A Trip Down Memory Lane*

* (A deeply rutted memory lane - see correction below)

Heading into the 1968 California June primary, tensions in the Democratic Party were as high as they’ve been for the past two months this year.  Earlier that year, LBJ had won the New Hampshire primary but the little known Senator Eugene McCarthy with his anti-Vietnam War student brigade had finished a strong second.  LBJ dropped out, and his VP Hubert Humphrey and Senator Robert Kennedy dropped in.

Those who had worked hard for McCarthy resented RFK jumping into the race after they had done the heavy lifting.  But RFK easily garnered most of the anti-war Democratic support, at least those who could vote which left McCarthy with the underage student volunteers, plus the larger group of JFK Democrats.  Humphrey inherited the blue collar, pro-war Democrats along with those any others who would have continued to support LBJ against RFK.  The race was extremely close coming into California; the primary that would essentially seal the deal for one of the candidates.

Correction: like all memories, mine is fragile.  I conflated '68 and '72.  HHH won the nomination in '68 without competing in any primaries.  His whining occurred in the '72 primary.  If not for the excellent comments, including kck's fact checking, I would delete the diary.)

HHH began whining about the California primary rules.  He said that they weren’t fair.  He was prepared to challenge the rules at the convention if he lost.  You see, back then, the California primary was winner-take-all and the polls didn’t favor HHH.  After that horrible year, those rules were changed to the satisfaction of almost all Democrats.  Proportionality is fairer.  However, in 1968, the rules were what they were, and HHH was out of line for demanding a change in the middle of the game.

I have no idea if I’ve ever subsequently recalled HHH’s efforts to change the rules of the ‘68 California primary.  If I did, that recollection would have been no later than the mid-seventies.  What I also don’t know is if this memory would have been accessible to me absent an emotional charge.  My disgust with the Clintons whining about the rules and doing everything they can to overturn those rules feels exactly like what I experienced in ‘68.  The similarities between Clinton and HHH don’t stop there.  Anti-war and anti-unnecessary war liberals are still stuck with a political party in bed with the MIC and half of whom love it almost as much as the Republicans.  

The half that followed Bush/Cheney and Colin Powell into the gates of hell in Iraq.  The half that equates foreign policy expertise with career military experience, the more ribbons and stars on the chest the better.  Those that haven't figured out that if a doctor is needed, you don't call a handsome hit-man.  No wonder they lapped up all the nonsense Rummy’s rent-a-generals spewed.  Didn’t smell a rat as "anti-war liberals" did.

Forty years on, the last thing this country and the Democratic Party needs is echoes from 1968.  Or HHH in a pantsuit  -- which has to be one of the most bizarre replications in American politics.

•  I wasn't alive back then...

  I was a Reagan baby (1986) but my understanding is that Humphrey was not a bad guy or a bad Democrat, he was just too tied up in the establishment, and it was "his turn".

  That is what is most sad about the Hillary 2008 story. I think there probably was a time when she was a good solid Democrat and a team player. And, when she realizes she will never be president, she might even undergo a Kerry/Gore-like transformation and become a Democrat who fights proudly for progressive principles. If only so many Democrats didn't have to lose elections before they finally realize that you get farther fighting for beliefs and values than you do fighting for yourself in the first place. When you fight for yourself, you ultimately are fighting alone. When you fight for values, you find that people come out of the woodwork to fight beside you.

  by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:36:37 PM PDT

  •  You're certainly correct that HHH was a pretty

    good guy, and an excellent, progressive, Democrat. My clear recollection is that, as the sitting Vice-President, he could not publicly oppose the policy of his President. A play of the era (MacBird)renamed him "Hubert Oncefree."

    by DaNang65 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:48:48 PM PDT

    •  A question for you...

      I am guessing by your name (DaNang65) that you are a Vietnam Vet. I am a Marine Reservist here in Portland, OR. I went to boot in San Diego in the summer of 2004 (election time!), and one thing that has struck me ever since I've been in the service is how almost partisan (Republican) an atmosphere it is, especially on anything relating to the War. I'm just curious to know if it was the same way in your era, or if things were a bit different when the draft was still in effect. And if I'm correct about you, thanks for your service.

      by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:56:37 PM PDT

      •  Semper Fi, Marine

        Yes, I served in the USMC from 1963-67, during most of which it was, as now, an all volunteer force - albeit volunteerism was in part driven by the threat of the draft. Only during my last year or so did I meet any draftee Marines.
        Probably the best answer I can give to your political question is my experience of the 1964 Presidential campaign when the only expression of political views acceptable at Camp LeJeune, where I was then stationed, was the ubiquity of AuH2O bumper stickers.
        Those of us on the other side of civil rights issues largely kept silent in the barracks, not least of all because of the incredible racial tensions in society and the Corps.
        By the time the draft became a political issue, because of the war, I was already "over there" where politics were not an issue, staying alive was the dominant topic of discussion and anyone who would help you do that was your buddy forever.

