TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.10.2008
A PreMortem for The McCain Campaign

The economic crisis dealt the McCain campaign a fatal body blow. None the less, the choices that Senator McCain has made during this race will impact the margin of his defeat and the fortunes of other Republicans on the ballot. Today it's worth considering what Senator McCain could have done differently.  The usual caveats about hindsight apply.

1) Avoid Faustian Bargains.
Campaigns don't begin on announcement day and Senator McCain's most fateful decision predated his. Following the election of 2000 John McCain enjoyed a national reputation as a moderate maverick who was willing to challenge the voices of intolerance within his own party and work across the partisan divide. After 9/11 Senator McCain changed course dramatically and yoked his fortunes with President Bush's. This strategy clearly helped Senator McCain capture his party's nomination -- but it left him poorly positioned to compete in a general election in the current political environment. The John McCain of 2000 would still be giving Senator Obama a run for his money -- unfortunately for him that John McCain no longer exists.

2) A Second Act for Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin's introduction to the American public was a strong one. She helped to rally the Republican base and drew interest from blue collar voters and some women who might not have otherwise given John McCain a second look. Since then her performance has been poor. Her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were embarrassments and instead of rallying swing voters she spends her days on the campaign trail engaged in increasingly vitriolic attacks on Barack Obama. What if Gov. Palin had instead spent September engaged in a series of round table discussions with families struggling to balance work and family and unveiled innovative family friendly policies designed to appeal to those blue collar women who had served as the backbone of Hillary Clinton's campaign?

3) A Different VP Choice Entirely.
The choice of a VP speaks volumes to the American public about the candidate making it. Given her performance on the trail it's hard to argue that Gov. Palin has helped Senator McCain. What if he had chosen Gov. Tom Ridge, a pro-choice former Governor or former Senator Joe Lieberman instead? Either would have burnished Senator McCain's bipartisan credentials in a way that Gov. Palin did not. Would the choice of Mitt Romney have helped credential Senator McCain on the economy? At least Romney could discuss the economic collapse with some degree of knowledge.

4) Distance from George W. Bush.
George W. Bush ends his second term in office as the most unpopular President in the last fifty years. Once Senator McCain had secured his party's nomination he should have been out every day trying to find a high profile way to demonstrate that he would be a very different President than Bush had been -- especially on the issue of the economy. Instead he allowed Senator Obama and Democrats to define his prospective first term as President Bush's third. The last thing the American public wants is four more years of the last eight. Senator McCain never made a compelling case that he would do anything differently. In 1992 Bill Clinton ran as a "different kind of Democrat." in 2000 George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative." Both men sought to distance themselves from unpopular associations with their own parties. That approach was arguably more important this election cycle and Senator McCain never even made a serious attempt to implement it.

5) Attempt to Define Senator Obama Earlier.
Senator McCain's efforts to hang Bill Ayers around Senator Obama's shoulders are totally irrelevent to the current mood of the country and only serve to reinforce how out of touch he is with the real concerns of the American people. They are also much too late to do any good. The swiftboating of John Kerry began in August of 2004. If John McCain had wanted to tag Senator Obama with Mr. Ayers he should have begun months earlier.

6) A Coherent Response to the Economic Crisis.
Senator McCain's response to the economic crisis -- first lauding the economy, then suspending his campaign to pass a bill that failed on its first try, threatening to skip the first debate -- was lurching, incoherent, and tone deaf.  This was a critically important test in the campaign; an opportunity for voters to assess the actions of both candidates in the midst of a real time crisis.  John McCain failed this test.  A high profile, bipartisan summit with a mix of economists, business leaders and ordinary Americans to consider and articulate solutions to the crisis would have served Senator McCain much better.

What am I missing?

 

Howard Wolfson also blogs at Gotham.Acme

Posted: Saturday, October 11, 2008 5:24 PM with 29 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

stgla said:

Keep Murphy, don't hire Rove-style goons.  Run against Bush and the modern GOP.  Five minutes after securing the GOP nomination lurch to the center and run as if he were a third party candidate, winking to the American people that he just tricked the right wing of the GOP.  THat might have helped.

