Reply #28: Your post is so full of fail I don't even know where to start

[no name no slogan]

but here goes:

The primaries pre-1972 didn't have nearly the weight as they do now. Most delegates were picked by the party apparatus in each state, so primary victories don't even enter into the equation.

Hell, Humphrey didn't even win a primary in 1968, yet he was the nominee. Neither man "rigged the system". The primaries were not the means for deciding the party's nominee. The nominee was decided by the party bigwigs, and not the rank-and-file. Was it fair? No! But that's how it was until the McGovern-Fraser Commission changes took effect in 1972.

And you'd be hard pressed to argue that Obama and/or Clinton are not "liberal" by today's standards. No, they are not the most liberal nominees we've ever had, but both are a far sight more liberal than McCain. ClintBama are not nearly as liberal as I'd like them to be (Dennis Kucinich is conservative for my tastes), but they are a damn sight more liberal than ANYBODY the GOP is putting up.

So no, 2008 is NOTHING like 1964. And anybody who thinks it is either has no grasp of history, or is fooling themselves.