America's 40 Years War at an End

How fitting--even how poetic--it is that Barack Obama has clinched the Democratic presidential nomination during the week in which we mark the fortieth anniversary of the death of Robert F. Kennedy. This harmonic convergence has deep significance.

These events may come to be seen as the bookends of the second American civil war, a war that has divided the nation and been a dominant force in our politics for four decades. There is genuine reason to hope that 2008 will bring at last an armistice--maybe even a lasting peace--in America's Forty Years War, the internal conflict more commonly known as the Culture Wars, which began in 1968.

Of course no peace will be achieved before those who have been the main political beneficiaries of the Forty Years War launch their final offensive--and we can be sure that it will be offensive.

There are a variety of words that have been used as deadly weapons over the course of the Forty Years War. The one we are already hearing fired at Senator Obama from the artillery of the side that faces serious danger of losing the war this year is elitist.

While she still had a chance to win the nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her supporters eagerly joined with Republicans in asserting that working-class whites will not vote for Senator Obama if he is perceived as an "elitist."

In a recent piece on the Huffington Post, "Barack Obama and the Unmaking of the Democratic Party," distinguished Princeton historian Sean Wilentz forcefully made the argument that Obama and his advisers are elitists who are rejecting the traditional core of the Democratic Party among white working-class people in the Middle Atlantic and Border States.

But the contention that the traditional Democratic working-class voters won't vote for Obama if he is not perceived as "one of them" is belied by historical precedent.

Elitist has been one of the most powerful epithets in the American political dictionary from the earliest days of the Republic. But elitists come in two brands. Through most of American history, the derogatory term was used by those on the other political side from that which has so effectively utilized it during the Forty Years War.

Although they did not always use the specific word, American democrats (whether capital-D Democrats or not) from Thomas Jefferson through Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Bob La Follette, and Theodore Roosevelt, identified themselves as opponents of economic elitists--designated during the Populist and Progressive Eras as "the Interests"--and thereby won the backing of "the People."

Some of the champions of the People, such as Jackson, Lincoln and Bryan, were from humble origins themselves. Through most of American history, however, there was no necessary contradiction between being from a privileged background and being a champion of the "Common Man," as the examples of Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt show.

Members of the cultural elite were acceptable as leaders of the struggle against the economic elite. This circumstance was particularly evident in the decades from the onset of the Great Depression into the 1960s. During that period, two of the modern presidents most beloved by working-class whites were plainly not "of the people."

Franklin D. Roosevelt came from an undeniably elite background--the Hudson River country gentlemen, Groton, and Harvard. His cousin and uncle-through-marriage had been President of the United States. Pince-nez perched upon his nose and he used a cigarette holder. Yet he identified himself with the downtrodden and most of the American working- and middle classes adored him. FDR left no doubt about whom the elite were when he denounced "economic royalists" and, firmly linking himself with their opponents, proclaimed that he welcomed their hatred.

The New Deal coalition brought together urban working-class whites, rural Southern whites, African Americans, intellectuals, and the arts community, including most of Hollywood.

The elegant, über-upper-class John F. Kennedy ultimately came to elicit the same sort of adoration from large segments of those same classes. As Theodore White noted in his classic, The Making of the President, 1960, "no phrase is more damning" in Kennedy's "personal lexicon" than "He's a very common man" or "That's a very ordinary type." Yet many among those "common men" came (some of them even while he was still alive) almost to worship JFK.

Beyond the elite demeanors of their leaders, both the New Deal and the New Frontier were the almost exclusive provinces of "intellectual elites." It was with reason that the late David Halberstam referred to the Kennedy men who became the architects of the Vietnam War as "The Best and the Brightest." Yet the intellectuals around FDR and JFK were, for the most part, seen as the allies and champions of the "common man," not as his elitist enemies.

Even more than his brother, Robert F. Kennedy succeeded during his 1968 presidential campaign in winning the affection of the disparate precincts of the New Deal Coalition. That Coalition died with Bobby Kennedy forty years ago this week. Its breakup also marked the beginning of the Forty Years War.

