Leaving the 60s behind?

[question everything]

This is kinda - I think - what Obama is saying, referring to Clinton.

But was she active in the 60s (meaning marching against the war, for Civil Rights, etc.)? I thought that she was a Republican then?

[KoKo]

1. One comment about "leaving 60's behind."

"Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it in the future." (bastardized quote from someone famous)


I think Obama is going off on the wrong foot when he keeps trying to put the past behind to focus on the future. Reminds me of Pelosi who says we need to concentrate on the future and not the what has been done by Bush in the past. And, you know what that's getting us.. "Impeachment is Off the Table."

[question everything]

3. Obviously nothing "fits all."

Clinton was talking about looking forward in 1996 when he was running against WWII generation Dole.

The wisdom is to learn from the past but not to be bound by it.

And... I suspect that there are many more people who remember the 60s, fondly, among the voters than, say, college kids or generation "whatever."

[AX10]

20. Obama has not concept of history. That is true.

"Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it in the future."
Obama forgets that there was a time where he would have to sit at the back of the bus, where a white girl could call rape and he would be lynched. Obama never what that was like, and clearly he has no concept of how bad it was.:thumbsdown:

[ilovesunshine]

2. Republicans weren't always as nutty as they are now.

Those of yesteryear would be viewed as Democrats today.

[question everything]

4. True. Even Nixon - gasp - would be considred liberal

by today's standard. After all, he established the EPA and removed the dollar's tie to gold.

I am not bashing Clinton for being a Republican then, I just wonder whether Obama's comment even fits her.

[zanne]

7. I think I finally understand what he meant by that.

I volunteer for the Obama campaign and I was talking to one of the city organizers a few days ago about Jesse Jackso and Al Sharpton. (The city organizer is African-American). He said that they were "from the past" and so extreme that they no longer reach many people. Also, they're inconsistent. (I admit that Jesse Jackson does say some outrageous things sometimes, but I still love the guy).

[goodgd_yall]

12. It's only extreme because Americans have been sedated

for the past 25 years or so---beginning with Reagan's reign. Somewhere along the line we've lost touch with reality and have succumb to Right Wing interpretation of reality.

[question everything]

14. Interesting. The other day Jesse Jackson said

on Blitzer that he admired Edwards for being the only one to bring poverty to the front, but that he was not going to vote for him, preferring Obama, instead.

[1corona4u]

5. Here's what I said yesterday, and I am dead serious...

Democrats need to be very careful about how much further to the left they go. Otherwise they will stop getting the Ind's to jump over. I just changed recently, and some of the opinions on this board guarantee that after this election, I will go back to the center. I am still slightly left of center, but some of the progressive ideology I see on here, is too much for me. I'm all for change, but not at the expense of our nations traditions, or forcing people to accept progressive ideology in our everyday lives.

We all know the republicans went way too far to the right, and just look at how much trouble they are in...

[ilovesunshine]

6. Once again, I totally agree with you! eom

[ixion]

9. dems go further left? Huh? They've been headed right for years

I think there is a flaw in your logic.

[1corona4u]

11. Only a rabid progressive would see it that way...

surly you're not one of those, are you?

[ixion]

16. nope, I am one of those independents you speak of...

and I'm still waiting for BOTH parties to decide to behave like a rational adults, rather than a rabid third-graders. ;-)

[1corona4u]

21. Well, so was I until a few weeks ago...

but the luatic fringe I see building to the extreme left is dangerous. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

[ixion]

22. why? What have they done that makes them dangerous? The right has been responsible

for the abrogation of the Rule of Law, our Constitution and Bill of Right. They Right has been responsible for illegal invasions and the deaths of millions. The Right has been responsible for the dumbing down of America, the crappy economy and our loss of international standing, and yet you say the left is dangerous. And the so-called centrists have been enablers all the way. So I am curious: how so? And please be specific.

[1corona4u]

24. It's not really what they say, it's more about....

how they purpose to get there. I also object to their incessant screaming about the issues. See my other post.

[ixion]

37. I asked you to be specific

and 'screaming' about issues (many of which are valid) doesn't make them dangerous. :hi:

I'm not a leftie, but I do think they get blamed for many things that are not their doing, all the while the extreme right (read: most of the people in government today) are causing lasting damage to our country.

