iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

George McGovern: Still Backing Clinton, But Going Way Off Script

Mcgovern

First Posted: 05/03/08 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 01:30 PM ET

Former senator and Democratic presidential aspirant George McGovern says he sees some striking similarities when it comes to his run at the White House and that of Sen. Barack Obama. But ultimately, McGovern argues, Obama has organized a much wider political coalition and thus a greater chance of electoral success.

"I think that is his strength," McGovern told The Huffington Post. "He has very broad appeal. He certainly is going to galvanize the black vote. But he has strong appeal to voters of all kinds. Some of the old buckaroos out here in South Dakota are for him."

In recent days, following Obama's loss in the Pennsylvania primary, concern has been raised in Democratic circles that the Illinois Democrat could not expand his political base beyond African-Americans and college students -- a limitation that stunted McGovern's candidacy.

But McGovern, who lost the 1972 election to incumbent Richard Nixon by landslide margins, doesn't attribute his defeat to merely the contours of his political base. Indeed, he argues that his candidacy was damaged more by the infighting that occurred within the Democratic Party even after he had secured the nomination.

"After I had the nomination won and everything except the crowning at the convention, the other candidates that I had defeated in the primaries and the caucuses ganged up on me and spent the next month just bad mouthing me around the country," he said. "And, of course the Nixon people used some of the quotes and threw them back at me in the general election."

It is in this regard -- not necessarily his general election defeat -- that McGovern worries history could end up repeating itself. Noting that Obama seems poised to be the eventually nominee, though believing Sen. Hillary Clinton should stay in the race, he called for a more civil discourse between the two candidates.

"That is the one minus," he said. "I think there has been a little too much negative backbiting. And that is the one negative that concerns me because it is what happened to me in '72... I had to go into that convention exhausted, instead of spending the last few months carefully and systematically picking a running mate and getting my convention organized. We can't have that again."

This, however, is not the only similarity McGovern draws between his run for the White House and the current process. In '72, after he won the California primary and clinched the nomination, McGovern's Democratic opponents argued that the delegation should have been rewarded on a proportional basis, rather than winner-take-all. It was, McGovern says, a changing of the rules in mid-game that resulted both in the weakening of his campaign and his limping into the convention. Thirty-six years later, he sees parallels with the Clinton campaign's push to count the results of the non-DNC-sanctioned Florida and Michigan primaries.

"We can't overturn those rules now that the counting is over," he said. "I think Barack didn't even enter one contest [Michigan]. Those states knew what the rules were, all the candidates knew what the rules were, and to change it now I think is wrong."

It's not the only process issue on which McGovern, who has endorsed Clinton, finds himself at varying odds with the New York Democrat. On the topic of superdelegates, which were created as a concession to the primary reforms that McGovern initiated, the South Dakotan argues that these party insiders must take into strong consideration the pledged delegate tally.

"Yeah, I think that is important," he said. "It also reduces the frustration we would have if the candidate with the most pledged delegates was rejected. There is going to be some frustration anyway. There always is. I just hope it doesn't result in the kind of back-fighting I had to face after I secured the nomination."

Despite these differences, McGovern is not backing away from his support of Clinton. He deems her "one of the most talented, articulate and well-informed people in the country," whom he has known for 35 years, since she worked on his campaign in Texas. And he expects her to stay in the race at least until the last primary commences in his home state. But in the interim, he hopes, the tone and tenor of the campaign will be ratcheted down a notch,

"I don't want to see Hillary or Barack giving McCain ammunition in the general election," said McGovern. "It is more important that we not have another four years of Bush government."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

 
 
