I don't think people are still arguing that Bobby would have had the nomination locked up had he lived. What most would say is that:
a)even with his lead in delegates, it would have been far more difficult for Humphrey to present himself as a credible nominee, and might well have withdrawn from the race, especially if his poll ratings against Nixon had been lower than Kennedy's(as they could well have been)
b)If Humphrey HAD still been nominated, he'd have likely broken with the war early.
Bah! These primaries are all about momentum, and the California primary victory was massive. Kennedy had the momentum, only lost one state since entering, and would have pealed off both McCarthy supporters AND delegates committed to Humphrey. He had it, and would have been the next President of the United States. History would have been different, and there would have been no Nixon presidency.
I was shocked when I found out recently that Walter Cronkite was involved in a secret society (Bohemian Grove). Shocked because I thought he was supposed to be "The Most Trusted Man in America". Now I wonder if my past respect for him has waned. But back to this RFK issue: I read one person here wrote that had Kennedy lived, he would of still lost to Humphrey in Chicago-but Triple H would of made him his vice-president (if that's true, why didn't he choose McCarthey instead of Muskie?).
Wasn't New York's presidential primary yet to come? If Bobby had won that, it would have all been up for grabs. Perhaps Mayor Daley Sr. could have done something at the convention to throw it to Bobby. Daley was pissed at the demonstrators, but he didn't exactly like the war. An RFK-Daley alliance might've outflanked the LBJ-HHH-forged delegates.
If Bobby had lost the nomination but still lived, I'll guarantee you enough voters would've come out to throw HHH enough States to beat Nixon.
There were only seven Democratic primaries in 1968, if I recall. That does not seem to me to be adequate for challenging the institutional support Humphrey had been putting together. But as so many other things showed us that year, never underestimate what the outside world can do to institutional function and institutional thinking.
Someone sure as hell thought he was going to be a shoe in otherwise they wouldn't have assassinated him so promptly. He would've been president there is absolutely no doubt.
@jasmcc1 not necessarily. He'd have found it far harder to make a case that he really represented the will of the party if he'd been up against a candidate who'd demonstrated massive support in the primaries. And Humphrey would have been far likelier to follow his true instincts and publicly break with the war before the convention, since he could still have been nominated with the combined support of his personal loyalists added to Kennedy and McCarthy's delegates.
Bobby Kennedy was a social and economic moderate by todays standards. Most likely pro-life. Most likely not a big Government spender. He was liberal where he needed to be liberal and conservative when he needed to be conservative. But most importantly he was a leader. This country lost a piece of its soul when he and Jack were killed.
The one thing I disagree with how this video is presented is the idea that Humphrey would've walked away with a landslide to the nomination. It would've been close, though I still give Humphrey a 60% over 40% to Kennedy over a hypothetical had he lived scenario. It's hard to know for sure how much in favor things would've gone or not gone for RFK. Minutes before his victory speech, he told Dick Goodwin to tell McCarthy that "if he withdraws and supports me now, I'll make him Secretary of State."
@Nominay At no time do we say that Humphrey was poised on the night of June 4-5, 1968 to walk away with a landslide victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968. We do not say that he was guaranteed to win the nomination at that time. We merely make the point that RFK himself was not guaranteed the nomination by winning the California primary. We don't know what would have happened had Senator Kennedy not been killed. And we never will know.
@historymythbusters First of all, thanks for putting this incredible video together. I know not how you managed to collect all this footage and succinctly edit it. 2nd, I just feel it was premature to conclude then and now that Humphrey was poised to win. Sure, he had a clear pathway to the nomination - he was the frontrunner - but he was still hundreds of delegates away, and the one thing I see no one here talking about was the possibility of McCarthy releasing all of his delegates to Kennedy.
@Nominay RFK himself makes clear in this video he needed McCarthy support. What we're saying here is that as of the night of June 4-5, 1968, it APPEARED Humphrey was poised to win the Democratic presidential nomination. It's a simple fact that HHH "appeared" to be poised for such a win. But we're also saying it would not have been completely impossible for RFK to have defeated HHH for the nomination. That would have been a difficult struggle for Kennedy but not impossible. Can we be any clearer?
@historymythbusters Of course it was within the realm of possibility that RFK might have gained McCarthy support had he not been killed. Kennedy himself regarded this as a requirement if he was going to beat Humphrey (he makes this clear in the video). So the McCarthy factor is not being ignored. The bottom line here is we are simply making two key points: (1) RFK was not guaranteed the nomination by virtue of his California primary victory and (2) we will never know what would have happened.
@historymythbusters Had McCarthy released all of his delegates to Kennedy, then suddenly you have a competitive race on your hands and it was too early for such prognostications. This was a real possibility that the press apparently either overlooked or did not seriously consider.
RFK would've had a hard time prying loose uncommitted and McCarthy delegates but it was possible. He also needed to convince old pros not bound by primaries that he had a better shot to beat Nixon than Humphrey did. He probably did--he had a better shot at keeping Democratic voters in states Nixon narrowly carried, from staying home or casting a protest vote for Wallace. That would've been enough iin 1968..
With Robert Kennedy as President from 1969 to 1977 it''s a different world...
The delegates pledged to Humphrey were non-binding. What Kennedy was going to attempt was to convince enough of those delegates to change their minds. He was going to tell them, and the country, that his primary wins showed that he was the only Democrat with enough popular support to win in November. That was the strategy. Would it have worked? 50/50 at best.
The long video description is nice, but it ignores the fact that even if Robert Kennedy had not won the nomination in '68, where he entered the race extremely late in the game as a long shot candidate, he would have been the strongest Democratic Party candidate down the road in the years to come and with his popularity and skills, would have most likely been elected President, making someone like Nixon a historical footnote. What could have been... Such a different country and world.
@alamo141@alamo141 Well of course the long video description ignores that, idiot. Perhaps you didn't notice it, but this video is strictly about the 1968 election and what its outcome might have been had RFK not been assassinated. The video is not about the elections of 1972 or 1976 or 1980 or about their outcomes. So there's no reason for the video's description to speculate about such elections coming after 1968. Christ, can't you understand that?
You're right. Liberals cry that it took Nixon four years to achieve Peace With Honor via the Paris peace accords of January 1973. While I'm sorry that it took that long and additional American servicemen were killed, wounded or captured during Nixon's first term before the accords finally were signed, Nixon ended our involvement the right way. RFK would have done it the wrong way. Don't get me wrong: RFK was a great man but he wasn't right about everything.
RFK was a good and decent man and I mourn his loss. But Nixon's Vietnam policy was better. Had Nixon not resigned in 1974 over Watergate, the North Vietnamese would not have dared to cross over into South Vietnam and taken it over in 1975. They knew Nixon would have used the Truman option on them (the atom bomb) for violating the Paris peace accords. Nixon had brains and balls, just as you say. Just as Truman did.
I agree that North Vietnam would not have taken over the South had Nixon not resigned. But it wasn't Truman who threatened to use atomic weapons in Korea - it was Eisenhower.
Truman basically choked when the Chinese entered the war. He refused the nuclear option (as well as other conventional means) that MacArthur advocated which would have won the Korean War for the US. In fact, Truman eventually undid himself the same way LBJ did: by tying one hand behind his back.
Democrats today are too soft, too weak, too scared. They are not FDR or Truman or JFK Democrats. They are Stevenson Democrats or worse: Teddy Kennedy Democrats. RFK was somewhere in the middle between a JFK Democrat and a Teddy Democrat. Obama is a Teddy Democrat and because of this we are doomed unless there is a course correction in 2012.
I wish there were some way to create American leaders by taking only the best and brightest characteristics of our past leaders and not their flaws. If we could combine in someone the best that Nixon had to offer with the best that RFK had to offer (while keeping out their weaknesses), we would have one helluva great leader.
Nixon really got dealt a raw hand, and he ended the war the only way he (or anyone else) could. Losing S.Vietnam while US troops were fighting there would have seriously crippled America's position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Who knows what the USSR or communists worldwide might have done globally if the US had just bugged out? This is the question Nixon had to worry about -- a question the anti-war movement and liberals never really took the time to consider.
@tevix08 do you know the real story about the Gulf of Tonkin? Did you ever read the Pentagon Papers? I voted for Nixon...first time I was able to vote...voted for him because I thought he would end the wr...little did I know.....he new about Johnson's Gufl of Tonkin ploy, and he went along with it and blamed the hippies on the new world order. The hippies were not my favorite, but call a spade a spade...they lied...Kennedy (my hero), Johnson and Nixon...and how many died because of it??
Yes, I'm familar with the story. That incident took place in 1964, 5 years before Nixon became president. The Pentagon Papers documented the history of the war up to 1967 - again before Nixon took office. I'm not sure what this has to do with Nixon's record. Nixon was trying to clean up the mess his Democratic predecessors left behind, that's all.
Hey, what the fuck, what the fuck, what the fuck?!!!
CBS had a suite on the fifth floor of the Ambassador Hotel that it used as its interview room (this was the same floor where Kennedy's suite in the hotel was also located) and so CBS set up a fake cardboard backdrop in its suite for its network interviews. That's what your seeing behind RFK and Mudd.
ABC's suite was right next door to CBS's suite. NBC had a suite one floor below on the fourth floor that it used for its interviews.
Whether that would have made more sense or not, delegates were not free to vote for whoever they personally wanted at the outset of convention balloting. The delegates would not be free to vote for their personal choice until after the convention's first ballot was cast and counted. The first ballot results would be based on the votes of committed delegates: votes already designated by their state's primary results as well as votes designated by party bosses in non-primary states.
RFK chose to enter the primaries, hoping to win all or most of the ones he competed in, because he wanted to show he had the strongest popular support within the party. Humphrey took the other route (not thru the primaries but thru the party's smoke-filled back rooms) and he secured commitments from party bosses. We'll never know if RFK's route might have led him to denying Humphrey a first ballot victory. If so, RFK might then have won the nomination on a second ballot via his popular support.
hi cbobmoats - Interesting! but may i ask, how would an RFK bolt have helped HHH defeat Nixon? My gut instinct is that RFK never would have bolted the party in any event. I also feel that he would have really resisted being HHH's vice-presidential running mate. He wouldn't have played second fiddle to HHH. I just don't see it for RFK.
But don't get me wrong, I totally wish we could have had him as president! what an exciting, inspiring thought.
That's a good question. Nixon might very well have beaten HHH anyway, even if RFK had not assassinated. Indeed, RFK was in fact absent from the scene (due to his assassination), and HHH lost in November.
I share your intuition that it would have been highly unlikely for RFK to agree to become HHH's running mate, although I think that was probably RFK's best chance to be on a national ticket in '68.
It would have been highly difficult for RFK to win the nomination even with a marriage to McCarthy. Organized labor and big city machines were still likely to support HHH over RFK. The two most likely scenarios would have been a HHH/RFK marriage with an "end the war" committment or an RFK bolts the party and runs a fourth ticket on a total anti-war plank. Either way, HHH chances to beat Nixon increase either through a united Dem party or through a race in the House of Reps.
RFK would have been a GREAT president! But HHH, with LBJ's help, had the '68 nomination locked up. '68 was when RFK's time passed politically. USA entered that 40-year conservative era that year. Could anyone have defeated Nixon in '72, when he won 49 states? Then, by '76, the Kennedy image had been tarnished (revelations about JFK's personal life; Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) Also, by '76, RFK's bold liberal vision was absolutely passé, unfortunately. But maybe I'm wrong.
