Who remembers the political environment around McGovern in 1972?

[kentuck]

There was a strong anti-war movement, much of it after Woodstock in 1969? McGovern was very popular with his anti-war stance. The Repubs painted him as a hippie-loving Communist sympathizer and the Democratic Party was defeated in one of the worst political disasters of modern history. The war divided the American people and the Democratic Party. Are we repeating history with our present anti-war movement, even though it is nowhere as strong or vocal as the movement in 1972? Are we walking a thin line here?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. No, the antiwar movement and Woodstock

had nothing to do with each other, and the movement was up and running in the mid- to late-sixties. In 1966, we were marching in Boston, protesting the war, the draft, and LBJ.

McGovern fucked himself up with his discarding Tom Eagleton after he learned that Eagleton had been treated for depression. It was a really bad, bad move, and he alienated a lot of lefties, all the while giving cannon fodder to the right.

There is no comparable antiwar movement right now, simply because there is no draft. College students have not the same kind of stake in the activity as our boys did back then. In fact, there's a big anti-Bush movement in this country, and that's got potential - if it can get organized, and please don't do anything like that mess that was the DC march a couple of months ago - to be bigger than our anti-war movement ever was.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. OK we will make sure to check with you

so that we don't offend you with our protests anymore. Could you list all the organizations you find offensive so that we can make sure they don't attend? Is there a dress code? We wouldn't want to offend you by wearing the wrong shit either. Could you provide a list of signs that are acceptable? We'll get the word out that only OldLeftieLawyer approved signs can be displayed.

In fact, when are you going to organize the next big demonstration? It should be great since you have so many excellent opinions about how to do it right.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. That's a good idea

You finally got one right.

Congratulations.

[EFerrari]

37. What do you mean, OLL? I wan't there and so don't know. nt

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

46. Ok, Warren. I hear you. n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

45. It was a mess

I was there and it was a mess. The marching part was quite wonderful, understand, but that's the easy part.

The speakers, though, that was just hideously handled - it turned out to be some kind of therapeutic sounding board for causes that, while I know they're important to some people, are marginal where Iraq is concerned.

I never in my life heard such bad, self-indulgent poetry read by people who clearly had problems that had nothing to do with political action. It turned out that the people who were running this part of it were - I forget the name of the group - operating with a much more varied agenda than was targeted by the march.

It just fell into a sad kind of disarray.

[EFerrari]

48. Well, I hear you. And as far as I can tell, inclusiveness is

the priority with that group (whose name my aging brain won't produce).

They irritate me, personally but I give them credit for putting it on AND IN OUR FACES in these tepid, timid times.

Sometimes I think we've been seduced by slick. Slick is running this country into the ground. So give me grubby, disorganized, bad poets with a heart. I can take it.

lol

/damn English language

[OldLeftieLawyer]

53. I know what you mean

Don't you love when the brain just won't kick out that stuff?

I agree about inclusion, but that was not the time, not the place.

And, you know, you've got to have people facing you, paying attention to you, in order to put it into their faces. Even I walked away, bored, disgusted, disheartened.

I'm with you on slick as well, but there's also "simple," and that's what's going to win next time out. Simple, plain talk, with a sharply focused and finely honed message. These are not complicated times in which we live, if you take the long view and stress what needs to be done to fix it all.

I firmly believe that. Sy Hersh and Scott Ritter nailed it.

[EFerrari]

55. This is OT, but Doug and I have this problem all the time.

He gets invited to do stand up where there is no unified audience. There may be a roomful of people, but there is no audience. That facilitator who should be minding this small detail is awol. argh

Simple is right! It's putting on the white hat and saying it in three sentences. Hersh and Ritter did nail it and I hope, will continue to nail it.

It's going to be a long haul. Why we have to reinvent gravity every two or three generations is beyond me. And here we are.

b.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

58. Ever raise kids?

I think your last question - the one for all ages - is the same thing you ask yourself as your watch your offspring make every fucking mistake you tried to warn them against, every fucking one, and there's just no point in saying "Didn't I tell you .............?"

It finally dawned on us that each generation needs to discover fire, invent the wheel, and get all banged up in the process so that they can own it.

Maybe that's what's going on here - although I honestly do believe we're living in a time unlike any other, and the old thinking about things just doesn't work any more.

Although, I find myself thinking about Harry Truman a lot these days, wishing we had someone like the original HST.

[EFerrari]

63. 2 boys. By whom my counsel was met with eye rolls.

And, maybe that was right.

And surely, the kind of un self-conscious corruption we're witnessing -- well, it's new to me, anyway.

I think sometimes about Camelot and what my mother hoped for during that time. Mostly, I just try to plan ahead because I don't trust these evil bastards and there's a family and a hood to protect. And kids to let go of or at least, to try.

edit:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

78. My daughters are married,

but, if they weren't, I'd give you good $$$ for those GORGEOUS sons of yours.

Hey, can I date either of them? PLEASE?

No, this corruption, this so-called Administration, is beyond anything anyone's ever seen. I was talking with my 86-year-old artist friend, a woman who's very hip politically, who remembers everything, and she said this is the worst - by far - that's ever taken place.

So, she's going back almost 100 years.

During the Kennedy years, we could do anything. We were golden, just like they were. And when it ended, dreams died and were never resurrected.

[EFerrari]

112. I dunno. I don't think you can live through a moment like that

without taking it in and preserving it in some way.

Like Camelot.

Out of context, it's middle aged broads like me that look like we're slightly out of touch.

In context, it's never giving up your moral compass, isn't it?

That's some negotiation.

lol

[OldLeftieLawyer]

115. We're all Camelot,

even though Jackie made up that myth. It lives on in those of us who lived through it.

I sometimes feel like the only sane person in the crowd, but that's because I've been lucky enough never to have to compromise my beliefs. I've paid prices for that stubbornness, but they were cheap. I wasn't.

Never give up, no. We're not built like that.

Now, about your sons ................. ;)

[EFerrari]

117. They should be so lucky.

:)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

119. HAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, here's to you, kid:

[EFerrari]

120. Back atcha.

[Hardrada]

130. I couldn't do just anything.

I used to get tossed out of saloons for decrying the VN War. Not literally but I had more than one barkeep try to throttle me.

[radio4progressives]

114. I agree. Today's anti-war movement misses the point for demonstrations.

Today's progressive movement who are also anti-war, seem unable to distinguish that people can be anti-war, but not necessarily pro-progressive (on the issues).

If the point of demonstrating against the war is to honestly END THE WAR, that's what the message has to be about - and nothing Else.

The time to educate the public on the broader or other underpinning issues such as imperialism, racism etc.. that must be done in separate demonstrations, or in other public fora.

