George McGovern Backs Clinton

The sense that New York Senator Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is going from strength to strength grew Sunday as a new Des Moines Register poll showed her moving into the lead in the first caucus state of Iowa. And Clinton's position there got a boost over the weekend as Iowa Democrats who still doubt her anti-war credentials were reassured by none other than 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern.

McGovern, an anti-Vietnam War icon who has been a far more consistent foe of the Iraq War than Clinton, heartily endorsed the 2008 Democratic front runner on a day when the Register poll suggested that the New York senator might actually win the caucuses that are expected to define the course of the race for the Democratic nod.

McGovern does not cut Clinton a lot of slack for her 2002 vote to authorize Bush to attack Iraq. The former senator bluntly declares that it was "a mistake to support that war at any time."

But McGovern argues that there are few "mistake-free" candidates and says that Clintonhas moved toward what he sees as a "pretty good" position on the war. "She knows that's its gotta be ended," the former senator says. "She said if by any chance Bush were to continue the war that after 2008 she'd terminate it. That's about all you can expect."

This is a debatable point. But it is fair to say that the willingness of liberals such as McGovern to make their peace with Clinton is reflected in her improving position in Iowa and elsewhere.

According to the Register poll of Iowans who are likely to participate in the first-in-the-nation caucuses, Clinton is now at 29 percent. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who has made little secret of the fact that he must secure a first-place finish in Iowa to continue as a serious contender, was at 23 percent. Most of Clinton's gain in the survey appeared to be the expense of Edwards, who fell 6 points from his position in May poll for the Register.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who runs closest to Clinton in national polls, was at 22 percent in Iowa. Rounding out the field in the Hawkeye state were New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson at 8 percent and Delaware Senator Joe Biden at 5 percent, with Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel all at 1 percent or less.

The Register poll has long been the most respected in Iowa. More consistently correct in its assessments than most, in large part because it is constructed to measure signals of strength in the complex caucus process, the survey offered Clinton a good measure of encouragement.

Clinton now leads by a comfortable margin among likely caucusgoers aged 55 and older, who historically have been the steadiest presence at the state's caucuses. She also leads among likely caucusgoers in union households, displacing Edwards as the favorite pick of labor-linked voters.

Clinton's strengthening position is Iowa may seem surprising on the surface, as the state's Democrats are traditionally seen as being more populist and more anti-war than the Democratic front runner. But Clinton has benefited from the fact that more progressive Democrats have begun vetting her candidacy.

Over the weekend, former South Dakota Senator George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee and a man whose name is synonymous with liberal and anti-war politics, arrived in Iowa to give Clinton an enthusiastic endorsement. "She seems to have a greater feel for the problems of the country. She gets stronger all the time," McGovern told the crowd at an Iowa City Democratic event that drew a crowd estimated at 1,800 people. "I think that if we can elect her president, she'll be a greater president even than her brilliant husband."

McGovern, who had once seemed to be leaning toward Obama, praised the Illinois senator and spoke well of Edwards, but concluded, "We have an old rule of courtesy in the United States: Ladies first."

While Republican operatives still love to beat up on McGovern and "McGovernism" -- despite the fact that the frontrunner for the party's nomination, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, voted for McGovern in 1972 -- the reality is that such attacks have little or no meaning beyond the conservative base. McGovern, who has worked closely with 1996 Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole on hunger issues in recent years, has at age 85 achieved a comfortable "elder statesman" status.

It was a measure of McGovern's status, and his value as an endorser, that Clinton went out of her way to appear with the former senator. She told the crowd in Iowa City that he would have a place in her administration, as McGovern did in the administrations of Bill Clinton and, briefly, George W. Bush. The South Dakotan

Among grassroots Democrats in Iowa who recall his past campaigns, however, his endorsement of Clinton has value. The former senator remains an exceptionally well-regarded figure among liberals in Iowa and other states of the upper Midwest. A strong showing in the 1972 Iowa caucuses gave the former senator an important boost in his race for the nomination that year. When McGovern made a long-shot bid for the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination, he shocked national pundits by securing a solid finish in the caucuses, ahead of Ohio Senator John Glenn and others who were considered more serious contenders.

At the Johnson County Democratic picnic where McGovern and Clinton appeared together, signs read "JoCo (Johnson County) Loves McGovern," and Clinton backers held "McGovern/Clinton" signs. When the former senator appeared at the Johnson County Fairgrounds, the crowd delivered what was easily the noisiest ovation of the day that featured remarks by Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson and actor Forest Whitaker, who spoke on behalf of Obama.

George McGovern's endorsement of Clinton in Iowa City on Sunday came as part of a weekend of campaigning he did across Iowa on the Democratic frontrunner's behalf. On several of the stops, he was accompanied by Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, who is no relation but who shares the former senator's strong anti-Iraq war views.

Hard-core foes of the war in Iraq will still have a hard time voting for Clinton in Iowa or elsewhere. While she is a strong critic of Bush's management of the war, she remains a weak proponent of strategies to bring U.S. troops home from the conflict. But among old-school Iowa Democrats, the McGovern seal of approval will help.