Great? In what way? Withdrawing US troops from Vietnam? That's exactly what Nixon did from 1969-73. Reducing Cold War tensions with his detente with the Soviets and Chinese? Again, Nixon did that. Nixon also ended the draft. Under Nixon, Affirmative action and school desegregation took off. Liberals always want some soft, feminine, feel-good savior to save the day -- and they got that with Clinton, and now Obama. That's some idea of how RFK might have turned out had he been president.
@tevix08 but Nixon took 4 years at least to end the Vietnam war, he escalated the war before it finally ended, even though it ended during his administration
Yes it took 4 years, no thanks to the anti-war movement and liberal press who played a major role in prolonging the agony, fanning the flames of disunity and chaos. Otherwise, the war very likely would have ended much sooner, and on terms far more favorable than the one eventually hammered out in 1973.
Incidentally, Nixon was pulling out troops by the 10s of 1000s every year. He ended both the war AND the draft. He did EXACTLY what the liberals and anti war folks wanted.
Yes, he took 4 years - thanks to the liberal news media and anti-war movement who undermined Nixon's efforts to end the war quickly.
N.Vietnam saw the turmoil and disunity in America, exacerbated by the liberal press and anti-war movement - they saw how all this had weakened Nixon's hand. And they were smart enough to realize that all they had to do was hold on for another 4 years, and then S.Vietnam was theirs.
@tevix08 but Nixon took 4 years at least to end the Vietnam war, he escalated the war before it finally ended, even though it ended during his administration
Even if much evidence shows that Kennedy could not have won that year, there is no saying that he would not run again. Afterall, bobby was a young man and with the goodwill of being a Kennedy he probably would have eventually become President on account of his steadfast ambition. RIP Robert.
Bobby would have gotten the nomination. Humphrey had the delegates but Bobby hadthe general public. The emotional wave and the pressure for the delegates to act on public opinion would cause a probable strategy on delegates to delay Humphrey's nomination on the first ballot to appease the public. This would have given Bobby time to organize his men and sway the delegates, based on his record of winning delegates on the convention floor (56 and 60).
your acting like something the news says or a commentator says is 100% fact or truth. who knows he could be a humpfry supporter. i mean i could show a million clips saying the same thing about obama in this primary election or during al gore/ george bush election in 2000. its never over till its over.
And you are acting like a retard. You obviously don't pay attention very well. Try, if you can, to comprehend the following:
Robert Kennedy himself says in this video that Hubert Humphrey looks like a sure bet for the nomination unless RFK can win over Gene McCarthy supporters!
RFK himself says this on the night he was shot!
Watch this video again. This time, listen with both ears (especially listen to RFK himself in this video) and, this time, try to comprehend what is being said.
In these, his last-ever, TV network interviews that tragic night, Robert F. Kennedy -- for want of kinder, gentler phrasing -- basically spoke out of both sides of his mouth. As harsh as that may sound, we don't say it in order to attack this outstanding American but say it, only, in defense of truth. In his first TV interviews that night, with NBC's Sander Vanocur, RFK asserted that without his gaining support from McCarthy or McCarthy's supporters, Humphrey would win the Democratic nomination.
In RFK's next TV network interview that same night, CBS's Roger Mudd challenged Senator Kennedy by zeroing in on that same comment the Senator had just made minutes earlier to NBC's Vanocur. RFK responded by telling Mudd, "I believe I said that it would be very, very difficult (to win without McCarthy support)." However, despite that Kennedy reply, Mudd clearly had gotten it right: RFK in fact had told Vanocur that he could "only win" his party's presidential nomination with McCarthy support.
So, on this particular question, the RFK position, expressed in his NBC interview, actually shifted a bit by the time of his CBS interview. Just minutes after the CBS interview, RFK then went next door to the ABC interview suite, also located on the Ambassador Hotel's fifth floor, where he was next interviewed by ABC TV's Bob Clark (in L.A.) and by Howard K. Smith and Bill Lawrence (both in N.Y.). In his ABC interview, RFK now clung to the new wording he had just introduced in the CBS interview.
It's interesting to see RFK's position change during these interviews. First he tells NBC that, despite his Calif. victory, it would be impossible to win the nomination without McCarthy support. Then he modifies this by telling CBS and ABC that it would be very difficult to win without McCarthy support (even claiming to CBS that his new phrasing was what he'd told NBC). Nonetheless, RFK made it clear to all three networks that he knew Humphrey was the front-runner despite the RFK Calif. victory.
There are "no certainties", sure, but California gave him a huge bargaining chip toward Chicago. McCarthy could have been negotiated out of it. And Kennedy knew how to work with favorable momentum. Kennedy would have had a better shot than 50/50.
Given the many uncertainties, it's very difficult to put an actual number on his nomination chances had he lived (e.g. your 50/50). You might be right. We'll never know. But, yes, Calif. was important. Winning NY, 2 weeks later, would have been important. Ted Sorensen argued that history showed the candidate winning both Calif. and NY also won the nomination. RFK might have eventually prevailed. What we can say with certainty is that his Calif. victory alone did not guarantee him the nomination.
We also know that even if you won all the 1968 Democratic presidential primaries, you would not win enough delegates for nomination (considerably less states holding them then compared with now). Thus RFK, as you suggest, focused on building momentum. HHH focused on building delegates. RFK was far from victory on the night of June 4-5, 1968 and the road to Chicago would have been a "struggle" as he noted in his last recorded words to Andy West. Not necessarily impossible. But certainly not easy.
For many, RFK's death - and the emotions it stirred - obscurred the realities of the 1968 Democratic race. Emilio Estevez, a small child in 1968, grew up under the resulting myth. His movie "Bobby" (a work of fiction based loosely on history) falsely tells its viewers that RFK's Calif. victory set him up to face Republican Nixon in the fall. It's that falsehood we resent. We're glad to see you don't buy into that myth. We respect the argument you've presented, and are grateful for it, thank you.
What if he'd lived? I must conclude that had he not walked thru that kitchen pantry, and had he gone on to take the lead over Humphrey that summer, there would have been another attempt on Kennedy's life before the Chicago convention. I base this on conclusive scientific evidence - widely reported recently - that there was a second gunman in the pantry. This almost certainly points to a well-organized plot. Surely such a conspiracy would have tried again, probably successfully the second time.
I realize the purpose of this video post is not to debate the question of conspiracy in RFK's death. I just want to make that one point about the likelihood of a second attempt on his life just before the Chicago convention, as I consider it a probable outcome had he not been shot in L.A. I base this on new acoustic evidence of a 2nd gun firing in the RFK assassination, as discovered in the recently uncovered Pruszynski audio recording. That tape, taken with other evidence, screams conspiracy.
Thank you, historymythbusters, for posting this, and for your observations about the 1968 race.
I've read everything I can get my hands on about the '68 campaign, and I agree with you that Hubert Humphrey was almost certain to be the Democratic nominee that year, whether RFK had lived or not. As you suggest, HHH had the delegates. RFK didn't.
Yet the myth persists that RFK was the certain nominee when he was killed. He wasn't.
Thank you for trying to correct this baseless myth.
I sat at home in CA and wept with my my mom over the RK assassination. It changed our nation forever moreso than King's murder. This man represented real change. It influenced my life, sorry to say, in a very negative way. What a huge [blood] stain on America. Just the worst thing you could imagine for a supposedly "free" country.
We thank you for your comment. However we might suggest that while Robert F. Kennedy was indeed a great man and a great American, it would not be the death of any single individual that would qualify as the worst thing we could imagine for a free country. Rather it would be the death of freedom itself.
A country such as ours - if it is to remain free and if it is to remain great - must never rely so much on the temporal life of a single individual that the person's inevitable death, either in youth or in dotage, would constitute the country's worst conceivable fate. Thus far, our country - along with its freedoms and its greatness - has survived very well the deaths of all its founding fathers and various Presidents of consequence (like Jackson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy and Reagan).
Senator Kennedy's death was, and remains, a blow to this nation. The measure of his loss at only 42 and that of President Kennedy's at only 46 are incalcuable. These were wounds to the country which might prove everlasting. However they were not fatal to the country, its greatness or its freedoms. And we would suggest that Robert Francis Kennedy would tell you that himself.
The most ironic thing is the Kennedy's pushed for Humphrey to be Vice President. They wanted someone they thought they could trust in the VP role. This decision clearly came back to bite them later, although it is easier to criticize the decision in hindsight. No one could have guessed the political climate would have changed so drastically.
Wait a minute. You're saying that in '64 Atty. Gen. Bob Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy wanted LBJ to pick HHH as his VP runningmate? That doesn't make sense because RFK himself wanted to be LBJ's runningmate. But LBJ didn't want RFK on the ticket and announced that no Cabinet members would be his runningmate. Then he picked Senator Humphrey. A few weeks later, RFK resigned as Atty. Gen. and ran for the U.S. Senate from New York. So I believe you're wrong about the Kennedys wanting HHH as LBJ's VP.
well bobby wanted humphrey to be vp for jfk and in 64 i dont think he foresaw how badly vietnam would turn out and how the civil rights movement and anti war protests would go,. a lot changes in 4 years, more then people think. in early 2002 bush was loved by 75% in 2006 he maybe had a 30% approval rating. obama didnt think he would run in 08 when asked in 04 at the dnc in boston
just think, RFK as president would mean that RMN would never have had the opportunity to sell us out to Mao Tse Tung and production may have stayed in U.S.A and Canada. Present day joblessness may have been avoided.
We'll never know with certainty whether Nixon's China policy (which led to normalized U.S. relations with mainland China under Carter in 1979) really altered China's course in the way you're suggesting. Deng Xiaoping's rise to power after Mao's death in 1976 and Deng's move to capitalism may have happened anyway. But let's assume for a moment that you're correct about laying all this at Nixon's doorstep. Would the world be better off today had China stuck to its more aggressive militant stance?
Don't you think that if Nixon hadn't visited China, that someone else would have? Furthermore, there are far too many variables that have occurred since 1968 to make the conclusion that our "present day joblessness" is because of Nixon's trip.
Historians are virtually in unanimous agreement that a President Humphrey would NOT have made a visit to China by 1972. But again (even in the extremely unlikely event HHH might have done that), we'll never know with certainty that a 1972 U.S. presidential trip to China, made by whoever, really had the power to change China's course. That change may have been inevitable with Deng's rise to power a few years later. As for your present day joblessness assessment, we wholeheartedly agree with you.
Just as you say, there are far too many variables to reasonably conclude that today's joblessness stems from Nixon's China policy. There also are far too many variables to know whether a President Robert Kennedy would have opened the door to U.S. relations with mainland China. We know that when his brother was in the White House, JFK considered the lack of U.S.-China diplomatic relations at that time as "irrational." But we'll never know if JFK would have done anything about that had he lived.
With McCarthy's support, RFK would have had a good chance.
I think some of the Humphrey delegates would have ended up supporting RFK.
Let's remember, RFK announced late, but given the choice between Humphrey and Kennedy, I think many delegates would have taken RFK. Especially if they thought he would end the war.
Yes, RFK seemed to believe that with the backing of McCarthy and/or McCarthy supporters, he would have a better chance of defeating Humphrey for the nomination. RFK seems to be saying that very thing in his last-ever interviews, which you can watch for yourself in this video. As for HHH-pledged delegates and remaining non-pledged delegates, RFK hoped to force HHH to debate him that summer, believing he'd be seen as the better candidate, convincing non-Kennedy delegates to ultimately support him.
Both RFK and HHH announced late. Senator Robert F. Kennedy announced his presidential candidacy on March 16, 1968. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey announced his candidacy on April 27, 1968.
As Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson's VP, Hubert H. Humphrey did not formally enter the '68 presidential race until LBJ bowed out (otherwise HHH probably would have been LBJ's running-mate for the second time had LBJ decided to continue his candidacy and had he defeated RFK and Gene McCarthy by winning renomination). When LBJ withdrew his candidacy on March 31, 1968, HHH announced his candidacy four weeks later on April 27. For more details see this video's description write-up in the upper right column.
I love thinking about the "what ifs", even if it is pointless to some. Had he lived, RFK would have sat out '72, and very well may have run in '76. Would the GOP realized Ford would be slaughtered by Kennedy and nominated Ronald Reagan? Could you imagine a Kennedy-Reagan matchup?!?! It would not have been impossible. I don't think Reagan would ever have been president had RFK lived. Whatever the case was, I would have lived to been alive in '68. I was born in 1973.
This is a tortuous 'What if' exercise. Had RFK lived would the Democratic Convention in Chicago occurred without the violence? Although, the Kennedy machine was powerful, Humphrey appeared to have the lock on the delegates even with the RFK California Primary victory. We've already seen in the 2008 election how vital delegates are to the nominating process over Primary votes. President Johnson would have done everything possible to make sure Humphrey was the party's nominee.
This is an insightful piece. I think it's hard to say with any certainty that Humphrey would have had the nomination locked up. The Kennedy machine was very experienced; and Bobby was going to walk into Chicago with a lot of popular support and momentum. It's an academic exercise.
Thank you and we return the compliment, as we find your comments insightful too. We agree on all you've said: no certainty that HHH had the nomination locked up or that RFK might have enticed HHH into a debate, out-performing him and detaching enough HHH delegates to ultimately prevail at Chicago. We'll never know but you're correct RFK had a great deal going for him. It's all academic indeed. However we believe our key point is useful: RFK's Calif. primary win did not guarantee his nomination.
President Johnson initially was a candidate at the start of the 1968 campaign. Before RFK entered the race on March 16, 1968, Gene McCarthy had become LBJ's only challenger by entering on November 30, 1967. RFK's announcement of candidacy came four days after McCarthy's strong March 12 second place showing against LBJ in the New Hampshire primary. LBJ then announced on March 31 that he would not seek or accept his party's presidential nomination. Vice President Humphrey entered on April 27.
Once RFK entered the race, McCarthy was DEAD! McCarthy was the only one to challenge Johnson, until RFK became a candidate. People were a bit miffed that RFK didn't come out until after McCarthy paved the way, but that was soon forgiven and RFK's popularity exploded!
The Chicago riots during the Democratic convention consisted of enraged Americans who wanted something better than Humphrey after losing JFK, MLK, and now RFK! NO WAY would another candidate be tolerated had RFK lived.
Your enthusiasm for RFK is duly noted but McCarthy was not dead once RFK entered the race. McCarthy beat RFK in the Oregon primary. A good number of people remained miffed at RFK all the way up to his assassination. You see things differently because of your emotional attachment that has continued 40 years later. But when one puts emotions aside, one sees RFK was not by any means guaranteed the nomination. If you'll watch this video, you see RFK himself knew he had a very difficult task ahead.
The bottom line is: We'll simply never know for sure if RFK would have pulled off a victory in Chicago. He might have succeeded in getting Humphrey to debate him that summer and might have succeeded in prying some HHH delegates loose. We will never know for sure what the outcome would have been. What we can know is that his victory was not by any means guaranteed (and no one knew that better than RFK himself). While he would have appreciated your enthusiasm, he took a much more cool-headed view.
Ironically, Lowenstein himself became a victim of political assassination when an escaped mental patient burst into his office, and shot about five bullets into his body.
Whether Al Lowenstein's killing in 1980 was politically motivated is open to debate. Some do not consider his death a political assassination or linked to his interest in the RFK case. Obviously you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, as we hope you'll understand, we're not interested in conducting a debate here about the Lowenstein murder case (since the subject matter is a "what if" focus on Bobby Kennedy). Nevertheless it is quite regrettable that Lowenstein was shot to death.
That's correct. During the 1970s, the late Al Lowenstein wrote articles and was interviewed extensively concerning his suspicion that there was a second gunman firing in the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel. As far as the 1968 presidential campaign goes, which is the real focus of this video, Lowenstein had become a Gene McCarthy booster after unsuccessfully trying in 1967 to persuade RFK to run for President (obviously RFK later changed his mind, entering the race on March 16, 1968).
Long before the 2008 presidential election campaign it already was apparent to most people that Bobby Kennedy certainly "COULD" have obtained his party's presidential nomination and even "COULD" have defeated Nixon in the '68 election. That this was at least possible for RFK has never been in serious doubt. That's because "COULD HAVES" are easy. But what we're saying here with this video is that we'll never be able to know for sure whether RFK actually "WOULD HAVE" been successful.
Here you say "could" but in your vid information you say "simply not so." No one wanted to touch Hubert Humphrey. Americans wanted another Kennedy in the White House. Bob was that & more.
There are always far more living in poverty than in wealth. They often feel their vote wont change anything in their lives so they either don't vote or do so only when a candidate brings hope. From the popular vote to the poverty vote, he had it. And they would have drafted him in spite of the DP's decision.
There's no inconsistency in what we're saying. Read again the first paragraph of our video info. We're saying very clearly there that it "is simply not so" that RFK's California victory guaranteed him the nomination or the Presidency. We would never say Kennedy could not have won either. He certainly "could" have. We're merely saying such success was not guaranteed. If you'll read thru our commentary in both the vid info and throughout the Text Comments, you'll see we've been consistent.
After reading what you wrote I dont even what to wacth this video if all your trying to prove is how bobby would have never been president. You dont know what would have happened,nobody does. All I know is bobby is one of the greatest human beings to ever walk this earth he had a deep affection for those who suffered and felt a moral obligation to help them. bobby was everyhing a politician should have always been but never was.
You may be reading, but without comprehension. Please go back and read again - this time without emotion and with full attention. We are NOT saying RFK would never have been President. Read very slowly, calmly and carefully through our video description, as we state very clearly that we are only saying one thing, which is that his California primary victory did not, by itself, guarantee RFK his party's nomination. He still might have achieved it. That's something we'll never know. Clear?
Most who visit this site are able to comprehend the point we're making. But occasionally we get someone like you who is overcome, and blinded, by emotion and unable to think clearly while reading our video description in the upper right column. No one we respect doubts RFK's greatness. Personally we believe he would have made a great President and agree it was a tragedy he was killed. Nevertheless he had a tough road ahead of him after California, which no one understood better than RFK himself.
We urge you to do what we have repeatedly suggested to everyone in our video description above (and throughout this Text Comments section)... watch this video for yourself. If you're able to grasp such things, you should see from this video that RFK's capture of the presidential nomination was NOT guaranteed by his Calif. win. This video not only shows it was commonly accepted among the media that his Calif. win did NOT clinch the nomination for RFK but it also shows RFK knew this as well.
This is an interesting question, but RFK wouldn't be the first Kennedy to win a floor fight under the Democratic rules of that era. Because there were only a limited number of primaries and the Vietnam war was turning so sour, it is very possible that the non-primary states could have been swayed following California's results. HHH, to quote someone more knowledgeable than me, was a "shallow, contemptible and hopelessly dishonest old hack ." That's to state it lightly at the time.
who is humphrey? i thought it was kennedy, mccarthy & nixon when johnson stepped down, to run for the presidency, if humphrey was most popular, why is he never talked about?
If you'll read through this video's entire "Comments" section and read this video's "More Info" section in the upper right column, you'll learn who Humphrey was and you'll see that he is discussed extensively by other respondents. Just to add this, Nixon was not a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination (he was among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, eventually winning both that nomination in early August and the presidency itself in early November).
It is virtually assured that had he lived but not obtained the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968, RFK would never have accepted a second appointment as Attorney General of the United States. It's equally assured he would not have been been offered his old cabinet post.
In Off Broadway's "MacBird!", a mid-1960s spoof about LBJ, William Devane played Robert Ken O'Dunc, a fictional character (modeled after Robert Kennedy) who was the brother of the assassinated fictional character John Ken O'Dunc. In the mid-1970s, Devane played President John F. Kennedy in the ABC made-for-TV movie, "The Missiles of October" (while the role of Attorney General Robert Kennedy was played by Martin Sheen).
Thanks for this video. I was almost 16 when RFK was assassinated. I had backed him throughout the primaries. But my feeling then was that the nomination was controlled by the party hierarchy more than the people. Humphrey had it virtually locked up. Kennedy confirmed that in comments here that I couldn't stay up late enough to catch in 1968 and were lost in the assassination coverage the next day. And his analysis was astute. Without McCarthy's support, Kennedy would have had a very rough road.
Could Kennedy have been in line for the vice-presidency under Humphrey if he was not killed? At the very least, RFK would have been the leading Democrat for either 1972 or 1976.
That's at least a fairly plausible scenario, although IMO it probably wouldn't have happened, given RFK's rather vocal antagonism towards HHH in the final days leading up of the primary season.
That's an assumption you are making - an easily-made one which can never be proved or disproved. It might be true. It might be untrue. We will never know for sure. A very similar - and also easily-made - assumption could be made about Johnson: that in 1968 LBJ would not allow his presidency to be sandwiched between two Kennedys and would do whatever it took to keep RFK from succeeding him. Whatever it took. So we can play this game of speculation with Nixon and play the same game with LBJ.
I agree with Tevix that RFK wouldn't have gotten the nomination or been elected. I think the math indicates that. That's just a personal opinion I have and I could be wrong about it (I don't believe we'll ever really know for sure, so I don't think we can be 100% certain one way or another). I also agree libs are basically starry-eyed children always looking for a Messiah. They're doing that with Obama now and it's sickening. That kind of stupidity is not what built America or keeps it free.
Obviously Jeff Greenfield (given his association with RFK) would make such a misleading, starry-eyed statement like that: so that starry-eyed liberals who can't let go of the "RFK as savior" notion can keep on fantasizing that RFK would have saved the day and made everything all right. The answer's in the math, folks. My own personal belief is that the '68 Democratic race (and even November outcome) would not have turned out much differently had RFK not been shot.
You've completely misinterpreted Greenfield's remark. Go back & re-read his comment but, this time, slowly & with careful attention to the meaning of each & every word. What Greenfield said was there's no way we'll ever know if RFK would have gained the nomination. Full stop. There's nothing misleading about that. It's as clear a fact as you'll ever find. He's not fanning emotions or dreams. He's being honest: we simply can't KNOW that. Yes, we can SPECULATE (as you are doing) but we can't KNOW.
Technically speaking, yes, "we'll never know" - despite the fact that HHH had effectively locked up the nomination by the time of the California primary.
When RFK fans say, "we'll never know," they are implying something far more than just strict uncertainty.
They imply that RFK still had a real shot at winning the nomination - despite the poor odds that made such a win unrealistic. This is where the RFK fans hinge their fantasies on, and why they keep insisting "we'll never know."
Actually, let me amend that. The only plausible way events might have turned out differently if RFK had not been shot is if he had campaigned vigorously for Humphrey leading up to the November election. RFK could have been able to persuade the left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party to unite with the centrist HHH forces, which might have helped put Humphrey over the top in November. But I find this scenario very unlikely.
I think commentator Jeff Greenfield, a former RFK presidential campaign aide, put it well on the 40th anniversary of the assassination when Jeff said of Bobby Kennedy:
"We can't know if he would have been nominated or elected or governed well, but did we lose a rare kind of public figure? That I think we do know."
We can only know what unique sort of person we lost. We can't know the rest.