The defenders of the traditional, economic elite found that the elitism weapon could be turned into a boomerang--or an unexploded hand grenade that they could hurl back across the lines before it detonated. (Such right-wing populism was, of course, not new in the late 1960s; it had been evident at various points earlier in the nation's history, perhaps most notably during the McCarthy Era. But its greatest successes have been achieved over the past four decades.)

The charge of "elitism" is one that Republicans have heaved at Democratic candidates to great advantage since the Sixties. Indeed, the Republican Party has been running as the anti-Sixties party for four decades now. That has been the main casus belli in America's Forty Years War.

It was in the 1960s that the Republican Party--long (and still) the party of the economic elite--found a way to redirect the anti-elitism of Main Street from its traditional target, Wall Street, toward other thoroughfares that were disliked by Main Street: Pennsylvania and Telegraph Avenues and Santa Monica Boulevard, not to mention Harvard Yard.

The key figure in achieving this redirection was Richard Nixon, who understood the social and cultural resentments of Middle America because he so fully shared them. Nixon could tap into the rage that growing numbers of Americans were feeling in the late Sixties because he felt it, too. Significantly, Nixon had been a pioneer "McCarthyite" in the 1940s, before McCarthy himself joined and gave his name to the political attack on the "Eastern Establishment" elite.

Beginning in 1968, Nixon was the commander-in-chief of the army that launched the Forty Years War. A young Patrick J. Buchanan was its chief strategist. They set out quite consciously to divide the country, to launch a civil war that would be politically advantageous to their side. As Buchanan infamously put it in a 1971 memo to Nixon, his strategy was to cut "the country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half."

The belief that there are two, essentially incompatible Americas Nixon and his aides thus encouraged was a very different notion of "Two Americas" from that John Edwards has spoken of in recent years--and from that Franklin Roosevelt had implicitly spoken of in the mid-1930s.

Buchanan called his plan for a new American civil war "positive polarization," and positive it certainly was for the political fortunes of the Republican Party. For the nation itself, though, the polarization that was intentionally encouraged by Nixon, Buchanan, and those who perpetuated the strategy in later years, such as Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, has plainly been very negative.

The Republican officers and troops in the Forty Years War could not have been so successful had not their designated opponents walked into their ambushes time and time again. Most notably, in 1972 George S. McGovern reprised the role that had been played almost a century earlier by George A. Custer. Nixon's Sitting Bull massacred the cultural elitist Democrats, who had discharged many of the party's usual troops prior to the battle.

Shortly after his huge victory, Nixon perished from self-inflicted wounds he had incurred on the 1972 battlefield. This loss of its commander caused a temporary reversal of fortune for the anti-cultural elite forces, but they soon regained the offensive when Jimmy Carter provided them with a new target and Ronald Reagan, having come over from the other side, both politically and culturally (he had been an ardent New Dealer and, of course, he came out of Hollywood), took command of their troops.

Reagan was a leader who managed to score major political victories in the Forty Years War, but almost all of the spoils plundered in battle went to the economic elite in whose interests the war was really being fought. Reagan talked a great deal about the cultural issues dear to the hearts of the "anti-elitist" voters that had been won over to the Republican side, but he was simultaneously winking at the other side, indicating that he really wasn't going to go too far in the culturally conservative direction.

By this time, the ranks of the cultural warriors had been swelled by a large number of new recruits who fancied themselves to be Christian soldiers, marching into (rather than as to) war. Those fresh troops helped an elitist who was plainly not one of them, George H.W. Bush, keep the Republicans in the White House in 1988.

By somewhat blurring the cultural elitist issues while emphasizing the economic issues that were troubling so many of the descendents of the old, broken New Deal Coalition in the early Nineties, Bill Clinton was able to win an important battle in the continuing war in 1992. A series of tactical mistakes during Clinton's first two years in office allowed Newt Gingrich to lead the other side to victory in 1994.

It was left to George W. Bush, arguably the first president since Nixon who was really "one of us" in a cultural sense, to carry the cultural warriors to the point of complete smashup.

