Lizza finds it "ironic" that Hillary Clinton worked for George McGovern in his 1972 Presidential bid, because her campaign "wants to portray Obama as a twenty-first century McGovern—too soft, too naive, and destined to lose in November." But isn't that exactly the point? Anyone who remembers that campaign—and I worked on it, too—can't forget the awful drubbing that McGovern took in the general election/ Like her or not, Clinton does have a point. The Democrats keep nominating candidates who can't possibly win the general election. (It would be rather an endearing trait if the stakes weren't so high.) And who better to acknowledge that than someone who lived through the McGovern campaign?
Ann Arbor, Mich.
The New Yorker is solidly Democrat, to the extent of complaining about the label 'Democrat' (it's 'Democratic') in their 'Comment'.