WARNING: We Must Not Allow A Reptition Of The 1968 Democratic Convention!

The story behind the nomination of Hubert Humphrey in 1968 is eerily similar to this election.  Eugene McCarthy ran an anti-war campaign that called for the removal of all troops from Vietnam, while Hubert Humphrey did not even campaign.  The people were disenfranchised in that election and the result was chaos.  

chaos

Sen. Hillary Clinton is poised to be the 2008 version of Hubert Humphrey.  Her pledge:  Despite what the people want, despite losing the majority of the states, despite losing 11 contests in a row by an average of 20+, despite the rules saying Michigan and Florida would not have delegates, despite what is good for the party and the country, I will take this election because...

It is owed to me?  

The American people owe you nothing maam.  You owe us. You are a career politician that has used and betrayed the trust the people of our country has given you time and time again.  Now, in this most important election since Lincoln, you seek to place your own ambition above the good of the country.  

That she is not the best candidate for out party is clear.  That she would tear our convention and country in two is clear.  We must not allow the MSM to make it seem normal that this fight should go to the convention.  She has lost.  Not she seeks to circumvent the will of the people for her own personal power.  

Hubert Humphrey lost to Nixon in 1968.  Clinton would lose to McCain in 2008.  This election is far far too important to allow this ghastly repeat of history.  

Let's not allow this to happen.  Let's not passively accept the fact that we may have this nomination stolen from us.  1968 cannot be allowed to happen again.  We need to stop treating Hillary Clinton as though she were anything other than a threat to democracy and the prosperity of our republic.  

She is now no longer a candidate; she cannot win the majority of pledged delgates.  She is an enemy to the Democratic Party and the goal of healing our nation.  Let's treat her as such.  

•  An enemy of the Democratic Party

  that should win over the other half of the party who voted for her.

  Oh, I forgot, we don't need them

  by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:20:08 AM PDT

  •  At this point that is what she is...

    If we allow her to believe it is acceptable to take this to the convention, and she does so, she is an enemy of the Democratic Party.  

    by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:21:29 AM PDT

    •  And thus so are

      her supporters? That would be worse than the 1968 Convention. She may take it to the convention, more than 45% of the party's voters want her too, especially if she wins Texas and Ohio. We cannot tear the party apart. Hillary's supporters are not guaranteed to Obama, just as obama supporers were not guarenteed for Hillary.

      by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:23:18 AM PDT

      •  I'm not saying her supporters are wrong...

        even for supporting her.  I'm saying that if depsite what the people have said she tries to steal the election, as Humphrey did in 1968, it will devastate our party and probably seal our fate in November.  Its not worth it.  

        Its not as though Obama is so unfit for the Presidency that we MUST have Hillary CLinton.  If you can't see how having her continue hurts the party I'm sorry.  But don't use bad logic as an or mischaracterize my position.  

        by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:26:34 AM PDT

        •  She's not going to steal the election!

          If Huckabee trying to steal it for McCain, No. She knows she isn't going to win and she'll drop out after the primaries are over, or until Obama can win the majority of delegates, and that steals leaves 10 weeks until the convention.

          Hillary Clinton is not going to tear the party apart and it's stupid ignorant comments like that which make Obama supporters look bad in the eyes of Clinton supporters questioning whether or not to support him. Do you want them to support him? Calling their candidate an enemy to the party or worse AN ENEMY TO THE GOAL OF HEALING THE NATION is a sure fire way to keep them home in the fall.

          by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:29:23 AM PDT

          •  She's not going to steal the election?

            Why does she constantly say that automatic delegates should vote for whomever they wish?  Why is she constantly pushing for Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated?  Why did she have a VICTORY speech after Florida?

            I'm going by what she says.  And if she takes it to the convention it will devastate our chances in November.  

            by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:31:35 AM PDT

            •  You going by what you THINK

              this is politics and she's trying to convince her supporters she can still win, so they don't bail on her, throw in the towel and go home. She's keeping them in the party. When this is over, she'll get behind Obama and so will her supporters, but pushing her out of the race before it is even LEGALLY OVER isn't going to do that.

              by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:34:53 AM PDT

              •  now you're going by what you THINK

                You'r ehoping that, despite what she says, she will act for the good of the party.  I'm saying that right now what she is saying is scaring the shit out of me.  

                by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:37:28 AM PDT

                •  And you have proof

                  that she's planning on not acting in the good of the party, or are you assuming based on your own spin?

                  by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM PDT

                  •  I go by what she says...

                    She says she will fight till the convention and if you think your own candidate is a liar my god why do you support her?  

                    by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:23:34 AM PDT

                    •  Did I say I support her?

