Nobody knows history (including Hillary)...so let me explain '68 please

Hillary drawing an analogy to 1968 is not only of questionable taste, it is historically meaningless.

Drawing a comparison to the 1968 primary season is like drawing a parallel to the 1860 election. It may get the blood flowing, but it holds no meaning.

The odds were pretty good that Humphrey was going to be the nominee regardless of whether Kennedy had lived or not.

Why? Because Humphrey had the most delegates.
Why? Because Humphrey was in the pocket of the party bosses like Daley.
Why? Becase the party bosses like Daley could just give Humphrey their states delegates.

1968 was the year that McGovern starting changing the delegate-selection process which led to Jesse Jackson - not Daley - controlling Illinois in 1972.

Moreover, there is simply no election in history that parallels '68. In '68, there were four candidates two of whom were fighing for the same ground on the Left, one who was representing the old-school bosses, and one who was representing all the southern peckerwoods who were up to here with the Dems giving into the Nigras.

The Party was imploding and honestly has never fully recovered. And a convention fight was inevitable.

I can't even begin to imagine what a convention in Chicago featuring Kennedy would have been like. Part of me thinks that he would have grabbed the brass ring and led us into a new era. Part of me thinks that the Democrats would have split into three parties and would never have been a national force again.

One more point: It's all well and good that primaries used to last into June. However, they don't any longer. Presidential candidates used to not campaign. Things change. McCain has been campaigning for two months now. That is valuable time that we lost. We can make that up. But if this madness lasts until the end of August - with the Republican convention following us - it is going to be disastrous.

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

"She is subhuman"

Wow. Literally, nice post Adolf!

I Have to admire the moxie of the person that deleted that post. You deleted it "Then let everyone know what it said" Classic!! Of course I consider her figuring if OBAMA gets assassinated she can get the nomination "HATE SPEECH" Another Classic.

Do you think I'm the one who deleted it? I quoted what they said to give it context, then a mod deleted it. That's how DU works.

I'm not trying to be patronizing. But if you're going to post here at DU, you should know how it works.

just askin'

I know how it "works" here. First I didnt SAY you deleted it. I said the person that DID have moxie. But just so I can be clear. YOu call it HATE speech then you go on to use it yourself to make it clear what it was!!! A definite Classic. I post here at DU, been on a LONG time, a very long time. (IM patronizing you). Just so you know how I work If I had thought It was you that deleted it I wouldnt have had a problem letting you know. The Moderator Deleted it, and IM fine with that. But dont get all High and Mighty telling me the rules. Here's some context, by quoting what I wrote you let everyone know what I said, so it was YOU (my post had already been deleted) that did it. Think things through next time.

The issue is where we are in the process. In '68, only 13 states had spoken at this point and there were 4 viable (well semi-viable in Wallace) candidates. There is really nothing left to discuss right now.

She just knew there was no other context under which she could possibly mention assassination, and mention it is exactly what she wanted to do so that she could scare people.

Well, to say the least, it's a plan that backfired horrendously.

How ironic in that her mention of assassination, she has actually assassinated herself politically.

illegitimate. Even though Humphrey was ahead in delegates through his strategy, the fact that RFK had been assassinated effectively made him the "winner" in the public eye---which meant that Humphrey became the third choice candidate--since the nomination became a contest only because LBJ decided not to run. Combine that with the fact that Gene and his supporters never really got behind Humphrey whom many of the youthful Democrats considered a hawk and Humphrey was like day old left overs in the public mind. He was third choice for everyone who was not young and hip and totally unacceptable if you were "with it".

At least, that is how I remember it.

I don't think that 1968 has any bearing on this election, which is actually following the 1972 model because so many members of CREEP-Pat Buchanan, Karl Rove, Roger Stone---are actively trying to divide and conquer the Democratic Party and set up a candidate to be our McGovern, someone who will have a narrow base of the Party's left wing but who will leave the Party's right flank and blue collar and Latino base open for poaching.