home

Obama Disses Boomers Who Opposed Vietnam War

Barack Obama the unity candidate? Please. Via Politico, here's Barack Obama stumping in West Virginia today:

One of the saddest episodes in our history was the degree to which returning vets from Vietnam were shunned, demonized and neglected by some because they served in an unpopular war. Too many of those who opposed the war in Vietnam chose to blame not only the leaders who ordered the mission, but the young men who simply answered their country’s call. Four decades later, the sting of that injustice is a wound that has never fully healed, and one that should never be repeated.

Politico says:

Not only is Obama underlining his generational distance from the boomers, but he's also reaching out to swing voters with a back of the hand at the cultural left.

In other words, Obama intends to battle the war-hero McCain by throwing us under the bus. [More...]

So Obama is trying to separate the war-figher from the civilian leadership. It's not an easy task, but a smart, if not essential, one that he'll need to drive over and over in running against a war hero.

Here's Jackson Browne, For A Dancer:

Just do the steps that you've been shown
By everyone you've ever known
Until the dance becomes your very own
No matter how close to yours
Another's steps have grown
In the end there is one dance you'll do alone

Everybody else will be lying under the bus, which sounds like it may be the size of a 747 before we're through with this election.

Update: Obama uses the phrase "the degree to which" as if the "shunning and demonizing" were prevalent and widespread. If he's referring to spitting on returning veterans, which is what comes to most people's minds, see the comments below, others say the prevalence was another urban myth. Regardless, whether some protesters were abusive, and I think everyone can agree some were, they do not justify Obama's remarks today.

Update: This really gets me too:

"The young men who simply answered their country’s call."

They were drafted, they had no choice. Many fought tooth and nail not to go, including those I knew. The saddest part of the history of the Vietnam war is that our young men died in it. Another war that never should have been fought. Like Iraq. And what does Obama do? Rather than drawing that connection, he calls out the poor actions of a minority of war protesters 40 years ago in his effort to score political points as a patriot with W. Va. voters, much like John McCain.

Comments now closed.

< How A Candidate-Based "Movement" Can Be Harmful | How Big Is Appalachia Anyway? >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Maybe I'm too young (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    but I thought it was conventional wisdom these days that it was a mistake, in hindsight, to take anti-war sentiment out on the troops.

    Who is being thrown under the bus here?  Surely not everyone who opposed the war in Vietnam - just those who opposed it in a certain way that is disfavored today.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
    I read it that way as well. Seems reasonable to take the position of supporting the troops even though he doesn't support the war. I do not see boomers getting thrown under the bus here, but maybe I am missing something.

    [ Parent ]
    It did happen (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by dianem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    Just not to the degree than many believe. A lot of the stories about what happened to veteran's are apocryphal. The problem is that a lot of veteran's believe the stories, and resent the the "liberals" who supposedly did these things. And some veteran's actually believe things happened to them or a friend, and they tell the storeis, reinforcing the meme. Memory is a funny thing. Over 30-40 years, yoru memory of events can change, to the point that you believe that things didn't happen the way they happened, or that things happened that didn't happen. Try asking a family member about something you remember clearly from childhood - something important. I guarantee you that their memories of the event differ from yours, and they will be adamant that their version is the absolute truth, just as you are about your version.

    [ Parent ]
    And that justifies (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by seeker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    Obama's repetition of a myth that he has no personal knowledge of?

    [ Parent ]
    Did I say that? n/t (none / 0) (#211)
    by dianem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:17:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    thank you. (none / 0) (#232)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    no it doesnt.  that was never our point
    but denying the truth by saying it never happened (several commenters said exactly that) is just as unattractive in Obama opponents as it is in Obama supporters.
    and just as worthy of being called out.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes....not unlike the 'sniper fire' (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:49:36 PM EST
    story that became a 'fish story' after repeated retelling.

    Memory.  Mine includes my flowerchildren friends putting daisies in the business end of rifles, held by national guard solders who'd been called out to keep us all civil...under control...at various demonstrations against the war.

    By '68...in Chicago...the flowers were gone.

    Chicago.

    Memories...

    Not good to bring this all back up in the context of the current anti-war movement...reminding everyone of what a real anti-war movement actually looked like.

    [ Parent ]

    But, someone (none / 0) (#217)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    out there is being nostalgic:

    Recreate68.org

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with Steve M. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    But I am a Centrist Hawk so that might explain it.

    [ Parent ]
    Though I assure you (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    the outrage at Hillary Clinton has she said it would know no ends.

