Late Night: Open Thread: Baby Boomers and Vietnam


Two of my favorite songs from the Vietnam protest days. A third is below the fold. For those of you too young to remember the war in Vietnam, this BBC series is excellent. At the bottom of the first page are links to the next segments.

If you weren't around here earlier today, this and this is what tonight's late post relates to. [More...]

Comments now closed.

< On West VA, Kentucky and a Joint Ticket | West Virginia and Beyond >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I thought that didn't happen? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:54:19 PM EST
    I've been told again and again that it's an urban legend.

    It is an urban myth. (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by lorelynn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:30:09 AM EST
    Jerry Lembke, one of founders of Vietnam Veterans Against The War, is now a professor of sociology at Holy Cross College. He wrote a book a few years ago called The Spitting Image:Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam.


    The short version is that the idea of anti-war protestors harassing soldiers doesn't appear anywhere in American culture until the late seventies. There are no media reports of it happening, no letters to the editor, no arrest reports - nothing. In fact, the VA distributed questionaires to soldiers returning from the war which asked them what was most helpful in helping settle back into their normal life. One of the most common answers was "the anti-war movement".

    Speaking as someone who protested the war, I never heard the soldiers criticized. Our anger was directed at the executives of the war. And the anti-war movement was run by Vietnam veterans, and lots of clergy and wives, moms and dads everywhere. I can't think of too many meetings I went to that didn't have lots of people there who had a loved one fighting in Vietnam.

    Basically, what the myth does is decouple anti-war protestors from the military. It suggests that anti-war activists are hostile to the military because they don't have a loved one fighting. Once our culture bought that, protesting became irrelevant. That's the point of the mythology.


    That's not true (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by daryl herbert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:26:30 AM EST
    There are no media reports of it happening, no letters to the editor, no arrest reports - nothing.

    Not true.

    As Jeralyn wrote on the earlier thread (in response to my comment), the issue is not whether it ever took place (it did) but how common it was, and whether the actions of a few jerks should reflect on the larger anti-war movement as a whole.

    By raising the issue, Sen. Obama is inherently giving credence to the idea that the spitting incidents should define the Vietnam-era anti-war movement.  That's the problem.


    Only #ONE PERCENT# of Vietnam Vets (none / 0) (#158)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:29:23 AM EST
    Reported ANY hostile treatment from the anti-war movement.

    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.

    This is nothing more than a divisive pop culture myth spread by the right wing and Obama referencing it either shows that he is ignorant or intentionally trying to triangulate himself away from the Democratic Party.


    heh (none / 0) (#222)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:14:08 AM EST
    At the height of the war there were about 500,000 troops in Vietnam. Given the war's length and the one year service period, the number who served was

    Using your figure of 1% that would mean that 27,100 encountered hostile actions from their fellow citizens. Given that many people are loath to report conflict, just wanting to get on with life, the real number is probably much higher.

    But if you are satisfied with the 27,100 then you are welcome to it. I do think it tells us much about you.


    You could one percent polling ANYTHING (none / 0) (#226)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:31:54 AM EST
    In fact, I bet five-ten percent of soldiers in today's hyper-sensitive "support the troops" environment would say that they "feel the anti-war is hostile toward them."

    The truth is that, for the most part, the anti-war movement consisted of people that were either afraid of being drafted or afraid of their friends and family being drafted or of Vietnam returning soldiers that didn't want others to go through what they went through. It doesn't make any sense to focus your attack on people that you know are in Vietnam in forced servitude.  


    Too Good Not to Be True (none / 0) (#164)
    by datadriven on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:44:38 AM EST
    I always felt the stories that hippies walked up to troops and spit in their faces was one of the Rambo movie cultural inventions: just too satisfying for the conservative mind for it not to be true. The linked references cite the Democratic National Convention (1968) supposed experiences of National Guardsmen, not troops returning from Southeast Asia. Here, "hippie" girls walked up to combat ready NG troops put flowers in the barrels of their guns and then spit in their faces. I guess it was some desperate effort to goad them into an act of lethal violence. Sure, that sounds entirely reasonable.



    Utterly wrong (none / 0) (#185)
    by 1jane on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:14:41 AM EST
    Obama's words meant everything to my husband, a Viet Nam vet. It took years before I, a war protester began to understand the way my husband and so many others were treated upon their return was totally wrong. This isn't about spitting on returning soldiers back then, it's about being ignored on their return and yes being looked down on. We were wrong back in the 60"s because we didn't seperate the men and women serving from the dumb Viet Nam War. We do that now because we learned how we hurt those who served by our out-self-rightious behaviors. Jeryln's decoder ring failed on this one.

    Not a lot has changed (none / 0) (#223)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:22:15 AM EST
    There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.

    Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

    NY Times

    Troops burned in effigy.

    And this says it all.


    I find his distancing offensive, and I DON'T think (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by DeborahNC on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:02:04 AM EST
    it's smart politics. The Boomers that I know (myself included) are active in politics and have more money than ever to donate to political campaigns. This is just adding insult to injury, imo. He's basically said (through a surrogate) that he doesn't need people like me, so he'll have to proceed with his candidacy without my money.

    I sincerely don't understand why Obama's determined to alienate a major cohort of voters. Maybe he really thinks he doesn't need us. If so, he's making a big mistake!

    Early-ish on in the primary, Barney Frank posted (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:05:36 AM EST
    an Op/Ed piece at HuffPo and other places that focused on a key reason he supports Hillary: his unease with Obama's rhetoric about getting beyond the conflicts of the 90s.  Frank pointed out that the issues fought over in the 1990s -- abortion, gay rights, the role of government -- are central to what it means to be a progressive.  He was proud to have fought them.  Indeed, he asked implicitly, was Obama suggesting that he could wave a wand and make these issues go away? Or, was he suggesting that we must not fight on these issues in service of some idea of "post-partisanship"?  And what could we hope to accomplish?

    I don't think we have ever gotten the answers from Obama.

    And, now, Obama appears to be echoing the narrative, spread by the right and their media friends, that the anti-war movement was against the troops.   We all know the stories -- that soldiers were spat upon as they returned from Vietnam.  In reality, there are few, if any, credible reports that this happened.  It was quite the opposite -- anti-war protesters wanted to end a meaningless war and bring the draftees home.

    What gives?  Many of the battles of the 1990s had their genesis in the battles of the 1960s. And the protests against the Vietnam War, of course, had the civil rights movement as their model.  

    How much of what these people fought for does he believe he now need not champion?  I really can't tell -- I don't know where he stands.

    I never knew an ad campaign could (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:13:50 AM EST
    be so effective.

    Which ad campaign? I missed it. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:14:44 AM EST
    Am I falling for a Hillary ad that I didn't see?

    Sorry, (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:21:43 AM EST
    I'm talking about the Obama (ad) campaign. The whole thing was one, in my opinion.

    Lol. I hope it works in Nov., if he is the (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:31:09 AM EST
    nominee.  I know a Democratic candidate has to reach out to centrist voters (the Clintons mastered this) but I hate to see Obama reinforcing their prejudices and unease with liberals.  I'd prefer to see him "pander" on a gas tax holiday.

    I am pessimistic for Nov.


    I am too (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:35:36 AM EST
    And we can't lose this one. It would just be too much to bear.

    More issues to "pander" on (none / 0) (#215)
    by datadriven on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    After the gas tax holiday he could "pander" on healthcare, childcare, mass transit, Amtrak, roads and bridges, primary and secondary education, federal support for public universities (the "non-branded" variant of tertiary education), public housing, and a few other things.  

    Barack=iPod (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:45:08 AM EST
    All the kids want one.

    To understand the success of the Obama campaign and strategy just look at the marketing of the iPod. From the rounded and safe design of the iPod to the silhouetted figures (who looked cool and danced like you wish you could) you couldn't identify that were used to sell it.  


    ipods are (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Leisa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:49:38 AM EST
    environmentally unfriendly...  too many toxins in the electronics.  Yep... marketing above responsible consumerism.

    It's totally an ad campaign. (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:56:49 AM EST
    for me, it's a rerun.  I've been through this before with Governor Patrick.

    I was thinking Bill Bradley (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:59:59 AM EST
    But what really creeps me out are the halo posters. Heck, go to his website and see how they have him cast.

    It's hard to not feel like I'm being asked to join a cult.


    So funny... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:39:34 AM EST
    Yes, I say this all the time, Obama is the Bill Bradley of this primary season, with the benefit of the african american voting base.  

    That's my line. . . (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:14 AM EST
    I'm just reflecting on this whole process: How is it that we're about to hand the nomination to the candidate who lost California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, New Jersey Massachusetts, etc.???

    I said on Super Tuesday that he played the Bush map to gather delegates from Democrats who were afraid that Republicans would say mean things about Hillary, and now here we are.

    This nomination system has FAILED.


    The process is designed to be (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:46 AM EST
    hacked and manipulated.  It's not designed for a democratic winner.  I have to say, Obama's campaign really and truly manipulated the primary process and they still are.  (MSM and party elites helped)

    It's completely crazy. (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:59 AM EST
    I could accept that he gamed the system and all if the press and the Dem elites would stop acting like BO is such a stunning candidate.  If he were, he would have won at least one of those.  

    we are the problem here (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:26:09 AM EST
    remember when Bush kept insisting he won, and he declared victory, and he said to stop the votes being counted, and he hired a transition team and announced members of his cabinet and just bullied everyone into thinking he won?

    Can anyone remember if anyone protested on the internet around that time?  Anyone?  Anyone?


    There weren't as many web sites then (none / 0) (#156)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:27:26 AM EST
    but I do remember finding Daily Howler at that time.

    The MSM has contributed to the halo (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    effect too. I am interested in image as propaganda, and I have noticed that they have been doing the same thing. Obama is portrayed back-lit, with a halo effect some of the time, and always from below. Hillary is usually angry looking or in an awkward pose. I take pictures, so I know that they have a good choice of pics when a photographer comes in with the pictures, they do many of them and pick one. The ones they pick for Obama are messianic and the ones they pick for Hillary are angry woman with an attitude. It has been going on since the beginning of the campaign. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

    They are wedgies that divide powerful groups (none / 0) (#142)
    by Salt on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:48:50 AM EST
    within the electorte and he was and is correct many voters vote one issue kind of the low hanging fruit.

    On ABC's "Good Morning America," Stephanopoulos said Obama's team may stress abortion to lure Republican women from McCain. Also noted Obama's plans to spend three days in Florida next week, support of Rep. Rangel and others for a "dream ticket."