When one looks at the 1968 Democratic race objectively and rationally, it is quite clear that by the time of the California primary, RFK was not going to win the Democratic Party nomination.
When one does some very simple math regarding the delegate count, there's really only one conclusion: Humphrey was going to be his party's nominee, regardless of RFK's California victory.
There's no question that RFK's California victory did not guarantee him the nomination, a point which we have stressed (and likely will have to continue to stress) repeatedly. To win in Chicago, Kennedy would have had to pry loose delegates committed to Humphrey. Your belief that RFK would never have succeeded in such an effort is certainly worth considering. Another factor in HHH's favor was influence that LBJ likely would have exerted at the convention on behalf of Humphrey.
Wallace took votes from Nixon: IF RFK were the nominee, maybe some of the Wallace voters would have voted Nixon, because they would have wanted to stop a perceived left winger from becoming president. I think a lot of Wallace supporters thought that Nixon and Humphrey were both so moderate that it didn't matter which one got in. If RFK were the nominee, they'd want to stop a lefty getting in, so they'd vote Nixon.
Something to consider is George Wallace. Might he have affected a Nixon-RFK election? With Nixon-Humphrey, there was concern Wallace might mean no one getting the necessary electoral votes, throwing the election to the House of Representatives. Didn't happen. Wallace also failed to spoil the election for HHH by taking away enough Nixon votes. Nixon won BOTH the 270 electoral votes and a pluralty of the popular votes. Still, Wallace might have proved more of a factor in a Nixon-RFK match-up.
I trust Richard Nixon's analysis on this one. After all, he was the greatest political operator of all time. He said in his memoirs about that California primary night, "I believed that Hubert Humphrey had waited too long before declaring his candidacy, and I saw no way a Kennedy juggernaut could be stopped once it had acquired the momentum of a California victory. As I went to bed, I said, 'It sure looks like we'll be going against Bobby." (Memoirs: pg. 305)
Had bullets not been fired that night, Nixon's assessment might well have been borne out. His sense of a Kennedy momentum coming out of California is something to consider. Of course we'll never really know for sure. RFK himself told Andy West in the ballroom, only a minute before he was shot in the pantry, that the road to Chicago would be a struggle. One can only imagine how he would have battled Humphrey and later, if successful, Nixon himself.
With all due respect to Nixon, his analysis is hogwash. He was probably saying it just to be dramatic anyway.
The importance of the CA primary has always been overblown, since HHH (who did not run in a single primary) was already far ahead in the delegate count.
The fact is, HHH shrewdly gamed the electoral process by bypassing the popular vote entirely, and going after pledged delegates, which is really what you need to win. Sorry folks, but RFK wasn't going to be the nominee in '68.
You don't get it because you're very young, a non-American and unfamiliar with the U.S. electoral system. Humphrey was winning only within his own party in his bid for his party's presidential nomination. He was not winning in the wider scope of the general election campaign, which involved much more than just his party. After winning his party's nomination in August, Humphrey could not win the presidency in November because he couldn't get enough votes outside his own party during the fall.
The movie makes it look like he was the presidential heir apparent. People watch a movie, and they assume that whatever the movie protrays is fact. Thanks for posting this video. I was 11 yrs old when this took place, and watched it all play out on TV in real time. Thanks for giving people some real facts.
I agree with you. The film "Bobby" is a piece of fiction that can very easily fool people into believing the myth that RFK secured the nomination with his California victory. No doubt Kennedy-worshippers like Emilo Estevez believe that with all their heart. But it's simply untrue. RFK did not have it all wrapped up the night he was shot. I wish these Hollywood types would be more responsible but most of them aren't and certainly show no sign of mending their ways. Great video Historymythbusters!
Just to reiterate. HistoryMythBusters does not take the position that Robert F. Kennedy, even had he not been shot, still would not have won the Democratic presidential nomination. Our position on that specific issue is that we'll never know whether RFK would have gone on to win the nomination. He might have. He might not have. Unknowable. The point of our posted video is that Senator Kennedy, on the night he was shot, certainly had not secured the nomination by winning the California primary.
historymythbusters is spot on regarding his/her analysis. There is absolutely no way Lyndon Johnson, who controlled the Democratic Party machinery, would have ever allowed RFK to get the nomination. I thiink he would had beaten Nixon if he had, but HHH was going to be the nominee no matter what.
I strongly concur. RFK got into the race late, and the fact that LBJ hated Bobby Kennedy's guts, also that Kennedy really didn't have the delegates to mount a real challange to HHH anyway, yes, we can say with certainty that Sen. Robert F. Kennedy D-NY, had he lived would NOT have won the democratic nomination. Yes, Johnson would've seen to that one way or the other.
But wouldn't Humphrey have been 'tainted' by the Johnson presidency? Bobby entered the race quite late and could have been nominated at the Democratic convention on a tide of emotion for JFK. With the death of MLK in March, Bobby really was the 'Last Best Hope'. We have not seen his like since nor will we again.
Your points are certainly worth debating. However, we'll never really know for sure if any of these things you mentioned would have taken place had RFK lived. All we can really know for sure is that RFK did NOT have the nomination sewed up on the night he was shot. Which does not mean he could not have eventually found his way to nomination, had he avoided assassination in the hotel kitchen pantry. He might have. He might not have. We'll never really know with any certainty.
fascinating- you've done a great job. Any chance of uploading more of your archive of the press coverage in it's entirety, or close to it? Just asking. I remember Pat Paulsen being interviewed that night, on TV.
As you won't be surprised to learn, that request has been made to us a number of times. We hope to be able to be able to show more from that night eventually. Yes, Pat Paulsen was interviewed by KNXT's Ralph Story in a taped report that aired that evening over the CBS network. Also, Paulsen was at the Ambassador Hotel about three hours before the RFK assassination occurred there. He was filming for his "Pat Paulsen for President" comedy special that aired later that year on CBS.
As a political science student though, I love this campaign. It was full of passion, drama (some I wished didn't happen) and a definite turning point in American history. Sadly, history classes usually just pass over this as nothing. Oh well, at least we can still learn the truth.
I agree with the gentleman who posted this video. I don't think Bobby would've won in
'68, but I DO believe had he lived he probably would've won in 1972. You have to remember, Nixon only won with 43% of the vote which meant that 57% of the nation didn't particularly care for the man.
We are not concluding RFK would not have won his party's nomination in August or the presidency in November. Our point is that RFK was not guaranteed the Democratic nomination by his California primary victory. Instead, he would have had a long, difficult struggle ahead of him that summer against Vice President Hubert Humphrey. So we'll never know whether RFK would have prevailed at the Chicago convention against Humphrey or in the general election against former Vice President Richard Nixon.
I don't know if RFK would've run in 1972. The public mood was way different in '72 than it was in '68. Vietnam was coming to an end and according to Gallup, in 1972 Nixon had a job approval rating over 60%. A loss to Nixon would finish off RFK as a viable presidential candidate.
This is so ghoulish- RFK being interviewed on the night that he was shot. Like his brother before him, youth had his back. But, it would have been an HHH/RFK ticket, possibly in a tighter race with Nixon/Agnew.
You mean they spent this much time on an election on a national television station? Wow, people or lucky to get five minutes on a national television station these days. Only rich people with cable could afford to get MSNBC, FOX news, CNN etc (which suck anyway, i rather have youtube)
RFK would have won the nomination easily in '68. Jesus, talk about rewriting history. The two main blocks of delegates belonged to McCarthy and Kennedy who were both against the war.
The point of this video is to show that RFK's victory in the California primary did not itself guarantee him the Democratic presidential nomination. At the time of his California win, just before he was shot, RFK still had a difficult -- not necessarily impossible, but difficult -- road ahead to Chicago. That's the only point we're trying to make with this video.
I don't think people are still arguing that Bobby would have had the nomination locked up had he lived. What most would say is that:
a)even with his lead in delegates, it would have been far more difficult for Humphrey to present himself as a credible nominee, and might well have withdrawn from the race, especially if his poll ratings against Nixon had been lower than Kennedy's(as they could well have been)
b)If Humphrey HAD still been nominated, he'd have likely broken with the war early.
KennBurch 5 months ago
Bah! These primaries are all about momentum, and the California primary victory was massive. Kennedy had the momentum, only lost one state since entering, and would have pealed off both McCarthy supporters AND delegates committed to Humphrey. He had it, and would have been the next President of the United States. History would have been different, and there would have been no Nixon presidency.
ezrabglaw 6 months ago
I was shocked when I found out recently that Walter Cronkite was involved in a secret society (Bohemian Grove). Shocked because I thought he was supposed to be "The Most Trusted Man in America". Now I wonder if my past respect for him has waned. But back to this RFK issue: I read one person here wrote that had Kennedy lived, he would of still lost to Humphrey in Chicago-but Triple H would of made him his vice-president (if that's true, why didn't he choose McCarthey instead of Muskie?).
EricandDish 7 months ago
Wasn't New York's presidential primary yet to come? If Bobby had won that, it would have all been up for grabs. Perhaps Mayor Daley Sr. could have done something at the convention to throw it to Bobby. Daley was pissed at the demonstrators, but he didn't exactly like the war. An RFK-Daley alliance might've outflanked the LBJ-HHH-forged delegates.
If Bobby had lost the nomination but still lived, I'll guarantee you enough voters would've come out to throw HHH enough States to beat Nixon.
UncleMikeNJ 8 months ago
There were only seven Democratic primaries in 1968, if I recall. That does not seem to me to be adequate for challenging the institutional support Humphrey had been putting together. But as so many other things showed us that year, never underestimate what the outside world can do to institutional function and institutional thinking.
Trudeau7900 8 months ago
Someone sure as hell thought he was going to be a shoe in otherwise they wouldn't have assassinated him so promptly. He would've been president there is absolutely no doubt.
curtisgeorge2011 9 months ago 2
humphrey still would have got nomination no matter what
jasmcc1 11 months ago
@jasmcc1 not necessarily. He'd have found it far harder to make a case that he really represented the will of the party if he'd been up against a candidate who'd demonstrated massive support in the primaries. And Humphrey would have been far likelier to follow his true instincts and publicly break with the war before the convention, since he could still have been nominated with the combined support of his personal loyalists added to Kennedy and McCarthy's delegates.
KennBurch 5 months ago
No one knows the answer 2 that question.
1stTrillionaire 1 year ago
Uh the real question should be "what if JFK had lived?"
1stTrillionaire 1 year ago
Gee it's too bad the conspiracy did not consult some pompous self styled intellectuals before they decided to kill him.
TrueNovice 1 year ago
Bobby Kennedy was a social and economic moderate by todays standards. Most likely pro-life. Most likely not a big Government spender. He was liberal where he needed to be liberal and conservative when he needed to be conservative. But most importantly he was a leader. This country lost a piece of its soul when he and Jack were killed.
MickeyMorandini1 1 year ago
The one thing I disagree with how this video is presented is the idea that Humphrey would've walked away with a landslide to the nomination. It would've been close, though I still give Humphrey a 60% over 40% to Kennedy over a hypothetical had he lived scenario. It's hard to know for sure how much in favor things would've gone or not gone for RFK. Minutes before his victory speech, he told Dick Goodwin to tell McCarthy that "if he withdraws and supports me now, I'll make him Secretary of State."
