Good post, Noam. Walker could become McCain's albatross, to a greater extent than he already is. McCain is doing his best to put daylight between himself and the president on issues like global warming but could be yanked right back into the president's lap if the latter pulls more Knesset stunts as this campaign proceeds.

This is the main reason why McCain won't win in November.  He's in a catch-22.  He has to embrace Bush and the party platform or else the base stays home.  But the tighter the embrace of Mr. 27%, the more he alienates the moderate swing voters that he needs.

The comparison is apt -- for both Bush and Clinton, this is all about preserving and protecting one's treasured Presidential legacy from partisan attacks which could, if not confronted, fundamentally change the historical assessment.  Of course, it runs the obvious risk of scrambling the campaign of your heir apparent and reminding voters exactly why they don't feel completely comfortable voting for said heir apparent.  

I wonder if W would have run his mouth like this, and coordinated with McCain a little better, if Rove or another of his long-time advisors was still hanging around with him in the White House?  It seems like there is no adult supervision anymore.

Wildboy: Rove was W's adult supervision?  My suspicion is that with Rove there, W would have been even less restrained and oblique in his attack on Obama.  

What about Bush is to McCain as Clinton was to Gore?  That seems far more apt.  

OR BUSH IS TO MCCAIN AS LBJ WAS TO HUMPHREY.  BOTH STUCK WITH THE PROBLEM OF AN UNPOPULAR AND PROBABLY UNWINNABLE WAR.

Guys, I think you're underestimating Bush's political cunning, a mistake we made along with our good friend Al Gore back in 2000.

The correct "reading" here is seeing President Bush as acting more in the role of a surrogate to the McCain campaign, a sort of taxpayer-funded 527 if you will.  Bush can attack Obama ruthlessly and to great effect in a way that only a President can (from the Israeli Knesset) while McCain has the freedom to "distance himself" from Bush's Rove-like partisan behavior.

Bush targets the "scare votes" while McCain talks about sunny optimistic "Morning in America" with troops home by 2013... and hey, so Obama would have it done by 2010, McCain by 2013, is that realy so great a difference?  Also,  for many "Israel Issue Voters" - i.e. many traditionally minded Jews and conservative Christians, the narrative of Bush trying to defend Israel from a "suspect Obama" is a most compelling one.

In fact, getting Obama into a one-on-one fight with Bush might be EXACTLY what the Republicans want.  He spent so much time and effort fighting Hillary, now let him waste more time and effort on a McCain Proxy, even as McCain works on distancing himself from both of them "There they go again with that partisan bickering.  That's not helping this country, that's not helping our troops in Iraq.  I think thy both need to really tone down the rhetoric."

Of course, the Obama campaign (an their many supporters) can make persuasive counter-arguments, but that's only if we realize what we're up against.  I can assure you that the Democrats will lose if we keep thinking "Gee, what a bunch of Morons those Republicans are.  Poor John McCain having to put up with President Bush as his proxy.  Wow, can't wait to win in November!"    

This is just the tip of the iceberg folks.  While we've been grinding each other to dust the Republicans have had months to work on this strategy and are only just now starting to tip their hand and show a few of their cards.  The bottom line is they will do everything to change the debate in to one focusing on National Security rather than the economy.  It may not be their strategy of first choice, but it's all they've got and in the minds of many voters Obama is particularly vulnerable on that score.

The key to Republican success is a Blitzkrieg lightning war that will take everyone by surprise so that any adjustments/new messages will seem forced and political in nature.  Tellingly, there is no one on Obama's team (to my knowledge) who has experience running political campaigns that focus on security.  Obviously there aren't many people like that to begin with, but there sure as heck are lots and lots of folks like that on the Republican side of the aisle.

Maybe our old pals Richard Clarke and Roger Cressey can help with that but only if the campaign gets them involved in the public light early.  If they are called in only AFTER the Republican attack takes place and only AFTER the Democratic National Convention then it may look like a forced after-thought.

I watched with tears in my eyes as Kerry's campaign floundered because they could not address the security issue head on - remember those soccer moms?  The campaign was trying to change the subject to the Iraq War which (obviously) polled better for Kerry, but you just can't do that in the face of a highly disciplined administration which puts the entire PR power of the US Government at your disposal.  Homeland Security Alert is now Orange.

Post Katrina and post a failing war in Iraq, nobody (almost) trusts Bush to handle these problems.  But many folks do trust John McCain, and rightfully so.  Some also have serious reservations ("red flags" someone close to me calls them) about Obama on exactly these issues.  So the PR/Media Manipulation of a Bush-led White House plus an extremely credible National Security candidate in McCain plus a Democratic candidate who has many voters worried when it comes to exactly these issues plus a bruising primary fight in which the Democratic candidate was ruthlessly attacked by a former First Lady (who many of the aforementioned Soccer Moms look up to and admire) and you have a highly convincing case for the fact that the Republicans may in fact have a shot at winning this thing.

The only way to stop this line of attack is cogent and convincing arguments that take on the security issue head on from day one.  Richard, Roger your hour may well be finally upon us!  

icarus,

Less restrained, but better timed.

Gavriel, interesting hypothesis, except that McCain did not remain aloof.  He agreed with Bush and piled on.  Not only that, McCain thinks he will get away with saying that the Iran hostages were freed because of Ronald Reagan and because Republicans don't talk to terrorists.  

Anybody over 25 remembers that the hostages were freed because of NEGOTIATIONS with Iran that were carried out by CARTER and that Iran just delayed the release until right after Reagan's inauguration.  Not only that, but the Reagan Administration didn't just talk to Iranian terrorists, they SOLD WEAPONS to them.

I don't know.  Your prescription for more machismo on the Democratic side for national security cred doesn't sound compelling as long as McCain is doing such a poor job at managing hte tension that waynejm points out above.

wildboy: Possible.  I just don't find turd blossom all that interesting or intelligent.  The "Permanent Repbulican Majority" lasted all of six years: one election one by outright fraud, two by scaring the shit out of the people.  Rove was there when Bush gave his "heckuva job Brownie" slap on the back; heckuva timing there.

Nah - they're all, to the last man, frat boys or frat boy wannabes: unprincipled and juvenile.  It's just that the American people, having given 4000 of its young to the bloodshed in the Iraq war, has grown up.

"It's just that the American people, having given 4000 of its young to the bloodshed in the Iraq war, has grown up"

I hope you're right, icarusr; it has occurred to me on more than one occaision that Americans may just be experiencing a temporary backlash, that people will soon forget the lessons we've learned over the last 7+ years, and we'll see this kind of thing again all to soon.

Gavriel, you have an interesting thesis. However, the first thing I would like to point out is that Barack very neatly tied Bush and McCain together on the issue of appeasement and pummeled both outright; it would appear he is well aware of whom he should hit.

The second, is that Barack is not weak on foreign policy. I think you are correct in that the GOP feels that foreign-policy is their turf, and that they can win any debate on their turf. But I think Barack is smarter than they are stupid, and will ultimately prevail. Case in point, what started as a Bush assault on Democratic appeasers has become a glaring embarrassment for everyone who entered the fray on the GOP side; McCain piled on, and took a double-whammy for reversing the bipartisan message of his stump speech earlier that morning, the James incident was priceless, and the new Democratic talking point is that the net result of the Iraq war is a stronger, more belligerent Iran.

W is to McCain as Bill is to Hillary, only more easy to assault on the issues and tied more closely with McCain, and therefore an even greater liability. Hillary has done well to distinguish herself from Bill by not riding on the shoulders of his administration; McCain has defended this administration's policies, and will automatically suffer from every hit the democrats make.