in '68 Bobby was going to WIN as anti-war candidate

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was winning. Hewould have been
the Democratic candidate for president AND he was going
to stomp Richard Nixon's crooked ass...

...but the right-wing shot him dead.

Anti-war was the way to the White House in 1968, but then
American cities from coast-to-coast went up in flames...
riots after MLK was assassinated, "X" was assassinated,
Bobby was gunned down, massive riots in Chicago when the Chicago
police rioted outside the Democratic convention.

So Americans got scared, and voted the "restore order" and
the Nixon crooks got in.

In 1968 a man who was loved by millions and was anti-war
was about to win the White House .....so the PNAC-type
rt-wing made 'sure' that it never happened.

people at the CIA,the same ones who hated JFK, the military
rouges who wanted the war with Cuba.....the ones who
murdered Danny when he was exposing The OCTOPUS.

[ConLaw]

1. let me guess, you support howard dean in 2004

That is the only reason one would post a thread like that. An anti-war dem has never beaten a wartime GOP president. Unless you want a repeat of 1972 and to lose 49 states again, I would suggest against running an anti-war candidate. Bush will argue that he has won 2 wars against terrorism supporting states, and that he has made the country safer. Crying "NO WMD" or saying because of Bush's habit of distorting info, war in Iraq wasn't justified, will lose you another 49 states. No way will you be able to beat Bush, arguing this, or with an anti-war candidate. Quit thinking with your gut and think strategically.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FlashHarry]

17. Hey. Enough name-calling.

You could have stopped at 'pro-DLC.'

[ConLaw]

20. what do you have against the DLC or companies?

The DLC gave us Clinton, companies provide jobs and make us rich. I am, however, neither a dove nor a hawk. I am a realist. War with Saddam was unavoidable. Even if Gore where president, he would have attacked Iraq at some point. Iraq was unfinished business from 1991. And letting yourself be backed into the dove vs hawk debate is suicide.

[DrGonzoLives]

21. "War with Saddam was unavoidable"

That is pure bullshit and you know it. The fact that Bush had to LIE to get people behind that illegal invasion is more than enough proof of that.

And don't bother with the "evil dictator" bit, either. If that's why we invaded, why aren't we invading the Congo? North Korea? Or any one of the dozens of supporting nations that the Dept. of State have labeled as bad in the past?

[Aristus]

37. Amen, Gonz. I've about had it with the whole "evil dictator" bit.

He wasn't an evil dictator when he was on our side, fighting against Iran, right? Wasn't he a good guy? Didn't Rummy shake his hand? Didn't we sell him conventional weapons and (gasp!) WMD's? Doesn't Uncle Sam get into bed with any tinpot comic-opera dictator who will help to further America's interests?

Please. Spare me the "evil dictator so Bush was right to invade" b.s.

[Northwind]

27. False

Companies give us nothing. PEOPLE give other people jobs. Companies do NOTHING.

Abolish the corporation.

[GreenArrow]

30. Companies are responsible

for making "war" with Sadaam inevitable; regardless of Republican or Democratic leadership in the White House, those boys (with few exceptions)know who they take their marching orders from, and it ain't you or me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Let's Not Rewrite History

Robert Francis Kennedy was sui generis....Howard Dean is no RFK.

BTW, RFK would not have been running against an incumbent. He would have been running against Richard Nixon for an open seat. A discredited Nixon who had lost his last two political elections.

[sangh0]

5. Get ready

to be called a "pro-DLC whore".

[Iverson]

12. could be worse

You could be called a Nader-worshipper who doesn't have equal rights to post here, nor the intelligence to surrender his vote to a conservative. That's a summary, of course; the real invective is much longer.

[el_gato]

4. whatever

Anybody who advocates telling strategic lies and running from the truth is misguided. If you are not fighting to expose the truth and are not brave enough to fight for what you think is right then you do not have the moral compass to do the right thing once you gain power.

It is this type of "strategic" thinking that has ruined this country and gave us corporate pandering losers like the DLC.

[sangh0]

8. No one said anything about telling lies

The point is that the lies will not convince voters we shouldn't have invaded. The lies argue that Bush* can't be trusted and shouldn't be in charge. So point out the lies, but IMO don't think it's going to convince anyone that invading Iraq was a bad idea. The stream of dead American soldiers will do that job.

[Eloriel]

24. They're already getting it, without much work on the Dem's part

Have you seen the polls lately? Bush is slipping, but most of all and in about the same proportion, support for the war is slipping badly.

Now the interesting thing about wars is that you don't have nearly as much control over them as you do, say, the domestic scene and the national media. Can't manipulate things quite so easily. And there's not too many other viable "distractions" available -- what, a war with NKorea? An unpopular diversion into Liberia? Neither of those sound like good ideas at all.

