Remember Hubert Humphrey? He was supposedly the safe choice against the despised Richard Nixon.

[pnwmom]

He was the VP of the very successful Lyndon Johnson, and he campaigned as a continuation of Johnson's Presidency.

He was the unobjectionable, highly experienced, amiable choice that the party coalesced around -- but that few people felt a passion for.

And he lost to Richard Nixon. The "safe" choice isn't always the best.

[virgogal]

1. Sorry,but the Vietnam war made many dislike LBJ.

[PJMcK]

2. And then they really loved Nixon (n/t)

[virgogal]

9. The OP said that Johnson was "very successful"---I was responding to that. They were chaotic times.

[PJMcK]

14. Yes, you're right

My post wasn't meant as snark, virgogal. What I was saying was Nixon's voters, like Trump's, thought they were getting one thing but ended up with another.

I remember those days well and the 1960s and early '70s were chaotic and, in some ways, dangerous times.

President Johnson did have some remarkable successes, the most significant being the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, his expansion of Medicare and Medicaid were important for the nation's health.

Still, Vietnam sank his presidency.

[maddiemom]

56. Bobby Kennedy was a major factor: would have had the nomination pretty certainly.

His assassination and the infamous Chicago convention that year threw things into chaos for the Democrats.

[maddiemom]

60. Bobby Kennedy would have probably had the Dem's1968 nomination.

His assassination and the infamous Chicago convention threw the Democrats into chaos. I'll never forget; it was the first year I was able to vote.

[boomer_wv]

66. Yes.

Nixons approval rating at this point was 12 points higher than Trumps.

[question everything]

82. Let's be honest. With the curse of "social media" yes, it is a curse

we really cannot infer much from what happened even ten years ago, let alone the previous century.

[Thekaspervote]

102. This!!

[still_one]

32. Thank-you. That was one reason why Johnson stepped down. By that time it was an extremely

unpopular war, and anyone associated with LBJ who escalated that war were very unpopular.

I guess some are forgetting the Chicago Convention also which didn't help Humphry or the Democrats

These ridiculous comparisons trying to relate it to what is happening today are not valid.

Anyone of the top tier candidates have a good chance of winning against trump, AS LONG AS WE TURN OUT AND VOTE

[zentrum]

43. Exactly. Johnson came to be

...despised by young people and many others because of his support of the VietNam War and the draft.

He was a great domestic President and people loved Humphrey---until the effing War.

Nixon promised to get us out. Right away. Which was a lie. That's the only reason he was elected.

Maybe people forget how incendiary the Viet Nam war was.

Opposing LBJ ("Hey, hey LBJ--how many kids did you kill today?&quot was seen, or at least experienced, as a protest vote. Humphrey just couldn't escape that giant shadow.

He would have won if Johnson hadn't involved us in the War and we'd have gone on as much much more progressive country.

[jaysunb]

50. And let's not forget Nixon's treason kept the peace talks from advancing. n/t

[zentrum]

70. Not forgetting that. The disaster....

...was the War itself. And it was Humphrey's albatross.

[floppyboo]

97. Yes. I think about this all the time. And the bomb too - that war was over

Eisenhower couldn't bear to let UK,Russia,China get their peace deal.

[elleng]

3. He would have won, imo, but for perception he'd continue LBJ's (unsuccessful)

approach to Vietnam war.

[Gothmog]

105. Who remembers that time when Nixon tried to sabotage the Vietnam peace talks to win an election?

Link to tweet

[brooklynite]

4. Humphrey was hated by the progressives...

...for his support of Johnson and the Vietnam War. They decided that neither Humphrey or Nixon was a good choice. They disrupted the Convention.

Sound familiar?

[highplainsdem]

16. And then we got a progressive candidate in 1972, and Nixon crushed McGovern.

[DemocracyMouse]

42. Are you implying that Biden is not progressive?

If so, I recommend a person who is strong, affable and progressive. She has a natural base who will infuse great election passion. That would be one, Elizabeth Warren.

[highplainsdem]

68. Biden's liberal. A moderate liberal by the standards of the left. His views are more in tune with

the party as a whole than Warren's are. In polling that shows ideology, she tends to lead among people who are "very liberal" (a minority of the Democratic Party) while Biden leads among those Democrats who are "somewhat liberal" or moderate or conservative.

Which is why he's doing as well as he is in the polls, and why he consistently does better than the other candidates in match-ups against Trump.

