George McGovern, Clinton backer, says U.S. readier for a black president than a female one

George McGovern, the Democratic nominee for president in 1972 who managed to lose every single state except one to Richard M. Nixon, has an opinion about the ongoing Democratic struggle in 2008.

Should anyone listen? Anyway, McGovern, who lost not only his own home state of South Dakota but even Minnesota and Chicago's historically Democratic Cook County while capturing only Massachusetts, says Sen. Barack Obama would have an easier time of winning the White House than Sen. Hillary Clinton would.

Thanks so much, George. No doubt Sen. Clinton's thank-you e-mail is on its way even now. Because McGovern has endorsed Clinton. An entire year ago he said she was the best candidate. But he now says her opponent would have an easier time of defeating Republican Sen. John McCain.

Put that in your superdelegate newsletter.

"I have a feeling that in this country, where we're at today in our thinking, it's going to be harder to elect a woman than to elect a black man," McGovern told the Associated Press on Tuesday. "I wish that weren't true ... I'd love to see Hillary as president."

McGovern said he occasionally chats with men who don't think a woman is ready for the responsibility. "Some guy will say, 'Well, I think that's too big a job for a woman; I don't think she can handle those terrorists,"' he said, adding that he seldom hears the same said about a black man.

"I think we've never had a woman so well-qualified that's on the national scene," McGovern added. The retired senator from South Dakota, who ran on his opposition to the war in Vietnam and opposes the war in Iraq, said he also likes Obama, but didn't know much about him when he endorsed Clinton last year. "I think very highly of him now," McGovern said of the Illinois senator.

-- Mark Silva

Mark Silva writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.

Comments

[Luke]

I, for one, am getting sick of hearing how African-Americans (and Bill Richardson) are somehow "turning their back" on the Clintons. What, so now they owe the Clintons political favors because they did their jobs (making America a better place for everyone, not just blacks) or because he had a Cabinet position under him?

The true injustice would be these people feeling they are not free to make their own choice just because of something that happened over a decade ago.

[Andy]

Wait a minute..now an obscure, has-been politician from Montana should tell me the pros and cons of voting for a white guy. Thats all i really need to consider. No need to evaluate he or she on their merits. All i need to keep hearing is white guy, white guy, white guy. Conjecture. This is important criteria for deciding if i'll work, eat, or be riding the bus to and from work in the next four years. CMON people lets focus on the real issues and not be sidetracked by this vitriol masquerading as legitimate concern.

[Stamp out liberalism]

So, the old Joseph Stalin admirer is at it again.The coments
he is guetting about a woman's fitness to be POTUS should make us question the quality of his relationships.
I mean ,when your circle of friends includes Robert Byrd
and Larry Craig and 4 or 5 other kooks afflicted with acute
dementia syndrome you cant help becoming a deranged
non-entity yourself.

[Joyce Brune]

Hillary Clinton has come as close to the job of president of the United States as a person can without actually having the job. She won Pennsylvania after spending half of what Obama did. It shows me that her attitude toward spending other people's money is extremely conservative and certainly not an attitude of if we throw more money at it it will work. McCain made me angry with his comments and is a non-issue. My question is this: How can we elect someone that is inexperienced over someone who knows what the job entails? When I go for job interviews the employer is going to hire the person who is the best value. Right??