[loyalsister]

40. exactly

He's talking about the tension and the antagonism that is bound to continue if a new approach is not cultivated.
He is interested in finding ways of trying to deal with the everyday things as well as the important solutions that are less combative.
If it's not him. Someone else should grow up and do it. It's about time.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

13. Funny that Eisenhower and Nixon would be considered far left today.

Clear air, clean water, safe food, working infrastructure, fair taxation, health care, workers protected from exploitation, separation of church and state and above all,

the Constitution, upon which our entire system of checks and balances is based, are progressive values.

Which should be abandoned?

MKJ

edit spelling

[1corona4u]

23. And, oddly enough...

not one of the issues you mentioned even weighs into my opinon. I don't see those as extreme left issues at all. The extreme left can't claim to own them. If you think so, then clearly, you have not studied all of the candidates, and their issues.

Of course if you're alluding to DK being the only one who's right, the problem for DK is, that he is not a good leader. He lacks one thing, and I see it as a critical personality defect, and that is; Temperance. Temperance reflects a need for the mixing and blending of opposites. Dennis has a deficit in that.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

28. The Right definitely doesn't own them, though. They have done everything they can to take them from

us.

I'm not alluding to Rep Kucinich, specifically, but the Democrats are historically and currently the party which is promoting these values, the R's are going for fear, and that's about it.

In your estimation, what constitutes "far left"? MKJ

[1corona4u]

32. I'd rather not say...

It's very personal, and even my close friends and I don't discuss it.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

36. LOL.

Well then, I'll take your stern warnings much less seriously then. Sounds like some kind of personal issues at stake here.

We'll just leave this between you and your god.

MKJ

on edit, added more.

[goodgd_yall]

15. The Democratic party has been moving to the right

Maybe you're confusing the Party with what you see posted on DU.

[1corona4u]

25. Could be....

[Jade Fox]

18. These days the Founding Fathers would be considered "too far to the left"....

Either we honor the Constitution or we don't. Either we have honest government or we don't. Either we have fair elections or we don't. Insisting on these things does not make a political party "too left".

[Crunchy Frog]

26. This board is not representative of the Democratic party establishment.

This board is way to the left, and is NOT representative of the direction of the party as a whole.

I hope you'll be open minded enough to at least be scared off by the right thing. Maybe you should swear off internet forums (which tend to attract the extremes) before you get an excessively blinkered view of American politics.

[Kucinich4America]

29. The flaw in your assumption is that all "independents" are leaning right wing

I won't use the word "centrist" because it means nothing in a time when corporatist warmongers get away with labeling themselves as "Democrats".

Point is though, that there are as many if not more independents left of the Democratic party as there are to the right. What about them?

They were on board in 2004. They might not have liked Kerry (he wasn't my favorite either) but they voted accordingly, because removing the Chimp was a national emergency. And many of those same people felt yet again betrayed when Kerry through in the towel in Ohio.

(Yeah, I know... Blackwell, Diebold, Carville. But that's not the subject of this thread)

Why don't we try to win back those voters, a natural part of the Democratic base, rather than waste all this time, energy, and money on the so-called "middle" who honestly didn't KNOW that the brain dead son of George Bush would be a shitty President?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. I think she was a Goldwater R, probably based on her parents' influence.

As one who lived the same kind of situation, at least politically, Goldwater, Dirksen and Eisenhower were giants among the young people of that time, and that's the men and women raising families in the 50's, 60's. As I came of age in the 70's, those names were the standard by which all other R's were measured.

These were genuine leaders, not noecon fundie corporo-entities, like the R's we see today. Goldwater interestingly lost to LBJ, in part because he advocated for using advanced weaponry in Vietnam, which horrifically ended up being used by LBJ, who is for my money, the most fascinating of all the politicians of that time.

I don't know that Sen Obama can wish the 60's away, though.

MKJ

[Eric J in MN]

10. Barry Goldwater wanted us to use tactical nukes in Vietnam...

...and other radioactive devices to defoliate Vietnam.

LBJ didn't do that.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

17. Yes, napalm actually provided the defoliation without resorting to nukes.

So, LBJ acheived the objective, Goldwater had the bad luck to actually commit to one particular WMD.

