1968 Hypothetical Presidential Nominee Poll

[Tiggeroshii]

If the 1968 Primary election was today, out of the possible choices(assuming Kennedy had survived and Johnson had ran), who would be your choice?












*I'm adding George Wallace(who I don't believe ran for the Dem nomination either, but is still awesome...)

[LWolf]

1. Any of the above

before most that I hear proposed for the '08 primaries.

:shrug:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. McCarthy WAS my choice in 1968. I'd do it again -- the guy was brillliant.

[cadmium]

8. McCarthy lost me when he supported Reagan.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. My heart said Gene, my brain said "Bobby can get elected."

Bobby was too tarred with the McCarthy/Roy Kohn brush. The OTHER McCarthy, I mean.

[bobbie]

4. Oh c'mon, Bobby or nobody. Certainly not the muderer LBJ.

Helped kill Bobby's brother. Bastard.

[SaveElmer]

5. Hubert Humphrey was a GREAT man...

Peace Corps and Medicare originated with him...

It was Humphrey who took the boldest step in making the Democratic Party the Party of Civil Rights not States rights...

May have hurt the party electorally, but we now hold the moral high ground on that issue...

Humphrey was instrumental in ushering the landmark civil rights bills of the mid-sixties through COngress...

The only Senator to address a joint session of COngress

Historically speaking ranked by historians as one of the top 5 Senators in American History

Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey


The Happy Warrior!

[rzemanfl]

9. There are those who say that Humphrey beat Nixon, before

ballot "spoilage."

[SaveElmer]

11. I don't know...it was damn close...

And this country would have bene a damn sight better off had Hubert Humphrey been elected...

Even Barry Goldwater admitted that!

[rzemanfl]

12. I think Palast (in Armed Madhouse) was the one who said that

Humphrey would have won had all the votes been counted in '68.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Hubert Humphrey was great but it's hard to care about anything he did with the impending draft

As a 19 year old I couldn't possibly see myself voting for anybody but Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy. I realize that had he been elected we would've gotten out of Vietnam a hell of a lot faster than if Nixon had, but he was campaigning on continuing Johnson's war so there was really no way to know this.

[Faygo Kid]

6. I was with Clean Gene then - now, too (I miss RFK). What about GW?

You forgot a "Dem" who ran as an independent - George Wallace, American Independent Party (not many votes here, I expect - and if any of you DUers evah lay down in front of MAH car, that's the LAST car you'll ever lie down in front of, I'll GARUNTEE you that!)

I remember how close Humphrey/Muskie came to beating Nixon/Agnew.
Another 3 days, and they would have caught them.

[Tiggeroshii]

7. I'll put that.

I've read a little about Wallace and admire what he had done during his career.

[DaveinMD]

14. racist pig

doesn't deserve mention as a Democrat. Trent Lott was a Democrat back then too.

[Tiggeroshii]

24. Was thinking about someone else

Ooops.

[rzemanfl]

10. McCarthy was my first bumper sticker, John Kerry the next. n/t

[DaveinMD]

13. Robert Kennedy is my political hero

he is the last person to truly unite poor blacks and poor whites. The country would have been so different had he lived and won.

[laststeamtrain]

15. Pigasus

Image: the late Stew Albert being arrested with the candidate

[JeffR]

30. Priceless

Thanks for the memories!:D

[Cascadian]

16. Kennedy/McCarthy

What a ticket that would have been. Has he not been assassinated, Bobby Kennedy would have beaten Nixon. It's a s simple as that.


John

[nevergiveup]

17. I still have my McCarthy

buttons but I also loved Bobby. If we only had a choice like this today.

[NJ Democrats]

18. Bobby!

[BrotherBuzz]

19. Pat Paulsen

At the 1968 Democratic convention, he pledged, "If elected, I will win."





Are Our Draft Laws Unfair?
October 29, 1967

By Pat Paulsen

A good many people feel our present draft laws are unjust. These people are called soldiers...Now the crux of the criticism is based on the premise that an ineptitude without gross regress tends to efficiate and gorge masical...and frankly, we find this a bit cloudy.

Let's take this step by step...When we talk about the draft, we are talking about a law duly enacted by Congress, in which men should be drafted first...women second...and Congressmen last. And what are the arguments against the draft? We hear that it is unfair, immoral...discourages young men from studying, ruins their careers, and their lives...picky...picky...picky.