    [ Parent ]
    It really doesn't matter what Clinton says. (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:58:41 PM EST
    Whatever it is, it will arouse outrage on the part of the Obamaites.  If she said the sky was blue, they'd be screaming that she had damned yellow to hell!

    [ Parent ]
    I Dunno (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    Seems like the right position for now considering both Dems are supposedly anti Iraq war and pro troops. But then Hillary gets bashed for sneezing these days, so you may be right.

    [ Parent ]
    Key word supposedly.... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    by their words they are anti-occupation, by their actions...not so much.

    [ Parent ]
    that's not the topic (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:56:37 PM EST
    this is about Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    you have to agree (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:31:16 PM EST
    that from a political standpoint, considering Obama's problems with patriotic creds, to say this kind of thing, especially in WVA, is absolutely foolish.

    Perception is reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually the opposite (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    I think this is pretty shrewd politically.

    [ Parent ]
    In what way? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:40:54 PM EST
    I can't see anyone in WVA liking this kind of rhetoric.  Of KY, or GA, VA, etc.  I come from military folk who are still very, very knee-jerk about this kind of thing.  It also gives Clinton the opportunity to ask why he doesn't care as much about the troops we are ignoring now. (Not that I think she'll take the bait, because it's been made clear that she must be a good little girl or they'll make her stop this foolishness and drop out of the race...)

    [ Parent ]
    obama Is Running As Fast As He Can Trying (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    to make himself look patriotic.  It is more pandering pure and simple.  Good luck with him trying to out-patriotic McCain.  

    [ Parent ]
    Especially (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by rnibs on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:16:33 PM EST
    with that thing where he (McCain) supposedly refused to leave the POW camp without his fellow prisoners.  That's going to be really hard to beat.  I just can't picture Obama (or, for that matter, any other politician) doing it.

    [ Parent ]
    and especially since Obama (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    never held a meeting for that foreign committee he chairs.


    [ Parent ]
    Subcommittee, to be specific (none / 0) (#237)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    And no, it's not the one overseeing Afghanistan.

    [ Parent ]
    what? (none / 0) (#157)
    by mindfulmission on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    What do you mean that the people of WV won't like this?

    Would they rather have Obama say that people should have attacked the troops during the Vietnam era?

    And Obama doesn't care about the troops now?  Since when?

    [ Parent ]

    There are people in WVA (none / 0) (#193)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:10:23 PM EST
    who have brand new bumper stickers on the back of their trucks d*mning Jane Fonda as a communist b*tch for giving aid to the enemy.  Some in Georgia, too (her current home state).  

    This is just another example of Obama showing a tin ear about the need to express himself clearly to all Americans.  Sure, egg-heads and the such can rationalize Obama's words till the cows come home, but I think my first or second post here was complaining about how Obama never speaks directly and states himself clearly.  He's always talking out of both sides of his mouth, but not in a good way.  The fact that many of us here cannot agree on what he is saying is telling, don't you think?  I mean, we're fairly educated people.  Why can't he speak clearly and make himself understood to everyone?

    [ Parent ]

    Not following (none / 0) (#201)
    by mindfulmission on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    Obama said that people should have treated the troops better.

    How is that in conflict with d*mning Fonda?

    [ Parent ]

    it's an historical context (none / 0) (#213)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    that Obama either does not comprehend or does not care to understand.

    [ Parent ]
    WV has the highest per capita (none / 0) (#270)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    military service in the country. They send more of their kids into the military than any other state in the union. They are deeply patriotic and they put their bodies where their mouths are. But even the people whose children are in the military don't want them getting killed. I lived in WV for many years, and my neighbors knew I had been an anti-war demonstrator. They actually thought that the demonstrations had ended the war sooner. And they were glad about it. No one wants their kids to die in a war. Even patriotic people.

    When I lived there, I went to a local carnival and took a walk through the parking lot. In WV, vets get free license plates..it's a one time $15 fee..and they can have the medal they won mentioned on it if they want to. They all want to..can't blame them. Walking through that parking lot, I saw THREE Medal of Honor plates, THREE. One from WWII, one from Korea and one from Viet Nam. The other vet plates had Purple Heart, Silver and Bronze Star, etc. Few of them had no medal. The kind of rhetoric that Obama is trying to con them with won't work. They will see him as an outsider trying to trade on the bodies of their soldiers to get votes. And they won't like it one bit. Not one bit.