                      I don't support her, but I'll gladly defend her against irrationality.

                      by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:37:09 AM PDT

        •  Humphrey didn't steal the nomination

          See below.  It was a less than ideal situation, but it was in no sense a "theft" of a nomination that belonged to McCarthy, who managed to only win one contested primary.  38 states had methods other than primaries of determining delegates to the convention.  It wasn't expected at the time that a nomination would be chosen democratically, although the results of the primaries were taken into account by party leaders.

          by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:42:23 AM PDT

•  Just a little over the top. (n/t)

  by banjolele on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:20:20 AM PDT

  •  Obamamania goes hand in hand with ...

    ... Obamanoia.

    by RonK Seattle on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM PDT

•  Tip Jar n/t

  by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:20:46 AM PDT

  •  You are a Clinton concern troll

    no different from Obama concern trolls.  You talk out of both sides of your mouth, whining that Hillary wants to break the rules with Michigan and Florida (which is wrong, because she did not violate the pledge, and it is within the rules for the convention to seat them, and for her to ask), but demand the rules to changed to reflect your view of "the people," the pledged delegates.  The same "rules" you hold so sacrosanct give a role to the superdelegates.  

    by dhonig on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:32:12 AM PDT

    •  I'm not sure about michlawa

      who's kind of a moron, but most Obama people are not demanding any "rules changes" this year with respect to superdelegates.  We think that the superdelegates would be incredibly stupid to give the nomination to Clinton if she's behind in pledged delegates, and that they shouldn't do it.

      From what I can tell, most of the superdelegates agree, which is why Clinton's lead among them is deteriorating even as we speak.

      by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:35:00 AM PDT

    •  Apples and oranges

      It's not a question of "rule: good or bad?" but of how the rules impact the degree of direct democracy in the primary process.  Superdelegates potentially thwart the will of the people and therefore create a less democratic process than if they didn't exist (you can argue that they might counteract the disproportionality introduced by district-weighting schemes, but that would be a call, along with michalaw, for them to renounce their rule-based prerogative to vote as they please).  Similarly, so long as we agree on the basic idea that fair elections require that the link between the voting process and the outcome be formally established before the fact, the FL and MI primaries were either irrelevant or undemocratic.  To seat them, you would either have to validate these election results, which would be undemocratic, or allow them to act as superdelegates.  

      In any case, it's a good thing that, at this point, the debate looks to be merely academic.  But I object to your labeling of michalaw as a "concern troll".  I don't see why it's necessary to go from simple disagreement to implicitly saying that he/she has no place at this site.  Especially when, as I tried to show, there are alternative perspectives to your counterargument.  Uprated to counteract.

      by tipsymcstagger on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM PDT

      •  we simply disagree

        but the tenor of this diary, the tortured claim that Clinton is somehow DESTRUCTIVE, for merely running for office, is the concern troll part.  

        by dhonig on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:30:29 AM PDT

•  Shameful Republican talking points -again

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:21:50 AM PDT

  •  Republican?!

    I only care about stopping the Republican party from taking another election from us.  There is no reason we should surrender this election by having a repeat of 1968 or splitting our party or country at the convention.  

    Wake up and realize what would happen if we allow this to continue further.  Unless she steps down at some point we will lose in November.  

    by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:24:10 AM PDT

    •  And there's no reason this party

      should surrender the election by alienating half the party. Wake up and realize everyone in the party doesn't support Obama and pushing them aside isn't going to bring them around.

      by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:25:16 AM PDT

      •  No need to alienate her voters...

        But even her supporters should realize she now poses a danger to the party.  

        by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:29:45 AM PDT

        •  And that comment alienates her voters

          could've said the same thing about Kucinich in 2004. He stayed in till the convention. I was at the convention. Thankfully Kerry clinched it with enough

          by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:33:04 AM PDT

•  2008 Denver ain't Daley machine territory

  Times are a lot different.  Minneapolis handing out 250 Tasers might be a whole different matter.

  by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:23:43 AM PDT

  •  You raise a critical comparison here, tgokft

    One might say that those days of police riots are bygone, that we've made a lot of progress since then, that we don't see rioting and brute crowd control like that anymore.  While this may be true on the surface, the exercise of state power over public assembly and public speech is every bit and vicious -- especially in its sophistication -- as it was 40 years ago.

    Four years ago, we had "free speech cages".  If this convention goes to a floor fight and there's a viable move to wrest this nomination from Obama, free speech cages will not contain public anger.  And then we shall see elements of the new security state brought to bear.

    by Mogolori on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:24:32 AM PDT

•  dude

  did you not watch the debate?  she made it blatantly obvious that she is not going to tear the party apart.

  once again, irrational hillary hatred.  It's amazing that its got as bad on the left as it has been on the right for years.  for shame.

  by Jambro on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:25:03 AM PDT

  •  I do not hate her...

    I fear what she may do.  Have you not listened that she has said she will fight till the convention.  If she steps down great.  If not we can't afford to let her take it to the convention.  

    by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:27:35 AM PDT

    •  Whats she supposed to say?