He's also viewed as the best leader, in polls that ask about that. As the candidate who'd be the best president, in polls that ask about that.

And as the most electable, in polls that ask that question.

[DemocracyMouse]

71. Hmmmm. Add up all the progressive candidates percentages.

They outnumber Biden. He appeals to less than a third of the Democratic electorate.

Facts

[Voltaire2]

86. hush now. They are all certain that polling at 30% is crushing it.

[DemocracyMouse]

90. Voltaire! Rising from the literary dead to help democracy begin encore!

[demosincebirth]

64. You are so right!!

[crazytown]

18. Should it?

Perhaps you might like to explain.

[brooklynite]

20. That would involve re-litigating the last election.

[Dennis Donovan]

5. Bobby would've smashed Tricky...

HHH was a fine man, but he had LBJ smell and people were PO'd at LBJ for the Vietnam escalation.

This really isn't a fair comparison.

[murielm99]

41. Bobby would not have won the party's

nomination for President. Only fifteen states used primaries to choose the Presidential election. Most of the states had county and state delegates, party insiders, who chose the nominee. The Southern states were not fond of Bobby and his civil rights record. Many union people, Democrats, did not like his crackdown on Hoffa. Many young people, and I do remember this clearly, stuck with Eugene McCarthy, even though that was a losing proposition.

Wallace was running, too. Things were chaotic then.

[wasupaloopa]

58. I worked for Clean Gene after coming home from the war

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. We could've and would've had RFK

His asassination had a bigger impact than JFK in the long run- think how much different our country and the world would be...

[unblock]

7. wait, wait, wait. you mean to tell me someone might have used the wrong adjective over 50 years ago?

seriously, why go back that far?

hillary was widely considered safe, and lost. but then, the republicans cheated.
al gore was widely considered safe, and lost. but then, too, the republicans cheated.
nixon? okayyyyy...



personally i really don't think our candidate matters much in terms of who wins the general election.

for the overwhelming majority of voters, the ballot will read, simply:

-- trump
-- not trump

and whether he wins or not ultimately will depend on how effective republicans are at cheating. again.

[pnwmom]

10. Hillary was considered not safe by many simply because of her gender. n/t

[Gothmog]

106. Nixon sent an emissary to sabotage Vietnam peace talks just before the 1968 elections

Link to tweet

[TheRealNorth]

8. Nixon also colluded with the South Vietnamese

To hold off on agreeing to a plan to end the Vietnam War.
LBJ knew it but decided to sit on that info.

[rickyhall]

40. Don't forget Nixon's racist Southern Strategy...

[Hoyt]

11. To be fair, I think it had a lot to do with R Kennedy assasinaton, Eugene McCarthy, George Wallace,

and possibly even Pat Paulson. And, Vietnam overshadowed so much of Johnson’s accomplishments.

[BlueMTexpat]

27. This ... plus

the next comment below.

[Gothmog]

107. Nixon did conspire w the South Vietnamese govt to sabotage peace talks

Link to tweet

[oasis]

12. "Law and Order" won the day for the GOP after the chaos during

the Democratic Convention.

[highplainsdem]

13. Nixon had a MUCH greater electoral and popular-vote victory against progressive McGovern in 1972

Humphrey lost by 301 to 191 electoral votes, and roughly half a million popular votes.

McGovern lost by 520 to 17 electoral votes, and 18 MILLION popular votes.

[crazytown]

19. McGovern is the one always cited as too liberal.

True.

Kerry and Gore for the opposite reasons. There is no overarching lesson to be learned here.

[ritapria]

15. Most Electable Often Loses

I am old enough (sadly) to remember the pundits who said Michael Dukakis was the most electable candidate ….. He had executive experience , "The Massachusetts Miracle" , blah, blah..... . They also stated Reagan and Trump could never get elected .. Ignore the pundits …..

[George II]

17. Humphrey lost by only 511,000 votes and he was saddled with LBJ's Vietnam War record.

[BlueMTexpat]

28. This too. eom

[question everything]

21. No. He lost becasue many chose to stay home

because the nominee was not to their liking.

Yes, just as we saw in 2016. And, hope not to see it again in 2020.

Sometimes I think that too many Democrats prefer to lose that to - gasp - compromise. Republicans in California in the 90s did so and lost all state offices. Oh, but they "stood on principles."