Comments (70)

1. endorcement by the guy who got slaughtered by nixon?

   worthless endorsement.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/08/2007 @ 10:12am

2. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/08/2007 @ 10:12am

   Yeah, you're right. Senator McGovern may hold a certain nostalgic affection among the Left (and his war record is nothing but heroic...read Ambrose's "Wild Blue")...

   but to link oneself to him politically is useless at best, dangerous at worst.

   Posted by Mask at 10/08/2007 @ 10:27am

3. but to link oneself to him politically is useless at best, dangerous at worst.

   Posted by MASK 10/08/2007 @ 10:27am

   let's hope so.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 10:39am

4. This one is guaranteed to send the trolls into spasms:

   Sandy Berger Joins Clinton Campaign [tinyurl.com]

   Posted by drhammer at 10/08/2007 @ 11:01am

5. Sandy Berger Joins Clinton Campaign [tinyurl.com]

   Posted by DRHAMMER 10/08/2007 @ 11:01am

   well, the clinton reputation does a good job a shredding itself!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 11:15am

6. Sandy Berger Joins Clinton Campaign [tinyurl.com]

   Posted by DRHAMMER 10/08/2007 @ 11:01am

   A good fit. Obviously there is a need in the Clinton campaign for a document disposal specialist.

   Posted by dscott at 10/08/2007 @ 11:26am

7. Posted by MASK 10/08/2007 @ 10:27am

   he got slaughtered by nixon...nice guy but the icon of the "dippy liberal" old style dem machine...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/08/2007 @ 11:30am

8. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/08/2007 @ 11:30am

   Yes, unfortunately it was a lesson long in the learning for Democrats, even with Jimmy Carter, it took Clinton to drag them back from the image of "McGovernites".

   Posted by Mask at 10/08/2007 @ 12:42pm

9. BTW, also a good history lesson in "A great war record does not a Presidency guarentee!".

   McGovern flew 35 missions as a B-24 pilot (Africa and Italy) under heavy ack-ack fire in nearly every mission, and saved his crew after a crash landing from combat damage...getting the DFC.

   Nixon played poker at supply depots in the Pacific, to earn enough money to run for Congress in 1946.

   And who won as the "wartime President"?

   Posted by Mask at 10/08/2007 @ 12:46pm

10. When I go in the booth to vote in Nov. 2008, I think I will write in Howard Dean or Al Gore. Maybe Gore for pres, Dean for veep....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/08/2007 @ 1:22pm

11. Queue Mask's McGovern diatribes. Let's make some grand conclusions about the "left" while forgetting basic facts.

    1. Take Perot out of the picture and an incumbent Clinton can barely manage to beat Dole much less Bush the 1st.

    2. Serious discussion of the success (or lack thereof) of Republican-lite over the last few decades and the twists of logic necessary to pretend it is any more successful than whatever passes as "left" for him.

    3. How the McGovern campaign was cut off at the knees by the Democratic machine they beat to win the nomination and how they went against their own winning strategy.

    4. The role of McGovern picking a VP who decides he wants to talk about his time in the nut house right after being picked as a running mate.

    The relevant fact here is that Clinton is turning to McGovern to try put a nice face on what are essentially right-wing policies. I can think of no better way to say "pathetic campaign" to voters like me.

    If we want to go back to 1972, perhaps the best choice is to write in Dick Gregory in 2008. Isn't it time the health food industry had someone in their pocket in the White House rather than only oil, pharmaceuticals, logistics and the standard set?

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/08/2007 @ 1:57pm

12. I love McGovern, but in '04, with Dean and Kucinich both running, he endorsed Wesley Clark. Similarly here, choosing Clinton over candidates (Richardson, Kucinich) whose positions on the war are much closer to his own. Choosing candidates doesn't seem to be his strong suit.

    Posted by jgold2 at 10/08/2007 @ 2:57pm

13. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/08/2007 @ 1:22pm

    Then what will happen is this, ILP....in your state a "Romney" or "Thompson" vote will not be countered with a "Hillary" vote and if duplicated a number of times....the Repub wins your state and possibly the WH.

    Posted by Mask at 10/08/2007 @ 3:27pm

14. SRJ....point by point-

    1. Take Perot out of the picture and an incumbent Clinton can barely manage to beat Dole much less Bush the 1st.

    ----Discounting the Electoral College, which would have still be lopsidedly for Clinton, let's look a the popular vote. Clinton had 47,400,125....Dole had 39,198,755, and Perot had 8,085,402. If EVERY SINGLE Perot voter had gone to Dole...that's 47,284,157 for Dole.

    ----Means he STILL loses to Clinton by 115,968. Close, but no Florida-2000. And that's not accepting that ALL the Perot vote, with no choice would have gone to Dole, and not just stayed home.

    2. Serious discussion of the success (or lack thereof) of Republican-lite over the last few decades and the twists of logic necessary to pretend it is any more successful than whatever passes as "left" for him.

    ----You mean like the Repubs winning Congress in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004? Gee, why in this world would ANYBODY think that being a hard-core lefty might NOT be a winning strategy?!?!?!

    3. How the McGovern campaign was cut off at the knees by the Democratic machine they beat to win the nomination and how they went against their own winning strategy.

    -----They opposed him during the primaries, but even Mayor Daley heartedly endorsed him and turned out the machine for him in Chicago. Democrats weren't "throwing the fight" just because they didn't like McGovern. Read Thompson's "Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail".