    [ Parent ]

    Wouldn't they like it (none / 0) (#183)
    by jnicola on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:07:48 PM EST
    if instead Obama showed how much he cared about today's troops by saying stuff like -

    'That's why I've pledged to build a 21st century VA as President...we'll fully fund VA health care, and add more Vet Center..we'll pass on-time budgets. It means no more means-testing - it's time to allow every veteran into the VA system. And it means we'll have a simple principle for veterans sleeping on our streets: zero tolerance...expand housing vouchers, and launch a new supportive services housing program to prevent at-risk veterans and their families from sliding into homelessness..Confront one of the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - PTSD. We have to understand that for far too many troops and their families, the war doesn't end when they come home...Think about that. Think about how only half of the returning soldiers with PTSD receive the treatment they need. Think of how many we turn away - of how many we let fall through the cracks. We have to do better than this...We'll enhance mental health screening and treatment at all levels: from enlistment, to deployment, to reentry into civilian life...And we need to dramatically improve screening and treatment for the other signature injury of the war, Traumatic Brain Injury.'

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't it more likely to come off (none / 0) (#137)
    by dk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    as desparate?  Especially against McCain?  I mean, can he really compete against McCain on this topic?  Seems like a non-starter to me.

    [ Parent ]
    He can't. (none / 0) (#190)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:08:49 PM EST
    Nor should he try.

    He should be hammering McCain for wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years, not trying to flag-wave about the troops.

    I think if he wants to build up his I Love America creds, as I posted before, he should show himself as a family man. Chelsea Clinton did a lovely Mother's Day card for HRC and sent it to her supporters. The pics were great. Obama could do stuff like that.

    [ Parent ]

    A non-starter (none / 0) (#223)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    Obama's comments re: McCain and 100 years in Iraq have already been shown to have been blown out of context.

    Good article on what we all here are saying McCain is going to do to beat Obama.
    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    Re: A non-starter (none / 0) (#241)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:30:03 PM EST
    How has been McCain been taken out of context?  I hear this about both Obama and Clinton and it's not true, so far as I can see.  Can you elaborate?

    [ Parent ]
    Not on this thread (none / 0) (#249)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:34:58 PM EST
    it's off topic and comments are closing

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#253)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    Here's a good analysis of what he really said:

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#268)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:48:22 PM EST
    Who is out there saying that it was a great thing that some people treated returning troops poorly during Vietnam? Or who is advocating that the troops now should be treated poorly? Um, no one. He's just setting up a strawman and painting with a pretty broad brush to boot, if I may mix my metaphors.

    It would be nice if Sen. Obama would take a tough stand on a real issue related to Iraq today, rather than take a stand on ancient history.

    [ Parent ]

    If only Obama had been around then to solve it! (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST
    Just like he would have voted against the Iraq war, maybe even singlehandedly stopped using charisma that's as awesomely effective as Superman on locomotives! (But Obama did vote to feed it and fund it.)

    Vietnam? A snap. Using extra sharp, precision charisma wielded as deftly as a scalpel, he would have separated the correct anti-war protestors from the meanies, healed the vets that were being slammed, mollified the pro-war establishment and ...

    ... aw what the f*ck done a few lines with Dubyah (but not taken any hits off Bill Clinton's blunt).

    I can't belief people are falling for this fluffernutter. He's completely cribbed. I want to look under his arms and behind his shoulders for hinges, seams and dovetails.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#128)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    Well, part of what got us entangled in Vietnam, in my view, was electing a foreign policy neophyte who wasn't quite sure who to listen to in terms of our SE Asia policy.  Next thing you know, our involvement had mushroomed and we were embroiled in a bloody war for a decade.

    I hardly pine for Nixon, but I've often wondered what would have become of the Vietnam situation if he had been elected in 1960.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    I think Kennedy didn't have much of an idea what to do with some of the foreign policy situations he inherited from the prior administration.  The Bay of Pigs was another such example.

    If you want to show that a bloody, decade-long war in Vietnam was inevitable as of 1960 - or perhaps, as your comment suggests, even as of 1952 - it's going to take a little more explication than just asserting that I don't have a clue.  I don't subscribe to the view that the moment an American touched toe in Southeast Asia, everything else followed inexorably from that event.

    [ Parent ]

    No, but a "bloody decade-long war (none / 0) (#248)
    by brodie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    in VN was inevitable" once Lyndon got his blank-check Gulf of Tonkin Res passed in 64.  Johnson was determined "not to be the first president to lose a war".