If I (a strong left progressive) cannot stomach the endless tirades about everything under the sun, (i am not alone) then how in the hell can people expect anyone else to listen and be persuaded ?


unless the actual intention is to diminish turn out, diminish any positive public attention, (this might be the goal with some) then it behooves the movement to take this point to heart, and give it the merit it deserves. Maybe some of us know what we're talking about.

I no longer go to San Francisco protests, simply because I can't stand the majority of the speakers and how they conduct the rally. And I know a lot of people that no longer attend these marches - we will not travel all the way to SF or other city to "make our voices heard" because our voices are not being heard. Our voices are being drowned out by other competing messages that do not translate to the general public at large.

[CTyankee]

82. well, WE were the children of the Enlightenment

Don't know about you. Now maybe we weren't right about everyhing, but we had some ideas that I remember resonated so well...

It just happens. It didn't just fall into a sad kind of disarray. Our ideas gel in other forums. We go on. The dream never dies.

Sorry if you gave up. That's why things stink.

We don't give up. We keep on. We live the dream. Come back in the light, you'll feel better.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

84. Good for you

Live the dream. That's marvelous, and that's how it should be.

But, when it comes to turning your dream into reality, you will only be judged by your results. The results of that march were exactly nothing. Just look around. What did you accomplish?

My generation brought a President to his knees, fought and stopped a war, and brought down an immoral administration and President.

What will yours do?

Light? Don't confuse your being blinded with being in the light. You're in the dark.

[CTyankee]

86. You are confusing me

I believe I was in the generation that brought an adminsitration to its knees.

You are being silly if you feel it is all over because things were so simple in 1974. It didn't end there. We had to carry on. And we did.

I don't know about you, but I was working in organizations such as the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, and Planned Parenthood to effect change in everyday situations. Were you there?

That took 32 years of my life, from 1972 to the end of 2004, when I retired, faced withthe responsible realities of a disabled brother in a nursing home and a 93 year old mother in assisted living who needed me.

I did not go easy into that good night. I was, and am, staunch in my beliefs. My life is better, my advocacy easier to make because I have more time to give it voice.

You want it to be so easy. Life is not like that. History is not like that.

If this is your philosophy you should not be in the Democratic Party, much less DU. You should be with those you would call the winners, the Republican Party. They won, didn't they, according to your philosophy? So that's the proof, according to you.

Vaya con Dios to the Republicanos. I'll stick to my principles, thank you.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

88. I'm older than you,

and started earlier.

I'm still a volunteer ACLU attorney, but I'm not going to list my services here, since I think that's not proper.

You do seem confused. Your post shows it.

Best of luck to you. Enjoy your retirement years. I can't imagine ever doing it, but, to each his own.

[barb162]

94. are you talking about ANSWER

If you are, I agree

[OldLeftieLawyer]

105. Yes, that's the outfit........

Thank you. These old brain cells seem to discard extraneous information without my consent.

I never heard of them before that march, haven't heard from them since, and what a mess they made...........

Thanks again.

[Puregonzo1188]

121. I was there also and it was not a mess.

Sure the speakers from ANSWER were not the best we could find, but a lot of the people there that day paid no attention to them that day and I don't believe the little coverage in the media we got mentioned anything about ANSWER or the irrelevant tirades. The only speakers to get attention were Cindy Sheenan and Jessie Jackson. One of the papers mentioned there were REPUBLICANS there, some of which still supported Bush, but not the war. There were a diverse group of people, and its going to take a diverse group of people to END THE WAR. Its not an exclusively Democratic affair, but I will agree ANSWER is sickening. I will not say 200,000-500,000 people of all different political affiliations marching together to END THE WAR was a disaster.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. You aren't being fair

Leftie is right. The anti-war movement during the Vietnam War was fueled by the draft. It was a completely different situation. The Iraq War is abominable, but there IS NO DRAFT. NO ONE is being forced to serve in Iraq unless they volunteered for military service. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of our young men were forced to drop everything and report to the draft board to be inducted during Vietnam.

I feel just as passionately about the war in Iraq as I did about Vietnam, maybe even more so because of the lies and deception of the bush administration. But that doesn't mean I can't see the obvious differences in the two wars.

I also don't get why you are assuming Leftie is offended.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Gee I guess it was:

"and please don't do anything like that mess that was the DC march a couple of months ago"

Which is just OldLeftyLawyer bringing up the endless bashing of the DC protest by people who were so offended in advance that they could not bring themselves to attend lest they might rub shoulders with ACTUAL COMMUNISTS.

He knew exactly what he was doing with that comment of his, and he knew exactly what I meant by my response.

[LittleClarkie]

122. But OLL attended. So how does that pertain to her?

I'm glad you had a different experience.

But if OLL was there, then isn't her opinion valid re: how it went, and isn't she entitled to express that opinion without being accused of being one of the "people who were so offended in advance that they could not bring themselves to attend lest they might rub shoulders with ACTUAL COMMUNISTS"?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

47. Thank you, and you're right -

Leftie just had an opinion which, apparently didn't set well with that poster, who is now and forever consigned to "Ignore," because OldLeftie don't hold with bad manners. That's about all offends OldLeftie these days.

Oh, Fuckface offends me - did I mention that?

It was all about the draft. Absolutely. Thankfully, this generation will never know the fear and horror and panic that accompanied a dropped GPA or a letter from the SS Board.

It was not good to be a young man back then.

[EFerrari]

50. No, it wasn't. It was terrifying and there was no net. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. I will never for the rest of my life forget the anxiety

on the night they aired the lottery on TV. I was in college and we all gathered together to watch it. One of the guys there had a really low number - under 10 as I recall. His face was white, he was in shock.

I also had a good friend who literally disappeared shortly after the lottery. We never did find out what happened to him. I have enjoyed imagining him relaxing on an exotic beach somewhere. He had talked of going to the south Pacific, so we figured that is where he disappeared to.

This war in Iraq isn't that bad YET. Over my dead body (and I am sure there are several others) will we allow it to get to the point Vietnam got to.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

60. You just gave me chills

I was in a really liberal, hippied college, and our boys had lots of resources available to them. So, they didn't mind being labelled bedwetters, gay, you name it, they did it. They didn't care, and the professionals who wrote the letters were happy to help them.

About a dozen years ago, my best boy buddy from childhood - who got drafted, but sent to Korea, not Vietnam - was talking about his good Army pal from back in the mid- to late-sixties. Jim was wondering what had happened to him, since the guy had been sent to Vietnam.

This was before the Internets. Jim told me his worst fear was that his friend had died there. I suggested we drive across the bridge and go to the Vietnam Wall, to see if his name was there.

It was night, Jim really didn't want to go, but I dragged him along. We went to the book and looked up his friend.

My oldest boy buddy, father of two, Army veteran, dedicated husband, son, friend extraordinaire, sat down on the ground right there, at the directory stand, and sobbed like a small child while I sat right behind him, holding him in my arms.