        by DaNang65 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:11:57 PM PDT

        •  Thank you for your reply

          I have had a similar experience then. When I was in boot in San Diego (Hollywood Marine here!) I remember one time when our Company First Sergeant was answering recruits questions about what was happening on the outside. One recruit asked what was happening in the election, and the First Sergeant mentioned the swiftboat stuff, and then "Four more years, you understand that? Especially when my pay goes up every year!". I was a Republican back then, but still I was uneasy with that sort of thing.

          You don't see as much open Bush-praise anymore, though. I guess a lot has changed in the last 3-4 years.

          Semper Fidelis

          by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:22:25 PM PDT

          •  As soon as I posted

            I regretted that I had not thanked you for your service. Please let me take that opportunity.
            Then, as now, the powers-that-be terribly misused the idealism and patriotism of our finest young people.
            But please understand that that in no way detracts from the nobility of what you and your fellow service members hope and sacrifice to achieve.
            I have been a VVAW guy since before John Kerry was, I hope and pray you don't have to become an IVAW guy.
            Peace.

            by DaNang65 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:33:00 PM PDT

        •  Let's not go so easy on HHH.

          He was responsible for a terrible, oppressive Democratic convention in '68 and his strong ally Mayor Daley of Chicago turned the town into a riot bloodbath unnecessarily. HHH became the enemy of the anti war left and that was his doing, he could have reached out and made efforts towards unity but instead did the power plays. As a result, he became an establishment bad guy. If Hillary had done 1/10th of HHH's actions in '68, people here would hate her 10 times more than they do.

          by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:40:37 PM PDT

          •  Don't worry...

            she still has until late August to catch up. Perhaps she may still bring the joys of Chicago '68 to Denver 2008.

            by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:50:49 PM PDT

            •  No!!!!!

              Seriously though, let me assure you nobody wants to got through that again. It was horrible.

              She certainly seems capable of such stupidity, but I am confident Howard Dean and the rest of the party authorities won't allow that to happen.

              by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:01:35 PM PDT

              •  Have they been winning your confidence so far? nt

                by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:02:50 PM PDT

                •  Yes, actually.

                  They might be moving slower than most like here, but I think they have a plan in place that will deliver a majority of delegates to Obama by either late May or early June and it is unfolding as we speak.

                  by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:08:26 PM PDT

      •  I hope DaNang65

        replies.

        If you recall, the GOP was the isolationist party for a long time.  It was the DEM Wilson that got us into WWI and the DEM FDR that got us into WWII.  So, after WWII Democrats probably predominated in the military.    That slowly shifted as the GOP attempted to out war hawk the DEMs during the Cold War.  

        The anti-Vietnam War movement started in the military but when it moved out into the civilian population it was never associated with the GOP.  Democrats were blamed for the "loss" in Vietnam, even though Nixon was the one who ended it after trying to win it for several years.  That war combined with the all volunteer military that was initiated at that time is when the military began to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.  

        by Marie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:22:19 PM PDT

    •  Whining was pretty out of

      character for him.  His most common nickname at the time was "The Happy Warrior".  My dad was a staunch conservative (reactionary) and always said that HHH stood for "Hell, Hell, Hell".  Warmest regards, Doc.

      by Translator on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:11:07 PM PDT

  •  Humphrey was a progressive

    New Deal Democrat.  He was decent on social/economic issues.  Which is why if the choice were HHH or Clinton, I'd go with HHH.  

    Kerry, like HHH, stumbled on the question of war -- but it was a big stumble and  one that I will always believe was based on a political calculation.  That makes it even worse because it says that Kerry's principles are for sale and that he wasn't smart enough to see that his gamble was a bad bet.  But there has been no transformation in Kerry since his loss.

    Gore hasn't so much been transformed as being free from having to appease stupid votes in TN or being subservient to Clinton for the first time in decades.  His father was politically much like HHH except he did come out against the Vietnam War and lost his Senate seat for having done so.  That was a crushing blow to the Gores and explains why Jr. was such a cautious politician.  What you see in Gore today was always there.

