
True, I got carried away with rhetoric (I was enjoying some lovely French wine you [...]Comments ()
Pat Patterson about Christian Science Monitor Interview on Greece
No Goldman sold that debt to a Greek bank years ago but what is disturbing is that it [...]Comments ()
John in Michigan, US about Denmark Shows How to Get Support for Afghanistan
A nice pair of posts, Joerg. Denmark seems like another victory for embedded [...]Comments ()
John in Michigan, US about Now The Economist Respects Germany's Economic Model as well
Germany is the Eurozone success story and deserves credit. Other countries such as [...]Comments ()
Blogroll
Google the Site
Hot Topics
Afghanistan
Anti-Americanism
Economics
Iran
Iraq
Merkel
Polls
Terrorism
Click here for the full list of all topics.