The problem when battling the right is that our troops like to think for themselves so you have this element of randomness that the GOP has done its level best to beat out of its people. They want fanatical zealots that do only what they tell them and I think they have gotten quite a long way towards this goal. Plus we are really the big tent party, and so we have a broader range of view points ;)

Also not being around in the Kennedy era, I really cannot even comprehend what you mean by a "Restoration." I mean, intellectually I suppose but that kind of idea in politics is so foreign to me that I can't quite comprehend it.

Three issues:
1) Condescension
2) Belief that those who work in Washington DC have superior knowledge/insight/understanding
3) Belief that those who live outside Washington DC are naive, foolish, misguided, and possibly stupid: "Shut up and send us the checks. And oh yeah, do my canvassing".

sPh

I disagree with that history, for various reasons.  I admire RFK, think he'd have been a winning nominee and a stronger one than McCarthy, think he had a shot at the nomination and McCarthy didn't, don't hold him responsible for so many people turning against LBJ when there was a war to do that just fine, realize that McCarthy and not he came up with the idea fo a dump LBJ movement, and indeed feel that had by happenstance he lived and HHH still got the nomination, he'd have been in a position to stauch some of the disillusioned who gave up on politics after his assassination and let Nixon win. Besides, history is about more than individuals. I hope right now it's about more than Bush or Obama.

However, more to the point, there's always a sad waste in this kind of speculative rerunning of history as what if. (What if RFK had stayed home? What if Sirhan had stayed home? What if pigs flew?) It's too much like the GOP version, with "stabbed in the back" stuff. It's hard to pull off sensibly, it's a distraction from discussion of broader issues of its time and ours, and it's harder still to make convincing parallels to the present. MJR indeed seems to have given up at just that moment. I've assaulted overblown claims for the Internet myself, even though I obviously like blogs or wouldn't be reading and replying here. But shouldn't MJR have worked on the conclusions a bit more? 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Dear MJ:

This is completely off topic, but I know of no other way to contact you directly. I've been looking at your IPF site--love it BTW--but don't see any major statements on the "Iranian threat."

AIPAC is doing a lot on this issue as you know, and I'd love to see a SANE Jewish voice on this issue. In fact, I can only surmise, but don't know, where you guys stand on this or what your assessment is.

Can you comment?

Keep up the good work.

This doesn't make much sense. What you in effect are calling for is the support of the candidate who wins the first primary and after the first primary, no one else should run in the other primaries. LBJ won the New Hampshire primary beating McCarthy 49 to 43%. It wasn't until the polls showed Johnson trailing McCarthy in the Wisconsin primary that Johnson decided not to run - Johnson didn't even campaign in the Wisconsin primary. RFK made the decision to run four days after the New Hampshire primary, a primary McCarthy had lost.

And why should any American's "patriotic duty" be to support someone regardless of whether or not he believes in his policies?

Bobby Kennedy didn't come in as Nader did and form a third party - he entered the primaries and was winning them.

When did LBJ "become unhinged?" LBJ made the decision not to run when he saw McCarthy outpolling him. The suggestion that LBJ could have withdrawn by saying "Bobby told me Jack intended to withdraw in his second term" is so ridiculous it borders on the silly. In fact, it is silly. First of all, JFK didn't manufacture a Gulf of Tonkin incident which resulted in an escalation, and secondly, JFK hadn't sent 500,000 troops to Vietnam as Johnson did. If LBJ had said anything like that, he truly would have had to have been unhinged. What sentient people would have accepted that as a serious reason to withdraw troops from Vietnam?

And the notion that RFK would not have been killed if he hadn't entered the race and had supported LBJ is like saying he wouldn't have been killed if he had left by the front door, or held the rally at the Hilton or had been six inches shorter - maybe he wouldn't have, but then maybe he would have been struck by a car crossing the street or been hit by lightening at Hyannisport.

The Hubert Humphrey nonsense isn't worth commenting on.