    The young Hillary was a Goldwater girl. Equal treatment for women and genuine concern and compassion for children seemed to be the primary reasons she has remained a Democrat.  But in many ways she never stopped being a Republican.  Maybe she'll become one again.

    by Marie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:54:46 PM PDT

    •  Maybe she will..

      become a Republican again, it's entirely possible judging by her campaign. I think the difference in Kerry and Gore is that after they lost, it was like they felt that they were liberated to be truer to their principles and to themselves, and less cautious. For example, I can't imagine the John Kerry of 2004 standing up to vote against the Military Commissions Act, but the John Kerry who has nothing else to lose as far as presidential ambitions go is willing to do that. Maybe we just see it differently.

      by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:00:42 PM PDT

    •  Excellent HHH & Hillary comparisons

      I like that you did this diary, because all along I've felt that Hillary mirrors HHH in many essential ways.

      Where the comparison is perfect is that both were establishment Dems wanting to preserve a corrupt, war enabling status quo but neither were Republicans by any means despite that. Yet they needed to be deposed as they were corrupters of the Dem Party and the our entire system of government as both were agents of a corrupt DC insider game.

      But I disagree with some of your other opinions on it.

      HHH was annoyingly pompous while Hillary is more blunt in delivery yet deceitful and dirty. HHH did have a long progressive career but his runs for President were not progressive and represented the corrupt and deathly establishment. By 1972, he became a buffoon the majority began to subsequently tune out. Hillary may be a bit less progressive than HHH was prior to his being VP, but I could argue her career looks more progressive than HHH's VP and post VP record. She still has time to rebuild her reputation if she chooses to, to reverse the damage of her dirty run this time.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:24:33 PM PDT

      •  Hillary's record in her own

        right is too limited to draw many conclusions from.  However, she was running on Bill Clinton's record as president.  He supported and signed off on the dismantling of more of the New Deal regulatory legislation than Reagan and BushI combined.  Those who have studied and written about the Clintons have never suggested that she's more liberal than he is.  

        by Marie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:34:17 PM PDT

        •  well that would be a long drawn out debate

          so I'll pass. But the way I view it is different from you, I'd concede some of your points there, but I do think Bill Clinton wasn't as conservative or unprogressive as many say. Part of my argument would be historical context of the time his admin was in power-- he governed from the center-left with an extremely right wing Congress and a moderately center-right press, so his room to maneuver was limited. And I would agree that his record on corporate and economic issues was moderately right of center, but on most other issues I'd argue his record was very much moderately liberal.

          As to Hillary's record, agreed her own record is limited. But let's remember back in the Bill Clinton era she was always viewed by everyone, including the left as being much to the left of her husband. Now she's viewed to the right of him, but has no one to blame but herself for that perception.

          by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:52:33 PM PDT

        •  I would suggest that if you look at her years...

          ...during the Carter Administration when she was the Director or Secretary (?) of the Legal Services Administration her liberal cred should be apparent. She fought tooth and nail against Congress and a starved budget to triple the LSA budget that was previously as poor as its clients. Her connections into the NY and LA LGBT communities have been stalwart and tangible (hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks to AIDS agencies and the push back on Nunn via Bill to coerce DADT out of Nunn and Powell's refusal to allow gays in the military). None of this stuff is published...of course. So, take it with a grain of salt...I have always considered her more liberal and more courageous.

          by kck on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:03:38 PM PDT

          •  Read Bernstein's book on her --

            which was probably about 90% more than I ever wanted to know.  He covered her the years she served on the, iirc, the LSA Board or Commission.  Whatever she did in her position on it, it couldn't even be characterized as a part-time job.  More demanding than serving on the Wal-Mart Board, but she wasn't running anything.  

            Did anybody like DADT back when it was enacted?  It's been a failure but I give the Clintons a pass on it because they could have meant well.  I'm not as generous about DFMA.  That was discriminatory.  Would be cautious about championing Clinton earmarks for agencies working with AIDS patients and/or in AIDS research.  The line between earmarks and bribes for support isn't all that clear -- particularly when she didn't appear before general audiences as a major advocate for the AIDs and LBGT community.  Plus, by the time she became a Senator, funding for AIDS was already much better than it had been a few years earlier.

            We can agree to disagree on how liberal or conservative she was in the past.  However, IMHO there is nothing liberal about her votes on the IWR, Kyl-Lieberman, cluster bombs, flag burning or playing the race card in her campaign.  On those  items, she's no different from GWB.      

            by Marie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:27:57 PM PDT

•  Rent-a-general!

  Perfect label and description for those greedy, lying shits!

  Thanks for sharing your recollections of '68, when I was too young to understand, though I certainly felt the impression of those years, nonetheless.