As long as the basic American division was defined as cultural war based on categories left over from the 1960s, the economic elites were able to count on the support of those at the other end of the economic spectrum: the very people their policies have been keeping down and pushing down farther. If the division is instead defined an economic struggle, the lower classes are likely to be on the other side.

Accordingly, in their attempts to keep the eyes of voters--especially economically hard-pressed white voters--focused on cultural issues so that they don't notice what the economic elite is doing to them, Republicans have raised the specter of "class warfare" every time Democrats attempt to point out to the victims of the economic elites what is being done to them by Republican policies.

In 2008, however, the consequences of elite economics on the middle and lower classes are so stark that it will be much more difficult for Republicans to hide them by firing their customary canisters of Culture War tear gas.

Barack Obama is the first post-Sixties presidential candidate. As such, he will be much harder for the Republicans to tar with the brush they have used, generally successfully, for so long. But they will certainly try. It's the only weapon they have at their disposal.

Obama opened himself to a renewed "elitist" attack by his opponents with his April faux pas in San Francisco about people getting bitter and clinging "to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Some supporters of Sen. Clinton, along with Sen. McCain and other Republicans, said that the San Francisco remark reflected what Sen. Obama really believes and that he is in fact an elitist who not only cannot win over working-class whites such as those in the regions bordering on the Ohio River, but doesn't even want to try to appeal to them.

Nonsense.

Professor Wilentz warned that there will be "a Democratic disaster among working-class white voters in November should Obama be the nominee" because, he contended, Obama and his backers are ignoring and rejecting this demographic as "essentially racist." But here's what Obama actually said in his San Francisco talk:

"The places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. . . . Everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna vote for the black guy.' . . . But the truth is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

Obama, in short, was saying that white working-class people have been being shafted (by the very economic elitists who denounce Obama and other Democrats as elitists) for decades and that they have every right to be bitter, but that doesn't mean that they are racists or evil people.

Certainly Obama's color is an obstacle as he seeks to identify himself as "one of us" and win back the white voters who have usually voted Republican during the Forty Years War. But that obstacle is neither insurmountable nor one that Obama will not work to surmount. Indeed, he has already demonstrated in his 2004 Senate race how well he can overcome that difference and identify with working-class whites in southern Illinois.

In an election in which there is an overwhelming desire to turn the page, being "one of us" is, like experience and foreign policy capacity, not a comparative question, but a threshold question. Bill Clinton met the "one of us" threshold in the last "it's the economy, stupid" election by saying to economically troubled Americans, "I feel your pain."

For forty years Republicans have usually succeeded in pushing a cultural definition of "us" that linked Democrats to a "them" identified as "elitists" and so obscured the extraordinary degree to which the GOP was actually working for that traditional "them," the economic elite.

If we continue to fight the Culture Wars that arose out of the 1960s, Republicans will have an entree with the people they and the economic elites they represent harm on a daily basis.

But the combination of the chariscuro rendering the Bush administration has painted of how totally the Republicans have been working in the interests of, well, "the Interests," with Barack Obama as the first post-Sixties presidential candidate provides a great opportunity for the Democrats to get voters to see the GOP as the Gone Old Party and for the United States finally to bring its second civil war to an end.

Division is what civil wars are all about, and as the chief strategists of the "conservative" forces, from Buchanan's "cut the country in half" at the beginning to Rove's 50.1 percent politics at the end, made clear, the country they sought to rule was the Disunited States of America. This year we have a real opportunity to reject their divisions and end the long civil war that began four decades ago. Doing so will reestablish the United States of America.

Both the essence of the Forty Years War and how it can be ended is well captured by modifying another of the famous utterances made by Hillary Clinton's husband:

It depends on what the meaning of "us" is.

Historian Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters at Millsaps College. His latest book, Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America, has just been published by Crown. He is currently at work on a new history of America in the 1960s, Oh Freedom! (Norton).

Comments

[RumiSouth]

Di you know that 70% of the nerves between your brain and your ear actually run TOWARDS the ear? In other words, we tell our ears what to hear, not the other way around.

Which explains why Obama can make a statement like this:

"The places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. . . . Everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna vote for the black guy.' . . . But the truth is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

But his opponents hear:

"Join the Communist International! Eat the rich! Kill whitey! Black power!"