Keep in mind that George Wallace ran as an independent that year and in 1972. While he was ideologically closer to Nixon he took almost all his votes from Humphrey, mostly in the South where racist white voters wouldn't vote for a candidate from the party of Lincoln or Humphrey because of his decades long support for civil rights.

Depends on your analysis of the JFK assassination. Bobby had said at a college appearance in the run-up to the 1968 California primary that if he was elected President he would re-open the investigation into his brother's killing. If you feel, as I do, that JFK was hit by a combo of Mafia/CIA/anti-Castro Cubans from the old Operation Mongoose crowd, it is not surprising that he was killed.

Tom

Actually, it was 39 years ago and if I certain boy President had learned the lessons of Vietnam instead of drinking his way through Yale Americans wouldn't be dieing today in Iraq. You can learn something important and relevant from studying any time period, including the 1960's.

Tom

That is an interesting topic and worthy of its own discussion post, but it is not the type or direction of condescension that I meant.

sPh

1876 election is also worth studying.

Tom

Lucky you, Bev D. You obviously weren't born in 1968. I wish I was as young as you.

To Peter:
IPF limits itself to the Israeli-Palestine issue and pushing for US involvement as an honest broker.

We do not have a position on Iran although, in general, we favor negotiations in pretty much every situation before taking military action.

But we are a small organization and being even-handed on Israel-Palestine is enough work for a Jewish organization. I should add that we are a pro-Israel organization and come to our support for Palestinian rights out of the belief that without justice for the Palestinians, Israel may not survive.

But we just don't have the resources to take on the Iran issue as well.

Thanks,
MJ

I remember 1876 well. They both sucked.

There is much to be said to studying history generally and, if your interest is in electoral politics, then there are many lessons to be learned in all elections.

There are two things that bug me about this though.

One is that you really are wasting time and energy by playing the "coulda' woulda' shoulda' game with RFK, Johnson et al. They are all dead and gone and the facts of their lives are what they are. The legacies are still being written and will be revised and edited many times over. Nevertheless, the facts are in the books.

Corollary to that is that analyzing TODAY'S electoral politicals by applying a direct comparison to 1968's people, places, issues is a mistake. There is no direct analogy. There ARE differences. Nixon is not Bush. There is no RFK or McCarthy (hopefully other energetic, charismatic leaders will emerge). Vietnam - while it has many similarities to our current "quagmire" is not directly analogous. The "War on Terrorism" is not directly (nor legally) analogous to Nixon's period of the Cold War/Vietnam.

We do need to learn the lessons of history, but getting stuck in them is almost as big as mistake as ignoring them.

1968 WAS a long time ago. And yes, I was alive and well in 1968 MJ. That was a pretty insulting comment to make to Bev D. Anyone can study history whether they were 8 or 80 at the time -- you said yourself yesterday that you were stoned most of the time didn't you?

Glad I was too young to be smoking reefer in 1968....

Agreed on Hillary. Big Panderer/Headline grabber. Loser in my book -- if not in elections -- certainly in the book of life. Who cares if she's "smart"? She's also WRONG on the issue that matters most to me: Foreign policy. She's wrong on NAFTA, she's even wrong on health care.

Those that support HRC because she's a woman need to get a grip. I would love to see a woman have a real go at it(or anyone but a white male for that matter) but not Hillary. If we're going to play identity politics (and I would actually prefer NOT to), then the woman that runs should not be one that is trying to be more macho then the men in the club. Let's have a Nancy Pelosi, pearls and grandchildren and all okay? And if a black, why Obama who is half-white AND half black -- but I notice he has a very thin nose and thin lips which speak so "articulately" (no ebonics heah!). Why not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? How about a great big flaming gay man? Or a Yenta even (Barbara Mikulski perhaps -- don't think she's Jewish but she's older and Eastern European right?).

Yes of course I'm being deliberately provocative, but you get the point right?

If HRC runs, she will rip the party apart in the process. In that way she WILL be like RFK.

Can we please nominate someone whose labels just say:

Progressive, Liberal, Intelligent, Diplomatic -- and sometimes even fun?

Isn't that enough?

