TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:30 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

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

December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
November 29, 2008 | 2:18 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.09.2008
A Good Speech -- In a Vacuum

I sat down in my rocking chair tonight, armed with a glass of Ovaltine and toast with ration-stamp jelly, and experienced McCain's speech like it would have been experienced had he been a mid-century presidential candidate: on the radio. (With no TV at home, I didn't have much of a choice.)

Tonally, over the radio I actually liked the speech other commentators are now panning as "mediocre", "not a great success", or even "shockingly bad." What to others sounded flat (was it the crowd? McCain's expression?) to me sounded plain-spoken and unadorned. His use of repeated phrases -- "I won't let you down. I won't let you down. I won't let you down" -- sounded reassuring. His treatment of Obama was classy. The middle of the speech definitely dragged, and I agree with Jon and Mike Gerson that the policies it laid out weren't what one might have hoped for, to put it lightly. But in the beginning McCain achieved a sort of feisty protector-of-the-frontier cadence ("I've fought ... I've fought ... I've fought ..."). And at the end, he didn't merely retell his POW story like every other convention speaker has -- as if its sheer awesomeness was itself reason enough to award him the White House -- but, instead, explained what changes the experience had wrought in him. It still didn't do it for me, but he made the best case yet for what all that POW stuff might tell us about how he would govern. He sounded, basically, like somebody you might like to help shepherd you through an uncertain time.

Mostly, though, it was funny how many of the burdens that John McCain bears melted away without a visual feed. There was no stiff arm; no awkward, ill-timed grins. He sounded ten years younger and infinitely more energetic when his voice wasn't paired with the image of that white-haired, rigid-expressioned and almost delicately fragile-looking head. There was no loathed green backdrop. There was no uncomfortably white and old-looking crowd, no impression given that his movement doesn't fit the moment or even that he's affiliated with Republicans. I couldn't even really tell there were protesters. It was just the idea of John McCain, disembodied.

If only, from his point of view, everyone could only have listened to the speech on the radio. While Obama thrives off the energy of his supporters, just the idea of John McCain is what one imagines he must wish his campaign could be. No anachronistic-looking crowds, no social wingers holding up signs. No other GOP politicians standing around, no Bush. No backdrop of the Republican Party. 

Unfortunately, I might have been the only person in the country listening to the speech on the radio; if anyone else was, they were probably more likely to be liberal urban elitist NPR-fetishists than undecided voters. Watching it on TV probably better captured the reality, the optics, and the context. You can't wish away the ones who brought you, or the fact that you were in better shape to do this eight years ago, or that, after you've finished telling your powerful life story and walked offstage, history will still seem to be leaving your ideas behind.

--Eve Fairbanks

Posted: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:25 AM with 81 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!

CharlesFosterKane said:

No, apparently Tep caught it on radio too (though he was underwhelmed). Keep up the good work - each of your posts is a gem, like a little mini-article.

I really liked McCain's speech and found it somewhat sad that it didn't seem to resonate at all with the crowd (though that of course only made me like it more). In a sense, McCain IS a mid-century presidential candidate; his call to duty and plainspoken celebration of community, honor, etc. has little to nothing to do with today's Republican Party. They're far more taken with Palin, who visually represents all their conservative fetishes, rather than McCain, who actually embodies the values they ostensibly celebrate.

September 5, 2008 2:03 AM

dsmth said:

"In a sense, McCain IS a mid-century presidential candidate; his call to duty and plainspoken celebration of community, honor, etc. has little to nothing to do with today's Republican Party."

It's "mid-century" only if you think it is.  A lot of people watching this tonight may not be as quick to consign community, honor, etc., to the dead past.

I've been thinking that the Republican party needs some time in the wilderness -- time for the sour old men to die off.  But from watching a few Republican politicians on Tavis Smiley tonight, I'm beginning to wonder if there can't maybe be effective reform without the wilderness time.  Some of these people are smart, articulate, attractive -- not troglodytes at all. But this should be a Democratic year, and a few years out of power will probably be salutary.  The problem is, we need at least two actively competing parties to keep everyone's feet to the fire.

The success of McCain's speech was as much in the delivery and the rapport with the audience as in the words.  And it worked on television, where is where it matters most, of course.  Good theater.

Obama's speech also worked on television, but we've become used to that.  What happened tonight was different, and refreshing.

September 5, 2008 2:33 AM

CharlesFosterKane said:

Heh. I just got the title.

September 5, 2008 2:41 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

This "call to duty" is galling.  He and his foaming white brethren spend a great deal of time mocking people who have done just that, sacrificing a great deal to contribute to the betterment of their country and fellow citizens.