Your friend is still on that beach somewhere, I bet, happy and safe.

[proud2BlibKansan]

66. Do you think

this video game generation we have raised would be willing to go to the lengths our young boys went to to get out of the draft?

My two boys are now in their 20s and I have told them the stories. I told them about my friends who claimed they were gay. I told them about my friend who declared he was a heroin addict. He was scared to death of needles but he spent weeks before his draft physical poking holes in his arms with a huge needle. Then he did heroin for 3 days before the physical. He was a guitar player and worshiped Eric Clapton. I can still hear him saying "If heroin is good enough for Clapton, it's good enough for me."

Are these kids brave enough to do those kinds of things? Are they as adamantly anti-war as we were? My sons say no.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

68. Your sons are telling the truth

I think we've raised a lucky generation, safe and secure, but they don't know that their sense of security is false. They don't know what real fear is - unless you think about AIDS (which we didn't have to deal with, so maybe there was some kind of cosmic trade-off) - and they don't know at all what it means to have the Selective Service breathing down their necks every fucking day of their lives.

The "war" doesn't affect them, so they don't have to do a thing about it. That's what they think.

They're never going to be tested like our boys were, and I wonder that will mean for them in ten, twenty, thirty years. What will it mean for our country?

[No Exit]

118. I was a kid, and I had a dream that my college-age brother died

in Vietnam and came home in a coffin. Mind you, he hadn't even been drafted! But he was the age to be drafted.

Now I get to have those nightmares all over again--about my own children.

NEVER AGAIN. I'm counting the days till these criminals leave office, one way or another, and NEVER AGAIN will anyone even remotely connected with them ever win even a kind word, much less a vote, from me. (Of course, now that we have the wonders of Diebold...sigh...)

[1932]

65. Would you say that when Nixon said he'd end the draft

that that took the wind out of the sails of the Vote Democratic movement?

After making the focus of the debate simply whether young men will go to war, meant that when young men felt the draft would end, they lost the north star for getting to the polls and voting D on election day?

I like to think that someone like RFK was orienting what it meant to be a Democrat around much broader and clearer principles and that no matter what happened, people would have felt there was a good reason to vote.

I think the anti-war movement is great, but I just wish they talk about it within a broader context. To me the war, free trade dominated by a few powerful corporations, neoliberalism, the concentration of power, the polarization of wealth all wrapped together, is the big picture. I wish the movement talked about things in that sense so that even if Republicans ended the war and unless they ended all of that stuff, people wouldn't lose their motivation for voting for democrats.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

73. Nixon got tons of mileage out of his

promise to end the war, end the draft, bring the troops home. He lied about all of it, of course.

I don't think we can now afford the luxury of the broad expanse that Bobby Kennedy would have campaigned on. Not now. There is one overriding concern, and that is to get us out of Iraq. That's the primary, and that is all we can stay with right now.

After that, we can get onto the other things that matter so much.

Things have sure changed.

[laugle]

123. I enjoyed very much reading your

posts. I think those who were not there during the Vietnam years can never, ever understand what it was like.

I still have around 100 letters from my fiance and other childhood friends, who wrote me regularly from Vietnam.

After this last election, I was so angry at young people, because I thought they were apathetic and not voting. I actually felt they should bring back the draft...as that would finally unite this horribly divided country.

Thankfully, I don't feel that way anymore. I think our democracy may finally win out in the end and the Bush house of cards is beginning to collapse.

Thanks for the nostalgic and insightful posts. One good thing that comes with age is wisdom. Sometimes people talk too much and listen too little. I'm sure you know what I mean. Peace to you......

[OldLeftieLawyer]

124. Thank you so much

This getting older business is turning out to be a whole lot more fun and interesting than I would ever have expected - if I'd given it any thought when I was younger.

We know stuff now, having a solid frame of reference, and we're not about to waste any of it.

Thanks again, and peace also to you .........

[CTyankee]

83. You are right about the draft part

and that had a LOT to do with it.

But there were also a lot of lefties who didn't like the war and who weren't vulnerable to the draft.

It WAS a principled thing. Don't doubt it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. True

I am female. I wasn't eligible for the draft. But I sure protested that war.

[barb162]

96. Yes, a lot of dissent was because of the draft. But then the

Ellsburg papers and a bunch of other protesters were questioning the whole war, like what in the world were we doing there. I remember General Westmoreland and the number of "kills" we had each week, these fantastical numbers they were always blabbing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Speaking of Eagleton,

this column by him was in my morning paper today. Talk about a wasted talent. It still makes me mad when I remember how easily he was discarded by the party in '72.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Democracy can’t be imposed

By Thomas F. Eagleton

St. Louis Post-Dispatch


Let’s face the truth — the whole truth:

Our military leaders know that we cannot adequately train an Iraqi army that will be able to respond immediately and effectively to insurgent attacks now or even two years from now.

<skip>

Our professional military people have long memories. They know the history of Vietnam. America’s officer corps knows all too well and will not forget that Gen. Tommy Franks planned an invasion with the smallest force necessary to win the war quickly, which has since left Iraq on the brink of total chaos. Even in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein, we had too few troops to protect the borders or secure the ammo dumps, oil pipelines, government offices and much, much more.

Gen. Eric Shinseki was right when he said that “something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers” would be needed for an effective post-Hussein occupation of Iraq.

Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense and the architect of the Iraq war, was spectacularly wrong when he told Congress that “Shinseki’s estimate was widely off the mark. ... It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself.” With our experience in Iraq, the Pentagon can now conceive it. Shinseki’s reward for accuracy and honesty, however, was losing his job.

The clearest lesson from Iraq is that we are incapable of imposing democracy by the use of force. We have not been able to translate military victory into political success. Rumsfeld and Cheney imagined well-wishers strewing flowers before our troops after a victorious war overthrowing Hussein. The “shock and awe” turned out to be theirs and ours; we were totally unprepared for what has come after our quick military victory.

We are a superpower that, inevitably, has been humbled. The power imbalance created by the fall of communism allowed us to intervene wherever and whenever we chose to do so, but the risk was that we would overstep. Propelled by rage and arrogance after the attacks of 9/11, we did exactly that.

more. . . .

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/13092395.htm

[kentuck]

10. I disagree...

In my opinion, Woodstock was about the war from the beginning.- Gimme an "F" ! No doubt, the Eagleton affair didn't help. I think McGovern also promised something like $1000 to every working American, or such. But, for whatever reason, our Party was divided because of the war. ANd the question is, is our Party going in the same direction today?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

25. Not really

In the sense that everything in the youth culture at that time was about the war, yeah, but Woodstock was simply about sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

Everything was about Vietnam, though - everything. It simply could not be separated from anything in daily life, and that was made even more profound by the evening news broadcasts with the film and the body counts.