      Vote for me, but I'm probably going to drop out by summer anyway? She's not going to fight to the convention. For what it's worth, I remember Edwards saying that in 2004 even after it became clear Kerry was running away with it.

      by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:30:49 AM PDT

      •  Well if she is going to drop out anyway...

        WHy not drop out now?  Look be reasonable.  She is saying she wants Florida and Michigan...she is saying the super-delegates should vote their conscience because she wants to win!  If she can win that way she probbly will.  

        The supers might go for Obama....then again they may not.  Either way her continued existence in the race is unacceptable.

        by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:39:41 AM PDT

        •  When she can still win the popular vote

          by winning Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Obama hasn't clinched the nomination yet. Even if there is still a 1% chance she could win, she should stay in. Edwards, Clark and the others should never have ceded the nomination to Kerry in 2004 so early. The Party doesn't have a candidate until they receive the required number of delegates...same with the GOP, but I'm sure you think Huckabee should drop out too.

          I'm not in favor of disenfranchising the Democrats of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, at least half of whom still support Hillary and telling them "Sorry, you can't vote for who you want, we decided Obama is the nominee, even though he still needs like 800 more delegates"

          If the tables were turned, you'd bet I'd be pissed.

          by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:58:37 AM PDT

        •  She has not lost it yet

          ..so why should she drop out? I would prefer that Obama win, but see no need to short-circuit the process. You haven't made a good argument yet.

          by Ahianne on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:46:09 AM PDT

          •  More importantly

            short circuiting the process alienates many of her supporter who, as much as some of his supporters here hate to admit it, he needs to win.

            by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:21:56 AM PDT

      •  Edwards also said it...

        in 2008, after South Carolina, even, when it was clear he wasn't going to win.

        by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:43:18 AM PDT

•  Try not to get your undies in a bunch

  ...this primary will end after PENN. That's when we'll know is Obama is too strong or Hillary is making a comeback. They'll sit down and hammer out a deal. By the way calling Hillary an enemy of Democracy is just plain ignorant.

  by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:26:24 AM PDT

  •  I'm going by what she has said...

    She has said that "automatic delegates" are as fair as pledged delegates...she has tried to include MICHIGAN's delegates...this is anti-democratic.  

    by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:28:56 AM PDT

    •  Undemocratic is disenfranchising the voters of

      Florida and Michigan. The argument cuts both ways. Try not to be so emotionally invested in either candidate. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

      by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:31:01 AM PDT

      •  ridiculius n/t

        by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:32:20 AM PDT

•  Why do people always bring up 1968?

  by YoursTruly on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:29:15 AM PDT

  •  1968 was completely different from this year.

    I's amazing.

    by YoursTruly on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:30:40 AM PDT

    •  For one thing, there is no radical group like

      that today. Abbey Hoffman and Jerry Rubin are dead. This generation is not as rebellious and doesn't seem to have that craziness anymore. I miss the old days.

      by tazz on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:43:13 AM PDT

•  I was there and obviously you weren't

  Comparing Clinton to Humphrey is fraudulent to anyone who has even a smidgen of historical knowledge. In my case, I was active politically during the 1968 campaign on a day-by-day basis, and the inaccurate spin in this diary jumps right out at me.

  Humphrey was an incumbent Vice President who could hardly attack openly the administration he had been serving in. He was a decent man who would have made a great president. Clinton has had plenty of time to attack the Bush Administration and hasn't done a very good job of it relative to the public mood.

  I am no Hillary Clinton fan by a long shot, and I fear for the future effectiveness of the Democratic Party, but more damage was done to the party by those fools who abandoned Humphrey in 1968 than the damn Republcans almost, and if the same thing happens again because of fools who allow McCain to be elected if Hillary is our nominee, I fear for this country altogether.

  We can deny her the nomination without attacking her as if she was the devil or something. Her supporters can desert the party every bit as much as some elements of the peace faction can -- as they did in 1968 -- ant this is what we can't allow.

  by Ivan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:30:00 AM PDT

•  I find it kind of SILLY to compare now to 1968

  the 1968 convention did NOT become infamous due to the floor fight over credentials....

  it became infamous due to the STREET FIGHT outside the convention....

  it was the bloodbath on the street that caused what happened inside the convention to be of major interest,  it was the air of violence in CHicago that caused the credential fight to become contentious.

  there is nothing in todays political atmosphere that even comes close to being similiar to what happened in chicago in 1968 and it behooves us to STOP trying to make comparisons between today and back then.

  by KnotIookin on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:30:46 AM PDT

•  This is not going to happen

  Sorry you lurking trolls.  I repeat, this is not going to happen.

  by linnie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:31:06 AM PDT

•  The comparison to 1968

  is disingenuous on so many levels.  I support Obama, but Clinton is a credible candidate -- her supporters are not spoilers, they are intelligent voters and it is insulting to dismiss their ardor.  The reason this primary is so electric is because of our two candidates.  

  by gchaucer2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:32:10 AM PDT

  •  Its not that she is credible...