The consequences of utter destruction were the same.

It was ironic, in a horrible way.

MKJ

[goodgd_yall]

19. No, LBJ opted for napalm

a "kinder, gentler" defoliate?

:puke:

[Lucinda]

27. Hillary in the 60's:

From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton


"...In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science.<15> She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year.<16><17> However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position;<16> she characterized her own nature as that of "a mind conservative and a heart liberal."<18> In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.,<8> and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.<19> Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty.<20> In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association.<21><22> She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her changing political views.<20> Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.<20> Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention.<20>

Rodham returned to Wellesley, and wrote her senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky under Professor Schechter (which, years later while she was first lady, was suppressed at the request of the White House and became the subject of speculation as to its contents).<23> In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students,<24> she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.<22> According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.<25><26> She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement;<8> she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.<27> That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions)..."

[question everything]

35. Fascinating. Thank you

I think that anyone of us should be proud of such a history by our leader(s).

She certainly was a thoughtful, serious young woman and not, as others, including McCain, are trying to portray - a hippy following sex, drugs and rock n roll.

Whatever Obama is using to distinguish himself from her - blaming her 60s behavior is the wrong approach.

[H2O Man]

30. Democrats who seek

to win the presidency always focus on leaving the past and entering the future -- JFK is clearly Senator Obama's model on this, so it's curious how the people from the 1960s are offended by this.

Republicans who seek to win the presidency focus on a longing for a time in the past when father knew best.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

31. Such a good point.

Although JFK is from the 60's, I guess that part's OK. :-) MKJ

[rufus dog]

33. Obama does NOT say to ignore the past

Read and listen closely to what he is saying! His issue is with the people involved with the fights. It became so divided that if X was for one thing then Y would be against it. Not on the merits of the issue but purely on being against the other person. There are so many emotional ties and some just can't let it go. So if Hillary magically found away to solve all the problems of the world a great many people would say she is wrong because she is Hillary. Because they show pictures of her and Bill looking like liberals from the 60's. Others see Newt and other righties as preppy assholes who said one thing but did another.

So Hillary is NOT going to find solutions to all of the problems of the world but the solutions that she will propose will get bogged down into an endless generational cluster fuck.

I think a lot of people under 45 and over 65 see it!

Take Gay rights as a current example. My 13 year old kid came in during the last repub debate as the General was speaking. She asked me why so much time is spent during the debate on Gay Issues, and she is correct. I have never discussed the issue with her and her comment was "If they want to volunteer what is the issue. She then said she heard a kid at school talking about her aunt who couldn't have her partner in her hospital room and said that was stupid. It is really a simple issue if presented correctly. If someone pays taxes, buys insurance, they deserve the same rights as everyone else. One of the generational problems is the fight becomes 60's free love, moral values from the FREE LOVE crowd. It isn't, but it becomes a diversion. So Obama's point isn't what those before him achieved it is that he can achieve more by being a different messenger.

One final thing for you to think about before flaming. Why do you think Bill said I didn't inhale as compared to Obama's comments on the same subject. And which one will have an easier time moving on and driving the discussion?

[Skidmore]

34. I think he's saying that there are some fights which are so

entrenched but which have been corrupted or mutated to the point where people have lost sight of why they began. The rhetoric surrounding them has become so hollow. Times have changed and it is not the world we grew up in. It is better in some ways because of the civil disobedience of the 60s. On the other hand, there has been much ground lost. An example of this is reflected in the undermining of the feminist movement to the point where the word is seen derogatory, and there are young women out there who do not understand how limited the choices of any kind were for women of my generation. The fight should not be the same old one but one for its time and a new generation. We also need to keep incessantly refighting the Viet Nam War. It may be the war of our generation but it is not the war of the generation who come after us. Apply lessons from it, but stop fighting it. We are dying out as a generation, and the standard that those who follow carry forward must be one that makes sense to that generation. We were right on a good number of things, but wrong on others. Failing to recognize that has been exactly what has gotten us to where we are now.

[Alamom]

38. Hillary was never registered as a Rep. She changed parties prior to her 21st BD.nm

[AtomicKitten]

39. Taking a phrase out of an entire quote for dissection is rather disingenuous.

It completely distorts its meaning by taking it out of context.