Actually, there is no place like the Army for building character...seeing worthwhile places...learning a trade...and just being with fine, stimulating people. Everyone knows that -- well, not everyone or we wouldn't need a draft, would we? Ha - ha - ha...Now we don't claim the draft is perfect. And we do have a constructive proposal for a workable alternative. We propose a draft lottery...in which the names of all eligible males will be put into a hat and the men will be drafted according to their head sizes...The tiny heads will go into the military and the fat heads will go into government.

Speaking for myself, I would be right up there in the front lines if they'd have me...But unfortunately, the day before I was to appear before my draft board, I shot my toe off duck hunting in my living room...Thank you and goodnight.

[ruggerson]

20. George Wallace was "awesome"?

n/t

[Orangepeel]

21. maybe "awe" like in "shock and awe"

immoral and distructive

(or, maybe the OP meant George Wallace, the Vegas comedian)

[Tiggeroshii]

25. Was thinking of someone else it turns out

My bad :blush:

[Orangepeel]

28. No biggie. Most of us have done something similar at one point or another.

:hi:

[fujiyama]

22. Geore Wallace was awesome?

WTF?

Yeah, and Strom was a good man that deserved to be elected also. Wallace did change later in life, but in '68 he was still a raving segregationist bastard.

If I were around in '68, I think I would have voted for anyone in the primaries other than Johnson or Wallace. I likely would have preferred RFK, but Humphrey and McCartyhy were also good men.

In the GE, I would have voted for anyone but Wallace, but I'm a minority, so I suppose I'm biased in voting against a segregationist.

[Tiggeroshii]

23. lol. Ooops

I simply did not know he was a segregationist. I know of him as the secretary of the agriculture and short lived VP for FDR, who, while ignorant on many matters was a solidly well meaning socialist bringing some of the last remnants of socialism into te highest offices of our government. owever, he may have also been a segregationist. That is too bad. I like him because he was a socialist, and influential. Notbecause he was a segregationist.

[fujiyama]

29. It's OK

I think you got the Wallaces mixed up.

George Wallace was the segregationist governor of AL.

You're thinking of Henry Wallace, who was indeed a liberal and opposed segregation. He served as VP under Roosevelt as well.

[Tiggeroshii]

32. Yeah, that's who I meant....

SOrry about that.

[Tiggeroshii]

26. Shit. I was thinking Henry Wallace.

I don't know who the hell George Wallace is. Henry Wallace wasn't even alive during the 1968 election!

[Telly Savalas]

27. I'm surprised by the number of votes for RFK

Since he would have been in the Senate for only 4 years by 1968, DU orthodoxy dictates that he's too green, that maybe he should have ran for VP, or that he should have waited until 1976.

[MiniMe]

33. He also served as Attorney General for his brother

So he had more White House experience than most.

[Telly Savalas]

38. I'm aware of that.

But the focus of the Attorney General is pretty narrow compared to that of the presidency, and knowing where the bathroom is in the West Wing wouldn't give him too much of a leg up on the opposition.

He would have made a rockin'-good president, but this assessment is based not on his "experience" but rather on the vision he had for the country.

[MiniMe]

39. I think he was closer to the President than most attorney generals

For obvious reasons. :) And I think his brother consulted with him about his strategies and world views more than most presidents would with their attorney generals. He also came from an extremely political family.

However, your point is well taken.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. I think Bobby served as de facto Chief of Staff

Kennedy was the only President in recent history who didn't have a Chief of Staff. I think that Bobby partly filled this role at least in terms of being the President's closest advisor.

That being said I'd vote for Bobby Kennedy or Barack Obama with only 4 years in the Senate.

[BL611]

31. Nice to see RFK winning but

many Duers do not do not seem a lot more like the McCarthy types than the RFK types. Everyone loves Bobby in hindsight, but in '68 the "liberals" didn't trust him. Matter a fact, there are some (key word SOME)similarities between the anti Bobby crowd back then, and the detractors of another more contemporary junior Senator from NY...

[Totally Committed]

34. George Wallace was awesome?????

If it's the George Wallace I remember, respectfully, you've lost your mind. How old are you? Do you remember him at all? He was one of the most racist a**holes in politics.

Will the one person who checked him off, please explain to me what was so "awesome" about George Effing Wallace?

