McGovern Hedges Clinton Bet...

..or offers diehards an "out" for party unity?

Former SD Senator George McGovern seems to be easing back on his hearty endorsement of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

O.K., now before Badlands Blue or James Carville sends out the hit squad, let's look at what McGovern is saying. Back in October, McGovern gave Clinton, a former campaigner for him back in 1972, his blessing at an Iowa City campaign event:

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" [John Nichols, "George McGovern Backs Clinton," The Nation.com blog, 2007.10.08].

October -- ages ago, it seems. Now McGovern is suggesting that Clinton can't win... though through no fault of her own:

"I have a feeling that in this country where we're at today in our thinking, it's going to be harder to elect a woman than to elect a black man," he told The Associated Press. "I wish that weren't true ... I'd love to see Hillary as president."

He says he occasionally chats with men who don't think a woman is ready for the responsibility.

"Some guy will say, 'Well, I think that's too big a job for a woman, I don't think she can handle those terrorists,"' he said, adding that he seldom hears the same thing said about black men [AP, "McGovern Unsure U.S. Is Ready to Elect a Woman," Yankton Press & Dakotan, 2008.03.26].

Now notice McGovern isn't questioning Clinton's readiness for office. Nothing he says here contradicts the words he expressed back in October. He's not saying he picked the wrong horse. But he is suggesting that if the horse he picked loses, it's not his fault, or Clinton's, but that darned electorate, for just not being ready to elect a good woman.

Now for some more positioning, on Obama:

McGovern, who centered his 1972 campaign on his opposition to the Vietnam War, has been critical of the Iraq war, calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney earlier this year. He said both Clinton and her Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, have reasonable plans for ending the conflict.

He says he likes Obama but didn't know much about him when he endorsed Clinton last year.

"I think very highly of him now," McGovern said [AP, 2008.03.26]

Again, nothing wrong or contradictory between McGovern's October endorsement and today's words. But these words carry a hint of backpedaling: Just in case Clinton loses, well, can I be blamed? Had I known him better, maybe I'd have endorsed him.

I mentioned McGovern's comments to the other Obama-leaner in the Madville Times headquarters, and she put the elder statesman's comments in a rather harsh light: it sounds to her as if McGovern is backing away from a fight that should be fought. If the folks McGovern talks to really are expressing the Neanderthal views he reports, he shouldn't be sighing that we just may not be capable of electing a woman. He should be using his every breath to bring people around to the idea that we should be ready to elect a woman, his woman, the most well-qualified woman we've ever had on the national scene (at least that's how McGovern describes Clinton).

The proper response from Dem diehards is, Who the heck is Madville Times to question a great man like McGovern? And indeed, maybe there is a more statesmanlike explanation for McGovern's comments today than mere bet-hedging. Maybe McGovern is mapping an "out" for the Clinton diehards that will allow them to forego the Tonya Harding option and gracefully accept an Obama nomination: Let him lead. Clinton can't win. It's not her fault, and it's not our fault. The opposition is just too strong. It's kind of like the Clinton response on the failure of her health care reform effort in 1993-94: she didn't fail; no one could have succeeded against the "entrenched opposition."

Saying your candidate can't win so you might as well back the other one is cold comfort (believe me: as Kucinich true-believers, Mrs. Madville Times and I know whereof we speak). But maybe McGovern is suggesting, subtly, that such cold comfort would be better than the warm blood waiting to be spilt at a fractious convention.