    It's that despite losing she is willing to use super-delegates to win the nomination.  If she concedes before that good!  Either way from what she has shown she is a danger because if she doesn't concede after losing the pledged delegates and popular vote it will tear the party apart.  

    by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:34:58 AM PDT

    •  That's a lot of

      "ifs."  I think I'll wait to see what the reality is before I pass judgment.

      by gchaucer2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:37:25 AM PDT

  •  my respect for you grows

    every time I read your comments, gc2.

    by VoicelessInDC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:38:38 AM PDT

    •  Why, thank you.

      There are numerous things I don't like about the Clinton campaign, but no one can convince me that Senator Clinton does not love this country and has, by and large, been a tremendous advocate for the concerns of the citizens of her State.  Both candidates can be challenged on issues -- that's fair game.  But to somehow dismiss Sen. Clinton as an "enemy" to the democratic process and party makes me furious.

      by gchaucer2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:41:47 AM PDT

      •  you do a great credit to your candidate

        by elevating without denigrating.  I think he would be proud of the way you advocate for him.  

        by VoicelessInDC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:45:46 AM PDT

•  Acceptance. She's not there yet.

  The people will speak, soon enough, and when they do, this is what they will say to one of them:

  http://www.shinybluegrasshopper.com/...

  Hard to accept, but it's reality.

  by SpamNunn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:33:48 AM PDT

  •  Kind of harsh- but funny n/t

    by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:35:45 AM PDT

  •  The people spoke in 1968....

    yet Hubert Humphrey was the nominee anyway.  There is precedent to ignore the people.  

    by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:35:58 AM PDT

    •  The people did not speak for Eugene McCarthy

      They spoke for Bobby Kennedy, who was dead.  And, again, nominations weren't expected to be democratic in 1968.  Democracy had a significant, but not dominant, part in determining who would be the nominee.

      by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:44:39 AM PDT

      •  RFK won only four primaries.

        What we should be worried about is a repetition of 1972.

        by YoursTruly on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:22:11 AM PDT

        •  True

          But three of the primaries he won were contested with McCarthy.  McCarthy won six primaries, but only one (Oregon) was actually contested - most of the rest were either after Kennedy's death or before he entered the race.

          by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:29:25 AM PDT

    •  Who do you think the people spoke for in 68?

      by quaoar on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:45:28 AM PDT

    •  Only 13 states has primaries in '68

      13 states? That's hardly the people speaking. Five of those states voted for Bobby Kennedy, who had been killed by the convention anyway.

      by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:53:00 AM PDT

•  What we really need to prevent

  First of all, Humphrey nearly won the 1968 election, which was razor thin for Nixon.

  Second, what we really need to avoid is a 1972 election where a very liberal anti-war neophyte got creamed in a landslide against a pro-war Republican during an unpopular war.

  Third, what we really need to avoid is what nearly happened in 1976 to the Democratic party against a moderate Republican who was defending the status quo.
  http://www.csmonitor.com/...

  Hillary is our best hope. The only Democratic president we have had in the last 28 years is named Clinton. Let's learn from history not be foolish.

  by bluestatedude on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:35:22 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, let's keep the presidency in the hands of

    two families.

    Hillary is our best hope. The only Democratic president we have had in the last 28 years is named Clinton. Let's learn from history not be foolish.

    Let's learn from history not to be foolish. Do you hear that all non-Clinton supporters. YOU ARE ALL FOOLS!

    by tazz on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:46:36 AM PDT

    •  The choice is either Clinton or the GOP keeps it

      I personally would have preferred Edwards, Dodd, or Biden to Obama. I think any of then would have a decent chance of getting us to the finish line. With Obama we are in trouble. Look for example at where the so-called O-menutm has gotten him:

      Only even with HRC in national polling:
      http://www.gallup.com/...

      Only even with McCain in Ohio
      http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

      This election will be decided by states like FL and OH.

      His negative favorability is alarmingly high (around 45%) and even with McCain.

      When Obama gets the nomination, the media/GOP/529s are going to turn up the heat and drive Obama's negatives way up.

      by bluestatedude on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:02:10 AM PDT

      •  That is why Obama beats her in every...

        poll against McCain.  Because she's our only shot.  I see.  Blind follower.

        by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:05:10 AM PDT

        •  New Rasmussen poll shows HRC as good vs. McCain

          So much for O-mentum. Look at today's just released head-to-head poll from Rasumussen:

          http://rasmussenreports.com/...

          McCain 47
          Clinton 44

          McCain 46
          Obama 43

          Your thoughts?

          by bluestatedude on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:13:20 AM PDT

          •  Cherry picking a single poll

            Is not terribly convincing.  Most of the polls have been showing Obama doing better.  Until the overall polling trend changes, there's not much reason to put too much credence into a single poll.

            by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:15:32 AM PDT

            •  Not cherry picking

              that's the most recent poll. Keep an eye out for where things go. FWIW, Rasmussen's tracking has Obama losing ground all week and McCain gaining. They were at 46%-43% on Monday. If this ends up being a 51%-49% race, we need to be really careful.

