Thomas Eagleton, former Senator from Missouri, and briefly the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 1972, died today at the age of 77.
One of the low points of the McGovern campaign in '72 was when it came out that Eagleton had been hospitalized for depression, and had received electro-shock therapy. McGovern famously said he would stand by Eagleton "1000%", and then dumped him shortly afterwards. I think of this every time a major league baseball manager gets a public vote of confidence from the ownership of the team, which frequentlyly means he's going to be dumped pretty damn soon.
William Greider in the Washington Post, Tuesday July 25, 1972, just 11 days after Eagleton had been chosen by McGovern:
Senator Thomas Eagleton, the Democratic nominee for Vice President, unexpectedly revealed today that he was hospitalized three times between 1960 and 1966 for psychiatric treatment, suffering from "nervous exhaustion and fatigue."
Under questioning, he said the illness involved "the manifestation of depression" and that twice he received electric shock therapy, which he described as a recognized treatment for that type of ailment.
Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic Presidential nominee, promptly expressed full confidence in Eagleton, and said he would discourage any talk of dumping Eagleton from the ticket.
Eagleton revealed his medical history after reporters for the Knight Newspapers had confronted McGovern staff members with accounts of it [...]
James M. Naughton, New York Times, July 30, 1972:
The Democratic nominee declined on Tuesday even to consider Senator Eagleton's offer to withdraw from the ticket, saying that its make-up was irrevicably set. Three days later, he began orchestrating an attempt to persuade Mr. Eagleton to withdraw from the ticket.
Having asserted on Tuesday that "there is no one sounder in body, mind and spirit than Tom Eagleton," Mr. McGovern was telling reporters aboard his chartered campaign plane last night that "the one thing we know about Eagleton is that he has been to the hospital three times for [mental] depression."
The Democratic Presidential nominee publically admonished his staff to stop gossiping about what effect Mr. Eagleton's disclouse might have on th Democrats' chances in November. A day later, he contrived through his staff to assemble a group of reporters for a casual discussion on the same subject.
Mr. McGovern appeared, even to disillusioned members of his campaign staff, to be saying one thing and doing another -- which was the charge he had been preparing to make in the campaign against President Nixon.
In the Democratic primaries, Senator McGovern managed to convey the impression that he was somehow not a politician in the customary sense -- that he was more open, more accesible, more attuned to the issues and more idealistic than other candidates.
But his reaction to Mr. Eagleton's disclosure may have seriously impaired that image.
According to Hunter Thompson in his classic Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 (and Thompson, it should be said, was both a trenchant observer of politics and sometimes almost completely unreliable), the choice of Eagleton was a fluke. Before the convention, when McGovern had the nomination just about locked up, he had floated a list of possible running mates which Thompson derides as full of hack politicians, but was really hoping that Ted Kennedy would take it. McGovern waited so long for Kennedy to decide, that he ended up having to make a fast choice, and Eagleton was selected without any real due diligence on his background -- they basically took Eagleton's word that there were no skeletons in his closet.
It may have been the kiss of death for the McGovern campaign, very early on, but it's rather doubtful that McGovern would have won in any event. He had taken the nomination through skillful use of the newly revised party rules about primaries and the convention, crafted by a reform commission that he himself had headed up, and not by having a particularly large base of support within the party. Given that, he was unlikely to have received a lot of votes in the general election in any case, even if his campaign hadn't started off with such a tremendous gaffe as the Eagleton affair. Of course, we'll never know, but in the end he won only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, and the government remained in the vindictive hands of Richard M. "Tricky Dick" Nixon.
I mention all of this only because it's my observation that certain elements in the progressive blogosphere are hell-bent on making another different, but similar, mistake. They insist that the only factor which ought to count is a candidate's commitment to the liberal agenda, especially after so many years of disastrous right-wing rule. On the other hand, I contend that the most important factor is can the candidate attract enough votes to win?, and I'm satisfied that a general agreement with progressive values is a sufficient guarantee that if elected the result will be better off for the country -- much better -- than if we allowed the Republicans to continue to reign. I'm interested primarily in the ability to get elected, for that reason. If we could elect solid liberals to the White House with only the votes of liberal voters, then it wouldn't matter, we could get behind whoever was the most progressive, but that's not the case, and too damned many Democrats and liberals just don't seem to want to understand that.
Listen, 2008 is not 1972. In 1972 McGovern's anti-war stance probably alienated more voters than it attracted, because he was ahead of the curve, and he was running against a not unpopular sitting President. In 2008, an anti-war stance is what a majority of the population agrees with, and the outgoing President is among the most unpopular in the modern era. The wave is with us, not against us as it was in 1972, but that doesn't mean we can throw caution to the wind and not pay attention to having the best candidate, with best possibility of winning.
[The excerpts from WaPo and Times news reports from 1972 were quoted in HST's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72]
absolutist
aggresive
anti-Constitutional
anti-intellectual
arrogant
authoritarian
blame-placers
blameworthy
blinkered
buckpassers
calculating
class warriors
clueless
compassionless
con artists
conniving
conscienceless
conspiratorial
corrupt
craven
criminal
crooked
culpable
damaging
dangerous
deadly
debased
deceitful
delusional
despotic
destructive
devious
disconnected
dishonorable
dishonest
disingenuous
disrespectful
dogmatic
doomed
fanatical
fantasists
felonious
hateful
heinous
hostile to science
hypocritical
ideologues
ignorant
immoral
incompetent
indifferent
inflexible
insensitive
insincere
irrational
isolated
kleptocratic
lacking in empathy
lacking in public spirit
liars
mendacious
misleading
mistrustful
non-rational
not candid
not "reality-based"
not trustworthy
oblivious
oligarchic
opportunistic
out of control
pernicious
perverse
philistine
plutocratic
prevaricating
propagandists
rapacious
relentless
reprehensible
rigid
scandalous
schemers
selfish
secretive
shameless
sleazy
tricky
unAmerican
uncaring
uncivil
uncompromising
unconstitutional
undemocratic
unethical
unpopular
unprincipled
unrealistic
unreliable
unrepresentative
unscientific
unscrupulous
unsympathetic
venal
vile
virtueless
warmongers
wicked
without integrity
wrong-headed
Thanks to: Breeze, Chuck, Ivan Raikov, Kaiju, Kathy, Roger, Shirley, S.M. Dixon
recently seen
i've got a little list...