Meanwhile, the U.S. can't convince anyone to send in troops to relive our guys, and we can't just pull out. Sooooo, the bad PR juju of this war isn't going away anytime soon.

What's shaking out could actually be that ONLY an anti-this-war candidate can win the nomination and against Bush (assuming we get the voting machine issue fixed). America is not taking kindly to the continued loss of its sons and daughters for a war that increasingly looks (even to them) to have been a misadventure. America is not taking kindly to the fact that no WMD have been found, and that Saddam may even be -- probably is -- still alive.

Nope. Not looking good for the fascists.

Eloriel

[sangh0]

36. Thank you, Eloriel. That's my point

We don't need, or even want the Dems to be in the lead on this issue. They are not needed (as you point out, people are turning without the Dems leading the way), and if they were to take the lead on this issue, then the Repukes would be that much more able to paint the controversy as "a political witch-hunt", something they've been trying to do, but it hasn't stuck.

People always feel more strongly about something when they think they came to their conclusions "on their own".

What's shaking out could actually be that ONLY an anti-this-war candidate can win the nomination and against Bush

IMO, you may very well be right. I hope so. However, I don't think we're quite there yet. Only time will tell.

[Brian Sweat]

18. An anti-war dem has never lost to a wartime GOP president.

[Iverson]

19. reread note #3

Nixon was not the incumbent in 1968.

[Brian Sweat]

23. I think you miss-read my post

ConLaw said that an anti-war Democrat has never beaten a war time GOP president. I responded that an anti-war Democrat has never lost to a war time GOP president. The point was to show the stupidity of ConLaw's assertion. An anti-war Democrat has never run against a GOP president during a time of war.

[Iverson]

25. You are correct.

boing! Sorry about that.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. OK, some things to correct here

First of all, to the original poster, Malcom X was assasinated in 1965, not 1968.

Now, to ConLaw. You state An anti-war dem has never beaten a wartime GOP president. We're not at war. Bush* declared "victory," remember?

Second, this is 2003, not 1972. EVERYTHING is different. I don't even know where to begin on this. We hadn't experienced Watergate yet so the vast majority of Americans still believed in benevolent government. It was after Viet Nam and after Watergate that Americans started to be skeptical of their government. That's just ONE of many points I could make about this DLC-backed claim.

Thinking strategically? You got it. Strategically, by 2004, many of the lies about the Bush* wars will be exposed and the Bush* machine, as all reich-wing machines, will have imploded. The press smell blood in the water and they're not going to let this go. The anti-war candidates will have an OBVIOUS, "I told you so" advantage here.

Additionally, there are no signs that the economy will be any better by 2004 than it is now -- in fact, there is every sign that it will be WORSE. The Republicans can't run against on the "tax-and-spend" mantra anymore because they inherited a surpluss and turned it into record deficits in record time. They can't run on "Homeland Security" anymore because, after going through $80 BILLION in less than 6 months, our "Homeland Security" consists of celophane and duct tape.

That, my dear, is strategic thinking (as opposed to DLC talking points).

[catmandu57]

6. Yes he was

1968 was a terrible year. Assassanations, riots, war, pollution, fear, tore at our very being. I remember 68 very well, it scared the hell out of me. Had BK lived he would have won out, instead we got nixon and yu know the rest.

[birdman]

7. RFK was unlikely to have gotten the nomination

Humphrey was well ahead of him in delegates
who at the time were mostly selected in party
caucuses by insiders. Humphrey didn't enter
a single primary and yet the party stood behind
LBJ and selected his Vice President rather than repudiate
Vietnam.

I tend to agree that if he had been nominated he would
have beaten Nixon but the way to the nomination was blocked.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. More On 1968

The argument that Humphrey had the nomination locked up because of the way the nominee was selected is a good one but there are many scenarioes where RFK would have emerged victorious.

[jos]

14. It's one of the great unknowns of history

He was trailing in delegates, but leaders who controlled uncommitted delegates, like Dick Daley, might have gone with him in the end. McCarthy would have had to withdraw and tell his delegates to go with RFK. But LBJ would have done everything he could to block his nomination.

Yet, even had RFK lost, if he threw his support to Humphrey, that made have made the difference in a number of crucial states such as California, Illinois and New Jersey.

[jeter]

34. It's important to remember that RFK was 3rd

In delegates up until the California primary. McCarthy was the anti-war candidate. Humphrey/Johnson was the statusquo candidate. Kennedy had the blacks, hispanics and the working class.

Kennedy had a shot after winning California (that is why it is often refered to as the 'crucial California primary') New York was next. He would have won that, too. Winning the two largest states in a nomination fight is good. Had Kennedy lost California, it would have been over for him.

But Humphrey was always the front runner. The only chance Kennedy had was to win all the remaining primaries. Keep Humphrey under the number he needed to secure the nomination. Then hope that McCarthy threw his support to him.

