New Hampshire 1968: A Primary That Really Mattered

Voters in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont may well decide on March 4 who will be the Democratic presidential nominee. But whatever the outcome, it won't come close to the historic impact of the 1968 New Hampshire primary, a catalytic event that changed the American political landscape and the way we elect our presidents.

It may seem like ancient history now, even for those of us who were there 40 years ago. But when the ballots were counted on March 12, 1968, Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota had won 42 percent of the vote, compared to 49 percent for President Lyndon Johnson. In fact, when Republican write-in votes were included, McCarthy had come within 230 votes of defeating a president of his own party.

McCarthy's candidacy, which harnessed the energy and idealism of young people all over the country -- read Barack Obama -- was dismissed by the so-called experts as a quixotic children's crusade. But his unexpectedly strong showing -- a classic example of exceeding expectations -- had an immediate and explosive effect.

It set in motion a series of events that soon forced President Johnson from office; drew Sen. Robert Kennedy of New York into the race (tragically leading to his assassination three months later); triggered violent anti-war protests that disrupted the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that fatally undermined the presidential campaign of McCarthy's fellow Minnesotan, Vice President Hubert Humphrey; put Richard Nixon in the White House; and set the stage for the eventual withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam.

It was the first primary I covered as a young Washington correspondent for Minnesota newspapers, but I could see that something special was happening in the snowy landscape of New Hampshire. Despite press criticism of his low-key, pedantic style and his refusal to attack Johnson, McCarthy deftly exploited a growing disenchantment with the escalating war.

McCarthy, who originally intended to bypass New Hampshire and concentrate on the Massachusetts primary a week later, didn't even go to New Hampshire until Jan. 25, just six weeks before the primary. A Gallup Poll showed he would get about 12 percent of the vote, some of it from people who confused him with the Red-baiting Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin.

The campaign was poorly organized and badly underfunded. The total McCarthy for President bankroll in New Hampshire was $400, $250 of which was donated by the uncle of a local organizer's wife. When McCarthy was asked how he intended to compete with Johnson's control of the party apparatus, he replied, "We'll live off the land." (When I asked him in late 1967 if he was committing political suicide by challenging Johnson, he said, "Wait until those coffins start coming home to the small towns in Minnesota and around the country, and you'll see the American people turn against this war.")

Then, in the early morning hours of Jan. 31, lightning struck for McCarthy as North Vietnamese troops launched the devastating Tet Offensive that stunned U.S. forces, shocked the American public and disproved the claims of Johnson and his military advisers that the North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong were being defeated and, like the Bush administration's present claims about the war in Iraq, that we were winning. Suddenly, thousands of New Hampshire voters -- and millions of Americans -- were asking the same questions about the war that McCarthy was raising.

The Tet offensive, and reports that the Pentagon planned to send another 206,000 troops to Vietnam, sent thousands of college students who were willing to be "clean for Gene" flocking to New Hampshire. (One was a Wellesley student from Illinois named Hillary Rodham.) Aided by the goodwill they engendered with New Hampshire voters and heavy-handed tactics by Johnson supporters who questioned McCarthy's patriotism and experience - read Hillary Clinton - the campaign peaked at exactly the right time. When the polls closed, New Hampshire instantly transformed McCarthy from a hopeless underdog into a serious candidate for president.

On election night, a jubilant McCarthy paid tribute to the "New Politics" that he personified. In a midnight speech at the Sheraton Wayfarer in Bedford, N.H., he told his ecstatic supporters, "People have remarked that this campaign has brought young people back into the system. But it's the other way around. The young people have brought the country back into the system."

McCarthy, who died in 2005 at the age of 89, ran for president four more times, the last time in 1992 when he got less than one percent of the vote in the Granite State, where few people noticed, or even remembered, the man who made history by running against a war the American people had grown tired of.

Comments

[4cats4]

In 1968, Bobby Kennedy stayed on the sidelines till AFTER New Hampshire, after Eugene McCarthy had proved it was safe to challenge Johnson. The Kennedy campaign acted as if they were the only ones in the race, as if THEIR candidate had been the one to stand alone against Johnson. Then, after Kennedy was shot, the Kennedy campaign's Powers that Be refused to get behind McCarthy and stood by while Hubert Humphrey figuratively and literally embraced Mayor Daley, who had given orders to beat the young protesters.

There was no mystery why so many of us refused to vote for Humphrey after that. It was my first presidential election, and if I had it to do over I would still write-in McCarthy rather than give the seal of approval to the corrupt Democratic establishment.

[enoughalready]

The one that should remember the most is Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Republican, that came out for McCarthy. That is what's happening now. It's Obama that has lit the fire under the youth of America and moderate Republicans are taking a look and seeing what they like in Obama.

