FYI-Kennedy refused & snubbed Carter at '80 Convention.. SO why all the fuss now over Hillary?

[demo dutch]

Quote
But in 1980, when Carter sought his party's nomination for a second term, Massachusetts Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy fought him all the way to the 1980 convention in New York, where Carter made this appeal: "I reach out to you tonight, and I reach out to all those who supported you and your valiant and passionate campaign, Ted. Your party needs, and I need you."

Only when Kennedy failed to change the convention rules in his favor did he finally concede — sort of.

"For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end," Kennedy told the convention crowd. "For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on. The cause endures. The hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

Then, before the convention and the world, Kennedy snubbed Carter. CBS' Walter Cronkite described the bitter scene, saying, "Sen. Kennedy leaves the stand, sober, unsmiling. There will be no pictures in tomorrow morning's paper, and none for posterity, of Ted Kennedy holding Jimmy Carter's hand aloft."

Carter lost his re-election bid to Ronald Reagan.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91000807

This is nothing, so please don't get your panties/briefs, boxers whatever into a knot!!!!
She supports him & the concession is coming!!! he's not taking it to the convention, so, a big difference from 1980!

[Recursion]

1. And handed the GOP the WH for 12 years

The party didn't recover until a young governor from Arkansas finally fought his way to the top.

[demo dutch]

3. Heh that was Kennedy's problem, the Dems would never have won anyway that year

[Occam Bandage]

22. In the mass-media age, they've never won a year they took it to the convention.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. Not true, Carter was in a Truman 1948 situation

Where he was unpopular but not so unpopular that he couldn't win. In that situation you take your case to the people that you're better than your challenger. It actually almost worked but Reagan's stupid "there you go again" thing in the debate killed it.

[baldguy]

5. So? Why all the fuss?

:sarcasm:

[demo dutch]

6. Exactly, the Dems will probably lose again, so it won't make any difference, so

Should they have come up with better candidates?

[mcctatas]

23. Not helpful...

or true, but if it makes you feel better to trash OUR party, have at it...

[demo dutch]

35. Not thrashing, just considering how incredibly close it will be, which is something very few on DU

seem to realize. This contest will be won by Indies voting Dem and the Dem base

[OzarkDem]

8. Arms for Hostages & Iran Contra

In all fairness to Kennedy, it wasn't his fault. The GOP had already rigged the game, negotiating with Iran to give them arms in exchange for keeping US hostages until after Reagan was elected. They stymied Carter's efforts to end the hostage situation, costing him the election.

[demo dutch]

38. Please not just riggin the game, economy was in shambles, interest rates thru the roof, etc.

etc, etc

[blm]

16. fought his way to the top? You mean Jackson Stephens groomed him to cover up for BushInc

since GHWBush expected to be impeached after the Dec 1992 release of the BCCI report and the subsequent hearings based on that report that were sure to follow in 1993. A report that John Kerry worked to uncover and unravel for 5 1/2 years.

A report whose many serious outstanding matters ended up deep-sixed by Bill Clinton throughout the 90s as GHWBush, Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals, Marc Rich, Bin Ladens, AQ Khan and many other thugs involves with Poppy's illegal operations were let off the hook. That led directly to Bush2, and BCCI matters unresolved led to 9-11 and this Iraq war.

Fought his way? Poppy Bush and Jackson Stephens HANDED it to Bill because a few honest Dems like Kerry, Gonzalez, and Brooks stayed on Bush1's ass for his entire term.

[LanternWaste]

96. The ascendancy of the GOP was a direct result

The ascendancy of the GOP was the direct result of Sen. Kennedy's and Gov. Carter's primary fight? Really...?

In my years of reading political bio's, theory, and analysis, I've never heard that one before...

[leftynyc]

98. So why is Sen Kennedy lionized here?

Sounds like he single-handedly handed the white house to the pukes for 12 years (which is bullshit but I know if Sen Obama loses in November, IT'LL BE ALL HILLARY'S FAULT").

