McGovern was running against a sitting president.

Sent by George de Man | 11:00 AM ET | 04-24-2008

This has been my point all along when Clinton says Obama can't win the big states - just because he didn't win a state in a primary doesn't mean it's unfeasible for him to win it in the general.

Sent by SB | 11:06 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Yes; had Nixon been standing or leaning it could have turned out very differently. : )

Sent by Randy | 11:12 AM ET | 04-24-2008

The Republicans don't do anything for no reason. Their attacks on Sen. Obama signal that they think he would be a big threat to them in the general election.

Sent by Patrick Kelly | 11:22 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Why is no one in the media asking if John McCain is the new Barry Goldwater?

'Liberal media' my foot!

Sent by Brian | 11:23 AM ET | 04-24-2008

It's been my point as well. Is the argument that these democrats would rather see a republican than the democrat of their choice in office? If so, it is a defeatist and childish assertion for a fellow democrat to make!

Sent by sm | 11:35 AM ET | 04-24-2008

It is interesting to note that Obama is being overwhelmingly supported by the Black Americans. Even the Black politicians who had previously supported Hillary Clinton are now falling for him, though policy-wise it seems that there is hardly much difference between them.Interestingly, Obama's black-ness is due to his father: Barrack Hussein Obama, a Kenyan who had hardly any experience of a Black American in USA, Obama had hardly lived with him to experience the blackness of a Black American in USA, and he was raised by a white mother and white grand-parents in a typical white american family and neighborhood. Is Obama's blackness a politically convenient means of attracting the black votes in this country? Shouldn't the media explore these questions, and ask specially the Black politicians of this country why they are for him?

When Obama had been spiritually mentored ALL his adult life by someone like Rev. Wright for who openly condemned the white Americans (though the reasons for his frustrations are well-understood), and Obama's wife had not found anything good about America in ALL her adult life (again,the reasons for her frustrations are understood), who would Obama's true inner-self be guided by when "push comes to shove"?

An American President is surrounded and counseled by policy advisers .. from politics to economics, whether they are Republican or Democrat or Independent, they are the best of the best this country produces. Also,no matter what a politician says in order to get elected, s/he would be guided by the prevailing events and conditions of that time. Discussion of policy issues now seems moot and is often as important as determining a person's true inner-self. It is the inner-self and the core belief of a person that often prevails in making the final decision. and for that matter, a person always listens to his/her inner-self. So, what's Obama's inner-self would say on such matters?... Lessons he had learned from Rev. Wright or from his wife? May be, one should now find out about the opinions of the Obama children. Sometimes, parents also listen to the children.

Hopefully, the media would find these out and let the poor uninformed voters know before we cast the ballot! After all, if an individual attempts to find these answers it is often met by sarcasm by the political handlers such as, "you must be supporting the other person (Hillary Clinton)or a Republican" or comments such as: let's find out about the policy (which probably matters lot less as stated before), or "don't be bothered by such trivial questions," as it seemed to have come out of after last week's debate. Regards.

Sent by BD from Boston | 11:44 AM ET | 04-24-2008

LOL Randy.

Anyways, it's interesting that McGovern has grown up since then.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120485275086518279.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Sent by deek | 11:47 AM ET | 04-24-2008

Obvious to objective mindsets, however, it appears that Obama supporters are set on "winning the battle and losing the war"...shortsightedness should not be considered a special talent.

Sent by ard | 12:00 PM ET | 04-24-2008

BD:
In attempting to find Obama's inner self it would also be great to find McCains inner self (maybe an example of how he dumped his wife who was involved in a car accident and cheated on her all over the place). Maybe we also should have found out about George Bush inner self and Dick chenney (Guided by Haliburton,Blackwater, KBR...various LLC's), maybe we also need to find out about Hillary's inner self (Guided by Mark Rich who deals with Iran and contributed $400m to clintons library and pardoned by the clintons for tax evasion), maybe New Yorkers should have found out about the inner self of Spitzer client# 9. Maybe the country should have found out about Nixon etc, etc. Sad the way people think......

Sent by concern | 12:17 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Brian: agreed on the sentiment re: the mythical beast known as the liberal media, but I think you're Goldwatering the wrong candidate. Didn't you hear about Clinton throwing around words like "obliterate" the other day?

I think maybe Obama's campaign ought to dust off LBJ's "little girl" ad... People voted against Goldwater because they weren't eager to see the opening salvo of WWIII. Obama needs to capitalize on war weariness; he's the only viable "dove" candidate.

Sent by Kasreyn | 3:07 PM ET | 04-24-2008

I think this is more of a case of Clinton being like Mondale in 1984. She's running an unimaginative campaign that appeals to some parts of the Democratic base and it's all going to catch up with us in November.