  Interestingly, I found a link to a blog post over at Talk Left today via Reuters, an Armando/BTD post, and in the comments someone, a Clinton supporter, compared themselves to HHH.

  I haven't had the time lately to read that much in blogs, but it was an eye-opener to read the contrasting views over there, compared to here, regarding the primary. The divisions are quite real and quite harmful, I believe. I also believe your analogy to be quite true. I hope people can wake up to the precedent and not re-elect another Nixon in McCain. I hope people can open their hearts beyond their own myopic preferences and see the bigger picture, which affects so much and so many.

  Some day, Marie, I would love to share a pot of coffee or bottle of wine, or both, and talk politics with you. I'll bet the conversation would be thralling and would involve much laughter too.

  by cosmic debris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:39:19 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps engaging but it would be

    way short of exciting.

    Only a young or historically uninformed Clinton supporter would tout the similarities between Hillary and HHH.  I'm concerned but not yet alarmed about the divisions in the DEM party.  We mustn't forget that  there was a third party candidate in the '68 race that peeled off the racist, war hawk vote.  And that the youth vote wasn't there for HHH.    

    by Marie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:10:30 PM PDT

    •  Yet the youth vote was more determinate next time

      ...around propelling McGovern to our party's next loss. Even in the face of the draft, the TV exposure, the loss - real tangible visible losses, at least in my circles - and the civil unrest all summer in the streets seeing Americans fire-hosed by "law enforcers" and the country still voted for more war. Sure some may have thought that Nixon "had a plan"  but to me they still voted for war.    

      by kck on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:39:36 PM PDT

      •  By '72 we could actually vote.

        And by then Nixon had scooped up much of George Wallace's support.  Absent major economic problems, incumbents tend to win a second term.  Americans truly don't give a shit about the murder and mayhem our military is ordered to create around the world as long as their taxes aren't increased to pay for it and their kids aren't drafted.  The draft was gone by '72 and the war was winding down.

        If HHH hadn't fought McGovern for the nomination and if McGovern had selected a viable running mate, that still wouldn't have been enough to win in '72.  And let's not forget that Nixon's dirty tricks added to his winning margin.

        by Marie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:27:22 PM PDT

•  IIRC, HHH skipped all of the primaries....

  ...and went on to win the nomination.

  ...Vice President Hubert Humphrey, from Minnesota, who did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination, called for a policy more in line with President Johnson's, which focused on making any reduction of force contingent on concessions extracted in the Paris Peace Talks.

  The Democrats eventually nominated Humphrey, who went on to lose the election to Richard M. Nixon. The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process.

  I recalled multiple ballots but was corrected (without a link) by someone here that HHH won on the first ballot.

  The Final Ballot
  Presidential tally                    Vice Presidential tally:
  Hubert Humphrey     1759.25     Edmund S. Muskie 1942.5
  Eugene McCarthy 601        Not Voting 604.25
  George S. McGovern 146.5     Julian Bond 48.5
  Channing Phillips 67.5     David Hoeh 4
  Daniel K. Moore 17.5     Edward M. Kennedy 3.5
  Edward M. Kennedy 12.75     Eugene McCarthy 3.0
  Paul W. "Bear" Bryant 1.5     Others 16.25
  James H. Gray 0.5
  George Wallace 0.5

  I was a NYC teen McCartheyite and glued to the TV. Drama, suspense, conflict interspersed with news video from the war back when real bodies were shown. Real TV when the pictures told their own story and commentators shut up in the face of life and death drama. Our nominating process is a long way from perfect still...

  by kck on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM PDT

  •  Let's also remember that in '72 HHH made sure

    McGovern lost in the general by making sure the establishment parts of the party didn't work for McGovern in the general-- though McGovern had plenty of his own blunders to lose it.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:15:26 PM PDT

    •  So true.

      My sense is that is typical though. Outside of Senator Kennedy, a stalwart and reliable campaigner, I fail to see Democrats supporting each other. Clinton and Carter were not supported but then they were from outside of The Village (Digby's term?) But Gore? Kerry? They never got as much help as could/should have been marshaled. That's one reason this was the first year I gave to the DNC rather than just candidates. And I do have regrets.  

      The Clintons always relied on the voters and their personal machine-network...they never had the DC Party establishment. The Brahmans seemed to look down upon the single generation Clintons and references to "white trash" were seen in the papers upon Bill's ascension.

