So, I was listening to all kinds of news interviews on Sunday in regards to the Obama vs Clinton campaigns and the super delegate issue and all these other perceived issues, when one of the commentators said something along the lines of
"if Obama wins the popular vote and carrys the delegates and the the super delegates come in and elect Clinton, then the Democratic party is going to see more conflict and uprising than what occured at the Chicago convention."

This of course got all the others in panty twisted fit.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting there going :confused:

So, I google it today, and am not really sure what the issue was. Seems there were protestors on the street but past that point I'm not getting what the big deal was politically. Can somebody who knows about this, or was around back then, try and explain it to me? And why would this event be referenced in saying the above?

Thanks.

there were mass demonstrations and rioting @ the DNC Convention in 68

1968 Democratic National Convention Protests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention_Protests)

Mayor Daley had the Po Po put the beat down on the Hippies ......

Conclusions

The rhetoric of violence that occurred in the months leading up to the DNC created a self-fulfilling prophecy. The City had to take seriously the Yippie threats of disruption of the DNC and the City of Chicago. If the City had ignored the threats and an incident had occurred that the security forces were unable to handle, the City would have been called unprepared. The City therefore took the steps it deemed necessary to protect itself. The City’s defensive posture succeeded in keeping large numbers of protestors from coming to Chicago. Without the large numbers, the protest groups had to rely on different tactics to get their message across. If the media reported that only ten percent of the expected demonstrators showed up, it would seem like the anti-war movement was not as strong as it claimed. By inciting the police to use force to control them, the protesters turned the problem on its head. It was now the City who was to blame for low turnout, it was the City that looked unreasonable, and the protestors came off looking righteous. The image of righteousness helped to fuel the anti-war movement. Mobe and the Yippies couldn’t have asked for better publicity.

The media was an essential ingredient in allowing the protestors to win. With the exception of the four major Chicago daily newspapers, which mainly blamed the protestors and not the police, the media created the image that the protestors wanted. In reporting the confrontation at Michigan and Balbo on the night of Humphrey’s nomination, the media made it seem that the protestors were being beaten at the same time as Humphrey was being nominated, even though the violence took place several hours after, and partly in response to the nomination. The media had its own reasons for presenting the violence as they did. DNC organizers had severely restricted press access to the convention floor, offering less that half the number of press passes that the Republican convention gave out. Due to an electrical workers strike, television crews did not have the ability to broadcast live from anywhere but the convention floor, and mobile cameras were restricted in where they could park. Added to the assaults on newsmen during the confrontations it becomes clear that the mass media was biased for the protestors. The violence in the streets seriously damaged the Democratic Party nationally. In his report on the convention, author Norman Mailer wrote “It was as if war had finally begun, as if the gods of history had come together before the television cameras of the world and . . . the Democratic Party had split in two before the eyes of the nation.” Nixon went on to beat Humphrey, and in the state of Illinois, Daley’s empire shrunk down to the confines of Cook County. Despite this, Daley did not really lose. He was still an important national political figure, and he still had his fiefdom. The people of Chicago supported Daley and the CPD. The machine was only slightly wounded and would continue to run Chicago.

:whistle:

Seems there were protestors on the street but past that point I'm not getting what the big deal was politically.

I'd guess they were talking about the riots? :shrug:

Obama supporters are getting an education on how this stuff works, and there will be hell to pay if Hillary gets the nomination although Obama has more delegates. If that happens, we might as well start practicing saying "President McCain" because Obama people aren't going to cross over to the woman who stole the nomination.

So, I was listening to all kinds of news interviews on Sunday in regards to the Obama vs Clinton campaigns and the super delegate issue and all these other perceived issues, when one of the commentators said something along the lines of
"if Obama wins the popular vote and carrys the delegates and the the super delegates come in and elect Clinton, then the Democratic party is going to see more conflict and uprising than what occured at the Chicago convention."

This of course got all the others in panty twisted fit.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting there going :confused:

So, I google it today, and am not really sure what the issue was. Seems there were protestors on the street but past that point I'm not getting what the big deal was politically. Can somebody who knows about this, or was around back then, try and explain it to me? And why would this event be referenced in saying the above?

Thanks.