    4. The role of McGovern picking a VP who decides he wants to talk about his time in the nut house right after being picked as a running mate.

    -----And doesn't that speak more to the judgement of McGovern, than Eagleton's problems? And I don't believe Eagleton was "wanting to talk about his time in a nut house". It was revealed by the papers.

    ----And McGovern, upon the revelation, said he'd support Eagleton "1000%" and then quickly dumped him for Shriver. Again, more about McGovern, than Eagleton...so why does that not count against him? Again, read Hunter Thompson's book...best version of what happened.

    Posted by Mask at 10/08/2007 @ 3:41pm

15. MASK, What makes you think Hillary will be any better than the Republican nominee? Voting for the lesser of two evils means that you are voting for...........evil......

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/08/2007 @ 3:56pm

16. MASK, IBBLE, FZ...

    Hey, hey, hey! So you're saying Nixon was a better candidate than McGovern, right? Good thing Nixon won, right? Wouldn't have wanted somebody in there who would've ended the Vietnam war and restored honest government? Oh, no.

    As you may have guessed, you're talking to an old McGovernite here, and proud of it. I worked for the McGovern campaign in '72, the only political campaign for which I've ever been inspired to do so. Maybe you can nail McGovern for a few lapses in practical judgment (such as his choice of Eagleton as a running mate -- but so the guy was in therapy for a while; a lot of pols are and don't admit it; hell, Bush almost certainly was in rehab for QUITE a while back in the '80's). But I can tell you at the time that we wanted an alternative to your usual pol as a presidential candidate, and I still respect the Democratic party for selecting McGovern. The alternative? The "Clintonista" Democrats you see mostly now in Congress? -- These are the Dems who cave to Bush at every turn, especially on the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

    In his day, McGovern was Howard Dean without the screaming and yelling. My only criticism of him is that he's come out in support of HRC. But hey, he's an old guy, a real liberal warhorse (or should that be "peacehorse"?) So I'll cut him some (a LOT of) slack.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 10/08/2007 @ 4:05pm

17. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/08/2007 @ 3:56pm

    What makes me think Hillary is better than the GOP nominee???

    Well, here's three good reasons....

    John Paul Stevens is 87.

    Ruth Bader Ginsberg has had cancer and is 74.

    And Stephen Breyer is 69 and would be 74 before 2012.

    Posted by Mask at 10/08/2007 @ 4:19pm

18. Posted by W_M_BEAR 10/08/2007 @ 4:05pm

    BEAR, as noted in my first post, nothing but respect for the Senator as a war hero...and he's probably a nice guy, but...

    he lost FORTY-NINE STATES to Richard Nixon.

    Now, just on the idea that being able to defeat a sleaze like Nixon SHOULD be one of the main qualifiers for President, else you're too weak or incompetent to hold the job....he shouldn't have won.

    As far as peace goes, how soon after the 1972 election were the Paris Peace Accords signed?

    Posted by Mask at 10/08/2007 @ 4:22pm

19. Yeah, he lost 49 states. Unlike Nixon, he kept his soul.....

    Posted by brantl at 10/08/2007 @ 4:46pm

20. He was also good at managing government. He brought the TVA in ahead of time and under budget as well. Not something Nixon could say about anything whatsoever.

    Posted by brantl at 10/08/2007 @ 4:47pm

21. Posted by W_M_BEAR 10/08/2007 @ 4:05pm

    i made no comment regarding mcgovern, because that name is just some blur from my childhood memory and i'm too lazy to google right now.

    both my comments were wishing bad luck upon the campaign of HRC

    now i'll go a-googling

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 5:08pm

22. well. no one ever said George was perfect...

    Posted by puttch at 10/08/2007 @ 5:11pm

23. Posted by W_M_BEAR 10/08/2007 @ 4:05pm

    so, mr mcgovern seems like a great dude.

    he even hosted "SNL" in 1984.

    anybody for peace gets the frosty thumbs up.

    why is he endorsing hillary, now?

    i found this:

    Geor ge McGovern advocating a position of a six-month withdrawal from Iraq on NPR, October 1, 2006 [npr.org]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 5:15pm

24. I think it's quite fitting that George McGovern should endorse Hillary Clinton. McGovern offered cash ($2,000, I believe) for votes, Hillary did the same, only for a presumably inflation-adjusted $5,000 this time. (Still haven't heard an explanation as to why she didn't promise more - guess she's waiting to see if she's outbid by Edwards or Obama). Cash from the Treasury, of course, not his/her own! Perish the thought! Cash from OTHER people! The Democratic Party platform of the last 40 years, reduced to its essence!

    Brings to mind the scene in 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' where the Praetorian Guard sells the Imperial purple to the highest bidder. I don't think we're quite there yet, but we may be getting close with Hillary.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 5:31pm

25. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 5:15pm

    George McGovern advocating a position of a six-month withdrawal from Iraq on NPR, October 1, 2006 [npr.org]

    Six months? Why so long? Why not six DAYS? Would that be....dare I say it...IRRESPONSIBLE? LOL!

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 5:33pm

26. Six months? Why so long? Why not six DAYS? Would that be....dare I say it...IRRESPONSIBLE? LOL!

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/08/2007 @ 5:33pm

    just as irresponsible as having gone there in the first place.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 5:35pm

27. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 5:35pm

    just as irresponsible as having gone there in the first place.

