McGovern Set to Endorse Clinton: "Never forgot" her work on his 1972 White House bid

[DeepModem Mom]

ABC News: McGovern Set to Endorse Clinton
McGovern Says He 'Never Forgot' Clinton's Work on His 1972 White House Bid
By JAKE TAPPER
Sept. 27, 2007

ABC News has learned that former South Dakota Sen. George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, is planning to endorse the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in Iowa City, Iowa, Saturday, Oct. 6.

The Clinton campaign declined to comment. Reached by phone in Mitchell, S.D., in the midst of getting a haircut at the OK Barber Shop, the 85-year-old World War II veteran was coy with ABC News, saying he wouldn't confirm the news though he allowed he was "leaning that way."

"I think all three of those front-runners are pretty attractive," McGovern said, referring to Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. McGovern then explained all the reasons why Clinton would likely secure his backing. One of them was clearly loyalty -- Clinton worked for McGovern during his 1972 run for the White House.

"I got to know her 35 years ago," McGovern said. "She and her boyfriend, Bill Clinton, took over the McGovern organization in Texas. They did a terrific job against impossible odds. I never forgot that. They worked night and day in that state."

McGovern said that he was "impressed by the experience she had as first lady. I know some people say it's not governing experience, but it really is. You're at the elbow of the power broker. She was there for all the decisions." He said he was impressed with her performance at the debates and her ability to win large re-election margins in both New York City and upstate New York....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3661776&page=1

[BootinUp]

1. But she's a warmonger!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nooo ooooo oooooo@!

[DeepModem Mom]

2. From the article --

"I think it was a mistake to support that war at any time," McGovern said of Clinton's vote to authorize use of force against Iraq in October 2002. "I don't expect to find a mistake-free candidate; we all have made mistakes." He said that Clinton's position today on the war is "pretty good."

[Cha]

10. Oh, that damn "loyality" thing..

just ask the chimp.

[sjdnb]

3. Wow, I am so disappointed

The '72 McGovern campaign was the first campaign I worked on. It's 'honesty' and 'integrity' caused me to continue to volunteer my time and any dollars I could spare to work for candidates I could truly believe in. To read that he is endorsing someone so willing to sell her soul (aka vote - see Kyl-Lieberman for a recent one) for political gain is truly disturbing. And, his reasoning that she and Bill worked hard on his campaign in Texas and that she was the First Lady seems flawed, at best.

[BootinUp]

5. What part of the castrated Kyl-Lieberman resolution

do you have a problem with?

[sjdnb]

8. What part of ...

we won't get fooled again, do you fail to understand?

Just like her excuse related to the Iraq War Vote: She thought the vote would just 'seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections' blah, blah, blah ....

She should have learned by now/be smart enough to know that if you give these warmongers an inch they'll be declaring war tomorrow!

Unfortunately, it is obvious she has/is not.

[BootinUp]

9. So you have nothing.

but unsupported hyperbole with regard to this resolution.

[sjdnb]

11. No, I've actually read/followed the proceedings

and read the bill and subsequent amendments - perhaps you should, too:

See http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349

Sense of the Senate on Iran (the 'guts' of the bill):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110zsaBhj:e531061:

And, if you're not worried by the obscure language used to allow for declaring war on/invading Iran ... there is not much more I can say.

[BootinUp]

13. I read it already

perhaps you could quote the parts you take offense to so we can get on with the debate.

[sjdnb]

16. Let's start with ....

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

Says to me that the Senate is just adding Iran to the absolute power they've already given the Bush Administration to declare war/fight terrorists whenever/however/wherever they believe them to exist. This declaration puts Iran in that category and allows the Admin to use "military instruments' (aka a military attack).

[BootinUp]

21. Just as I suspected.

You are unaware that sections 3 and 4 were stricken from the bill as well as a few other minor edits made.

If you would like to see the bill in its final form:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=1&

Now looking at sections 1,2,5,6 only where is the big problem?

[sjdnb]

22. Sorry, I'll trust the official record vs TPM

if you don't mind.

While TPM may find it 'innocuous' the fact is that we invaded Iraq with far less approval/proof of threat.

[BootinUp]

25. Winnahhh!

You win first prize in the contest for best conspiracy theorist of the day.

sheesh.

[sjdnb]

29. No, you win....

1st prize for Apologist of the Month!

Shame on me for wasting so much time with you.

You are, the poster person for why we are in the situation we find ourselves in, today!

[Zandor]

66. Give it up, dude

I've encountered no one with language on the amendment that they could explain as a major problem. I'm convinced most of the Panic Petes here didn't read it. And if they did, they can't draw a specific objection, just hyperbole about Iraq.

