The Nation thinks this will clinch Iowa for Clinton. Not sure why, she is already ahead there by 29% compared to 23% for Edwards and 22% for Obama. Besides, McGovern didn't carry Iowa in '72, I don't see that the state has any particular attachment to him. McGovern, the most anti-war candidate ever, probably has a special cache with the extreme left however, and his endorsement may mean that all is forgiven regarding Hillary's pro-Iraq War vote (and failure to recant). In any event, the Nation reports that McGovern is all squishy now over Hillary's views on the war:
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's its 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."
While it might help Hillary a little in Iowa, an endorsement by McGovern would be a slight drawback during the general election, except . . . no one really takes losing prez candidates seriously, especially those who lose in a landslide. I only bring this up at all because it seems like strange bedfellows, and I have this odd fascination with George McGovern. I agree with virtually nothing he stands for, but I like him as a person, he seems like a decent, honorable and straight-up guy. Real old school, we could use more of that.