[charlesrfd2003]

No, this was the 40 year counter attack by the racist-ultra nationalist factions in our culture. The neocons are the descendants of the Manifest Destiny crowd that waged 21 years of formal and informal war against Mexico and who tried to extend political control over Cuba and Central America. The children of Manifest Destiny were the Carry the Big Stick and the White Man Burden people who intervened in various Latin America countries and forced the Platt Amendment on Cuba-Guantamino.

The post-WW-II events saw American power in economics, political and military expand. We have troop in 140 countries including the heart of Asia. The Neocons who are the children of the Carry the Big Stick people will not stop because Obama's election. The will try to buy him, to marginalize him and to find away to destroy him.

The culture war continues for for the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans to reject the racist thinking that leads to the ultra-nationalism as espoused by Bush, his cohorts.

The culture war rages. Yet organized people can defeat these people. The Big Stick People and White Man's Burden people were partially stopped by organized Cuban revolutionaries who appealed to the everyday American. The United States to recognized the sovereignty of Cuba; however, the United States still forced unilateral stipulations on the relationship with Cuba. Most Americans cannot tell you what the Platt Amendment was but the average Cubans probably know.

History is repeating.

[deadbolt]

All this talk of the 40 years war being over is a bit reminiscent of Bush's Mission Accomplished blunder. While it is true that we've come a long way and the Obama's nomination sets a new standard and could not have been accomplished just a few short years ago. We are only half way to our goal of electing Barack Obama as president. Before us is the presidential general election and I'm sure the republican party will do everything in their power to smear Senator Obama and will not hesitate to use his race against him.

[dartagnan]

GOP = Greedy Old Plutocrats. For too many years the Democrats have followed the strategy of the DLC and ceded the economic high ground to the Repukelicans. But I believe those days are over. The 2006 congressional elections showed how economic populism can allow Democrats to unseat Republicans in rural and blue-collar districts, and it happen again in 2008 -- and beyond. If the Greedy Old Plutocrats accuse Dems of "class warfare," the response should be: "How come you guys only yell 'class warfare' when the working class starts shooting back?"

[elizaW]

I think it's worth noting that if you believe there's very little difference in the positions taken by Clinton and Obama...which many Obama supporters use as an argument as to why Clinton supporters should switch to their guy - the question that raises is why was Obama running in the first place. If there was already someone in the party who saw things the way he does, why step into the race at all? Answer: EGO. Ambition. Narcissism. Can't have it both ways. Can't try to lure Hillary's supporters by saying we're all on the same page without admitting that there was no need for Obama to run except for his own self-interest. This is especially true since polls have always put Hillary in front of Obamamwhen it comes to beating McCain. You can try to talk around it but the fact is Obama is in this race not for us but for him.

[djelimon]

"If there was already someone in the party who saw things the way he does, why step into the race at all? Answer: EGO."

Nonsense

Two people can want the same things, yet one can person can objectively be better at achieving those goals than the other.

If thinking you're better at something than someone else is hubris, then we are all guilty of hubris. Although others might call it confidence.

In this instance, one common goal was to achieve the Dem nomination under the Dem rules. Yet somehow one party was better at achieving this than the other. This is objectively measured because, as we can see, one person won the nomination and the other didn't.

I find it interesting that you see Obama's throwing his hat in the ring as a sign of vice, yet do not fault all the other people who threw their hats in the ring. I guess ideally according to you there should only ever be one candidate representing a given political position running for any public office, because there's only one way to go about achieving objectives. To be honest I find this notion counter-intuitive.

[djelimon]

"This is especially true since polls have always put Hillary in front of Obamamwhen it comes to beating McCain"

Not ALWAYS, no. I wonder why people have elections and primaries when they have polls?

[McPander]

This is not a true statement....the DLC wing has proven that they campaign for the primaries on left of center policies then become more republican than Republican for the GE. Hillary would govern more to the right than John McCain just like her husband did.

This is why Ms. Clinton voted for the war.....along with other DLC democrats.