The challenge is to figure out who and what that is. Who is today's McCarthy? Today's Bobby? Even today's Humphrey.
---
With all respects, wrong question. So long as Dems. (or whatever you call them) focus on personalities rather than concrete, specific goals (ie. end homelessness, whatever), they will lose even when they win. Electing officials based on "personality" is like buying a car because you liked the salesman and the showroom. It is just plain stupid and self-destructive.

Selecting a Dem. because he or she "give me hope" and "inspires me" is just as brain dead as people voting for Bush because "he's the kind of guy you could sit down and have a beer with."

The seamy underbelly of Dems. and Progressives is that many of them want a monarch, a potentate, a Nice Daddy/Nice Mummy, just like Repubs. do. Self-appointed "pundits" feed this irrational, self-defeating garbage scow of faux analysis because doing issues-based reporting and writing takes work and research and enthusing about the "charisma" of Candidate X takes no effort, which allows said pundit to go home early and admire themselves in the bathroom mirror.

I'm liking Edwards on a ticket together with Wes Clarke.

Not sure who should be at the top, but I'm thinking in today's electoral shallow pool, Edwards' good-looks and silver tongue will make him more "electable." His "blue collar" upbringing merged with his lawyer's training makes him popular and thoughtful. I think he could be firmly anchored and supported by Clarke's gravitas and military creds. Clarke's international administrative, diplomatic and executive experience will make them unstoppable.

Even if they are both white boyz, Edwards comes from the South and I think Clark hails from Arkansas or Illinois.

Either way, whoever the "top" turns out to be, I think they're a great potential team.

"comes from the South" is now a criteria for a Democratic Party presidential candidate? I know the conventional wisdom is that Clinton won his first term because he was "from the South" but I hazard that Perot's campaign had more to do with it.

I don't see the parallels to the 1968 election in the same way. Dems lost in 1968 due to bad war. GOP will lose in 2008 due to bad war. It really is that simple.

Sometimes I sometimes think we're approaching 1968 in terms of dissent, but the dynamics are very different. The public is rejecting conservatism and Republicanism now, not rejecting liberals and Democrats as in '68. The pendulum is swinging to the left now, compared to the swing to the right in '68 and I think it certainly will continue to do so by 2008.

This post is also a very weird view of history.
First, although LBJ supported liberal domestic legislation, he did far more than "inherit" the Vietnam war. He vastly escalated the war. Like Bush, he said he didn't want to be "the first American President to lose a war" so he poured tens of thousands of young draftees into that hellish war and wouldn't stop until the country was coming apart at the seams over it.
Secondly, I don't think the '68 loss can be blamed on liberal Democrats of any stripe. The country had been through a very traumatic period of war, assassinations, riots and discord and couldn't take it any more. The Republicans had been working hard on their machine for years and took advantage of the swing of the pendulum to the right.
In '68 I was trying to cope with the murder of King and then the murder of Bobby a few months later and much more. I was listening to automatic weapon fire outside my apartment building. The country really seemed to be coming apart. The Democratic convention turned into a police riot as leftists desperately tried to get a foot in the door of the Democratic Party. The country would have elected Rush Limbaugh in an attempt to go back to simpler times. That's my take on it, and it does often feel like a re-run now in terms of the war, although not as intense a mood in the country yet, but the people who have been running things are not liberal Democrats, they're BUSH REPUBLICANS! So we need not fear being too liberal, too divided, too outspoken. The country is craving change in our direction. Our fatal error would be to have a candidate who shrinks from the issues in an attempt to appear moderate.

As one of those "holier than thou Democrats', it's Democrats like you that make it easy for me to vote 3rd party. As a Minnesotan I admire HHH for many reasons, but there are 58,000 names on the Vietnam memorial because the Johnson administration made an enormous mistake. I also remember how the establishment Democrats handled young protestors in Chicago. I will never support that kind of Democratic party.