I can't believe this poll or the OP... I'm stunned.

TC

[Odin2005]

36. He ment HENRY Wallace, he got them mixed up.

[Totally Committed]

37. Mother of gawd................

my head about exploded.

TC

[Tiggeroshii]

43. For whatever it's worth

...I am not old enough to remember Geroge Wallace(i'm 21). But when somebody mentioned George Wallace here, I automatically clicked thinking Henry Wallace, and added the choice thinking Henry Wallace was George Wallace. I still only have a limited understanding of Henry Wallace, but think he did a lot of good(from what I know).

[QMPMom]

53. Mine, too! Then I kid of figured the person was too young to know

Georg Wallace. Glad to know it was an error. Whew!

[wyldwolf]

40. heh! Not too much better

[Tiggeroshii]

42. What's wrong with Henry Wallace?

I understand he had a dilluded sense of the communists. But besides that, what was wrong with him? I understand he did a lot of good in his days.

[wyldwolf]

49. he ran third party against Harry Truman in an already close race

[Tiggeroshii]

50. But Truman won right?

I think you can hold a candidate responsible(like Nader) for taking away votes from the Democrat if the Democrat loses, but I hardly see much wrong with giving progressives a broader choice if one of the two still wins. I need to look back and figure out when exactly Wallace stopped being FDR's VP. It would've been better, I think, had he stuck around... Apparently there were probably plenty of accusations of corruption that ceased his political career entirely.

[wyldwolf]

52. beside the point. The election was so close, America thought Dewey had won...

Wallace publically bad-mouthed the FDR/Truman foreign policy while still serving in the Truman administration.

FDR's Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau said in 1948: "A lot of people are talking about what President Roosevelt would or would not do. Well, when he was alive he carefully weighed Truman and Wallace. He chose Truman and that's good enough for me

[Tiggeroshii]

54. I personally would think that a positive thing of Wallace.

Even today I believe that Truman's foreign policy was deserving of tough scrutiny. Truman is by many considered a great president, but his foreign policy was almost as bad as the kind we are seeing today. I think Wallace's abandoning party loyalty to stay true to his basic morality is a good trait in American politics, and something far more people need to do these days.

[wyldwolf]

55. But the Democratic party did not and does not

And there is the point.

Even today I believe that Truman's foreign policy was deserving of tough scrutiny.

It was also FDR's policy.

I think Wallace's abandoning party loyalty to stay true to his basic morality is a good trait in American politics, and something far more people need to do these days.

Like Joe Lieberman, eh?

Fact is, FDR DUMPED Henry Wallace - and with good reason.

[Tiggeroshii]

56. My opinion of Joe Lieberman would be different did I agree with him...

But I don't agree with him, and I think his stances are far more harmful then they are good in differing with the Democratic party. In my opinion, it would be flipped in Truman's day concerning Wallace. Foreign Policy doesn't change much when the two parties are concerned. Which would partly go to explain the lack of opposition in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't be too surprised if our foreign policy doesn't change a whole lot in the next two years the Democrats hold congress. American foreign policy is, in itself, incredibly flawed rooted to Truman's day and neither party has done a whole lot to benefit it.

[wyldwolf]

57. caveats?

Fact is, Henry Wallace was traveling out of the country and badmouthing Truman and Roosevelt. He almost handed the presidency to the Republicans who were salivating to dismantle the New Deal. There is nothing honorable about that.

And, being a proponent of Woodrow Wilson's Liberal Internationalism, I reject your premise on Democratic foreign policy being "flawed." But those who think like you could always go third party like you've tried to do several times since '48 if you find the Democratic party so flawed. Remember, there has never been a time when the Democrats were "progressive" as defined by the netroots now and the Wallacites then. You've always been the outsiders looking in claiming to be the "real" Democrats.

[Tiggeroshii]

61. Democrats got consistently got it right when it came to domestic issues

... I just don't think they always got it right when it came to foreign policy. We will disagree, but while I am a proponent of a proportional representative government, it is not a tangible idea currently. Once that is a reality, I would go third party. Unfortunately, until then - the Democratic party is the only one I have.

[wyldwolf]

64. on the contrary, there are multiple recognized parties more "progressive" than the Democratic party

take your pick.

But the Democratic party certainly isn't going to be reshaped by far left.