[Heaphy]

The single most cogent reason for his entering the race is that Obama opposed the war in Iraq in an eloquent and prophetic way from the very beginning. Hillary Clinton made the mistake of voting to give George Bush the authority to go to war. Obama's superior performance in the primary campaign negates all theories by pollsters and pundits about who is more electable against McCain. Barack Obama is our candidate, and now is the time for everyone who opposes McCain to unite around Obama. Leave analysis of the primaries to historians, as we have a far more important task now - victory in November. Thank you.
- Jim Heaphy

[valleygent]

Still fighting eliza?? Who are you fighting? All of you Clintonistas are just inflicting wounds upon yourself and what truly matters...a Democrat in office in November.

[rmreddicks]

Interesting article. As with any interesting article there are points that might be argued. Below, while not an argument is a concern.

"The places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. . . . Everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna vote for the black guy.' . . . But the truth is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

I'm certain that few people have read the entirety of Sen. Obama's S.F. statement. But that self-desired omission along with Sen. Obama's almost lack of personal presence in West Virginia and Kentucky during the primaries (while I don't think it will unduly harm him in the general election) is going to be an issue. He doesn't have to spend so much time in Appalachia but he needs to spend important time in Appalachia. It's necessary to begin to draw these people in. There's more than 2008 at stake.

[djelimon]

"But that self-desired omission"

Proof? Source? How do you know Obama approved the MSM parsing and decontextualizing his words? If this is just your opinion, what is the rationale for having it?

[rmreddicks]

Self-desired omission by those who heard MSM parsing and did not look deeper. Sorry for any confusion.

[rmreddicks]

Obama supporters are going to need clear, strong thoughts and tough (maybe occasionally mean) heads in the coming months. This may be the ugliest election ever seen. It might be as milquetoast as Clinton/Dole but I don't think so. Be ready.

[rmreddicks]

and perhaps "settle down"

[oncethere]

I basically agree with Mr. Mcelvaine's analysis, but, to be fair, the youth in the 1960's began the process of dividing America we were the first generation to really widen the "gap" between young and old, liberal and conservative. But, in contrast to the "40 years cultural wars," the youth movement in the 60's was spontaneous and unorganized.

I hope that we are coming to the end of the Conservative Era. It has been mind-numbing and it has stifled, as Marcuse would say, Eros, the life and creative forces in us all. Thom Hartmann, on Air America, often says the Conservative movement stands for death, "Thanatos."

I do think, though, that the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Savages of the world will have to be discredited in order to pave the way for a new,more enlightened era.

[Wisterley]

Not to be 'elitist' but you spell 'chiaroscuro' incorrectly. The usage is bizarre but you might at least spell check. Otherwise it makes it hard to take this piece seriously.

[MKBARNUM]

"Robert S. McElvaine : How fitting--even how poetic--it is that Barack Obama has clinched the Democratic presidential nomination during the week in which we mark the fortieth anniversary of the death of Robert F. Kennedy."

Good Lord! This could be interpreted as a "poetic" expectation--or even encouragement--that some modern looney follow the forty-year ago June example of Sirhan Sirhan.

[daddysboy]

Thank you for coloring in the rough sketch I've had in my head for some time now. You have explained quite a few things in a way that I haven't been able to by connecting some people and events I had yet to see were related. While a story like this is never the complete truth, I believe this explanation is closer than many of the ideas that have been posited so far and makes recent books come to mind like 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' among others. One thing I happen to disagree with however is your assertion that this is even possibly at an end. I believe that we are on the cusp of an even larger offense that may very well bring about total collapse of our government if the voters can't decide in their minds and hearts that race doesn't matter once and for all. The one thing the poorer half of America (if I can be allowed to cut it in half) have in common is poverty - black and white; if they don't see that, they are not yet seeing anything real at all.