              Also, no one has explained to me why two SUSA polls in the row has shown Massachusetts to be competitive. I'm not denying he's competitive in red states, but Obama has a real problem in some of the dark blue states in won in the primary. We could end up picking off a handful of red states, but losing a handful of blue states we're all assuming will deliver for us in the fall.

              by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:20:09 AM PDT

              •  Polling this far out

                Is not terribly useful.  And one should look at polling averages, not any single poll, I think, especially for national polls.  That helps eliminate outliers.

                I'm also going to say right here that there is no possible way that McCain wins Massachusetts.  And if you're going to point to state by state polling, you can't ignore the multitude of states where Obama seems to be polling about 15-20 points better than Clinton against McCain, including a number of important swing states.

                by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:49:42 AM PDT

                •  Except Ohio and Florida

                  and Pennsylvania.

                  Just saying.

                  I've been arguing that Obama wins states Clinton can't, but may find himself fighting for states she can and at the end, we're at square one.

                  There's no way McCain wins Massachusetts, but if he loses 55%-45%, it's a big deal.

                  by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM PDT

                  •  no, not Pennsylvania

                    At least one Pennsylvania poll has shown Obama doing better than Clinton in the general.

                    Also, if McCain wants to put lots of money into Massachusetts, he should feel free.  Winning by 51-49 is just as good as winning 100-0, as far as electoral votes go.

                    by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM PDT

                    •  but not perception

                      If we lost Texas 51%-49%, we'd be gleaming. We can't just say "eh fuck the blue states, they'll come around"

                      We cannot risk losing ground in New England, reminds me of the "we don't need the south" strategy of the past.

                      by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM PDT

                  •  Watch out about MA

                    With Ted Kennedy coming out so strong for Obama it is a net negative in MA. Same can be said for Deval Patrick who has lukewarm support as Gov. There are independent streaks in MA voters that could help McCain against Obama (however HRC would beat McCain easily in MA)

                    by bluestatedude on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:11:50 PM PDT

          •  My thoughts

            we need to stop pretending like this election is somehow going to just slide in your court because everyone agrees with and start realizing McCain is REALLY a problem.

            All week the story has been "Poor war hero gets attacked by the mean New York Times and the Obamas hate America" With news coverage like this, we're going to lose this thing big.

            by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:16:55 AM PDT

            •  My thoughts...

              Given that this election will be close we must not keep attacking the nominee with bogus charges everyday in a desperate attempt to win the nomination i.e. Clinton's charges of plagarism and taking donations from terrorists shes thrown at Obama.  Its gutter politics that will hurt us in November.  

              by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:19:43 AM PDT

              •  Clinton's not the problem

                the Republicans are the problem. Nobody cares about plagarism and wtf taking donations from terrorists, never heard that.

                but the really proud remark and the not saying the pledge. As stupid as it is, those are issues to people and Clinton is not the one passing them around.

                Stop making enemies out of people who aren't and start focusing on those who are.

                by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:21:39 AM PDT

                •  She's a problem is she keeps...

                  trying a scorched earth strategy against Obama to win at the convention.

                  by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:27:29 AM PDT

            •  I don't expect election to just slide to HRC

              If HRC comes back it will be a combination of hard work combined with further slip-ups from the Obama camp. She is clearly the underdog.

              The other point I am trying to make is lets elect the candidate that can get back the White House.

              by bluestatedude on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:13:28 PM PDT

              •  A lot can happen between now

                and November. They both can win back the White House, or neither can. What will happen if Obama runs a terrible general election campaign and loses in a landslide? McCain is the only Republican who can win a landslide. It's not likely, but possible, and we can't reject the possibility, no matter how slim. We've been complacent before. What's the running joke about the Democrats? They always know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Never underestimate their ability to blow it?

                by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM PDT

        •  If I didn't know better, I'd think this comment

          I personally would have preferred Edwards, Dodd, or Biden to Obama.

          reeks of something. The person prefers all white people to people of color like Obama and a Hispanic like Richardson.

          by tazz on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:37:56 AM PDT

      •  Let them

        I'm at this point very pessimistic about either's chances in the fall. Hillary's negatives are already up too high and his will. Both of their "would never vote for" numbers are in the mid to upper 40's, McCain's is down near 30%.

        Since I think we're going to lose anyway, I decided to vote on who I think would be more effective if they win and that, to me, was Obama.

        Anyway, if Hillary loses DKos will turn into a blog full of "See, I told you" diaries. It would be interesting to see what becomes of it if Obama loses.

        by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:08:04 AM PDT

        •  Smartest thing Obama or Hillary can do

          ...if either wins is to spend some serious bank and runa series of national ads rightfully praising their opponent. It will be positive and will help wash some of the nasty taste out of everyone's mouth from the poison spewed by the small, insane minority of each nominees supporters.

          by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:13:31 AM PDT

          •  The extent of the nasty taste

            is very high on political blogs like Daily Kos.