    Sorry, but you misrepresent Kennedy's policy, which was one of withdrawal by 65, the recently-released gov't docs now show.  

    But it's another myth about VN, like the returning vets nonsense, and especially beloved by hardcore lefties, that JFK was to blame for Nam.  Nope, LBJ was the one who first sent combat units over; Kennedy consistently refused to do so.

    Though "neophyte" Ike did advise him during the transition, that he (JFK) may need to send US combat forces into ...  Laos.  

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#262)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:40:58 PM EST
    I don't doubt that Kennedy didn't want to get us into a war in Vietnam.  My impression - and, you know, maybe it's just some silly "myth of the hardcore lefties," but it's developed from reading a great deal of Vietnam history - is that Kennedy's heart was in the right place, but he really had no clue about how to get from point A to point B.

    [ Parent ]
    Again (none / 0) (#266)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    I never denied that, and I already explained why it doesn't alter my conclusion.

    [ Parent ]
    (dis)respect for Vietnam Vets (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by jackyt on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    I was alive and aware when the VVs were returning. I don't think I ever heard anyone diss a vet. Then, as now, the problem was that government did not provide the benefits and support the returning vets needed. PTSD wasn't even recognized as a possibility, much less a problem. When vets started showing up as "Crazies- Living-On-The-Streets", they were seen more as CLOTS than Vets.

    As usual, it was just easier to blame the victims. During the Reagan/Bush/Bush admins, the goal has been to "shrink government to a point we can drown it in the bathtub" rather than accept responsibilty for the damage caused by government policies to our vets (also poor, disabled, and any other group of disadvantaged people).

    The reason I support Clinton is that I see, in her, someone who recognizes the part our government must play in creating a healthy and just social climate. I still don't think Obama gets it.

    The people who were against the Vietnam War were, largely, against our government's actions that caused devastation for the Vietnamese, hardship for our troops, and societal upheaval here at home. Remember, the Vietnam War bankrupted the US nearly as thoroughly in the late 1970s as the Iraq War is doing now.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#254)
    by tree on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:37:10 PM EST
    I was in my mid to late teens when I volunteered with the AFSC to help draft counselors and later volunteered at a place called the Liberated Barracks in Hawaii( I'm 7 years older than Obama, we didn't cross paths in Hawaii as far as I know). No one that I worked with ever spit at vets or active duty personnel. The Barracks was there as a refuge for those in the military who wanted out or were being harassed for taking an anti-war stand, but no one was turned away. I was also spat upon by a few military people when I passed out flyers for LB outside of military bases.This was fairly common, but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere after the fact.  I didn't take it personal then, because I knew emotions ran high, and I don't think that anyone owes me an apology for having strong feelings back then. A lot of returning vets came through Hawaii. I never saw, nor heard stories of anyone spitting on them. Perhaps some people did, but it was not common by any stretch of the imagination.

     What a lot of people forget, besides the PTSD problem you mention that was not adequately dealt with,  is that Nixon, in order to claim victory and leave, twisted his reasoning for continuing the war by insisting that he wouldn't end the war until all the POWs came home. This was of course completely backwards from any other war. The result of this backwards excuse for being able to claim victory when the POW were released and leave  
    Vietnam, was that ONLY the POWs were treated like returning heroes, while the rest were simply sent home with nothing. That was the  governments fault, not the anti-war protesters, as was the inadequate treatment and benefits. I also know that the older vet groups  treated any Viet vets who didn't support the war as lesser beings. Also, I think the mainstream media at the time promoted the meme that all returning vets were somehow emotionally damaged beyond repair. "Rambo" was the iconic vet.

      Obama got it all wrong, and reopened a divide for no good reason. He's the antithesis of a uniter.

    [ Parent ]

    above refers to normal, run-of-the-mill people, (none / 0) (#148)
    by jackyt on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    NOT Weathermen and others who advocated and perpetrated violent action! The "make love, not war crowd was w-a-a-a-a-a-a-y bigger.

    [ Parent ]
    It happened to a certain extent but.... (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:55:45 PM EST
    ...what people tend to forget is that it didn't happen just because people opposed the war, it happened because stories started to trickle out about atrocities like My Lai. It was a horrible, horrible war. My problem with Obama saying this, however, is the calculated choice to open up an old wound that is not in the center of anyone's consciousness now in order to make his position better against McCain. I don't like that at all. Particularly since the guilt that many former Vietnam era protestors felt in lumping the young GIs with the war overlords is what caused many of them to shut off their critical thinking during the early Iraq war days when many were silenced because the Republicans deftly turned into criticism of the war into criticism of the troops.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. He likes to open up old wounds and (5.00 / 6) (#178)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    create fresh ones.  That's why we call him "Mr. Unity."