It's all been so sanitized, and the kids today thankfully have no draft to face, that it's easy for people not to take action.

People forget that McGovern ran a pretty bad campaign, yeah.

[kentuck]

29. Really?

"...simply about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. "

I thought it was big part of the peace movement and I think the people that attended thought so also?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

35. We didn't really think that weekend

Country Joe stirred it up with "Gimme An F" (a song he later repudiated and said he regretted, which really pissed me off), but - I'm trying to think now, and that's not easy - we were stoned, it was August, the music was everywhere, and I think it rained.

It was about love. And sex. And drugs. And rock and roll.

It was about peace and love, and in that sense, yes, it was about war - but all war, not just Vietnam.

Is this making sense? Because, honestly, no one's ever brought up Woodstock and the anti-war movement (to which everyone belonged) in the same thought, and it's kind of interesting.

But, no, it wasn't a specifically anti-war thing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. I don't remember it that way at all

The only connection between Woodstock and Vietnam was a couple songs. Joan Baez sang Joe Hill and talked about her husband, who was in jail at the time (I think for avoiding the draft?). And Country Joe sang his Fixin to Die Rag. The rest of the three days was about sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Most of my friends back then weren't even registered to vote. We NEVER talked politics. It wasn't until Watergate - 3 years after Woodstock - that many of them became interested in the political process. But I can't think of any of my peers who didn't want to go to Woodstock.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

61. Oh, right!

Baez sang and talked about her husband, who was proudly doing time for burning his draft card, right?

I had forgotten that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. Wasn't she one of the first acts?

Then when she was done, they started passing out that brown acid. :)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

72. Listen,

I lost my program, and my prom gown got all muddied up.

We had gotten married in San Diego the week before, stopped in Los Angeles long enough to learn all about the Sharon Tate murders, took off on our cross-country drive, stoned all the way, did things in state and national parks that I think could still get us arrested, and somehow ended up in Saugerties, NY, then on to Woodstock with friends.

After that, the rest of the decade is kind of a blur. Did anyone not indulge?

My wedding ring is still in that field.

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. LOL

I was a month shy of 16 and begged my parents to let me go. No luck. Can't say as I blame them.

Are you still married?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

76. Would you let your kids go?

I sure as hell wouldn't. See, WE KNOW......

Yes, I'm very married. But not to him........

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. My oldest went to see Phish when he was 21

It was a 3 day concert 1000 miles away. I worried but he really was old enough to go and be responsible for his own safety, etc.

But when he was 16 - no frickin way.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

81. See?

We KNOW.

My son, at 15, once got caught joyriding in a parent's car, and the village chief of police called me. He wasn't going to be charged, but the chief - who was a friend - told me that all the kid kept saying was "Please don't tell my mother."

So, what do you want to do? the chief asked me.

I said, Well, if he doesn't want you to call me, let's leave it up to him.

My mutant kid spent the night in a cell, never realizing that, eventually, I was going to show up. That morning, I think he would have gratefully accepted execution rather than have me walk into his cell.

They think we don't know, but we KNOW.

[barb162]

95. Thanks for the reminder about Eagleton...I completely forgot

about him

[radio4progressives]

113. I say it was the assassination of Bobby Kennedy that did us in..

(on edit: accidently deleted the opening line when posting the first time)

Looking back, i think the Kennedy assassination had a huge psycological impact on the '68 and '72 elections. I also think that the events of the 1968 Democratic Convention had an impact on our psyche.

I realize that the year Kennedy was assassinated was in 1968 and that 1972 is supposedly "far into the future" but McGovern wasn't really well known to most of us in the anti-war movement and counter culture who were not deeply involved with inside politics.

See the leadership that brought us Viet Nam was a Democrat. and the Democrat the People felt they knew and trusted most, was Bobby Kennedy. But the events that occurred in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic Convention laid the groundwork for radically insulating the party leadership from the people that became established in 1972. What happened in Chicago 1968 was significant and it's always brushed off too easily and dismissed by current party leadership as having limited impact on the party electorate's disenchantment with the party.

So many of us who voted for McGovern, didn't know a thing about him except that he was against the war and he wasn't Nixon. So in a way, McGovern was an anti-Nixon vote to many.

(Woodstock was a cultural and social extension of the anti-war movement in every sense of the word).

[OldLeftieLawyer]

116. True, but it wasn't just Bobby Kennedy's assassination

Keep in mind that Martin Luther King, Jr. had been murdered only two months before RFK got killed. The country was in turmoil, the establishment had fucked up everything (as we saw it), and it was time for new leadership. That, at least, was the ideal.

But, don't forget that Bobby declared his candidacy only after McCarthy had won a few primaries. I always found that disconcerting. Perhaps a bit too opportunistic on RFK's part. And Humphrey, knowing he had the nomination locked up, as LBJ's butt boy, eschewed the primaries.

Imagine a scenario like that today.

The Chicago convention wasn't long after Bobby's death, and I think the news footage that people saw turned them completely off anything any Democrat might have to say. Ironically, the same coverage that gave Nixon a victory in 1968 would later put the pressure on him to get out of Vietnam.

Man, it was such a time. Such a time. There was such passion. I miss that today, so much.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I think the reason McGovern lost had more to do with

what he did to Eagleton than the anti-war movement. I remember it well; it was the first election I was old enough to vote in. I didn't vote for McGovern because of the Eagleton mess and I knew quite a few voters who also stopped supporting him over that.

At least that is how I remember it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

69. The Eagleton affair is more complicated that some might think

by coincidence I have been reading about it just recently

There was a last ditch effort by the party hierarchy to deny McGovern the nomination during the last few weeks before the convention. This took away all of his attention from such things as organizing the convention and doing a more proper evaluation of possible VP choices.
Those at the top just were not willing to accept that McGovern was the nominee and to get behind him. They tried at the last minute to deny him half of his delegates from the California delegation and thus deny him the nomination -- in short they were trying to change the rules after the game.

Prior to the Eagleton nomination the idea of an extensive vetting process was not the custom. VP's were chosen at the last minute. Since 72 both parties adopted extensive vetting processes.

McGovern asked a few people how they felt about Eagleton and they all thought he would be great. No one knew that he had received electro-shock therapy and had multiple admissions and fairly extensive psychiatric treatment. When Sen. Eagleton was asked prior to being offered the nomination if there was anything in his background that might be a problem, he said no there was not. When the story broke into the media and McGovern and Eagleton talked. McGovern was given the impression that it was only one admission and it was a minor matter. Immediately, after that meeting McGovern told the press conference that he stood behind Eagleton 1000%. Then a few days later after making his 1000% statement, the story came out that Eagleton's treatment involved electro-shock therapy and multiple admissions, the editorial pages across America, for the most part, called upon McGovern to find someone else. After about two weeks of negative media attention on this matter and with the media overwhelmingly calling on McGovern to replace Eagleton, well his senior campaign staff and others persuaded McGovern that they had no choice.
Unfortunate for McGovern when he finally called upon Eagleton to step aside, suddenly the media started attacking him for being so disloyal.