[Lucky 13]

2. Yeah, as in, he learned from a mistake.

I know. People seem incapable of it these days, but it IS possible.

[demo dutch]

4. Doubt that vm

[Lucky 13]

46. why?

[demo dutch]

57. Kennedy holds a grudge against the Clintons and acted accordingly

endorsing Obama earlier than most mayor super delegates, dividing the party when saying things like he hoped Obama would choose a running mate who is “in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people." suggesting Clinton isn't eventhoug their platforms are pretty much the same.

I would call that somewhat vindictive, & not exactly learning from a mistake really.

[Lucky 13]

67. KENNEDY divided the party?! That's a STRETCH!

What does this have to do with Jimmy Carter telling Barack that Hillary isn't a good VP choice? Jimmy made a bad calculation with Kennedy. That, along with independant situational reasons he believes Hillary is not a good VP choice for Barack. What the fuck does that have to do with Kennedy endorsing Barack early? That is non-sensical.

Incidently, I completely 100% agree with him. Barack and Hillary's platforms may be similar, but their method of business is a far cry from one another. He appeals to people's hopes while she bullies people into submission.

[demo dutch]

71. Lucky, that's a matter of opinion

[Lucky 13]

82. Can you explain to me what one has to do with the other?

Reread my previous post, first paragraph. I don't see the connection.

[Window]

7. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[demo dutch]

10. Gary Hart fought it all the way to convention too, & Daley handed the nominination to Humphrey in 68

& what happend to him we all know

[Occam Bandage]

18. FYI: We lost those years, too.

[demo dutch]

26. Because we had weak candidates

[Occam Bandage]

31. Of the last 10 elections, 9 were won by the party that wrapped up their nominating process first.

Claiming there's no effect goes against both history and common sense.

[LanternWaste]

97. You can provide direct cause-and-effect analysis...?

"Claiming there's no effect goes against both history and common sense."


You can provide peer-reviewed direct cause-and-effect analysis...?

Because without that, it reads no better than post-hoc ergo prompter hoc.

[Zynx]

55. Humphrey wasn't that weak of a candidate.

[demo dutch]

65. Yes he was, replacing Johnson when he dropped out, suggesting more of the same

[OzarkDem]

9. IOKIYAG

double standard - ok for men to fight to the convention (Kennedy had far fewer delegates than Clinton has) its considered macho. Women candidates - bitchy, psychotic, evil, yadda, yadda, yadda....

[demo dutch]

11. uh yes

[neverforget]

15. Right, it's all sexism.....

:eyes:

[OzarkDem]

25. More precisely, double standards

I was around when Kennedy challenged Carter and there was no hue and cry against him, no name calling, no open hostility and attacks from fellow Dems. In fact, I saw both of them give speeches during that primary. Ended up seeing Reagan, too, though I tried to avoid it. I couldn't get back into my office building without having to walk next to the stage :puke:

[demo dutch]

29. Edwards went home and took a few couple of days, so it's accepted

from males but not accepted from females, That's my point, This is nothing new!

[JVS]

91. You're off your rocker if you think that people remember that as Teddy's finest moment

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

12. And he emerged humbler

And crafted a legendary reputation as a parliamentarian. I'd prefer it not take Clinton sinking Obama for her to realize that there's life after not winning the nomination.

[demo dutch]

14. humbler? I don't mind him but humbler doesn't come to mind

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

36. Its ok

Your angry. It doesn't make Ted Kennedy less of an American hero, or you any more wrong.

[demo dutch]

42. We're all entitled to our opinions. Teddy also endorsed Kerry, & sorry so say

I didn't care for, but I held my nose and voted for him anyway

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

48. Senators Kerry and Kennedy are both incredible human beings

This conversation is like huffing glue. Note my use of 'your' rather than 'you're' in the previous post. And 'its' rather than 'it's'. Madness!