    Logical Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right

    Exposition:

    This fallacy involves the attempt to justify a wrong action by pointing to another wrong action. Often, the other wrong action is of the same type or committed by the accuser, in which case it is the subfallacy Tu Quoque. Attempting to justify committing a wrong on the grounds that someone else is guilty of another wrong is clearly a Red Herring, because if this form of argument were cogent, one could justify anything―always assuming that there is another wrong to point to, which is a very safe assumption. Exposure:

    * Why do people think that two wrongs add up to one right? This is speculation, but perhaps they are misled by the logical fact that two negations cancel out, or the similar mathematical fact that two negative numbers when multiplied produce a positive number. It is common to think of wrongs as morally "negative", but this is distinct from the logical notion of negation and the mathematical notion of negative number. Thus, the analogy between moral negatives and logico-mathematical negatives is a poor one based on equivocation on the word "negative".

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 5:45pm

28. FROSTY, I'm not admitting, by the way, that invading Iraq was wrong. I'm just pointing out that even in your own world, your thinking is twisted.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 5:47pm

29. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 5:35pm

    And by the way, FROSTY. Why six months? Why NOT six days?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 5:48pm

30. Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/08/2007 @ 5:45pm

    i make no attempt at a formal argument.

    the whole situation makes me very sad.

    i do not advocate removing the u.s. forces in any precipitated manner, however inevitable that withdrawal may be. i want the people of iraq to decide their own fate.

    i was commenting on the contradictory message mr. mcgovern was sending with his endorsement of HRC versus the article sited.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 5:50pm

31. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 5:50pm

    i do not advocate removing the u.s. forces in any precipitated manner, however inevitable that withdrawal may be. i want the people of iraq to decide their own fate.

    I think we all want the US out of Iraq as soon as possible. The question is, when can that be done responsibly? People like McGovern, who place utterly arbitrary time limits (six minutes, six days, six months, whatever) are being irresponsible. The best tiem is decided by facts on the ground, a fact which seems to be appreciated by the Republicans (and at least given lip service by HRC). That's the point I was trying to make.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 6:00pm

32. The other point I was trying to make, FROSTY, is that people like Hillary who throw around arbitrary amounts of money that they are going to dole out if elected ($5, $500, $5,000, whatever) are ALSO being irresponsible. It is not the duty of any responsible government to simply hand out arbitrary amounts of money.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 6:03pm

33. Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/08/2007 @ 6:00pm |

    but it must be the democratically elected iraqis who decide when.

    it is their country.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 6:04pm

34. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 6:04pm

    but it must be the democratically elected iraqis who decide when.

    it is their country.

    The duly elected Prime Minister of Iraq has not asked us to leave; in fact, he has specifically requested that we stay.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 6:10pm

35. It is not the duty of any responsible government to simply hand out arbitrary amounts of money.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/08/2007 @ 6:03pm

    perhaps it is cheaper to pay people to make babies than it is to import people.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 6:26pm

36. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 6:26pm

    perhaps it is cheaper to pay people to make babies than it is to import people.

    I don't think that anyone should be paid to have children. Anyone who needs to be paid to have children most likely shouldn't be having them at all.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 6:37pm

37. Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/08/2007 @ 6:37pm

    so they should be imported?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 6:46pm

38. http://draftgore.com/

    Posted by Hellride at 10/08/2007 @ 7:17pm

39. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 6:46pm

    so they should be imported?

    Both of my grandfathers were 'imported'. In fact, almost all of our ancestors were 'imported' at one time or another. Funny that we should look at today's situation differently. I've never been good with that 'I got mine!' attitude.

    You know what the definition of 'suburban sprawl' is? It's the house that was built after yours. Similarly, I guess 'out of control immigration' is the guy that immigrated after you.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 7:19pm

40. Anyone who needs to be paid to have children most likely shouldn't be having them at all.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/08/2007 @ 6:37pm

    Memory Lane.......Seems that before the late 1990s' reform, Aids to Families with Dependent Children did exactly the UNthinkable: rewarded those that "shouldn't be having them at all" to have lots of babies....no limit, I believe!

    Posted by Happy at 10/08/2007 @ 7:25pm

41. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 6:46pm

    Is it racist to say, "I don't want one of those cheap chinese babies?"

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/08/2007 @ 7:51pm

42. You know what the definition of 'suburban sprawl' is? It's the house that was built after yours. Similarly, I guess 'out of control immigration' is the guy that immigrated after you.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/08/2007 @ 7:19pm

    all right, ponti!

    my parents imported themselves.

    i imported my wife and son.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 8:20pm

43. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 6:46pm

    Is it racist to say, "I don't want one of those cheap chinese babies?"

    Eric

    Posted by MALCONTENT 10/08/2007 @ 7:51pm

    actually, that's something that's made very well in china.

    but they keep almost the whole production line for domestic consumption (metaphorically speaking)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2007 @ 8:22pm

44. As far as peace goes, how soon after the 1972 election were the Paris Peace Accords signed?

    Posted by MASK 10/08/2007 @ 4:22pm

    THE PARIS ACCORDS WERE ONLY SIGNED BECAUSE NIXON (OR FORD, I FORGET WHICH) AND KISSINGER WERE BASICALLY FORCED TO SIGN THEM...