Nominay 1 year ago
@Nominay At no time do we say that Humphrey was poised on the night of June 4-5, 1968 to walk away with a landslide victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968. We do not say that he was guaranteed to win the nomination at that time. We merely make the point that RFK himself was not guaranteed the nomination by winning the California primary. We don't know what would have happened had Senator Kennedy not been killed. And we never will know.
historymythbusters 1 year ago
@historymythbusters First of all, thanks for putting this incredible video together. I know not how you managed to collect all this footage and succinctly edit it. 2nd, I just feel it was premature to conclude then and now that Humphrey was poised to win. Sure, he had a clear pathway to the nomination - he was the frontrunner - but he was still hundreds of delegates away, and the one thing I see no one here talking about was the possibility of McCarthy releasing all of his delegates to Kennedy.
Nominay 1 year ago
@Nominay RFK himself makes clear in this video he needed McCarthy support. What we're saying here is that as of the night of June 4-5, 1968, it APPEARED Humphrey was poised to win the Democratic presidential nomination. It's a simple fact that HHH "appeared" to be poised for such a win. But we're also saying it would not have been completely impossible for RFK to have defeated HHH for the nomination. That would have been a difficult struggle for Kennedy but not impossible. Can we be any clearer?
historymythbusters 1 year ago
@historymythbusters Of course it was within the realm of possibility that RFK might have gained McCarthy support had he not been killed. Kennedy himself regarded this as a requirement if he was going to beat Humphrey (he makes this clear in the video). So the McCarthy factor is not being ignored. The bottom line here is we are simply making two key points: (1) RFK was not guaranteed the nomination by virtue of his California primary victory and (2) we will never know what would have happened.
historymythbusters 1 year ago
@historymythbusters Had McCarthy released all of his delegates to Kennedy, then suddenly you have a competitive race on your hands and it was too early for such prognostications. This was a real possibility that the press apparently either overlooked or did not seriously consider.
Nominay 1 year ago
RFK would've had a hard time prying loose uncommitted and McCarthy delegates but it was possible. He also needed to convince old pros not bound by primaries that he had a better shot to beat Nixon than Humphrey did. He probably did--he had a better shot at keeping Democratic voters in states Nixon narrowly carried, from staying home or casting a protest vote for Wallace. That would've been enough iin 1968..
With Robert Kennedy as President from 1969 to 1977 it''s a different world...
BobWXXI 1 year ago
The delegates pledged to Humphrey were non-binding. What Kennedy was going to attempt was to convince enough of those delegates to change their minds. He was going to tell them, and the country, that his primary wins showed that he was the only Democrat with enough popular support to win in November. That was the strategy. Would it have worked? 50/50 at best.
MegaObserver1 1 year ago
What is the name of the song at 0:50?
MrFunfsinn 1 year ago
The long video description is nice, but it ignores the fact that even if Robert Kennedy had not won the nomination in '68, where he entered the race extremely late in the game as a long shot candidate, he would have been the strongest Democratic Party candidate down the road in the years to come and with his popularity and skills, would have most likely been elected President, making someone like Nixon a historical footnote. What could have been... Such a different country and world.
alamo141 1 year ago
@alamo141 @alamo141 Well of course the long video description ignores that, idiot. Perhaps you didn't notice it, but this video is strictly about the 1968 election and what its outcome might have been had RFK not been assassinated. The video is not about the elections of 1972 or 1976 or 1980 or about their outcomes. So there's no reason for the video's description to speculate about such elections coming after 1968. Christ, can't you understand that?
mayushkaralvrgona 1 year ago 2
...trust-fund brat Kennedy had no shot at the nomination.
Had his trust-fund brat brother JFK not been POTUS, he'd have been little more than a novelty candidate.
Too bad both he and JFK were murdered- with young families, but-they were political jokes...
eternalcolonel 1 year ago
@eternalcolonel ,Scumbag.
thomasg74 1 year ago
Only Nixon had the brains and balls to end the war...
iamdiaperman 1 year ago
You're right. Liberals cry that it took Nixon four years to achieve Peace With Honor via the Paris peace accords of January 1973. While I'm sorry that it took that long and additional American servicemen were killed, wounded or captured during Nixon's first term before the accords finally were signed, Nixon ended our involvement the right way. RFK would have done it the wrong way. Don't get me wrong: RFK was a great man but he wasn't right about everything.
mayushkaralvrgona 1 year ago
RFK was a good and decent man and I mourn his loss. But Nixon's Vietnam policy was better. Had Nixon not resigned in 1974 over Watergate, the North Vietnamese would not have dared to cross over into South Vietnam and taken it over in 1975. They knew Nixon would have used the Truman option on them (the atom bomb) for violating the Paris peace accords. Nixon had brains and balls, just as you say. Just as Truman did.
mayushkaralvrgona 1 year ago
@mayushkaralvrgona
I agree that North Vietnam would not have taken over the South had Nixon not resigned. But it wasn't Truman who threatened to use atomic weapons in Korea - it was Eisenhower.
Truman basically choked when the Chinese entered the war. He refused the nuclear option (as well as other conventional means) that MacArthur advocated which would have won the Korean War for the US. In fact, Truman eventually undid himself the same way LBJ did: by tying one hand behind his back.
tevix08 1 year ago
Democrats today are too soft, too weak, too scared. They are not FDR or Truman or JFK Democrats. They are Stevenson Democrats or worse: Teddy Kennedy Democrats. RFK was somewhere in the middle between a JFK Democrat and a Teddy Democrat. Obama is a Teddy Democrat and because of this we are doomed unless there is a course correction in 2012.
mayushkaralvrgona 1 year ago
I wish there were some way to create American leaders by taking only the best and brightest characteristics of our past leaders and not their flaws. If we could combine in someone the best that Nixon had to offer with the best that RFK had to offer (while keeping out their weaknesses), we would have one helluva great leader.
mayushkaralvrgona 1 year ago
@iamdiaperman
Nixon really got dealt a raw hand, and he ended the war the only way he (or anyone else) could. Losing S.Vietnam while US troops were fighting there would have seriously crippled America's position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Who knows what the USSR or communists worldwide might have done globally if the US had just bugged out? This is the question Nixon had to worry about -- a question the anti-war movement and liberals never really took the time to consider.
tevix08 1 year ago
@tevix08 do you know the real story about the Gulf of Tonkin? Did you ever read the Pentagon Papers? I voted for Nixon...first time I was able to vote...voted for him because I thought he would end the wr...little did I know.....he new about Johnson's Gufl of Tonkin ploy, and he went along with it and blamed the hippies on the new world order. The hippies were not my favorite, but call a spade a spade...they lied...Kennedy (my hero), Johnson and Nixon...and how many died because of it??
werentthosethedays 1 year ago
@werentthosethedays
Yes, I'm familar with the story. That incident took place in 1964, 5 years before Nixon became president. The Pentagon Papers documented the history of the war up to 1967 - again before Nixon took office. I'm not sure what this has to do with Nixon's record. Nixon was trying to clean up the mess his Democratic predecessors left behind, that's all.
tevix08 1 year ago
Roger mudd is such a worthless COCKSUCKING BITCH
greeniem 1 year ago
Actually, as cocksucking bitches go, I hear he's pretty good and worth every penny.
EricSevareidCBS 1 year ago
"he didn't have a chance"
Pippin76 1 year ago
what the fuck is up with where Kennedy is being interviewed? Are they in a crate or something?
Connerisawesome 2 years ago
Hey, what the fuck, what the fuck, what the fuck?!!!
CBS had a suite on the fifth floor of the Ambassador Hotel that it used as its interview room (this was the same floor where Kennedy's suite in the hotel was also located) and so CBS set up a fake cardboard backdrop in its suite for its network interviews. That's what your seeing behind RFK and Mudd.
ABC's suite was right next door to CBS's suite. NBC had a suite one floor below on the fourth floor that it used for its interviews.
HelpGetTheTruthOut 2 years ago
But wasn't RFK more popular than Humphrey? Wouldn't it have made more sense for the delegates to vote for Kennedy?
Spengler56 2 years ago
Whether that would have made more sense or not, delegates were not free to vote for whoever they personally wanted at the outset of convention balloting. The delegates would not be free to vote for their personal choice until after the convention's first ballot was cast and counted. The first ballot results would be based on the votes of committed delegates: votes already designated by their state's primary results as well as votes designated by party bosses in non-primary states.
dannyandthejuniors 2 years ago
RFK chose to enter the primaries, hoping to win all or most of the ones he competed in, because he wanted to show he had the strongest popular support within the party. Humphrey took the other route (not thru the primaries but thru the party's smoke-filled back rooms) and he secured commitments from party bosses. We'll never know if RFK's route might have led him to denying Humphrey a first ballot victory. If so, RFK might then have won the nomination on a second ballot via his popular support.
dannyandthejuniors 2 years ago
hi cbobmoats - Interesting! but may i ask, how would an RFK bolt have helped HHH defeat Nixon? My gut instinct is that RFK never would have bolted the party in any event. I also feel that he would have really resisted being HHH's vice-presidential running mate. He wouldn't have played second fiddle to HHH. I just don't see it for RFK.
But don't get me wrong, I totally wish we could have had him as president! what an exciting, inspiring thought.
scottnownow 2 years ago
That's a good question. Nixon might very well have beaten HHH anyway, even if RFK had not assassinated. Indeed, RFK was in fact absent from the scene (due to his assassination), and HHH lost in November.
I share your intuition that it would have been highly unlikely for RFK to agree to become HHH's running mate, although I think that was probably RFK's best chance to be on a national ticket in '68.
tevix08 2 years ago
It would have been highly difficult for RFK to win the nomination even with a marriage to McCarthy. Organized labor and big city machines were still likely to support HHH over RFK. The two most likely scenarios would have been a HHH/RFK marriage with an "end the war" committment or an RFK bolts the party and runs a fourth ticket on a total anti-war plank. Either way, HHH chances to beat Nixon increase either through a united Dem party or through a race in the House of Reps.
cbobmoats 2 years ago
RFK would have been a GREAT president! But HHH, with LBJ's help, had the '68 nomination locked up. '68 was when RFK's time passed politically. USA entered that 40-year conservative era that year. Could anyone have defeated Nixon in '72, when he won 49 states? Then, by '76, the Kennedy image had been tarnished (revelations about JFK's personal life; Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) Also, by '76, RFK's bold liberal vision was absolutely passé, unfortunately. But maybe I'm wrong.
scottnownow 2 years ago
Great? In what way? Withdrawing US troops from Vietnam? That's exactly what Nixon did from 1969-73. Reducing Cold War tensions with his detente with the Soviets and Chinese? Again, Nixon did that. Nixon also ended the draft. Under Nixon, Affirmative action and school desegregation took off. Liberals always want some soft, feminine, feel-good savior to save the day -- and they got that with Clinton, and now Obama. That's some idea of how RFK might have turned out had he been president.
tevix08 2 years ago
@tevix08 but Nixon took 4 years at least to end the Vietnam war, he escalated the war before it finally ended, even though it ended during his administration
Claronium780 1 year ago
@Claronium780
Yes it took 4 years, no thanks to the anti-war movement and liberal press who played a major role in prolonging the agony, fanning the flames of disunity and chaos. Otherwise, the war very likely would have ended much sooner, and on terms far more favorable than the one eventually hammered out in 1973.
Incidentally, Nixon was pulling out troops by the 10s of 1000s every year. He ended both the war AND the draft. He did EXACTLY what the liberals and anti war folks wanted.
tevix08 1 year ago
@Claronium780
Yes, he took 4 years - thanks to the liberal news media and anti-war movement who undermined Nixon's efforts to end the war quickly.
