Hillary Clinton and Hubert Humphrey

[cosmik debris]

I’ve been thinking about the similarities between Hubert Humphrey and Hillary Clinton.

There was a war going on in 1968 when HHH ran for president. Same in ‘08 when HRC is running.

Both candidates had some responsibility for the war. Both had a plan to end the war soon, but not immediately.

In both cases the Democratic Party was split over many of the major issues of the day, especially the war.

Both run against a Republican platform of fear and hate.

HHH carried 13 states.

And four years later McGovern carried 1 state.

I’ve been down that path, and I don’t like it.

[cspanlovr]

1. I remember all those "Dump the Hump" stencils all over NYC!

:hi:

[valerief]

2. It's like it's impossible to change history. Its got its scheduled events, which

are monitored by the ruling class, and that's that. Revolt is part of the agenda, but only at the scheduled time. Same for excessive oppression and torture. Pain and suffering is a constant. Again, they're on the agenda.

No vun shall change de blueprint!

The older I get, the more Calvinistic I get.

[Kolesar]

3. Incoming!

:hide:

Well, we have not seen the "Richard Nixon" emerge yet. That would be Newt Gingerich--in his dreams.

Humphrey's party "owned" the war in Vietnam. The Republicans own Iraq--in every sense of the word. I don't know who's the "both" who run a "Republican program of fear and hate". HHH and HRC?

On what issues is the Democratic party split? I see the corporatist/free-trade/Rubinesque caucus as opposed to the labor/fair-traders. Any more?

[cosmik debris]

4. Where to begin

Our party is split on the war of course. And also immigration, gay rights, single payer health care, Arab/Israeli favoritism and Mid-East policy in general. There are a thousand small splits and a few big ones. But mostly, it the war.

The point is that the Republicans always find a way to split us. Just like yesterday's vote on the Cornyn amendment where the Dems split right down the middle. How many time has that happened? It seems to me that it happens on almost ever important vote.

[Kolesar]

7. Yeah, there are immigration, health care and Arab/Palestinian splits

I don't think the splits are the story. Going into this 2008 election, I don't see candidates are educated. They are not ready to say: "let's get the hell off of gasoline and end that vulnerability", for one. They won't campaign on human rights. I would like to see them denounce torture.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Wow

Humprhey was running as the vice president of the president who escalated the war. Hillary Clinton will be running against the nominee of the party that started and escalated the war...Hillary's responsibility for this war can not be more attenuated. She was one vote among, I believe seventy seven... Big difference...

The country was seen as spiraling out of control after eight years of Democratic leadership in 1968, now the country is seen as spiraling out of control after eight years of Republican leadership...

Your logic and historical analysis are flawed...

[cosmik debris]

9. I never said there weren't differences

And I didn't draw any conclusion from the comparison I made.

My point is that the scenery on this path looks a lot like the scenery on a path I've traveled before.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I Was A Kid Then But These Times Remind Me Little Of The Sixties

Even though we were in a quagmire of a war then as now...

If anybody would be HHH it would be Darth Cheney...

[cosmik debris]

12. Cheney is not a Democrat.

I was speaking of Democratic candidates and their similarities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Remember -1968

HHH was the VP for the guy who escalated the war

Now, Darth Cheney is the VP for the guy who started and escalated the flaw...

Your argument started from a false premise and got progressively worse...


Go directly to jail...Do not pass go...Do not collect two hundred dollars...

[cosmik debris]

16. I never said there weren't differences.

I said there are similarities.

If you wish to look at the differences, fine. I'm looking at the similarities. Both HHH and HRC are democratic candidates for the presidency. Both hold the similar positions on the ongoing war.

If you only look at the differences, you certainly won't see the similarities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Best Not To Waste Your Precious Time Defending A Flawed Proposition

"Both HHH and HRC are democratic candidates for the presidency. Both hold the similar positions on the ongoing war."

Yeah- they both want to end it but HHH was constrained by the fact he was second in charge to the man who escalated the war...Also, HHH supported the war almost up until he got the nomination.

[cosmik debris]

19. It wasn't a proposition, it was an observation.

You may see things differently. I don't really care.

[CTyankee]

38. Oh, please! Humphrey was a true liberal and fought many a fight for the working people

in this country. He made a terrible mistake of allowing himself to become not his own man, but LBJ's toady. And he paid for it dearly. I felt sorry for him but I could never compare him to the completely evil Cheney.

I'm old enough to remember the 60s so I had knowledge of the backgrounds of the politicians and the politics on that era. Please don't make that comparison.

