By Andrew Malcolm
Candidates running hard for president usually do everything they can to dodge a direct answer to: "Will you accept the position of vice presidential candidate on your party's ticket?"
They'll say something diffuse about, "Right now, I'm focused on winning my party's presidential nomination, which I am confident I will do."
So Sen. Barack Obama's comment to a Montana TV reporter in Casper, Wyo. Friday night -- "You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate" -- was unusually direct.
But not as direct as the lasting answer given by another Democratic senator so many years ago -- in fact, two years before Obama was born. We are indebted to fellow blogger Chuck Boyce for leading us to some fascinating video nearly a half-century old that recounts another senator -- in fact, only the second and the last sitting senator in the nation's history ever to be elected president -- who made a similar unequivocal statement. And he meant it.
It was John F. Kennedy, who had actively but unsuccessfully sought his party's No. 2 spot with Adlai Stevenson in the former Illinois governor's 1956 rematch against Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Four years later, Kennedy formally announced his own presidential candidacy on Jan. 2, 1960.
Check that date; it's a revealing measure of how our presidential politicking has changed. Kennedy started his candidacy barely 11 months before the actual presidential election and about 12 months after presidential wanna-bes hit the trail these days.
Kennedy, who was in his second Senate term then and had won a Pulitzer Prize, made the actual announcement on a Saturday, which meant he dominated the Sunday newspapers right after the New Years holiday. In his announcement, he specifically stated that he would not accept the vice presidential nomination "under any circumstances, and that is not subject to change by any conditions."
The next morning, in living black-and-white TV, Kennedy went on "Meet the Press" with an amazingly stiffly-formal panel of four Washington journalists and moderator Ned Brooks (we seem to recall that Tim Russert at the time had just been hired as a page at NBC's New York studios).
Kennedy's TV appearance occurred just three days into what would become the turbulent and searing decade of the 1960s, a life-shaping time for most of an entire generation. It's an eerie experience to watch, knowing what was coming to the country and Kennedy in the coming years.
It only took until the second panelist, James Reston, for the vice president question to arise. "I will not accept the Democratic Party vice presidential nomination," Kennedy repeated firmly. "I shall support the Democratic ticket and work hard for it."
He recounted the minimal formal duties given to the vice president, presiding over the Senate at times, breaking tie votes and monitoring the president's health. He suggests he can perform a better service as an active senator. And, again eerily, he notes the unlikeliness of a vice president becoming president "presuming that the president will have a normal life expectancy."
Kennedy states that people don't vote for vice presidents and, revealing his young campaign's soon-to-be-familiar thorough preparedness, he notes in detail by names and dates that in the previous 60 years vice presidential candidates had not contributed an electoral vote by bringing along their home state.
That statement would prove particularly ironic later that year when Kennedy agreed to party leaders' suggestions at the national convention in Los Angeles that he choose Sen. Lyndon Johnson as his vice presidential running mate for just that very reason, in order to capture the important electoral votes of Texas for the ticket. Which Johnson did for the Democrats' narrow victory.
At the time of that "Meet the Press" broadcast, Johnson, by the way, was competing with Kennedy for the nomination and had also announced that he would not accept the party's vice presidential slot. But because he didn't mean it or changed his mind, he was destined to become president on Nov. 22, 1963, with Kennedy's assassination in Johnson's home state.
This video shows an excerpt from a news conference Kennedy held after announcing his candidacy.
Andrew Malcolm writes for Top of the Ticket, the Los Angeles Times' political blog
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Mr. Malcolm's knowledge of history is illustrated by the above sentence:
"The next morning, in living black-and-white TV, Kennedy went on "Meet the Press" with an amazingly stiffly-formal panel of four Washington journalists and moderator Ned Brooks (we seem to recall that Tim Russert at the time had just been hired as a 35-year-old page at NBC's New York studios)."
"35-year-old Tim Russert"? Mr. Malcolm, Tim Russet was born in 1950. He was 10 years old in 1960. He didn't join NBC until 1984.
Can't these Swamp people get anything correct?
Posted by: Bruce | March 10, 2008 5:26 PM
I wonder if John McCain/Bush is going to ask John Kerry to be his running-mate? afterall it was McCain who was begging John Kerry to pick him as his running-mate in 2004.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033
Posted by: John E | March 10, 2008 5:33 PM
the reference to tim russert being 35 at the time was a joke about his age. for the humorless, we have removed that.
Posted by: mark silva | March 10, 2008 5:58 PM
On a lighter note, Obama will fix your computer - and more! See http://obamawill.com
Posted by: Bill Vroom | March 10, 2008 6:03 PM
I guess Obama thinks he is now superior even to LBJ. What a joke he is.
Posted by: Catherine | March 10, 2008 6:08 PM
Catherine: What an uncalled-for comment, why don't you stick to the issues? Women get so emotionally over the top, just like Hillary losing it on the campaign trail and duringthe debates.
Posted by: lori | March 10, 2008 9:32 PM
I guess Obama thinks he is now superior even to LBJ. What a joke he is.
Posted by: Catherine | March 10, 2008 6:08 PM
What??? Get a life. While your attemping to find one lighten up.
Posted by: Proud American | March 10, 2008 9:52 PM
Wow! I was just thinking earlier today about why the Democrats are having a tough time deciding between Hillary and Barack.
Hillary (without the charisma) is like JFK and Malcolm X ; Barack (without the experience) is like MLK and RFK. The Democratic party is split between voting for the pragmatism of JFK/Malcolm X and the romanticism of MLK/RFK.
Traditionally, Democrats would go for the romance, but in recent years the Dems have gone for the pragmatism of Mondale, Gore and Kerry - losers all. The one time the Dems went with the romance - Bill Clinton, they won.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | March 10, 2008 10:20 PM
Bruce,
I believe Mark meant "we seem to recall..." as a joke.