Dude if your waiting for this to get all your Beatles music on your iPod I have a nice bridge I can sell you:-)

I think a better historical mirror is 1952. Then, like now, you had a generally complacent electorate, a highly unpopular president, and a war no one knew exactly what to do with. There were no big issues in the country (the civil rights debate would not get into full swing for a decade or so), and people were fascinated by their TVs (a new invention then) and enjoying materialism. It's eerily similar, in fact. I just don't see a Democratic version of Eisenhower out there.

I also see parallels to 1988. That was the first year thematic sliming of a Dem candidate worked, and it's been a recurring motif for the Republicans since: ignore the issues, attack the candidate. I remember how optimistic Dems were about Dukakis and his ability to stop the changes Reagan had instituted, only to see the whole thing run into the brick wall of Willie Horton, attacks about "soft on crime," ridicule (Dukakis in the tank) and even insinuations that Dukakis was mentally unstable (another big theme for the Republicans since then: every Dem candidate is portrayed as a half-crazy liberal, just like Dukakis was). We have an opportunity to begin battling that kind of garbage this time around, or we can sit back and watch as the Republicans snuff out Democratic optimism yet again. Judging by how willing Dems are, even in this thread, to repeat the themes the Republican spinmasters feed them, I suspect '08 will be closer to '88 than '52. We just don't seem to have the brains to make it otherwise.

BTW, I also think '68 is a poor comparison. There were so many things going on in '68 besides just Vietnam -- it was a perfect storm of political and social insanity. The only thing we have going on now is the war. And we might not even have that going on in '08.

Sheesh. You do realize, don't you, that the 1968 elections were 40 FRIGGING YEARS AGO, don't you? The vast majority of American voters weren't voting then, many not even alive for that matter.
Your political arithmetic is breathtakingly deficient, my obviously callow friend. Have you not heard that we Baby Boomers constitute the pig in the boa constrictor? The vast majority of American voters 'R Us, Baby Blue.

For a lot of us Boomers, 1968 was our first Presidential vote.

If you and your generation plan to take over some day, you'd better learn how to count.

I agree but Chuck Hagel is showing more courage challenging Bush on Iraq recently than most Democrats.

Tom

Chuck may be a great guy.  Maybe he will change parties.  My money is on a very dark horse, Jim Webb.

Just do some research before you post, I don't think that's too much to ask. No, I wasn't born in 1968, but I wasn't born yesterday either. Quit deflecting, and check the facts before you write - just because you think it, it doesn't make it true.

I know what happened because I was there. Who's the Uncle Tom, now?

There's no analogy. Dems were in power in 1968, no sitting president. The war is the other party's responsibility.

Ironically, MJ, I was a McCarthy supporter in '68. Was my first political activity. I was 15. As I grew older, I saw some factors that made me wish I'd supported Kennedy. Kennedy was reaching blue collar voters McCarthy couldn't touch. He was the last gasp for the New Deal, without being compromised like Humphrey.

I'm disagree that Kennedy's assassination was not surprising and think you're way too kind to Johnson.

WHITEROSEBUDDY IS A DISGUSTING JEW-HATING SICKO

I agree with Mr. Rosenberg to the extent that those in Missouri and California who hated and feared Nixon but wouldn't vote for Humphrey helped elect Nixon and extend the war until 1973. Everything else he says is rubbish.

I don't know. Benjamin Netenyahu was on television so fast on 9/11, I swear he must have been in the green room when the planes hit.

No, folks on your side of this argument don't have to do it, they just always do.

Your take is different? Which statement do you disagree with: that the election was stolen, or that it's a citizen's duty to vote for a person they believe in?

I"ll throw out a different analogy to 1968: 2000. A vice president with a progressive, indeed courageous history and convictions who can't make up his mind whether to distance himself from the outgoing president, thus looking like a coward or a fool to what we'd now call the base. A Republican who campaigns as a moderate by making promises (secret plan to end the war, no nation building) he has no intention of keeping, allaying enough fears that nothing is at stake so that he gets into office by a hair. Bad things happen. The Republican then gets reelected because of a Southern strategy, because of GOP abuse of the culture wars, and because opposing the protracted war overseas is declared left-wing extremism.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

As a Southerner living in the North, I can tell you that the issues between the South and the Northern dominated Democratic party are cultural, not policy.

