McGovern reveals real reason for Obama endorsement switch

May 17, 2008

mcg.jpg SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Former South Dakota Sen. George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee and longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, revealed on Friday a key reason why he switched his support in this year’s primary election from the former first lady to Barack Obama.
 
McGovern, 85, told an Obama rally with some 7,000 people in South Dakota that he shifted allegiance because the Illinois senator had an insurmountable lead in the nomination race.
 
But that wasn’t the only reason.
 
“I have three daughters and one son and 10 grandchildren, and after I endorsed Senator Clinton, all 14 of them enlisted in the Obama campaign,” he said, joking that that showed the measure of influence he had in his own home.

McGovern said the Clintons would remain treasured friends and praised them for having “worked their hearts out” for his own 1972 presidential bid.
 
Now, however, was the time to coalesce around Obama, who is leading in votes and delegates required to determine the party’s White House nominee to face Republican John McCain in the November election, he said.

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.

- Photo credit: Reuters/Andy Clark (McGovern at a reunion of Vietnam War draft dodgers in Castlegar, British Columbia, July 8, 2006)

12 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Thank you, Mr. McGovern for your endorsement of Senator Obama! I understand Senator Obama is now nearly 200 delegates ahead of Hilliary. Thanks to all the other superdelegates and delegates who have endorsed Senator Obama as well.

What is hilarious about the whole McGovern thing is if I were a candidate his endorsement would scare the hell out of me! He lost by the biggest electoral loss in US history! I would think McGovern would be the bottom of the endorsements just above Carter! And Mr. McGovern needs to get with the totals… Clinton now leads in Popular Vote. Neither candidate will have the magic pledged delegate count by June 3rd (SD’s don’t count until the Convention vote). So, this race is still very much going forward…
Seems funny that McGovern endorses Obama only to have him suffer a 41 point loss in WV. LOL

Posted by ScottVA | Report as abusive

ScottVA says, “Clinton now leads in Popular Vote”. It sounds like you’re buying into the Clinton spin hook, line, and sinker.

To reach her total, Hillary is including Michigan without giving Obama any of the votes. Her claim is that he didn’t receive any, since his name wasn’t on the ballet. Perhaps she should subtract all of the uncommitted votes from her total, since they were obviously votes against her. She’s also excluding several caucus states from her totals. Shouldn’t Iowa, Nevada, and Maine count? It seems to me that her claim that everybody’s vote should count only counts when it favors her.

Posted by Judy | Report as abusive

he has now been endorsed by every democratic presidential loser since william jennings bryan. you know who he hasn’t been endorsed by? winners. snicker.

After watching the comments of President Bush in Israel, there was no indication that he said or inferred “Obama” in his comments.

I’ve come to the conclusion that we don’t need a grand-standing, press-mongering team like the Obama camp anywhere near the White House. In the South, we call that, “having a chip on your shoulder,” and “wearing your feelings on your sleeve.”

To own a comment not even inferred to belong to him, the Obama group made it very clear that:

a.) they did it for air time and press coverage;

b.) it worked and now they will do it again whenever coverage is sparse;

c.) they are running a campaign and policy of reaction rather than action / decisions on issues and principles;

d.) people in America need to see the whole team / group that is “Obama” together in the same picture with his – that is who they are voting for in fact.

And also:
e.) people in America need to know where each of these team members and Obama have all stood on issues as Senators, etc. – how they’ve already used their power and position.

Because, once in the White House, that is the group of leaders we will actually have pursuing their own interests and agendas.

Written by Cricket Diane C “Sparky” Phillips, 2008
05/17/08 USA1 – Cricket House Studios, Atlanta

Looks like the Hillary bots are still active, here I see two that post negative and untruthful information to every blog and news article they can find. Cant wait till June 3 when Hillary starts to support Obama. Well let me reconsider If Hillary’s support will be of any use after the negative campaign she has lead

Posted by Gerald Von Riesen | Report as abusive

[quote]
In the South, we call that, “having a chip on your shoulder,” and “wearing your feelings on your sleeve.”[/qoute]

..the same “South” that used the majority power to make life miserable for those who didn’t look like them?
Says in the Bible, does it not, “the sins of the father shall..”
Guess whose shoulder the chip is on?

Posted by Joe Parrot | Report as abusive

I think if I were Bill and Hillary I’d tell Mr. McGovern to put his head in a place where the sun doesn’t shine as far as friendship is concerned. Go with the winners, that is what Italy did during the WWII, waited to see which side was winning before choosing sides.

Posted by Jack from Kansas | Report as abusive

Hmmm Obama not endorsed by a Democrat Presidential winner? Take a look at this Tommy Jong and all you other Obama haters: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/op inion/2004419867_borowitz17.html

Posted by Julian | Report as abusive

ATTENTION: Clinton DOES NOT have more popular votes unless she is successful at including Michigan and Florida as-is AND excludes a few caucus states. But how can she include Michigan as-is when Obama WAS NOT on the ballot. At least both were on the ballot in Florida even if Obama did campaign there. If Clinton is so concerned about including ALL states, why does she want to exclude a few for her advantage?! She is so deparate and dependent upon her supporters to back her fuzzy math! Obama won fair and square. He won more popular votes, pledged and super delegates, and states.

Posted by Yvonne | Report as abusive

If Hillary Clinton had more delegates and no popular vote lead, her argument would be… the delegate vote rules, if she truly had the popular vote lead, cleanly and without skewing the numbers, she would be blaring this out too. She is an odd combination of octopus and leech and somehow feels entitled to be President.

Her main argument, and I may not be popular by saying this, but here goes: She got the red-neck vote in W. Va.. Now she wants to take this metric and broad brush apply it to the whole country and not call it prejudice. I find it to be an insult to the populace and crass as well.

Intelligent, informed persons will and do vote for Obama. For those of you pinning your hopes on a woman for POTUS, the reality is – not this time because, while it is a fine ideal, NOT JUST ANY WOMAN WILL DO.

Wanda said, “She is an odd combination of octopus and leech and somehow feels entitled to be President.”

Possibly the good word for it would be “delusional”. You have to admire tenacity, but at what point does it become irrational?

There are numerous examples and quotes that seem to reveal the attitude that she can say anything she wants in the short term because she is heir to the throne, and no one will dare contradict her after her coronation.

Posted by Tony | Report as abusive