[Tiggeroshii]

65. That's not what I meant.

I meant actually that there aren't any progressive parties in government. With control. As opposed to Germany or Canada whose legislatures are composed of proportional represenation, allowing represenation of those parties in the legislature. There are none in our government that are representaed in Congress. And I agree with the fact the Democratic party won't be reshaped by progressives. However, like I meant to say, the Democratic party is the only one that in any way represents progressive values in the legislature, and in any way has real influence on the national dialogue.

Until that changes, I am sticking with the Democrats.

[Odin2005]

35. If I had been around then I would of definitely voted for Gene McCarthy.

He was a master of grassroots activism, similar to how the Netroots are emerging as a force today. Plus he was a fellow Minnesotan (Humphrey was too, but he was too mired in political machine politics for my taste).

[Selatius]

41. You should re-edit your poll to say Henry A. Wallace, not George Wallace. n/t

[Tiggeroshii]

44. I would, but..

When I realized what I had done, it was too late :(

[Selatius]

46. Well, looking over the history, I see Henry Wallace died in 1965.

He wasn't around for the '68 primaries.

Anyway, his platform in the 1948 presidential election was remarkably ahead of its time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace

He advocated the end of segregation, universal health care, and full voting rights for Blacks. He would've made a good president, but I wonder if he was too trusting of several people in the Progressive Party. I suspect some of them could have been Stalinists.

[Tiggeroshii]

47. Yeah I caught that too when I looked it up last night...

And understood my error. I understand he also was too trusting of the commiunists, apparently had a dilluded view on what they were). I don't think he really understood a lot of things the way he should, but was very well intentioned and had a lot of great potential.

[Alexander]

51. If RFK was alive as you say, George McGovern would NOT have run...

If you read about the 1968 Democratic contest, McGovern was trying to rally RFK's former supporters. McGovern himself was an RFK supporter before he was murdered.

Also, Gene McCarthy was the baby boomers' version of Joe Biden - by most accounts he was a lazy Senator, left hearings and meetings early just so he could chat with the press, and a terrible campaigner. He won primaries largely despite himself.

I remember hearing about a story where he's speaking at a rally, being asked about an issue - and he offered the famous, "Look at my record" excuse that all politicians do, expecting that a bunch of college kids would take the time to do so.

Someone in the crowd yelled, "Record, hell! Tell us how you feel."

[Ronnie]

59. Bobby Kennedy said

that George McGovern was the most honest man in the United States Senate. That's why when George McGovern ran for President, I voted for him.

[Alexander]

63. I was referring to the poll - McG didn't enter the 1968 race until RFK died.

[bemildred]

58. Eugene McCarthy, then and now.

Even though he is dead.

[KBlagburn]

60. G.Wallace-People should know history B4 passing judgment.

Wallace was not a racist. His early and later political career proves it.
In 1958 he ran for Gov. with the endorsement of "Big Jim Folsom. He ran against John Patterson. Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP and Patterson was endorsed by the KKK. But in the 50's and 60's Alabama law made it impossible for blacks to vote. The white people voted against Wallace. Since the white ppl were the majority voting, Wallace later changed his stance about segregation. In essence, he did what the voters wanted. You can't find a politician today that will do that. He ran for President in '64, '68, '72, and '76. In the 1970 Democratic Primary, Nixon sent his henchman to Alabama to help Gov Albert Brewer beat Wallace in the primary because of the support Wallace got in the '68 Presidential race. And Nixon was scared of another Wallace run in 1972. If Wallace had not been shot in '72 by Author Bremer in Laurel Maryland, he probably would have been President. In 1976 no one took Carter seriously, but they were scared of another Wallace run, so they set it up so Carter would beat Wallace in the Florida primary, which he did, then Wallace dropped out. In 1982 Wallace ran and won a historic 4th term as Alabama Gov. He carried the majority of the black vote. Whatever his politics, his heart was always with "ALL" the ppl of Alabama. The black vote in 1982 proved it. And in every one of his administrations, education always came first.

Also if you will study history a little closer you will find that Wallace
was Reagan's "John the Baptist". Without Wallace, Reagan could not have gotten elected President. Their platforms were almost Identical.

[QMPMom]

62. Ah, but education for WHO? Wallace basically had a

"deathbed conversion" and tried to convince everyone he wasn't a racist. (And yes I know that he "converted" years before he died). George Wallace made me sick and the thought of him still makes me ill today.