    [ Parent ]
    you are too young (5.00 / 2) (#259)
    by bridget on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:39:43 PM EST
    WOW!!!
    I never thought I would see the day when a Dem candidate would join the rightwingers in the wholesale dissing of boomers. Incl. the John Lennons of the 60s and 70s whose criticism and demonstrations helped end the Vietnam war - a sore point for the Republicans for decades now. Because that is what it is all about IMO. This appeal is to the hawks - no doubt about it.

    This is a sad moment.

    And I can't give Obama the benefit of the doubt here since he made too many negative boomer statements already. This one is right up there in the manner of Buchanan et al. Well, it was only a matter of time in this ongoing campaign.  

    So Either Obama is desperate/impatient at this point or he is convinced he can win this primary campaign and strengthen his bond with the young, high income, and black voters even further by dissing the older citizens. Why else "disunite" the Dem voters in this fashion?

    Is it a politically shrewd statement? It is if you have the rightwing leaning media behind you. It will  take the momentum away from Clinton in WV (and the economy?) and the tweeties will oblige. I wont listen, however.

    [ Parent ]

    Did this happen to any great degree? (4.75 / 4) (#25)
    by popsnorkle on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:23:36 PM EST
    A lot of the stories about how troops were attacked have been shown to be myths.

    [ Parent ]
    it did happen (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    I was there.  I saw returning troops spit on.
    it was a sad spectacle.  I never went that route probably because unlike many of my better off friends I had several friends who went.  and came back scarred for life.  my determination not to go only go stronger when I saw what, not only the war but the country did to them when they came back.
    they were not welcomed back most of the time.
    I heard some of the most awful stories I have ever heard from those guys.


    [ Parent ]
    Viet Nam Vets Were Most Certainly Spat Upon (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:00:14 PM EST
    and there are those that would like nothing more to sweep that under the rug.  Those who are too young to remember must hit the research avenues and learn what really went on.  It was not a time to be proud of.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:41:31 PM EST
    I am pretty sure it has been overblown in popular mythology, but I've seen plenty of blanket statements around the blogosphere to the effect that spitting incidents never happened, and I think those have been debunked pretty conclusively.  It happened, but probably not nearly as often as we've been led to believe.

    [ Parent ]
    trust me. it happened. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    it happened often and I knew people who were proud of it and kept count of the soldiers the had spat on.
    not kidding.
    nothing happened as often as we are led to believe.
    but it happened.


    [ Parent ]
    enough (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:55:25 PM EST
    you've said the same thing 4 times. No one is denying it happened.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh (none / 0) (#162)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    Comment #101 says "The 'spitting on returning vets' stories have been proven to be pure myth and right wing propaganda."

    There's a vast gulf between "pure myth" and "somewhat overblown."

    [ Parent ]

    similar things were said in several posts (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    anyway.  I have said my peace.  

    [ Parent ]
    you aren't reading that here (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    You aren't reading here it didn't happen. That's not the issue. It didn't happen to the extent Obama claimed. And the issue I'm raising is Obama's exploitation of it today.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Trickster on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    It's more wingnut BS.  Propoganda of convenience for the modern-day Versailles faction.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Did this happen to any great degree? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    I've read similar such studies.  But the myth trumps reality, unfortunately.  I was all of seven months old when Saigon fell so I don't have any first-hand experience either way with this.  

    [ Parent ]
    Pure myth (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    link

    [ Parent ]
    this is a silly article. (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    this person was at every arrival of every returing troop.
    I saw it happen.  I can give you email addresses of people who are still proud the did it.
    what part of I saw this happen do we not understand?

    [ Parent ]
    no one said it didn't happen (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:54:46 PM EST
    But it wasn't prevalent and most of us didn't do it.

    [ Parent ]
    true (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    most of us didnt do it but people ARE saying it didnt happen.  it rather amazing.  
    why would I lie about a movement I was part of to make it look worse.
    I am very proud of that period of my life.  I am not proud of that part of that period in my life.  but I wont lie about it now.