But whatever, you don't like them, so they're obvious sex criminals, or whatever point it was you were trying to make.

[demo dutch]

68. No, I'm just saying that they're just as divisive, as you are trying to make

Hillary out to be. At least she said she's supporting him, a lot more then what Kennedy did then. So why all the fuss?

[Peacetrain]

13. It is up to the canidate to let their supporters

know when enough is enough.. and if they don't.. and 1980 is a good example.. then then the divisions start to solidify..and you see people who are so stone cold to the candidate of thier party that they feel they have to go to the other party..even if it kneecaps their own best interests..and we are seeing that with people actually saying they are going to vote McCain..

[demo dutch]

21. My point exactly, so think again about alienating the Clinton supporters

[Peacetrain]

28. And the alienation of the Obama supporters??

That wind blows both ways..

[demo dutch]

33. to the alienation of Clinton supporters?? The core base, which Obama will need?

[Peacetrain]

37. I wish we could have had in here

what Minneapolis had last night.. would have been nice..

[Occam Bandage]

17. FYI: We lost in '80.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Yeah, what harm did it do in 1980?

:shrug:

[rucky]

44. We got 4 more years of Carter which solved the energy crisis...

and brought peace to the Middle East.

Where ya been?

[Hippo_Tron]

86. I thought President Gore did all of that

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/05/21/family-guy-%E2%80%93-the-world-is-beautiful-with-gore-as-president/

[fishwax]

20. and how'd that turn out?

:shrug:

[demo dutch]

24. We lost but for many other reasons!

[Occam Bandage]

34. We've lost *every* time we took it to the convention. A major reason those candidates were "weak"

was that they didn't have a unified party behind them (and that their opponents had a head start in framing the race).

[Peacetrain]

41. Yep...unified we could run Mickey Mouse

and take the presidency, the republicans have messed up so much..and the sooner we all get ourselves pulled together..the better off we will be..

[demo dutch]

43. Don't worry it will happen, so why all the fuss about a couple of days.

[Peacetrain]

47. You want the honest truth from me..just me..

[Peacetrain]

52. I am an Obama supporter..

I am also a 59 year old woman who wanted to celebrate everything that Clinton has accomplished last night.. and I did not get to do either in a sense.. I wanted to celebrate them both.... I feel ripped off :)

[demo dutch]

60. Feel free to express yourself

[Peacetrain]

74. I did see post 52

[JVS]

92. The GOP manages to do just that almost every 4 years.

[Peacetrain]

27. Don't for this is exactly

where the Reagan Democrats went to.. we are this close to turning it around..and we could if wouldnot picking at the scabs..

[Peacetrain]

30. Some day I will learn to proofread

where the Reagan Democrats went to.. we are this close to turning it around..and we could if would stop picking at the scabs

[cui bono]

32. Well, I wasn't paying attention to that primary.

That's my reason.

[demo dutch]

62. Well maybe you should go back and do some convention history research

[cui bono]

89. Should?

[SoonerPride]

39. We want unity, not civil war. She needs to bring her supporters around.

Not try to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[demo dutch]

50. She will & she said so, but you have got to understand that some of

those supporters need a little time. Obama will need all those votes (a chunk of the Dem base) in order to pull it off

[SoonerPride]

64. That's fine. But each day talking like she's gonna fight only makes it worse.

If she concedes with grace and class on riday and we present a united front against McSame, the Democratic party will be unstoppable.

[demo dutch]

79. Not necessarilly unstoppable, but that's a matter of opinion. Obama will

need every vote he can get from the Dem base, and the Indies or he won't make it. So you need to give the supporters a little time to come around, and yes it will happen at the end of the week, but some will not be able to come to terms. That's politics, so calm down!

[LordJFT]

40. and you want a repeat of this?

[demo dutch]

53. No, but you have got to understand that some of those supporters

need a little time to come to terms with the outcome. Obama will need all those votes (a chunk of the Dem base) in order to pull it off

[NashVegas]

45. Because They All Got Their College Degrees

Without studying US history.