    By a combination of the Watergate scandal and the U.S. antiwar movement. But it wasn't clear in 1972 that this was going to happen and it DIDN'T happen because the Nixon/Ford administration was AGAINST the war.

    And yes, it is important to do these things for the right motives, as we're currently seeing. Because of the way the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam was done, it was seen by the right as a "defeat" in a war that COULD have been "won" rather than an admission that we should never have occupied the country in the first place. Hence, Iraq is our karma for Vietnam....

    As to McGovern's loss of the 1972 election, I'd be the first to concede that he had certain problems, shall we say, projecting a forceful persona. But, to paraphrase Rummy, you go with the anti-war candidate you've got, and who knows if ANYONE could've beaten Nixon. (Despite Watergate and Vietnam, he was still popular, God knows why.)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 10/08/2007 @ 9:41pm

45. You need to read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail again Mask. I read it this August - and it pretty much echoes the points I made. Perhaps it is time for you to revisit it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/08/2007 @ 9:43pm

46. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/08/2007 @ 5:15pm

    YEAH, FZ, MCGOVERN REALLY ***WAS*** A "GREAT DUDE"...

    Especially if you're fond of quixotic enterprises, as we all kind of knew trying to elect McGovern was. There were plenty of polls back then too. But after the police riots outside the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, the party took a hard left and those of us who were already there rejoiced. If I could pick one time in my life to relive, I think it would be those years -- the late sixties and early seventies, not JUST because I was a bit younger then!

    To quote the English poet William Wordsworth on the French Revolution:

    "Bliss was it to be living in that dawn But to be young was very heaven."

    --The Prelude

    (Of course, we all know how the French revolution turned out and, for that matter, the Democratic party's hard left turn. But without that turn -- reflected in part by the McGovern candidacy -- I don't think the Clinton presidency would have been possible, or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton's likelihood of becoming the first woman President of the U.S.)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 10/08/2007 @ 10:05pm

47. Posted by W_M_BEAR 10/08/2007 @ 10:05pm

    (Of course, we all know how the French revolution turned out and, for that matter, the Democratic party's hard left turn. But without that turn -- reflected in part by the McGovern candidacy -- I don't think the Clinton presidency would have been possible, or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton's likelihood of becoming the first woman President of the U.S.)

    Yeah, what a great prospect THAT is for the country - electing that crooked lying bitch to the Presidency! You know who she's got advising her now, no doubt in line for National Security Adviser or some other important post? Sandy Berger! Payoff for his criminal destruction of documents in the National Archives, no doubt to cover up some ineptitude on their part! How many idiots are there in this country? Easy to find out - just keep track of how many votes Hillary Clinton gets! Sheesh!

    Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2007 @ 10:54pm

48. McGovern is an honorable man. That can't be said for Nixon. Barry Goldwater said Nixon should've died in prison. He probably say the same about Bush the younger. I'm amazed at how personal the attacks on Clinton are. Her laugh, her neckline...get real. Bush the younger is the only one to wear a codpiece. Mission accomplished. Look at the Republican candidates; all they lack is Snow White. Anyone read about the first Sept 11 attack? September 11, 1857.

    Posted by georgepweb at 10/08/2007 @ 11:24pm

49. Did Nichols sell out? John - Hillary doesn't need your endorsement. She's already got Murdoch's. He held a fundraiser for her after all.

    Posted by nameme at 10/09/2007 @ 01:18am

50. John, you're brilliant. I've bought most of your books. I watched you on Moyers, I listened to you on NPR and on Radio America. Please use your talent to help us bring back the soul of the democratic party!

    Posted by nameme at 10/09/2007 @ 01:21am

51. Posted by GEORGEPWEB 10/08/2007 @ 11:24pm

    I'm amazed at how personal the attacks on Clinton are.

    Oh, really? I guess you must not have been paying attention to politics for the last 20 years, my friend. Let me give you a clue: in addition to being the most shamelessly and flagrantly corrupt couple of grifters to hit the political scene in generations, the Clintons are the most vicious personal attackers and destroyers of their political enemies on the scene today. Did you know that Hillary took a flagrant $100,000 bribe, the details of which are rarely even disputed? That the head of her campaign committee is an impeached and disgraced former federal judge? That the Clintons and their lapdogs in the media have personally destroyed the reputations of dozens of people who have dared to speak up against them and their methods? I would posit that if you have willfully blinded yourself to these things then you are as corrupt and venal as they are.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/09/2007 @ 05:53am

52. Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/09/2007 @ 05:53am

    They "forgot", and besides..its all a right wing conspiracy..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/09/2007 @ 07:45am

53. Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/09/2007 @ 05:53am

    They "forgot", and besides..its all a right wing conspiracy..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/09/2007 @ 07:45am

    JOHN, PONTI

    don't you realize that clinton = bush

    and that bush = clinton?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/09/2007 @ 09:40am

54. Which Democrat will get us into war with Iran the quickest?

    Posted by torquemada at 10/09/2007 @ 09:58am

55. Posted by W_M_BEAR 10/08/2007 @ 9:41pm

    BEAR, I notice you didn't answer the question.

    When were the Paris Peace Accords signed? When would "President McGovern" have gotten them signed?