    [ Parent ]
    thank you (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    for saving me the time of finding that link. I'm adding it to the post. Another urban myth. Did it happen, yes. Was it widespread or rampant? No.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's another one -- (5.00 / 3) (#236)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:26:19 PM EST
    A Harris Poll in 1971 showed that only 1% of the veterans encountered hostile reactions when they came home, and they did not think the antiwar movement was hostile to them.
    link

    [ Parent ]
    It happened enough for the DOD (none / 0) (#246)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    to have returning soldiers get off at a private gate if they were in uniform and arriving at a public airport. I was an anti-war demonstrator, have the scars to prove it, but I was focused on Congress, not the troops. Many of the kids back then couldn't make the connection to the draft and the fact that it meant that the soldiers had no choice. They had to go in the military or go to prison. And the thing is that many of those college students were in college for the sole purpose of avoiding the draft. Otherwise, many of them probably wouldn't have gone to college. I know that many of the community and smaller colleges had a huge drop in enrollment when the war ended. I don't know about the bigger schools, but the small colleges did. It was a war we never should have gotten into, and which we totally botched once we did. When I say "we" I mean the command structure, not the troops. They did one  hell of a job. And got squat for it. The people to blame for that are not the war protesters, but the Congress who neglected to fund the VA. They are doing the same thing now to the Iraqi vets.

    [ Parent ]
    check his language (4.60 / 10) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    "the degree to which" ....translation, it was huge

    "Too many of those"...translation, most of them.

    Why is he focusing on that negative instead of praising us for showing a country how to oppose and end an unpopular war -- why is he bringing Vietnam up at all?

    He has no memories of that time here.  He was either an infant or living in Indonesia.

    [ Parent ]

    Granted (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    I don't listen to him much anymore, but I've seen all of the debates, and I'm hard pressed to think of any time when he outright praised America.  

    As I recall, he's already said once that he felt no connection to the baby boomers and the "old struggles" of the sixties.  Didn't he say they were irrelevant now or some such?

    [ Parent ]

    Re: check his language (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    >Why is he focusing on that negative instead of praising us for showing a country how to oppose and end an unpopular war -- why is he bringing Vietnam up at all?

    Maybe because we're deep into another pointless and unpopular war which has been endlessly compared to Vietnam?

    I really don't see what he did that was so wrong.  Many pro-war Americans, especially those with family serving over there, despise the very idea of anti-war activism precisely because of the perception, real or exaggerated, that to oppose a war is to denigrate those who served in it.  And that's a perception lingering since the withdrawal from Vietnam.  This was a remark asking for greater empathy from both sides.

    I'm sorry, but I don't see this as anyone throwing anyone else under the 2008 Campaign Betrayal Bus (a metaphor that I hope is soon retired).

    [ Parent ]

    That's right. He was busy in Indonesia (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    getting foreign policy experience before age six.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, I'm not too fond of your (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    headline.  Doesn't seem to track what Obama stated.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it does (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    As politico noted:

    Not only is Obama underlining his generational distance from the boomers, but he's also reaching out to swing voters with a back of the hand at the cultural left.


    [ Parent ]
    sorry i just don't see how this will (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    help him with independents.

    [ Parent ]
    A Critique of a generation? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Niffari on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    Where? I utterly fail to see where the diss is against a generation. Obama's words spoke against a specific set of circumstances and actions that hurt soldiers who needed support. They truly were forgotten and guess what? They still are. Walter Reed anyone? This is a smart move by Obama. Placed in the context of the renewed GI Bill and, BTW, McCain's opposition, a very smart move indeed.

    [ Parent ]
    The "spitting on returning vets" stories (none / 0) (#101)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:44:39 PM EST
     have been proven to be pure myth and right wing propaganda. Shame on Obama for trying to propagate this urban legend.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    Well, at least one commentor in this thread says he saw it happen.  I'd refer you to this post which suggests that it's certainly more than "pure myth."

    [ Parent ]
    i think that most of the (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:53:19 PM EST
    anti military response had more to do with the veterans who returned from the war and protested it. that animosity is still very active versus the feelings of the anti war left toward the military in general. sounds like a miscalulatio on the part of the obama campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Gosh (none / 0) (#149)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    It seems to me that the veterans who returned from the war had MORE standing to voice an opinion.  I feel the same way about the current war.

    [ Parent ]
    sigh, steve, do you know how many (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    of the viet nam vets feel about kerry and jane? it is a serious issue with them and formed the basis of the swiftboaters against kerry.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#186)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    I think I may have noticed how people feel about John Kerry.  It would have been difficult not to notice.