[demo dutch]

51. I was thinking the exact same thing

[Occam Bandage]

59. Except for the fact that we're all citing that history as reason not to take it to the convention.

[demo dutch]

61. She's not taking it to the convention, she's already supporting him & has said so, a big

difference from what I posted!

[Occam Bandage]

63. She isn't supporting him yet. Hopefully she will on Friday, and she'll stop the daily

damage to the party.

[demo dutch]

70. She has already said several times that she would support and campaign for him if he

became the nominee.

[Occam Bandage]

72. Right. So let's get the acknowledgement that he's the nominee, and start

trying to make up several months' worth of lost ground.

[demo dutch]

76. Like I said, It'll happen by the end of the week, so calm down!

[Mezzo]

49. They're more anti-Hillary than Pro-Obama.

nearly always have been.

[lojasmo]

54. Well, I was 12 at the time.

Now I am old enough to realize what ass-hattery is.

[OwnedByFerrets]

56. The future of America and probably earth is in the balance....

so, yes, its kinda fucking important.:silly:

[demo dutch]

58. The world has been in much worse shape in the past then right now

Did you take any world history classes????

[Occam Bandage]

69. Well, that's debatable.

One might point to the Cold War threat of nuclear apocalypse, but one might also claim that both sides were rational actors and as such that apocalypse was unlikely. One might point to WWII, but the survival of mankind wasn't really at risk.

Global warming, on the other hand, threatens to make large inhabited swaths of the world completely uninhabitable unless it is addressed quickly and thoroughly. Meanwhile, Pakistan is unstable, and control of the state (along with its nuclear arsenal) might fall into the hands of xenophobic extremists any month. Meanwhile, China has been ramping up military spending, in a sign that its rise may not remain peaceful forever. Meanwhile, the price of oil continues to soar higher, and the world economy is beginning to show signs of teetering under the weight of energy costs--and that economy is all that's propping up many states around the world.

I wouldn't say conclusively that this is the most dire point in human history, of course. However, you could make a decent case to the effect that it's up there.

At any rate, "well, things have probably been worse" is hardly a reason to treat this election lightly.

[demo dutch]

What are you nuts? "the survival of mankind wasn't really at risk" with the

threat of a nuclear disaster???? Look kiddo, it would have been all over in a matter of days for the world, and no both sides weren't that rational. Do you even know how incredibly close it came during the Cuba crises? (If not check your history!) Whereas, we can make the necessary adjustments to change the "gradual" global warming situation, if not we are doomed, but not in a matter of a few days.

I'm not taking this election lightly by any means, but why all the fuss, y'all need to calm down.

[Occam Bandage]

83. Reading is fundamental.

"One might point to WWII, but the survival of mankind wasn't really at risk." As far as I know, Adolf Hitler was not threatening nuclear annihilation of all mankind.

As for the Cold War? Yes, both sides were almost completely rational. The Soviets acted more rationally than the Americans did through most of the war; the Chinese least rationally of all, but still were generally sane on the foreign front. And though perhaps the stakes were a bit higher through 1960-1968 (though, again, we can debate that with the hindsight history affords us), that hardly means that the current moment isn't highly dangerous, and so your casual dismissal of this election's importance remains inappropriate.

Oh, and for future reference? Acting like there's a possibility that your conversational partner might be unaware of the Cuban Missile Crisis only implies that the event is near the limits of your knowledge base. Given that it's one of the most high-profile events of the last century, it puts your constant appeals to history in a very unflattering light...

[demo dutch]

88. Reading is fundamental indeed.. Quote "your casual dismissal of this election's importance"

I clearly state that "I'm not taking this election lightly by any means", nor did I suggest that the current moment isn't dangerous, so try again. Global warming happens to be less acute that the missile crisis at the time, however if unresolved it obviously will become a threatening situation.