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2007 @ 10:17am

56. Posted by SRJENKINS 10/08/2007 @ 9:43pm

    First, not ALL your points were covered by Dr. Gonzo.

    No retort for my NUMBERS about how Perot didn't help Clinton win? No counter-response to why after TWELVE YEARS of Republican Congressional victory (not to mention TWELVE YEARS of GOP Presidents from 1980-1992), folks in politics might not think being a "pure progressive" might lead to electoral victories?

    On "F&L on the Campaign Trail", did Thompson say that the Democratic Party "threw the fight" on McGovern because they didn't like him and decided to lose to Nixon because they were in a snit...as you suggested?

    Did he suggest that it was Eagleton's fault...and not McGovern's for picking, supporting when his psychiatric problems were found out, and then unceremoniously DUMPING him after saying he would support him "1000%"....as you suggested?

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2007 @ 10:21am

57. Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/09/2007 @ 05:53am

    Hey, PONTI, if Hillary gets the Presidency, she should send a big, fat thank you note to the one guy who made it possible...

    George W Bush!

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2007 @ 10:22am

58. "The duly elected Prime Minister of Iraq has not asked us to leave; in fact, he has specifically requested that we stay."

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/08/2007 @ 6:10pm

    And Maliki's duly elected puppet masters are Hell-bent on keeping us there as well, contrary to the wishes of almost 3/4 of our citizens.

    I can't imagine why those ungrateful Iraqis aren't warming up to our democratic ideals.

    Posted by drhammer at 10/09/2007 @ 10:57am

59. But McGovern argues that there are few "mistake-free" candidates and says that Clinton has moved toward what he sees as a "pretty good" position on the war. "She knows that's its gotta be ended," the former senator says. "She said if by any chance Bush were to continue the war that after 2008 she'd terminate it. That's about all you can expect."

    This is a debatable point. But it is fair to say that the willingness of liberals such as McGovern to make their peace with Clinton is reflected in her improving position in Iowa and elsewhere.

    My question is: what in the hell is going on? Have I descended into the Twilight Zone?

    There is no way this woman should be leading and pulling away given her willingness to "work for all the people" (code for taking bribes in the form of campaign contributions, not to mention people like Hsu), her pledge to defend our (or, I should say, Exxon/Mobil's) oil into perpetuity in Iraq, her eagerness to let the hogs feeding at the health care trough have a seat right at the dinner table -- the list goes on and on and on --

    Why would McGovern, who earned my very first vote for President as a concerned draft card holder who didn't have a daddy who worked for the CIA or a pilonidal cyst, feel obligated to make their peace with Clinton? As noted, the presumption that she'll terminate anything is not just debatable, it's false: she is on record. She simply is not going to remove the troops, period.

    So with all this out-and-out capitulation to a media-made presumptive nominee who has abandoned core working person's advocacy and now works for the big shots, now it's evident that the Democratic constituency is made up of precisely the same chicken manure as the flaccid, feckless, leaderless Democrats in the Congress.

    It's not a matter of looking for a "mistake-free" candidate. It's a matter of core principles. Y'know, with all this nonsense about uniting not dividing, and an electorate weary of political polarization, we better realize that we have to fight for what we believe in every stinkin' inch of the way, and that fight can be ugly. We're faced with no alternative but to choose up sides. And Clinton just ain't on my side, period.

    In the end, we'll get what we deserve. Until then, Senator McGovern, I'm profoundly disappointed in you. Unlike you, my stand for principle is this: if Clinton gets the nomination, this lifelong Democrat walks away from this shell-of-a-party and never looks back.

    No surrender, no compromise. Not this time. I've had a stick poked in my eye once too often. Today, yet again, the Democrats in the Senate are going to rubber-stamp Bush's illegal warantless wiretapping. When will it end? Jesus H Christ, when will it end? I've had it.

    That's why the Democratic candidate for President will either reflect my values or will not receive my vote, and I really don't care about the consequences. At some point, someone who now takes my vote for granted will have to pay attention. Until then, the entire planet will just have to suffer under this one party corporate totalitarian regime under the thin guise of a two-party system.

    Posted by trippin at 10/09/2007 @ 12:05pm

60. "...the Clintons are the most vicious personal attackers and destroyers of their political enemies on the scene today."

    Yeah, I loved it when they took out Gingrich! He deserved it! Ha ha ha ha! Do you ever think of Kermit the Frog when Newtie the Salamander speaks? He has that sorta high, lilting tone, like he's got a pear lodged in his esophagus.

    But the Hall of Fame Award must go to the Republicans for attacking war hero Max Cleland who left his limbs on the battlefield, John McCain in the South Carolina primary for having the audacity of adopting a person of color, defaming highly decorated war hero John Kerry and thereby insulting everyone who has received those medals for bravery by calling into question the standards by which they were conferred -- the Republicans are much more adept because they not only denigrate the personal lives of their opponents, they do it to themselves also. Deliciously vicious, completely devoid of even a shred of human dignity! Congratulations!

    PS - not that I'm a big fan of the Clintons or anything. I wouldn't want anyone to think even for one second that I'd defend them.

    Posted by trippin at 10/09/2007 @ 12:16pm

61. A little more recent history:

    Iowa results: Gore wins by 4,144 votes

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/09/2007 @ 2:31pm

62. Iowa results: Gore wins by 4,144 votes

    December 5, 2000

    Web posted at: 10:08 a.m. EST (1508 GMT)

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- State leaders officially certified Iowa's election results on Monday, declaring Democrat Al Gore the winner of the state's seven electoral votes by a margin of 4,144 votes over Republican George W. Bush.