            It is pretty low among the general public.  Everyone remember: by virtue of being the kind of person who posts on Daily Kos, you are not at all representative of the general public.  You are not the center of the universe, and the fact that you personally feel a certain way does not mean that your feelings represent a significant percentage of the general public, and thus have to be appeased.

            The bad taste is going to be dispelled by the loser (almost certainly Clinton, at this point) strongly endorsing and strongly supporting the winner, campaigning for them, getting a big speech at the convention where they do what they can to encourage their supporters to see the strength of their former opponent, etc.  The winner (almost certainly Obama at this point) will graciously praise the virtues and abilities of their opponent, etc.

            I'm not sure what good an ad campaign, after the nomination is through, where Obama talks about how great Clinton is, or vice versa.  That's just total silliness.

            by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM PDT

            •  Not silly

              I think that the general public is being fed an endless stream of bullshit by the MSM that our party is in chaos and hoplessly split. An ad campaign would help counter that RW bullshit. So while the public may not be that rowdy like we are here they are still getting the echoes.

              by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:32:53 AM PDT

              •  You really think

                that if Obama wins the nomination, he should spend money on an ad campaign about how great Hillary Clinton is?

                That's totally nuts.

                by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:47:15 AM PDT

                •  He's going to need to something

                  A lot of older voters are very pissed at Obama's campaign right now. Those folks are vital. He'll need them back if he wants to win. One nice speech at the convention ain't gonna do it.

                  by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:57:56 AM PDT

                  •  It'll be more than one speech at the convention

                    Obviously there will need to be a reconciliation, and a lot of effort needs to be put into that.

                    But TV commercials from the Obama campaign about how great Clinton is?  That's silly.

                    by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:12:49 AM PDT

                    •  Just throwin' ideas out there

                      At least I'm trying to think ahead.

                      by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:29:39 AM PDT

        •  This is one of the best comments I've read!

          It is ashame that Obama blew away Edwards, Dodd, and Biden - all of whom would have been great candidates vs. McCain. I am holding out for a miracle that HRC can pull a comeback.

          Thank you for telling it like it is.

          by bluestatedude on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:15:10 AM PDT

        •  Not true.

          Obama's "never will vote" numbers are nowhere near that high.  THere was one poll showing him with high negatives, but most have showed his negatives around 30%.  That will rise, but she has a much lower ceiling than he does.  

          Also - DKos isn't going to turn into a blog full of "See, I told you" diaries, because Clinton is not going to win the nomination.  The fact that Clinton supporters seem not to really see that yet is still difficult for me to understand.

          Her superdelegate lead is already collapsing, and after March 11 she will, at best, be in more or less the same position on pledged delegates that she is now (she won't gain any delegates in Texas; any gains in Ohio and Rhode Island will be counterbalanced by Obama gains in Vermont, Wyoming, and Mississippi - and that's more or less the best place Clinton could be in on March 12).  She's not going to be the nominee, barring some unforeseeable act of God.

          And Obama will, I think, win.  McCain is much weaker than everyone seems to think.  He's Bob Dole II, and he's not going to wear well over the course of a long campaign.

          by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:20:03 AM PDT

          •  True

            http://rasmussenreports.com/...

            by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:22:37 AM PDT

            •  One poll

              is not the Bible.  Picking and choosing the poll that makes things look best for your case is not a particularly strong tactic.

              by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:24:21 AM PDT

•  Well, I would not go that far.

  This is a Democratic blog. Hillary Clinton, for all our policy disagreements with her, still is a Democrat. She would go much farther in getting us out of Iraq than HHH did when he ran, although she is still too vague and nebulous.

  by Eternal Hope on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:36:18 AM PDT

  •  I have never believed

    that Humphrey would have continued the war at the level that LBJ and Nixon did. LBJ had personal demons that drove him to want to appear tough in the face of communism. HHH didn't have that baggage.

    by quaoar on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:39:52 AM PDT

    •  LBJ...

      was winding down the war in 1968.  Bombing halt, Paris peace negotiations, etc.  Humphrey was getting increasingly anti-war at the end of the campaign, which is the only reason he made it at all close.

      There was actually a preliminary peace agreement agreed to in Paris in 1968, but the South Vietnamese torpedoed it because they thought they would get a better deal from Nixon.  (This was probably arranged with the Nixon campaign, in an example of politics not stopping at the water's edge)  If Humphrey had won, the South Vietnamese would not have had nearly as much incentive to be obstructive, and there could have been an agreement.

      Humphrey would have ended the war in 1969, I suspect.

      by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:46:28 AM PDT

      •  Great comment.