    IMO if Dems are thinking they can rally women one way or the other to him using this issue just another example of how out of touch Dems are on issues impacting women.


    He's got a ot of nerve (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:29:48 AM EST
    comiing to FL for fundraising before the delegate issue is settled. Maybe he will use the opportunity to say 'seat the delegates as is' and use that as a fundraising mantra.

    He wants our money but not our votes?? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:41 AM EST
    That is arrogant, arrogant as hell. He won't get a penny of my funds. I hope he gets told off regarding the primary votes. He won't, but I can hope, right?

    What bothers me (none / 0) (#146)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:06:15 AM EST
    most about Obama is his lack of any historical context for the statements he makes.  He doesn't seem to realize that ideals have genealogies.  It's easy to see the roots of the Iraq war division in Viet Nam.  It's obvious that many of the culture wars of the nineties emerged in the sixties and the Viet Nam protests.  But you can take the conflicts over Viet Nam back further, back to the early fifties and the "who lost China" debate.  And some of those on that side, old, old men by then, were the most strident opponents of American entry into WWII, and even earlier, veterans of the League of Nations fight after WWI.  I don't understand the arrogance of an Obama, a man who thinks his election simply erases the conflicts of a century-long foreign policy debate.

    As for anti-war songs "Sky Pilot" has always been one my favorties.


    This obviously (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:05:41 AM EST
    struck a real big nerve with you Jeralyn.  I agree that Obama is just throwing any and every constituency under the bus to appease the crowd d'jour.

    Great vids by the way.

    it strikes a nerve with a lot of people. (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:09:38 AM EST
    the boomers carried the banner of the promise of camelot and the kennedy promise. they walked with the civil rights marchers. they for the most part campaigned peacefully for an end to viet nam. this movement didn't just take place here. look at what happened in mexico and france. it was an important era. the music from that time says a lot about america. think easy rider ya'll.

    we also were filled with (5.00 / 14) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:27:39 AM EST
    hope and thought we could change Washington. We didn't succeed but we marched our hearts out against the war and for civil rights and paved the way. Now he's co-opted the words and reduced them to a campaign slogan, and to top it off, throws us under the bus.

    He was 7 years old in 1968 and now wants to gain his street cred among conservatives by distancing himself from us to prove his patriotism and fitness to run against "war hero" John McCain?

    He's not showing unity and a new kind of politics. He's spreading divisiveness and showing his brand of politics is no different than that of those that preceded him.


    And a fair number of us (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:51:16 AM EST
    got gassed or had our heads broken by police nighsticks in the process, or had to leave our country to go to Canada, or were locked up in the brig or lost college scholarships or got shot.

    What the hell does he know about any of that?  What has he ever done that risked sacrificing his health or his future?

    I wonder when we're going to start hearing from him about how "divisive" the Civil Rights struggle was.  Better make room for MLK and Rosa and Fannie Lou, too, under our bus, if he keeps going the way he's going.


    I see a similar hope in Obama followers (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by nellre on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:57:57 AM EST
    But there is a component of arrogance and smugness in their eyes. The roots of that attitude I can't really pin down.
    We were not arrogant and smug in those days if my memory serves me. We were determined.
    Some (four dead in Ohio) died proving it. I marched with my months old daughter on my shoulders in San Diego in the biggest protest I participated in. Of course, when the cops started to look confontational I pulled away. My daughter's well being was more important than anything in the world to me then, as it is now.

    A little aside: long after, many of my fellow protesters claimed they were going along to be in the in crowd. Truth.
    I don't think humans have evolved that much in the last 40 years. I think the Obama followers are going along with the crowd. They might believe they are members of the creative class that way?
    It's a human weakness to cling to whom we perceive as powerful in the hopes some of that power will become ours.


    Thank you for the Kent State video (5.00 / 9) (#85)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:23:08 AM EST
    Jeralyn -- and let's remember the Jackson State students murdered, too, where more than 500 bullets were found afterward in dorm walls.

    Interestingly, I found and used this same Kent State video in one of my college classes this year -- and many students today were stunned by that and more that they finally learned.  They had to unlearn what they had been taught, that the students were at fault.

    I also have repeatedly dealt with students who tell me, an antiwar protester (yes, teargassed for it) and wife of a Vietnam veteran, that I hated veterans and spit on them and etc.  They know this about all of us who protested the war because it's in their grade school and high school American history textbooks.  That's what they told me, one brought in one of the high school history text books, and it's stated there.

    So I looked up more of the textbooks -- and on this and so much more about the '60s and '70s, including the modern women's movement, I now know where today's 20- and 30-somethings got so much misinformation about and hatred for us.  

    Of course, you probably know about the concerted campaign of the right wing to rewrite the history textbooks, using Texas as their weapon in the publishing marketplace.  They played it brilliantly.  They have won with their revisionist history.  

    And we are seeing the result in this campaign, in comments such as this from their candidate.


    god, that's disturbing... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kempis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:58:52 AM EST
    I knew that our students were unlargely un-informed about those days (except via movies that they now lack the context to understand fully), but it honestly hadn't occurred to me that they have been actively brainwashed....Wow, I'm still naive after all these years. I should have considered that the textbooks would be slanted against Vietnam War prostestors, most of whom, like me, had loved ones over there in that meat-grinder.

    No wonder people were so primed to bop merrily off to the Iraq War. And the moment someone piped up with "hey, maybe this isn't such a good idea" we were shushed with the specter of Vietnam protests.
    After all, the history books (as currently written) prove us wrong.

    In reality, of course, the rightwing textbook editors just doomed us to repeat history.



    re: Kent State (none / 0) (#136)
    by bobbski on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:07:25 AM EST
    Kent State was a tragedy.  

    The Boston Massacre was a tragedy.

    Unfortunately such events become inevitable when people armed with bottles, rocks, etc. attack, taunt or otherwise assault people with guns.

    Fact is, the national guard troops, much like the redcoats involved in the Boston incident, were not much more than kids themselves.

    Remember, the redcoats who fired on the mob at Boston in 1770 were found not guilty.  

    Personally, I thought the kids in the mob were ill served by their "leaders" and if the truth were known, the "leaders" got the result they were hoping for.

    At the time of the Kent State incident I was a year away from being 30 and 4 years away from having served 8 years in the USAF.


    Any fool knows.... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:17:17 AM EST
    you gotta take everything you learn in school with a grain of salt.  They teach alotta bullsh*t.

    Ultimately, the responsibility lies with parents to de-program your kids daily when they get home.


    and now obama is using that (none / 0) (#197)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    to spread division among groups. do i want him for president? well, i'll have to think about the tone don't you know!

    And we risked a lot Jeralyn.... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:01 AM EST
    ...that's what people forget. I had two good friends who went to jail for being conscientious objecters. One of them was never, ever the same when he came out. I knew people that were beaten by the police just for having long hair...what would today's priviledged white kids who can do anything they want do in the face of that? And that's not even taking into account all the drug busts. Sometimes I think that one of the reasons that the feminist movement could take root in our generation is that our male cohorts had just as heavy a burden as the women. We were all facing real injustices and yet we were still moved enough to put ourselves on the line on behalf of those even more oppressed. Our heroes, MLK and RFK, asked more of us than to contribute on the Internet and go to some rallies. So do I sound a little bitter? Maybe I am because it really bothers me a great deal that what our detractors said about us has become the conventional wisdom about our generation. I guess that's maybe one reason so many of us relate to the Clintons.

    heroes? where are they today? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:44 AM EST
    answer: i don't believe they are in chicago. maybe each one of us who stands for what we believe and work for it in the face of the shaft from the media are all heroes. that is my view.

    another important factor (none / 0) (#140)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:30:56 AM EST
    I think, was the sense of ownership.  "This is our America, and we will not go down this path."  It was very patriotic in its own way.  The children of the WWII generation were raised to love their country, and they vehemently did.  When they marched and protested, it was in the true sense of civil discourse.  It was one of the core rights our constitution intended to guarantee.  They did not want to tear down America, or denigrate America, they wanted to define it, to make it better.

    (and of course I am referring to the vast majority of protesters, not the Weather Underground, SLA, etc)

    Kids today want to wear the tie dye and the peace signs, but they don't want to acknowledge the movement.


    jeralyn, your words are eloquent. (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:23:34 AM EST
    Speaking of cred.. Country Joe is still around (none / 0) (#208)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:34 AM EST
    and still anti-war and pro-vet. Here is a link to his web site. Country Joe McDonald.

    I imagine (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:30:59 AM EST
    it will strike a chord back in the stan and Iraq too. The military can't stand Barack Obama - especially after the Wright videos.

    If he thinks statements like this are going to help him get the military vote he ought to get out of the football stadium and check out the situation on the ground.

    Few people like him and frankly, he scares the hell out everyone in the war zone including the contractors.

    And if there is one thing we are all sick of hearing it is words like "change," "transformation," "revolution," or anything else resembling those words. We're sick of dreamers. We want a fixer and someone with a friggin realistic plan backed up by intelligent government action.

    What amazes me is that those words didn't just insult boomers, they were equally insulting to current soldiers, their families and the thousands of Americans who lend support to us. Nobody is spitting on us. I do reconstruction work and my local cargo pants store gives me a 10% discount just for having to go back. My Afghan driver has a kid with a mental disability and she can't go to school because the school doesn't want to deal with her. My brother's church is paying for a private teacher for her. I don't even know anyone in his church and neither does my driver.  My mom and local vet are collecting money and donating supplies for animal shelters in Kabul. Who are all these horrible people?

    It is like the guy is on the national insult tour. All he has is condescending words for people he knows nothing about.


    Thanks for your good works (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:00:18 AM EST
    in Afghanistan!  Like a lot of other southern boys I joined the Corps and did a tour and a half in Vietnam.  Then vehemently protested it later.  I was not treated badly upon my returns.  There were no victory parades but then we didn't expect any.

    My son served eight years in the Corps and we agree on one thing for sure.  Obama is not qualified to be president.  Sorry, he's just not, no way, no how.

    I couldn;t agree more about the national insult tour.


    Protesters are good (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:16:44 AM EST
    I protested Iraq too before it started. Then I went over to work cuz cleaning up messes is the job. Unfortunately we don't have the tools we need and the governments are just too corrupt. It is like banging your head against the wall.

    I do this work but I support the protesters. Without them, there would be NO accountability at all. But you already know what I am talking about:)

    I was a young one during Vietnam but had family there as well. I salute you for going and protesting.


