TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 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
20.05.2008
The New McCain Riff In Obama's Speech

Pretty effective at tying McCain to Bush, I think:

But this year’s Republican primary was a contest to see which candidate could out-Bush the other, and that is the contest John McCain won. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans that once bothered Senator McCain’s conscience are now his only economic policy. The Bush health care plan that only helps those who are already healthy and wealthy is now John McCain’s answer to the 47 million Americans without insurance and the millions more who can’t pay their medical bills. The Bush Iraq policy that asks everything of our troops and nothing of Iraqi politicians is John McCain’s policy too, and so is the fear of tough and aggressive diplomacy that has left this country more isolated and less secure than at any time in recent history. The lobbyists who ruled George Bush’s Washington are now running John McCain’s campaign, and they actually had the nerve to say that the American people won’t care about this. Talk about out of touch!   

I will leave it up to Senator McCain to explain to the American people whether his policies and positions represent long-held convictions or Washington calculations, but the one thing they don’t represent is change.

Relatedly, I know there's some debate about whether Obama should have sorta proclaimed victory tonight by announcing he had a majority of pledged delegates. I'm basically agnostic on this question--on the one hand, it steps on Hillary's Kentucky headline, which is a plus for him; on the other, it risks alienating Hillary supporters, which is a minus; back on the first hand, he was extremely gracious and complimentary toward her.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that this is just the logical conclusion of the entire Obama primary strategy, which was to obsess over pledged delegates to the exclusion of all other metrics. Since New Hampshire, the Obama people have been talking about pledged delegates, pledged delegates, pledged delegates while the Clinton people have changed their preferred metric every few days. There's no question that this consistency helped the Obama campaign make its case to the media and to superdelegates. And so it's only natural that, having won on the terms they've been pushing non-stop for four months, they would declare victory.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:42 PM with 9 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!

Rhubarbs said:

Re Obama's declaration of victory or not. Hillary has already done whatever damage she can do to the Democratic Party and its presidential nominee. Hillary is unwilling to demonstrate her ability to lead her supporters while she still has a claim on their loyalty, so the only leverage she has is time: the number of extra days she can give Obama of unobstructed general-election campaigning. But that's a wasting asset, which is slipping away from Hillary at the rate of one per day. But he's campaigning against McCain just fine now, with the wind at his back and a widening, cross-gender lead in public opinion. Which makes the days she can offer him worth approximately zero each anyway.

By engaging Hillary directly with an open declaration of victory, Obama would have empowered Hillary again as his opponent and given her an important hostage -- his credibility -- to bargain with. By essentially ignoring the fact that Hillary has now passed the point of no return, Obama leaves Hillary in the position she started the week: entirely lacking leverage with him or with superdelegates. For Obama, Hillary is the kind of problem that will go away if he just ignores it.

(Incidentally, Hillary tonight passed the point where she needs to win more delegates than there are delegates remaining to be won. Even the most casual sports fan understands that if you need to win more games than you have left on your schedule to make the playoffs, you're not going to the playoffs. Apparently no member of America's TV political punditry has ever followed a pennant race or a playoff drive in any sport.)

May 20, 2008 11:30 PM

scire said:

Noam:

Well, the reason he's pushing it, and has pushed it consistently is that is the only metric that matters. It's the one the democrats have had in place for a long time, and it's the one the candidates agreed to going into the race. So his case isn't strong because of his consistency. It's strong because that's how winning is measured in the democratic primary race.

You sound as though if Hillary had only pushed the popular vote metric all along, she'd be winning. But she wouldn't. Which is precisely why she hasn't pushed it consistently. Especially as it's not an accurate measure since caucus states don't accurately measure actual voter turnout, and some caucuses don't even tally that data. She knows this and the superdelegates know this.  But she's betting that her supporters don't. Apparently you don't either.

And Rhubarbs, I agree.

May 21, 2008 12:09 AM

liberal reformer said:

The remarks of Barack Obama critical of John McCian are very incisive.

May 21, 2008 12:53 AM

GSpinks said:

Lib ref: as promised, "bare knuckles"

"One thing to keep in mind, though, is that this is just the logical conclusion of the entire Obama primary strategy, which was to obsess over pledged delegates to the exclusion of all other metrics"

You might call it an obsession, I think of it as the measure by which the Democratic Nominee for president is selected according to the rules and guidelines established by the party leaders that came before us.

A better thing to keep in mind is that the Junior Senator from Illinois has planned an executed an excellent primary campaign from day 1, as opposed to Clinton, who would have blown Obama out of the water starting in Iowa if she had started out her campaign the way she is finishing it.

May 21, 2008 1:55 AM

WoodyBombay said:

"(Incidentally, Hillary tonight passed the point where she needs to win more delegates than there are delegates remaining to be won. Even the most casual sports fan understands that if you need to win more games than you have left on your schedule to make the playoffs, you're not going to the playoffs. Apparently no member of America's TV political punditry has ever followed a pennant race or a playoff drive in any sport.)"

I think most of America's TV political punditry gets this - if these meatheads understand anything, it's sports metaphors - but they are afraid that if they say it out loud Geraldine Ferraro will form a ladies' posse and come after them.

May 21, 2008 2:42 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Woody, you may be right. But then again, why is anyone listening to Geraldine Ferraro? She didn't even carry her own congressional district for the 1984 presidential ticket. To go back to sports analogies, listening to Ferraro about electoral politics is like taking infield defense lessons from Chuck Knoblauch. Besides, Hillary makes a big deal about using sports metaphors; she does so three or four times a speech. And she pretends to be a big sports fan. So why can no one call her on it?

May 21, 2008 10:12 AM

blackton said:

The Democratic party has allowed each state the manner in which they choose their delegates, but not the time. States can have closed or open primaries, or closed or open caucuses. The theory being that each states Democratic committee knows the values of its people and is more able to respect their wishes. It also allows a great deal more diversity in the Democratic primaries. As scire pointed out, it is simply delegates. To say afterwards that it is popular vote essentially disregards every caucus state. Some Democracy.

If Hillary hated the caucus system, she could have gotten her supporters to petition a change in all of the caucus states. She didn't. They only became irrelevant after she lost them. Tick tick tick Hillary, time is running out for you. You will return to the Senate more liked by your Republican collegues (who doubtlessly view you as a useful fool) than by your Democratic ones. (scire, by the way, I loved your posting in, I don't remember where but another web site)

May 21, 2008 10:38 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

While he's on the verge of officially clinching the nomination, Obama has more discouraging exit polls to ponder.

May 21, 2008 11:30 AM

boneill said:

Rhubarbs: pretty rough on Knoblauch.   Didn't he help you win a World Series?  Such betrayal...

May 21, 2008 12:34 PM