There is no question that the election was interfered with by the US Supreme Court, in an unconstitutional manner. There is also no question that enough "little" things were done to discourage Democratic voters in Florida that the outcome was changed, and that the vote count was bungled there.

My disagreement is on what a citizen's duty is. A citizen's duty is to become informed and vote when there is an election. When a citizen uses his ballot to "send a message", rather than to cast a vote that will count in determining the winner of an election, he is losing track of the whole purpose of holding elections in the first place, so, is, in my opinion misusing his voting privilege. No laws are violated by him doing that, and he has every right to vote however he wishes, for anyone he wishes to vote for. But, he is opting out of the process when he votes for someone he knows has zero chance of winning. I do respect those who disagree with me, though, because it is a somewhat gray area.

The solution to this whole difference of opinion on what voting should mean is to use the system of voting where we rank the candidates, rather than having to pick only one to vote for. That allows us to express our desires, but still participate in a meaningful way in the voting.

Hoppy in Sacramento

It is hard to even begin to describe the cultural differences between Southerners and Northerners. 

Take a very very simple example.  In the South, "no" means "no."  In the North, I am not sure what it means.  I once had a conflict with someone who is normally a very good friend because I was asked to make an accommodation related to a work activity and I had said "no."  When asked AGAIN, I assumed that there were some sort of demands from high ranking officials or some unrevealed needs that required special considerations.  I made the accommodation, although I really did not want to.  I then learned there was nothing special behind the request.  This person was not being a pest, not trying to annoy me, not trying to get around my objectives.  She is in fact a friend.  The second request was perfectly acceptable behavior.  It would not have been (without special considerations) where I grew up.

These cultural distinctions are laced throughout interactions between Northerners and Southerners.  This is overlaid with suspicion and distrust.  I know Northerners who literally expect every law officer in the South to be Boss Hawg.  They are AFRAID FOR THEIR LIVES.  I know Southerners who expect to be assaulted within minutes of entering any city north of Washington, DC.

Northerners are perceived to be arrogant by Southerners.  As far as I can tell, Northerners are often perceived to be arrogant by other Northerners, but they are so used to it they aren't bothered by it.  Arrogance is only a minor sin in the North.  Not so in the South.  Arrogance (except under certain culturally permissible conditions) is among the top sins.  Northern "carpet bagging" arrogance is NOT culturally permissible.

Northerns are quick to assume that all Southerners are racist.  This is extraordinarily annoying to Southerners because (1) it isn't true, and (2) it gives the appearance that Northerners are unwilling to deal with problems "at home."  The bible says something about pulling the mote out of your own eye first.  Northerners should really really really learn what that means.  This does NOT mean there isn't racism in the South.  I will reserve the debate about where the worst problems are for another time.

Both Northerners and Southerners assert that the other group is inhospitable.  Southerners assert it almost uniformly about Northerners.  Northerners have a more mixed reaction about Southerners.  Northerners talk too fast, have poor manners, crowd you out on the sidewalk, double park, litter, stop in the middle of the sidewalk, walk away when you are talking to them.... Southerners talk too slow, have exaggerated ideas about manners, insist on talking to you when you have to get to an appointment, ask you about your church....

All of these cultural issues are part of why the Northern dominated Democratic party has a hard time with the South.

Lenny is not all that poor.

Sorry, I didn't frame that sentence very well. The context suggests that I was referring to a contrast between Lenny and Donald, and I really was putting them in the same category.

Actually, my mentioning Lenny at all is a sign that I am getting old. He has been gone for some time, but he was an important figure from my youth.

That is a good point. From the standpoint of a Southerner, politeness is an absolutely essential precondition of doing anything whatsoever. I assume that this is not understood up North.

Courtesy is valued in the North.  What COUNTS as courtesy is very different. Again, culture is the dominant factor.

That is an interesting point. Unfortunately that is area that is one of life's mysteries to me.

I had a great aunt whose manners were so elegant it would make your head spin. Good manners are a performance art. Even in the South you do not see that kind of performance very much anymore.

