Aidan:

I was careful to stick to the facts about Eagleton, other than the implicit criticism of McGovern for picking him without vetting, then backing him, then dumping him.

Yes, Eagleton was a "weak" Veep nominee, if not because of his mental health issues, then because of his drinking problem, and because he lied to McGovern about all of it.

I tend to agree with the point of view that McGovern would have been better advised to stick with Eagleton and use his candidacy to educate people about mental illness (which might have met a more amenable public than was understood at the time). But ask yourself this, Aidan: with all the advances over the last thirty-six years on public understanding of mental illness, do you really think there's any chance a contemporary presidential candidate would knowingly choose a running-mate with Eagleton's profile today, particularly given Eagleton's slim positive credientials? No, of course not. Maybe that's a negative reflection of where we are as a country with respect to mental illness, but it's no particular reason for condemning George McGovern.

Ed Kilgore

Posted at April 23, 2008 11:29 PM in response to Obama and McGovern

To Bruce Miroff:

I haven't read you book, but will, and do appreciate your last post about the flip side of the Obama/McGovern analogy: the HRC/HHH analogy.

I dunno about this latter analogy: HHH did indeed batten on the acid/abortion/amnesty charicature of McGovern, and did falsely accuse George of favoring a gigantic welfare program and big defense cuts. Since HRC's policy attacks on Obama have mainly been in the territory of arguing about health care mandates and slurring him on relatively obscure features of SocSec, I don't think it's quite comparable.

As for the general idea that McGovern and Obama were savaged by Democrats after they "won" their nominations--well, that's an endlessly debatable proposition. And for all the current worrying--which I share--about the consequences of an endlessly contested nomination, I don't think Obama faces anything like McGovern's defection of labor leaders, party leaders, including an entire region of party leaders(the South).

Ed Kilgore

Posted at April 23, 2008 11:08 PM in response to Obama and McGovern

Bluebell:

Your comment is important, in that it reinforces the idea that coalition politics is a matter of harnessing big categories of voters with very different points of view. IMHO, it's actually a matter of minimizing losses and maximizing gains while presenting a reasonably coherent progressive message and agenda.

No Democratic candidate is going to regain all the "Reagan Democrats" (many of whom, in reality, are off the table due to, well, death), but victory does depend on minimizing unessential differences with some voters who are responsive to the main progressive message, but who may not like you, even as you may not like them. The Big Tent isn't about accomodating every conceivable point of view; it's about reconciling second and third order priorities under the umbrella of shared first priorities.

If your first priorities are incompatible with those of what's left of the "Reagan Democrats," then that's a problem for you, but the problem is with two-party American politics, not with Democrats.

Ed Kilgore

Posted at April 23, 2008 9:54 PM in response to Obama and McGovern

Josh:

Like you, I have great esteem for John Judis. And I also understand--which I should probably have acknowledged in my post--that TNR's editors exaggerated the extent to which he used the McGovern Analogy by their headline for his piece.

But still, that analogy is toxic, and potentially viral--and in the end, no more credible than the Jesse Jackson Analogy that Bill Clinton unfortunately played with after the SC primary.

I did my post because I thought it was important to smack this down not just with poll numbers, but with some history.

Ed Kilgore

Posted at April 23, 2008 8:33 PM in response to Obama and McGovern

ResumeMan:

I'm aware of this argument, but gather it's not incontrovertible. If Reid can unambiguously deny Lieberman his chairmanship, and disinvite him from the Caucus, without losing control of the Senate, I'm all for it.

Ed Kilgore

Posted at April 18, 2008 6:09 PM in response to The Line You May Not Cross

destor23:

Oh, I dunno. Most national Democrats did support Lamont in the general, and it's not clear to me that more non-CT support for Lamont would have won it for him. JIL really won the general because there was no viable Republican candidate in the race. And the Senate leadership had zero choice: it was accept Lieberman or leave the Senate in GOP hands.

It's a far different ballgame now, on many fronts, and that's one reason why an all-or-nothing attitude towards Lieberman, based on the assumption that one way or another, he's always been exactly what he is today, seems wrong to me.
I can't see into his soul, but I do know the lines he's now crossed have to be acknowledged and enforced, whether or not you think it was all predictable.

Ed Kilgore

Posted at April 18, 2008 6:04 PM in response to The Line You May Not Cross

You're right, of course. I'm so allergic to these "gotcha" issues that I sometimes don't even process them carefully.

Ed Kilgore

Posted at April 18, 2008 11:14 AM in response to Debating Electability

I realize this post has attracted a relatively low number of comments. But I suspect they reflect a pretty strong, and contradictory, sentiment favoring an open convention so long as it's not just a playground for superdelegates who are ignoring the popular vote results. Unfortunately, that's the only kind of open convention we're likely to get, this year at least.

After all, the recent trend towards stage-managed, "undemocratic" conventions was the direct result of rules changes that made "democratic" delegate-selection methods supreme. I don't know how you could ever get a "spontaneous" convention whose results aren't known in advance without reducing the role of actual voters in the nomination process.

So choose your poison: boring, contrived conventions, or however you cut it, some sort of "back-room deals." We could abandon conventions altogether as anachronisms (an idea that gets discussed and rejected every four years). But I don't think you can have it both ways.

Thanks to everyone who commented.

Ed Kilgore

Posted at February 6, 2008 4:30 PM in response to Convention Chaos Theory

Mike2:

Do I seem upset about an uncontrolled convention? I don't feel upset. I agree with much of what you've said, and far from being an "order" freak, I fall into the Barack Obama "messy desk" category.

All I'm saying is that it might be a pretty good idea to look ahead and figure out how this would work. Conventions are not, after all, ends in themselves. We have an election to win.

Ed Kilgore

Posted at February 5, 2008 6:59 PM in response to Convention Chaos Theory

Mike2:

Do I seem upset about an uncontrolled convention? I don't feel upset. I agree with much of what you've said, and far from being an "order" freak, I fall into the Barack Obama "messy desk" category.

All I'm saying is that it might be a pretty good idea to look ahead and figure out how this would work. Conventions are not, after all, ends in themselves. We have an election to win.

Ed Kilgore

Posted at February 5, 2008 6:56 PM in response to Convention Chaos Theory