McGovern would be the first to admit that he made some real mistakes on how he handled it and has said on a number of times since then that it was mistake to ask Eagleton to step aside.

Unfortunately, McGovern's strongest political asset was his reputation for decency and straightforwardness. Bobby Kennedy once described him as the most decent man in Washington. The Eagleton affair damaged that reputation severely.

[proud2BlibKansan]

93. What no one here has yet mentioned

is that Bobby Kennedy would have most likely won the nomination had he not been killed. His murder threw everything up in the air. No way could McGovern have beat him.

[Douglas Carpenter]

98. Bobby was killed in 68 -- this is about the 72 campaign

Actually, in 68 McGovern more or less backed Bobby for the nomination-although McGovern officially was neutral.

It was the Bobby Kennedy's delegation that appealed to McGovern after Bobby's assassination to enter the race for the 68 nomination. McGovern's first appearance on the national scene was actually as a stand-in for Bobby. He didn't originally want to enter the race against Humbert Humphrey and Gene McCarthy, but the Kennedy delegates from California quite literally begged him too. Many were bitter against McCarthy for being too harsh on Bobby during the primary campaigns and felt they could not back Humphrey because of Humphrey's stand on the war.

A couple weeks before the 68 nomination McGovern was asked to address the California delegation which was completely dominated by supporters of the then late Bobby Kennedy. Upon his arrival and departure he was grated by Kennedy's delegates with chants of "We Want McGovern--We Want McGovern". When several top advisor's close to the late Bobby Kennedy pledged their support to McGovern (who had a Senate race back in 'South Dakota to worry about) he finally relented and entered the 68 nomination race in August 68.

[proud2BlibKansan]

108. You are right - my bad

Thanks for the correction.

[Silverhair]

132. It was not a mistake to replace Eagleton.

If McGovern had kept Eagleton, it would have been a huge drag on the ticket. And even as a progressive, I would have extremely serious reservations about a VP, only a heartbeat away from the POTUS, who had a record of severe mental illness.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Despite that

the McGovern candidacy energized a whole generation of Democratic Party activists. McGovern's loss was in the same league as Goldwater's in '64. Neither loss was fatal to their respective parties.

The only mistake we made was to listen to the Democratic establishment and make the long march towards irrelevancy by becoming Republican-lite instead of actually standing for anything. The Goldwater generation of Republican activists just turned around and worked harder and longer and spent the next 20 years making the rightwing takeover of this country possible.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. thank you

could you imagine Republicans always pointing out the loss in 64 as proof that they have to run a centrist?

[pretzel4gore]

51. but again the objectives were so clear

the rightwing were fighting for themselves, their pigsties and piglets and miss/mr piggys bank acc'ts, with understanding that certain race/class interests were made up of pig...meanwhile the dems were working for some nice things for poor people, a remote almost abstract idea that inspires but not in the same way...it's like the bible says in the scene where the devil takes jesus, suffering from 40 days in the desert w/out food etc, to a mountaintop and shows him the world and all its riches, promising them to jesus if only jesus would bow down to him....it seems that the prince of death does own everything, enough to give it away! (jesus said fuck off to him, fortunately) And the rightists call themselves christian, while ignoring the fact their own religion damns them regards their greed! In the same vein, the left must by nature be all over the place, as they represent different concerns, and it takes a smart leader to lead the left, while a rightwinger just has to say 'piggy wanna dollar, so here is more oinkoink tax cut!' and that's enough to get elected :(
see montgomery burns to get some idear how EASY IT IS!

[bluestateguy]

4. I was not born yet

but I can tell you that McGovern lost for other reasons too. Namely that the Nixon camp had a whole ton of money and they also played a lot of dirty tricks. Some of them were serious, like the Watergate break in, and others were more of the frat boy variety, such as calling in fake pizza orders to McGovern headquarters and using hookers to coax information from Democratic National Convention delegates.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I was alive then

and I don't remember any dirty tricks by Nixon playing that large of a role in the outcome. I honestly believe the Dems cooked their own goose in that election.

[bluestateguy]

71. It was called "ratfucking"

read Woodward and Bernstein's "All the President's Men" for the interview with the chief rat fucker, Donald Segretti:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

These included, but were not limited to, cancelling meeting-hall reservations just prior to rallies, releasing false press releases or "leaked documents" in the name of political opponents, spying on rival campaigns, stuffing ballot boxes, ordering vast quantities of food for delivery in the name of rival campaigns, conducting deceptive or offensive get out the vote phone canvasses, and similar activities.

I now believe that Democrats have to be open to these tactics for 2008. It may have to be done for the good of the country.

[proud2BlibKansan]

92. Clinton mentioned these tactics in his bio

But I disagree that Dems need to do this crap.

Karma - it will come back to bite the repukelican ass. And soon.

[catmother]

5. i remember it well. we voted and then came home to watch

the results on tv. mcgovern didn't even win his home state. i was so upset that it took years before i ever voted again.

now as far as our stand on the war in iraq these are different times. back in '72 i think most people trusted the government. we didn't have the watergate scandal yet. we didn't have the iran-contra screw up. i think and i hope that people are wiser now and more and more people seem to know that the war in iraq is wrong and if we don't get out soon, it will be another viet nam.

[Catchawave]

8. Oh, I remember....a vote against Nixon

...was UN-American then too, especially during the VN war.

Oh, what have we learned?

[NWHarkness]

9. That's too simplistic

McGovern lost so badly because a large part of the Democratic establishment refused to get behind his candidacy. The unions, the old time New Dealers, ddin't lift a finger to help him.

The convention was a fiasco, the Eagleton situation hurt him badly, and he never got on track.

Yeah, a backlash against the anti-war movement was a factor, but it was far fron the whole picture.

[kentuck]

13. Why did the "establishment" refuse to get behind him...

I think a lot of voters were afraid to vote for McGovern because his supporters were dirty, free-loving "hippies" ... That scared a lot of voters.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. it is true that much of the media portrayed him that way

he was indeed a threat to the old order.

[NWHarkness]

24. Think in terms of power within the party

The people who had the power within the Democratic party didn't welcome the incursion of new blood that came with McGovern. They preferred to lose and have 4 more years of Nixon than allow reformers to control the party.

[MrBenchley]

20. Also I can testify from bitter experience

that McGovern was not a good public speaker and killed a lot of his own supporters' enthusiasm.

He was the weakest Democratic contender, and Nixon's dirty tricksters rigged the primaries on his behalf.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. actually I found George McGovern a very eloquent speaker

but I do agree that a number of things went wrong and he got painted with a counter-culture image.

