Politics & Media
Aug 29, 2008, 06:34AM

It's Not 1968

There were a few scattered protesters swarming around the Democratic convention this week, but despite the delusions of the protesters themselves they haven't come anywhere close to the violence and political urgency of the 1968 convention. One correspondant on the scene explains why the anti-Iraq activists and Hillary-lovers aren't able to channel the spirit of the 60s.

2008 is far from 1968. Sure, there are parallels, like the obvious Iraq/Vietnam one. Also, in both cases the Democrats were attempting to re-take the White House.

This time, instead of rioting and bloodshed, we've been treated to haphazard demonstrations that haven't even cracked 1,000 people.

Some of the differences are cultural -- there isn't nearly the kind of generalized anger and enthusiasm that fueled the Chicago fires.

But, more so, it seems nobody can quite figure out what and why they're supposed to be protesting.


Young voters were never going to rally in any numbers to protest Barack Obama -- he's their candidate.

One of the biggest differences between 2008 and 1968 is the simple fact that the youth candidate actually won this year. There is no Hubert Humphery at this convention. Instead, it's as if Eugene McCarthy (or even Robert Kennedy) actually succeeded and got the chance to take on the dastardly Republican.

Instead, the real protests (if there are to be any at all) will be taking place in St. Paul next week. Or maybe we're all too busy trying to score Rage tickets to notice.


Register or Login to leave a comment