[Jakes Progress]

31. Yes. It was "Clean Gene" and his purists

who protested because he didn't win at the convention. Gene went home to pout and didn't support Humphrey in any meaningful way.

This is more a lesson for what happened in 2016. We won't know until we see how candidates and their supporters behave in this election. I hear less of "my candidate or nothing" this time, but there are seeds of it out there.

Humphrey had a magnificent career was a good man. If Gene and his crew had thought more about the nation than their own "ideals" we would have had a very different world now.

[wasupaloopa]

63. Humphrey was Mayor Daily's choice not the voter's.

I came home from the War in March 1968. Clean Gene was the only openly anti war candidate. I hated the war and us returning vets had the idea that we could teach the people how bad the war was. Nobody wanted to hear us but students and young people.

McCarthy was our candidate.

No young people opposed to the war thought Humphrey was a good man. Thus the riots in Chicago. Nobody wanted to listen to us.

We and Clean Gene were the honorable campaign.

[question everything]

69. And is getting Nixon, and five more years of war, worth it?

Will Democrats repeat the same behavior?

[wasupaloopa]

73. We did not cause Nixon's election. Life doesn't work that way. Standing up for what you belive in

and not selling out is an important thing to do in your life.

The responsibility for Nixon's election lies with those who supported him not those who opposed him.

[Jakes Progress]

72. And the "honorable" team gave us nixon

and more war.

Heaven protect us from those whose "honor" is more important to them than saving lives, saving the earth, and promoting civil liberties.

We had the same thing when "nasty old Hillary" beat Bernie for the nomination. The pure of heart stayed home and gave us the horror we have now.

[wasupaloopa]

74. No they did not. Putting Nixon's election on those who opposed him is putting the responcibility

where it doesn't belong.

I was drafted and forced to fight for my survival in a war I did not support. What I had to do before I could vote or drink was much more than any of my detractors had to do at 19 or 20. Then when I came home I wanted to try and stop the war. I will never regret doing that.

The responsibility for Nixon lies with his supporters not his opponents.

[Jakes Progress]

85. A nice ideal that doesn't help

all those who died in his war. Those who opposed nixon but stayed home on election day so they could feel good about themselves deserve the same credit for nixon that assholes like sarandon deserve for trump.

Those who opposed Humphrey and didn't vote were just selfish and uninformed.

[wasupaloopa]

92. You don't know anyone like that. You take responsibility

for yourself. You can’t pawn it off onto someone else.

You have no way of proving what you posted.

It is one of those DU myths that become truth because it is so popular.

Nixon was elected by those who supported him not by those who opposed him. That is provable.

Nader voters did not give us W Bernie or bust did not give us trump. You would have to assume they would have voted for Gore or Hillary and that is something you will never know,

[BlueWI]

99. Agreed.

And thanks for sharing your experience of those years.

I had a brief chance to meet Eugene McCarthy in the early 1990s and very much enjoyed the conversation. I have a lot of respect for his stance against the war.

George Wallace was a third factor in the election that helped it go south, literally and figuratively.

[Jakes Progress]

100. What does that even mean?

What do you mean I don't know anyone like that? Like what? You don't know who I know.

And yes. If you refuse to vote because you can't compromise, you aid the other side. If you sat home and didn't vote for Humphrey, you did not cancel out a vote for nixon. I can understand why you wouldn't want to acknowledge that. Just like the few Bernie faithful who sat home to protest helped elect trump. You would have to be mathematically limited not to understand how voting works.

[JI7]

22. Biden supporters don't think he is only the safe choice, most of his support

is because they just like him better.

[pnwmom]

23. I've seen many people suggest that he's the "most electable." That implies that he's

the safe choice.

[JI7]

24. becsuse they are making the case for others to vote for him

it's a lot more better than "i just like him the best".

[Demsrule86]

25. No I don't...really reaching now aren't you? Remember the super liberal who was supposed to beat

Nixon in 72...how badly did he lose? I don't remember that either.

[qazplm135]

26. Nixon was pretty popular

Compared to Trump.

Not sure this is the best comparison.