  • Comments
  • 496
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
12:12 PM on 04/29/2008
Quilt by association is wrong! No-one should be held accountable for someone elses behavior! If the super delegets take this away from Obama the party will never heal this wound! Obama is a man of high morals, ethics and honor! Shame on the media for giving Wright a platform which was an ambush put in place by the Clintons supportor who set up the press deal to have Wright appear. I will judge Obama by his words and actions only! This media witch hunt is shameful!
07:50 AM on 04/29/2008
Considering the Clintons already have him in their pocket, he really isn't in a position to comment.
talk is cheap--let's see him back up those words.
03:32 PM on 04/28/2008
Due to word limit on posting, I had to divide my post into five sections and I didn't realize
I needed to post them backwards to read in sequence. Please go from bottom to top if
you're interested in reading them. Thanks!
01:23 PM on 04/28/2008
As one disaster after another inevitably unfolds and escalates from the Clinton/Bush/Cheney approach to US foreign policy, and as our extremely precarious economy is completely consumed by a mountain of red ink required to maintain this charade, President Clinton and her loyal Democratic hacks can always then be blamed by the radical right and their media outlets for failing due to their “weakness.” Eventually, an attempted military takeover of our own country from within may well be deemed politically possible. (Google Chalmers Johnson’s article “Empire vs Democracy: Why Nemesis Is At Our Door” for a very persuasive discussion on how the last stages of US imperialism are inexorably leading to the destruction of our freedom at home.)
Barack Obama is certainly not an ideal candidate when it comes to curbing the runaway military-industrial complex which President/General Eisenhower warned the American people about 47 years ago. However, he is the only remaining candidate of either party whose rhetoric offers some hope, however slim, that as president he might suggest we try something different from what has gotten us into this mess.
I say let’s give him a chance. -Amos Burritt
01:21 PM on 04/28/2008
You can invent reality as much as you want, but far from being an “alternative” to Bush and the Neocon agenda of world domination, Clinton is an integral part in perpetuating this nihilistic vision for the US. Yes, there is a method to the madness of right-wing media tycoon Rupert Murdoch’s support for her. If elected as president, she would surely continue her Senate record as a staunch promoter of US militarism around the globe, particularly in oil-rich countries. This is the same foreign policy which propaganda media outlets like Murdoch-owned Fox News have championed for years. The wishful thinking of many of her supporters that Clinton would somehow become a different person if she became president is highly doubtful, not to mention one which speaks volumes as to how even her own supporters view her as a fundamentally dishonest person. (See below for cont.)
01:20 PM on 04/28/2008
........... just how reckless and/or disingenuous she really is. But I guess this is how “experience” nowadays is defined. But I guess this is how “experience” nowadays is defined.
Here are a few (among many) other foreign policy issues to consider before voting in the Dem. primary between Obama and Clinton. 1)Clinton supports the continued US transfer of cluster bombs to countries which use these weapons of terror to target civilian areas. 2)Clinton has supported unconditional arms transfers and police training to numerous countries with a record of gross and systematic human rights violations. 3)Clinton advocates the possible unilateral use of nuclear weapons against US-defined enemies. 4)And finally, speaking for a country which spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined, Clinton criticizes Bush for not spending enough on our military! Hitler himself never even came close to the current imbalance of US military power vis-Ă -vis the rest of the world. (See below for cont.)
01:17 PM on 04/28/2008
Hillary = War
For many people, the number one issue in the Democratic primary is Hillary Clinton’s unrepentant support for President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. This criminal war has cost the lives of a minimum of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, leveled a country which was the cradle of civilization, cost American taxpayers well over $2 trillion dollars, and killed, maimed and psychologically destroyed tens of thousands of young American soldiers. It has also led to the exponential growth of Middle-eastern terrorism directed towards the US, and created a fear and hatred of America around the globe which may take decades to undo. And the end to all this is nowhere in sight.
But destroying Iraq is not good enough for Hillary. Now she joins Bush in preparing for a war with Iran, a country which has not invaded another country in over a 100 years, and whose current unpopular government (not absolute dictatorship as Clinton claims) is the direct result of a CIA-engineered overthrow of an elected liberal Iranian president in 1953 and the subsequent establishment of a US-friendly dictator in that country for the next quarter century. Her vote to brand the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the largest branch of the Iranian military, as a “terrorist organization” even goes beyond Bush’s position, and her claim that she is not once again lending her support for another disastrous war of aggression in the Middle East clearly shows......
.(See below for more)
01:12 PM on 04/28/2008
George McGovern labels Hillary as "one of the most talented, articulate and well-informed people in the country." So sad that someone like McGovern thinks that these characteristics - and yes, even 35 yrs of friendship - should trump the more basic issues of character and policies when it comes to the future of this country. If Clinton is truly "well-informed," then I believe that her ability to be a viable president is by definition not there, unless you actually want a continuation of the last 8 yrs of our foreign policy under Bush/Cheney.
Below is an explanation of the main reason why some of us would NEVER vote for Clinton in the general election. Please feel free to copy and forward to friends who live in the remaining states with upcoming primaries who might benefit from reading it. Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dawlishgal
06:57 PM on 04/27/2008
I am fed up with people like McGovern who blame the current party crisis equally on both parties. Obama could be going around saying that people ought to be afraid, very afraid of misogynists who might get into the voting booth and realize that they just can't vote for a woman. But he isn't. It is Hillary who is hoping for a racist meltdown among people who may not even realize that they are racists. And even worse than that, she is hoping to scare decent people about the extent of undercover racism so that they vote for her to avoid it. And if she she succeeds in making non-racists afraid of what racists might do, then we all might as well be racists, for all the good it will do the decent candidate who doesn't stoop to divisive tactics..
01:53 AM on 04/28/2008
McGovern tell this sorry person Hillary to get out of the race.
09:46 PM on 04/28/2008
MCGovern tell this sorry person Obama to get out of the race.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Obama08Supporter
01:39 PM on 04/27/2008
Continued: According to the Bible, we will be damed for the things we have done against others. That is not a lie, but because our country is so racist, we have bought into exactly what BIll Clinton was shooting for in the first place, division of the races. Bil Clinton should be sent to jail and not given a break because he is a former president, truth is he should have been sent to jail for perjury and disbarrement long ago.