I was barely 18 at the time, and watching the news (Cronkite) I remember there was talk of a "Police Riot" going on outside. What had happened was that there was a large gathering of antiwar demonstrators whose avowed task was to disrupt the goings on in the Dem convention. Hubert H Humphrey was the Dem nominee (LBJ's VP) and he had promised an end to war, but there were a lot of other happenings going on to show it was a chaotic convention at best. I can't remember what the full circumstances were, but I know one of the state delegations tried to stop Jesse Jackson from getting a delegate position, but they were unable to stop him, and one of the more memorable photos was a beaming triumphant Jackson, marching with hands held high, while the southern delegation was sitting in the foreground, crestfallen. (I hope I am not mixing this up with the '72 convention...another chaotic mess...another story)
Anyway, It was the so called leaders of the antiwar faction (Abbie Hoffman, for one) (later to be called the Chicago 7) whose intention it was to disrupt the proceedings to call attention to the "illegeality" of our involvement in the RVn. The media showed Richard Daley's police, fanning out and wading into the mass, who were chanting "The Whole world is watching 1" over and over again. As I said before, it was presented as a " Police Riot", the media going wild showing these men "out of control" as they enthusiastically weilded their night sticks , without disregard of age or sex. What wasn't presented was the actions of the crowd, who had done its best, cajoled on by it's mob "leaders", who had pushed the envelope beyond all boundaries, throwing projectiles at the ranks, until patience wore thin and then what would have happened under extraordinary circumstances , happened.
There was a lot of fault to be shared on all sides, but I think that the crowd of mostly young males. either drugged, drunk or both, encouraged by irresponsible "leaders" who appear to have taken off at the onset of real trouble, were mostly to blame.
The end result that the events reflected the divisions within the Democratic Party. Gene McCarthey, I believe, was the "Peace Candidate", HHH was the establishment choice. HHH was tainted by his association with LBJ, who because of the double endemnity of the war in Nam and the War on Poverty, was a very unpopular man. The loss of both MLK and RFK further heightened racial matters, which had been shaky since the race riots(mentioned on another thread) and the mass defection of southern whites to the GOP in the wake of the Civil Rights amendment passage.
In the end, these divisions ushered in GOP control of the White House, from RMN to Ford.
Please forgive my rambling, but the years have not been kind to my memory. I hope this has at least given you a foundation, however flawed. Are there similarities now? Well yes.....we are engaged in a war , not a police action or like facsimile, it is either popular or unpopular, dependent on personal viewpointm but nevertheless, it is happening. The nation is divided, but so it was back then, so it was during the Civil War.There has always been dissent whenever we were engaged in a conflict, but it seems only WWII was the only one where there was a national consensus to finish the job right and in our favor. As for racial division, I personally don't think the issue has ever been resolved, just covered over in feel good pretentions that benefitted only a few.
No one seems to be satisfied anymore now than back then.
As for the "Youthful"outlook of the Obama campaign, nice but so much like eye candy. As long as the slogans are easy to chant, and that "good times" are spoken about, then one can manipulate without coming up with real facts.
We forget history...we think we can CHANGE the world because YES WE CAN.
Are we going to see another group of hapless youth chanting "The whole world is watching"? Well, maybe the world doesn't care. I only know that whomever the nation chooses, we are not going to be happy campers. I can only hope that we don't placidly go down the dark road once more.

Okay. I just didn't at first see how the demonstrators had anything to do with it - after all we have demonstrators all the time for everything and it doesn't do anything but screw up traffic.

I think that the '68 convention was more than just demonstrating. There was a good bit of violence, and Abbie Hoffman and Co. went on trial for inciting a riot (Chicago Seven).

[QUOTE=Mateo;2705983]I was barely 18 at the time...[QUOTE]

Wow. Okay so I am seeing the similarities and I do understand how the potential for a violent conflict is there. However, do you, as someone who has seen then and now, really think the crowd of voters today would actually make such a public outcry? I see so much apathy among people today. The only concern I see is whether or not this would become a black vs white issue if Clinton stole away the campaign...and would that "concern" actually be enough to hamper the super delegates from turning it over to her?

and would that "concern" actually be enough to hamper the super delegates from turning it over to her?

As someone posted in another thread, many Obama supporters are young, new voters and blacks who have never voted before, either. If the DNC alienates these people by disenfranchising them, my hunch is they may never get them back.

It's not going to look good if the Democrats screw over a real black guy in favor of the wife of the "first black President". I believe that will send a message loud and clear to Democrat voters and blacks in general - that's going to be tough to recover from.

I thought I remembered something about Tom Brokaw (maybe Dan Rather) was there.. and got caught up in the middle of it on the convention floor.. took a good beating.

But what do I know, I don't think I was even in the US then.