[JDPriestly]

46. It parallels the language in the Iraq declaration but does not

even pretend to require the same investigation and evidence that certain criteria are met.

[BootinUp]

96. Maybe because its not

an authorization for War?

:think:

[JDPriestly]

107. Have you read the pre-Iraq War authorization bill.

It works in conjunction with this bill and means that this bill can be interpreted to authorize war against Iran. You need to read the Iraq bill. It was justified by naming Iraq as a state that supported terrorism. The language is very similar to the language in this bill.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Don't bother arguing with him.

There's a nother whole thread where we've spelled out every single problem with the resolution, and here he pretends like he can't imagine any reason to doubt it.

He's just stirring up shit.

[BootinUp]

30. Note that the poster I was discussing this with is unaware

the bill has been revised in significant ways.

Yep just stirring up shit at DU. Not presenting facts or nothin.

[JDPriestly]

45. Edwards' response on this was excellent.

He just out and out said he did not trust Bush enough to give him any authority that could be interpreted as the authority to go to war.

[mark414]

17. i know you're not asking me, but....all of it

the beginning of the thing (before the "It is the sense of the Senate" part) uses the BS testimony of Petraeus and Crocker to justify it.

so by saying this amendment is no big deal....does that mean Petraeus was right?

[BootinUp]

31. The testimony regarding Iran's involvement

is what is in the resolution. This is not the controversial surge testimony.

There has been no effort I am aware of in the last year or so to refute the basic story about Iran presented here. In other words it is accepted as being based on hard evidence at this point by war critics and everyone else that I have paid attention to.

[mark414]

102. declaring the largest part of the Iranian army terrorists?

that's warmongering senseless and stupidly aggressive nonsense

[BootinUp]

104. No not really.

As you know how to use the Google, why not educate yourself on what the designation is actually intended to accomplish, instead of spreading useless opinion based on ignorance?

[provis99]

4. so political backslapping matters more than ideals with mcGovern

Well, I guess I just lost a lot of respect for him.

[More Than A Feeling]

6. It kind of defeats the power of a personal endorsement

when you admit that you are doing it partly because of long-ago political services rendered.

[CTyankee]

100. No, I think McGovern wanted to say something about the Clintons'

commitment to his campaign's idealism. I remember it so well and how desperately liberals had wanted this good man to win. Whatever I think about the Clintons, I still love George McGovern!

[Captain_Nemo]

7. He is right. Her work goes back to Watergate and she has the guts and power to win.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. There is no human being in the whole world I admire more than George McGovern

But on this matter I think he is mistaken.

I have yet to meet any political figure or anyone else for that matter who is always right all the time on everything.

[cyclezealot]

34. I worked for McGovern too

An original hero for our generation. He is 85, but last I knew he still sounded , really well informed and with it. Does he know about Kyl Liebermann?

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. If you look at Sen. McGovern's over all political history...he has always

been a Democratic Party loyalist and "work within the system" kind of guy. After his brief first run for the Presidency in 1968, he immediately stood by Hubert Humphrey's side and enthusiastically supported him in the general election. He was not and is not particularly "left-wing" in any classical meaning of term. He did mutual fund raising with Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginian and had a very close working and personal relationship across the aisle with a whole range of conservatives from Bob Dole to Barry Goldwater and Allan Simpson. He is even a good friend of George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush.

He was and is simply an old fashioned New Dealer who believes that militarism is way out of control.

I suspect that he views supporting Sen. Clinton is a practical and pragmatic move that allows an opportunity to work for a progressive agenda and limit the dangers of war from within the system.

Still in this case, I think he is making a mistake especially in the light of Kyl/Lieberman.

[cyclezealot]

103. McGovern showed his ability to work with others based

on his work with the hunger commission. Sort of like Kucinich , many disagree with him but most would in private say they respect him for his diligence. However, no matter how old Kucinich gets, I doubt he'd forever be indignant about Kyl-Liebermann.

[Gregorian]

15. That's a shock. And a disappointment.

I remember, with nostalgia, watching that night when he won Massachusetts. I was 16. I seem to remember how impressed I was with him. And with Massachusetts. And the disappointment that so few in America had brains to vote for a great man.

[Tom Joad]

20. In some ways, i understand... politicians are loyal to people who supported them.

still... if she takes the u.s. to war... or continues wars in iraq and iran.... sheesh.

[BootinUp]

23. This is the kind of bs

that really gets me fired up.

Questions

So are you of the opinion that Hillary would have kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq in March of '03 and declared the inspections worthless and invaded the sovereign State of Iraq? Yes or No?