[statsguy]

Interesting analysis, but you may be putting the cart before the horse. The elitism argument is a red herring for the broader difference between RFK and Barack Obama. What made RFK so memorable was his ability to bridge race lines by bringing together lower- and middle-income people of all backgrounds together. Obama, unfortunately, did not go that route. He has melded two groups with uncomfortably different and sometimes opposing interests. Poor blacks have embraced Obama, as have upper-income blacks and whites. Poor whites and Latinos have not embraced Obama, and his message has generally excluded them until very recently. I wish Obama was RFK, but you can't be RFK when your base is composed of wealthy, postgraduate whites (no matter how well meaning they may be).

[djelimon]

"Poor whites and Latinos have not embraced Obama, and his message has generally excluded them until very recently. "

Which Barak Obama have you been watching?

The MSM may not talk about it much, but these groups have indeed been addressed.

Bittergate was typical decontextualized crap. He was telling his people that "appalachians" aren't racist, just cynical from systematically getting sodomized fr 4 decades. And polls show most Hispanics favour Obama over McCain.

Yeah, Hillary claimed these people as her own once, but that's all over now.

[navalflightofficer]

You disagree with the comment without adding anything concrete. The facts are that a large section of Catholics, whatever type, are conservative. Not the neo-con stuff that many on Huffpost seem to equate with conservativism, but true conserviatives. Many Hispanics (and others referred to in the "bitter" comments) are Catholics. Whether Senator Obama understands or not, they are not bitter because of Republican tricks. They are bitter because no party can find a way to help them realize a country that respects conservative values while making economic opportunity available and sensible.
To mimimize people's strong beliefs by equating the basis of their beliefs on political machinations is to belitle those people.

[rmreddicks]

RFK was a complicated man in a complicated time in personally complicated situation. I want to believe and at times I think he was. (Fill in any presumed blanks for yourself).

I think you're wrong about "Poor whites and Latinos" and I don't think the Obama base is wealthy postgrads. We may find that base in some amazing places.

I don't understand your perception of "red herring" nor "cart before the horse" within the context.

[mollyjackson]

Mcelvaine description is out of touch. We do not have racism in this country. We have underclassism, broken-familism, single-momism, you're-a-victimism. We have the failure of the Great Society-ism. We have a bunch of isms that are genuine, but racism, said to be the root of all these, is not. If we were as racist as the DNC wants to portray us, there wouldn't be the phenomenon known as Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, etc. I could go on down the list. There wouldn't be Obama, Ken Chenault and American Express, Dick Parsons at Time Warner, Stanley O'Neal at Merrill Lynch, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and there are countless other examples. And all of the truly achievement-oriented black leaders who don't fit the liberal mold are ignored or they are impugned.
So while the media is trying to catch up with old news, first black president, and signals they're ready to acknowledge America's fairness, ask yourself, why dose the media say they're in the news business when they're actually in the old news business? What they thrive on is the past, narratives, action lines, and templates. Congratulations are due to Obama, but not for being black, what an insult. Hey, congratulations, Obama, welcome to politics, the first black presidential nominee. What an insult. The reason you congratulate Barack Obama, he's a guy who took on and beat the pantsuit off the Clinton machine, even if he did crawl across the finish line.

[djelimon]

"We do not have racism in this country. "

That's nuts. There will always be racists. The question is, how much influence they hold in public and political life.

[rmreddicks]

"why dose the media"? They're already dosed. I think you lined up with them.

[idest]

I'm sorry, but when someone says "I'm not voting for Obama because he's black." which some in West Virginia and Kentucky did say, on camera, that's racism. I don't think its as widespread as most pundits seem to believe, but to say it doesn't exist is ludicrous.

[Lemeritus]

HuffPost's Pick

"It depends on what the meaning of 'us' is."

I look at the faces of the people who lined the route as Bobby's funeral train slowly made its way to D.C. They are us -- in all their goodness and hope (and heartbreak), plain and fancy, black and white, young and old. And we are them as surely as if we were standing there, in that instant, beside them. That's who we are, and that's the meaning of 'us'.

[statsguy]

Are you all going to stop trashing Bill Clinton yet? WWBD? (B=Bobby)

[bbrecht]

Thanks for the post-- but wasn't Clinton really working within the neo-con framework? Keeping the radical Allen Greenspan in place with all his deregulation policies, and passing NAFTA, and welfare reform?

