Thread by @_waleedshahid

🧵In 1968, America was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, and the Democratic Party was caught in the crossfire. VP Hubert Humphrey found himself in a tough spot, closely tied to President Johnson, whose policies were increasingly unpopular among liberals and young voters.

Humphrey was often sidelined in key decisions, especially on Vietnam. As anti-war protests grew louder, the youth and liberals in the Democratic Party demanded change—a change they didn't see in Humphrey.

At Portland’s Civic Arena, hundreds of college students shouted, “End the war” and “Murderer,” before walking out en masse. In Seattle, protesters disrupted his speech with cries of "Vietnam is a scream of death that does not end."

Humphrey, bewildered and desperate, shouted "shut up" at anti-war protesters, but the tension within the Democratic Party coalition was palpable. His campaign had hit a low point in Seattle, where the New York Times reported "an air of sadness hands over his campaign. Bad vibes.

Larry O'Brien, a key advisor, urged Humphrey to make a "clean break" from Johnson's Vietnam policy to show he was his own man. "Unless you change direction...you're finished," O'Brien said. Humphrey hesitated, responding, "I don't know."

The press sought to create a rift between Humphrey and Johnson. Humphrey acknowledged this tension, stating, "The press wants to divide us—me and the president. That makes their stories."

Johnson weighed in, asserting that it was not "proper for the VP or an ex-VP [Nixon] or an ex-President [Eisenhower] to play commander-in-chief." He emphasized that war policy was a matter for the incumbent president to handle until January 20, 1969 -- not for campaign speeches.

Humphrey's hesitation to break from Johnson reflected the complexity of his position—caught between asserting his own path and maintaining loyalty to the administration. This delicate balance would continue to define his campaign's strategy.

Finally, Humphrey decided to distance himself from Johnson's Vietnam policy. When asked by Senator Fred Harris whether he would seek Johnson’s accord before delivering the speech, Humphrey firmly replied, “Hell no. I’m not going to ask. I did that once.”

Humphrey's speech, given without the White House seal, positioned him as a "citizen" rather than a "Vice President." Humphrey called a timetable for troop withdrawals within the next year, including a ceasefire, troop withdrawals, and free elections including the Communists.

After the speech, Humphrey said, stating, "I feel good inside for the first time." While the speech was carefully worded not to upset any major stakeholders, it did chastise war protesters and subtly positioned Humphrey against Nixon without directly opposing Johnson.

Humphrey went ahead in the polls against Nixon. The protest signs that had once targeted him were replaced with messages of support like "If You Mean It, We Are with You," and "Hecklers for Humphrey—We Came Back."

Johnson, feeling betrayed, warned, "If you don’t want it on the front pages, you better quit it" and instructed Humphrey to avoid mentioning Vietnam before the election This boxed Humphrey in, a strategic move to prevent Nixon from gaining ground.

As the North Vietnamese delayed agreeing to American demands in peace talks, he fumed, fearing Humphrey's speech jeopardized negotiations. He called Harriman a “damned fool” and worried Humphrey had given away too much.

In the final days before the election, Johnson made a desperate move to announce a bombing halt just hours before the election, without formally recognizing the NLF. This decision, aimed at swaying the electorate, only added to the chaos, leaving Humphrey to manage the fallout.

Nixon's campaign capitalized on public dissatisfaction with the war. Secretly, he worked to delay the Paris peace talks, undermining both Johnson and Humphrey. He encouraged South Vietnam's leaders to stall, promising them a better deal if he won.

Nixon’s behind-the-scenes efforts aimed to prevent any breakthroughs that might help Humphrey. By stalling peace talks, Nixon ensured Humphrey couldn’t claim progress in ending the Vietnam War.

In the end, Nixon won the presidency by a slim margin. The lesson for future leaders: timing and tone matter. A candidate tied to an incumbent must signal change early enough to mobilize disillusioned voters.

VP @KamalaHarris finds herself in a similar situation, tied to Biden's backing of Israel's assault on Gaza. Like Humphrey, Harris will continue to face disruptive protests at rallies and the return of student encampments that could ruin the vibe of the party.

Nixon seized the moment of chaos, branding himself as the candidate of "law and order." As Democrats fractured, Nixon appealed to those uncomfortable with protests and unrest, drawing crucial support away from Humphrey.

The lesson for Harris on Gaza: act decisively and early, or persuade the incumbent administration to act first. Humphrey’s delayed shift left him scrambling to win back voters who had already lost faith and trust.

Humphrey's late attempt to distance himself from Johnson by advocating for peace came too late to resonate with voters. It appeared as a desperate, cynical political move.

Harris must ensure anger over Biden’s support for Israel's war in Gaza doesn’t spoil the vibes of her campaign. By laying out a distinct Gaza policy, separate from Trump and Biden, she can shift voter/media focus from protests to her key issues: abortion, jobs, and democracy.

It’s obvious the parallels aren’t exact — there was a draft for Vietnam afterall and there weren’t many Vietnamese American voters losing loved ones to US bombs. But there is some rhyming: VP/POTUS dynamics and the party’s response to disruptive anti-war protests.