In fact he was a genuine World War II hero, a former Methodist minister and a history professor. He almost personally organized the South Dakota Democratic Party when it only had 2 out of 115 seats and turned it into a very viable force.

Nationally he managed to create by far the largest grassroots organization of any candidate. It was successful in winning primaries-lead by his manager, young Gary Hart. But problems at the convention plus the Eagleton factor turned an ordinary loss into a landslide loss.

[MrBenchley]

32. He was a mess as far as I can see....

I still can say the WORST political speech I ever heard in my life was given by McGovern in Brooklyn about two days before the election...he walked on stage to talk to a crowd was screaming with excitement, and within ten minutes, he'd managed to kill that excitement.

He was a brave, decent man with good ideas who has much to recommend him...but he wasn't much of a presidential candidate...which is why Nixon sabotaged the other candidates.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. I can only say Mr. Benchley... that I just must have caught him when

he was in better form. Also, I must confess feeling more affection for George McGovern than any other politician I have ever come across before or since. I suppose in a political/spiritual kind of way, I feel he is kind of like a father. He is why I am a progressive and a Democrat today.

[MrBenchley]

85. All I can say

is that he let the air out of the balloon in Brooklyn that day almost immediately....

Having said that, I can also say he is a great American and a hero to me as well.

[bluestateguy]

89. I'll say

In the 1972 convention McGovern's speech was at 3AM EST. Only voters in Guam heard it during prime time (where they can't vote for president). The delegates wasted valuable time rattling off names for the VP nomination during the roll call, including Archie Bunker and Mao Zedong.

After that Democrats learned a lesson about the importance of choreographing conventions.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. One Bright Shining Moment: The Forgotten Summer of George McGovern

There is a wonderful new documentary out by the title above:

you can see the trailer at this link:

http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=10451

or this link:

http://movies.go.com/readerreviews/movie?name=one-bright_2005&genre=documentary&studio=First%20Run%20Features

George McGovern is a great man. I voted for him on my 18th birthday.

[baby_bear]

38. I still have my "My first vote - 18/21" button for McGovern

It was so exciting to be able to vote - I was 19.

My dormitory roommate was a Republican. I remember we were watching Nixon on television before the election. I took the chewing gum out of my mouth and stuck it on Nixon's face on the TV screen.

I couldn't believe that no one was paying attention to the Watergate break-in then. It was so clear that it was a WH crime.

Memories.

I think a lot of Dems were still burned from '68 after the assassinations and then the Chicago debacle and Humphrey beating out McCarthy. The intellectuals really withdrew in large part. McGovern's treatment of Eagleton was salt in the wound.

I myself became very depressed after the '72 election.

b_b

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. I was 19 too

and I can remember many many arguments with my parents over Vietnam but we agreed about Watergate. My dad said right after it happened 'This will destroy Nixon' and my dad was right! :)

[baby_bear]

62. It did get Nixon, but what did the people get?

The damage inflicted by Viet Nam still haunts us, and the Democrats never truly recovered after Martin and Bobby were killed, and then Chicago.

b_b

[BlackVelvet04]

110. And let's not forget how hard we worked to get

the 18 year old vote. It was my first election to vote in and I was so excited to vote for McGovern. I remember my dad and I fighting about McGovern vs. Nixon. I told my dad then he was a durn crook and oh so enjoyed when I called him to say "I told you so" after watergate.

So many things our generation fought for and it seems much of it is slipping away.

[Zynx]

15. McGovern was also very far left on economic issues.

The anti-war stuff was part of it, but people often forget just how far left he was on economic issues as well. Granted, saying that he would "beg" for the return of prisoners didn't help.

Also, to say it was a disaster for the party as a whole is untrue since Congressionally Democrats didn't do that badly at all.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. he made some proposal regarding establishing a new safety net

system - a little closer to the European or Canadian model -- Actually Nixon ended up proposing a watered down version of the same idea.

Essentially, it was an issue of timing. Had McGovern been the nominee in 68 or 76, I suspect he may very well have won. In fact according to polls, if the election had been held in Nov 73 -- he would have won.

[Zynx]

21. Indeed. At the time he was competing against a sitting president with a

60%+ popularity rating. There is no way Nixon could have been unseated then.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. Right.

Never underestimate the power of the incumbency.

A man who had been Harry Truman's White House Counsel told me that a long time ago, and I've only seen it go bad with Jimmy Carter - who got undercut by Reagan and the deal he'd already cut with the Iranian hostage-holders - and Poppy Fuckface, who was as inept, but not quite as murderous, as his POS spawn.

[Zynx]

77. Even Carter was on pace to win through much of October of 1980.

That's something many forget.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. That's right

Reagan was a beautiful dirty trickster. I still hate the dead old fucker.

[eridani]

103. The economy at the time was far, far better than it is now

Average family incomes peaked in 1973, and have gone down ever since.

[PDittie]

16. I was thinking more McCarthy in '68

than McGovern in '72. :shrug:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. THAT was energy!

Oh, when RFK got murdered, and people flocked to work with McCarthy - oh, they were glorious days.

Remember "Clean For Gene"?

[PDittie]

36. Absolutely

Of course, Gene ran on "get out of Vietnam NOW" (or at least that's what I remember him most for).

Sy Hersh said a week or two ago on Book TV -- the one with Scott Ritter -- that it was just almost a sure thing that the first Democrat running for President in 2008 who stands up and says "I'm getting our soldiers out of Iraq NOW" will be the nominee.

I firmly believe that he's right about that, which is why this seems to me like 1968 all over again (hopefully without the assassinations and the campus riots and students shot and all that).

:hippie:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

49. You saw that, too?

I woke up in the middle of the night, and that interview with the two of them was on. I woke all the way up just to watch it. Man, those guys are so clear and so right and so smart.

And, yes, Sy Hersh is ABSOLUTELY right. He was talking about "spine," what I've been lamenting for years now. The Democrats have such a huge chance to win everything now, if only they'll grow backbone and talk plain.

Right on, my hippie sibling -----> :toast:

[karynnj]

19. I think that is why Kerry has the proposal he has

I think he is positioning the Democrats with a plan that attempts to do what Bush says we are doing - which is to transfer power to the Iraqis, pull in the Sunni neighbors to find a better political solution.

In addition to wanting a phased withdrawal, he wants to transfer the policing and search and destroy (which are most dangerous and which stir up anti-US feeling when we do it) to the Iraqis. He wants the US soldiers in garrisons, were they will be safer as they continue to back the Iraqis. He also calls for no permanent US bases - talking about moving from occupier to ally.

He is giving a sensible plan that minimizes US risk - while pushing Iraq towards stability. It is interesting that he gives Iraqis whole functions (like policing and search and destroy) rather than having mixed US/Iraqi missions (which he experienced in Vietnam.)