Had Mark written, "Tim Russert was a page," then you could assume he thought it was the case.
Guess you should put a smiley face behind all of your jokes, Mark, so that guys like Bruce will "get it."
By the way Bruce, we're winning in Iraq. :)
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | March 10, 2008 11:06 PM
The Truth About Obama's Voting Record
Posted by RollinTruth on Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:07:53 PM
The tendency of Barrack Obama to vote "present" on controversial matters during his time in the Illinois State Senate is getting some media attention lately, and his campaign has sought to dismiss the criticism by claiming there were good, sound political strategies involved in Obama's decision to avoid voting.
The most absurd aspect of the whole story is not his votes -- which are already pretty absurd -- but rather his attempted defense of those votes. Obama's defense of not doing the job he was elected to do? He couldn't vote on those bills, because his votes would've been used against him when he ran for reelection.
HUH? Since when is it a legitimate argument to say, "I didn't vote on that bill, because it would hurt my political future." Even worse is that much of the liberal press has actually accepted this ridiculous, indefensible opportunistic point of view. So, pretty absurd and inexcusable, right?
Oh, but wait -- it gets better! Not only does he admit his votes (or lack thereof) were based on purely political calculations, and not only does the mainstream media accept and defend his argument. Deciding to just take the ball and run with it, Obama and his supporters say that not voting out of personal political opportunism is in fact an example of true leadership on these issues he wouldn't vote on!
What is interesting is that during all this examination of Obama's record in the Illinois Senate, nobody is raising the issue of Obama's serial non-voting in Congress. Let's take a look at how he voted during his long one-year career in the U.S. Senate:
He skipped voting on 26 of 59 budget, spending, and tax measures – that means he didn't bother to vote on 44% of these measures during his entire career in the Senate. He skipped NINE out of fifteen votes on health related measures. He skipped voting on FIVE of six transportation measures in 2007. He skipped voting on FOUR of five welfare-related measures. He skipped voting on about half of environmental-related measures. He skipped voting on half of education measures. He constantly skipped out on votes relating to farm subsidies and agriculture expenditures.
He voted AGAINST a bill that would deny legal status to undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms. But then he voted FOR a bill reducing the number of guest workers. Now, regardless of one's view on immigration in general, if you had to choose between allowing in MORE criminals or MORE legal workers, which would you choose? That's all I'm saying!
He skipped voting on future military funding for Iraq, as well as multiple other Iraq funding measures, skipped voting on the Iraq Withdrawal Amendment, after first voting AGAINST it a few months earlier; and he also skipped voting on the measure designation Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But he's been running around the country for months saying he opposes the war and that he'll end the war, while being unwilling to go on record about any of it. I'm not saying he should have voted for a withdrawal, I'm just saying he's like a lot of cowardly liberals who say something but are unwilling to actually risk backing it up with action.
Finally, in an apparent attempt to continue his strong record of leading by non-example from his grand days in the Illinois Senate, Obama skipped voting on two of three abortion-related bills in Congress. At least on this issue, his vote -- or rather, non-vote -- has remained consistent, I guess.
Well, that's one way to ensure the Republican candidate won't be able to attack him for his record in the Senate -- just avoid having one!
Posted by: PJ | March 11, 2008 8:22 AM
I'm taking a chance that Obama doubters and Clinton supporters will read the following, given the fact that the media brands most of her supporters as under-achievers and under-educated...
LADIES FIRST:
Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision.
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6 yrs.- and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the web site of the Library of Congress http://www.th omas. loc.gov/, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after John A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton 's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for r city projects in response to 9/11? 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included?**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,?**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act,- became law,&n bsp; **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,?**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill,- became law,?**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.
Pass it on....It's impressive
Posted by: Bob Dole | March 11, 2008 8:42 AM
Pseudo Bob Dole @8:42 a.m.
Yeah it is an impressive list, I guess, if passing bills and stuff, is some kind of measure of some sort of great legislative accomplishment. I thought for a moment that you may have shorted the Great Obama by, say, 70 bills, when I saw the 820 number, but by the time that you reached the end, he was back up to the 890 number that we keep getting the memo on from the Obamaphiles. This had a very palliative effect on my fear and anxiety. Thank you.
I know that there can never be enough gun control bills, so I understand those 15 legislative achievements, but WHEN did democrats start fighting crime? That memo, I did not get. Hopefully no Criminals or Trial Lawyers have actually been damaged or inconvenienced by any of these 112 bills. Well, in any event, THANKS for NOT publishing the ENTIRE Obama Bill Passing List. He razzles, He dazzles, and clearly for all the World to see, He is a bill-passing Machine. yea.
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | March 11, 2008 10:29 AM
Pseudo Bob Dole @8:42 a.m.
Yeah it is an impressive list, I guess, if passing bills and stuff, is some kind of measure of some sort of great legislative accomplishment. I thought for a moment that you may have shorted the Great Obama by, say, 70 bills, when I saw the 820 number, but by the time that you reached the end, he was back up to the 890 that we keep getting the memo on from the Obamaphiles. This had a very palliative effect on my fear and anxiety. Thank you.
I know that there can never be enough gun control bills, so I understand those 15 legislative achievements, but WHEN did democrats start fighting crime? That memo, I did not get. Hopefully no Criminals or Trial Lawyers have actually been damaged or inconvenienced by any of these 112 bills. Well, in any event, THANKS for NOT publishing the ENTIRE Obama Bill Passing List. He razzles, He dazzles, and clearly we can, and should, recognize that He is a bill-passing Machine. yea.
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | March 11, 2008 10:37 AM