While not strictly an anecdote from Novak’s Memoir, his description of 1968 started me thinking
[Posted by WLS]
That the current crop of top-tier Democrat candidates in some ways mirrors the three-candidate race in 1968 prior to the assassination of RFK.
As far as the players, I’d say that Obama is in the role RFK, Hillary is in the role of Humphrey, and Edwards is in the role of McCarthy.
RFK might have beaten Nixon in 1968 simply based on his family identity and a yearning to return to the days of JFK.
But Obama’s name ain’t Kennedy, so I don’t see him winning with the same basic coalition of Dem. interest groups that backed RFK.
Hillary represents the establishment much like Humphrey represented LBJ, with the 2008 establishment looking for a return to the political success of the Clinton Administration.
And Edwards fits the character portrait of McCarthy, a lightweight, no-talent political neophyte whose strongest asset as a candidate is his own ego.
I know these parallels aren’t perfect, and there’s lots of reasons to mix-n-max, and important differences that distinguish them. I’m simply putting my simple assertion out here to generate some debate.
And, we know what happened to Humphrey.
You make a good point but I wish Hillary were more like Humphrey than I think she really is. I didn’t know Humphrey personally but he seemed more like a decent, moral person than Hillary.
McCarthy was the intellectual/rock star candidate that Obama is today so it’s hard for me to picture him as Edwards. Like Edwards, RFK was more of a pretty boy candidate until the California primary. It may be that Obama and Edwards are both so poorly defined, it’s easy to fit them into either role.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/22/2007 @ 11:59 amObama like RFK, are you kidding? What a smear on Robert Kennedy.
Pal2Pal (73f60a) — 8/22/2007 @ 12:02 pmNixon ran in 1968 on the claim he would end the Vietnam fiasco.
If anything, Hillary resembles Nixon.
alphie (015011) — 8/22/2007 @ 12:05 pmGood for you, Alphie. Hillary is definitely Nixon, probably the most unlikable candidate of the 60s yet a two-time national election winner, mostly due to a disastrous war. Get ready for 8 years of Hillary, folks, and you can pray all you want for Watergate, but you already played that hand with Whitewater. Good times ahead.
Asinistra (b71705) — 8/22/2007 @ 12:39 pmHumphrey was more conservative than a lot of todays Republicans, hell they all were except McCarthy. I remember ’64 – “vote for Johnson and get a Hump free”
Gbear (5a473d) — 8/22/2007 @ 2:00 pmGood times.
As Johnson’s veep, HHH was identified with an unpopular war more than Hillary could ever be. Humphrey was nominated without entering a single primary. And George Wallace claimed 13% of the vote. No parallels.
steve (b5ea53) — 8/22/2007 @ 2:15 pmI think for Republicans, the 64 election and issues regarding Goldwater are worth paying attention to.
voiceofreason (cd0c94) — 8/22/2007 @ 2:25 pmVoice of reason,
Doesn’t the 64 election cut two ways? Goldwater was trounced but, without him, there might not have been a Reagan Revolution. Would it really have been better to have Nelson Rockefeller in 64?
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/22/2007 @ 2:36 pmHumphrey was a tragic figure. My father-in-law knew him well and he was a wonderful fellow out of the public eye but a stiff in public. I suspect Bush is a bit like that as I hear he is charming in private. The tragedy with Humphrey was that he had bladder cancer in 1967 and, rather than have his bladder removed and learn to deal with a stoma, he chose to have chemotherapy to keep his electablity (A bit like Paul Tsongas some years later with his lymphoma). The result was he lost the election and a couple of years later, he lost his life when the cancer recurred. Ambition was his weakness. He should have known that his candidacy was fatally tarnished by LBJ and bowed out.
I think we will see a late Gore push as Hillary’s election prospects dim with her high negatives plus the nutroots frenzy as Iraq starts to improve. They are already planning to purge blue dog Democrats next year.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 8/22/2007 @ 3:16 pmbut you already played that hand with Whitewater
No so fast, bucko. What was looked into was her illegal dealings. What has yet to be well-known publicly was her legal dealings.
Let’s say you bought a house on a standard 30-year loan. Assume something detrimental happens to your finances before the loan is paid that forces you to miss two, three or more payments, to the point the bank forecloses. You would be paid the equity built up minus all the foreclosure expenses and any other fees the bank incurred.
Not if you purchased property with Whitewater.