N.Vietnam saw the turmoil and disunity in America, exacerbated by the liberal press and anti-war movement - they saw how all this had weakened Nixon's hand. And they were smart enough to realize that all they had to do was hold on for another 4 years, and then S.Vietnam was theirs.
tevix08 1 year ago
@tevix08 but Nixon took 4 years at least to end the Vietnam war, he escalated the war before it finally ended, even though it ended during his administration
Claronium780 1 year ago
Even if much evidence shows that Kennedy could not have won that year, there is no saying that he would not run again. Afterall, bobby was a young man and with the goodwill of being a Kennedy he probably would have eventually become President on account of his steadfast ambition. RIP Robert.
WhenLilacsLast 2 years ago
Bobby would have gotten the nomination. Humphrey had the delegates but Bobby hadthe general public. The emotional wave and the pressure for the delegates to act on public opinion would cause a probable strategy on delegates to delay Humphrey's nomination on the first ballot to appease the public. This would have given Bobby time to organize his men and sway the delegates, based on his record of winning delegates on the convention floor (56 and 60).
paraconti 2 years ago
your acting like something the news says or a commentator says is 100% fact or truth. who knows he could be a humpfry supporter. i mean i could show a million clips saying the same thing about obama in this primary election or during al gore/ george bush election in 2000. its never over till its over.
pat442389 2 years ago
And you are acting like a retard. You obviously don't pay attention very well. Try, if you can, to comprehend the following:
Robert Kennedy himself says in this video that Hubert Humphrey looks like a sure bet for the nomination unless RFK can win over Gene McCarthy supporters!
RFK himself says this on the night he was shot!
Watch this video again. This time, listen with both ears (especially listen to RFK himself in this video) and, this time, try to comprehend what is being said.
icestationzebra509 2 years ago
In these, his last-ever, TV network interviews that tragic night, Robert F. Kennedy -- for want of kinder, gentler phrasing -- basically spoke out of both sides of his mouth. As harsh as that may sound, we don't say it in order to attack this outstanding American but say it, only, in defense of truth. In his first TV interviews that night, with NBC's Sander Vanocur, RFK asserted that without his gaining support from McCarthy or McCarthy's supporters, Humphrey would win the Democratic nomination.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
In RFK's next TV network interview that same night, CBS's Roger Mudd challenged Senator Kennedy by zeroing in on that same comment the Senator had just made minutes earlier to NBC's Vanocur. RFK responded by telling Mudd, "I believe I said that it would be very, very difficult (to win without McCarthy support)." However, despite that Kennedy reply, Mudd clearly had gotten it right: RFK in fact had told Vanocur that he could "only win" his party's presidential nomination with McCarthy support.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
So, on this particular question, the RFK position, expressed in his NBC interview, actually shifted a bit by the time of his CBS interview. Just minutes after the CBS interview, RFK then went next door to the ABC interview suite, also located on the Ambassador Hotel's fifth floor, where he was next interviewed by ABC TV's Bob Clark (in L.A.) and by Howard K. Smith and Bill Lawrence (both in N.Y.). In his ABC interview, RFK now clung to the new wording he had just introduced in the CBS interview.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
It's interesting to see RFK's position change during these interviews. First he tells NBC that, despite his Calif. victory, it would be impossible to win the nomination without McCarthy support. Then he modifies this by telling CBS and ABC that it would be very difficult to win without McCarthy support (even claiming to CBS that his new phrasing was what he'd told NBC). Nonetheless, RFK made it clear to all three networks that he knew Humphrey was the front-runner despite the RFK Calif. victory.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
@historymythbusters Great analysis. You are spot on.
proferic 1 year ago
There are "no certainties", sure, but California gave him a huge bargaining chip toward Chicago. McCarthy could have been negotiated out of it. And Kennedy knew how to work with favorable momentum. Kennedy would have had a better shot than 50/50.
OcracokeSurfer 2 years ago
Given the many uncertainties, it's very difficult to put an actual number on his nomination chances had he lived (e.g. your 50/50). You might be right. We'll never know. But, yes, Calif. was important. Winning NY, 2 weeks later, would have been important. Ted Sorensen argued that history showed the candidate winning both Calif. and NY also won the nomination. RFK might have eventually prevailed. What we can say with certainty is that his Calif. victory alone did not guarantee him the nomination.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
We also know that even if you won all the 1968 Democratic presidential primaries, you would not win enough delegates for nomination (considerably less states holding them then compared with now). Thus RFK, as you suggest, focused on building momentum. HHH focused on building delegates. RFK was far from victory on the night of June 4-5, 1968 and the road to Chicago would have been a "struggle" as he noted in his last recorded words to Andy West. Not necessarily impossible. But certainly not easy.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
For many, RFK's death - and the emotions it stirred - obscurred the realities of the 1968 Democratic race. Emilio Estevez, a small child in 1968, grew up under the resulting myth. His movie "Bobby" (a work of fiction based loosely on history) falsely tells its viewers that RFK's Calif. victory set him up to face Republican Nixon in the fall. It's that falsehood we resent. We're glad to see you don't buy into that myth. We respect the argument you've presented, and are grateful for it, thank you.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
What if he'd lived? I must conclude that had he not walked thru that kitchen pantry, and had he gone on to take the lead over Humphrey that summer, there would have been another attempt on Kennedy's life before the Chicago convention. I base this on conclusive scientific evidence - widely reported recently - that there was a second gunman in the pantry. This almost certainly points to a well-organized plot. Surely such a conspiracy would have tried again, probably successfully the second time.
mayushkaralvrgona 2 years ago
I realize the purpose of this video post is not to debate the question of conspiracy in RFK's death. I just want to make that one point about the likelihood of a second attempt on his life just before the Chicago convention, as I consider it a probable outcome had he not been shot in L.A. I base this on new acoustic evidence of a 2nd gun firing in the RFK assassination, as discovered in the recently uncovered Pruszynski audio recording. That tape, taken with other evidence, screams conspiracy.
mayushkaralvrgona 2 years ago
Thank you, historymythbusters, for posting this, and for your observations about the 1968 race.
I've read everything I can get my hands on about the '68 campaign, and I agree with you that Hubert Humphrey was almost certain to be the Democratic nominee that year, whether RFK had lived or not. As you suggest, HHH had the delegates. RFK didn't.
Yet the myth persists that RFK was the certain nominee when he was killed. He wasn't.
Thank you for trying to correct this baseless myth.
ShermansAlley 2 years ago
Life today would be much better had RFK lived
robbins1980 2 years ago
I sat at home in CA and wept with my my mom over the RK assassination. It changed our nation forever moreso than King's murder. This man represented real change. It influenced my life, sorry to say, in a very negative way. What a huge [blood] stain on America. Just the worst thing you could imagine for a supposedly "free" country.
cjk9013 2 years ago
We thank you for your comment. However we might suggest that while Robert F. Kennedy was indeed a great man and a great American, it would not be the death of any single individual that would qualify as the worst thing we could imagine for a free country. Rather it would be the death of freedom itself.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
A country such as ours - if it is to remain free and if it is to remain great - must never rely so much on the temporal life of a single individual that the person's inevitable death, either in youth or in dotage, would constitute the country's worst conceivable fate. Thus far, our country - along with its freedoms and its greatness - has survived very well the deaths of all its founding fathers and various Presidents of consequence (like Jackson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy and Reagan).
historymythbusters 2 years ago
Senator Kennedy's death was, and remains, a blow to this nation. The measure of his loss at only 42 and that of President Kennedy's at only 46 are incalcuable. These were wounds to the country which might prove everlasting. However they were not fatal to the country, its greatness or its freedoms. And we would suggest that Robert Francis Kennedy would tell you that himself.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
RFK would have gone all the ay if he wasnt killed.
Nacho2333 2 years ago
Sure, eventually, in perhaps 1972 or 1976. But not in 1968.
LadyMacbeth321 2 years ago
What If Bobby Kennedy Had Lived? The world would have been a much better place to live in.
mafaldacrumbwitty 2 years ago 8
The most ironic thing is the Kennedy's pushed for Humphrey to be Vice President. They wanted someone they thought they could trust in the VP role. This decision clearly came back to bite them later, although it is easier to criticize the decision in hindsight. No one could have guessed the political climate would have changed so drastically.
sabamerv1313 2 years ago
Wait a minute. You're saying that in '64 Atty. Gen. Bob Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy wanted LBJ to pick HHH as his VP runningmate? That doesn't make sense because RFK himself wanted to be LBJ's runningmate. But LBJ didn't want RFK on the ticket and announced that no Cabinet members would be his runningmate. Then he picked Senator Humphrey. A few weeks later, RFK resigned as Atty. Gen. and ran for the U.S. Senate from New York. So I believe you're wrong about the Kennedys wanting HHH as LBJ's VP.
doohban 2 years ago
well bobby wanted humphrey to be vp for jfk and in 64 i dont think he foresaw how badly vietnam would turn out and how the civil rights movement and anti war protests would go,. a lot changes in 4 years, more then people think. in early 2002 bush was loved by 75% in 2006 he maybe had a 30% approval rating. obama didnt think he would run in 08 when asked in 04 at the dnc in boston
pat442389 2 years ago
just think, RFK as president would mean that RMN would never have had the opportunity to sell us out to Mao Tse Tung and production may have stayed in U.S.A and Canada. Present day joblessness may have been avoided.
mgrelecki 2 years ago
We'll never know with certainty whether Nixon's China policy (which led to normalized U.S. relations with mainland China under Carter in 1979) really altered China's course in the way you're suggesting. Deng Xiaoping's rise to power after Mao's death in 1976 and Deng's move to capitalism may have happened anyway. But let's assume for a moment that you're correct about laying all this at Nixon's doorstep. Would the world be better off today had China stuck to its more aggressive militant stance?
historymythbusters 2 years ago
Don't you think that if Nixon hadn't visited China, that someone else would have? Furthermore, there are far too many variables that have occurred since 1968 to make the conclusion that our "present day joblessness" is because of Nixon's trip.
titans0002 2 years ago
Historians are virtually in unanimous agreement that a President Humphrey would NOT have made a visit to China by 1972. But again (even in the extremely unlikely event HHH might have done that), we'll never know with certainty that a 1972 U.S. presidential trip to China, made by whoever, really had the power to change China's course. That change may have been inevitable with Deng's rise to power a few years later. As for your present day joblessness assessment, we wholeheartedly agree with you.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
Just as you say, there are far too many variables to reasonably conclude that today's joblessness stems from Nixon's China policy. There also are far too many variables to know whether a President Robert Kennedy would have opened the door to U.S. relations with mainland China. We know that when his brother was in the White House, JFK considered the lack of U.S.-China diplomatic relations at that time as "irrational." But we'll never know if JFK would have done anything about that had he lived.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
With McCarthy's support, RFK would have had a good chance.
I think some of the Humphrey delegates would have ended up supporting RFK.
Let's remember, RFK announced late, but given the choice between Humphrey and Kennedy, I think many delegates would have taken RFK. Especially if they thought he would end the war.
kac56 2 years ago
Yes, RFK seemed to believe that with the backing of McCarthy and/or McCarthy supporters, he would have a better chance of defeating Humphrey for the nomination. RFK seems to be saying that very thing in his last-ever interviews, which you can watch for yourself in this video. As for HHH-pledged delegates and remaining non-pledged delegates, RFK hoped to force HHH to debate him that summer, believing he'd be seen as the better candidate, convincing non-Kennedy delegates to ultimately support him.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
Both RFK and HHH announced late. Senator Robert F. Kennedy announced his presidential candidacy on March 16, 1968. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey announced his candidacy on April 27, 1968.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
Interesting, I didn't know HHH announced that late. I was always under the impression he announced early. Good info.
kac56 2 years ago
As Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson's VP, Hubert H. Humphrey did not formally enter the '68 presidential race until LBJ bowed out (otherwise HHH probably would have been LBJ's running-mate for the second time had LBJ decided to continue his candidacy and had he defeated RFK and Gene McCarthy by winning renomination). When LBJ withdrew his candidacy on March 31, 1968, HHH announced his candidacy four weeks later on April 27. For more details see this video's description write-up in the upper right column.
historymythbusters 2 years ago
Good info again - HHH obviously didn't announce until Johnson declared he wouldn't run.