This is not the hippie situation of 1969.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. back then, they called in Vietnamization

It didn't work. Nor will it work in Iraq.

[karynnj]

97. It's not the same

[Douglas Carpenter]

125. The Vietnamese were simply NEVER going to accept any government

that is seen as imposed from outside even if it involved so-called "free elections" -- to them this would represent a different version of colonial rule.

The Iraqi's given their Islamic and Arabic sensitivities relate to any outside inference with memories of the crusades as well as memories of their more recent colonial past.

I work and travel in the Middle East a great deal. I do not know ONE single Arabic person, including the most pro-western, who have ANY hope of the situation in Iraq being salvaged. I have never met ONE U.S. intelligence officer has ANY hope of the situation being salvaged.

Sooner or later the truth has to be told to the American people. Just as McGovern told the truth about what needed to be done in Viet Nam. Or we could keep up the senseless killing -- perhaps under a Democractic President and destroy the Democrat Party once again just as it was in the days of LBJ.

"I have no secret plan for peace. I have a public plan. And as one whose heart has ached for the past ten years over the agony of Vietnam, I will halt the senseless bombing of Indochina on Inauguration Day.

There will be no more Asian children running ablaze from bombed-out schools. There will be no more talk of bombing the dikes or the cities of the North.

And within 90 days of my inauguration, every American soldier and every American prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and then home in America where they belong.

And then let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad.

This is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation."

[brmdp3123]

22. McGovern's platform just didn't set well with too many people.

His main issues:
-Immediate, unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam
-Giving every taxpayer $1000. He changed that to a guaranteed annual income of $6500,
then dropped it altogether.
-37% reduction in the defense budget
-passage of the Equal Rights Amendment

Being anti-war wasn't enough.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Yes. We should hesitate to do the right thing because the Radical RW...

...might lie, cheat, and steal on us again.

Sheesh.

NGU.

[kentuck]

31. What is the "right thing" to do, ClassWarrior?

Tell us what you think.. :)

[bobbieinok]

33. there were many good things at the dem conv but they came after

most people had gone to bed

I think the acceptance speech was like 10 or 11 pm EDT

that convention was one of the reasons the whole organization of conventions and their televising changed.......in 72 the networks still broadcast the entire conventions

also the McGovern commission (late 60s??) had rewritten the rules on how convention delegates were selected, etc.........the number of men, women, young people, senior citizens, minorties, etc was to be proportional to the number of those groups at the county, district, and state conventions

....I was at the IA caucus in 72 and we all got a crash course on that (repeated at each following presidential caucus)

....there were a lot of old-style democrats who really hated that

....at the 72 caucus people who had been at the 68 IA dem caucuses told stories....

......most 68 IA caucuses were held in homes (72 on they were held in schools and very definitely public); many old time politicians didn't want them publicized

......young people came, often through the windows, and in many precincts wrested power from the good ole boys

......IA democratic party was under new management after 68

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. it was even later than that

I think it was about 0200 on the East Coast. That was largely due to efforts to completely democratize the convention. A noble goal that had a unfortunate side-effect that no one was prepared for.

Frankly, I think it was one of the most eloquent and visionary speeches ever given at political convention. Unfortunately, most of America had gone to bed. Allow me to post the last few paragraphs-- I still find it moving and very appropo for today:



"From secrecy and deception in high places; come home, America

From military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation; come home, America.

From the entrenchment of special privileges in tax favoritism; from the waste of idle lands to the joy of useful labor; from the prejudice based on race and sex; from the loneliness of the aging poor and the despair of the neglected sick -- come home, America.

Come home to the affirmation that we have a dream. Come home to the conviction that we can move our country forward.

Come home to the belief that we can seek a newer world, and let us be joyful in that homecoming, for this “is your land, this land is my land -- from California to New York island, from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters -- this land was made for you and me.”

So let us close on this note: May God grant each one of us the wisdom to cherish this good land and to meet the great challenge that beckons us home.

This is the time."


by conincidence I am reading right now George McGovern's 1977 Autobiography, "Grassroots".

for those who are interested, I would recommend this book strongly

you can find it at Amazon at this link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394419413/103-3876756-0639811?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

also Gary Hart's (the campaign manager who later became Senator and Presidential candidate) book; Right from the start;: A chronicle of the McGovern campaign

the amazon link is here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812903722/103-3876756-0639811?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

[bobbieinok]

56. thanks: I remember it was extremely late

[Catchawave]

41. Oh My, a vote for McGovern was

communist. What have we learned since then? So sad :(

[otohara]

127. I Told My Stupid 1st Hubby if He Voted For Nixon

I would divorce him!

His mommy was a republican, I have no idea if he really voted for McGovern. I would bet however, that was the last time he voted.

[IndianaGreen]

42. The Democratic establishment sat on its hands in 1972

They were more afraid of a McGovern victory than they were about Nixon's reelection. McGovern was publicly snubbed by many Democratic office holders.

This is why I find it so hypocritical when demands are made that we support the Democratic nominee even if he/she is prowar, anti-LGBT, and anti-abortion rights. I guess there is a different set of rules for the establishment than there is for us.

If you don't believe me, just have the balls to nominate someone that would really bring change to this country, someone like Dennis Kucinich. You will see all the DLCers dropping from your radar screens, and most of the elected officials shunning the nominee.

It's a class issue afterall!

[struggle4progress]

67. The Administration in October 1972 convinced lots of people the VN war ..

.. was about to end, with announcements of imminent peace.

By 72, the public pretty clearly wanted out of the war, and many were soothed by the Administration's noises.

RMN's "Peace with Honor" sloganeering effectively united kool-aid drinkers across the political spectrum with "Peace" for the doves and "Honor" for the hawks.

Meanwhile, his policies, including the destruction of Cambodia, revved up the big "Better Dead than Red" portion of his base, eager to call anybody who disagreed with RMN a traitor: "He's our President, and loyal Americans will support him."

In combination with RMN's use of government against his political opponents, lots of ordinary people got the clear message to STFU and not question RMN's veracity or leadership; if it were not for this, I expect Watergate would have grown into a bigger scandal faster (because: how often does a team of burglars have immediately documented ties to the White House?)

Peace was NOT at hand, of course, and after the election RMN escalated the war.

[EFerrari]

70. Such weenies. Why not think, "He's our president and is

ACCOUNTABLE to us." ?

Thank you, Puritans, for the cult of the guilty individual.

[struggle4progress]

74. Ya don't gotta persuade me. I'm just tellin it as I seed it.

:)

[EFerrari]

90. And you seed it right.

:hi:

[wisteria]

91. I am real concerned about this. There are similarities.

I won't go into them, but I am really hoping that we Dem's can come together and form a consensus on Iraq that we can all live with and bring this war to an end before 2008. Otherwise, we may nominate another candidate similar to McGovern, one they can spin as radical and lose in a landslide to another inferior Republican, simply because they sound sensible and reasonable while we sound crazy and shortsighted.