[QUOTE=Mateo;2705983]I was barely 18 at the time...[QUOTE]

Wow. Okay so I am seeing the similarities and I do understand how the potential for a violent conflict is there. However, do you, as someone who has seen then and now, really think the crowd of voters today would actually make such a public outcry? I see so much apathy among people today. The only concern I see is whether or not this would become a black vs white issue if Clinton stole away the campaign...and would that "concern" actually be enough to hamper the super delegates from turning it over to her?

We were considered a rather apathetic group back then (Tune in, drop out), not anymore than you are now. Yes, there were influences (Drugs, R & R, etc)
but as you can see, there are the same now. We weren't as racially intregated, (busing was 2 years hence) Vietnam had been going big time since the Eisenhower years, but Tet'67 had rocked the country bad. Though we were "winning" militarily, the fact that the VC & NVA had been able to mount an offensive of such proportions stunned us. We were told that we were not winning the hearts and minds of the common person on the ground. There was always a constant drumbeat by the media on how many were lost on a particular day.
The matter that has my concern is what Vrailblonde mentioned above. If young people feel as disenfranchised as blacks did, will it be detrimental to the Democraic party ? I think not, because I don't think the democrats have the numbers. Yes, they have the numbers to vote in the primaries and caucases, but as in '68 and '72, the youth vote went overwhelmingly to Nixon. As I said, when faced with repeating mindless slogans and cheering rhetoric without substance, people will opt to vote pocketbook issues, and that includes your generation
Nixon promised us "peace with honor"...this resonanted more than McCarthy'scall for total withdrawal (sound familiar?) Both Hiliary and Barackiboy promise to tax"the rich". Problem i who do they define as rich ? The Republican rich ? Does Oprah count in this? How about that rocknRoller , David Geffen ? Will they tax themselves? After all, Barackiboy , Hiliary and their spouses are lawyers who have gotten wel heeled. I think in the end, they will hope everything goes quietly away until the next election. In other words, for the simple you and me, they will do zilch. The choice comes down to who will do the lesser damage, which is indeed, a very poor choice. I know I will get pilloried for this, but, in my opinion, Barackiboy will do the greater damage, as he may be a master politician, but , again, in my opinion, a very naive human being. If he thinks that all by his own dynamic personality is going to change the minds of more astute world leaders, then my friend, I will sell you the old London Bridge, somewhere now in the Southwest. If you ask me my choice, I will steer you towards the person I believe more in tune...Ron Paul.
As to your generation going violent ? The potential is always there. The difference, is there isn't a draft now that was discriminate in who went and who didn't. I don't know what issues really get your goat, as though I work with young people, they are not so quick to divulge in me what their thoughts are and that's okay. LOL...I was young once , too. You don't seem to fall for leaders who would lead you astray. (Obama, in my opinion, an exception). What perturbs me a lot is the "My generation" is a lot better than yours. tougher, etc attitude. The only difference is time.
Is there a black/white issue ? Yes, there is and to ignore it is to extend the myth of racial harmony. It is the dog in the woodpile that has virtually wrecked the democratic party. You do have the advantage of what initially was forced integration which has evolved now into tentative acceptance.Yet as I said before, it is just a facade , and with what appears to be a "payback" on the part of those who feel they have been shoved under the rug, whether true or false, nevertheless, is unhealthily emerging again. I don't have the answers, because I am too busy trying to survive. I wish I did, but then I would be a politician.

I thought I remembered something about Tom Brokaw (maybe Dan Rather) was there.. and got caught up in the middle of it on the convention floor.. took a good beating.

But what do I know, I don't think I was even in the US then.
I think it was a young Dan Rather.

I think that the '68 convention was more than just demonstrating. There was a good bit of violence, and Abbie Hoffman and Co. went on trial for inciting a riot (Chicago Seven).\

What is interesting, is finding out decades later, that while Abbie Hoffman and his fellow antiwar "leaders" were shouting revolution from the streets and barricades, they were profiting from their notoreity. E,G,It turns out young Abbie was a young stock market genius and was building a neat portfolio from some of those same corporations he was denouncing. Talk about covering your bases. The only one that seemed to remain true, was Tom Davis (later married Jane Fonda), and I believe he remains a pretty active pol in Ca this day.

\

What is interesting, is finding out decades later, that while Abbie Hoffman and his fellow antiwar "leaders" were shouting revolution from the streets and barricades, they were profiting from their notoreity. It turns out young Abbie was a young stock market genius and was building a neat portfolio from some of those same corporations he was denouncing.

Of course the hypocrite was ........