    Love 60's music... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by k on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:15:02 AM EST
    My favorite is this one...For What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield. This particular video has some great pics. The one with a young John Kerry standing with John Lennon stands out. A little rough language on a sign so if you click thru, be warned.

    great video! jim morrison fan here! (none / 0) (#200)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:19:51 AM EST
    The time you spend preparing will be a absolutely sinkhole. You can invest months and you score might go up five points, ten points, or not at all.

    However, there's no avoiding the test, and the sooner you prepare, the sooner you'll be able to apply. You're almost in the range where you will be competitive anywhere, so try not to let the test monopolize your time.

    I really disagree, Andgarden. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:42:09 AM EST
    This was in 1992 (I'm old) but my score improved incredibly through Kaplan (this is not a paid endorsement.)

    One issue is which practice test we are talking about.  The Kaplan (and I assume the other services') test was very hard, obviously to exaggerate the improvement after taking the course.  My LSAT score improved around 20 points over theirs, and around 10 over the real practice test.


    On re-reading your comment, I see we (none / 0) (#49)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:43:56 AM EST
    don't disagree, except that a 10-point seemed pretty  much worth it to me.

    Yes. It has been the experience of (none / 0) (#51)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:45:28 AM EST
    everyone I know who did the course -- back in the mid 90s.  

    Of course, I'm just bitter, because I find (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:54:55 AM EST
    standardized tests to be generally meaningless.

    But you are correct, a 10 point increase is important. Considering how difficult it can be to meaningfully change your GPA, it can even be super-duper important. A course can absolutely be worth it to teach strategy and that awful logic games section (don't get me started. . .)


    Yes, logic games were my problem area, and the (none / 0) (#65)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:00:34 AM EST
    area the course helped me on.

    Standardized testing is a terrible indicator of one's performance in law school.  But, then again, it seems that grades in law school are not the best indicator of "success" as a lawyer.  They certainly get you into a "good" firm, as mine did, but that's a really mixed experience.


    heh (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:05:47 AM EST
    I've been hearing about law firm politics at the dinner table since I was a tyke.

    But yeah, I'm going in with my eyes open--I think.


    Well then you'll go in smarter than (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:13:16 AM EST
    I was.  I made the mistake of going into a "liberal" firm (as if any big corp. firm is all that liberal) and making that basically the sole basis for the decision. Tread lightly.  Once you're going to a certain type of firm, who you'll be working directly with is more important than the firm overall.

    But there's life after the big firms, and you can actually get a life.


    Ron Kovic (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Manuel on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:35:11 AM EST
    From wikipedia

    Kovic was a speaker at the 1976 Democratic National Convention, seconding the nomination of draft resister Fritz Efaw for Vice President of the United States.

    In Kovic's words.

    Most of my fellow veterans were angry at the protesters, cursing them and calling them traitors ...

    Senator Obama's remarks today were a gross oversimplification of a troubled time in our nation's history.  They showed either a misunderstanding of the antiwar movement or a cynical political calculation.

    he was only 8 years old (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:40:32 AM EST
    then, you'll have to excuse him (sarcasm)

    In the sam token (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:43:42 AM EST
    some of us were not born during WWII and yet we respect the struggles that people had during the war and we don't oversimplify for purposes of manipulation, but then again, that was the "good war".  

    Protest (none / 0) (#137)
    by bobbski on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:11:34 AM EST
    "...some of us were not born during WWII..."


    Some of us were born before WW2.

    Ouch.  ;)


    That was during his prime foreign (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by tree on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:46:44 AM EST
    policy years, from 6 to 10.

    You are soooo bad. Guess (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:51:23 AM EST
    you won't be checking Unity Ticket on the TL poll anytime soon.

    Probably not if its (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by tree on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:36:51 AM EST
    Obama-Clinton, mainly because I think that Obama would marginalize her as VP and she would be extremely underutilized. He doesn't seem to recognize talent when he sees it, unless it can be utilized to promote himself. I think he'd be afraid that she would outshine him, which is also why I don't think he will even ask.

     My snarky comment did make me realize though that Obama wasn't even in the country during some of the most turbulent years. He was in Indonesia from '67 thru '71. He probably has no vivid memory of MLK's assassination or RFK's either, and no memory of the Vietnam war or the anti-war movement before '71. So obviously he's read some book and misunderstood what it meant, just like he misunderstood Frank's book.

      I was in my mid to late teens then and I remember being blamed for the war because I was against it, 'cuz ya know, if all us anti-war protesters had just shut up the war would have magically ended. And now I'm being blamed again for something I never did. Many of the strongest protesters against the war were Vets, and they mostly got hell from the hawks for standing up for their beliefs. Nobody seems to blame the chickenhawks for the ugliness, only those of us who were trying to save lives are to blame, then and now. Thanks, Obama. For someone who's supposedly so smart you are clueless at understanding people and events.  


    Obama has been ahistorical (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:48:59 AM EST
    in his statements so many times that I have to wonder about that vaunted Columbia education.  Is its history department's reputation overstated?  Did he ever take an American history course?  

    Yet for years now, many years, I have listened carefully to Hillary Clinton's speeches, and she really knows American history so well.  It speaks well for Wellesley, far better than he represents his alma mater in this area.


    Obama has no personal connection (none / 0) (#186)
    by felizarte on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:16:30 AM EST
    to the sixties movement:  Assassinations of the John and Robert Kennedy, MLK, the Beatles, Peter, Paul & Mary, Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan and the other artists that stoked the spirit of the times. The protests were the reason for the removal of the draft.  Someone ought toi write a movie/or movies that capture the true spirit of that era.

    In Indonesia at age 6-10 then growing up in Hawaii, away from Mainland USA, His statement quoted above about Boomers and the Vietnam War era, certainly demonstrates his lack of information and appreciation for  that important time in American history. This is not good for someone vying for the most important job in U.S. govt. He needs a crash course.    


    the question is just does obama (none / 0) (#203)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    have for personal connections? take a look at his associations for your answer. i believe that ayers wants to reshape the usa but in all that hoopla i do see a sort of twisted love for the country. i don't think you could get him out with a blow torch. whereas obama and michelle seem to put the words of rev wright at the top of their hit parade. division and blame the group in charge for all your woes no matter how well you do.

    ya'll please don't get me wrong about ayers. in truth the guy should have gone to jail.


    I'm only a couple years older than him (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:13:39 AM EST
    so I don't have to.  ;)

    He seems to have a real disconnect and lack of empathy for many things. I haven't read his books, but he should have been old enough when the war was ending and the years after to have a better understanding. Those of us that were too young in the 60's weren't so young in the 70's.

    Or maybe it's because I was raised in CA on avocados and alfalfa sprouts?*  {grin}

    *by mid-western parents, lol!~


    I dunno (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:47:26 AM EST
    I'm 2 yrs younger than he is and his lack of awareness on issues like these are pretty incredible. My parents were against the war at the time, but too old and busy (working full time and going to school to get their PhDs) to do the protest thing and even at a very young age, I knew it was the government that had caused all the problems re: the war and not the actual soldiers, esp since most of them had been drafted.

    And yes, I was certainly old enough to remember the whole mess in the 70s and when the war ended.


    I Agree (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:05:34 AM EST
    They might as well eliminate the primaries altogether and just go to an American Idol format. The final round would have a candidate from each format and whoever wins is president. It would save the hundreds of millions of  dollars that are wasted every four years.

    Why (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:32:25 AM EST
    even bother with American Idol? The media tells us who we can have as candidates, which of those candidates is the winner and then will tell us who will make the best President. After we have been "spun" dizzy then we just accept "their" choice and go on our merry, or not merry, depending on if you have enough money to afford to be merry, way.

    Why do I get the feeling (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:52:13 AM EST
    that Obama's stance on vietnam veterans is more to do with diluting the impact of his Code Pink connections. Obama had this habit of saying things and then quoting it later to prove that even if his past connections prove something people should judge him based on his speeches and not his connections or activity.

    He did it with Wright. He used to preach about post racial new world integration blah blah while his past showed that he was actually close to a church whose belief was more founded on segregation than integration. Again here his defence was go by my speeches rather than my actions. He talks of new politics but his ascendancy to the Senate and now the front runner has been by doing politics the good old way. But then he happily tells everybody that because he says new politics we should believe what he says rather than what he does.

    Similarly his new stance, I believe, is a way for him to later distance himself from code pink and Jane fonda if need be.

    Gonna be tough if he really did announce (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:57:39 AM EST
    his U.S. Senate candidacy from Ayers front porch.  

    That is probably what is coming next (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:07:19 AM EST
    We dodge IEDs every day and Obama's fund raiser and friend is a domestic bomber. And people wonder why I distrust his judgment.

    Ayers wouldn't seem so glamorous to Obama's supporters if they witnessed the aftermath of a market bombing or barely escaped a massacre in hotel gym. I seriously can't believe that guy is where he is today. For that matter, both of them.


    I was doing o.k. accepting that Ayers was (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:10:39 AM EST
    never convicted, innocent until proven guilty, etc.; then I read he is married to Bernadine Dornh, who, of course, was convicted.  Amazing. Excellent location for a fundraiser and announcement of a candidacy.  

    I haven't followed his Ayers connection (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:19 AM EST
    too closely, just enough to know the basics and it's more of a friendship/relationship than he lets on. Is it true there's a connection to the Woods group and him being hired as a community organizer? I was trying to watch the O Factor bit while distracted, but it sounded like there was.

    as I recall, Obama and Ayers were both (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:31:42 AM EST
    on the Woods board at the same time, which is why Obama likes to characterize their relationship as mutual involvement for the greater good.  

    Ayers is guilty as sin (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by daryl herbert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:20:51 AM EST
    He wasn't convicted because he came from a wealthy family and could afford good defense attorneys (no offense to defense attorneys--they're just doing their jobs)

    He even bragged about it later: Guilty as hell, free as a bird--America is a great country, danced on an American flag, and said the only thing he regretted is that he didn't do more back when he was in a terrorist group.

    I normally wouldn't fault anyone for praising the US justice system, but Ayers hates America and favors the Chinese Communist/Fascist system.  He looks at America and sees only bad things; he looks at evil governments around the world and sees only good things.  Not a good guy, and not a good guy to hang out with if you want to be president.


    RW Trolling? (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:57:29 AM EST
    The rag you link to brags about itself:

    During the Giuliani Administration, the magazine served as an idea factory as the then-mayor revivified New York City, quickly becoming, in the words of the New York Post, "the place where Rudy gets his ideas."