Elliott Abrams
Steven Abrams (Kansas BofE)
David Addington
Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson
Roger Ailes (FNC)
John Ashcroft
Bob Bennett
William Bennett
Joe Biden
John Bolton
Alan Bonsell (Dover BofE)
Pat Buchanan
Bill Buckingham (Dover BofE)
George W. Bush
Saxby Chambliss
Bruce Chapman (DI)
Dick Cheney
Lynne Cheney
Richard Cohen
The Coors Family
Ann Coulter
Michael Crichton
Lanny Davis
Tom DeLay
William A. Dembski
James Dobson
Leonard Downie (WaPo)
Dinesh D’Souza
Gregg Easterbrook
Jerry Falwell
Douglas Feith
Arthur Finkelstein
Bill Frist
George Gilder
Newt Gingrich
John Gibson (FNC)
Alberto Gonzalez
Rudolph Giuliani
Sean Hannity
Katherine Harris
Fred Hiatt (WaPo)
Christopher Hitchens
David Horowitz
Don Imus
James F. Inhofe
Jesse Jackson
Philip E. Johnson
Daryn Kagan
Joe Klein
Phil Kline
Ron Klink
William Kristol
Ken Lay
Joe Lieberman
Rush Limbaugh
Trent Lott
Frank Luntz
"American Fundamentalists"
by Joel Pelletier
(click on image for more info)
Chris Matthews
Mitch McConnell
Stephen C. Meyer (DI)
Judith Miller (ex-NYT)
Zell Miller
Tom Monaghan
Sun Myung Moon
Roy Moore
Dick Morris
Rupert Murdoch
Ralph Nader
John Negroponte
Grover Norquist
Robert Novak
Ted Olson
Elspeth Reeve (TNR)
Bill O'Reilly
Martin Peretz (TNR)
Richard Perle
Ramesh Ponnuru
Ralph Reed
Pat Robertson
Karl Rove
Tim Russert
Rick Santorum
Richard Mellon Scaife
Antonin Scalia
Joe Scarborough
Susan Schmidt (WaPo)
Bill Schneider
Al Sharpton
Ron Silver
John Solomon (WaPo)
Margaret Spellings
Kenneth Starr
Randall Terry
Clarence Thomas
Richard Thompson (TMLC)
Donald Trump
Richard Viguere
Donald Wildmon
Paul Wolfowitz
Bob Woodward (WaPo)
John Yoo
guest-blogging
All the fine sites I've
guest-blogged for:
Be sure to visit them all!!
recent listening
influences
John Adams
Laurie Anderson
Aphex Twin
Isaac Asimov
Fred Astaire
J.G. Ballard
The Beatles
Busby Berkeley
John Cage
"Catch-22"
Raymond Chandler
Arthur C. Clarke
Elvis Costello
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C. Dennett
Philip K. Dick
Kevin Drum
Brian Eno
Fela
Firesign Theatre
Eliot Gelwan
William Gibson
Philip Glass
David Gordon
Stephen Jay Gould
Dashiell Hammett
"The Harder They Come"
Robert Heinlein
Joseph Heller
Frank Herbert
Douglas Hofstadter
Bill James
Gene Kelly
Stanley Kubrick
Jefferson Airplane
Ursula K. LeGuin
The Marx Brothers
John McPhee
Harry Partch
Michael C. Penta
Monty Python
Orbital
Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
"The Prisoner"
"The Red Shoes"
Steve Reich
Terry Riley
Oliver Sacks
Erik Satie
"Singin' in the Rain"
Stephen Sondheim
The Specials
Morton Subotnick
Talking Heads/David Byrne
Tangerine Dream
Hunter S. Thompson
J.R.R. Tolkien
"2001: A Space Odyssey"
Kurt Vonnegut
Yes
Bullshit, trolling, unthinking knee-jerk dogmatism and the drivel of idiots will be ruthlessly deleted and the posters banned.
Entertaining, interesting, intelligent, informed and informative comments will always be welcome, even when I disagree with them.
I am the sole judge of which of these qualities pertains.
E-mail
All e-mail received is subject to being published on unfutz without identifying names or addresses.
Corrections
I correct typos and other simple errors of grammar, syntax, style and presentation in my posts after the fact without necessarily posting notification of the change.
Substantive textual changes, especially reversals or major corrections, will be noted in an "Update" or a footnote.
Also, illustrations may be added to entries after their initial publication.
the story so far
unfutz: toiling in almost complete obscurity for almost 1500 days
If you read unfutz at least once a week, without fail, your teeth will be whiter and your love life more satisfying.
If you read it daily, I will come to your house, kiss you on the forehead, bathe your feet, and cook pancakes for you, with yummy syrup and everything.
(You might want to keep a watch on me, though, just to avoid the syrup ending up on your feet and the pancakes on your forehead.)
Finally, on a more mundane level, since I don't believe that anyone actually reads this stuff, I make this offer: I'll give five bucks to the first person who contacts me and asks for it -- and, believe me, right now five bucks might as well be five hundred, so this is no trivial offer.