[BlueMTexpat]

29. Also true. eom

[EarnestPutz]

30. Hubert Humphrey was "the happy warrior" in the old glad-handing, baby kissing...

....Democratic tradition. I liked him, saw him campaign at Kent State in 1968 and voted for him with my first ballot. I just saw Elizabeth Warren described as a "happy Warrior" and that pleased me. I'd like a candidate that was optimistic and think that the contrast with sour puss Trump would work well.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. It was all about the Vietnam war. Humphrey wasn't the "safe" choice;

as Johnson's VP he was the perceived pro-war choice. By 1968 both the war and Johnson had become increasingly unpopular and Humphrey was part of that unpopular administration. Additionally, Humphrey had bypassed the primary nomination process altogether (which could be done at that time), which made him even more unpopular with the antiwar movement, a lot of whose members just stayed home. This made it possible for Nixon to win a very close election.

There is no analogy between Humphrey and Biden whatsoever.

[still_one]

35. +++

[LeftInTX]

93. I agree

Bypassing primaries makes this apples and oranges.

[Mr.Bill]

34. What happened outside the Democratic Convention

in Chicago turned off a lot of young Democrats.

[dhol82]

61. This!

I remember the time.
Screamed at my teevee that the protesters were fucking up the election.

[The Mouth]

114. It's not that disruption, disruptive protest is *NEVER* the right thing to do

but it *always* comes at a high cost. Every time you block the streets or otherwise fuck shit up, there will be negative consequences. What made MLK the right person at the right time was careful calculation of costs vs consequences.

[emulatorloo]

36. Read the replies to your thread for historical context

It would be great if you wrote a positive thread about the candidates you feel a passion for. That would be very helpful for undecideds.

[pnwmom]

37. I've written lots of positive threads and I lived through the historical context.

The older generation kept telling the younger voters that Humphrey was the safe choice.

[emulatorloo]

39. I am not "bullying" you. It was just a suggestion. You should write whatever you want to

Sorry I have missed your positive threads on the candidates you like, I bet they were excellent.

Have a nice weekend.

[yellowcanine]

38. Not how i remember it at all.

Humphrey had Vietnam dragging him down. And George Wallace was a major factor, winning 13 percent of the vote and 5 Southern states and probably tilting a number of others to Nixon. The Democratic convention in Chicago was a disaster, splitting the Democrats even further while Republicans united behind Nixon after the 1964 Goldwater debacle. Even so, Humphrey nearly pulled out a victory, it was very close.

[trof]

44. Exactly.

I don't see a comparison of Humphrey to Biden.

[TNNurse]

45. Not ashamed to say my very first vote was for Humphrey.

Not sorry I did not vote for Nixon. But actually, I have never voted GOP for President. And never will.

[Martin Eden]

53. My 6th grade class held a presidential vote in 1968

Out of 26 students:

2 voted for Humphrey (myself included)
6 voted for Nixon
18 voted for Wallace

White working class neighborhood on far SW side of Chicago, near Midway Airport.

Student vote reflected parental politics.

MLK's death was a very sad occasion in my home, but when I went to school the next day there was an air of celebration on the platground.

[honest.abe]

46. Thank you.

I dont recall it very well but that sounds closer to reality.

[yellowcanine]

51. Also, Humphrey was very progressive.

He was from Minnesota and thus a DFL party member. Republicans tarred him as a socialist of course. He was very pro union and strong on civil rights, which is why the Dixiecrats deserted him in favor of Wallace. He was also strong on universal healthcare as well as other Great Society programs. Actually more progressive than JFK or RFK. No, he was not the "safe choice."

[elocs]

47. Yeah, because McGovern in '72 was a much better choice.

George McGovern was my first presidential vote at age 20.
How could he ever lose since who would ever vote for Nixon?
At age 67 I'll go with the safe choice every time now because the fate of the nation is more important than lofty promises that have little chance of becoming law.

[Buzz cook]

48. Johnson/Humphrey was unpopular.

Both men were screwed over by the pentagon and conservative democrats into supporting the Vietnam war. It was seen as a democratic party war by the public and by 68 a majority were opposed to that war.

Nixon ran as an anti-war candidate. He had a "secret plan to end the war". Nixon also worked through back channels to fuck the Paris peace talks. That failure reflected on the Johnson/Humphrey administration. Nixon's involvement was not reveled till years later.

The police riots at the democratic convention in Chicago were blamed on the democrats. So the party was at the same time the pro-war party and the dirty hippie anti-war protester party.

The Civil Rights and Voting Rights act had been passed just a few years earlier and now African Americans were protesting violently. The protests were blamed on the democratic party.

Bobby Kennedy was dead. If he had lived I think he would have won.