You suggest in your post that she would "take the US to war". I assume you are not talking about some humanitarian mission, nor an intervention of genocide? Or are those included in your vague statement?

As for the continuation of the Iraq conflict. Do you not agree that Obama, Edwards, and Hillary's statements on this situation are so close as to reduce the differences to semantics? After all, none of the three will commit to having all troops out by 2013.

Do you have any other comments on this?

[Tom Joad]

26. yeah, edwardsobamba and hillary are pretty close in their views on foreign policy

no doubt about it.

[BootinUp]

28. I guess I can't continue to debate you, lol.

[Tom Joad]

18. she is a mighty different person now. I think nixon would endorse her now.

[burrowowl]

19. Nooooooooo!

He was the first one I could and did vote for (campaigned for but wasn't the 1st I campaigned for). When I could vote you had to be 21.

[emilyg]

24. Good. Thanks for posting.

[illinoisprogressive]

27. He's still alive??? It was so very loooooooong ago.....

[ronnykmarshall]

52. Typical

:eyes:

[Adelante]

56. Respect your elders

We vote.

[saracat]

32. I am saddened to realize the first candidate I supported has gone senile.

[Cameron27]

33. That is a truly nasty comment

about a very decent man.

[saracat]

35. McGovern was my first passion as a candidate.Hillary is so completely NOT the person McGovern

should be endorsing if he is the person I thought he was that I genuinely wonder if age has caught up with him. Perhaps in his memory Hillary is the girl she once was and not the duplicitous politician who has twice endorsed the idea of a senseless war.

[sjdnb]

36. If you'd read "Living History"

You'd realize she is EXACTLY the person she was back then and has just 'adjusted' her politics to suit her ambitions, over the years. She is, truly, a chameleon.

[saracat]

37. I actually couldn't get through it.I found it too boring. Should I try again?

I even made it through ALL of Bill's book, but I just couldn't read her's.And I started out interested.Go figure.

[BootinUp]

40. Just curious

Throw us a bone, I mean your opinion of Bill's book and his legacy thing?

[saracat]

42. God, its been so long since I read it and it was something like800 pages as I recall.

I remember liking his impressions of his boyhood best and his descriptions of Arkansas politics. I actually think Bill will be remembered as a decent president, but not a great one. I think he will be more remembered for his charm than his accomplishments. If Hillary is elected, oddly, I think it will tarnish what legacy he has, as it will place him in the unfortunately joke worthy position of First Gentleman. The only way he might be able to salvage himself is by building on his reputation as a "peacemaker' and negotiating a peace accord, perhaps in the ME. I know that was his biggest disappointment and maybe he will yet get a chance to settle the ME. One never knows.

[BootinUp]

39. You expected better? n/t

[saracat]

43. It was not nasty.it was sincere. I do wonder what prompted this from a man

who represents everything Hillary is not.

[BootinUp]

49. The answer is simple

You don't have a clue who Hillary is.

[ShortnFiery]

74. No, we know all about the DLC game plans and that HRC is one of the top leaders.

I fear that a man whom I will always respect has NOT been adequately informed regarding the WARMONGER and CORPORATIONS FIRST promoter HRC truly is.

In this case, I fear that George McGovern's advisers have either not served him well OR that he's getting senile. Perhaps a little bit of both. :shrug:

[BootinUp]

93. Its just so common

around the netroots to read this kind of ridiculous crap it doesn't surprise me anymore.

[Cameron27]

79. If you don't think calling a well respected man "senile"

is nasty, then I don't know what to tell you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. Well respected men DO go senile, sometimes.

And I say this with all due respect - my father was one of them. And Saracat's thought was my own, at first impression. It comes with regret, not meanness.

[Cameron27]

99. Unless there's medical evidence stating

that McGovern's suffering from senility, it was a cheap shot. I'm aware that respected people "go" senile, but labeling anyone that without evidence is contemptible IMO.

[oasis]

101. Bottom line----McGovern believes Hillary's best for America.(eom)

[calteacherguy]

38. I have a great deal of respect for McGovern. He wisely endorsed Clark in 04'.

Good man.

McGovern said that he was "impressed by the experience she had as first lady. I know some people say it's not governing experience, but it really is. You're at the elbow of the power broker. She was there for all the decisions." He said he was impressed with her performance at the debates and her ability to win large re-election margins in both New York City and upstate New York....

[BootinUp]

41. They broke the mold

One of the few politicians that can really claim a grassroots movement behind him. The Nixon media machine spun his truth into lies and gave us the first look at the RW exploitation of the media that we have now.