I forgot about the timing of all this...Gee, and I sometimes think I know something about history and politics.
Thanks for the reminder.
kac56 2 years ago
I love thinking about the "what ifs", even if it is pointless to some. Had he lived, RFK would have sat out '72, and very well may have run in '76. Would the GOP realized Ford would be slaughtered by Kennedy and nominated Ronald Reagan? Could you imagine a Kennedy-Reagan matchup?!?! It would not have been impossible. I don't think Reagan would ever have been president had RFK lived. Whatever the case was, I would have lived to been alive in '68. I was born in 1973.
AmericanRuffian 3 years ago
This is a tortuous 'What if' exercise. Had RFK lived would the Democratic Convention in Chicago occurred without the violence? Although, the Kennedy machine was powerful, Humphrey appeared to have the lock on the delegates even with the RFK California Primary victory. We've already seen in the 2008 election how vital delegates are to the nominating process over Primary votes. President Johnson would have done everything possible to make sure Humphrey was the party's nominee.
userdan54 3 years ago
Very nice and interesting I like to think that Bobby would have become president.
loyaldem 3 years ago
This is an insightful piece. I think it's hard to say with any certainty that Humphrey would have had the nomination locked up. The Kennedy machine was very experienced; and Bobby was going to walk into Chicago with a lot of popular support and momentum. It's an academic exercise.
Wizjkahna 3 years ago
Thank you and we return the compliment, as we find your comments insightful too. We agree on all you've said: no certainty that HHH had the nomination locked up or that RFK might have enticed HHH into a debate, out-performing him and detaching enough HHH delegates to ultimately prevail at Chicago. We'll never know but you're correct RFK had a great deal going for him. It's all academic indeed. However we believe our key point is useful: RFK's Calif. primary win did not guarantee his nomination.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
johnson wasnt running dude. he had taken himself out of the race
saltwaterebel 3 years ago
President Johnson initially was a candidate at the start of the 1968 campaign. Before RFK entered the race on March 16, 1968, Gene McCarthy had become LBJ's only challenger by entering on November 30, 1967. RFK's announcement of candidacy came four days after McCarthy's strong March 12 second place showing against LBJ in the New Hampshire primary. LBJ then announced on March 31 that he would not seek or accept his party's presidential nomination. Vice President Humphrey entered on April 27.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
Once RFK entered the race, McCarthy was DEAD! McCarthy was the only one to challenge Johnson, until RFK became a candidate. People were a bit miffed that RFK didn't come out until after McCarthy paved the way, but that was soon forgiven and RFK's popularity exploded!
The Chicago riots during the Democratic convention consisted of enraged Americans who wanted something better than Humphrey after losing JFK, MLK, and now RFK! NO WAY would another candidate be tolerated had RFK lived.
jessix01 3 years ago
Your enthusiasm for RFK is duly noted but McCarthy was not dead once RFK entered the race. McCarthy beat RFK in the Oregon primary. A good number of people remained miffed at RFK all the way up to his assassination. You see things differently because of your emotional attachment that has continued 40 years later. But when one puts emotions aside, one sees RFK was not by any means guaranteed the nomination. If you'll watch this video, you see RFK himself knew he had a very difficult task ahead.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
The bottom line is: We'll simply never know for sure if RFK would have pulled off a victory in Chicago. He might have succeeded in getting Humphrey to debate him that summer and might have succeeded in prying some HHH delegates loose. We will never know for sure what the outcome would have been. What we can know is that his victory was not by any means guaranteed (and no one knew that better than RFK himself). While he would have appreciated your enthusiasm, he took a much more cool-headed view.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
Ironically, Lowenstein himself became a victim of political assassination when an escaped mental patient burst into his office, and shot about five bullets into his body.
vividwatch47 3 years ago
Whether Al Lowenstein's killing in 1980 was politically motivated is open to debate. Some do not consider his death a political assassination or linked to his interest in the RFK case. Obviously you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, as we hope you'll understand, we're not interested in conducting a debate here about the Lowenstein murder case (since the subject matter is a "what if" focus on Bobby Kennedy). Nevertheless it is quite regrettable that Lowenstein was shot to death.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
New York congressman Allard Lowenstein tried to prove that Sirhan Sirhan wasn't the only one involved in R.F.K.'s assassination.
vividwatch47 3 years ago
That's correct. During the 1970s, the late Al Lowenstein wrote articles and was interviewed extensively concerning his suspicion that there was a second gunman firing in the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel. As far as the 1968 presidential campaign goes, which is the real focus of this video, Lowenstein had become a Gene McCarthy booster after unsuccessfully trying in 1967 to persuade RFK to run for President (obviously RFK later changed his mind, entering the race on March 16, 1968).
historymythbusters 3 years ago
I think the last year of US presidential race has shown that RFK could have made it & would have made a difference.
sandsmansage 3 years ago
Long before the 2008 presidential election campaign it already was apparent to most people that Bobby Kennedy certainly "COULD" have obtained his party's presidential nomination and even "COULD" have defeated Nixon in the '68 election. That this was at least possible for RFK has never been in serious doubt. That's because "COULD HAVES" are easy. But what we're saying here with this video is that we'll never be able to know for sure whether RFK actually "WOULD HAVE" been successful.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
I truly do believe that RFK would have been President had he not been killed.
bull579 3 years ago
Sure he would have... eventually... in 1972 or 1976.
defendfreedomnow 3 years ago
Here you say "could" but in your vid information you say "simply not so." No one wanted to touch Hubert Humphrey. Americans wanted another Kennedy in the White House. Bob was that & more.
There are always far more living in poverty than in wealth. They often feel their vote wont change anything in their lives so they either don't vote or do so only when a candidate brings hope. From the popular vote to the poverty vote, he had it. And they would have drafted him in spite of the DP's decision.
FomalhautAntares 3 years ago
There's no inconsistency in what we're saying. Read again the first paragraph of our video info. We're saying very clearly there that it "is simply not so" that RFK's California victory guaranteed him the nomination or the Presidency. We would never say Kennedy could not have won either. He certainly "could" have. We're merely saying such success was not guaranteed. If you'll read thru our commentary in both the vid info and throughout the Text Comments, you'll see we've been consistent.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
After reading what you wrote I dont even what to wacth this video if all your trying to prove is how bobby would have never been president. You dont know what would have happened,nobody does. All I know is bobby is one of the greatest human beings to ever walk this earth he had a deep affection for those who suffered and felt a moral obligation to help them. bobby was everyhing a politician should have always been but never was.
hunnydip26 3 years ago
You may be reading, but without comprehension. Please go back and read again - this time without emotion and with full attention. We are NOT saying RFK would never have been President. Read very slowly, calmly and carefully through our video description, as we state very clearly that we are only saying one thing, which is that his California primary victory did not, by itself, guarantee RFK his party's nomination. He still might have achieved it. That's something we'll never know. Clear?
historymythbusters 3 years ago
Most who visit this site are able to comprehend the point we're making. But occasionally we get someone like you who is overcome, and blinded, by emotion and unable to think clearly while reading our video description in the upper right column. No one we respect doubts RFK's greatness. Personally we believe he would have made a great President and agree it was a tragedy he was killed. Nevertheless he had a tough road ahead of him after California, which no one understood better than RFK himself.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
We urge you to do what we have repeatedly suggested to everyone in our video description above (and throughout this Text Comments section)... watch this video for yourself. If you're able to grasp such things, you should see from this video that RFK's capture of the presidential nomination was NOT guaranteed by his Calif. win. This video not only shows it was commonly accepted among the media that his Calif. win did NOT clinch the nomination for RFK but it also shows RFK knew this as well.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
This is an interesting question, but RFK wouldn't be the first Kennedy to win a floor fight under the Democratic rules of that era. Because there were only a limited number of primaries and the Vietnam war was turning so sour, it is very possible that the non-primary states could have been swayed following California's results. HHH, to quote someone more knowledgeable than me, was a "shallow, contemptible and hopelessly dishonest old hack ." That's to state it lightly at the time.
jjsanderz 3 years ago
who is humphrey? i thought it was kennedy, mccarthy & nixon when johnson stepped down, to run for the presidency, if humphrey was most popular, why is he never talked about?
alexrsuarez1 3 years ago
If you'll read through this video's entire "Comments" section and read this video's "More Info" section in the upper right column, you'll learn who Humphrey was and you'll see that he is discussed extensively by other respondents. Just to add this, Nixon was not a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination (he was among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, eventually winning both that nomination in early August and the presidency itself in early November).
historymythbusters 3 years ago
this is all well and good, but RFK might have become Vice President, or at least Attorney General, and then eventually President.
phdecora 3 years ago
It is virtually assured that had he lived but not obtained the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968, RFK would never have accepted a second appointment as Attorney General of the United States. It's equally assured he would not have been been offered his old cabinet post.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
interesting how actor william devane looks and sounds like bobby kennedy. did he ever play him in a movie?
hollywood3000 3 years ago
In Off Broadway's "MacBird!", a mid-1960s spoof about LBJ, William Devane played Robert Ken O'Dunc, a fictional character (modeled after Robert Kennedy) who was the brother of the assassinated fictional character John Ken O'Dunc. In the mid-1970s, Devane played President John F. Kennedy in the ABC made-for-TV movie, "The Missiles of October" (while the role of Attorney General Robert Kennedy was played by Martin Sheen).
historymythbusters 3 years ago
Thanks for this video. I was almost 16 when RFK was assassinated. I had backed him throughout the primaries. But my feeling then was that the nomination was controlled by the party hierarchy more than the people. Humphrey had it virtually locked up. Kennedy confirmed that in comments here that I couldn't stay up late enough to catch in 1968 and were lost in the assassination coverage the next day. And his analysis was astute. Without McCarthy's support, Kennedy would have had a very rough road.
prchristman 3 years ago
He would have lost in 1968, but he could have made a comeback in 1972 (Like Nixon did in '68). It's a shame some psycho killed him.
thejobloshow 3 years ago
Could Kennedy have been in line for the vice-presidency under Humphrey if he was not killed? At the very least, RFK would have been the leading Democrat for either 1972 or 1976.
CArchivist 3 years ago
That's at least a fairly plausible scenario, although IMO it probably wouldn't have happened, given RFK's rather vocal antagonism towards HHH in the final days leading up of the primary season.
tevix08 3 years ago
The world will never know. And it no one's loss except our own.
sspsllc 3 years ago 6
this is too much to watch sometimes, it hurts bad
dml5583 3 years ago 3
In 1968, Nixon would be the next president. Whatever it took. Whatever it took.