        Humphrey was a great New Deal Democrat, a fine man who would have made an excellent President.  He did not like the war, but was part of an administration that supported it and would not denounce the President of whose administration he was a part.

        It was the fact that the "new left" refused to support him that gave us Nixon.  Yep, they took their ball and went home.  Didn't work out so well for them.

        I have no freaking clue how the diarist got the impression that Hubert Humphrey "stole" anything from anyone.  

        by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:12:31 PM PDT

•  repEtition eom

  by condoleaser on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:37:16 AM PDT

•  I am the last person in the world who would vote

  for another Clinton as long as I have breath in my lungs. But let's not go on a wild tangent. If I'm not mistaken, she's only 100 or so delegates behind Obama and is 1 or 2 points ahead in Tx and 8 points up on him in Ohio. In PA she's way up with the popular governor and very, very popular and newly elected mayor of Philly campaigning for her. She still is immensely popular among her supporters and great segment of working class people. She is actively campaigning unlike Humpty in '68. Let's see what happens after March 4th before we go off the deep end and call up the national guard in Denver.

  by tazz on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:37:25 AM PDT

•  Party nominations were not particularly about

  the "people's choice" in 1968.  Some states held primary elections, and those were generally looked to by party leaders as a way of determining the potential popular appeal of candidates.  They didn't decide the nomination, except indirectly.  Only a dozen states had primaries in 1968 (California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin), and of those the majority were non-competitive.  

  In 1960, for instance, Kennedy's victory over Humphrey in the West Virginia primary "proved" to party leaders that he could win protestant votes, and thus that nominating him wouldn't be a disaster like nominating Al Smith in 1928 had been.  Frequently, the nominated candidate would not have competed in primaries, though.  In 1952, for instance, Estes Kefauver won most of the primaries.  In 1956, he also won more of the primaries than Stevenson, although Stevenson won some key ones.

  In 1968, you have oversimplified the situation by removing one of the candidates, Kennedy.  In the primaries, Kennedy and McCarthy had faced each other four times - in Indiana, in Nebraska, in Oregon, and in California.  McCarthy, who had won several primaries essentially unopposed (notably Wisconsin), was defeated by Kennedy in all of these contests except Oregon.

  The "winner" of the primaries, if there was one, was Kennedy, not McCarthy, and Kennedy was dead by the convention.  McCarthy had no clear claim to the nomination, and, unlike Kennedy, did not have the kind of connections with party leaders which made anyone think he had a real chance to win the nomination - certainly any such chance died when he lost California to Kennedy.

  Obviously, the 1968 convention was a disaster for the Democrats, although the outright violence was probably more important than simply the fact that Humphrey won the nomination without competing in primaries.  But there's really no comparison with this year, because it was a completely different system.

  One might also note that the situations are not nearly so similar to each other as you make them out to be.  The Vietnam War was started by the Democrats, and, in particular, Humphrey, as LBJ's vice president, was tied up in Johnson's war policy in a way that Clinton really isn't tied to Bush's war.  (Also worth noting - Humphrey, McCarthy and Kennedy all voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.  Kennedy, certainly, was for the war before he was against it.)

  by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:38:24 AM PDT

  •  This isn't exactly 1968...

    But I want NOTHING REMOTELY CLOSE to the 1968 convention.  Our party should rally behind the nominee (who should now be Barack Obama) and do everything in our power to beat McCain.  

    After the debate yesterday Clinton launched into an attempt to hit Obama with a scandal involving a "terrorist".  

    This stuff is unacceptable.  Obama is the nominee and she is trying to torpedo him.  I repeat she is a danger to the party.

    by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:42:54 AM PDT

    •  Here's a quick question for you michlawa2

      What if they actually get to the convention and Obama has the lead in delegates but Hillary has won most of the popular vote? What should she do then?

      (By the way that is the current situation.)

      by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:47:19 AM PDT

      •  That is wrong...

        recheck your facts she is behind in the popular vote.  

        by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:55:07 AM PDT

    •  No, he is not the nominee yet. n/t

      by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM PDT

  •  George Wallace

    was also a huge factor in the 1968 election.

    Humphrey lost several Southern states that would have voted Democratic had Wallace not been in the race. The South had not yet turned Republican in 1968.

    by quaoar on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:43:17 AM PDT

    •  Er...

      No.  Wallace helped Humphrey by taking southern votes from Nixon.  In 1964, Barry Goldwater won South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana.  In 1968, Wallace won all of those states except South Carolina (which voted for Nixon), plus Arkansas.

      Basically, deep South white voters who considered themselves Democrats had already started voting for Republicans in 1964, in the immediate aftermath of the civil rights movement.

      With a a white southern Democrat in the race in 1968, most of them chose to go for him rather than for Nixon, but had Wallace not been in the race, Hubert "Civil Rights" Humphrey would not have won those states - Nixon would.  In some northern states, on the other hand, Wallace may have helped Nixon by taking working class white Democratic votes (future Reagan Democrats) from Humphrey.

