Typical liberal revisionism. In fact 1968 led to millions murdered in Cambodia, Vietnam, Ethiopia and Central America as a new anti-American elite attacked every American institution and the US retreated from promoting democracy abroad.
We also now face an energy crisis because we have not built a new nuclear power plant or oil refinery since then. Our elites refuse to buy American made products while they cry crocodile tears for the American worker. Thanks to 1968, which shifted control of the Democratic party from America's workers to anti-American snobs like Chomsky!
When Obama said Tuesday after winning North Carolina that he is not afraid to talk to the enemy, like "Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy did", no one dares correct him, and ask which enemy did Roosevelt and Truman speak with? Answer: none. More liberal nonsense. As to Kennedy, historians unanimously describe Kennedy's 1961 meeting with Kruschev in Vienna as a foreign policy disaster. No wonder Obama is the liberals dandy!

Lowry has a far more lucid remembrance of 1968.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_taint_of_68.html

This nation can only heal from the violent tantrums of 1968 after the last baby boomer dies off. The "wasted generation" of late 1960's took credit for the hard work of the "greatest generation" and continue to play-act at being relevant to history.

background: 57 year old microelectronics engineer from oklahoma... i think the internet is already a force for equalizing the institutionalized advantages of the status quo. i really don't think obama would have had a chance w/o it. without it you get trickle down economics and everyone seemingly content with that inequitable idea. with it you get trickle up pain. but a lot of what we're experiencing right now, i think, is the pendulum swinging left after moving a bit too far right. for example, according to an economist (british news magazine) poll, america's left is to the right of britain's left. we'll swing the other way, but there are huge forces to keep things from moving too far in either direction, especially too far left in the u.s. we all know where the money is.

Derek,

I consider myself to be a moderate, fairly knowledgeable, and relatively politically aware citizen, but I have been unable to determine exactly how the 2000 election was stolen. Could you please explain to me what people are taking about when they say it was stolen.

As a Florida resident, I have done a lot of research on this issue and as I understand things several independant agencies, including the New York Times, completed an unofficial recount of the Florida votes and the results showed that Bush won Florida. The margin of his win was small, but it was a win nonetheless. The simple fact that the end result appears to be accurate seems to belay the idea that the 2000 election was stolen.

It is further my understanding that pursuant to Federal Constitutional Law the Governor of each State ratifies the elections results of that State to the Federal government. Accordingly, if there had been a dispute as to the validity of the election results, as between the original count and the recount, Governor Bush would have held the responsibility of designating which results would stand as the official results. It seems highly unlikely that President Bush's brother, when faced with competing results, would have ratified the results unfavorable to his brother. This is especially so were the results favorable to his brother were ultimately determined to be correct, thereby indicating that they were not so dramatically errant as to make it inherently incredible for the Governor to ratify these results.

It is further my understanding that Al Gore short circuited this process by bringing the matter before the Florida Court system and making it an issue for the judiciary. He did, after all, file the first suit in this case. Effectively, this move did two things. First, it absolved Governor Bush of any political fall-out from a decision to ratify the original results in the face of competing results, because he was never put in the position of needing to make that choice.

Second, it placed at issue the Florida voting system and interrelationship with the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because each Florida county had a different standard for how it was counting the votes. The overwhelming majority of the recounted votes were in areas that favored Al Gore, i.e., Palm Beach County. Those areas were allowing partially punched ballots, "hanging chads," and dimpled ballots to be counted. Areas where Bush was strongest were not being recounted and were not providing votes to the types of improperly executed ballots that were going to be counted in areas like Palm Beach County. In its landmark decision, the Supreme Court merely ruled that one State may not count the ballots of some of its citizens in a manner that permits for greater participation while simultaneously failing to count the similarly executed ballots of other citizens.

This seems entirely fair to me. At a minimum, I cannot see how the election was stolen. If you possess contrary information or additional facts for my consideration, I welcome your comments. However, given my understanding of the whole debacle it was not a stolen election.

Yes Mr. Chomsky you should all be very proud of yourselves. Let's review your accompishments
-The defeat of Hubert Humphrey. A staunch supporter of social justice and one of the strongest advocates of civil rights in Washington.
-The election of Richard M. Nixon. Not much needs to be said about that.
-Prolonging the Vietnam war by five years. See above.
-Alienating the working class from the Democratic Party shattering the New Deal coalition and paving the way for Reagan and Bush.
-And let's not forget the most important: Making it chic to love thugs and monsters like Mao, Arafat, Guevera, and Chavez. They're not murderers and crooks-- even though they do everything a Nixon or a Bush does to their own people and much worse-- no no as long as they're in other countries they're freedom fighters.