      So, it is a good thing to see the DC establishment coalescing around Obama (Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Dodd, Biden, Matthews - are they the "old boys club" or some kind of Irish Brahman club?). But then there's also this other sour taste about it...them banding up against the non-Brahman, the woman, the outsider.  I'm sure this is all just silly stuff...but I've been a Democrat all my life, a lower working class Party worker for decades who ended up breaking through the glass ceiling myself. So I know what it means to operate with, and without, peer support. I don't envy the Senate the day Hillary returns...I hope she stays in up to the first ballot. Losing is fine, noble. Quitting, not so much.

      by kck on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:41:27 PM PDT

      •  Not so typical.

        Agree about the divisions, but in the general everyone usually pulls together.

        The exceptions really were '68 and '72. While McCarthy may have supported HHH in '68, the animosity of HHH's power plays to win the nom, and the complete lack of support from the anti war left hurt him badly. In '72, it was the opposite-- the establishment Dems did actively work against McGovern, that's very well documented.

        In those 2 cases, large factions of the party didn't work for the nominee and hated the nominee. This year, I don't think it will be that bad. The philosophical differences aren't anywhere near as bad as those 2 years.

        by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:47:08 PM PDT

        •  I am confident we'll step together to victory...

          ...this year. One step at a time. No over confidence, relentless, and together.

          by kck on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:52:40 PM PDT

      •  Agree about Carter --

        he was never accepted by the Village and Ted Kennedy fighting for the '80 nomination didn't help Carter's re-election big.  Disagree about Clinton.  The Village did accept him.  But by the end of his term, the Village was split between the DLC faction and the liberal faction that had always disagreed with the pro-business DLC agenda and by then could see the wreckage within the DEM Party since Clinton won in '92.  The liberal wing pretty much remained the minority through '04 and the DLCers guided the party through election loss after loss.  

        by Marie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:39:50 PM PDT

  •  You're right -- I conflated '68 and '72

    Would delete the diary if that didn't also wipe out the comments.  Or rewrite it -- but I like this fantasized version better.

    I too was a McCarthyite teen but once RFK and HHH were in the race, I reluctantly accepted that he wouldn't get the nomination.  

    by Marie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:17:46 PM PDT

    •  Your diary's fine.

      You could just write another one to add more about '68 and '72, maybe with a little research and a couple links, if you're up for it-- it's hard if you're busy. But it makes for good discussion and to remind the community here of a perfect historical analogy, and as a warning to us all not to repeat the disunity mistakes of '68 and '72 that led to losses. My take on that is we need to defeat the Hillary faction, yes, but bring them in and unite with them to win in the general as much as is possible even if she plans to sabotage and run in '12.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:28:10 PM PDT

      •  I do wonder if McGoven

        is now seeing similarities between HHH and Clinton?  

        by Marie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:37:48 PM PDT

        •  That would be a great interview question.

          The only people I can imagine would think to ask it would be Bill Moyers, unless McGovern came here to diary.

          by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:43:38 PM PDT

        •  I think there are parallels between HHH and...

          ...Nixon. All are complex people, not all bad, certainly not all good. These are all complex people with so much at stake and to serve in a powerful position attracts a certain amount of, well, testosterone. And insulation. And the ability to rise above your own beliefs.  

          Oh definitely, don't delete your diary.

          I recall the multiple ballots in the '68 convention very clearly but as I said I was told I was wrong. Maybe I conflated the passing back and forth between the convention and the riots outside and created a narrative in my juvenile mind that somehow had more order...I don't know.  

          If anything, I wish from these such diaries for young people to get a glimmer of the gray areas - that in politics it's never good vs. evil. It's a system with shifting sands of rules and truth and reality...and lives are at stake.

          by kck on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:50:59 PM PDT

          •  Nice points there in your comment and your

            other comments.

            Did you ever see Oliver Stone's Nixon movie? I thought it was a terrific understanding of all the good and bad aspects of Nixon as well as a tremendous work of art and historical portrayal.

            by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:57:28 PM PDT

            •  No, I haven't but I will...

              Thanks for the tip.

              by kck on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:04:31 PM PDT

          •  Yes, our far too fallible memories --

            For whatever reason, I folded all my limited memories of HHH into '68 and forgot that he was very much present in the '72 primary contests.  And to be honest, right now except for his whining about the California winner-take-all primary, I still have no memory of him from '72.  I remember McGovern, Muskie and Chisholm from that year and that Muskie dropped out early because someone claimed that he shed a tear.      

            by Marie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:02:20 PM PDT

•  Hey, during the '68 Primaries...

  ...did Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern mention anything about Hubert Humphrey paying off their campaign debts? Just wondering.

  by pakaal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:33:35 PM PDT

  •  If they had, perhaps we would have won

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:13:48 PM PDT