How I understand it is if you were late 30 days with a payment, they foreclosed and kept all the equity, house…everything. No matter when it happened over the 30-year loan.
This kind of loan is illegal in most states, but not in Arkansas.
Think about that for a bit, then consider this:
You would have no recourse, not only for yourself but for any future buyers (and there were plenty) because the woman who you did business with to buy that property, is married to the state attorney general who later became the state governor.
This is what Hillary–who claims she’s the champion of the little people–has yet to be asked about.
Paul (f54101) — 8/22/2007 @ 3:34 pmHe should have known that his candidacy was fatally tarnished by LBJ and bowed out.
LBJ’s negative were so bad that he was trounced in the early ’68 primarys, so he bowed out. HHH became the sacrificial lamb put in his place.
Humphrey was more conservative than a lot of todays Republicans
An interesting fact about HHH: he was the last pro-life Democrat presidential candidate.
Paul (f54101) — 8/22/2007 @ 3:41 pmHillary is trickier and dirtier than Dick.
Edwards is a preening opportunist like RFK. Who ever he steals the most votes from would be McCarthy.
Jesse ran in ’72 (and maybe but can’t recall ’68) so Obama’s comedic lightness suggests Pat Paulson.
On the other side there was a brainwashed Romney.
What can’t be correlated is Richard J Dailey. My one hope for this game of ‘thinking bout ’68’ is the Dem’s would replay their convention meltdown.
i b squidly (94e4c9) — 8/22/2007 @ 4:43 pmAlthough that might fit 1968’s politicians, Obama is best represented by 1976’s Jimmy Carter. Basically he’s got a “feel good” media fabricated persona made for him, but ultimately he’s an empty suit and dangerously unqualified for the position.
jpm100 (d5518b) — 8/22/2007 @ 5:10 pmDrJ
I’m not sure if anything was going to stop Reagan from eventually becoming president. But my point was more about how the different factions of the Republican party hurt each other badly. Similar to what is going on now.
voiceofreason (cd0c94) — 8/22/2007 @ 6:04 pmKind of like the “There can be only one” mentality. Either you are a lockstep conservative or a dreaded CINO or RINO.
My comment was to compare the current crop of Demos to the 3 Demos from 1968 — not to figure out who is most comparable to Nixon.
My view is that Hillary, as the establishment candidate, and as the candidate most closely associated AMONG THE DEMS with having supported the war, is most like Humphrey. While she claims to not support the war now, her arguments are more an attack on the way the war has been prosecuted — and have all the earmarks of political expediency.
In the same way Humphrey was eschewed by the farther left elements of the Dem. party in 1968, Hillary doesn’t enjoy broad support among younger and more liberal members of the Dem. party in 2008. Those voters are drawn to Obama.
That makes Obama the same as RFK — the candidate upon whom Dems project their own expectations. For RFK, the Dems drawn to him tended to voters who really longed for a return of JFK. The projected their dashed hopes of a JFK presidency onto his little brother, ignoring the fact that RFK was a much darker and mean-spirited person who did not possess the personal charm of his older brother.
Obama is the same. He’s a blank slate and someone upon whom his supporters can project what they imagine the “Politics of Hope” to mean. He doesn’t stand for anything other than he’s not Hillary or another run-of-the-mill Dem. pol like Biden, Richardson and/or Dodd.
Edwards is a cynical operator whose willing to adopt whatever message he thinks advances his cause. He lacks principles — except those principles adopted for political expediency — and those are subject to change. He’s a Johnny-One-Note just like McCarthy, and has no shot at ever being nominated or elected, just like McCarthy.
WLS (077d0d) — 8/22/2007 @ 6:20 pmVOR,
Thanks for your response. After I commented, I realized I may have been off-track and I agree with your point. I’m willing to support Fred, Rudy, or Mitt and, while I admit I’m not that keen on McCain or Ron Paul, I might even support them. Fortunately I don’t think that’s going to happen.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/22/2007 @ 7:21 pmWLS,
You make a convincing case.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/22/2007 @ 7:25 pmIf I had to, I could vote for almost any of the Republican candidates over any of the potential Dems, with Ron Paul being the exception.
JD (815fda) — 8/22/2007 @ 8:39 pmYou did say it was a discussion, WLS.
Seems like the most obvious 1968 to 2008 comparison would be between LBJ and Bush…Texans who both got America into an unpopular and unwinnable war.
