Funny, when *I* asked McGOVERN to withdraw, he didn't heed!1

From the beginning of my all-Dem voter's career I realized that only a candidate who WINS will have a legacy. All of our NOBLE losing candidates----every dang one of whom was smarter, more honest, more visionary, ------are worthless, because even the "moderate" or, GASP, a Center Dem who WINS will have a huge impact in appointing people up and down the food chain who will, each one of them, push parts of the Dem agenda for years or even a generation to come.

So, while I luerve all of our Dems of whatever stripes and certainly have voted for every last one of them, I have ever yearned for electability.

So in '72, I wrote a letter to McGOVERN, telling him how much I admired him but that the most important thing was to BEAT NIXON, and that I didn't believe he could beat NIXON, so, please withdraw and let whatEVER Dem take the slot who had a better chance.

He (it was signed by him, too bad I lost it), wrote back saying that he believed he understood the issues and that he believed he had a good chance to win, so thanks and bye.


It wasn't till years later that I heard about his distinguished military record. His campaign was built around catering ("pandering") to a select group of anti-war ------ANTI-MILITARY---- young people, and instead of street-smart using his military record to advantage in his campaign, he thought he had to play it down for his base.


So I laughed when some MSRNC yakker said, "As McGOVERN goes, so goes-----McGOVERN!1"



And to all flamers around here, do you really think you "win" something with your juvenile attacks on everybody, especially on other Dems?!1

I voted for him.......of course he lost.

me too.

I was a state delegate supporting him.

But that was back when other hopefuls knew to withdraw when the math said they couldn't win.

Fun with history, huh?

We should heed advice from someone who didn't know that McGovern was a war hero until years AFTER his candidacy?

#3: I wrote to him DURING the primary season, BEFORE he clinched the nomination but was obviously headed that way. Why would you assume it was AFTER he won the nomination?!1


#4: Since I lived through that period I know that he made his service INVISIBLE. That was my point. If he had played it smart, he would have PLAYED IT UP, would have said all through the campaign, "I have a distinguished war record. I might even be called a war hero, and I am running against this war because it is wrong!1" Instead he pandered to a relatively small group, as such groups always are, of anti-war, yes, but moreso ANTI-DRAFT and ANTI-MILITARY base, to whom military service was anathema. Btw, the CLINTONs cut their teeth working in his campaign, and THEIR years in the WH were marked by military people claiming to be mistreated by them.

But anyway, so kind of you to drop by.

I knew about it and I was just a dumb 19 yr old kid.

"Btw, the CLINTONs cut their teeth working in his campaign, and THEIR years in the WH were marked by military people claiming to be mistreated by them."

Interesting that you are apparently the FIRST clinton supporter to remember this - I wonder, how's she have such cred with the military, then? They were the same as those you now disparage in the Obama camp.

Nevermind that Obama has never claimed to be anti-war, or anti-military (unlike Hillary not too many years ago), but actually has a reasonable and rational approach to national security that doesn't depend on 'bomb them before they bomb us'.

"a relatively small group, as such groups always are" - re-writing history a bit? In 1971 half the people I knew were against the war, and I was living on a fucking military base. Nixon claimed to be against the war - or don't you remember his 'secret plan' to get us out of Vietnam? The republicans called it a 'Democratic war' and 'LBJ's war', and played on 'peace with honor', scaring eveyone to think that if they voted in a Democrat the war would continue, or, conversely, we would withdraw dishonorably. The silent majority was neither silent nor the majority. And McGovern so scared Nixon that he had CREEPs breaking into offices, pulling dirty tricks - essentially, everything that is Rovian today was originally Nixonian, and we had never come up against that to anywhere near that degree. THAT is why McGovern lost = because the government said one thing, he said another, and in those days people actually believed the government would not lie.

You're DAMN RIGHT I'll show up. The truth cannot be hidden under a basket.

Oh, YOU knew about "it" and you were dumb 19.

*I'm* the FIRST "Clinton supporter" to remember?



WHOM do I disparage in the OBAMA camp?!!!1 If YOU are in the OBAMA camp, I certainly DO disparage YOU!1 (OBAMA would be ashamed to have you in his camp.)

So "HALF of the people YOU knew" ---------is that a statistical number, or just YOU?!1



You'll show up WHERE?!1 Not in MY house!1

innit.

Actually - my remark was intended to be in support of yours and a commentary on the behavior of those who posted knee jerk responses to your OP.
Sorry for not being clearer.
Cheers matey.

easy to do.

Muskie would've lost by 10 instead of by 20 and nothing would've been different.

And nobody is appealing to the anti-war left anymore because the anti-war left doesn't exist anymore.

Back then, it really was anti-DRAFT and anti-MILITARY. Come on, let the truth shine in.



To the many threads about why Shrub hasn't been impeached, and why whatever---------the unhypocritical answer is: Because there is NO DRAFT!11

Tweety went into the Peace Corps NOT because of JFK, but because of avoiding Vietnam!1 He has SAID it!1 And, I'm not faulting that, just, let's talk the truth, O.K.?!1

I'm saying that despite you writing to McGovern to clear the way for a better candidate, your efforts were futile because nobody else was going to beat Nixon. People trash McGovern as though if we had nominated someone else like Ed Muskie, we could've won the White House in 1972. No Democrat had a chance of beating Nixon in '72, period.

And my point is that Obama, nor any other candidate who has sought the Democratic Nomination in the last 20 years, has pandered to anybody who is anti-military.

