This Is What Happens When DC Insiders Recruit WRETCHED CONSERVATIVES To Run As Democrats

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Humphrey almost won (it was so close that the results weren't available

till the following afternoon. I was taking a class at the University of Minnesota, and at each campus shuttle stop, people would ask those who were waiting if the results were in yet), McGovern was falsely characterized as the "hippie candidate," Carter was stymied by the hostage crisis, and Mondale and Dukakis were just bad candidates. I mean, I cringed at their campaigns. They didn't so much antagonize the moderates as underwhelm them. As usual, the committed Dems voted for them, but the independents saw them as inept.

In fact, I believe that Humphrey would have won if he had come out strongly against the Vietnam War. But he was silent during his term as vice-president, so anti-war types favored Gene McCarthy or Robert Kennedy--and Kennedy was on a role, having won the California primary and having a good chance of winning New York, and might have been nominated if he hadn't been assassinated. The "police riot" at the Chicago convention turned off a lot of anti-war voters who might have voted Democratic.

I was too young to vote in 1968 (the voting age was still 21), but an older friend who was of voting age told me that one of the great regrets of her life was sitting out the 1968 election, due to her anger over the war.

So I'm sick of the old DLC line, "No left Democrat could win in red states." One just did in Oklahoma. Oh, and Paul Wellstone won in red counties, of which Minnesota has a lot more than outsiders might think. The question isn't left or right. The question is "Who is speaking to the real needs of the constituents instead of just mouthing corporate platitudes crafted by Beltway insiders who don't know personally know anyone with an income below $200,000?"