To get a better idea of that election I highly recommend Teddy White's "The Making of the President 1968." I re-read it recently while recovering from surgery. It brought it all back. I particularly remembered the night of the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. It was a "police riot" that the antiwar movement got blamed for. Quite an era...

[Carolina]

39. Thank you, CTyank

I remember it well, too. And to borrow from Lloyd Bentsen: HRC ain't no HHH.

You said it: HHH was a true liberal. Not a wishy-washy, finger-in the-wind, poll/focus-group tested corporate toady.

And he came very close to winning despite LBJ, the war and tricky Dick with his alleged secret plan (what a load) and his cohort of evil tricksters (don't forget where many of these Bushies -- ahem Rove -- got their start!

[SaveElmer]

6. Comparing Hillary to Hubert Humphrey is a compliment...

He was a great man...Civil Rights, Peace Corps, Medicaid etc...

However the comparison you make is not valid. To compare one of 75 or so Senators who voted for the IWR with the VP of the President who escalated a war is ridiculous...

There is one person who has responsibility for this war...and he sits in the White House (for now)...and your notion that the party is split on this issue as it was over VietNam is not born out by any empirical evidence...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. For The Comparison To Be Historically Accurate Dick Cheney Would Have To Be Running...

"It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

-Hubert Humphrey

[cosmik debris]

11. I was not attempting to make a complete comparison,

just to point out a few similarities.

I have no doubt that there are many differences also.

[William769]

13. I could point out a few similarities in anything that is posted.

So where do we go from here?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. The Only Similarity I SeeI Is They Are Both Democrats...

And I don't see how you were able to make Hillary into Humphrey and George McGovern...

[cosmik debris]

18. I'm sorry you can't see

But I'm not going to waste anymore of my time repeating myself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I Can't See What Is Not There

Dick Cheney is the vice president presiding over unpopular war as HHH was a vice president presiding over an unpopular war and you can't make Hillary into the vp of the president for the opposing party because she isn't, ergo:


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."


-John Adams

[cosmik debris]

21. I made six observations in the OP. Which of those is false? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. You Concocted A Brew Of Assertions, Predictions, And Idle Musings

That does not make a compelling argument...


If Hillary or any Democratic candidate loses it will be because they couldn't get enough Indy votes... The Democratic candidate will get 90% + of the Democratic vote as he has in the past four elections...

The reason HHH lost is because a lot of southern whites left the party over their fierce advocacy of civil rights... They never came back due to Kevin Phillips's "Southern Stategy." The "Southern Strategy" was used by the Republicans to oppose most civil rights to get the votes of disaffected whites, most of whom were in the south... That's the main reason Nixon went from 43% or so of the vote in 1968 to 61% in 1972... He got all the Wallace votes!!!

[cosmik debris]

23. I wasn't trying to make a compelling argument.

I was making an observation.

I'd like to think that not every post has to be an argument. But some people might prefer that. Not me.

But if you insist on making this into an argument, at least tell me what I observed that was not true.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Now- We Are Playing Semantic Games

If I say Hillary Clinton is a woman that's an observation...If I say Hillary Clinton is such a flawed candidate that she's going to lose thirty seven states that is no longer in the realm of observation but a prediction that can fairly be construed as an argument...

And since your prediction was built on a false premise, i.e., that Hillary Clinton is as responsible for the Iraq War as HHH was for the Viet Nam War despite the fact that Hillary Clinton is from the opposing party and Humphrey was second in charge to the man prosecuting the current war at that time makes your prediction, pretty much worthless...

The GOOPERS certainly don't think she is a friend of this war, especially after suggesting General Petraeus is delusional , and faling to condemn MOVE ON for criticizing him...

I know you desperately want to make Ms. Clinton into a loser but the facts suggest otherwise...

[cosmik debris]

25. I made no such prediction

You are just making shit up so you can start a fight.

Good luck with that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Here's Your Quote In Its Entirety

"I’ve been thinking about the similarities between Hubert Humphrey and Hillary Clinton.

There was a war going on in 1968 when HHH ran for president. Same in ‘08 when HRC is running.

Both candidates had some responsibility for the war. Both had a plan to end the war soon, but not immediately.

In both cases the Democratic Party was split over many of the major issues of the day, especially the war.

Both run against a Republican platform of fear and hate.

HHH carried 13 states.

And four years later McGovern carried 1 state.

I’ve been down that path, and I don’t like it."

-cosmik debris

What other reasonable inference can be drawn other than that you are predicting Hillary Clinton is destined to be a LOSER if she gets the nomination, and that you are dismayed by the prospect and others should be dismayed too?