TheLatigoKid 3 years ago
That's an assumption you are making - an easily-made one which can never be proved or disproved. It might be true. It might be untrue. We will never know for sure. A very similar - and also easily-made - assumption could be made about Johnson: that in 1968 LBJ would not allow his presidency to be sandwiched between two Kennedys and would do whatever it took to keep RFK from succeeding him. Whatever it took. So we can play this game of speculation with Nixon and play the same game with LBJ.
doohban 3 years ago
I agree with Tevix that RFK wouldn't have gotten the nomination or been elected. I think the math indicates that. That's just a personal opinion I have and I could be wrong about it (I don't believe we'll ever really know for sure, so I don't think we can be 100% certain one way or another). I also agree libs are basically starry-eyed children always looking for a Messiah. They're doing that with Obama now and it's sickening. That kind of stupidity is not what built America or keeps it free.
conservative222 3 years ago
Obviously Jeff Greenfield (given his association with RFK) would make such a misleading, starry-eyed statement like that: so that starry-eyed liberals who can't let go of the "RFK as savior" notion can keep on fantasizing that RFK would have saved the day and made everything all right. The answer's in the math, folks. My own personal belief is that the '68 Democratic race (and even November outcome) would not have turned out much differently had RFK not been shot.
tevix08 3 years ago
You've completely misinterpreted Greenfield's remark. Go back & re-read his comment but, this time, slowly & with careful attention to the meaning of each & every word. What Greenfield said was there's no way we'll ever know if RFK would have gained the nomination. Full stop. There's nothing misleading about that. It's as clear a fact as you'll ever find. He's not fanning emotions or dreams. He's being honest: we simply can't KNOW that. Yes, we can SPECULATE (as you are doing) but we can't KNOW.
memoriesofyrsgoneby 3 years ago
Technically speaking, yes, "we'll never know" - despite the fact that HHH had effectively locked up the nomination by the time of the California primary.
When RFK fans say, "we'll never know," they are implying something far more than just strict uncertainty.
They imply that RFK still had a real shot at winning the nomination - despite the poor odds that made such a win unrealistic. This is where the RFK fans hinge their fantasies on, and why they keep insisting "we'll never know."
tevix08 3 years ago
Actually, let me amend that. The only plausible way events might have turned out differently if RFK had not been shot is if he had campaigned vigorously for Humphrey leading up to the November election. RFK could have been able to persuade the left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party to unite with the centrist HHH forces, which might have helped put Humphrey over the top in November. But I find this scenario very unlikely.
tevix08 3 years ago
I think commentator Jeff Greenfield, a former RFK presidential campaign aide, put it well on the 40th anniversary of the assassination when Jeff said of Bobby Kennedy:
"We can't know if he would have been nominated or elected or governed well, but did we lose a rare kind of public figure? That I think we do know."
We can only know what unique sort of person we lost. We can't know the rest.
memoriesofyrsgoneby 3 years ago 2
Doesn't matter...Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew would have still won the White House and did a better job in my view of history back then.
dave98503 3 years ago
"We'll never know if RFK would have won."
"RFK would've beaten Nixon in a close one."
Nonsense.
When one looks at the 1968 Democratic race objectively and rationally, it is quite clear that by the time of the California primary, RFK was not going to win the Democratic Party nomination.
When one does some very simple math regarding the delegate count, there's really only one conclusion: Humphrey was going to be his party's nominee, regardless of RFK's California victory.
tevix08 3 years ago
There's no question that RFK's California victory did not guarantee him the nomination, a point which we have stressed (and likely will have to continue to stress) repeatedly. To win in Chicago, Kennedy would have had to pry loose delegates committed to Humphrey. Your belief that RFK would never have succeeded in such an effort is certainly worth considering. Another factor in HHH's favor was influence that LBJ likely would have exerted at the convention on behalf of Humphrey.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
Wallace took votes from Nixon: IF RFK were the nominee, maybe some of the Wallace voters would have voted Nixon, because they would have wanted to stop a perceived left winger from becoming president. I think a lot of Wallace supporters thought that Nixon and Humphrey were both so moderate that it didn't matter which one got in. If RFK were the nominee, they'd want to stop a lefty getting in, so they'd vote Nixon.
wonkacorp 3 years ago
I think we might have had a situation where Kennedy won the popular vote, but Nixon won the electoral college.
wonkacorp 3 years ago
Something to consider is George Wallace. Might he have affected a Nixon-RFK election? With Nixon-Humphrey, there was concern Wallace might mean no one getting the necessary electoral votes, throwing the election to the House of Representatives. Didn't happen. Wallace also failed to spoil the election for HHH by taking away enough Nixon votes. Nixon won BOTH the 270 electoral votes and a pluralty of the popular votes. Still, Wallace might have proved more of a factor in a Nixon-RFK match-up.
heycomeandgetit 3 years ago
I trust Richard Nixon's analysis on this one. After all, he was the greatest political operator of all time. He said in his memoirs about that California primary night, "I believed that Hubert Humphrey had waited too long before declaring his candidacy, and I saw no way a Kennedy juggernaut could be stopped once it had acquired the momentum of a California victory. As I went to bed, I said, 'It sure looks like we'll be going against Bobby." (Memoirs: pg. 305)
wonkacorp 3 years ago
Had bullets not been fired that night, Nixon's assessment might well have been borne out. His sense of a Kennedy momentum coming out of California is something to consider. Of course we'll never really know for sure. RFK himself told Andy West in the ballroom, only a minute before he was shot in the pantry, that the road to Chicago would be a struggle. One can only imagine how he would have battled Humphrey and later, if successful, Nixon himself.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
With all due respect to Nixon, his analysis is hogwash. He was probably saying it just to be dramatic anyway.
The importance of the CA primary has always been overblown, since HHH (who did not run in a single primary) was already far ahead in the delegate count.
The fact is, HHH shrewdly gamed the electoral process by bypassing the popular vote entirely, and going after pledged delegates, which is really what you need to win. Sorry folks, but RFK wasn't going to be the nominee in '68.
tevix08 3 years ago
i dont get it, if humphrey was winning how did nixon become president?
amilatubes 3 years ago
You don't get it because you're very young, a non-American and unfamiliar with the U.S. electoral system. Humphrey was winning only within his own party in his bid for his party's presidential nomination. He was not winning in the wider scope of the general election campaign, which involved much more than just his party. After winning his party's nomination in August, Humphrey could not win the presidency in November because he couldn't get enough votes outside his own party during the fall.
icestationzebra509 3 years ago
The movie makes it look like he was the presidential heir apparent. People watch a movie, and they assume that whatever the movie protrays is fact. Thanks for posting this video. I was 11 yrs old when this took place, and watched it all play out on TV in real time. Thanks for giving people some real facts.
thruid3 3 years ago
I agree with you. The film "Bobby" is a piece of fiction that can very easily fool people into believing the myth that RFK secured the nomination with his California victory. No doubt Kennedy-worshippers like Emilo Estevez believe that with all their heart. But it's simply untrue. RFK did not have it all wrapped up the night he was shot. I wish these Hollywood types would be more responsible but most of them aren't and certainly show no sign of mending their ways. Great video Historymythbusters!
icestationzebra509 3 years ago
This is a great historic video from a very memorable year in American political history. Thank you for sharing this with us!
djrun 3 years ago
That's extremely interesting. Very different from what I thought was true.
manopike 3 years ago
Fascinating video, thanks for the upload!
EdOscuro 3 years ago
Just to reiterate. HistoryMythBusters does not take the position that Robert F. Kennedy, even had he not been shot, still would not have won the Democratic presidential nomination. Our position on that specific issue is that we'll never know whether RFK would have gone on to win the nomination. He might have. He might not have. Unknowable. The point of our posted video is that Senator Kennedy, on the night he was shot, certainly had not secured the nomination by winning the California primary.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
historymythbusters is spot on regarding his/her analysis. There is absolutely no way Lyndon Johnson, who controlled the Democratic Party machinery, would have ever allowed RFK to get the nomination. I thiink he would had beaten Nixon if he had, but HHH was going to be the nominee no matter what.
proferic 3 years ago
I strongly concur. RFK got into the race late, and the fact that LBJ hated Bobby Kennedy's guts, also that Kennedy really didn't have the delegates to mount a real challange to HHH anyway, yes, we can say with certainty that Sen. Robert F. Kennedy D-NY, had he lived would NOT have won the democratic nomination. Yes, Johnson would've seen to that one way or the other.
NkrumahTure 3 years ago
But wouldn't Humphrey have been 'tainted' by the Johnson presidency? Bobby entered the race quite late and could have been nominated at the Democratic convention on a tide of emotion for JFK. With the death of MLK in March, Bobby really was the 'Last Best Hope'. We have not seen his like since nor will we again.
ZincBoss 3 years ago
Your points are certainly worth debating. However, we'll never really know for sure if any of these things you mentioned would have taken place had RFK lived. All we can really know for sure is that RFK did NOT have the nomination sewed up on the night he was shot. Which does not mean he could not have eventually found his way to nomination, had he avoided assassination in the hotel kitchen pantry. He might have. He might not have. We'll never really know with any certainty.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
fascinating- you've done a great job. Any chance of uploading more of your archive of the press coverage in it's entirety, or close to it? Just asking. I remember Pat Paulsen being interviewed that night, on TV.
giles422 3 years ago
As you won't be surprised to learn, that request has been made to us a number of times. We hope to be able to be able to show more from that night eventually. Yes, Pat Paulsen was interviewed by KNXT's Ralph Story in a taped report that aired that evening over the CBS network. Also, Paulsen was at the Ambassador Hotel about three hours before the RFK assassination occurred there. He was filming for his "Pat Paulsen for President" comedy special that aired later that year on CBS.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
As a political science student though, I love this campaign. It was full of passion, drama (some I wished didn't happen) and a definite turning point in American history. Sadly, history classes usually just pass over this as nothing. Oh well, at least we can still learn the truth.
jordanaire45 3 years ago
It's delegates not people who decide the nominee....40 years later that is still true.
hoosierlooker 3 years ago
I agree with the gentleman who posted this video. I don't think Bobby would've won in
'68, but I DO believe had he lived he probably would've won in 1972. You have to remember, Nixon only won with 43% of the vote which meant that 57% of the nation didn't particularly care for the man.
zeppelinfan 3 years ago
We are not concluding RFK would not have won his party's nomination in August or the presidency in November. Our point is that RFK was not guaranteed the Democratic nomination by his California primary victory. Instead, he would have had a long, difficult struggle ahead of him that summer against Vice President Hubert Humphrey. So we'll never know whether RFK would have prevailed at the Chicago convention against Humphrey or in the general election against former Vice President Richard Nixon.
historymythbusters 3 years ago
I don't know if RFK would've run in 1972. The public mood was way different in '72 than it was in '68. Vietnam was coming to an end and according to Gallup, in 1972 Nixon had a job approval rating over 60%. A loss to Nixon would finish off RFK as a viable presidential candidate.
japeng1995 3 years ago
This is so ghoulish- RFK being interviewed on the night that he was shot. Like his brother before him, youth had his back. But, it would have been an HHH/RFK ticket, possibly in a tighter race with Nixon/Agnew.
scifiradioguy 3 years ago
lol you hafta be rich to have cable??? haha thats a good one.
randall1944 3 years ago
You mean they spent this much time on an election on a national television station? Wow, people or lucky to get five minutes on a national television station these days. Only rich people with cable could afford to get MSNBC, FOX news, CNN etc (which suck anyway, i rather have youtube)
musicsheddcom 3 years ago
The odds of RFK winning the nomination in 1968were small. However, his prospects for 1972 and beyond would have been tremendous.
diamonddog13 3 years ago
RFK would have won the nomination easily in '68. Jesus, talk about rewriting history. The two main blocks of delegates belonged to McCarthy and Kennedy who were both against the war.
lancer89032 3 years ago 3
The point of this video is to show that RFK's victory in the California primary did not itself guarantee him the Democratic presidential nomination. At the time of his California win, just before he was shot, RFK still had a difficult -- not necessarily impossible, but difficult -- road ahead to Chicago. That's the only point we're trying to make with this video.
historymythbusters 3 years ago