    I knew the quote (none / 0) (#129)
    by daryl herbert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:03:10 AM EST
    so I went onto Google to find it.

    I only looked through the first few links for an acceptable source.  It's a conservative publication, but the quote is accurate.

    I don't think Bill Ayers has ever claimed to be innocent.


    Considering I knew someone (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:50:02 AM EST
    who was one of the ones who simply said "Lock me up, I'm not going." and indeed served time for refusing to serve - Ayers just comes across as a crass egotist.  Convinced in the rightness of his cause and actions, as if the ends really did justify the means.

    Speaking of throwing under the bus.... (none / 0) (#194)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:25:11 AM EST
    isn't that what you guys are doing to Ayers?

    I'm no fan of violence, but I think the Weather Underground was a heckuva lot more righteous than the US govt.  And they had the balls to fight against a tyrannical, violent government.  I give him mad props.

    You guys criticize Obama for throwing the hippies under the bus, but then demand he throw Ayers under the bus?  I don't get it.


    I'm not throwing anyone under the bus. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:39:30 AM EST
    The majority of the protesters had no interest in being violent and destructive.  They just wanted the government to listen to them.

    Now you can get people to pay attention to you if you are violent and destructive, but the odds are good that they won't listen to you.

    I think it take way more courage to voluntarily go to prison and risk loss of freedom and possibly more, than it does to destroy property and possibly kill people.  In fact, acts of violent vandalism are cowardly if you make sure that you are safely away when the bomb goes off.


    Obama takes the same stance that (none / 0) (#212)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:54 AM EST
    my parents did when I was underage. They said, "Do as I say, not as I do". Obama wants us to take him at his word, not his action. Too bad that doesn't work for politicians like it does for parents.

    Another article on (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:05:48 AM EST
    the sexisim faced by Hillary


    But increasingly I feel what's the point. I hardly see any protests or anybody taking offense to it. In most of the cases women themselves are in the forefront actively promoting the sexisim  case in point Arianna's website - where from attacking Hillary's policies the website has now come to attacking Hillary on her dress sense, manly behaviour, calculative ambitiousness, lack of coolness etc and MoDo's serial articles attacking Hillary with a recent article imploring Obama to punish Hillary.

    Barbara Ehrenreich and a "spiritualist" (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:12:16 AM EST
    were today's female critics of Clinton.  Disgusting.  

    Comment I read somewhere (none / 0) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:16:33 AM EST
    Since Obama is not campaigning in WV and KY, will he ask for half of the votes a la Michigan and Florida?  

    I saw that and laughed. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:25:24 AM EST
    When compared to the '60s (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by nellre on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:17:26 AM EST
    This feels fake.
    "This " being the Obama phenomenon.
    I was there then. I am here now.
    Then seemed more real.
    Now seems more high school.

    I was too young (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:32 AM EST
    to be there but I agree with you. Boomers also had a larger stake because of the draft. Today you can either be a cheerleader for the war or a protester like today's college kids with no risk to yourself. Being an Obamabot is more like belonging to a social networking club like facebook where you meet new people who share your angst.

    I asked my God daughter who is a student at Tennessee why she is for Obama. I asked what he stood for and when she thought about it she couldn't think of a thing except of course change. She did say however it was cool meeting all the fellow obama supporters and she likes the rallies lol. In other words, she made new friends.


    Like church without the guilt? (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:52:11 AM EST
    As a Social Justice Catholic, I got the traditional guilt, plus a dose of "What have you done for your fellow wo/man?" guilt.

    There is real sacrifice involved in campaigning for candidate, but it's only short term.  That's why personality politics is doubly self serving.  If you get fired up  about a person rather than issues, when they let you down, you'll probably just move on.  If you are about issues, you'll probably be in it for the long haul, becoming one of many pesky grassroots gadflies holding every public servant accountable.

    Go gadflies!


    Wow (none / 0) (#86)
    by nellre on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:23:09 AM EST
    my feelings exactly!

    sorry (none / 0) (#90)
    by nellre on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:26:22 AM EST
    I laughed at my foible for several minutes.

    Ha! No worries... (none / 0) (#114)
    by tree on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:51:23 AM EST
    If you can't agree with yourself, well, then you've probably got bigger worries.

    Ok, Jarlyn, believe it or not (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:21:00 AM EST
    dissing the boomers is a play for your vote.  It's an Axelrod special.  I've been there, done that with Deval Patrick.  He's sticking a mirror in your face.  You screwed everything up, give the younger generation a try.  What is particularly galling about the entire episode is of course all but a few protestors were completely repspectful of the Vets.  Hell, that's who they were protesting for.  It's a rewrite of history written by conservatives, nice BO would exploit it.  Actually, BO is a late-boomer or early yuppie.  Yuppies never picked up the mantle of the boomers and their tremendous social justice gains.  They were the me first generation, so Obama's wicked narcicism is no real surprise.  This is like Deval Patrick all over again, without the heart or the work ethic.  Let's say BO does get elected and I don't think he will, no one will be happy.  He's campaigning without any sort of clear agenda, so whatever piecemeal he proposes in office will offend some segment of his supporters.  This is exactly what happened with DP.  This is such a disaster.

    What amazes me is to read Tom (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:23:18 AM EST
    Hayden say support Obama, all is new and good, plus, Hillary drop out.  Hayden has sold his soul.

    Hayden? (none / 0) (#91)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:45 AM EST
    Really?  That is depressing.

    He has posted at Huff Post (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:19 AM EST
    several times.  Avid Obama supporter, but scolding Hayden's former followers to abandon their old, tired ways and join him.  It is a new day dawning.

    So, what gives with Haydn (none / 0) (#95)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:56 AM EST
    Nation Magazine, all the other so called intelligentsia of the left?   Other than Krugman, who has not jumped on the wagon?  

    The deck is/has shifted and (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:36:07 AM EST
    everyone wants to be on the winner's side.  (Including Tom Hanks!)

    heh (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:24:30 AM EST
    I love phoned-in trolling.

    another election day hitjob by NYtimes (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by boredmpa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:40:07 AM EST

    "That's basically what get-out-the-vote money is," he said. "Paying to get votes."

    A lovely hitjob, that mentions obama, but is alll about Hillary.

    And this one isn't even under the cover of an op-ed or a new op-ed columnist.  I am thoroughly disgusted by the nytimes and how they selectively revisit recent issues with a heavy slant when it involves clinton.  

    Today's article, as it is a news piece, is more subtle than the KKK-3 am ad reference (the day of the Mississippi primary).  Or their new AA columnist  right before the NC election that branded clinton a racist.  However, it's clear that it's one-sided and it's also race-baiting.  A narticle about hillary paying hispanic citizens to GOTV in texas.


    It's jarring because: they usually don't review previous issues in the news (everything sinks down the memory hole or doesn't get reported); they already reported on street money; they call her out on old style politics and not obama; they ran a quote that clinton supporters aren't energetic; they don't effectively highlight class a reason to pay and instead highlight energetic obama workers as deserving of compensation; they discuss manipulating the elderly as the fear...scarcely a paragraph away from discussing those energetic college voters (who have been charged with bullying them).

    And then there is this winner:

    But even when entirely legal, the trading of campaign money for active political participation can raise awkward questions.

    ...And then they raise "awkward" questions about a AA Clinton supporter that paid campaign workers/contractors.  I will not call it street money unless someone shows me an audit that shows otherwise.

    Gah. This article, that talks about the campaign compensating/paying blacks and hispanics near the border in texas comes out the day of the WV primary.  Talk about race baiting...the media stereotype of anti-black and anti-immigrant WV folks makes this a clear article for them on election day /eyeroll.  It's as insulting as the KKK op-ed on Mississippi election day.

    sorry for the rant.

    I saw the headline and lede and (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:19 AM EST
    thought:  well, that is how the NYT plans to deal with WV primary results.  Disappointing but not surprising, despite the fact the paper endorsed Clinton.  

    Clinton phonebankers, you did well (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:43:29 AM EST
    in getting out a good turnout at the "old-fashioned rally" tonight, Clinton's last stop in WV before the polls open.  The rally brought the governor and many others to the mountain town of Fairmont -- a town I know well -- and you can see the local report here.

    I bet business was booming there tonight at the Poky Dot.  I hope she got to stop for a good, old-fashioned malted or milkshake, too.  If ever you're in the area -- and you ought to be, if you like lovely country; Fairmont is not a far ride from Pittsburgh, and don't miss Morgantown, either -- be sure to stop and say "hey" at the Poky Dot cafe.  It's a hoot.

    Heh that felt good. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:48:26 AM EST
    I don't know if she made it to the Poky Dot (none / 0) (#188)
    by liminal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    - but she did make a surprise visit to a Tudor's Biscuit World in Charleston, yesterday morning.  Wonder if she goes for sausage gravy?

    (I may be a WVian, but I hate sausage gravy.  Course, I am a vegetarian.)


    Practicing Obama Campaign technic (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Boo Radly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:43:37 AM EST
    Making new friends and influencing others. Let us unite....so wrong on so many levels.

    Reply to #80 above (none / 0) (#123)
    by Boo Radly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:48:32 AM EST
    This is in the wrong place...sorry...late

    David Horowitz, is that you? n/t (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:50:00 AM EST

    I was a Teenage Draft Counselor (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:24:11 AM EST
    at the tail  end of the war. We welcomed home many drafted veterans returning from Southeast Asia. We didn't denigrate them at our office. Most came by the office to unload  their war experiences on us. We listened and we cared. The stories were gruesome and tragic. A fellow, who returned with a bad heroin problem ( the GI drug problem was no small matter), told me all he learned in VN was how to fit "inside his helmet". He was 18 years old when he was drafted. His deferments had all been denied (he was from a poor, "unconnected" WV family).

    We anti-war DFH's cared more about these draftees than the warmongers and our government ever did, IMHO, and Obama can eat my grits on this matter.  

    Speaking of hurling insults, apparently Obama (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by tigercourse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:13:47 AM EST
    supporting College kids are hurling insults at farmers and truckers who have Clinton signs in West Virginia. At least according to Rasmussen.

    Our likely defeat in Novemver is well deserved.

    "is well deserved" (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:15:19 AM EST
    I am beginning to agree.  we do not deserve to win.