[wyldwolf]

44. watching some of the DU meltdowns is funny.

[Zandor]

51. Wait until Gore endorse Hillary

:)

[William769]

77. It's down right hilarious!

[democratsin08]

47. this is great

lets all put aside our petty differences and support hillary clinton!!

[Adelante]

48. I love George McGovern

:loveya:

[wyldwolf]

50. kick

[ronnykmarshall]

53. Stand back for the McGovern insults now.

[Cameron27]

54. They've already started.

[wyldwolf]

59. ...and one minute later... post #55...

[ShortnFiery]

61. Oh yes, we've memorized the meme - anyone who DARE dislike The Saints Billary are freepers.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

64. I heard your cognative disconnect can be treated.

[ShortnFiery]

69. It's much harder to treat unbridled arrogance and a craven need for power and control.

;) You and Billary fit together like "hand in glove." :hi:

[wyldwolf]

71. So I guess you've got to live with it.

[ShortnFiery]

72. Talk about hypocrite?!? - you've trashed "all things McGovern" until this point.

The extremes you will go to to glean power - to win - totally freak the hell out of me and only strengthen my resolve. Mission Accomplished! :patriot:

[wyldwolf]

75. So you have ADD, too? Staying on topic is difficult for you.

[ShortnFiery]

80. No, I'm on topic. But it is truly bizarre that you'd use ANYTHING to win.

Now that observation is, IMO, also just plain SAD. :(

[wyldwolf]

81. no, you've jumped from topic to topic

[ShortnFiery]

84. Whatever makes you feel superior.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

85. should I list them for you?

[EstimatedProphet]

94. Craven

From dictionary.com:

craven

adjective
1. lacking even the rudiments of courage; abjectly fearful; "the craven fellow turned and ran"; "a craven proposal to raise the white flag"; "this recreant knight"- Spenser

noun
1. an abject coward

[ronnykmarshall]

65. Yeah calling McGovern senile is soooooo progressive.

And "oh is he still alive" .... classy, just classy.

[ShortnFiery]

68. It's true, and I'm a LIBERAL not a progressive. It saddens me but he must be senile

to promote that DLC corporate WARMONGER.

He is either unaware or senile. :shrug:

That's not an insult - that's a sad realization. ;)

[Cameron27]

83. I'd never call anyone a freeper

I leave that for the mods, but I will say that someone who labels George McGovern "senile," is insulting in a pretty crude way.

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. I take it that you have changed your mind about George McGovern?

I certainly haven't. I'm certainly not surprised or particularly disappointed. He has always been a Democratic Party loyalist. He has always been simply an old fashioned New Dealer and an opponent of excessive militarism who believes in working within the system. And I would guess that he views this as the pragmatic move. I think this a mistake. But that's neither here nor there.

"The McGovern reforms saved the Democratic Party from disintegration" - Sen. Gary Hart

[wyldwolf]

78. Have I ever called him senile?

Also, have I even expressed approval or disapproval at this endorsement?

No, I've just laughed at how quickly "progressives" have turned on him.

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. calling him senile is nasty? just as nasty as using the term "McGovernite fringies"

And this would not be the first time some progressives have turned on him. A Saint has to be perfect all the time.

you don't welcome his endorsement?

[wyldwolf]

88. Did I say that? And why did you completely ignore what I said?

[Douglas Carpenter]

90. yes you did. I don't think I ignored anything you said.

But if his nomination of your candidate puts an end to all of you McGovern bashing, maybe that will make it worthwhile even if I think the whole thing is a mistake.

I'm sure that if Sen. Clinton wins the nomination which even I think she probably will, I'm sure Sen. McGovern will never hold back from speaking out when it is appropriate. His words might even carry a little extra weight now.

[wyldwolf]

95. Show me, then. And yes you did "avoid" my reply

[Douglas Carpenter]

106. well , to be fair, it was a long time ago. To be exact it was on April 4, 2006

link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2549193#2550140

post# 21

but I guess this is getting kind of ridiculous.

I'm sure you've rethought things since then.

And I cannot for the life of me imagine how asking someone to clarify their opinion is the same as ignoring their answer. I have never heard that before.

[ShortnFiery]

55. That's just FUCKING SAD! I fear George McGovern is getting senile.

No fucking way am I supporting that warmonger. :grr:

[ronnykmarshall]

57. Nice!

[ShortnFiery]

60. Again, it's always a bright spot to my day when you choose to pop up.

:P

[ronnykmarshall]

62. Back at ya!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxo0lsJnx-U

[ShortnFiery]

63. Awe, the way you treat me is IMO, in line with the person you're shamelessly promoting.

:P

[ronnykmarshall]

67. Debby Boone?

Now why would you be so mean to ol' Debby?