Where the other candidates fall should be measured by what they say(said) about those wars.
alphie (015011) — 8/22/2007 @ 8:46 pmSo, alphie. Explain to us why JFK would not be embarassed at how low his once proud party has fallen.
JD (815fda) — 8/22/2007 @ 8:51 pmHaha, JD.
For wingnut fantasy discusions, I’m afraid you’ll have to turn to one of your fellow bunker/echo chamber dwellers.
Looks to me like the Dems are poised to control both Congress and the White House for at least the next 8 years, maybe longer.
I think JFK is laughing his ass off somewhere over how badly the right-wing loons he so despised messed up when they got into power for a few years.
alphie (015011) — 8/22/2007 @ 9:01 pmYour utter lack of knowledge, and inability to understand, or lack of curiousity to learn about history are the most breathtaking aspects of you, alphie.
JD (815fda) — 8/22/2007 @ 9:07 pmLet every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.
JFK -1961
To today’s nutroot Dems, this thinking makes JFK a right-wing loon.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 8/22/2007 @ 9:10 pmPerfect Sense – JFK was probably the best President on taxes prior to Reagan as well.
JD (815fda) — 8/22/2007 @ 9:25 pmPS,
Just because 10-15% of Americans want to keep pumping $10 billion a month into your failed Iraqi social experiment because it furthers their political, financial, religious or psychological needs doesn’t mean the rest of us should support it.
Quite the opposite.
JFK wasn’t dumb enough to drag out his Bay of Pigs for 4+ years.
Why should we keep pumping lives and money into Bush’s?
alphie (015011) — 8/22/2007 @ 9:31 pm#24 JD – You are right. I think “A rising tide lifts all boats” was his saying.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 8/22/2007 @ 9:35 pmWhy should we keep pumping lives and money into Bush’s?
Who is “we.”
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 8/22/2007 @ 9:43 pmThe Democrats control the purse strings and they keep providing money for both the war and to recruit soldiers. What does that say about the political, financial, religious or psychological needs of Democrats?
Not yet they haven’t, PS.
The vote isn’t until September.
It’s going to be a very stormy month.
alphie (015011) — 8/22/2007 @ 9:45 pmalphie – I hope they have the stones to vote to defund the war. That is what the nutroots want them to do, and it is really their only means of implementing military strategy, an Executvie power. Tell Nancy and Dirty Harry to put their cards on the table, and see how many actually support their rhetoric.
JD (815fda) — 8/22/2007 @ 9:54 pmIt will be a tough call for them, JD.
Nixon campaigned on the promise to get America outta Vietnam back in 1968, but it took him four years and a failed “surge” of his own before he fianlly did it.
alphie (015011) — 8/22/2007 @ 10:10 pmAs someone who lived through that campaign (and that annus mirabilis/horribilis), I have to say, “Hunh?”
To begin with, the primaries had a LOT less power than they do today — the candidate was largely picked by power brokers from the 2 or 3 leaders. It was only after 1968 that this changed, largely as the result of what happened with the Democrats in Chicago.
RFK might have gotten the nomination had he lived, but it also might still have gone to Humphrey, who was such a trailing-edge candidate (see: Dole 1996) that his nomination was embarrassing and his loss to Nixon predictable. No one “cleaned for Hubert.”
If there is any comparisons to be made the strongest one would be Nixon to Gore. In a time of rapid change, war, and dissatisfaction, Nixon seemed like a return to normalcy. Ike’s VP would take us back to that time when everything worked, and many openly wished they’d voted for him in 1960 — some even said he’d won the election was so close and the BS votes from Chicago so blatant.
Gore has many parallels to Nixon. The close election, many wishing they could do-over, the VP during good times, the unhappiness with the present administration, and of course, the war. There are differences, of course — Nixon had no fiery crusade like Gore’s global warming thing.
Besides that, though — in 1968 the 1 percenters would never get an inch of press and we’d be wondering who was really running until next March.
RFK, Hubert, Gene and of course Wallace? I don’t see it. If anyone was Humphrey, it’d be Dodd. If you’re boring, you’d better be VP or you haven’t a chance.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 8/22/2007 @ 10:12 pmBy the way, this war and Vietnam are completely different. For one, Vietnam had nothing we wanted or needed, and had no strategic value other than “standing up to the Commies.” When we left, we knew we’d never be back. Iraq and the mIddle East are very, very different.
If you want parallels to Iraq, consider Southern Reconstruction, 1865-1877. The similarities are amazing, right down to al Qaeda.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 8/22/2007 @ 10:15 pmHumphrey stood up to the nihilist left. Dodd bends over for them – in vain, because he’s not worth their time.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 8/22/2007 @ 11:26 pmThe doctor started me thinking when he slapped my butt. I’m still angry about that.
Kevin (4890ef) — 8/22/2007 @ 11:59 pmAlphie — I would suggest you revisit Democrat party election history.
Specifically, I’d look at 1964 and 1968.
Compare it to the present.
I don’t think you’ll like what you see.
What came in the aftermath??
Carter
Clinton at 42%
Clinton at 49%
Nothing really to brag about.
wls (aad074) — 8/23/2007 @ 12:36 amKind of an arbitrary mark, isn’t it, WLS?
If you start from 1960, The Republicans have won two more presidential elections than the Dems.
If Hillary goes two terms…it will be tied up.
Go back to 1932, and the Dems are up by one.
As far as the quality of candidates these days, well…you can’t compete with nostalgia.
alphie (015011) — 8/23/2007 @ 1:24 amThe 2008 Democrat Convention is going to be as interesting as was the 1968. Whoever the Democrat nomination is, they’re going to have to deal with the political monster they’ve kept in the closet these past seven years.
I can hear the Progressive Mob chant ‘The Democrats failed at defeating America’s victory in Iraq, let’s lynch the bastards!’
And they will.
At least when FDR was President the Democrat Party was able to purge the Progressive Left out of power. Today, the Democrat Party is beholden to the monsters in their midst.
syn (7faf4d) — 8/23/2007 @ 4:13 amI know I’m switching elections, but Edwards really reminds me of McGovern (though I think McGovern was a more genuine human being). Both are/were appealing to the most leftist base and McGovern got destroyed as Edwards will if nominated. Let’s hope he is!
John Casteel (ffb92e) — 8/23/2007 @ 4:41 amAlphie — Which party benefited from the transformation they underwent as a result of the 1964 and 1968 elections?
1964 transformed the GOP from a party dominated by NE squishy liberals to a party that found an ideological identity in Ronald Reagan.
Do you think the Dem party came out of the 1968 election better than it went in? Has it benefitted from that experience over the last 40 years as the GOP has benefitted from its transformation in 1964?
wls (aad074) — 8/23/2007 @ 8:29 amI think some on the left wing of the Democratic Party have been hoping for a similar transformation, that would redeem McGovern’s defeat in 1972.
So they’ve been working on that for twice as long as Republican conservatives did, while the gutless center has done absolutely nothing to interfere with them, and this labor has produced … John Edwards!
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 8/23/2007 @ 8:52 amNeither Obama nor Edwards can compare to RFK. Neither has close to the depth.
Hillary would be a far better comparison to RFK than Nixon. Both were dark behind the scenes players in the administrations of charismatic presidents (I’m not equating WJC to JFK in any other way), though RFK’s role was an official one, and both not only trade heavily on it, but also would be unlikely national stage political players without the that association. Both inherited finely tuned political machines they did not build themselves, and both masters of go for the jugular negative campaigns.
Just Passing Through (4b3990) — 8/23/2007 @ 9:04 amInteresting parallels, but they don’t all work.
some comments:
1) If he lived, RFK still had no chance of getting the 1968 nomination (unless he somehow forced Humphrey to quit). He had no base whatever in the non-primary states, even his home state of NY.
2) If RFK has an analogue it is Edwards. Both won exactly one election. Both were wealthy. Both were opportunists. (RFK entered politics as a henchman of Joe McCarthy.)
3) Gene McCarthy was no lightweight. His 5 House terma and 2 Senate terms are more Congress time than Edwards, Clinton, and Obama combined, through 2008. He won 7 elections; they’ve won 6. (All 3 of Obama’s wins were not seriously contested.) He won both seats from incumbents.
4) Clinton does parallel Humphrey, in her stronger ties to the Democrat organization, and seeming moderation (compared to Edwards’ faux-populist pandering to the Netroots). Like HHH, she has a history of being on the Left, but is perceived as tainted by younger Left activista. (Clinton was way further Left than HHH ever was, and probably still is inside. Which is not incompatible with whoring for Big Business.)
Rich Rostrom (7c21fc) — 8/23/2007 @ 10:50 am