"NOBODY" was going to beat NIXON?!1 Did YOU know that?!1 Others had a BETTER chance. So are we always supposed to go with the NO chance compared to the somewhat-better chance?!1



When did I say that OBAMA or anybody (except McGOVERN) had pandered to anti-military peeps. McGOVERN *certainly* did.


So how come nobody ever responds to YOU that what you say is incomprehensible?!1

And honestly I just don't get the point of this thread at this point.

I'd give it to you for this one! Thanks for this post, and thank you for all of your years of service to the Democratic party! :toast:

Every conversation where McGovern turns up has to do with her loss running for president.

The whole point is that he was/is:

* An idealist

* Noble

* Well-intentioned

* A great human being


-----------BUT a poor candidate. Preferring TO LOSE (and be RIGHT).


What does THAT do for us?!1

and their dirty tricks. They drove Muskie out of the race and used RNC money to mess up the election so that their designated candidate, McGovern would win. He was the media darling until the day after he got the nomination.

That is why I keep saying that this election is just like 1972. I was 13 back then. I remember it vividly. This whole thing was giving me flashbacks the way that only something you lived through as an adolescent can. So read Thompson's book and it was all there (of course, you have to read between the lines, because he does not know they are being punked, that is why it makes such a good comparison to now). The paranaia, the infighting, the Democratic Party split---it is all the same as it is now.

Maybe he would've lost by less but he still would've lost. Nixon may have indeed pulled dirty tricks so he could've run against McGovern but that was due to his own paranoia.

This is nothing like 1972.

Barack Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the issue of our military and protecting the interests of the United States. He's just a talking head like anyone who has never served. No matter how passionate or informed you are, unless you've worn the uniform, the words have a certain hollowness. (Last week I listened for half an hour while a Marine explained to me how he, his father, his two brothers, his sister, and his son all served as Marines, from Korea, to Vietnam, to the first Gulf War.)

Regardless of his position on the Iraq War, Barack Obama has no capital, no more credibility than any other person on the street who has never served in the military. Barack Obama never volunteered to join any branch of the Armed Forces. He's 46 years old, thereabouts. So he could have joined approximately 1980 or 1981, when he was still young and strong, with no wife and no children, and his odds of ending up in harm's way were very slim. What exactly was Barack Obama doing in 1980? He was at Columbia University in New York, pursuing a degree in political science.

Now, about McGovern ...

Increasingly, Barack Obama’s campaign is starting to resemble the George McGovern campaign of 1972 which was the most disastrous one in modern U. S. politics.

McGovern’s race was a contrived total left-wing excursion, serenaded by the liberal media and fanned to a fair-thee-well by all the usual left-wing suspects. But it was not pre-ordained from the outset that McGovern would lose…especially on the national security issue. . Indeed, to start out with, McGovern had far more going for him than Obama. The real McGovern story is solid TV documentary fare. A high school gym teacher once called him a coward because he trembled before vaulting a gymnastic horse and never really leapt over it. Disgusted with himself because he really and truly felt he was a coward in failing to jump over the horse and terribly afraid of heights, he gritted his teeth and signed up for a civilian pilot training program. You can imagine how dizzy and woozy he felt as he was learning to fly. When he soloed, he felt cold sweat rolling down his back. But when he walked away after that solo, having won his certificate he was never afraid of heights again.

When World War II came he volunteered for what was then the U.S. Army Air Forces. He served as a B-24 Liberator bomber pilot with the 15th Air Force and flew 35 missions over enemy territory from bases in North Africa and Italy, piloting the craft through rains of artillery fire. When his plane was hit, he skillfully maneuvered it to a successful crash landing on a tiny Mediterranean island and saved his crew, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross and the eternal admiration of his crew.

With his military background, McGovern could have had great credibility challenging the Vietnam war. Gene McCarthy who opposed the war had no military service whatsoever; thus his appreciation of the military was severely limited. Hubert Humphrey who supported the war likewise had no military experience so his defense of the war was not very convincing. Only McGovern could make the case that some wars are necessary and others are not. But McGovern flunked the test. Why? Because he was hearkening back to Bobby Kennedy’s 1968 race and thought Bobby was where the country was. Not so. Bobby was a charismatic character who would have shown the world how he could switch back to the old Bobby who was Joe McCarthy’s second-tier aide.

More at link, this guy is a conservative but he knows his way around the block.

http://tomroeser.com/sectionlist.asp?s=&month=3&year=2008

"With his military background, McGovern could have had great credibility challenging the Vietnam war. Gene McCarthy who opposed the war had no military service whatsoever; thus his appreciation of the military was severely limited. Hubert Humphrey who supported the war likewise had no military experience so his defense of the war was not very convincing. Only McGovern could make the case that some wars are necessary and others are not. But McGovern flunked the test. Why? Because he was hearkening back to Bobby Kennedy’s 1968 race and thought Bobby was where the country was. Not so. Bobby was a charismatic character who would have shown the world how he could switch back to the old Bobby who was Joe McCarthy’s second-tier aide."


he (McG) could have had GREAT CREDIBILITY------my point, exactly. HUMPHREY's defense of the war, not convincing.

I believe Labor-champion/populist HUMPHREY fell prey to lust for power (UNDER lbj), making deals with the devil (I love LBJ's domestic record). RFK was a wingnut thug, at least for his previous life, and like father like son, and so was JFK.

:D

The association with McCarthy is a real mind-boggler, isn't it?

And with that, good night, it's time to take the dog for a late-night stroll. :hi:

When she treated Kerry like your wing of the party treated McGovern.

Economic moderate, law and order conservative, socialist otherwise. That's just my personal outlook.

I vote straight Dem, always have. Why are you so angry?