    We sure don't. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    If we let Obama steal the nomination by cheating FL and MI, smearing our only successful two-term President in recent history, and gaming the caucus system, we are rewarding behavior that is frankly unacceptable.

    Oh, and Obama's a sure loser too. So there's that.


    Hey Can't Deny The Kewl Kids Their Fun (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:52:38 AM EST
    Taunting Hillary supporters is worth sacrificing a state or two. After all, their idol has already set the example by entertaining his SF donors by marginalizing these very people. They are only following his example.

    yeah, well when this not so cool kids (none / 0) (#210)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    want bread, the latest ipod and other things that farmers and truckers supply, i say to them tough shix.

    they need to go work in a slum or school. do something worthwhile besides be rude.


    Do you (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:52:12 AM EST
    have a link?

    There were actually a couple of (none / 0) (#214)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:22 AM EST
    articles over at RCP.  The one I read had a woman on a corner with a huge sign.  Clinton supporters would honk and wave, Obama supporters were less than positive.  The article discussed the different demographics of the responders.

    This one just references what is going on.  I can't find the longer first person interview. It was sad.


    WaPo has a front page story on racism (none / 0) (#217)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:29 AM EST
    that the Obama volunteers are facing when they go door to door. It is a very interesting article.
    Apparently, they had no clue that there is racism in this country and that it might be directed towards them for supporting Obama. Well, I don't think racism is a good thing no matter who it is directed against, but at least those kids are getting a taste of what blacks in the US have faced for generations, and what Obama never had to deal with. And the story is about Kokomo, Indiana, and other points in the north, as well as Nevada. Not what one would call the South by any stretch of the imagination. It is sad, but it is real life, probably the first real life those kids have ever run into.

    Hanging Tough For Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:18:58 AM EST
    Officials from four labor unions that endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, say they will continue to lobby for her candidacy regardless of the daunting delegate math. One union is even hoping Clinton takes her battle against Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, all the way to the floor of the Democratic National Convention in August.

    Rick Sloan, communications director for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers says the union is rallying its members to support Clinton in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon.

    We continue to support Sen. Clinton," says AFSCME's Gregory King. "We're going to continue to campaign full-steam ahead."

    American Federation of Teachers and the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades are running their GOTV programs in WV, KY and OR.

    Nice to read something positive on primary day.

    I wonder how much our lady (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    will win by tonight.
    the MSM spin machine is in overdrive in an early attempt to minimize it already.

    last night on countdown (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:16:49 AM EST
    Olberman was basically laughing at the W VA primary and Clinton's campaign there, and by extension, the voters and citizens of WVA...and he's hosting the post--election coverage again. Said "bring your popcorn"

    what an a$$h^le


    I remember a time (none / 0) (#205)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:11 AM EST
    when I thought he was a nice guy.  What a stupid thing for me to think.

    I Just Hope That The Efforts To Discourage (none / 0) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:48:22 AM EST
    voters not to vote have not worked and she gets a large turn out. Need to rack up that popular vote total. I was encouraged to read about the GOTV effort by the unions that I posted above.

    Up thread, tigercourse referenced a report by Rasmussen that Obama's Kewl Kids were hurling insults at farmers and truckers who were supporting Hillary. If this is getting any play in the local media, the anger may help get people to the polls. Of course, these types of actions will ensure that Obama loses WV in November. But what the heck, taunting Hillary supporters is just so much that it is worth losing a state or two (or 3,4,5).  


    I hear from a friend in WV that (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:50:49 AM EST
    it is getting play in the local media.  and people are pi$$ed.
    we will see.

    I saw that Yahoo headline (none / 0) (#173)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:55:20 AM EST
    Media declares it is over for Hillary as she expects to win big in WV. Yep. That said it all, the MEDIA DECLARES. What, did Herst come back from the dead?

    I listened to Obama's stump speech (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by smott on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:54:24 AM EST
    on cpsan last night...heard him say those very things about the anti-war era.
    I found it a truly odd segueway into what he wanted to talk about, which was how we're treating today's Iraq vets.
    Nobody, but nobody today, is protesting the war the way some boomers did 40 years ago. WHen was the last time you saw someone spit on an Iraq vet for God's sake?

    Just a very odd thing to mention, unless perhaps to elicit shame from Boomers in the audience (which of course there are few!!).

    He went on to talk in his usual well-spoken way about improving the lot of Iraq vets, moving stuff like "vets living under cardboard in the richest country in the world", and so on. Very moving. So I kept waiting for his actual plan to help vets. Waiting for you know, substance? I got a mention of imprioving techhnollogy for the VA (I actually thought they were the most advanced system we have in terms of medical records and electronic data storage but whatever), and testign vets before and after they go (thought we did that too)....but as usual, absolutely no explanation of how it will work, how it will get paid for, no plan at all.

    Now maybe my expectations were high because I'd just got done listening to Hillary's stump speech, and she ticks of details like a friggen' machine. I'm reminded of a technologist (I"m in systems) reading a project plan to a room full of engineers.

    Less inspiring? Certainly.

    Substantive? ABsolutely.

    There's just no There There with Obama.

    no one spit on anyone (none / 0) (#176)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:59:22 AM EST
    BTW - got a call from the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:07:49 AM EST
    looking for donations yesterday.

    I immediately brought up MI and FL.  His response made it apparent that this was a familiar theme.  I told him to be sure to give me a call AFTER the DNC had straightened that out.

    We were both brief but cordial.  

    I'm a boomer (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by mystic4hill on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:09:59 AM EST
    who has 3 brothers who drew low draft numbers and didn't have to serve, and a husband in the Navy from  '68-'72. He served in the Western Pacific, and we never knew where he was or how long he'd be gone, as they were never allowed to say. He never spoke about his experiences, although I do know being in the Navy he was very lucky not to have gone through what the guys on the ground did.

    I know there are anecdotal incidences of returning soldiers being treated poorly. Yes, some "protesters" spit on them, or called them names. For the most part, these were fairly isolated incidences and not reflective of the majority of the anti-war protesters. From the stories I've heard, it was mostly that family and friends had no idea how to deal with the men coming home, leaving the guys to feel isolated, alone.

    The real injustice was done by the government. Agent Orange, poor health care, limited VA resources, completely ignoring the needs of the men coming home. Sound familiar? We haven't learned much in 35 years, have we?

    And it seems to me that the so-called protesters who did treat the soldiers poorly are very much like the Obama supporters who spew their hate toward anyone not joining the Obamacult. There's no real message, no substance behind their actions, just an excuse to vent their prejudices and bigotries. This is the unity that Obama exemplifies. This is the unity that Obama creates.

    Obama is a disgrace, and the fact that he's gotten this far in his political career is proof to me that this country hasn't progressed one step forward - I don't care what color his skin is.

    Yeah, just consider me one angry, typical white (female, Jewish, over 50) person.

    thanks for the correlation. true all! (none / 0) (#211)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    You have a point, we are angry (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:53 AM EST
    we are angry at what the corporate greed and the enabling Republicans have done to this country. We want a different country, we want THIS country to be different. And we are going to change it. With or without you. I hear that some right-wing sites are still up and running, why not try there?? I am sure they will be more than happy to agree with you. Don't let the door hit you in the fanny on the way out.

    Obama says Its "About my church..." (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:06 AM EST
    "...not my pastor."

    OK, what exactly IS Obama's church of 20 years?

    According to the church website:

    The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.

    What is is Dr. James Cone's book "Black Power and Black Theology"?  Overall, it is a positive movement, but does have seemingly racist rough edges, or at least sound bites that could easily be exploited in a campaign, including these mentioned in Salon:

    Cone also said that Malcolm X was "not far wrong" when he called the white man "the devil," and "if God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."

    Perhaps, this in and of itself would not be additionally problematic for Obama, but when you add in the statements and philosophy of Wright, and the church's regular promotion and collaboration with Louis Farrakhan, it spells out a political problem that goes well beyond Wright and includes his church, in general.

    Obama needs to proactively distance himself from not only Wright but ALSO his church.  It is only a matter of time before the other shoe drops and the discussion turns to the church itself. It was fair game for Romney and it will be fair game for Obama.

    Lots of activity tonight (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:55:47 PM EST
    and some real decisions ahead.

    Remember when everyone thought we would have a nominee on Super Tuesday? Heh, those were the days.

    Over at MyDD , people think it was (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:02:23 AM EST
    over in February.

    My how time flies when you're having a good time!

    Run.  Hillary.  Run.

    It ain't over until our girl says so!


    what decisions? (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST
    hasn't the nominee already been crowned?

    Obama will be in trouble if he doesn't win OH.
    Obama will be in trouble if he doesn't win PA.
    And Indiana is a "tie-breaker"! If he doesn't win THERE he's in BIG trouble!


    In one way that's still right (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:15:19 AM EST
    Obama is in big trouble in the GE

    Edwards withdrew to make it happen (none / 0) (#4)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:59:42 PM EST
    Edwards withdrew... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:35:24 AM EST
    because he knew it wasn't happening for him.

    Keep in mind that Elizabeth has cancer --- both of them would have fought on if they thought he had a chance of winning, but he didn't.  

    My guess is that Edwards thought that Clinton would win if he got out, because Obama did not have the necessary support of the Democratic rank and file -- Obama finessed that by getting delegates in completely Republican states.  

    Had Edwards stayed in, Clinton would be the nominee, because the "anyone-but-Clinton" vote would have been split on Super Tuesday.  But Edwards didn't get out to prevent that from happening, he got out because the media shut him out, making it impossible for him to carry on a credible candidacy.


    can you imagine if Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:52:23 AM EST
    was in Clinton's shoes?  No way would they be asking him to drop out.  There'd be a handful of press rooting for him like crazy.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:57:15 AM EST
    but Obama's demographics are the same losing ones that the Dems have put up year after year.

    If you can't cut into the GOP's base of rural voters and working class whites, you can't win an election. It's been proven time and again.

    Obama has the Dukakis coaltion:
    Upper income whites, AA's and young people. He'll be lucky to get what Kerry had in 2004 in the general election. He's already losing in the EC to McCain and it's unlikely to change.


    I do not understand (none / 0) (#160)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:33:01 AM EST
    how Obama supporters can't see this. Sheesh!

    Why don't you go buy (none / 0) (#147)
    by suisser on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:11:19 AM EST
    a copy of  "Strunk & White" and then come back and try to insult us.

    Doubt it made a real difference (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:05:24 AM EST
    All he may have done was saved himself from having an incredible amount of power at the convention.