[rmreddicks]

Bertolt -

I think WJC was more to the neo-liberal side of that one sided fence. Not that either the neo-cons or neo-libs have much that is useful to offer the world.

[ApolloSpeaks]

BARACK AND HILLARY'S MEETING ON RFK'S ASSASSINATION ANNIVERSARY.

The Barack and Hillary meeting last night was on the ominous day of Bobby Kennedy's assassination by a fanatical Palestinian gunman. LIke RFK Obama and Clinton are anti-war candidates. LIke RFK they are U.S. senators. Like RFK Hillary is a senator from New York and related to a former president. RFK was murdered by Sirhan Sirhan who was born in 1944-the 44th year of the 20th century the number of the next president.

Hillary was born in Chicago, Obama resides there. RFK's campaign stop after the California primaries was to be Chicago the site of the disastrous Democratic Convention and anti-war riots.

In 1968 Mitt Romney's father George ran in the Republican presidential primaries and lost to Richard Nixon, like Mitt lost to John McCain. It was Nixon who ended the war and freed McCain from prison.

If Bobby Kennedy had lived he would have beat Nixon and become president. If Hillary had beat Obama in the primaries she would have went on to defeat McCain in the fall as she is clearly more electable. Her loss to Obama prefigures his defeat as RFK's assassination prefigured the defeat of Hubert Humphrey 40 years ago.

It is interesting to note that Obama gave his victory speech at the Xcel Energy Center in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the home of Hubert Humphrey when he ran for president.

[onlinesavant]

Her loss is her loss. If she were so much more "electable" she would have been "elected" to be the Democratic nominee. At 12:00p.m. everyday the sun is directly above our heads. At 12:a.m. it's not. It's June 6, 2008, and Barack Obama is STILL the Democratic nominee for president. Get over it.

[statsguy]

We can't get over it until you all start being nicer. WWBD?

[ApolloSpeaks]

Hillary Clinton is more electable because she's closer to the center than Obama. Obama is so far to the left that he makes George McGovern look like Ronald Reagan. It is clear to me that Providence used Obama to defeat Clinton so that McCain can be Prez 44 (a highly auspicious number for the senator from the day he was born).

[rmreddicks]

Let's see; Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln and Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy. Am I on the right track?

[nlb]

Excellent post. Yes, the Republicans have indeed mastered the colonialists' (think UK, France etc.) divide and rule modus operandi. Of course poor blacks and poor people of any other color (including whites in Appalachia and elsewhere) have common cause. What gets me is the way, hitherto, the Democrats have rolled over in submission (yet again) when the Republicans have cried "class warfare" when this commonality of interests is raised appropriately and factually to illustrate that, of course, the poorer classes in America benefit much more from Democratic policies than from Republican policies of not taxing the wealthy, deregulation, privitization of government services, etc..

I am glad (and hope) to see that an appropriate "class warfare" will be pursued against the Republicans and their corporate/wealth interests (maybe it will sink into the popular mindset this time), and I sincerely hope that we will have an "elite" administration of Sen. Obama that values intelligence and competence in government as opposed to the incompetence and stupidity of the current regime.

[hmcj1967]

I am just amazed at this discussion. It is truly tragic how so many of us can be swayed into believing in something that is suppose to be for our benefit but actually turns out to be to our detriment. I certainly agree that the republican party has done a magnificent job over the last several decades of dividing and winning. Their policies have been devastating for those of us with low incomes and even up to the middle class. They figured out that if they could get people focused on our ethnic, cultural, and religious differences it would bring about the kinds of division that would blind us to truly important things that we have so much in common. We have an opportunity now to let the light on this really shine. It should not be hard to do because all we have to do is look at the jobs we've lost over the last 7.5 years, the price of gasoline, and the war in Iraq. The ones who suffer the most as a result of just those three things alone are the ones who aren't rich or have friends in high places. I hope we as voters will be smarter this time around.

[rmreddicks]

There's been class warfare going on in this (and all other) countries for a long time.

"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - New York Times, November 26, 2006. - Warren Buffett.

And McCain is one of their pigs. We might hope that Obama is not.