    *******************

    Gore Wins by 2-to-1 Margin

    Aired January 24, 2000 - 10:00 p.m. ET

    JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: And among the Democrats, this is CNN's estimates of what the percentages will be: a 2-1 for Vice President Al Gore. We are estimating 66 percent for Vice President Gore, 33 percent for New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, just 1 percent uncommitted.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/09/2007 @ 3:30pm

63. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/09/2007 @ 3:30pm

    And only 14 weeks to go until history repeats itself....right, HSUB?

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2007 @ 4:11pm

64. U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Palm Beach Gardens) met with the editorial board of the TCPalm Newspaper on Wednesday for a freewheeling question and answer session.

    Among his comments:

    He has met individually with most of the 2008 Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination, but hasn't determined who he will endorse. Mahoney said there is "a very good chance" that former vice president Al Gore will make a bid. If Gore does, he will be "very formidable" because Gore has been "right" on his predictions about issues such as Iraq and global warming.

    http://tinyurl.com/yookuu

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/09/2007 @ 4:15pm

65. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/09/2007 @ 4:15pm

    Well, if Tim Mahoney says it, it must be true....after all, Tim Mahoney was such a powerhouse politician that it took nationally-televised child molestation charges against his opponent for him to win!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2007 @ 4:43pm

66. This a good read for everyone, even Frita, if she can get past her straw dildos...:

    Calling Al Gore: "Much of the Amazon Basin is burning" (UPDATED)

    by: Barcelona

    Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 13:26:08 PM EDT

    http://www.truthandprogress.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=609

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/09/2007 @ 4:56pm

67. Posted by TRIPPIN 10/09/2007 @ 12:16pm

    But the Hall of Fame Award must go to the Republicans for attacking war hero Max Cleland who left his limbs on the battlefield,

    With all due respect to Max Cleland, he blew his own limbs off with his own grenade, and it wasn't on any battlefield. It was an accident. And this was not something that the Republicans made a big deal about, anyway. What they DID stress was Cleland's positions on the major issues. For some reason, Democrats seem to consider this to be foul play. Perhaps you folks should look at your own reasons why you think detailing a Democrat's actual positions, rather than letting the liberal-run media obfuscate them, is dirty pool.

    And speaking of obfuscation and liberal-media cheer-leading of Democrats, this election looks to break all land speed records with respect to Hillary Clinton and her corps of flying monkeys, what with Chris Matthews already shedding the unnecessary and unwieldy pretense of even-handedness.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/09/2007 @ 6:48pm

68. Posted by MASK 10/09/2007 @ 10:21am

    No response is necessary, Mask. I didn't argue that Dr. Gonzo argued all my points, just most of them. Example:

    [D]id Thompson say that the Democratic Party "threw the fight" on McGovern because they didn't like him and decided to lose to Nixon because they were in a snit...as you suggested?

    I didn't suggest it. I said it. So did Thompson. So, in short: Yes.

    As for Eagleton, I said it damaged the campaign. Picking an establishment Democratic candidate like Eagleton was the first error among many. It effectively undermined his base, "the left". Gonzo says this as well.

    The interesting thing for me is that in a rather bizarre twist of logic, you trump out McGovern anytime you want to pontificate about how all the "left"'s problems would be solved if they just did like McGovern did and come right. I find it rather...ironic.

    I could easily dispute your flawed numbers on Perot and the methodology and reasoning behind it. I think your arguments tha Perot wasn't a factor in Clinton's elections are so weak they really don't merit a response.

    Also, any thinking that Republican Congressional victories - that lasted for only 12 years and with the benefit of the kind of corrupt government brought in by such "innovations" as the K street project, gerrymandering, the Hammer, etc. - is success, well, I don't buy it.

    It doesn't build long term success, and these innovations will have to be paid for. If you don't think another "thumpin'" isn't coming in 2008, you need to stop talking politics and move on to something else...perhaps golf.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/09/2007 @ 9:06pm

69. I didn't suggest it. I said it. So did Thompson. So, in short: Yes.

    -----Ok, care to offer some quotes from "F&LOTCT'72" where Thompson says the Democratic bosses "threw" the election just because they didn't like McGovern? Not attempts to stop McGovern during the primaries (ABM was the term), but after the Senator had won the election.

    As for Eagleton, I said it damaged the campaign. Picking an establishment Democratic candidate like Eagleton was the first error among many. It effectively undermined his base, "the left". Gonzo says this as well.

    ------Make up your mind. FIRST you said the problem was Eagleton "wanted to talk about his time in the nuthouse". Then when I pointed out that Eagleton DIDN'T let the cat out of the bag on that...you switch to "He was establisment and the dispirited the base!" Which was it?

    The interesting thing for me is that in a rather bizarre twist of logic, you trump out McGovern anytime you want to pontificate about how all the "left"'s problems would be solved if they just did like McGovern did and come right. I find it rather...ironic.

    -----McGovern "moved right"? Odd, you now think McGovern went "DLC" after he got the nomination, but you ALSO think the Establishment Dems sabotaged him because he was too progressive?!?!