Yes, my aunt would tell you every little thing she did, what kind of sandwich she ate, etc. That part was boring, but the way she did it was mesmerizing.

Take care.

Something about MJ's post rings true. I remember spending hours trying to talk friends out of going to the Chicago Convention. Those who went were not attacking LBJ or the war, but the party. Few of them were willing, or even able, to contemplate the consequences of a Republican victory, and those who did thought Nixon really did have a "secret plan" that would get us out by the next summer. JEEESSUS!

By and large, those who went could have cared less about the Civil Rights Act or the War on Poverty, it didn't effect them. But the war did, so that's all they were considering. JEEESSUS!! MOOOSES!! BUUUDDAH!!! What a bunch of idiots!

I went to Miami to demonstrate at the Republican Convention that year.....

That is the funniest thing I have seen on this site.

Boy, you hung out with a different crowd than I did. McCarthy sent the word out to Philadelphia supporters not to go to Chicago because he feared violence. Those who went, went to end the war even though they knew they might get their brains bashed in.

Tom

Hagel is the only Republican I could be tempted to vote for entirely because I believe he's the smartest candidate running when it comes to foreign policy and no neocon is going to pull the wool over his eyes. But he's not likely to be the nominee.

I will not vote for a Democrat who triangulates on this war or competes with the Republicans on who can throw away the most money on "national security". Sorry, but Democrats are going to have to come up with something a bit larger than a few cents thrown at the minimum wage to make me decide it's worth throwing out principles to vote for them.

So if the polls show John McCain ahead of Al Gore by, say, 10 points in my state the day before the election, I'm required by your logic to vote Republican.

Sorry, Hoppy, but I can't respect that kind of thinking. You're heart's in the right place but it's interfering with your thought process.

Your paradigm virtually eliminates minor party candidates from the field. A "compulsory" two-party system, bouyed by support from people who think as you do, either polarizes or homogenizes unacceptably. It has already edged the Democrats so far to the right that it's getting hard to tell them from the Republicans. It may very well lead to a completely inappropriate candidate like Hillary Clinton getting the nomination.

Your idea of how to cast one's ballot always says, "My party must win this election." My idea is, "My party has to do right by me." I'd rather have my party know that I'm not buying inferior goods, so they damn well better deliver quality, or I shop elsewhere.

Will I be unhappy if McCain narrowly defeats Hillary in PA after I vote for myself or some Socialist? Yep. But I won't blame myself, I'll blame the Dems. And I'll be right. Because if I keep shifting my vote to the right, in a few years it could be somebody who looks a lot like McCain running with a (D) next to his name.

Think that's crazy? Look who PA elected in the Senate last November. Casey is anti-abortion, pro-USAPATRIOT, pro-warrentless wiretap, anti-embryonic stem cell research, anti-gay marriage, and on and on. Guess how the PA Dems got that way?

I was only laughing at sphealy's comment.  Clearly he was teasing us.

I'm sorry I missed this cnversation, but wanted to say a few quick things.

First, in 1968, RFK had a great opportunity to say that LBJ was a usurper: remain quiet when Evelyn Lincoln said JFK was going to boot LBJ shortly before Dallas. Instead, RFK firmly denied it, getting a headline in the Post about it.

Second, McCarthy did not force LBJ out. Kennedy did. And Kennedy waited so long because he felt that the American people were rejecting LBJ, but didn't really want McCarthy. LBJ's poor showing in NH confirmed for RFK that he hadn't split the party -- LBJ had. RFK came in the race for more than two weeks before LBJ skipped out.

Third, I think Edwards is McCarthy -- he's worked the base hard and feels entitled to movement backing; Obama is RFK -- fresh and exciting; and Hillary is Humphrey -- her caution and ties to the old establishment weigh her down.

Oh, and if McCain is Nixon, does that make Romney Romney? Giuliani is Lindsay and Tancredo's Wallace.

Gee, this is fun.

Why were there so many people referred to by their initials in the '60s?  I can't think of another period of time that featured so many combinations of three letters as people.