Sent by Glenn | 3:42 PM ET | 04-24-2008

I'm sorry, but if rural PA is any example, the pundits might have it very wrong... the single, most glaring political mistake (at least where I live in NW PA) by the Obama campaign has been overlooked. I would suggest that contrary to all the powers-that-be suggesting great divisions in the Democratic party, Obama lost, in part, because he forgot that 2/3 of the state doesn't live in Philly.

In the weeks leading up to the election, Hillary signs sprouted everywhere, we received at least 2 calls from her campaign, and uncounted flyers in the mail. From Obama? Nothing. There were plenty of Ron Paul signs up across my county, but not one single Obama sign.

And as I tracked his movements across the state, I might have missed it but I saw no stops outside the big cities, or towns in the Phila.-Harrisburg orbit.

Back to my point: there wouldn't be a huge divide if Obama's campaign had even made an effort at the rural vote. Yes, resources, I know, and time- but "nature abhors a vacuum", and the total vacuum they left in our rural part of the state cost them, instead forcing rural voters to fall back on the little snippets of news they heard, or worse, the racist and ignorant word-of-mouth and e-mail campaign about Obama's Islamic tendencies.

Given that other nearby largely rural counties went the same way, there might be a trend here.

Via Media

Sent by Via Media | 3:48 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Hello Concern:

Excellent suggestion. If a voter thinks that a Presidential candidate's shabby treatment of his wife would indicate that he would make poor decisions affecting all women or something like this, then s/he must NOT vote for him. Or,if a voter thinks that a spouse's cozy relationship with an arms dealer/smuggler would influence the decision making thought process of a President (assuming such actions would slip by the IG and Independent prosecutors and other watch-dog law enforcement agencies, then shame on our system of law enforcement), then it should be up to the voters to reject such persons. However, such inner character strengths or flaws should be made known to the voters by the media before the election.

Since, Bush and Cheney and Spitzer are history, let's not worry about what should or should not have been made known about their character to the voters before they were elected!

With warm regards,

Sent by BD from Boston | 5:55 PM ET | 04-24-2008

mr/ms BD:
while your argument has its superficial appeal as a "real stuff that matters" pitch, i am afraid it is, in fact,specious. sociological studies document that in political discourse an allegation repeated often enough will not be countermanded in the public mind simply by a denial, and that in fact simply adding "not" to an an allegation (ie "mccain is NOT a brazen opportunist who abandoned his wife -- in a clear gingrich-like moment of ethical purity -- to score with the big bucks") actually reinforces broad public perception of the allegation. handlers know this and will use this factor to dupe the "the poor uninformed voters ...before we (sic) cast the ballot" to cast that picture of the "inner self" on the wall of whatever lizard brain emotional buttons they can push.

(aside: what's up with the we -- are you poor and uninformed, too?)

thus, this "inner self" you prattle on about is nothing but a marketing chimaera produced by the very people you claim to distrust.

"An American President is surrounded and counseled by policy advisers .. from politics to economics, whether they are Republican or Democrat or Independent, they are the best of the best this country produces."

clearly mssrs. cheney, rumsfeld,wolfewitz, feith, hadley,bremer et al demonstrate abundantly how false this is. perhaps it is a good idea, after all, to check out the intellectual prowess and background of the candidates on offer (unless remaining "uninformed" is a desired state) so he/she is able to sift through all that "intelligence" and make good decisions (like not invading a country on evidence as substantitive as hitler's claimed "protection of the german people in danzig").

"Also,no matter what a politician says in order to get elected, s/he would be guided by the prevailing events and conditions of that time. Discussion of policy issues now seems moot"

right, why bother sorting out that hard thinking stuff when we can just emote ourselves to a decision based on what our tradmedia minders have decided counts (i refer you here to mr gibson's and steph's debatacle).

Sent by tim in exile | 2:36 AM ET | 04-25-2008

I'm invoking Godwins Law.

EOD.

Sent by deek | 10:07 AM ET | 04-25-2008

I've often seen people make deek's mistake. Allow me to explain. Godwin's Law is merely an expression of the statistical probability of a Naziism reference occurring approaching parity with increasing conversation duration.

It has absolutely nothing to do with ending the discussion. Many people like to shout "Godwin you lose!", but though it may be cliched, there do exist situations in which a reference to Naziism may be the most informative and applicable metaphor available. It should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not with a blanket rule that doesn't even mean what people think it means.

Cheers!

Sent by Kasreyn | 10:27 AM ET | 04-25-2008

there was a reference to the origin (in the modern era of nation states, that is)of "legitimation" of the policy of pre-emptive aggression to (allegedly) avert impending danger to one's citizenry (smoking gun mushroom cloud funny little tubes -- ringing any bells here??). no one was smeared with the nazi label or comapred to hitler. can we have a grown up discussion?

it's odd that people who support a policy of declaring intenational laws and treaties inapplicable cling to universal laws that can be invoked. maybe they're bitter.

Sent by tim in exile | 4:19 PM ET | 04-25-2008