[Douglas Carpenter]

102. what would be crazy and short-sighted would be to continue a

protracted war in a country where we are not wanted just like in Viet Nam and against a people who will never accept a government that is seen as a return to their colonial past-just like in Viet Nam. It is crazy and short-sighted for the party to continue thinking they can win by running issue less campaigns with slick TV adds and their Madison Avenue platitudes.

Support for the Viet Nam War destroyed the Democratic Party.

The greatest Democratic landslide in American history was in 64 with LBJ promising to build the Great Society and keep America out of war.

LBJ did not lose his base of support and the Great Society did not fail because LBJ was seen as week on defense. Quite the opposite. He lost his base of support and along with it the greatest Presidency and greatest progressively leap forward in American history because he wanted to stay the course. Nixon did not win in 68 because he was going to kick ass in Viet Nam. He won because he promised to end the war -- just as years earlier Eisenhower won not because he was going to win in Korea but because he promised to bring peace and end the war.

War and refusing to end it already destroyed the Democratic Party once. Let's not let history repeat itself.

[Neil Lisst]

99. I remember it well.

I was a McGovern delegate.

Woodstock? I was stationed at NORAD headquarters at the time.

Kent State? Southeast Asia.

I came back to the world about 3 months after John Kerry spoke before the Congress in his famous testimony, so all that was news to me in the summer and fall of 1971. I was badly disillusioned with the war. They hated us, and there was no denying it.

Once it sinks in that every country has people who think THEIR way is the best way, you realize you're the one who is out of sync, not them.

Anyway, by the time 1972 rolled around, I was a free man, and ready to get busy ending the war. I studied the new rules of the Democratic party and took over my precinct, and parlayed that into being a McGovern delegate.

The anti-war movement didn't really mean anything to me until 1971, and I wasn't ready to throw in until 1972. I was disconnected from the whole hippie scene. I was in the military, and from there directly into college on the GI Bill, where I started work organizing and being an advance man for candidates.

I can't believe I thought McGovern was going to win! Watching him at 3 AM give his acceptance speech, saying COME HOME, AMERICA! I thought we would win. We got a beating, but we were right about the war.

As I look back on it, I realize we did save lives and help end the war sooner. Look at the post-1973 US deaths in the theatre, and you can see that.

[wiley]

100. It was a very, very ugly time in America

Democrats had "Democrats for Nixon" all over the suburbs of Jersey. Supporting McGovern was equated with begging for receptive anal sex by a communist. Remeber the movie Joe or Crazy Joe? That's really kind of what it was like.

David Rabe's "Sticks and Bones"
"It's a Family Affair" by Sly and the Family


The FBI was spying on everyone.

[Neil Lisst]

101. But the bumper stickers were awesome!

Vote for Nixon in '72
Why change Dicks in the
middle of the screw?!!

or

Re-elect the Dike Bomber
(you'll only understand that one if you were around for that election)

Honest to god, the most angry people in '72 were veterans. Hoodwinked! Bamboozled!!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

106. My favorite

Dick Nixon - before he dicks us.

[Neil Lisst]

111. That was another great one.

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

[win_in_06]

104. The dems were made to seem weak. Didn't Muskie cry during that campaign?

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. Just misty in front of the offices of the Manchester Union Leader

A New Hampshire extreme right newspaper-- because the paper said something terrible about his wife.. Actually, he didn't actually cry just got a bit misty. Still Muskie did comfortably win the New primary. It is debatable how much that hurt him. But, the story was really played up big time in the media. This was before the days of the "sensitive new age guy".

[OldLeftieLawyer]

126. Muskie was a great, great man

He'd have made a brilliant President.

He was a victim of Loeb's dirty tricks, 'way back then, when he choked up over Loeb's ugly recitation of Jane Muskie's psychiatric history. I think she had been treated for depression, although I'm not really sure of it.

It was ugly, unnecessary, Muskie was heroic in his defense of his wife, and Loeb's moves condemned his candidacy.

Gee, this all just reminded me how much I really hate rightwingnut Republicans. Sometimes I forget............

[WinkyDink]

109. "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972."

HST. Says it ALL, baby.

[Silverhair]

128. McGovern defeated himself.

He wanted to give everybody a $1,000 check per year. Even HHH ripped him about it. I remember the debate between HHH and McGovern and HHH asked where the $200 BILLION would come from? McGovern denied that it would cost that much. HHH replied that $1,000 time 200 million people equaled $200B. McGovern still tried to deny that amount would be needed.

Then there was the Tom Eagleton disaster. McGovern said he was behind Eagleton 1,000% befdore dumping him a few days later.

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. regarding the Eagleton affair -- please see #69

Actually McGovern's $1000 proposal was part of a more complex economic policy -- he did back away from that and put a detailed welfare/tax reform proposal that would have created something resembling a Canadian/European style safety net. It had the support of many economist and experts-- but was very complicated. Ironically, Nixon ended up proposing a watered down version of the same program

Unfortunately, the Party hierarchy was not willing to just accept that McGovern was going to be the nominee and attempted to dis-rail his nomination only weeks before the convention and kept at it up to the end. That had a lot do with setting the stage for the Eagleton affair and other problems.

[Silverhair]

133. Most people don't do complexity well.

To the average person, it was a super gov't give-away.

[PhilipShore]

131. Politics for Dummies

I was around in 1972, and though I could not vote, I was able to figure out, that he did not look like a president.

Politics is perception.

Why was Bush elected? The grin the smile, and all the time Murdoch giving free War ads--with lots of action.

A politician and/or lawyer will never tell you this, because they create the art (the script).

Actors do it all the time—perfect the image the persona.

Bush uses all makeup. JFK had persona and presidential character.

It may seem like it is too simple a thing, but that is what makes it so difficult.

[McCamy Taylor]

134. No, This isnt the same at all. No Cold-war. Already have our Watergate.

Iraq War is WAY more unpopular now than Viet Nam was in 1972. The South is in the GOP bag so it wont be split from the Dems due to race.

This is not at all the same as 1972 McGovern. This is more analogous to 1976 Carter.

[EndElectoral]

135. McGovern was a vet, served honorably in WW II...was a good man..

[Douglas Carpenter]

136. damn straight...a decorated World War II bomber pilot,

a Methodist minister, a history professor, the person who almost single-handedly built the South Dakota Democratic Party from nothing when it had only 2 out of 115 seats in the state legislature turning it into a very viable force, the strongest voice in Congress on behalf of the nation's poor and the world's hungry and the builder of the largest grassroots political campaign in American history.

He is now 83 years-old. Not just a good man.. A great man.