    Good point (none / 0) (#42)
    by dwmorris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:36:16 AM EST
    Once the Obama campaign polarized the AA vote in SC, Obama became unbeatable with both Clinton and Edwards in the race. Edwards deferred to the stronger candidate and the rest is history.

    If this theory is correct, I wonder why he's not endorsing Hillary?


    Oh Man (none / 0) (#5)
    by kaleidescope on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:00:40 AM EST
    What are under-educated white voters in Kentucky and West Virginia going to think of Country Joe?  Southern Methodists and Baptists aren't going to take kindly to "Give me an "F", and these are really, really important voters.  This could seriously hurt Democratic chances come November.

    Country Joe (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:09:22 AM EST
    Not what you think, in his own words, opposite of what Obama said todayhe is a great guy  
    ``I may dislike the generals and the politicians,'' he said of his anti-war days, ``but I never said anything bad about the individual soldiers.'' It's a sentiment he has carried to numerous veterans' rallies during the past three decades.

    ``It's bothersome to be mentioned that way,'' McDonald said, pointing out that he was trained as an air traffic controller and served from 1959 to 1962 in the Navy, stationed in Japan. ``I enlisted when I was 17 years old, and I've experienced what every military veteran has experienced -- a bell-shaped curve of emotions. Before you go in, you wonder about patriotism and you're scared and you're not scared. Then you go in and you learn that it's a lot more complicated than just a bunch of push-ups and pull-ups and shooting a gun.''

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#24)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:16:42 AM EST
    Country Joe (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:23:30 AM EST
    Never bashed the soldiers.  The link is an article of the work that Country Joe has done to support the Viet Nam Vets.  What did Obama say today?  Boomers putting down the soldiers.  Well if Country Joe is the symbol, the symbol never, ever put down the soldiers, he was one himself.  He understands the politics.  

    Here is the link to Country Joe's website (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    in case you didn't catch the link I put up earlier. He is doing a fun thing on July 1, trying to break the record for the number of guitars playing at once. The current record is 17,000 or something. Should be interesting. LOL

    Other stuff on the website is about what he is doing, has done and will be doing. He has never given up on the good fight. That is something Obama doesn't understand, some of us are still trying to get the US to be the place it claims to be, the place with liberty and justice for all. For many of us it isn't a policy paper, or a speech, it's is real life and we are living it.


    Do You Think That They Will Like Rev. Wright's (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:39:30 AM EST
    "God d@mn American" or Ayers whose only regret is that he didn't bomb more people? These are really important people that Obama will not win in November especially after Obama and his supporters tell them at every opportunity that they are stupid.

    Laura Rozen knows a lot about (none / 0) (#6)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:01:55 AM EST
    Bout. Check out her archives at warandpiece.com

    BTW, nice diary. I didn't comment (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:23:27 AM EST
    b/c I read it long after it was posted.  

    that music brings back memories. yeah! (none / 0) (#12)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:05:54 AM EST

    Even the BBC (none / 0) (#17)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:11:28 AM EST
    which I ordinarily like for its non-USA view of us, seems to have bought into the CW on the Dem primary season.  How can all the media ignore ~50% of the primary voters? CDS.

    Just looking at the math
    5/13:   WV = 39 delegates;  5 electoral votes.  
    5/20:    KY = 59 delegates;  8 electoral votes
    "   "      OR = 62 delegates;  7 electoral votes
    Hope I have the delegates right; it's confusing between district and at-large. Weird. What a screwy system.

    Betcha on 5/20 with BHO getting the majority in OR, and HRC taking KY by very plush double digits, the media will trumpet on about OR and hardly anything on KY -- which counts for 1 tad more in the GE than does OR.

    69-59 (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:15:41 AM EST
    So what the traditional news isn't telling you, and Terry McAuliffe isn't telling you, but I'm gonna tell you is that MI has, for all intents and purposes, been resolved.


    There's one more tidbit I wanted to share, from a discussion of what the DNC rules committee memebrs--as distinct from the muckymucks in MI who support Clinton but support seating MI's delegation more--want to do:

    But the punishment that the rules committee secretly favors is to take away all superdelegates (54) from both states, since it is elected officials like Michigan's Sen. Carl Levin and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, along with Sen. Bill Nelson from Florida, who encouraged these outlaw primaries.


    69/59 is stealing from Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:39:14 AM EST
    My post on Michigan is better than Marcy's, sorry.

    And even if they steal delegates from Hillary, they can't take away her numbers in the popular vote. Once they decide to count any of the MI delegates, they can't not count the votes.

    Hillary should tell them to go fly a kite with that deal. And the proponents of the deal are not, to my knowledge, Hillary supporters. I think they are uncommitted. And Ausman is not a Hillary supporter, he was an Edwards supporter.


    Yes I Read Your Post (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:22 AM EST
    And according to Marcy Hillary has rejected the plan. With a bit of digging it turns out that emptywheel is an Obama supporter, although not one prone to drinking kool aid.

    Since she is from MI so I thought it worth mentioning. Marcy notes that MI dem party is pro Hillary but has supported this plan. The implication is that Obama has accepted the plan, although I have not seen that in writing, but Hillary has rejected it. But if Marcy is correct and the MI Dem party is predominantly pro Hillary is seems logical that Hillary will accept the plan.

    Also according to Steve M in a comment from your post the four prominent MI dems that came up with the plan are most likely Hillary supporters.


    What are they smoking? (none / 0) (#27)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:21:17 AM EST
    over at the above-named link.

    "Smart tactical move by Obama to go to Michigan, as an outreach both to Clinton supporters and a signal to the Republicans that the battle has been joined. Do you think that Obama will have a significantly larger effect than Clinton on the downticket congressional races,..."

    Uh, no, I don't.


    Nothing's going to happen on 5/31 (none / 0) (#174)
    by mm on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:57:27 AM EST
    Unless and until they force Senator Clinton out, there is no chance for a resolution.

    Never was.  Never will be.

    I understand the DNC is now sending emails out explaining that this issue will be resolved after there is a nominee.  This has always been their plan.

    I listened to Senator Ben Nelson this morning on the Bill Press radio show.  He didn't have alot of nice things to say about the DNC and he also confirmed that there will never be resolution until they have crowned The Chosen One to Unite Us All.


    Another irony (none / 0) (#25)
    by zyx on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:17:13 AM EST
    I thought in 2004 and again this time that John Edwards has a too-short political resume to be running for president.  BUT unlike Obama, he picked a great big issue, one that has a number of important related issues, and he made it what he was standing for and running on.  And he did, in my opinion anyway, seem to be genuine and passionate in his dedication to working against poverty and for equality of opportunity for all Americans.

    But I study and study and study Obama, and I feel like a lot of people in that profile in Sunday's NYTimes article--can't pin him down on anything.  I know that he wants to be seen as "the conciliator" or "the moderator" or "the bridge", which tends to put him in that wishy-washy wherever-ground with a plausible reason for being there.  But I still have a lot of trouble figuring out who this guy is and what he will do for me.

    BUT I think we should vote for him in November for--the sake of the environment.  Republicans HATE the environment.  When the "free market" is the way to determine how much carbon to put in the atmosphere or how many fish to leave in the ocean, you're going to be leaving the grandchildren I hope to perhaps have someday all carbon and no fish.

    Then no Bill Richardson on the ticket (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:32:58 AM EST
    please, as he is anti-my environment, the Great Lakes.  He wants to drain it to send water west.  That did not go over well in the upper Midwest.

    Thus, the endorsement of Obama by Richardson and the talk of him on the ticket tells me that Obama is not good on the environmental issues, even the ones in his own backyard in Chicago.  

    Of course, part of the "Chicago Way" and the machine politics that gave us Obama includes polluting the Great Lakes for the sake of commerce.  But believe me, what's good for Chicago is not good for the Great Lakes, the Midwest, and thus the country.


    Ant-Choice Ted Strickland Would Be (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:00:54 AM EST
    a slap in the face. It would eliminate SCOTUS as an argument IMO.

    Meanwhile, McCain is distancing (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:38:14 AM EST
    himself from Bush's positions on climate change and the environment.  

    Before I took the LSAT (many years ago), (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:22:44 AM EST
    I worked through a study guide which include graphs I had never encountered before.  But on the actual test:  nary a graph.  

    No graphs on the current test (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:24:07 AM EST
    At least, not that I saw.

    Lieberman and Obama -- why so little attention? (none / 0) (#54)
    by jerry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:49:34 AM EST
    Surprised that no one in the blogosphere seems to be talking about Lieberman saying he would speak, if invited at the Republican Convention.

    I had heard that Obama considered Lieberman a mentor or something like that.

    In fact, the first google hit for Lieberman Obama is Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate a TalkLeft post....

    I have been told that we can never forgive Clinton for her vote on Iraq.

    Well, imagine what the Senate would have been like the past two years if we had had Lamont in there!!! and !

    Is this a move to try and mitigate (none / 0) (#75)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:15:32 AM EST
    the spread on the Ayers story that I saw being advertised on Fox whilst I was shooting pool tonight?

    No sound, but the Weather Underground references were unmistakable.

    Don't know, but I did read Obama (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:17:06 AM EST
    was also shooting pool today.  Will you vote for him now?

    I don't vote based on pool shooting :) (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:20:32 AM EST
    We're in playoffs...and I won the deciding match for this round.

    We have to play the top team on Friday.


    The Chicago Trib (none / 0) (#92)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:28:27 AM EST
    is reporting that he's now sporting a flag pin.

    Probably this one (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by tree on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:46:53 AM EST

    Frm the website:

    It's the perfect accessory for the ironic Obama supporter... and a wonderful "substitute for true patriotism"!

    Yes; such a coincidence. (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:32:36 AM EST
    indeed... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:33:27 AM EST
    Doom and gloom (none / 0) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:36:48 AM EST
    If Obama is nominated we have a choice between, Obama losing and we have the threat of doom or Obama winning, which will by a cloud of gloom.  Oye...!!  

    Let's hope for some Deus Ex Machina and some multiple and simultaneous epiphany among the SDs.  


    Agree; but, see, this is why I would (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:40:04 AM EST
    feel better w/Hillary Clinton as VP.  We need some sanity and savvy in or near the Oval Office.

    Yeah...but if BTD is right (none / 0) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:01 AM EST
    if they are only do it to marginalize her, then no.  But I think she is clever enough to outwit them.   Obama will be out doing all the Bush things and she will be doing the Cheney things.  