As for the other points you're making, about the cold war, Mr Know it all, I happen to disagree. You're clearly talking from an American (often skewed, I might add) written history viewpoint. That said, Sorenson's book is actually not a bad read on the severity of the crisis. Nevertheless, in case you didn't know it yet, there are other accounts out there in the world.

Finally, for your information German physicists built and tested a nuclear bomb in March of 1945. One could argue that if the war had lasted for several more years - nuclear annihilation might have played a decisive role in the war. Good thing it didn't come to that as you and I would not be having this conversation right now.

You should try reading "After the Empire" sometime, it will give you a new perspective on the United State of America.

[HeraldSquare212]

66. Reach high for your models.

[GoldieAZ49]

73. cuz its bambi

[thewiseguy]

78. Goodbye

[The Traveler]

75. OK ... let's get real

When Jimmy Carter takes office, the conditions for stagflation have already been established and the economy was headed that way. (We were already discussing it in my freshman economics course at Georgia Tech.) We were fresh from the multi-tentacular humiliations of Viet Nam (Iraq with foliage) and faced the chore of reviving a tattered military while fending off a variety of hostile powers just waiting for the chance to clean our clocks. The nation was absorbing massive change, and much of that change was unplanned, unwanted, unfamiliar, and down right scary in its economic implications.

One term presidencies are to be expected in those conditions.

Ted Kennedy ... yeah. Lots of people were mightily pissed off at him. I was merely one of many. The party was quite divided by his candidacy, people were bitter about it, and assertions to the contrary in this thread really don't jive with my recollections of those times, which include breaking up a fist fight outside Manual's Tavern in Atlanta. Of course, that was way before Internet based forums such as this so the screaming matches were considerably more tasteful and restrained. Given Kennedy's campaign against him, the outcome of certain unfortunate events on the ground, etc. Carter's re-election hopes were subject to a sudden crash.

The result ... nearly 28 years of inaction on achieving energy independence, facing up to the unfolding ecological nightmare that now confronts us, and a subtle but determined and sustained effort to revert social progress.

I'm no longer mad at Ted Kennedy. He continued his worthy work and has never surrendered. Jimmy Carter has been shown to be one of the wisest men of the 20th Century. But, still, here we are today ... confronting processes that bear real potential for turning the land of the free into a vast concentration camp of the soul.

So ... we gonna fight this thing? Or are we gonna fight each other? I don't care if a Black Man, a White Woman, or a Speckled Dwarf wins the nomination so long as that person is determined to fight this thing and has the heart, the head, and the hands to lead our people to that essential victory.

[demo dutch]

77. She has already said several times that she would support and campaign for him if he

became the nominee. But you need to give the supporters a little time to come to terms because Obama will need every vote (from the Dem base) he can get, otherwise he won't make it. So ya'll need to calm down until the end of the week.

[The Traveler]

87. I buy that

But at some point, people need to get focused on the fact we might be in very good shape after another four years of Republican mis-rule.

[kwenu]

80. It's 2008. And Republican rule has become vile.

[demo dutch]

81. So what are you so worried about?

[Occam Bandage]

84. The fact that 9 out of 10 of the last elections were won by the party that finished

their nominating process earliest? The only exception was Clinton in '92. Her several-month-long death throes aren't an assurance of a McCain presidency, but you can't claim they haven't been a handicap for Obama.

[cbc5g]

90. After Bush for 8 years, Unity is the most important thing right now

[RainDog]

93. uh, because Kennedy was wrong to do so?

and he hurt the democratic nominee?

and because many ppl don't think Kennedy is the best representative for the democratic party... just b/c he has the name "Kennedy," that doesn't make him a saint.

Dynasties are for monarchies.

Personal actions are for democracies.

[gort]

94. I thought TK was a dick when he did that

so I guess you know how I feel about Senator Clinton.

I do try to be consistant.

[Shakespeare]

95. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

Waiting to exhale come Saturday...