So the representative of the left was Eugene McCarty.
I was 13 and a McCarthy supporter, but hindsight gives me a more jaundiced take on Clean Gene. He failed to capitalize on his base before Johnson left the race and Kennedy and Humphrey joined it. His political style was abrasive and absolutist.
When he lost the nomination he refused to endorse Humphrey and made demands that Humphrey would and could not meet.

If McCarty had run in the general as he had in the primaries, I really don't think he would have won.

[gulliver]

49. That doesn't mean we should therefore make the "unsafe choice."

The "unsafe choice" might have lost to Nixon twice as badly. In fact, that's the way wise vs. safe choices usually go. There are no guarantees in life, so even wise choices can fail to pay off. They're just "wise choices" because they have a better percentage.

[PhoenixDem]

52. Apples and oranges

In 1968, it was an open seat. In 2020, there is a sitting racist and criminal buffoon.
In 1968, Vietnam war was the main issue. In 2020, restoring decency, law and civility is the major issue.
In 1968, LBJ was deeply unpopular. In 2020, Obama remains powerfully popular.


Nice try though (one of many such anti-Biden posts which are perfunctory and banal.)

[wasupaloopa]

54. You do remember the police riot during the Dem convention

right.

Humphrey was not chosen by the people. He was forced on us by the Chicago political machine.

Remember Richard Daily telling people to shut up.

“The whole world is watching”

Remember or were you not there?

[EveHammond13]

55. apples and oranges

[TidalWave46]

57. Cart before the horse and apples and oranges.

His supporters using that line are selling him. It’s a pretty good selling point. Other candidates supporters also use it as a selling point.

There were major factors that influenced that election and why Nixon won.

[empedocles]

59. The lesson of 1968 is the Dems beat themselves.

[radical noodle]

79. The Dems beat themselves

when LBJ ramped up the Vietnam War. LBJ did a lot of good things but at that moment in time, the war was the overriding issue for many.

[empedocles]

80. As I said in another thread, the further left Dems, or as LBJ called them, 'the red hots',

were a constant problem for LBJ in getting his enormous Great Society legislation done. The red hots did not like that Southerner, dealmaker LBJ from the beginning.

Fortunately, LBJ got Medicare, Medicaid, extensive civil rights legislation done, before the red hots got the Nam war/anti LBJ campaign vehicles going stronger. Nixon had no great Nam mandate. But the 'red hots' and their various subcultures [hippies, Chicago, anti miliitary etc.], undermined all Dems, including the Dem candidates against Nam [clean Gene McCarthy]. No Dem was going to win the Presidency in 1968.

The Impeachment Now Dems, the current 'red hots', are running the same act at Speaker Pelosi, which is hurting Dems. The republicons are already running against socialism, AOC et al, and it is working for the 'cons.

Most of the public believes trump has committed crimes, [just repeated on Morning Joy this mormng], however, most citizens are not on board about impeachment now. That impeachment consensus support is necessary for impeaching trump.

Dem history is repeating - to our detriment.

[radical noodle]

87. You're exactly right...

no Democrat was going to win in 1968. I wasn't even close to far left, but Vietnam was my issue, most likely because I was 21 years old in 1968 and all my friends and my husband at the time were of draft age. It was a monumentally stupid war.

[empedocles]

89. Thank you. Nam was huge. Draft age people probably unaware of the Great Society wins.

Many of the old red hots may still just assume Medicare, Medicaid, voting rights, etc. were a given right like Social Security.

I fear that today's 'far lefts' may be just as naive and short focused, as the 60's red hots - and more dangerously, could hurt a Dem, who could otherwise win - and give us another 'con as President.

[radical noodle]

95. I'm afraid you're right

What I think we need is someone who can bring us all together, not further split us. I'm not sure how possible that is, but I hope it's doable.

[empedocles]

98. I do have some optimism - very cautious optimism. That if we let the Pelosi process play out; not

give trump a chance to 'win' in a premature impeachment which is very likely to die in the 'con Senate, [and trump claims vindication from a witchunt].

It will be hard, and trump is destructive, but also he destroys himself, and the courts keep on beating trump for the most part - so bad that the 'cons lose the Congress. Then,[with a pragmatic President who wins broad support in Congress, we can clean things up, [isolating the far right non-healers] things could work out.