October 13, 2008 8:07 AM

mjhollerich said:

He was in a difficult if not impossible position:  either secure a base that's never liked or trusted him; or play the culture wars card (again) and lose the undecided middle.  The Palin choice said he had opted for the former, and hoped against hope that he could skim off alienated indies/Hillary Democrats, especially the ones living in down and out parts of Pa and Ohio, two states he needed to win, esp O.  George Packer's depressing visit to southeastern Ohio (see Oct 13 New Yorker) is evidence of the vein he hoped to mine.  But there's just not enough votes there to pull it off (yet; wait until the slide of post-industrial America takes many more millions down with it into a permanent white underclass of terrified and embittered losers in the casino we call the economy -- will they swing to a Caesarist savior?).  

For anyone with an open mind, the Palin choice was a clinching disqualification of McCain because it confirmed our worst fears about his impulsiveness and poor judgment.  The guy is a loose cannon, and we've seen the damage that can bring.

October 13, 2008 8:42 AM

simon greenwood said:

He was hoping to use his character to appeal to moderates and his positions to appeal to the right wing.  That failed to excite his base, though, and put him in a position to get shredded in the debates and ads.

October 13, 2008 9:15 AM

blackton said:

I agree with stgla, Schmidt's brand of campaigning is toxic nowadays. I think Palin, in theory, was the right choice, really who could have believed she was such a dipshit? Palin could have gone around doing what you said, the Republicans would have rallied to McCain with her on the ticket while McCain ran to the middle on everything but Iraq and abortion. Instead, economically, he sounds like Bush 2000 and 2004 and then seems to believe if he institutes the same policies it will work out for him because of his personality (and people say Obama has a Messiah complex, at least Obama's Democratic policies have been shown to work as under Clinton)

To be honest I am stunned at how ineptly run McCain's campaign has been from day one. He was a percieved centrist going against a skinny black dude with mixed parentage who grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia! with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama, and McCain has completely screwed it up. If Biden were at the top of the Dem ticket Dems would be up by 16 instead of 8.

I have to say, since 2003 Obama has had all the mojo, every person who has gone up against him has gone into the Obama zone, the place where opponents lose their minds. First in Illinois when Ryan self destructed, and now 2008 first Hillary then McCain.

October 13, 2008 10:53 AM

miceelf said:

It was going to be impossible to win (and keep) the nomination and still win the general. The base is increasingly out of step with mainstream America (to the credit of mainstream America).

October 13, 2008 11:15 AM

waynejm said:

That he is a loose cannon is, ironically, much of what has made him appealing as a senator over the last eight years and provides much of the basis for his maverick image.  I suspect that the White House and the Republican leadership view him that way.  But what may be an appealing quality in a senator of the party in power comes off as erratic and unsettling in a presidential candidate.

Aside from this, mj hits the nail on the head.  McCain's been forced into the impossible position of trying to be all things to all voters simultaneously.  In hindsight, it should have been obvious that he couldn't pull that off.  He had three choices, all equally bad.  He could appeal to moderate swing voters, alienating the base.  That would at least have left his credibility largely intact, though it would have guaranteed that a lot of conservatives would sit on their hands come November.  He could have adopted the Rovian strategy of focusing on the base and just picking up enough undecideds to put him over 51%.  The problem with that approach is that the wedge issues that put Bush over the top in 2004 have absolutely no traction this year given the state of the economy and the low standing of the Bush Administration.  Not to mention damaging his image and credibility as a reformer.  But he made the third choice, touting his maverick image while at the same time undermining it by pandering to the right.  

Given the state of the economy and the widespread public disaffection with Bush and the Republicans, it's likely that no Republican could have won this year and that McCain is polling better than any of the alternatives would have.  So maybe the answer is that there is no answer.

October 13, 2008 11:24 AM

Nusholtz said:

When McCain embraced Bush after Bush had run a nasty campaign against him in 2000,  that was not the McCain  I was expecting.  I thought that was a turning point.

October 13, 2008 11:56 AM

raduku01 said:

mccain made the same mistakes as hillary:

1. he took it for granted: election, white house, working class whites, hispanics etc

2. he stressed personal virtues, not a political programme and he denigrated the intellectuals , not only the" liberal elites",  from his own party during convention

3. he attacked obama's character and readiness not his ideas

obama in exchange hammered for 6 months the same ideas:

1. george bush is bad

2. mccain is his political pupil

3. I, Obama have a plan for the nation listen to it

mccain should have

-  forget about low taxes and bush, should have present obama as another carter with a fiscal liberal programme, there were many points in obama's carreer to sustain the idea

-  proposed his own agenda for economic renewal, atack wall street and free market worshipers

-  and if you want dirty politics he should have started a cultural war about gay, abortion or any other irrelevant idea but useful in time of elections

- he should keep the same strategy during summer, he just reacted to obama's moves and sometimes it worked but this was not sustained and it was dependent on circumstances

now is too late but if I were mccain I would do this:

- fire palin

- fire the higher staff

- apologize to obama for dirty politics, blame the washington insiders for bad advice

- be candid about his own mistakes, accept them, say the obama is wright about the issues but wrong about solutions

- make a positive campaign, propose new ideas, and say that he will be a republican FDR

- make a new deal for the right people

but thanks god I am not him

October 13, 2008 12:35 PM

fougasseu said:

He and Hillary acted as they deserved it. Obama was applying for the job.

I've interviewed hundreds of people, and when someone comes in, acts rather smug, and makes me feel as if they're weighing the position, as if it's theirs to reject - I have no interest.

Things like that, the basics, are what makes the difference. Not the lofty strategizing. The basics.

Politicians have to stop with the smugness. We're sick of polticians.

Republicans have a major attitude problem. Can they get over the idea that they own this country?

That everyone who disagrees with them is a traitor?

October 13, 2008 2:31 PM

raduku01 said:

mccain has only himself to blame since he had enough time to define himself from early spring when became clear that he, mccain,  will be the nominee, he shouldn't wait for democratic decision in order to chose a strategy.

these were the main mistakes:

1. big big mistake

since experience didn't save hillary in the primaries he had to bring something in addition to his record, he knew that the mood of the country was for a change not for continuity. instead he chose to stress ONLY experience, and when the need for change was evident he looked like a second guesser. he should have spokne first about his age, as reagan did, and said that he was younger than ever.

2. big mistake

he didn't have any new idea to promote, just a personal brand of heroism but as we know about charisma it doesn't last for too long. g bush at least had the idea of compassionate conservatism ( it is not clear if he really believed in it or not anyway) but mccain said the he HAS to be the president since obama doesn't have his wounds nor experience. But not because he had a better plan.

3. he kept saying that he has to be president because he KNOWS how to win wars, but he never told ( and Obama was polite enough not to ask) what precise war did McCain win? he said that he knows what to do about economy, but he never said the specifics, obama  kept saying the same lines about tax cuts and how much.

4. since he claims three big republican fathers, Lincoln Roosevelt and Reagan at least he could copied their strategies. he could have said that he will bring either the unifying republicanism ( lincoln) at any cost, either the progressive republicanism ( roosevelt ) either the freedom-fighter conservatism ( reagan). and here lies his big mistake, he didn't propose anything because he was afraid of a strong reaction within his own party from one of a faction, and this shows Mccain weakness:

HE IS NOT SECURE AS A CONSERVATIVE. he tried to win his base by pleasing anybody, but if he were the real risk taker maverick he should have told them straight in the face that if they don't like his own brand of conservatism they can vote for obama ( which they never would have done it of course). He could have started to win the base by saying that his Christian faith mans to him that the government should not abuse his power, that the culture of life means that the society has a responsibility to secure a proper development for kids after birth even this means higher taxes, that the divide between rich and poor is more important than the divide between liberals and conservatives, that the strong military means you have to provide better care for veterans which he failed to do. instead he did nothing, not even a cultural war on abortion or gay rights.

5. the biggest mistake

The main feature of all three presidents he admires was the fact that they were not insiders from washington, not even roosevelt, they brought their own revolutionary  team with them, and here is his second big mistake, since in mccain staff there is NO one remarkable figure, just mediocre second hand activists. Reagan had in his team intellectual heavy weights, who were standing against the  liberal elitists not against any kind of elite.  He should have bring elite young conservatives from Ivy League in his staff and NO washington insider in order to have a brand of grass-root change, and should have told the base that being part of an elite ( ie. being better in doing something than the rest) doesn't mean that you are an elitist ( thinking that you are yourself a better being than the rest because you know how to do something better). Instead he hired rigid and compromised lobbyists, which gave Obama a big hit to use. and blasts eastern elites which meant also virginia.

6. the fatal mistake

He shouldn’t have to accept G Bush tax cuts, he could have said that he agrees in principle with low taxes but that the Bush taxes were for the rich, not the flock. He could have spoken against Wall street before the fall. Instead he tried new ideas every week when Obama kept saying the same lines, he attacked him personally which was both immoral and ineffective, and he was not polite and affable with Obama during debates. If his idol was Reagan than he missed his points.

Obama was consistent, McCain ( sorry to say it) erratic.

about palin

this was not a losing card from the beginning, he could have said that palin has NO foreign policy experience but she has judgement, and the Russia Alaska line would have been avoided. the most shocking feeling watching her interviews was the fact that she was surprised to hear questions about the national and international affairs not about her personal story. McCain should have trained her for 2-3 months in the summer like Rove did with Bush in 2000 and see if she can pass a decent interview before presenting her. What compromised Palin was th fact that she didn't had any idea about economy and legal affairs and she didn't even felt that she should have such a backgroud, it looked like a young "Bimbo" in an ad to sell an old truck.  her base didn't care about foreign policy, but the incoherence and lack of a clear response was fatal.

ps: the only change mccain has still  to win is a national security disaster: an terrorist attack on american  or european soil made by Iraq-based Al-Qaida ( the counter-argument against Obama line), a Iran/North Korean crisis or a  taiwan face off with china. economy is first, but not before breathing.

October 13, 2008 2:33 PM

newdex said:

McCain's decision was never between securing the base or the center because either choice is a loser.  His only choice was to try for both and, so far, he's been really bad at it.  I think Palin could have been a brilliant move if he had used her more effectively - like Wolfson's suggestion.  From what I've learned of her I think she could have been packaged as much more appealing to the center without losing her appeal to the republican base.   Instead, the Palin gambit highlights another similarity between McCain and Bush: bold, possibly brilliant moves followed by utter incompetence in the execution.  

October 13, 2008 2:35 PM

miceelf said:

This is a small thing in the bigger scheme of things, but Rick Davis. Wow. I saw his exchange with Axelrod on Fox News and I have to say he just comes across as an incredibly angry and bitter guy. And it's not just the current state of the race. He ALWAYS comes across as this kind of hyperaggressive, permanently aggrieved bully.

That's two problems: 1) when he represents McCain, he represents McCain, and 2) that insanely hostile approach appears to have colored the general mood within the campain, not just about interactions with obama or with the voters, but also with the press.

October 13, 2008 3:34 PM

liebig said:

It was an impossible task.  He would have had a better chance if he had left the Republican party in 2000, then run as an independent candidate in 2008.  Not a good chance, but a better one.

October 13, 2008 7:23 PM

Lundell said:

Howard, it's been years since I have run a campaign and the types of campaigns I ran were about six levels of atmosphere below the Presidential level, but I think one of McCain's biggest problems (or mistakes) was the campaign's inability to hit the window for their negative advertisements.  I've always thought that negative ads work better when you are ahead because when your opponent strikes back (probably harder than you struck them--they are behind after all), you can always pull out your "there's just some things I wouldn't do to win an election" ad and cement your place on the high road.  

Maybe McCain was never ahead.  I have theorized that the Palin choice was a choice for the base more than anything else and that would lead me to believe that she was a "hook shot from half court" more than anything else.  The new registration numbers have to absolutely scare Republicans at all levels and to combat that, you have to start by energizing your base.  Thus, Palin.

I agree that Palin could have been used more effectively, but I don't think that her philosophy outside of "drill, baby, drill" has ever been fully investigated and further digging would reveal her for the hard right-winger she really is.  In other words, at best, she has been a wash and the lightning bolt never did much damage.

October 13, 2008 8:19 PM

fougasseu said:

Here's Hitchens on McCain-Palin. Pretty  brutal:www.slate.com/.../2202163

October 13, 2008 9:17 PM

frippo said:

"FORMER Senator Joe Lieberman"? Have I missed something?

October 14, 2008 1:16 AM

woland said:

I wish people would stop trying to posit ways McCain could have used Palin more effectively.  Palin is a dummy plain and simple.  She has a nice beauty queen way with people, good stage presence, and the ability to lie without batting an eye but that is it.  There is nothing going on upstairs that could be molded into forming a coherent and successful national politician.  Knock it off already with the "Free Sarah Palin" and the "if only she had more time to study" crap.  The minute McCain choose this dummy his fate was sealed.  

October 14, 2008 3:35 AM

gennitydo said:

Actually, for all the complaints about the Dems primary process, I think it is the GOP that picked the wrong man.  Huckabee would've been tough to beat especially a Huckabee-Ridge ticket.

For 2008, they needed a Washington outsider not a guy who has been in DC for 26 years claiming to be an outsider.

A guy with base secured could've tacked to the center.  Instead, McCain spent the whole summer tacking to the right and leaving a vacuum in the center which Obama promptly filled.

Moreover, Huckabee is a likeable guy and could've done the genuine folksiness and the base would've given him a lot of leeway (like being able to choose Ridge).

With McCain, Schmidt has spent 6 months trying to bang a square peg into a round hole.  

October 14, 2008 5:24 AM

fougasseu said:

Moving on to the movie, I'd like to see Charlize Theron play Palin. She could take a bit of Josie from "North Country" and a bit of Aileen from "Monster". I can't think of anyone who could play McCain.

October 14, 2008 6:36 AM

twodox said:

Personality transplant!

October 14, 2008 7:03 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

This is all tactical stuff, which makes sense because of who wrote it, but the larger (ahem) ande I think much more relevant elephant in the room is not mentioned.  

McCain could have won - MAYbe - if he'd switched parties and begged for a VP slot with Hil or Bam.  

But the Republican party died from hubris and dry rot long ago.  Although there are honorable Republicans, and even a few in power (McConnell - who might get voted out, Warner - retiring, Jeff Flake, a few others - a very few) but for the most part, the entire party has turned in to a cancer on this country.  And it became too obvious to ignore anymore.  The fact is, McCain lost the election (fingers crossed, I know) the day Bush raced back to interfere with a dead woman's last rites and was sealed in stone the day Tom Delay resigned.

I think pundits and yokels like me assumed the American people were still open to being fed a line of bull again after the disgrace of 2004, but we weren't paying close enough attention to what voters told us loud and clear in the 2006 mid-terms.  

The number one reason stated for voting Democratic was Republican corruption - NOT the GWOT, NOT the economy, not Iraq - it was corruption by huge percentage points.  I'm sure Wolfson has those numbers somewhere handy on his blackberry as we speak.

The pundits and the co-dependents who love them glossed right over that.  We didn't grasp how closely the American public was paying attention and becoming irreversibly disgusted.  This happened at the same time as the bill coming due for the Republicans mindless waste of taxpayer billions, after being forced to watch their own attorney general destroy his historic agency and lie repeatedly and obviously on live TV to them. Let's not forget the body bags beiing piled up from their poorly run wars.

McCain never had a chance.  The ony thing that could have and still might save him is bigotry, which would be totally appropriate for the Republican party in its present incarnation.

October 14, 2008 10:25 AM

waynejm said:

gennitydo - In hindsight, given the state of the economy now, Huckabee would likely be doing better.  But his economic populism - which seems more sincere and credible than McCain's deathbed conversion - didn't sit well with the corporate wing of the party, which wielded a lot more influence during primary season than it does now.

October 14, 2008 10:28 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

gennitydo nails it - the Republicans better wise up and pick a charming populist like him (I even like the guy and I'm a secular liberal from hell) instead of running him off if they want a chance of recovering from their  failure to listen to the the voters and not Rush Limbaugh's yammerings.  McCain is STILL dancing to his tune, and his tune only.  McCain needs to move out of DC. Pronto.

Palin is simply hateful, an awful person and only the fuckheads can stomach her for more than 30 seconds without wanting to slap her silly.  Huckabee is a really good guy, a nutter, but a nutter who reads his public better than anyout out there and came up with the best lines of the entire 2008 campaign "Romney looks like the guy that would fire you, not hire you" and "I'm a conservative, I'm just not mad at anybody." He promised to stick it to the man, not give him more of your money.  He was right on.

You can't win without a few scowling elites, that's just a fact.  And you'd get a few with him.  

October 14, 2008 10:32 AM

phargle said:

"If Biden were at the top of the Dem ticket Dems would be up by 16 instead of 8."

I disagree.  Obama has a particularly appeal;  any other Democrat would be polling worse against McCain.

A question often asked this cycle is "why isn't Obama doing better?"  Yet Democrats consistently underpoll generic votes.  Ask the public who they prefer and they say the Democrats, but present them with specific Democrats and you lop 8% off the totals.  It was this way in 2004 too, if y'all recall.  

The question we should be asking ourselves isn't why Obama isn't doing better, nor should we blame McCain's success on Obama being black;  instead, we should analyze why McCain, against all odds, is doing as well as he is.  It's easy for Democrats to see the world in terms of Bush-McCain Bush-McCain Bush-McCain, but McCain built up an enormous amount of good will with Democrats and moderates that still exists today.  McCain is a more solid candidate than he is given credit for.

October 14, 2008 10:42 AM

dgm9 said:

What did you miss?

First, you missed the fact that McCain is the wrong man at the wrong time. Essentially thrown to the wolves by his party by those with more ambition and more time. Sadly, he is a one trick pony who trots out the maverick war hero moniker at every turn, by little else of substance (witness his VP choice).

I do have to marvel at how close McCain kept the race until the economy did it's final swoon but I attribute that more to the American electorate's unbending proclivity to vote their prejudices rather than their own best interests than to the Republicans. For eight years the country continued to proclaim  the beauty of the President's clothing, wrapped in the literal flag that he was. Finally, it has to admit his nakedness.

October 14, 2008 11:10 AM

kikiduck said:

I agree with dgm9 who said McCain is "the wrong man at the wrong time." But, since he is the candidate, I agree with the writer's assessment, especially in the choice of VP candidate. Palin is certainly the wrong person at the wrong time. Trying to energize the base when Obama has energized those both inside and outside his base was the wrong decision, and the only reason I can see for selecting Palin is that she energizes the base. She has no real qualifications, her short stint as governor of Alaska notwithstanding. She's defensive, even downright surly, and she just doesn't have "the right stuff" (that indefinable but easily recognized quality) to be president. Also, McCain, war hero though he might be, is not a peace hero and that's what we need - someone who will wage peace instead of war in the midst of the chaotic circumstances that surround the world right now.

October 14, 2008 11:26 AM

weisbardaj said:

McCain will end this campaign with his reputation in ashes.

Deservedly so.

He stands for little beyond selected aspects of his biography.

The switchbacks over the past eight years demonstrate that his ambition far exceeds his devotion to principle, or to country. Any semblance of personal authenticity is long gone.

The readiness of McCain and his attack puppy to call down the violent demons of past discriminatory rage will disgrace and discredit them before history. One only hopes the Secret Service is on its game.

My hope is that we are at the beginning of an era akin to the New Deal, in the sense of creative approaches to the vast challenges we face as a nation. If challenging times make for potential  greatness, Obama has the opportunity, as well as the political, oratorical and intellectual skills to rise to these challenges and become one of our great leaders.

The questions for the Republicans, heirs to a worn out, broken and discredited ideology, concern their ability to remake themselves as a party worthy of a new age, or to slip into unthinking opposition and political  irrelevance.

While I believe the Republican Party is richly deserving of an extended period of ignominy, my hope--for the good of nation and world--is that they will reconstitute themselves as a worthy loyal opposition, one capable of working (as the best among them  did during the civil rights struggle of the late '50s and early '60s) toward greater civility in our politics, and a better future for our nation. I am not holding my breath.

--The Wise Bard

October 14, 2008 4:18 PM

jobeek2 said:

In lieu of a trackback:

Observationalism: Should Obama backers check themselves?

observationalism.com/.../obama-backers

With Obama riding high in the polls, comparisons between John McCain and Bob Dole are gaining ever more currency. Howard Wolfson went as far as penning a “premortem for the McCain campaign“, which prompted Jake Tapper to warn Obama backers to "Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself". Is Tapper right? His point about not getting overconfident is always good, but he does cherry-pick his data to make it. A comparison with last month-polling numbers from the last three elections.

October 15, 2008 6:30 AM

ammowry said:

The Wise Bard's comments resonate with what I have grown to understand about McCain - that he's cultivated a selective memory of his identity in the interest of self-promotion.  Apparently he has the same father fixation as "Bush too", although perhaps with a generational extension.  My sense is that a true hero of any ilk would shrink from drawing attention to that aspect of his, or her own character.  Heroes are recognized, not self-promoted.  You don't need to spend two, or five, or nine or however many years the consensus makes it today in a prisoner of war camp to be a hero, and you can certaintly emerge from that context not one.  One of my biggest irritations in Obama's campaign was the tv ad series promoting his choice to "turn down big money jobs" and go be a community organizer.  Those ads stank, and I can thankfully say I haven't caught a whiff of them since the DNC.  Thankfully Obama is now in a position of enough relative comfort with his polling outlook to move upward into a sweeping message of hope and goodwill, a stark contrast to the desperate and clutching attempt of the McCain-Palin campaign to metastasize coincidences of Obama's biography into a cancer of distrust and fear in the electorate.  

October 15, 2008 9:44 AM