Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Perhaps apostasy in this new DU3 regime, but Obama now does have a progressive [View all]coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)2. Your derisive mocking aside, few people remember that Eugene McCarthy did not actually win
the New Hampshire primary. However, he scored highly enough to signal to LBJ that he needed to relinquish the presidency.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
87 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Perhaps apostasy in this new DU3 regime, but Obama now does have a progressive [View all]
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
OP
Your derisive mocking aside, few people remember that Eugene McCarthy did not actually win
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#2
You're falling for the 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' fallacy, I think. Be that
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#9
Nixon with his 'secret plan' to end the war 'with honor.' Hah! Nixon's secret plan
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#28
LBJ quit because he believed he was going to die in office, not because of how he was polling.
MilesColtrane
Dec 2011
#12
So it was pure coincidence that LBJ ran in the New Hampshire primary, allowed
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#14
I too have seen a recent (within the last 4-6 months) story by a long time LBJ aide/friend that...
MilesColtrane
Dec 2011
#32
It was a very cool story and plausible as an alternative explanation. I'm going to
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#40
Wow, I'm not sure whether to flag your post as racist (for the 'Brothers' slur)
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#10
That's a pretty crude thing to say about someone who doesn't have straight, perfect teeth.
in_cog_ni_to
Dec 2011
#38
Well, I thought I was performing something of a public service in posting this OP, never
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#17
The back-story here. I had put myself on Richardson's mailing list back when he first
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#23
Before Eugene McCarthy's challenge 'led eventually to HH's nomination,' that same challenge
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#27
Between Eugene McCarthy's challenge and Hubert Humphrey's nomination, you left out an assassination.
Capitalocracy
Dec 2011
#83
Nah, I'm good. I take Harry S. Truman's words as my motto: "If you can't
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#37
Wait. Dont go. We're here to back you up!!!! I'm with you. WE aboslutley need primary challenger to
robinlynne
Dec 2011
#61
Exactly. I would think that everyone here would have that same level of interest, but
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#25
To be honest, I agree with most who think this will be insignificant, but I want to KNOW, not think.
dmallind
Dec 2011
#39
Excellent observations. I find it hard to believe that Obama is less popular on the right of the
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#48
Look, I used to work for a subsidiary of the Los Angeles Times (before it went
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#31
That's an excellent point. I think that's part of what a primary campaign
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#29
We know that Obama will not do what he says. That is the only thing we know.
robinlynne
Dec 2011
#63
Apostacy? Making broad statements without facts is a cornerstone of DU not Apostacy.
grantcart
Dec 2011
#34
and odds are he will win those 4 states, but lose the other 46 + 4 territories
Motown_Johnny
Dec 2011
#47
Well, Richardson seems to be giving it the old college try, as his latest email
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#49
None - since this is in the primary only and only in a few states, that would not make sense
slay
Dec 2011
#58
I don't know much about him either and there seems to be quite a bit of contention (as
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#77
There are "New Democrats" and then there are "New Democrats". This is
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#80