    You've probably noticed (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:20 AM EST
    BTD is changing his tune.  Too late, but, still . . . .

    I think he gave himself away (none / 0) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:58:14 AM EST
    there is one thing he is right about, the MSM darling.  They want him cause he represents the key demographic they are after.  Not unlike the Dem party, the MSM has been looking for ways to get that "key demographic", the younger folks and the higher income people.  Frankly, the DNC and MSM don't give a hoot about working class people, they were robbed during the Bush years, they got nothing the MSM needs: No buying power.  It's all about the "creative class", beacoup bucks.  

    Yes, it's the age of the liberal plutocrats. (none / 0) (#118)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:45 AM EST
    I think I may move to Canada.

    You don't honestly believe (none / 0) (#124)
    by daryl herbert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:48:49 AM EST
    that leftists would be happier somewhere else.

    Somewhere with higher taxes, more street crime, less economic opportunity, and less freedom of expression?

    Somewhere like England/France/Germany/Italy/Canada? All of which recently put right-wing governments in power.

    No, it's no fun being a leftist in a country where the only religious fundies are Muslims who suppress criticism by chopping off heads.  Can't make fun of them.  No, this is the best country in the world to be a leftist--that's why they all stay here.

    Country Joe (none / 0) (#130)
    by bernarda on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:09:57 AM EST
    If I remember correctly, Country Joe was himself a veteran, though he was in the army before the build-up in Vietnam.

    You should look up his song "Cakewalk to Bagdad" at his site "Country Joe's Jukebox".

    Relax (none / 0) (#139)
    by Munibond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:28:49 AM EST
    Took the LSAT more or less on a lark 30+ years ago, no prep, illegal and legal substance intake the night before, aced it.  Set aside your cares and focus.

    I am a boomer.I remember Body Bags on CBS (none / 0) (#145)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:05:46 AM EST
    I was in school when Viet Nam started and my brother was at U of Fla & was never drafted. It was a time when I believed my Government would not lie to me. It was a time when I believed all the line of why we had to be there. To stop the spread of Communisim. If we didn't stop them there, it would spread to the USA. Sound familiar? My why are these college kids protesting eventually turned into why are we in Viet Nam. Every night on TV we would hear Uncle Walter tell the number of Viet Cong dead and the number of Americans killed. You were always hoping for more of 'them' than us. A good day was only 10 dead. They would show some action clips and it did not look fun. Then some of my friends died. Then it was real. It lasted a long long time and I remember it being just a part of our everyday lives. It was like today. Not forgotten, but not constantly on everyone's mind. This was not the black and white films of WWII. It was not the same reason to be there or everyone pitching in. Viet Nam was a war of choice. We took it over from the French who did not succeed there either. It was my lifetime and it was very real. And 'I' know of no soldier who was disrespected during that time. Many had wounds. Many were in a place of horrible memories. Many smoked weed and didn't want to talk about it. It was a never ending unwinable war. Maybe that is why so many of us were against hopping into Iraq so fast. Obama is too young to remember those times. Obama has no right talking about Viet Nam. As a boomer, I was there in those times. He was learning foreign policy.

    spitting is not a myth (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:11:24 AM EST
    Yes Virginia, Vietnam Vets were spit on

    Jerry Lembcke a professor at Holy Cross, published a book in 1998 entitled "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" in which Lembcke asserts that Vietnam Veterans were never spit on. Lembcke, a staunch anti-war activist, member of "Vietnam Veterans Against the War", and to this day, a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy has become the sole "academic" reference for the repudiation of the spitting myth. To say he is biased would be an understatement.

    posted this for those who live by links. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:16:24 AM EST
    since repeated statements that I SAW IT HAPPEN were ignored yesterday.

    Now that you've proved your point (none / 0) (#175)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:58:33 AM EST
    let me ask you - what was likely the most traumatic experience any Vietnam vet experienced?

    Was something that happened "over here"?
    Or was it something that happened "over there"?


    let me share a story with you (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:17:45 AM EST
    one of my former service man friends told me this one night after many drinks with tears streaming down his cheeks.

    when they were in country they had this game they would play.  it involved food and starving children.
    when they would go through unfriendly areas they would travel in very tight convoys.  so tight there would only be a few feet between the trucks.
    this was the game:  starving people, children mostly he said, would line up along the road. they knew the game.  as they would pass by the soldiers would toss out rations between the trucks and bet on the ability of the children to get out in the road, grab the food and get out of the way before they were run over by the next truck.

    I had nightmares about that story.


    sorry, the point was (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    being spat on by some cluless student was the least of their problems.

    My point also (none / 0) (#207)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:41 AM EST
    but since I wasn't there, I figured I ought not speak for anyone who was.

    Moving beyond the war (none / 0) (#151)
    by thentro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:16:03 AM EST
    As a younger voter of 25, I am happy to leave the battles of Vietnam behind. Obama's 'treatment of veterans' line is an untrue cultural "fact" that I wish he would not promote but I very much agree that Vietnam is a political fight that provides nothing but a way for Democrats to loose 40 years later. Every election in my lifetime has been fought in the context of draft-dodging, war heros, and "dirty hippies vs the man."  Just look what they did to John Kerry.  

    Thats just my perspective, but it is a perspective held by many of my generation. This contest has always been about generational differences from the start and has since been unfortunately conflagrated with race. Remove voters over 55 and Obama wins. 55 and over only, and Clinton wins by a mile.

    I am sorry if any of this seems to be dismissing the Vietnam generation with all the effort and pain put into the Civil Rights movement and anti-war protests. They really changed America for the better at a time of great uncertainty. But I want to move on.

    Remove 55 and over? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:47:10 AM EST
    And send them where?  To the ovens?

    And what pray tell do you care to move on to?  Are you not interested in realizing once and for all MLK's dream?  Are you not interested in peace?  Are you not interested in women's rights?  I want to know.  What, oh ye paragon of under-55 virtue, do you stand for?  What do you want to fight for?  And change is an incomplete answer.  It's a verb without an object.  Tell me.  I want to know.  I need to know.  If you want me to vote for change, I have to know what the change is.  I'm difficult that way.

    And since you have obviously been on the planet less than 55 years, you may not yet have learned that the term you are looking for is conflate.  The only conflagration coming to us in November is the weeping and whining of Obama supporters.


    A change (none / 0) (#180)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:07:02 AM EST
    to the other side of the aisle. You are correct. I hear from Obama voters, he is for hope and change. What a crock. They can offer nothing else except that he and Hillary are so close on issues. Well, then vote for Hillary, not some agenda that is vague and blurred.

    conflate (none / 0) (#196)
    by thentro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:54 AM EST
    conflate ;) I plead guilty.

    But seriously, hold on the holocaust innuendo. What happens to you when you loose an election is you loose an election and go ahead towards fighting for the next one. We have all had that happen to us.

    We believe in all of the same things, however I believe the emphasis is different. The foundation of my generation is on MLK's dream, peace, woman's rights and more. Just as those goals were built on the dreams of generations before. Moving on is not rejecting, it is just recognizing that the tools and the language of the 1970s just don't work for me. I am not claiming any high ground or virtue thats just how I feel.

    I am fighting to get good Democrats elected to help create good government on all levels. We need international responsibility badly. We need to leverage the American government to start working again for larger American interests like heath care, environmental and energy stability, education, transportation, poverty .. there is just so much!


    It's another pander to the Republicans. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:01:12 AM EST
    After all, for the Dems, Vietnam represents a victory against the government, a time that people came together and made their voices heard.

    For many a Republican, it represents a painful and humiliating defeat, when the Mighty American Military was brought low.

    It's a cultural thing.


    Aw, the experience factor (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:24:10 AM EST
    First of all, boomers are still out there making money and we are the ones with the $$. The protesters of the 60's became the sex,drugs, and rock & roll generation which became the Silk, Leather, Gold, and Beamer generation of the 80's, and the technology/internet generation of the 90's. Please do not dismiss Boomers so quickly. Boomers define the era of babies born between 1946-1966. That means if you are 42 years old to 62, you are a boomer. 25 is a great age. Enjoy it but know that some day you will be 40 or even 55. Being political at 25 means you will be political at 50 and the rest of your life. If you like your opinion and vote counting now, you will love it counting when you are 50. Our parents had WWII or Korea, we had Viet Nam, and you have Iraq. In less than 17 years, will you like being put out to pasteur? I thought I knew everything by 20, was sure by 25, and went wow at 30. Everyday is a learning experience for all of us and we are all in this together. I don't dismiss your age group and so please do not dismiss our experiences.

    dismiss (none / 0) (#202)
    by thentro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    Certainly, to dismiss the boomer generation would be foolish. Rather, I see a very clear dividing line between the generations on the Clinton/Obama decision that makes both groups say in unison, "how could you vote for that kind of talk!" I think that is very interesting.

    it might surprise you to know (none / 0) (#213)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:40 AM EST
    I agree with you.  and I suspect many do.
    it is not us who have brought this up election after election.  it is the right wing and those who pander to them.
    like Obama.