[cosmik debris]

27. You may infer what you want

May I also infer what I want?

You don't have to see things my way. Do I have to see things your way?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. But Sir There Are Logical And Illogical Inferences

You compared HRC and HHH with the 1968 and 2008 presidential elections as your frame of reference...

What other logical inference can one draw other than that Hillary will lose and in a pretty spectacular fashion... Actually HHH didn't do that bad...He can thank Wallace for keeping it close because as we can see without Wallace in 72 Nixon kicked ass...

Here's a better analogy... It's 1952 and there is no incumbent from either party running... Ike was a mythical figure but he also got to run against Stevenson , whose party was prosecuting an unpopular war (Korea)... The GOOPER candidate will have Stevenson's burden of defending an unpopular war, not our candidate....

[cosmik debris]

31. Why ask me?

You keep asking "What other logical inference can one draw..."

I don't know and I don't care.

You may draw whatever inference you wish. May others do the same or must they reach the same conclusion you reach?

Must everyone see things your way?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. That's A Red Herring

"Must everyone see things your way?"

That's a red herring... Either an inference is logical or it isn't...


Let's say this was a SAT Test and the person tested was assigned to read the following paragraph:


"I’ve been thinking about the similarities between Hubert Humphrey and Hillary Clinton.

There was a war going on in 1968 when HHH ran for president. Same in ‘08 when HRC is running.

Both candidates had some responsibility for the war. Both had a plan to end the war soon, but not immediately.

In both cases the Democratic Party was split over many of the major issues of the day, especially the war.

Both run against a Republican platform of fear and hate.

HHH carried 13 states.

And four years later McGovern carried 1 state.

I’ve been down that path, and I don’t like it. "


and it was a true/false question

The author believes Hillary Clinton will win the upcoming election

True

False

[cosmik debris]

33. OK, just so you know

Here are a couple of other valid inferences one could draw.

1. HRC has an opportunity to change history. That is a valid inference from my statements.

2. HRC is a victim of circumstance. The outcome of this election is not her fault. That is also a valid inference from the statements I made.

So get over that "my way or no way" crap.

You can blame me for what I said, but don't blame me for what YOU infer. Other people have the right to infer differently.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I See

"1. HRC has an opportunity to change history. That is a valid inference from my statements."

-cosmik debris

Is that why you said:

"I’ve been down that path, and I don’t like it."

-cosmik debris


on edit- your intention was to paint HRC as a BIG LOSER... You may or not be RIGHT... I know the reasoning that led you to that conclusion certainly wasn't LOGICAL. And now it's DISINGENUOS of YOU to suggest that that you weren't SUGGESTING HRC is a BIG LOSER...

[cosmik debris]

35. Let it rest n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Ummmm , No

You're being disingenuous ... Throw out the highfalutin language... The goal of your original post was to portray Hillary Clinton as a LOSER... You have spent the last three hours obfuscating that issue...

[dflprincess]

29. A couple weeks ago I caught part of replay of the last speech Humphrey gave to a labor audience

before he died.

I can't see Humphrey selling out the working and middle classes with NAFTA and CAFTA.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. He Was A Kind And Great Man...

I don't know how he gets into this discussion.

[paulk]

36. HRC voted against CAFTA

and there is some evidence that she didn't support NAFTA to the extent her husband did.

if the point you are trying to make is that of a distinction between HRC and Humphrey, then you need to get your facts straight.

[dflprincess]

41. I was comparing Humphrey to today's Democrats in general.

I picked the the NAFTA/CAFTA bills because the old speech I heard dealt with labor. However, overall, I would not consider either Clinton in Humphrey's class.

In Hunter Thompson's "Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972" - there's a paragraph or two where Thompson rants on about HHH's pandering. (Thompson was no fan of Humphrey and, in 1972, I was still mad as hell at him over Vietnam). It's been several years since I read the book the paragraph was something along the lines of "If you're young, he (Humphrey) used to be young. If you're poor, he was poor once. If you're old he has an aged mother in a nursing home.."

There's no doubt Hubert pandered to labor - but his votes generally backed up his talk. Not even Hunter Thompson complained about Humphrey pandering to corporate interests.

[jcrew2001]

40. Humphrey was the incumbent VP

which hurt him being tied to LBJ's vietnam policies.

Hillary has more of a direct connection with Iraq war than Rudy.

But Rudy might be hurt with his party affiliation, it would be up to Rudy's campaign to separate himself from the Bush/Cheney administration as much as possible. But he likely won't be able to.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

42. Was also a real progressive.....n/t