      It's worth noting that Humphrey, although he kept it close in the electoral college, only got 5% more of the total national popular vote than McGovern did.  The Deep South would only return to the Democratic fold briefly, in 1976, for native son Carter, before being lost forever, but the real loss occurred in 1964, not 1968 or 1972.

      by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:50:23 AM PDT

      •  Er...

        No. Nixon got only 13 percent of the vote in Mississippi in 1968. He wasn't going to win Mississippi. Loyalty to the Democratic Party was beginning to slip but it was still strong in 1968. The Southern shift to the Republican Party was accelerated because of Wallace in 68.

        And Wallace's impact was felt outside the South as well. He won 11 percent of the vote in Missouri, for instance. Nixon won Missouri by 44.9 to 43.7 over HHH.

        by quaoar on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:20:43 AM PDT

        •  He got 13%

          because Wallace was in the race.  Humphrey only got 23%, the vast majority of which must have been from African Americans.  The vast majority of Wallace's votes in the south would have gone to Nixon, not to Humphrey.

          Note that Nixon won South Carolina, where he had powerful institutional support from newly Republican Strom Thurmond.  Note that Barry Goldwater had won all those deep south states in 1964.  Humphrey was not going to win these states.  He was utterly detested by the segregationists, who saw him as one of the leading civil rights figures.  If they voted for Goldwater against a southerner, why wouldn't they vote for Nixon against Hubert Humphrey?  They did in 1972, after all.  And they would have in 1968, too, if Wallace hadn't been running.

          I agree with you that Wallace probably hurt Humphrey outside the south, but it's just wrong to suggest Humphrey would have won Mississippi and Georgia if Wallace hadn't been running.

          by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:38:54 AM PDT

      •  Lost forever?

        Lost till now certainly, but I refuse to write off any part of the country as "lost forever".

        by Ahianne on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:55:22 AM PDT

  •  The Dems did NOT Start the Vietnam War

    If the Democrats started the Vietnam War then explain to me this:Richard B. Fitzgibbon, of North Weymouth, Mass. is listed by the U.S. Department of Defense as having a casualty date of June 8, 1956. Fitzgibbons is the first name listed on the Wall. I think that Ike and Nixon were in power at that time. So explain to me how the Democrats started the war.

    by Jack Flynn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:56:09 AM PDT

    •  Oh, come on

      Obviously there were American military advisors in Vietnam in the Eisenhower era, and there was a Viet Cong insurgency in that period.  There were not very many Americans, though.  The number of advisors increased dramatically under Kennedy.  And it was Johnson who really started what normal people consider the Vietnam War (1965-1973) - bombing North Vietnam, putting US ground troops into direct combat with NLF and North Vietnamese troops.

      by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:01:37 AM PDT

      •  As a "normal" person I disagree

        You can split hairs all you want. But if we had not entered the conflict in Vietnam in the 50's with "advisors" we would not have been there with the force levels in the 60's. A war is a war if you die on the battlefield whether it is called a war or not.

        by Jack Flynn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM PDT

        •  Obviously true

          but irrelevant to the political realities of the time, which is that it was universally seen as Lyndon Johnson's war.

          by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:39:39 AM PDT

  •  A correction

    Thinking it over, I realize I made a mistake.  Kennedy was not in the Senate until 1965, and thus could not have voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.  However, he did support the war until at least 1967.

    by jlkenney on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:07:27 AM PDT

•  FWIW

  at the end of the day, I don't think there are going to be enough superdelegates to throw it to her unless she gets some Obama super delegates.

  by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:50:39 AM PDT

  •  She will go after pledged delegates as well...

    Taking it to the convention and going after all the delegates is very likely if she doesn't concede.  

    by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:51:53 AM PDT

    •  Which she should do if they are virtually tied

      and she has won the most popular votes.

      by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:53:11 AM PDT

      •  She does not have the most popular votes...

        She is behind by 1 million popular votes...does that truth matter to you at all?

        by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM PDT

        •  you might want to re-check

          that little piece of disinformation.

          by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:56:10 AM PDT

          •  Here are the facts....

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            Obama: 10,568,040 votes
            Clinton: 9,629,711

            by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:57:00 AM PDT

            •  and it's not over yet

              or did Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Vermont, North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico vote yet and you're not telling me?

              If Obama was leading by 5 million votes, then I could buy your argument, but he's not.

              by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:00:44 AM PDT

          •  Do those facts matter to you at all?

            And are you man/woman enough to admit you were wrong?

            by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:58:12 AM PDT

            •  Please add florida and Michigan which wiki didn't

              by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:59:21 AM PDT

              •  ALright...

                with Michigan and Florida:

                Obama: 11,144,254
                Clinton: 10,829,006

                by michlawa2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:00:09 AM PDT

                •  That should change after Ohio and TX n/t

                  by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:02:04 AM PDT