    5678 Next stop Vietnam (none / 0) (#155)
    by Saul on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:20:53 AM EST
    That songs brings back a lot of memories.  I was in the service at that time, I was drafted.  69-72. I was just about to finish college when I got my greetings from Nixon.  I wanted nothing to do with the war.  I thought just like Iraq it was a big mistake.  A war rationalized  for such stupid reasons. The university I applied for had a ROTC program.  I asked them if I enrolled in their program would that delay my going into the service.  My thinking was if I did not do this my chances of ever finishing college or living would not be a reality.  The University wrote some letters to Washington of my request and it was granted.  For a guy that wanted nothing to do with this man's army, I graduated as a DMS distinguished military student.  I had no idea what that meant.  They told me that I would get a regular commission vs a reserve commission.  I asked what is that.  They said a regular commission is the same type of commission the west point academy gives out.  Basically it means you have a job for the rest of your life until you either screw up or resign your commission.  While a reserve commission is for a set number of years then your out or you can re up for more years if you want to.  The ROTC training at the University was strictly in artillery however they told me that because of my DMS status I could change to the another branch in the Army.  I really wanted to do this since the first job in artillery in Vietnam would be that of a forward observer.  They did not have any of the fancy computers they do today in the army.  They needed a scout to find the enemy withing 300 yds then call in the artillery fire on the enemy.  Unfortunately the life expectancy of a FO at the time was only 6 months. So I gladly change to combat engineers.  A little less risky than being a FO but still risky.  I was also granted my choice of my first duty station.  I picked Germany.  Accepting the regular army commission had it's caveats though.  I had to give uncle sam 3 years before I could resign my commission.  West Pointers have to give 5 years before they can resign.  Well I went to Germany as a combat engineer with hopes of staying there for my 3 year commitment.  What I was so surprise of  was the amount of West Pointers, those that want to be in the army, who found out within their first year of duty that they wanted nothing to do with the army. I felt sorry for them.   However, there was nothing they could do since they had a commitment of 5 years before they could resign.  The other bad thing of being a regular army office is that when you decided to resign they don't have to accept it.  After my three years were up in Germany I put in for my resignation.  I sweat it for a month to see if they were going to accept it.  Fortunately the RIF (reduction in forces) was under way at that time and they did accept.  Thank God cause I new my next stop as the song portrays 5678 Next stop Vietnam.  It was a terrible war.  It was a useless loss of lives war. It was the first war that was brought live on TV to families at home. I thank God I was spared in going there.  I honestly believe that if Kennedy would have lived the war would have never escalated as it did.  History now shows that there was never a Gulf of Tonkin incident.  It was manufactured to rationalize the escalation of the war by Johnson.  The protest was against the Government not the soldiers.  The protest was to stop the killing on both sides and bring the soldiers home.  The movie Platoon is an excellent portrait of the war since the main actor is portraying the experience of  the director of the movie while he was in Vietnam

    I remember, I think it might a been a song or a saying. where a soldier chosen to go to Vietnam said

    "Can I really go there and kill someone I never met  or hate"

    I am seriously starting to think I want (none / 0) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:29:22 AM EST
    these people to lose more than I want Obama to win.

    even the headline is to offensive to post here but you really need to see it:


    And John Kerry supports him because (none / 0) (#162)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:41:24 AM EST
    This is the ver argument the right used against Kerry as a part of the swiftboat arguments

    Geeze nice rightwing revisionist history.

    I do remember the war, the protests and all this craptastic rightwing lies...what's next is he going to accuse Senator Clinton of spitting on the soldier (one of the greatest rightwing lies)

    yeah, right wing myth. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:48:50 AM EST
    "...Now, it's possible that a Vietnam veteran was spat upon during the war years. Lembcke concedes as much because nobody can prove something never happened. Indeed, each time I write about the spit myth, my inbox overflows with e-mail from readers who claim that a spitting protester targeted them while they were in uniform."

    I'm preboomer (none / 0) (#163)
    by befuddled on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:41:26 AM EST
    An early post-Beat hippie, even. This thread brings back such memories. Bless the person helping in Afghanistan. I was there in the winter of 1969-70, before the Soviets, part of a backpack trip from LA to NY the hard way. People had no idea then how the war was perceived around the world. What an eyeopener to visit 16 countries on the ground and outside of cities. I started off somewhat anti-US and by the time I got to Paris was ready to fall on the ground and kiss it for being so close to home. In Lisbon I bought a red-and-white striped shirt and blue velvet bellbottoms and didn't take them off until I was back in Arizona. In your face, world! I was so happy to be an American, war and all, and the person who said it was all about patriotic engagement back then is also right on. We cared about America, not looking cool.
    I remember a lot of servicemen who were harder on the armed services than the anti-war groups, because they had been drafted. That continual injustice and uncertainty was what was the real problem IMO.
    Now I'm ready to take that trip again and see if anything is different. Except that it was pretty hostile before and I'm sure it's worse now--won't be rescued by Irani border guards. Won't be able to revisit the 15th century in Kabul.

    wow, memories (none / 0) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    I took a similar  backpack trip in 1970-71 (didnt we all? did you fly Icelandic Airlines?  HipHop airlines? $175.00 round trip NY to Luxemburg!) it was one of the most important experiences of my life.
    as you, I got so much perspective.  on myself. on my country.
    the thing that most stands out in my mind was how welcoming the world was to american students then.  even, for the most part, in areas where the government was not loved, hippies it seemed, were.
    we were seen as the hope of the world.  it was a great time to be alive.  post sexual revolution, pre aids, americans were loved and admired.
    we wont see those days again in our lifetime.
    many of my best friends also were former service men who had turned against the war.

    btw (none / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:12:41 AM EST
    this picture was the day before we left on that trip.

    Went the other way, Continental to Hawaii (none / 0) (#206)
    by befuddled on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:20 AM EST
    and then it got really creative. At that time you had to have either a plane ticket onward or at least $1200 cash to get visas many places. My husband and I had the tickets and almost no money, so we went overland as much as possible in order to cash in the unused air miles at the end. Got home with $100 and our company had gone out of business in the meantime. There was a bus route from India to London and many poorish people went that way. The best thing we had was a world map from National Geographic, we would show people where we came from, where we were then, where we were going. At that time it seems very many people thought the US was composed of California and New York City. They often wondered if my husband was Charles Manson, because he had a beard (although in other ways not the least resembling him). This is the world we try to sell wars to.

    thats great (none / 0) (#209)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:51 AM EST
    I spent my last 100 bucks on a fur vest on the return trip though the Iceland airport (amazing selection of furs in the airport) and left it on the airport bus coming into NYC.

    At least you had the hippie fur for a minute! (none / 0) (#216)
    by befuddled on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:20 AM EST
    I really wanted one of the deluxe embroidered "pimp coat" style sheepskins from Afghanistan, but too much--$250. Still, when I was there and people there were so poor that they thought 25 cents was a reasonable amount to charge for a hotel room, I could see that wearing one there would be like parading around a slum in a mink. It really hurts to think about the Soviets bombing the place and our own country helping back the mujahideen, including Hektamyar and Bin Laden, so that they could finish the destruction totally. It was almost more otherworldly than Sri Lanka, where we spent an idyllic month on the beach---which was wiped out in the Christmas tsunami--hmm, I should stay home.

    My bad if they are all rumors (none / 0) (#191)
    by smott on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:21:48 AM EST
    ...but I believe some HS friends of my brothers did in fact do that very thing. I Was too young to know for sure of courese.

    In any case vets were certainly verbally abused as "baby killers" and so on.

    I sometimes think Obama is angry at the Boomer (none / 0) (#225)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:04 AM EST
    generation, and the Civil Rights leaders who were older but had a real movement, along with the Democratic politicians and Republican pols who worked with them to actually enact civil rights and voting rights legislation, because they did something real and tangible, they lead in a time of real change, and he wasn't around to take part in it.

    Then, Boomers and others actually put their scholarships (some departments/professors gave A's for protesting; others demanded even more work if classes were missed -- I had the latter) and even bodies on the line to protest the war.  

    I can't prove this; it's a feeling I get from his various statements and how he talks about that period of time. To me it's a strange attitude for someone his age to have.

    Disdain, disrespect drips from his comments.

    But, then, I'm a leading edge Boomer, and marched in civil rights rallies and anti-war protests.

    I actually did stick daisies in rifle barrels -- at a ROTC practice at my university.  I've always felt vaguely uncomfortable about that: One guy said, "F**k you, expletive" to which I said something, probably "Make love, not war," but I really don't remember.  I do remember the anger in his eyes. I didn't want to make him or the others angry; I wanted to keep them from going to that war. Not the best way to do so, probably.

    But I don't get why he has to put down everything that was done by the Clinton administration. It's like all our ad,oratopm belongs to The One. There is room for none other. Cult, anyone?

    Military Recruiters (none / 0) (#227)
    by bernarda on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    There are several disguised military recruiters on youtube. They present ads for the Marines and like trying to convince naive young people to sign up.

    Occasionally, they let me post once and then ban me, but usually they moderate the comments and nothing appears. You might try to get on in wording your posts in obscure language. These guys aren't geniuses.

    Here is one thing to try to convince youngsters not to join. Worse than death, they risk coming back as vegetables or horribly deformed.


    The story of Tyler Ziegel.

    The treatment of returning vets varied greatly. (none / 0) (#228)
    by macwiz12 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    It really depended on where they returned. In places like San Francisco, protests sometimes got nasty toward individual uniformed vets. In other locations it was quite different. It should be remembered that tours were 365 days for the army and people rotated back to the states on an individual basis not as units (at least until near the end).

    My two deployments to Viet Nam were on an aircraft carrier. In both cases we steamed through the Virginia Capes early in the morning and manned the rail with the ship's band playing Anchors Aweigh as we approached pier 12. There were only friends and family waiting for us. We got a brass band reception.

    Technically speaking I was a volunteer. In reality I enlisted in the navy four days before my draft notice arrived. After the institution of the draft lottery in 1969, there began a noticeable decline in the activity on college campuses. There was the time when the draft law expired and was not renewed until about a year later. I was at Oberlin College in 69-70 (the college shut down after Kent State) and at the University of Michigan until the mid seventies. When the draft became less of a personal issue, the level of protests clearly declined. I also noted that those of us in VVAW, along with many others made sure that all protests were directed toward the power structure not the individual soldiers.

    Since many of us who served, particularly in the early years of the conflict, are now reaching our sixties, it explains some of our lack of excitement for Senator Obama. Those of us who disagreed with the war and especially those of us who are members of VVAW are not particularly inclined toward Senator McCain either. We are left with Senator Clinton. Senator Obama should study history a little more carefully before he makes comments such as he made.

    Personally, my favorite song of the time was For What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield.

    I have read your travels (none / 0) (#229)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:42:27 AM EST
    and the experiences are truly horrific.

    I stand in awe at your suffering and lack of knowledge...

    Someone made an interesting (none / 0) (#230)
    by camellia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    point way upthread, about Obama having spent part of his childhood living overseas and that maybe that has affected his sense of being an American.  I really don't believe that is true to any great extent, although I suspect that his mother did not encourage him to participate in the American community in Jakarta at all.  My family lived in Jakarta during two of the years he was living there -- the expat community was fairly small then, although I am sure it is very large now.  In those days, you knew or knew of most of the Americans in town, and would inevitably meet them at parties, the swimming pool, the Hotel Indonesia, the Embassy movies, etc.   She worked for the Ford Foundation, many of whose staff we knew, but neither my husband nor I have any recollection of her.  There are always some expats who take pride in living  "outside the herd", and I think this may have been a very strong influence on him.  And I am not saying there is anything wrong with being "outside the herd"--depending on the place, it is sometimes an excellent thing to do, but just that I suspect that his family consciously cultivated a sense of difference.   And, btw, did he learn to speak Indonesian?  At age 10 he would have been old enough to speak and read it, and to retain it when he left.