[ShortnFiery]

70. You're predictable - I'll give you that. nt

[zulchzulu]

76. I like George and have seen him several times. Does he know Clinton's votes on the war?

Hillary Clinton not only supported and gave a pass to Bush when she voted for the Iraq War, but she has shown that going into Iran wouldn't be a bad idea in her mind either.

Perhaps McGovern doesn't remember the interview when he was asked about the Iraq war and occupation:

"I couldn't imagine any American president ever again taking us into war against a country that had done nothing against us and was no threat to us. And yet we're doing it again. Here we are. It's been quite a few years since we got out of Vietnam in the spring of '75, but I would hope memories would be longer than they proved to be."

http://www.offoffoff.com/opinion/2005/mcgovern.php

More here:

"The invasion of Iraq and other costly wars now being planned in secret are fattening the ever-growing military-industrial complex of which President Eisenhower warned in his great farewell address. War profits are booming, as is the case in all wars. While young Americans die, profits go up. But our economy is not booming, and our stock market is not booming. Our wages and incomes are not booming. While waging a war against Iraq, the Bush Administration is waging another war against the well-being of America."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030421/mcgovern

Even more here:

Q: "This is why I ask you some of these questions, because we have a lot of Democratic senators — a majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the Iraq war resolution, and they seem to be dancing around trying to find a comfortable position at this point.

GEORGE MCGOVERN: Yeah, I've seen that. I think there were 23 votes against the war resolution. One of those was Lincoln Chafee, the Republican senator from Rhode Island, who's a terrific young man just like his father with whom I served — the former secretary of the Navy, John Chafee. And the other 22 were all Democrats .

So that's not a complete strikeout, but I wished all the Democrats had opposed this war. There were some who were very adamant in our position. Bob Byrd, the old former conservative from West Virginia — former Democratic majority leader. Ted Kennedy, one of the older senators — he came there the same time I did, way back in 1962. Bob Graham, the former governor a Florida, now a senior senator who did not run again this time. And I think probably John Warner, a senior Republican — he went along with it, but I think down inside he had serious reservations about it. So did President Bush Sr. So did his secretary of state, Jim Baker. So did his national security adviser, Gen. Scowcroft. They were all against this foolish invasion of Iraq.

So I think your question is interesting. Why, with 60 percent of the American people telling pollsters they think this war isn't worth the cost in lives and money, why do we stay in there? I think it's partly a failure of leadership — that the same people that were hellbent on getting us in there don't want to come out, in spite of the unpopularity of the war in the polls.

http://www.offoffoff.com/opinion/2005/mcgovern_2.php

I actually feel sorry for McGovern more than anything. I guess anyone can be bought in the end.

[wyldwolf]

82. "Does he know Clinton's votes on the war?" Did you read the OP, HB?

[zulchzulu]

105. I doubt his tepid endorsement is going to sway any people against the war

Good for him to be around. I appreciate who he is.

But saying her record on the war was "pretty good" was certainly not going to get many people on the fence about her candidacy and against the war to go for her. Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

[SaveElmer]

86. I sense 'progressive' heads beginning to explode!!!...nt

[OneBlueSky]

89. just goes to show how pervasive the corporatization of American government . . .

has become . . . when one of the late 20th century's most vociferous and honorable war opponents decides it's okay to sign on with "BushCo Lite," the corporate media and the corporate power elite that "govern" (read: "rape and plunder") this country have succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams . . .

Hillary is a smarter, more informed, less drooling version of George W. Bush -- Bush Lite, if you will -- who will effect NO really meaningful change in how things are done in Washington . . . think she'll give back any of the civil rights and liberties that BushCo has stolen (habeus corpus, privacy, freedom of speech,etc.)? . . . think again . . .

[flpoljunkie]

91. ABC's The Note: For the record, George McGovern went with Wes Clark in 2004

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/Story?id=3105288&page=2

[frazzled]

92. Yes, I remember that well

McGovern's endorsement of Clark obviously had little impact on the primaries then (except to make people already supporting happy), and neither will this. So why do people take these endorsements so seriously?

They really seem to impact very little--how many people really even know/remember who George McGovern was, besides us?

[KaptBunnyPants]

97. So that makes two good points for Hillary.

The first is that her healthcare plan, to my surprise, includes a public option. The second is that she was not part of the traitorous faction of the Party that sabotaged McGovern after they lost the primary. Good for her.