    As for Jane Fonda, unless you know something about her service record that I don't, it hardly seems like the same issue.

    [ Parent ]

    don't assume you know what i think. (none / 0) (#195)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:10:51 PM EST
    if i misread that then apologies. i personally thought kerry was treated in a dreadful manner. i wish he has stuck up for himself.

    jane fonda is an example of what i am talking about when i say there is more venom toward the protestors/both civilian and military who opposed the war by veterans. that is a fact and the way veterans feel about her is still active. it correlates very well.

    [ Parent ]

    I think what he / she is saying (none / 0) (#160)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    is that Vietnam Veterans of America, was perhaps the boldest and most vigorous opponents of the Vietam war. And, as you say, they have / had good reason to be so bold.

    [ Parent ]
    for the last time (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    no one is saying it didn't happen. He's blowing it out of proportion to score a political point.

    [ Parent ]
    It is a MYTH that it happened with (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:19:52 PM EST
    ...any regularity or beyond a few very, very isolated incidents. The implication Obama made was simply false.

    [ Parent ]
    According to a Harris Poll only (5.00 / 2) (#264)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    one percent of Vietnam Veterans reported  receiving or feeling ANY hostiliy or mistreatment from the anti-war movement. It's a myth.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see it. (none / 0) (#138)
    by DodgeIND on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    I don't see the connection.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't get it. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    How can Obama distance himself from Baby Boomers (1948-1964)?  He IS a Baby Boomer!  Granted, he was at the tail end of the generation, but that's what I don't get - he and Hillary are of the same generation, but he paints himself as "just a yung'in".

    Just as he portrays (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:34:48 PM EST
    himself as the DC outsider while he is an elected U.S. Senator from IL.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, he hasn't changed that tune since he was (none / 0) (#198)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    running for the Senate in Illinois.  Go look at his pro universal one-payer health care video on YouTube.  He's running against the evil DC establishment which, for SOME stupid reason, is against one payer universal health care.  Yes, he was for it, before he was against it. But the words remain the same in either case (and they were no doubt all written originally for  Deval Patrick).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gwcDDVQD8I


    [ Parent ]

    Boomer Years (none / 0) (#34)
    by just victory on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    I believe were 1946-1964. Clinton was born in 1947. Obama, 1961. So yes, they are both boomers on opposite sides of the year spread.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is a boomer... kinda... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by NWHiker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    I'm a bit younger than him (64) and despite the inclusion by dates, I"ve never felt myself a boomer. Ever. Even before it became fashionable to blame boomers for everything. Hee.

    Seriously, there is a cultural difference between those of us born in the 60s and the earlier boomers. I've seen us called "tweeners" and that's better. I'm closer, culturally to GenX than I am to the boomers... JKF was killed before I was born, the TV shows the boomers all watched were cancelled by the time I was born etc.

    Obama may techincally be a boomer, by birthdate, but may not feel like one. I know I don't.

    [ Parent ]

    His mother was a 16 year old mom? (none / 0) (#274)
    by NWHiker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    His mother was a boomer that pretty mcuh takes him out of that generation IMO

    Are you sure about this? If his mom was one of the oldest Boomers, she'd have had to have had him at 16? Was that the case? I never heard that.

    Regardless, I agree that he's not culturally a Boomer (nor am I) and that he probably, as a result, doesn't feel like like he has a stake in that generation of their struggles/successes/failures.

    [ Parent ]

    With Ayers on the back burner (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    I don't think he needs to be making public statements like this.

    Of course, Obama is in a bubble right now where he thinks he can do or say no wrong.  

    WVA is not the place to make these kinds of speeches, which someone on his campaign should know.  Further, there are myriad testaments from Vietnam vets of how poorly they were treated when they returned home, but you'd be hard pressed to find a boomer who will raise his or her hand and say, "Yeah, I spit on them.  Boy, what was I thinking?"  It's like how, suddenly, everyone says they were against the Iraq war, when at the time, almost two thirds of Americans stated they were for it.

    Yes, Ayers is the exact (5.00 / 12) (#21)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    issue that cries out "hypocrisy" here.

    I mean, here Obama is acting as if he thinks it's just terrible how all these returning Vietnam veterans were treated,  and he, Obama, is happy to hang out in Chicago with a guy who went about setting bombs in military facilities to protest the Vietnam war?

    And the infamous Greenwich Village bomb being put together by the Weathermen was intended to be set off in a noncommissioned officers' dance, and filled with nails to kill the maximum number of people.