As I've mentioned in other threads, in 1940, the US was isolationist, ignoring the Axis horrors overseas that threatened the US overtime. FDR een had to run in 1040 as an 'isolationist' [while helping allies]. Criticism of FDR grew for not forcefullyhelping Europe grew during 1941. However, FDR held out until he got a national consensus [with Pearl Harbor. Even then, FDR did not declare war against Germany, given the large German 'conservative' populations who did not support war in Europe. - It took Hitler declaring war on the US on December 11, 1941, to overcome that conservative isolationist resistance. So, only then, was WWII really on].

[Nice to chat with you. Thank you].

[Gothmog]

108. in '68, Nixon opened a back channel to Vietnam (w/help from Kissinger) to sabotage peace talks

Link to tweet

[empedocles]

113. That is true, just like tricky dick. When LBJ first got convincing clues,

he knew exactly what happened, and exclaimed, 'treason'!

LBJ also knew there was not much he could effectively about it.

[MadLinguist]

62. Tom Lehrer remembers him on "Whatever Became of Hubert"

From the album "That was the Year That Was"

[treestar]

65. 1968 called and wants its situation back

To follow LBJ, who had his issues, but he was no Dotard. He was a real politician. And we liked him for what he did on Civil Rights and Medicare. He is so different from the Dotard, that the situation was entirely different. And just who was the "riskier" and more progressive choice?

[empedocles]

67. It was the Dem Party split, led by LBJ's problem 'red hots' on the left, that overrode

a great, booming economy. Nam was a vehicle, but the red hots were against LBJ before Nam became big. Enabled the unattractive, failed Nixon, to 'win'.

[UncleNoel]

75. I was a McGovern. He was the progressive candidate of the time and we lost BIG.

McGovern was a strong man and a leader in Congress. I met him once at a New Democratic Coalition meeting in Wasington, D.C. I was leaving the ballroom where the dinner had taken place (hosted by Tommy Smuthers--that'll date me! Speakers included Ted Kennedy and Hughs) and walking across a hall outside the only other person there was McGovern. We met midway and discussed politics in Alabama for a couple of minutes. He had a commanding presence that, unfortunately, did not play over TV where he seemed too mild. Not so in person. (I had earlier made Tommy Smuthers laugh when he asked how politics in Alabama was coming alongh and I answered, "The complexion of Alabama politics is changing.&quot

He was a proponent of party reform and I testified, reading a paper on Black Power in Alabama (co-authored with Amrit Lal, a prof at Tuskeegee Institute). Almost got fired for that as the Governor saw me on TV and called the warden of the pdrsion where I wasdoing research for an institute dedicated to helping youth offenders. Next incident got me in jail and I resigned to avoid causing the director, who was a friend, difficulty with the institute.

Went to lMiami in support of our challenge party (the NDPA, National Democratic Party of Alabama). Julian Bond gave a speech on our behalf at the convention (after we convinced him to do so I went to an empty room and banged out his speech on my little portable t;ypewriter--those were the days). We lost the challenge, but it was for naught as we were defeated big time in the election.

In 2003-4 I supported Gen. Wesley Clark and now I support Biden. I fear Bernie and Liz won't be able to beat trump in the GE.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

94. McGovern was '72, Humphrey was '68.

[DrFunkenstein]

76. Progressive Bobby Kennedy Would Have Won

The nomination and beaten Nixon.

[Grins]

77. Humphrey fought and made it a close election

And he would have won if LBJ had come out and said what the FBI told him: That Nixon conspired and torpedoed the peace talks with North Vietnam.
LBJ used the word “treason.”

That didn’t come out until many years later.

[radical noodle]

78. He was tainted by the ongoing Vietnam War

Biden is not (although Biden is not my first choice). Democrats, in general, were tainted at that time by the Vietnam War and the nation was split over it.

[DrFunkenstein]

81. Biden Is Tainted By Rolling Over For The Iraq War

Refusing to allow dissenting voices from weapons inspectors, regional diplomats, or officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims that Biden repeated even years afterwards.

He may claim now that he was against the invasion from the start, but as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he was in a unique position to change the course of the conversation, if not history.

And he failed.

[Demsrule86]

84. Total bullshit...that. Anyone who wanted to could have dissented. Fact is we lost Max Cleland and

many good Dems who were deemed insufficiently supportive of the war. People voted for it because they were out if they didn't. Your post are quite misleading.