    I could easily dispute your flawed numbers on Perot and the methodology and reasoning behind it. I think your arguments tha Perot wasn't a factor in Clinton's elections are so weak they really don't merit a response.

    ----"I could refute that easily, but I don't want to waste my time!" Eternal refrain of a blogger incapable of backing up their assertions. I hoped for better from you! The numbers show that the Perot vote wouldn't have mattered in 1996, but don't let facts stop you from a good theory, SRJ!

    Also, any thinking that Republican Congressional victories - that lasted for only 12 years and with the benefit of the kind of corrupt government brought in by such "innovations" as the K street project, gerrymandering, the Hammer, etc. - is success, well, I don't buy it.

    -----"lasted only 12 years"?!?!? And took a busted budget, a failed war, child molestors, and interfering with a family dealing with a brain dead woman. As far as corruption goes, you REALLY think there was none going on under the Democrats?!?!?!

    It doesn't build long term success, and these innovations will have to be paid for. If you don't think another "thumpin'" isn't coming in 2008, you need to stop talking politics and move on to something else...perhaps golf.

    ------Again, good indicator you're losing the argument that you start getting snippy. As for "another 'thumpin'"....I've said that consistantly now. Hillary will win the WH and the Dems will easily hold the Congress.

    ----But that victory in 2006, didn't come from "true blue pure progressives" running and beating Republicans and putting the scare into more conservative Dems. It came from CONSERVATIVE Dems (like Webb) running and winning....or guys like Sherrod Brown, who is "progressive" on trade, but supported the "torture bill" because he was scared to be labelled "soft on terrorism".

    Posted by SRJENKINS 10/09/2007 @ 9:06pm

    None of your arguments hold up SRJ. McGovern lost 1972 to Nixon, massively. He did NOT lose it by "moving Right". Eagleton didn't lose it for him, what he did ABOUT Eagleton did. Perot may have helped Clinton win in 1992 (which further destroys your argument, since without Perot in '92, Clinton would have still done better than "classic liberal" Mike Dukakis)...and CLEARLY (add the numbers yourself...unless you're "too busy") Perot wouldn't have hurt Clinton in 1996 AFTER he moved Right on welfare reform.

    So ultimately, "moving Left" or being Hard Left loses for the Democrats...1972, while being "evil, centrist DLC" wins them elections...1992, 1996, and 2006.

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 10:27am

70. Ok, care to offer some quotes from "F&LOTCT'72" where Thompson says the Democratic bosses "threw" the election just because they didn't like McGovern?

    "It was almost inconcievable that they [the party establishment] would be so bitter in defeat that they would tacitly deliver their own supporters to a conservative Republican incumbent, instead of at least trying to rally them behind the candidate of their own party...but that is what they have done." Page 376, original hard bound copy published in 1973.

    "George's short-lived fantasy of taking over the party and remolding it in his own image had withered and died in the five short months since Miami. Now the old boys were back in charge." page 465-6, Ibid.

    It is also a more plausible explanation for the degree of his defeat, combined with blunders like Eagleton - rather than your preferred explanation that it was somehow a statement about the "left".

    Odd, you now think McGovern went "DLC" after he got the nomination, but you ALSO think the Establishment Dems sabotaged him because he was too progressive?!?!

    There is no NOW. It implies I've changed my position rather than you having difficulty understanding it.

    Let's be clear then. McGovern did go DLC once he won the nomination, and the party did undercut him. They did so to maintain their own power, not because of his politics (a rather niave assumption on your part, btw).

    What you said: "The numbers show that the Perot vote wouldn't have mattered in 1996..."

    What I said: Take Perot out of the picture and an incumbent Clinton can barely manage to beat Dole much less Bush the 1st.

    Care to point out where we even disagree?

    Also, as a technical point, responding to blog posts doesn't make one a blogger. John Nichols is the blogger. We are merely commenting on what he has written.

    As far as corruption goes, you REALLY think there was none going on under the Democrats...

    Interesting how you want to talk about 12 years of Republican domination of Congress, yet when context is brought in and we notice how short of a time that is when compared to when Democrats controlled Congress and the reasons why they so quickly became the minority party (which will continue), and now you want to talk about how Democrats are corrupt too. Tough not having a leg to stand on isn't it?

    I've said that consistantly now. Hillary will win the WH and the Dems will easily hold the Congress.

    The point here Mask, is that you can't pretend that Republican recent success amounts to anything - if it isn't going to continue and if it is short compared to the historical record.

    You are trying to have it both ways here. Just like you are trying to have it with your second comment. Prove it. I can point to people like Steve Cohen, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, Betty Sutton, John Hall, Carol Shea-Porter, Keith Ellison, etc. Congress wasn't won solely on the backs of conservative Democrats. You are also aware that the Progressive Caucus is the biggest caucus in the House?

    Perot may have helped Clinton win in 1992 (which further destroys your argument, since without Perot in '92, Clinton would have still done better than "classic liberal" Mike Dukakis)...

    This is called wishful thinking. Without Perot, Bush wins. Period. Clinton then doesn't have the opportunity to run against dour Dole. Your whole perception of history has to be reimagined. Give up on the fantasy that Republican-lite is the answer. You'll be a better man for it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/10/2007 @ 2:07pm