    Man, this is going to come back to bite Obama hard on the backside, is my guess.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Davidson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    Even if we didn't care about perpetuating right-wing myths about the anti-war movement, he is totally setting himself up: this will only serve to make Ayers that much more toxic for him.

    What is he thinking?  Does he honestly believe the media won't turn on him during the GE--against McCain?

    Unbelievable.

    [ Parent ]

    This will bite Obama as early as tonight (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by ecoast on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:51:31 PM EST
    Ayers and his wife will be w/ OReilley on Fox tonight.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh lord (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:53:50 PM EST
    Does Obama have a single friend capable of keeping his mouth shut?

    [ Parent ]
    they might be too busy defending (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:54:39 PM EST
    themselves. i am sure o'reilly will ask about it. i don't see them giving him much after all.

    [ Parent ]
    Fireworks (none / 0) (#182)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    Seems to me this could be bad - this will be reported on somewhere in the media tomorrow, especially if there are the fireworks I expect.

    Another McCain 527 commercial being written before our very eyes....

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:30:48 PM EST
    Ayers is exactly the reason why Obama feels the need to emphasize how much he disdains radicals.

    [ Parent ]
    And he's wearing a lapel flag pin (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    so I read -- after dissing the practice.

    Guess he'll do anything to win, huh?

    [ Parent ]

    of course he feels the need (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    to show disdain for radicals.

    But actions speak louder than words. Obama gladly hung out with an unrepentant Vietnam War era terrorist, Ayers, who targeted the military with bombs, and, even in 2001, said that he only wished he had done more.

    Can't go back on that one, Obama, as much as your electoral chances may depend on it. That ship has sailed.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup I agree. (none / 0) (#97)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    Time will tell whether his judgment is good in this case...

    [ Parent ]
    well he'd better get busy because (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:07:48 PM EST
    he has to go back to when he was a teen in hawaii and befriended the aa marxist poet going forward to the many, many associations on which the repubs now have the data. obama thinks that manna from his mouth is enough to defang the attacks to come. naw, no way! instead of looking at what he is saying, ask why is he saying it. he is saying because of his past assocations for decades.

    [ Parent ]
    So offensive -- in so many ways (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by katiebird on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:20:47 PM EST
    Do we really have to go back 40 years and defend ourselves against unjustified lies?

    Yes, I was against the war.  Yes, I participated in anti-war marches.  Yes, I wore a piece sign (and still do) Yes, I believed and believed that the Vietnam war was wrong.

    But when I was 19 and the war was still raging, I dated a Vietnam vet.

    Even a committed antiwar girl like me could tell the difference between a war and a soldier.

    I've successfully avoided getting into that whole creative-class denigration, but this is too much....

    Re: So offensive -- in so many ways (none / 0) (#105)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    If that's your lifestory, then he clearly wasn't talking to or about you.  Why do you take it personally?  He didn't indict the entire generation.

    I wasn't alive during the 1960s and whenever I think back about what I've read about it I marvel at people like you who took on the whole system and won a victory.  And I thank you guys.  Sometimes I wish the Internet wasn't around now to siphon off people's anger at the war and keep us from marching in the streets.

    But I do think you're personalizing a comment that clearly wasn't intended for you.  He said too many times soldiers were disrespected.  And once is one too many times.  Again, the myth is stronger than the reality here, and people who buy into the myth need to be persuaded that Democrats don't think that way either.

    [ Parent ]

    why not? i take many things (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:55:44 PM EST
    obama is saying and doing personally. dang it is my life and country we are talking about here.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: why not? i take many things (none / 0) (#170)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:02:50 PM EST
    Okay, speaking generally, of course you are allowed to hate every single thing Obama says and does.  That's your right.

    But I was asking the original poster why she took offense to Obama's comments, which were not blanket comments about her generation but selective ones that didn't apply to her.  If he wasn't talking about people like her, then there shouldn't be a problem.

    I guess I don't see how saying "Vietnam vets got a raw deal and we need to do better this time" is so wildly controversial.

    [ Parent ]

    He is blaming war protestors (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    for bad government policies, while happily spreading right-wing lies about war protesters.

    I think it's pretty obvious why this would be offensive.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: He is blaming war protestors (none / 0) (#188)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:08:33 PM EST
    If that's what saw in that statement, then I won't try to disabuse you of the idea.  But I didn't see that at all.  A lot of us didn't see that.

    [ Parent ]