Kennedy couldn't have won on the first ballot in Chicago.

[ArkDem]

9. Sirhan Sirhan

was a Jordanian nationalist and Arab who was upset with RFK's pro-Israel positions. I'm not sure what right wing branch that would be.

[tinanator]

13. exactly which pro-Israel positions?

just curious. All those other aspects of the event have no impact on anything? Was it Oswald by himself? Did a lone gunman take out MLK or Malcolm? Thank God we dont have lone nuts running around anymore. In fact, when was the last sighting of one? How many failed attempts against Ford? Was Hinckley a lone nut?
http://www.voxfux.com/articles(closed)/00000013.htm

just wondering. Thanks for the info.

[jos]

16. Sale of phantom jets

to Israel is what I believe got him agitated. I don't recall whether the other candidates also supported the sale.

[robbedvoter]

10. Wellstone as well, last November - so watch out!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. RFK

wanted to sell fighter jets to Israel. As a Jordanian nationalist, Sirhan Sirhan was opposed.

BTW, he's still alive, at San Quentin Prison.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Wartime Presidents

BTW-It seems like the opposition party has never beat a wartime president whether the preseident was a Dem or Rep

The Civil War-Linoln won

WW1- Woodrow Wilson won

WW2 -FDR won

Viet Nam War- Nixon won

But if you look at the history of wartime presidents it gets more complex. Quagmires in Korea and Nam were certainly factors in Truman and LBJ not running for reelection.

Guess it depends on the success of the war and how it's perceived

[Iris]

22. talked politics with my dad yesterday

He's a Vietnam vet and likes Dean BECAUSE Dean was against the war from the beginning.

(He also doesn't believe all the polls he sees. I guess that's where I get it from. And I thought it was from hanging out here too much.)

[CMT]

28. it should be noted that HHH began gaining when he distanced himself

from LBJ when he made his famous Salt Lake City speech in late September, 1968--it was a minimal departure but enough for him to close in on Nixon from 15-points behind to nearly winning.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Let's Not Forget

that Wallace got 14% of the vote in 68 and carried five southern states. Though Wallace was a DINO he was much closer to Nixon politically and most of his votes came from Nixon.

[indypaul]

35. Wasn't it also proven

that Wallace received financial support from the Nixon
camp? Humphrey would have been a great president but
not as good, I fear, as RFK. There would, I believe, have
been a compromise ticket out of the Democratic convention.
I even feel to this day some of the activity in Chicago
during the convention was originated and supported by
Nixon and some of his cronies. Not unlike that demonstration
we witnessed in Florida during the "recount". A bunch of
thugs in suits who should have been arrested and prosecuted
for that activity. Perhaps if they had been waving a UN flag
at the time they would have been.

[OneBlueSky]

31. the difference being that the 60s was the era of Love . . .

while the present decade seems to be the era of Hate . . .

How To Hate Almost Anybody
http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp06262003.html

[Bombtrack]

32. Alot of key points

In 1968 a man who was loved by millions and was anti-war
was about to win the White House

I don't Dean or Kucincich are loved by 10,000 combined

They killed bobby because he would have won the whitehouse

the same "they" are now trying to help Dean win the nomination.

Talk about being delusional

DLC-"whores" like Edwards and Kerry have more Bobby Kennedy vision in there pinkys than Dean ever will.

Their whoredom must be why Ted Kennedy wants one of them to win the nom. But what does teddy know about Bobby Kennedy anyway

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. RFK

defied categorization. He was a "tough" liberal. He opposed the Viet Nam War not because he was a pacifist but because he came to the conclusion it was unwinnable.

He was not anti-capitalist, not by a long stretch, but he did envision a society where everybody competed on a even playing field and those that failed through no fault of their own would be helped.

He had a true empathy for the poor. It was amazing to see how comfortable this son of privilege was in a Mexican barrio or in an urban city slum.

He soothed a crowd of African Americans the night of MLK's death at a campaign rally that his aides told him was too dangerous and begged him to cancel. He told the crowd that his brother too was killed by a white man demonstrating the irrationality of hatred.

Could I see Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean doing this. Don't make me laugh.

As I said RFK was sui generis-one a kind. To compare him to contemporary politicians is blashphemous.

[Le Taz Hot]

39. Woah!

Wait a minute. Did I read this right?

They killed bobby because he would have won the whitehouse

the same "they" are now trying to help Dean win the nomination.

Tell me that you are NOT implying what I think you're implying. If so, you've lost ALL credibility as a debater.

[bslater523]

40. Errr, Dean already has over 60,000 volunteers.

I'm not sure if I love him, but I do think he's pretty damn great. Most of the people at the local Dean meetings think he's pretty swell too.