[DrFunkenstein]

91. Anyone Could Have Dissented - Just Not in Biden's Public Hearings

The Other Reason Biden Shouldn’t Run

During the summer of 2002, as the Bush Administration was pushing for war, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under Biden, had the opportunity to hear from any number of academics, former foreign service officials, United Nations personnel, and others specializing in Iraq. Public statements and leaks from the administration in the preceding months had been filled with false claims regarding Iraq’s military capabilities and links to terrorist groups while insisting a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country would go smoothly, with minimal casualties or other negative consequences.

When the hearings commenced on July 31, eighteen witnesses were called, none of whom challenged the administration’s claims that Iraq was in possession of chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear weapons program. All three witnesses who addressed the question of Al-Qaeda claimed that Iraq directly supported the Islamist terrorist group.

Despite overwhelming opposition among academics and foreign service officers familiar with the region, among the twelve witnesses who addressed whether the United States should invade, six were supportive, four were ambivalent, and only two opposed it.
..
Throughout the hearings, Biden insisted that Iraq was a threat to U.S. national security and that “regime change” was a legitimate U.S. policy. And he expressed skepticism that renewed inspections would work.

Scott Ritter, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, noted just prior to the hearings, “For Senator Biden’s Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions—and demand hard facts—concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq.”

Biden insisted that Iraq was a threat to U.S. national security and that “regime change” was a legitimate U.S. policy.

But Biden had no intention of doing so, refusing to even allow Ritter—who knew more about Iraq’s WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament—to testify. (Ironically, on Meet the Press in 2007, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMDs by insisting that “everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them.”)

Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include in the hearings some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and Middle East. Nor did Biden call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims.

Ritter accused Biden of having “preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and . . . using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq.”

Had Biden allowed for additional hearings with a witness list more representative of the widespread opposition by those actually familiar with Iraq, it is possible the vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate authorizing the war could have turned out differently, and tragedy would have been averted.

https://progressive.org/dispatches/the-other-reason-biden-shouldnt-run-Zunes-190402/

[Demsrule86]

96. Progressive.org Re-writing history...good luck with this. Your candidate will not win the rust belt

I live there and I can tell you it won't happen...I would support her but she will lose possibly badly enough to take the house with her... moderates gave us a majority and can take it away...Her candidacy makes it almost a certainty we don't regain the Senate. Picture a country with a victorious Trump who has full control of congress...it could happen. And if Biden is the nominee,we have a shot...but your constant misleading post sniping all the time weaken him and in my opinion weaken our chances no matter who the nominee is. Progessive.org and any attacking our candidates and I mean all of them can fuck off.

[radical noodle]

88. Vietnam became LBJ's war

Iraq was never Biden's war. Not the same thing at all. Iraq will always be Bush/Cheney's war.

[Gothmog]

109. Nixon's treasonous conspiracy with the South Vietnamese govt - to sabotage peace talks

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

83. Remember who ran in 72.

Seriously do you really think that election has any meaning 50 years later and after Trump, Tea Party etc? Nixon was actually pretty liberal...we have taken a hard right in this country.

[Deb]

101. So I guess I should just stop flipping trump voters for Biden?

[dawg day]

103. 1968 was a traumatic year--

It's not really comparable to any other year-- two assassinations in the months before the convention, one of which was the probable frontrunner.

Humphrey wasn't the safe choice at that point. There were no good choices. McCarthy was a good choice in a moral sense, and in retrospect, of course it would have been better to nominate him. But it's not like he would have won against the lyin' cheat Nixon. RFK might have won.

But the party was shattered-- LBJ withdrew, RFK was killed--

And as for comparisons this year-- Biden was the VP to a beloved Democratic president, unlike Humphrey. Biden doesn't have to apologize for much of anything, while Humphrey had to deal constantly with having been VEEP to the warmonger.

LBJ was divisive and pretty much hated even within his own party. He was more like TRUMP at this point than Obama. (LBJ was much better than Trump, I hasten to add-- the war was terrible, but he did get the civil rights bill through, and also Medicare. Massively flawed as he was, he did care about the country and tried to do good things. Trump doesn't give a shit about the country.)

Most important-- the presidency now is in GOP power. Biden would be going against the current president, and it's a lot easier to fight the rival.

I don't think it's really comparable. Humphrey had to run with the huge baggage of a controversial and almost tragic presidency (which started in tragedy). He was in a certain way more the Trump here, having to justify years of bad policies and unpopularity.
Biden might not be the right person or particularly safe. But he's a lot better off than Humphrey was. All the Dems are in better position, in fact.

