If I remember correctly, McGovern lost 49 or 50 states, or something like
that. His military record would have made no difference. I just think the
irony is interesting.

Michael

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03, Michael 182 at
wrote on 12/16/03 9:40 AM:


As an interesting aside, George McGovern, who ran against Nixon (and was
trounced, of course) on a strong anti-war platform during Vietnam, was a
war
hero during WWII. During his campaign he expressley refused to allow his
military service to be discussed, or, more importantly, compared to
Nixon's.

I highly doubt it would have swayed very many voters even if they'd known
of
McGovern's war record. Much is made during campaigns of whether a
candidate
served or avoided service, but voters have usually already made up their
minds regardless.

Besides, if service in wartime were the benchmark for being an electable
candidate, we'd have a pitifully small pool to draw from.