We need Obama as the nominee for our party. He's the one that will get the swing voters and cross-over voters. He also win a few of the southern states.

Obama 2008

[MsLiz]

Another significant fact about this primary: Voters had to be 21 to vote in 1968, so college aged New Hampshire residents could not vote for McCarthy.

I was young, but we watched all of President Johnson's speeches in my house, so I heard his withdrawal speech shortly after the primary. Johnson had a sad, tired face. Then CBS showed college students in the streets, cheering and singing "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead."

Terrible things ensued. MLK assassinated, RFK assassinated, Mayor Daley sitting like Jabba the Hutt in the convention hall, the police beating protesters (it was determined to be a police riot, not protester riot), then Nixon was elected. In 1972, we were still at war in Vietnam.

[mrconnecto]

A very relevant historical perspective and recounting. Where would the last of the boomers (b.1963) be without you folks? Thanks.

Oddly, Obama, who I support the most, reminds me of Reagan -- someone you vote for on faith, vision, calm, and trust. May the Senator deliver the goods in the end.

[gloria1129]

My very first volunteer work as a teenager was stuffing envelopes for Eugene McCarthy, having skipped school and snuck into Manhattan to do whatever I could to elect a man who offered a REAL change. My friends and I were just discussing the difference between our movement and this Obama movement. Ours was a movement about issues and ideas, about values, and we supported the man because he espoused those ideas and values, and stood on the right side of the issues. This new movement seems to be about the MAN (something one could never say about McCarthy) -- it's more reminiscent of the Beatles craze than of a serious movement.

Our movement remains the same, and Hillary remains committed. Ending poverty, gaining equality, taking care of children and the sick, and saving the planet from our worst selves. Supporting Hillary is about supporting ideas and values, and also about turning those ideas into action. It's what we were after in 1968!

[alkamm]

Hillary's position on the war is a cry very far from Eugene McCarthy's on Vietnam. We supported McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy because they took a firm stand against that war rather than weasel around it as Hillary has done with remarkably twisted consistency.

No, Hillary resembles Hubert Horatio Humphrey, a fine liberal compromiser who used his insider connections to grab the nomination and lose the election because of his compromising with the horrible debacle in Vietnam. Hillary voted for it, so she stands accused of flip flopping, unlike Obama.

Supporting Hillary is to support a lot of baggage involving Washington insiders/bullies who are willing to continue the politics of division and fear for their own gain. How unfortunate that Obama is attacked for being the MAN, a pop phenomena like the Beatles craze! If you stand in a caucus with Obama supporters you find that they are thoughtful people of all ages, classes, races, and political persuasions. The canard that Obama is not espousing ideas and values, or that he does not stand on the right side of the issues is a shabby little political fiction, and the voters will see to it that such slanders do not stand. Time to send Hillary back to the Senate to do her good work.

[Citizenofreality]

As a lifelong Democrat, I take offense at the notion that those of us who voted for Barack Obama are a bunch of swooning adolescent Beatles fans. I am middle aged and lived through Viet Nam and the 68 convention. I can and do read and am fully capable of making an informed decision. I will vote for Hillary if she becomes the nominee, however I don't feel at this time that I would feel comfortable doing volunteer work during the election should she get the nod. Both the Clinton and the Obama camps have been guilty of trash talking and vilifying the other side, but Hillary's camp can't and won't win any converts by demeaning the intelligence of Obama's supporters.

[MsLiz]

Well said. No one is ever persuaded by ridicule or name calling. Keep our eyes on the prize.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"Our movement remains the same, and Hillary remains committed. Ending poverty, gaining equality, taking care of children and the sick, and saving the planet from our worst selves. Supporting Hillary is about supporting ideas and values, and also about turning those ideas into action. It's what we were after in 1968!"

Ummm. I think that, primarily, we progressives were trying to STOP A WAR in 1968?

Perhaps you've forgotten the debate held between the Presidential candidates a few months back? The candidates were asked whether they could promise the American people that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term in office -- in 2013, fully five years from now.

Senator Clinton said NO, she could NOT make that promise.

Don't feel too bad about it, though. Obama and Edwards also said no.

[MsLiz]

About ending the war. Think about what to do when the engineer of a speeding train leaves (whatever). Does a new engineer take over and safely slow the train down, or does he jump off and hope for the best? Shortsightedness has been the hallmark of our middle east policy for decades. Let's do better.

[tecumseh80]

Unfortunately, a period before my time. And I suppose as a youngster I must add a couple of points. This time, it is not a battle between white men - say what you will but that has historic proportions. McCarthy was a good man, Bobby a great leader who died before his vision could be enacted, but Hillary and Barack as our leaders - just using their names alone - reveal the vitality of this new era.

Second, this time around and in this historic election we shall win the White House - we shall win!