[Gothmog]

104. Nixon tried to sabotage LBJ's peace efforts concerning Vietnam

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Skidmore]

110. We are in a very different time

and have endured several years of chaos and insanity. Our institutions have been gutted, laws subverted, alliances and treaties abrogated, have concentration camps throughout every state. We are being catapulted into a dictatorship which is usurping our judiciary and justice system. Separation of church and state is hanging by a thread. Civil and women's rights are being assaulted. Education is being handed over to for profit and religions. Voters' rights are suppressed and we are not assured that our elections are secure. It is a matter of time before our military is turned against us on the streets.

I watched a variation of this play out elsewhere and it was ugly. Theocracies must be stamped out at their inception. They are not benign entities. When a nation is moved to lawlessness by extremists, its foundations must be reclaimed from them. I am looking for restoration, not chaos added. Return Article 1 powers to the Congress. Reorganize Cabinet by evaluating the mess now and examining lines of responsibility. Build on ACA with a public option until we can sort out budget priorities and reinstate progressive taxation. Hit the ground running to shore up tattered relations with our allies. Have a list of Ambassadors who are qualified ready to go. Get a plan ready for restoring the justice system and the courts. Remove all Trump appointees and replace with a spectrum of moderate to left people who are team players. Start tasks forces on restoration of rights of all types and education with clearly defined agendas and task assignments with hard action step deadlines for implementation. Continue to push for gun laws, reregulation of industry and banking and finance.. Demand transparency and reportability.

At this time, I see most of those running as good candidates for Cabinet appointments, with some serving better by staying put. I see Biden as having a steady hand and an unparalleled breadth of experience in international relations. I would welcome either Harris or Stacey Abrams as potential VP choices. Harris could deal with justice issues. Abrams has excellent skills at navigating legislative and executive systems.Democrats and progressives need to pull together since impeachment is sure to start and Trump will be playing crazy with gusto. He breaks the system but he and his supporters will only remain aggrieved and separate. We need to be steady and firm, careful not to replace chaos with chaotic ideas, lines of responsibility, and processes or excluding willing allies.

This is my thinking now in the primary thus far. We generally see many issues in a similar way, my dear friend. Now my priorities derive from my personal experiences. This nascent theocracy must be stopped.

[sheshe2]

111. Excellent post, Skidmore.

Thank you.

[ehrnst]

116. +1000.

[brer cat]

119. Excellent post, Skidmore.

I totally agree.

[NurseJackie]

121. Great post! I'm very fortunate...

... to know such intelligent and observant and thoughtful people like yourself.

[still_one]

122. kick and rec +++

[murielm99]

123. Great post.

Thank you.

[Politicub]

112. Every election is unique

While there are lessons to be learned from past campaigns, the way something happened in the past doesn't always happen in the same way in the future.

I think a lot of elections are a referendum on the administration in office during the campaign season.

And then there are outliers, like President Obama. He was a unique candidate who started building momentum toward the general election from his speech at the Democratic convention in 2004. While Bush Jr. was incredibly unpopular, Obama was up against a war hero who was also a formidable opponent.

President Obama's campaign transformed into a movement for change. And that was the tipping point to victory.

Most of the country is hungry for a change from the Trump era. I hope a movement forms behind our eventual nominee because that will drive excitement and turnout up and down the ballot.

[Gothmog]

115. Humphrey was viable and would have won but for Nixon's treason

Link to tweet

[GulfCoast66]

117. No I don't remember. And I'm 53 years old.

The last thing we need to do is take lessons from a 1968 election that had no resemblance to today.

1968:

Americans in turmoils

Democratic Party coming apart at the seams as southern democrats are still segregationist.

Vietnam

An unpopular president overseeing and even more unpopular war decides not to run for re-election.

There is actually 0% in common with 1968 and today.

In retrospect Johnson might be seen as somewhat successful. And without Vietnam would be among the top 5 presidents.

But in 1968 he was hated. So hated he did not even run for re-election. Democrats were not winning that election.

Your analogy is horrible.

[RhodeIslandOne]

118. HHH was too tied to LBJ

That said, another week and he would have won the election.

[MineralMan]

120. Sure. I remember very well.

It was a very different time. Humphrey lost. McGovern lost. Traditional Democrat followed by a progressive Democrat. Both lost because of the national and global situation at that time.

Might Bobby Kennedy have won? Sure. He might have, but he was assassinated.

I can't see a lot of relevance to the 2020 campaign at all, really. It's a different situation, altogether.