Perhaps apostasy in this new DU3 regime, but Obama now does have a progressive

[Ken Burch]

70. Nothing better would have come of leaving LBJ unchallenged

He'd also have kept the war going another four years and wouldn't have been interested in introducing any more progressive legislation-assuming that Johnson COULD have been re-elected, and his 29% approval rating at the time of the Democratic convention proves that he couldn't have been.

And, if you know anything at all about 1968, you'd realize that it was LBJ's fault that Nixon defeated Humphrey in the fall.

Nixon forced Humphrey, who probably could have won the nomination on his own merits, to stand as the "status quo" candidate and forced Humphrey to vote for an arrogantly rignt-wing and pro-keep the war going plank on Vietnam, thus making it all-but-impossible for progressives to vote for Humphrey as long as he stayed with that. This insistence on Johnson's part was what ultimately led to protests that were violently suppressed by the Chicago police.

Then, when Humphrey realized he was going to stay thirteen points behind until the end if he didn't break with Johnson at all and made his Salt Late City speech announcing his own, more independent position, Johnson froze Humphrey's access to funds from major party donors, which, even though Humphrey was able to nearly wipe out Nixon's lead on his own, guaranteed Nixon's narrow victory-and Johnson further guaranteed it when he refused to go public with the proof he had that Nixon's campaign had interfered in the Paris Peace Talks.

So no, the challenge to Johnson didn't cause Nixon's win-Johnson did. Accept reality.

Renominating LBJ without challenge would have meant giving up on ever ending the war AND on achieving any more progressive change at home. Johnson was a dead loss by 1968, and you know it.