But because we have lost our morals in this county, he is praised for is unethical behavior in the past and people actually want him back in the WH again. I wish I were not American because we have lost something so important, morals and values. Our society is a looking glass of the results of that!
justobserve
Not left nor right or center. Just a free thinker!
05:33 PM on 04/27/2008
Yes, if we let the Clintons back in the WH, our society has no moral and values at all.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Obama08Supporter
01:39 PM on 04/27/2008
Never in my life have I seen in the history of this country, a black man labeled as an elitist and it sticks to him. Not many blacks in the world can rightfully accept this title, even one born to a white single mother. Other countries look upon America with disgrace and rightfully so, we have done unspeakable things to other countrys and even our society buys everything our government says to us as the gospel. Even after evading other country and killing its leader without cause, we as residents of Amerircan refuse to publicly accept the fact that America was wrong, and God will punish us for it. When a pastor is quotes in snippets about the realness of God's wrath upon our country, we make him look like he is unpatriotic, never mind his years of service and help in killing other people in the war he served in to protect America , somehow that doesn't matter because on of our candidates, the black candidate attends his church. I don't know when we will wake up and see the reality of this, we were wrong in envading Iraq and we have been wrong in many things at home and aboard. Now we want to kill a candidate because of what his pastor said, which is true.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Obama08Supporter
01:39 PM on 04/27/2008
The saddest thing of this whole nomination process it that our country has become more overtly devided than it was, and when I step back and look at the total picture, it is exactly what Bill Clinton wanted since his Carolina's statement. He knew if he could some how make this an election about race, he would be able to bring out all those that do not feel comfortable or are afraid of black people to the poles to ensure his wife's nomination. The American people have been played once again by the Clinton, and many of them will never know it until years after this election.
04:18 PM on 04/27/2008
If you looked at what Clinton did for the black community you wouldn't say what you say.
Many black delegated were with HRC. THye swtiched, I'm sure because they want to be -re-elected.

The only Democratic president to get the white votes to make him President was LBJ.

pease read my srticle and articles posted at:


hillaryisourchoice.com
09:17 PM on 04/27/2008
The US touts itself as the world's policeman, interceding in issues that have no geographical connection to them, all the time.
The Rwanda genocide happened on Bill Clinton's watch, a genocide that could easily have been stopped with a fraction of the force sent to Afganistan.
Clinton later apologized for 'allowing' 1 million people to die without US intervention.
If Clinton was so concerned with the well-being of black people, he would have made it his business to get involved. Fact is, those black people could not vote for him so they were of no importance.
PS: I blame Hillary equally, as most wives have the ability to influence their husbands.
08:35 AM on 04/27/2008
Hillary has the best chances to win in November against McCain.

PATRIOTISM is one HUGE reason. Hillary wins that hands down.
REZKO trial is just ramping up, we have yet to hear ALL of everyone's testimony on obama.

Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief

• General Wesley Clark
• General John M. Shalikashvili
• General Henry Hugh Shelton
• General Johnnie E. Wilson
• Admiral William Owens
• Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
• Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
• Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
• Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
• Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
• Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
• Major General Roger R. Blunt
• Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
• Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
• Major General Paul D. Eaton
• Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
• Major General Antonio M. Taguba
• Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
• Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
• Rear Admiral David Stone
• Brigadier General Michael Dunn
• Brigadier General Belisario Flores
• Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
• Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
• Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
• Brigadier General Preston Taylor
• Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
• Brigadier General Jack Yeager
11:52 AM on 04/27/2008
... consistent with her current penchant for changing the rules after the game, Clinton should suggest these dignitaries' votes be allotted more currency than that of the citizenry.
12:39 PM on 04/27/2008
Not gonna happen, but nice try. Obama's got a list of military supporters at least as long as Hillary's, but that's not the point. It's over. The only thing Hillary's supporters get to decide now is whether to support Obama or hand the election to McCain.

I begrudgingly supported Bill and Hillary in 82 and 86. Did I have misgivings? You bet, serious ones. But in the end, we all came together to defeat the Republicans. It's obvious Bill and Hillary don't care about that. They want power and they will do anything to get it. But what about the rest of you? What are you going to do? History is watching.

Obama '08!
01:19 AM on 04/27/2008
good for McGovern, he's telling it like it is.
11:00 PM on 04/26/2008
How long will we continue to see this idiocy about an "attack on Iran." Hillary said that, "if" Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel or others, (other allies of the U.S.) we could obliterate Iran." Puller58 gets this nonsense, he's writing, as well as other halfwits making accuastions against Hillary without any information to back up their claims, and comes here to spread misinformation, and to make fools of themselves. It will all come out. You're not helping Obama this way.