October 9, 2007 12:36 PM

Anti-War Crowd Making Peace With Clinton

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., waves to supporters before her speech on the economy Monday, Oct. 8, 2007, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., waves to supporters before her speech on the economy Monday, Oct. 8, 2007, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) (AP)

(The Nation)  This column was written by John Nichols.


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 Clinton has moved toward what he sees as a "pretty good" position on the war. "She knows that it's 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.

By John Nichols
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation

The Nation
Add a Comment See all 14 Comments
by joebhed October 10, 2007 6:11 PM EDT
Well, George McGovern still has my undying admiration for his unwavering opposition to a war and for peace, at a time when our country so needed his statesmanlike position.
Unfortunately, today I see him as a Democrat.
And not as either a statesman or a leader.
"Her vote to support the war was wrong".
Well, from that point on, what makes it right?
Her position that the war has been mismanaged.
Big deal.
Is that leadership?
Her empty and inane posture that she will end the war but cannot say that all troops will be home in five years?
What''s wrong with that picture?
What about this.
It was not the vote to enter the war that was wrong.
The war was wrong.
The war is wrong.
When YOUR country invades another country for no good reason, LEADERS do not criticize how the war has gone.
They admit and apologize for their stupidity and they get their troops out of harm''s way.
Its like, if the war had gone well, then she would have no criticism.
Yes, the invasion was okay, the occupation after five years is OK.
But the management has been terrible.
we need a new war manager.
And Hillary is JUST the person to take over.
Sorry, Mr. McGovern, your day for peace is past.
Thanks for the memories.
Reply to this comment
by DrColes October 10, 2007 4:20 PM EDT
No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://***********/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.
Reply to this comment
by klifton2-2009 October 10, 2007 3:06 PM EDT
It is an infantile and naive decision to vote for a party as opposed to voting for the person. The party is a box and the person the content. At the end, it is the content that matters. Look at the heap of manure in the White House. They stink, as what manure is supposed to. When the two terms are up, Bush would have left behind a trail ranging from incompetence to criminal misdeeds, and he is a Republican! Does it mean that all Republicans are slimes? No! Having said that, look for the candidate that best represents what humanity is all about, and this extends to the proper medical care, care for the environment, respect for lives and properties, and most of all a genuine human being you will be proud to call "friend." It seems a lot to ask, but with Bush as a benchmark for all that is bad in politics and in a politician, there is someone out there, Democrat or Republican, who could conceivably fit the bill.
Reply to this comment
by cbs_oliver October 10, 2007 2:03 PM EDT
If we have to have an pawn of international business interests as President it might as well be a Republican.

If we progressives can control the House and Senate maybe we can hold onto sanity and democracy a while longer to something better comes along.
Reply to this comment
by cbs_oliver October 10, 2007 1:58 PM EDT
I''m a progressive/liberal and I''m not comfortable with Clinton and will not vote for her.
Reply to this comment
by Razzl October 10, 2007 1:29 PM EDT
This race is not about the people, it''s about dismantling the evil political machine that Rove created and the neocons have manipulated. The Democratic and, dare I say it, even many Republican rank and file feel that Deconstructing the current version of Republicanism is an urgent goal which is best brought about through unity and energy on all fronts in 2008. You will not hear griping about Hillary from the left if she becomes the nominee because the left is totally focused on the mission and will not poison it in any way. Rush Limbaugh and the Fox and Fascional Review crowd think they are going to drum up big opposition to Hillary in the backwoods, but they fail to understand that the whole public is deathly weary of Bush and Hillary or whichever Democrat gets nominated will be greeted enthusiastically as the ticket out of Bushism...
Reply to this comment
by mbcsmith October 10, 2007 1:01 PM EDT
Clinton: I voted for the war before I voted against it. Wow, what brilliance.
Reply to this comment
by simonsez40 October 10, 2007 12:25 PM EDT
Nourishing debates from Republicans? What world do you live in Quatrops? Nothing can be nourishing about what the Republicans HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED during their REIGN OF CORRUPTION.........people wake up and realize we can''t have much faith in either party.....

At least if we vote Democrat the pendulum will fall back in the middle away from the FAR RIGHT hell we live in right now.........
Reply to this comment
by quatrops October 10, 2007 9:26 AM EDT
I don''t know if any neutral historian has looked back over 200+ years of Supreme Courts and compared them vis-a-vis right-left balance. If such a work has been done, someone out there enlighten me.

The concern of some that a future-president-Clinton''s possible appointments to the court would swing it too far to the left seems a bit of a stretch. Can anyone give me an example of a Supreme Court further to the right than the present one?
Reply to this comment
by quatrops October 10, 2007 2:52 AM EDT
Considering the runaway deficits Bush & Co. have produced, I''d rather hold my nose while voting than have to hold on to my wallet when filing my 1040.

Since the rich for the most part own the mega$corporations that bought our current government, I''m looking forward to the reinstitution of taxes on the rich so they can pay their fair share. I don''t think they will find trimming their excesses in consumption too painful, and the improvement in health care and education for our kids will prove to be a good investment.
Reply to this comment
See all 14 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook