Disagree, somewhat, for these reasons:

1) radio and blogblatherer noise doesn't equate to action. Limbaugh doesn't rally the base or deliver votes; he's just an entertainer who rides a meme to the bank. The Perfidious McCain meme is the most tired one around.

2) it's very early, and McCain's message is evolving. No one even knew about the financial meltdown 4 months ago. There will be more curveballs, and some (more grapeshot across our bow from Iran, e.g.) will work to McCain's advantage.

3) re. movement to the center, it's obvious that McCain will come out wih his own version of UHC lite, something market-ish, as a way of blunting our side's command of the issue; what's not yet clear is whether he will combine this with Nixonian liberal domestic proposals that would actually steal some thunder from us and make him competitive with exurban blue-collar swing voters.

Bottom line is, it's way too early. GHWB seemed tired and lame in early 1988, too.

Three months ago, I didn't think McCain had a chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination.  But I always thought that if he did, he'd be extremely difficult to beat in the general.  So either a) I'm a lousy political prognosticator, in which case maybe McCain will be sounded whipped by the Democrats, or b) I've actually been underestimating his appeal.

I'm going for option b, but maybe that's just vanity.

"There will be more curveballs, and some (more grapeshot across our bow from Iran, e.g.) will work to McCain's advantage. "

I don't know.  I think a Tet Offensive type of event in Iraq could ruin him.

Incidentally, a conservative site (Volokh, I think) speculates that as President, he would not dare appoint a conservative justice because McCain Feingold would be overturned.

Agree on his general election weakness, but disagree about the rationale. I maintain that his near death in the campaign related to his position on the war/surge. His resurgence has coincided with a lull in the violence in Iraq. Call me a pessimist, but I would argue that things in Iraq are about as they could possibly be right about now. Over the next few months, one of two things will happen: a) they will begin to withdraw troops as promised and the violence will escalate or b) they will extend the already extended tours and the predicted strain on the military will be manifest. I happen to think b is much more likely and while it will have less of an acute impact on the election (as compared to increased violence), it will have an impact. Think about the power of troop/troop family stories about extended year tours of duty. So all in all, I see Iraq as a big old piano on McCain’s back that will trump whatever strengths he might have as a candidate in terms of attracting independent voters.

b). McCain is dangerous to ourside if for no other reason than that he's now in his element, having fun, beholden to no one. He can say what he damned well pleases, and does.

If he were running against a Democratic version of Huckabee a la Carter1976, he'd be in serious trouble of losing red states and a few purple heartland states on the fringes of the south as well (Missouri, Ohio, WV). But the fact is that the evangelicals have nowhere to go, and all he has to do is point to his sterling anti-abortion record and his conservative SCOTUS plans to get these people motivated. The only other potential stay-at-homes on the GOP side are the Club for Greed types, and it's doubtful, to put it mildly, that they can't be rallied against the Most Liberal Member of Congress (not to mention Hillary).

I was wrong about Rudy-- had no idea he'd run such a sh*tty campaign (perhaps he didn't want to win?)-- but I think McCain has plenty of strengths in the general. True, he has to up his game on economics, but weakness on his right flank is simply not a concern. Esp if Huckabee's his VP.

eweiss- I'm with you partly.  Basically, I think our current success in Iraq is unsustainable over the long run.  It depends on having a larger US military presence there than we can indefinitely support.  The gamble is that we can quiet the place down, de-surge, and everything will stay good.  I doubt that.

So, when does the inevitable bloody civil war break out again?  Before November or after?  I'm cynical enough to believe that our current administration will do its best to postpone the inevitable until after the election.  Probably with some success.

However, I'm with tep in general.  McCain appeals to people.  Hell, he appeals to me.  And I think a lot of independents will look at Obama v. McCain and say "I like them both, but I'm worried about experience."  God only knows what they'll say about Clinton v. McCain, but I'm sure it won't be pretty.

McCain doesn't _have_ to win to feel validated. It's not like millions of people's hopes rise or fall with his candidacy. He's as loose as the underdog in the Super Bowl.

I'm the last person to think Mike Huckabee is a serious adult, but frankly, McCain and Huckabee are today the two most relaxed, genuine, normal, comfy-in-their-skin politicians the GOP has put up in a quarter century. As much as I detest Huckabee and as much as I'd like to see the country led by a fresh face, I think McCain-Huckabee would be a very formidable opponent in the general.

I have been thinking of late that Huckabee would hurt McCain more than help him at this point. He's basically won the republican primaries without strong (or any) support from religious conservatives. He has done especially well with moderates and independents (as usual). So why would he risk alienating that bloc when the truth is that the religious conservative voters have nowhere else to go? If anything, you'd think he would have run to the right in the primary and moved left in the general. I see no reason to think that because he ran well as a moderate in the primary that he would run to the right in the general. It strikes me as a funny paradox, but I think he will probably pick another moderate or at leas an unknown (someone like Mark Sanford) who has appeal with the far right, but will not necessarily alienate the middle.

Tep, glad to see you have come around to my way of thinking on McCain-Huckabee (hah) but actually, I am starting to think McCain might go long and choose Condi Rice or some other woman for VP, and Huckabee will get to be HHS Secretary.

When it comes down to it, I trust McCain more than Hillary. Only McCain can get us out of Iraq (Nixon to China) and has the real judgment to know when to do it.

But I will vote for Obama over McCain, call it the triumph of hope over experience.

eweiss - Huckabee has phenomenal political skills. He's the ** only ** GOPer I've ever seen who could charm editors at Rolling Stone, hold his own with Colbert, disarm the MoveOnners. That's a very considerable asset in a VP candidate because it says to fence-sitters and lukewarm pro-Dem independents who are overtly or privately reluctant to go whole hog for Obama, "See? He's normal, you can vote for him without feeling like a meanie/greedhead/racist."

Rove and W did this to perfection in 2000 with their outreach to hispanics. The goal wasn't so much to win hispanic votes (which they did) but to reassure white independents that W wasn't a racist redneck.

If McCain-Huckabee were to get some clever economic advice and create an eclectic economic platform that appealed to exurbanites, they'd be dangerous.

The problem is that while Huckabee could win over religious conservatives to McCain, he can't win over the other conservatives - like Limbaugh and the National Review crowd - how dislike him just as much. So in that sense it adds insult to injury. I think he'll go with a hard-line conservative to balance the ticket, assuming he uses the VP slot to throw a bone to the base rather than the center.

If brilliant debating decided the presidency, Bush wouldn't have won twice.  Not that Gore and Kerry are fab, mind you.

Even Ronald Reagan, the supposed "great communicator" wasn't so much a wonderful debater as he was wonderful at conjuring up strategic zingers at the right moment.  And I doubt, "there you go again" was necessarily conjured on the spot.

If it's McCain vs Obama, there will be a debater defecit.  Ifit 's McCain vs the Clintons, she'll beat him on technical points.  But, her personal demeanor and delivery has a tendency to fall into unpleasant territory with regularity.

McCain, is for the most part, likable.  And he has most people's respect.  He doesn't have nearly as many of his own party who despise him as Hillary does.  And he gives Independents and Regan Dems, and those Dems who don't trust the Clintons (a lot now) a place to go.

I think the CW is correct, if it's McCain vs the Clintons.  And that McCain has a better shot of beating Obama than any Republican anddiate this year.

What's the bigger risk here for McC-- defections on the right, or failure to capture the center? I have to think the latter is the real risk. I've never seen large numbers of right-wing GOPers sit out a presidential election in my lifetime. I can't believe they will this time, ESP given the fact that, as they like to remind us, there's a war on, the economy's melting down, there will be as many as half a dozen SCOTUS appointments in the next 8 years...

For the very, very little it is worth, I think Hillary loses to McCain and Obama wins by a whisker a la JFK.  In the local election campaigns for which I have been responsible, I have found the analogy of sailboat racing very useful to explain to my own people what we are doing and why in the rhetorical trenches.  When a boat is ahead, it tries to "cover," that is make the same moves as, the trailing boat.  In that manner, the leading boat tries not to allow the trailing boat to break free and perhaps gain the lead.  Thus, every thrust by the opponent must be met on its own terms even if the rhetorical skirmish is fought to a draw.  The trailing boat, on the other hand, tries to move in a direction that the leader cannot follow or is disinclined to follow, in the hope that when they re-converge the lead will have changed.

McCain's military history completely neutralizes Hillary's tactical votes for the Iraq war.  On the commander-in-chief issue, he has her completely covered.  On age/generation, there is not enough of a difference for her to gain at McCain's expense.  His appeal to moderates/unaffiliated voters would appear to be at least as great as hers, although coming in from the right rather than from the left. Her only advantage against McCain is Bush fatigue, but she has to deal with Clinton fatigue and it is easy to see that her job may be harder as she actually is a Clinton.  Plus, Hillary motivates the Republican base to get out and vote.  In contrast, McCain demobilizes Democrats (remember the relatively favorable consideration of him as Kerry's Veep?).

Obama, on the other hand, takes off in a different direction.  He can hold the left and has much greater appeal to the center than McCain as he is not perceived as being as ideological.  He benefits from public fatigue with Bush and the Republicans without having the same sort of liability.  Just the reverse. His differences with McCain, that McCain cannot cover, seem to me to be to his advantage with a single exception: "commander-in-chief in the war against terror."  Obama's perspicacity about Iraq is a difference that McCain cannot cover.  McCain's age and seeming tiredness help Obama, but Obama still needs to find a way to reassure that he is tough enough to be CIC and "keep us safe."  JFK was young, but a war hero. If Obama can find a way to provide that reassurance, he can beat McCain.  I cannot see a way for Hillary to beat McCain except for some campaign mis-management.

As an aside re Krugman's complaints:  As a black man (politically if not exactly in fact), Obama is shrewdly running to the right of Hillary on social issues.  If he weren't, the right would start to obsess that he would immediately start giving away the store to the poor.  Obama has got this absolutely right in political terms,  Krugman's kvetching isn't so much wrong as completely and utterly irrelevant to the political situation.  If he got elected, Obama would have plenty of room to maneuver on health care.  Meanwhile, he reassures that he is not an uber-leftist.  Krugman is a a great critic, but I wouldn't let him manage a political campaign for school board let alone anything else.

stanmvp48 , the chance of a "Tet Offensive type event" in Iraq is nil because there is little popular support for Al Qaeda, and not that many Al Qaeda, themselves.

They might pull off a Big Ban, I suppose, if they got Bin Laden type resources together.  But, unless they can blow up the Green Zone, I don't see what they could do that would have any great mind-changing affect.

Tep is right, but it depends on whom McCain is running against.  If it is Hillary, McCain doesn't need to do anything at all to take care of the Republican base.  They will be out in droves.  If it is Obama, then there is a certain shrewdness to Huckabee, but also a lot of risk as he really doesn't know what he is talking about and could put his foot in it at any time.  I think McCain/Romney is more plausible than McCain/Huckabee.  The corporate interests are reassured and there is no one on the ticket to scare the bejeezus out of the left.   Remember, Romney was a Republican governor in Massachusetts, about the most left-wing state in the country.  Obama on the other hand would need someone with powerful defense/foreign policy cred on the ticket without letting himself be upstaged.  No one wants another presidency run by the VP.   Any guesses?  Clark?  Biden?        

I though Charles Foster Kane was a fictional character.  Waddaya know.

Great post, roidubouloi.

roid, former Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich is a regular commentator at the NY Times website. Even though he died in 1995. The Internets is a wondrous thing.

I must say, though, I can't imagine McCain choosing Huckabee. In a normal year, absolutely. But not against either Hillary or Obama. And I hope he's learned the Bush lesson that it's policy suicide to choose a VP who is not seen as a credible successor, since the threat of a third term is essential to keeping one's own party's congressional caucus in line. That means Condi Rice would be off the list. I think he's got to choose a woman, preferably a governor or other statewide officeholder, possibly a member of Congress, but not a senator. Which is to say, I think it's gonna be McCain-Palin. That ticket would destroy Hillary-Anybody. Assuming McCain doesn't keep doing his very convincing impression of rapidly advancing senility; some of his most recent speeches have bordered on incoherence in parts. He's in danger of bobdoling himself at this point. But if he avoids that, McCain-Palin is a terrific ticket for the GOP.

rhubarbs, I agree about Palin, but don't sell Condi short. It would cut the legs out from under Hillary and even eat into the black vote. She is a threefer, single, black, and female. Granted, she wouldn't be successor material, but that should please all of the Republicans out there who think they will be the successor. He picks someone else besides Condi (or Palin) and there will be 6 or 7 annoyed Republicans who will think it should have been them.

I predict if it is not Huckabee, it will be a woman.

we'll see. I think Huck is a risk for McCain and also out of his character. I agree he has terrific political skills, but he alienate the core NR conservatives and the middle who will see it as pandering,  so i am not sure what it gets him. I think there are plenty of middle of the road moderates who might vote for McCain over either Obama or Clinton, but would be scared sh**less by Huck. I think this is especially true given McCain's age and the liklihood that he will be a one-termer. I don't think there are a lot of serious people out there who see Huck as presidential material. The other issue is whether he sets up an Edwards-Kerry dynamic with #2 outshining and outslicking #1. I am probably wrong, but I don't see it.

I agree that Huckabee is ultimately unlikely, but I think a woman as a VP choice is also unlikely, notwithstanding Mondale/Ferraro.  He was in a losing battle against a popular incumbent and needed to do something that would seem spectacular.  However, I think the sentiment is strong that people do not want the first woman president to succeed to the office without having been fully tested politically.  I think the people who are serious pols know that and therefore will look in another direction.  If not a Romney to give reassurance to the corporate types and the more left center types that the Rs want to capture, then I think Charlie Christ to get a boost in the only top four state that is in play.  If you are a Republican, it is almost impossible to win the general while losing CA, NY and FL, winning only TX.  A governor is a better bet than a legislator, as McCain is himself, but Alaska is trivial however popular and appealing Palin may be.

But this raises the interesting question of who gives Hillary the biggest boost. Not clear.  As a woman, she still needs defense cred.

Curious to know everyone's thoughts on Colin Powell as McC's VP.

Crist is a great call. Look at the Republican Governors who have either endorsed McCain or are flirting: Pawlenty, Crist, Huntsman (had not seen that one- no Mitt?), Arnie, Sanford...

blackton, please don't tell me you'd vote for McCain over HRC.  I'm so sick of hearing that sentiment from posters on this site.  I realize that that isn't precisely what you said, you said that you trusted him more than Clinton, but as we all know, trust is maybe the biggest vote-getter out there.

Honestly, I probably trust McCain more than Clinton too, but what I trust him to do is extend disasterous tax cuts, perpetuate the Bush Admin's ultra aggressive 'no surrender' rhetoric and bogus conflation of Iraq and Islamic terrorism, and nominate 2 or 3 more Alitos to the Supreme Court.

Also, nobody on this site seems to want to listen to me about McC's melanoma, but its a big goddamn concern--ESPECIALLY if Huckabee's his running mate.  Has anyone besides me noticed how McCain is a bit of a mush-mouth when he speaks?  The medical term for that is 'dysarthria,' and I'll bet dollars to donuts the reason he's dysarthric is that the surgeons bagged the facial nerve when they whacked that melanoma off the left side of his face.  If so, that means the cancer was deep, which means there is a substantial likelihood that it will come back and kill him.

tep- an unstoppable juggernaut?

No matter how it cuts, McCain will show well in the general. He is a lousy panderer. He''ll rediscover that and get to what he does best. Shoot from the hip. I've already seen signs of that emerging as he feels somewhat more comfortable in this primary battle. It's likely that even if you don't intend to vote for him you'll find yourself liking him. He's at his best in the 'nothing to lose' mode.

Tep could be imagining things. That would mean I'm imagining things, too. Obama has some serious Mo and the chops to back it up. If the Dems want to win in November they'll nominate Barack Obama.

I disagree with tep, as I often do.  The Republican Party is not going to let McCain run any way he wants to and be "comfortable in his skin" if he comes down with the nomination.  Witness him having to go hat-in-hand to a conference call and promise that he'd appoint justices to overturn McCain-Feingold.  He's not going to be able to be that footloose and fancy-free truth-teller that everybody fell in love with eight years ago, because at least half of the Republican power structure will be swallowing him under protest.

In short, he'll be on a script, and as Hillary's recent experience shows, the media /hates/ candidates who are on a script.

The GOP is convinced, institutionally speaking, that their recent ill fortune is because they weren't far enough to the right.  So John McCain will be forced steadily rightward during the course of the primary, and his ability to walk himself back to the center will be handicapped by all of the suspicious eyes on him: the media, anxious to see him "tell it like it is" will be throwing primary quotes that seem out of step with the center of America at him, and the conservatives who will be bankrolling his general election campaign will be watching him like a hawk to make sure he agrees with those unpopular statements.

No matter who the GOP nominee is, they will be leading a party that's very right of center and espousing at least one very unpopular position with the majority of Americans.  McCain may have more personal charisma than Hillary Clinton (and we'll see about that, if he's constantly having to field calls from the Club For Growth and the Heritage Foundation making sure he's still on message; the man gets testy when balked) but the American public is just not going to be buying what he has for sale come November.

If it comes down to a charmer who wants a license to stay in Iraq for another 100 years or a cold fish who promises major troop withdrawals within the first year of her presidency, centrists are going to vote for the centrist position, no matter the messenger.  Even leaving out Iraq, after George W. Bush, the Republicans can't even fall back on their "we're stewards of the economy" cred anymore, having taken us out of a boom economy into a bust, through a "recovery" that was felt mostly by the crony capitalists who got Bush elected in the first place, and right back into another bust.

Hillary or no Hillary, McCain or no McCain, the GOP just does not have a winning hand this year.  Thank goodness.

And Crist is very popular in a big important state. What about teeing up Jeb? What about Jeb and Mitt in 2012? I like it!

McCain would be wise to go with Pawlenty. He's a terrific speaker, very authentic, very reasonable, and his wife is further to the right than Munich in '39. The base will love her.

However, I think McCain will be done in by Talk Radio. Once down to McCain and Obama, Limbaugh won't be able to resist attacking Obama using his mocking Kingfish voice. He'll completely alientate the moderates, independents, new immigrants, minorities, and educated Catholics that McCain needs.

I agree with tep that Limbaugh doesn't deliver votes...for the GOP. I do believe he creates voters for the Democrats.

Garrison Keillor came out for Obama over the weekend. Wouldn't it be cool to have a primetime debate with these King Kongs of radio? Neither of them are camera-friendly, but man, those voices.

If McCain is smart, he'll choose a liberal Republican as his VP candidate. The election will be won in the purple states. If he chooses someone like Condi--who is respected by no-one, or Huckabee, who has run too far to the evangelicals, a lot of moderate independents might feel more comfortable with the Democrat.

But if he chooses a reasonably liberal VP candidate, then he reassures moderates and picks up the critical percentage points in the purple states he needs to win.

McCain's greatest strength is that he is not viewed as a run of the mill Republican. Why would he want to dilute that strength by appearing to have buckled to either the corporate or evangelical interests in the GOP?

Chirstine Todd Whitman might be a great VP candidate. If he picks her, he gets the advantage of a woman, and someone who actually resigned from the EPA rather than let Bush roll over her. She's a East Coast which balances the ticket against the west. She'd be a strong pick that would complement him tremendously.

mroman, yeah, I like Christie too, but she is prochoice so tough for him to get it done with her.

mroman,

I've been wondering about Whitman, too. Some disadvantages: She has never acquitted herself well on the national stage. She works against the anti-Hillary narrative of GOP=change, Dems=back to the past. She's very out of practice as a campaigner. And no one is going to believe the she represents a viable successor, which Bush has shown us is a key element in a president's ability to control his own party.

McCain needs a VP who blunts some of the Democratic identity politics advantage this year, who's young enough to contrast with his own age, and who can be seen as a viable future nominee by moderate non-Republicans and by partisan Republicans alike. A tall order, and I just don't think Whitman fits the bill. You're probably right -- I'm zero-for-always in terms of guessing VP picks in either party -- but much as I kind of like Whitman, I wouldn't pick her if I were McCain.

roidubouloi, I'm with you tack for tack on your analysis.

Whitman's kind of old news, too. McCain needs a fresh face accompanying him-- ideally, someone who's both appealing and presidential but above all, fresh, smart, a grown-up who doesn't frighten the good folk in the Great Center.

I still think Bobby Jindal would be an intriguing choice. He's whipsmart, not a raving ideologue, little baggage, has good campaigning skills and, to be honest, more executive experience than either BHO or HRC. Covers the base and injects some excitement into a campaign that's in danger of looking really tired. I'm not one to care about melanin, but frankly, the photos of McCain pre-FL made him look like Caspar the Ghost-- you couldn't even make out his head when he was standing in front of snowdrifts. This "wan with care" look is an unpleasant reminder of the man's mortality. Better for him to run with someone young and ruddy, tawny, whatever, just not so damned pallid.

I like Palin.  Crist is too new, and McCain is going to win Florida anyway.  Maybe Mark Sanford.  If it's HRC, I agree with Roi to a T (odd, that).  McCain beats her, and it likely will not be that close.  If it's BHO, the best argument JM has is experience, especially in foreign affairs, obviously.  

I hesitate to give advice to Dems, but if you nominate BHO, Biden would be a good VP choice, gravitas and all that.  HRC can take a governor, almost certainly a male, perhaps Southern - Mike Easley?

BTW, pay attention to McCain's speech to the CPAC folks on Thursday, Ithink.  He passed up the gathering last year, and it will be interesting to see, based on today's outcome, how much he makes nice with the Right.

Independant women, "soccer moms," "security moms," or whatever they're being called today, will decide this election. Oboma wins the primary, McCain goes down like a bag o dirt. Hillary wins, it gets a little tougher. Historical precedent suggests the republicans are heading for a major beat-down in this election, either way. We'll  be in month 8-10 of a recession, or at least of a "soft" period in the economy. The worst kind for the middle class, too. As housing prices come back to reality and that equity in their homes that people had been counting on to pay for tuition or retirement turns out to be a fantasy, we'll all have to readjust to live within our actual means. It's going to be tough for the republicans to put the blame on the democrats and tougher still to present a repackaged version of bushonomics to the public as the cure.

McCain will run with Lindsay Graham - maybe - not Sanford. Sanford is an eccentric weirdo and prep-school weiner. As Colbert said, he's about as exciting as a vanilla envelope glued to a tan wall.

I agree with Butchie that Biden would be a very strong choice for Obama.  He has more experience than anyone else who will be in the campaign and doesn't upstage Obama in any way.  

On the R side, I don't think a "liberal Republican" is in the cards.  Nor would it be smart for them.  The idea is either to secure a particular state that is important -- not sure why Butchie is so certain that McCain wins Florida -- or to cadge some votes from the center.  But you cannot use a VP candidate to leap over the center and cadge votes from its other edge so to speak.  No one takes the VP that seriously.  Left-leaning centrists are not going to conclude that McCain is left-leaning because of a VP candidate.  So, the ideal candidate is either someone who secures --absolutely nails down -- the base while allowing the candidate to move more toward the center or vice versa (ha, ha).  Cheney served this function for Bush, reassuring the right that "compassionate conservatism" was just campaign BS, which of course it was.  Whitman is too far left of McCain to be of any use to him.  It would be a waste.  For McCain, who is suspect on the right, not clear that anyone could lock up the base for him.  He is best off running as McCain, take it or leave it, and playing either for a key state -- FL or OH -- or, as I said, to gather some votes more toward the center.  I still think Romney is a better choice for him -- ex-governor, plays well in liberal states, doesn't threaten the base.  It is about the best he could do.  

I think Hillary goes for Clark (if she gets that far).  The whole female CIC thing while we are "at war" is just too novel for the electorate.  She has to take care of this liability to have a prayer against McCain.

A clarification:  I don't know whether McCain would go the route of using his VP pick to secure the base, move to the center, or secure a key state. If the former, Romney can help him with one important right-wing constituency, corporate and wealthy interests, while also helping him with the center, a double whammy. Also, it is symbolically "healing" of party rifts to choose Romney.  McCain is a bit of an insurgent, as Kennedy was, and needs to reassure the party establishment even more than its constituencies, as Kennedy did by picking Johnson.  Romney also helps by being younger but not so much younger that he makes McCain look even older.  Finally, it fits Romney's ambitions to be VP.  If McCain loses, he is in a decent position for a future go.  If McCain wins, he may very well succeed and is positioned for the future as well.

I also don't think McCain can take Florida for granted.  It is a weird state with a lot of demographic transition.  Also, its real estate is going into the toilet -- some of the largest percentage losses in the country -- which is going to make the local economy VERRRY uncomfortable for a lot of people come the fall.  I just don't see what a Palin gets for McCain.