On this day in 1972, Senator George McGovern, the Democratic nominee for the presidency, booted his running mate, Senator Thomas Eagleton, off the ticket.
Just a week earlier, Eagleton had traveled to the Black Hills in South Dakota, where McGovern was on vacation with his family. At a joint news conference, Eagleton had revealed that he had undergone extensive psychiatric treatment in the 1960s, including electroshock therapy. Both McGovern and Eagleton had insisted that, despite the disclosure, they would soldier on together to victory. But as the week had worn on, McGovern had begun facing enormous pressure from within the party to sever ties with Eagleton. And on this day in 1972, he explained to the press that:
In the joint decision we have reached tonight, health was not a factor. But the public debate over Senator Eagleton’s past medical history continues to divert attention from the great national issues that need to be discussed…
Continued debate between those who oppose his candidacy and those who favor it will serve to further divide the party and nation. Therefore, we have jointly agreed that the best course is for Senator Eagleton to step aside.
Evan Bayh would be a really lousy choice for a running mate. And to be honest, I’m not all that high on Tim Kaine, either. Health was not a factor in my decision.
The Edge of the American West 
16 comments
August 1, 2008 at 4:11 am
blueollie
I don’t think that it is a done deal. I’ve got a hunch (wish?) that it will be Sebelius.
Of course, both Bayh and Kaine can help with a “swing state” (joy: Indiana and Virginia are swing states this year!) but BHO said that he is going to choose someone that can help him govern.
August 1, 2008 at 5:43 am
PorJ
The Eagleton affair interests me from the perspective of the history of psychotherapy and the psychiatric/psychotherapeutic in American culture. We’ve come a long way (although Electroshock therapy – under a different name – is making a comeback). Serious discussions of medical and clinical psychiatry were so taboo in the larger culture (except for psycho-social stuff like The Culture of Narcissism) in the 1970s, and we locked the real tough cases away. That era seems so long ago. I’m curious how such a dynamic revolution in thinking about mental illness (nee, “madness”) could occur so quickly (over about a decade). Was it psychopharmaceuticals? The 1960s and new intellectual paradigms (Thomas Szasz‘s influence is probably key here)? The policies of de-institutionalization of the 1980s? The spread of psychotherapeutic norms and tropes throughout American culture? We’re so far away from that America culturally and socially its amazing – and nice to be reminded how history can change so rapidly. Thanks for a good post making that point.
(Actually, I wonder if this is only related to psychiatric illness. Not that long ago cancer was an unspeakable word in polite company in the USA, although I’m not exactly sure why. Maybe we’re in the midst of a truly transformative era caused by biomedical research, and we – or at least, I – can’t see the forest for the trees).
August 1, 2008 at 6:18 am
Vance Maverick
Has anyone successfully run for high office with an acknowledged history of psychiatric illness? I have my doubts. But cancer is no longer such an impediment.
August 1, 2008 at 6:42 am
drip
I just started Naomi Klein”s Shock Doctrine. She paints a bleak picture of shock therapy in its use by CIA in experiments. I have read recently that people are swearing by EST in alleviating depression and certainly that would be preferable to medication, if it works. As to someone with a history of mental illness running for president, many people would find Bush’s acknowledged substance abuse to be a mental illness or a very significant indication of mental illness.
August 1, 2008 at 7:25 am
Michael
“I have read recently that people are swearing by EST in alleviating…”
Whew- for a second there, drip, I thought you meant Werner Erhard’s “est.”
August 1, 2008 at 8:45 am
drip
Erhard delenda est.
August 1, 2008 at 9:08 am
Jeremy Young
Best choice for VP, bar none: Kathleen Sebelius.
Helps with the female vote. Brings executive experience. Not a Washington insider. More progressive than most of the other top choices.
What’s not to like?
August 1, 2008 at 9:17 am
Dr J
Why has Bill Richardson fallen off of everyone’s radar?
August 1, 2008 at 9:27 am
TF Smith
Clark is the safest choice, I think.
Richardson and Sebelius, as gifted as either is (are?), in combination with Sen. Obama might be pushing the envelope for general election.
Bayh and Kaine do bring swing states into the mix (as would Webb), but none of them are liberals; if one is going to go for a conservative, a conservative retired full general and former SACEUR from Arkansas brings a lot to the table.
August 1, 2008 at 2:43 pm
grackle
“…if one is going to go for a conservative, a conservative retired full general and former SACEUR from Arkansas brings a lot to the table..”
Whatever a saceur is, I’m sure you’re right; but yet another military person doesn’t bring anything I would be in favor of to the table. Being trained to use violence against others, preferably those weaker than oneself, has never been on my list of desirable traits for governance.
August 1, 2008 at 2:53 pm
grackle
Ack! Of course the italics were supposed to end with the quote. Apologies.
August 1, 2008 at 3:02 pm
ari
SACEUR
August 1, 2008 at 7:08 pm
grackle
I may be alone in being dismayed that it can be expected that anyone should know an acronym for some sort of Supreme commander, outside of the realms of Dr. Who or the Roman occupation of Palestine circa 50BCE 30 CE, where that would be one Pontius Pilate.
August 1, 2008 at 7:13 pm
grackle
But thanks, of course, for the reference. (On another note- for a previous thread, , there is no limit to the embarrassments I cause myself for what I do not know. What hurts much more, is the certain knowledge of the failings in those areas where I should, at my age, not fail. These are often so private in intrinsic nature as to be utterly incomprehensible to others. Today, for instance, I could not accept the fact of the anger some ordinary lack of attention by someone else, on the previous day, had driven me. This is a true admission.)
August 1, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Jeremy Young
Only one problem with Wes Clark: he was one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest backers.
BTW, I don’t consider Clark a conservative.
August 2, 2008 at 8:41 pm
if at first you do succeed « by the wayside
[…] nomination, just to see who comes up with the most embarrassing pun on his name. Actually, like Ari, I don’t. But if he did, I wonder if people would pay attention to his being from a […]