I looked forward to Obama and McCain attending a conference at Columbia University soon on public service, perhaps McCain will deign to come down off his white horse and answer questions on how he can attack people who answer "his" (talk about self absorbed) call to service.

We don't need John McCain calling us to do anything.  Milllions of us do it every day.  

September 5, 2008 7:30 AM

CharlesFosterKane said:

Wandrey, I'd make the distinction between McCain and his "foaming white brethren" - and I think they would too given the serious LACK of rapport (sorry, dsmith) in the conventional hall last night.

September 5, 2008 7:53 AM

mjhollerich said:

I listened to it on radio too (minus the Ovaltine), having grown up in a house that didn't get a tv until I was ten years old.  But I don't see much tv even now, and so I'm not as attuned to the visual detractions to which Fairbanks refers.  I thought the voice seemed unsteady and even a little lost, as though he were having to summon extra effort.  Even the ending cadence sounded staged and strained.

As for the substance...obviously he was trying to move to the middle (Palin was the complement here) and to put distance between himself and the previous eight years of misrule.  I don't think it'll work, or at least I hope it won't.  Not sure what anyone can do to reverse the national economic slide, though Friedman's green economy (reprised by Obama and now by McCain) may be the best bet.  See last week's Lizza New Yorker article on Colorado's Ritter.  But I have no competence here.

As for the prison narrative, yes, it was well done.  But it doesn't do much to make me want him for president.  I question his judgment -- please, no more impulsive and instinctual foreign policies -- and I don't trust it (his general character I'm still a little unsure about, though he's always been more appealing than Bush).

September 5, 2008 8:14 AM

catsndolls said:

I too liked McCain's speech very much, but I too heard it in the background rather than watching it.  I thought it was a fine, patriotic speech.  It reminded me why I thought McCain was the best of the Republican party.  Too bad he had to cement his ties with the radical fringe with his choice of vp.  A McCain/Lieberman ticket might not have won the election, but they could have reminded us why we love America.  All in all, it sounded like a farewell address instead of a stump speech.

September 5, 2008 8:23 AM

literatehobo said:

My wife and I listened on the radio, and were both impressed and moved. However, the speech helped clarify why we have decided to support Obama: the reactions and priorities of the crowd which McCain was addressing.

I deeply respect McCain, despite his odd right-wing campaign, and fully believe that he would be an ethical, honorable, independant president. Were he running as an independant with a respectable VP, he'd have a real shot at my support. But the party he's affiliated with has no interest in that. The sickening "drill, baby, drill" chants and other such wingnuttery underscore the overall ostrich approach of the Republican party. I've come to the conclusion that I am voting, not just for the candidate, but even more so for the party and its priorities. The underlying priorities of the Republican party as a whole clash so viciously with those of the Democratic party (particularly domestically) that I cannot give a vote in support of it, even to a candidate whom I suspect does not really support the worst of those priorities. Obama has come to the center and pulled his party with him. McCain has been pulled by his party to its wing.

Listening to the crowd last night also reinforced something I wrote the other day; that while I tend more toward McCain on foreign policy and Obama on domestic, I think McCain's party's domestic policies would undercut his foreign policy far more than Obama's party's domestic policies would undercut their foreign policy. Listening to the whisper of cheers for sane policies (mixing renewables with nuclear energy, etc.) versus the thunderous roar for absurd ones (drilling, massive tax cuts), demonstrated why I cannot support that party despite its honorable nominee.

McCain moved me; the crowd lost me. It's as simple as that.

September 5, 2008 9:04 AM

literatehobo said:

BTW, I liked the line McCain used about government standing in people's way, as I tend to agree, but I would have gone one step further:

"The Democrats believe that government can lead us out of trouble; but when they're out in front, they're also blocking your path. I will stand by your side in these tough times, but not in your way."

Wandrey,

I noticed that McCain made a point of NOT just calling out to the military, but evoking service to country as "teaching an illiterate adult to read, running for office" among a long list of other honorable services. I thought it was one of his best moments, a wider call to service than Republicans usually offer. Predictably, the "foaming white brethern" gave it a tepid response, supporting my argument above. I really would separate the two.

September 5, 2008 9:13 AM

ischultz said:

Eve, here's what struck me most. Every time McCain would make some sort of statement that would garner applause, he would ruin the moment by IMMEDIATELY looking down at his notes to get ready for his next line. Normally, Obama would say that, then cock his head up and look around and absorb it. You really felt like he was reading his speech instead of actually delivering it! McCain did this constantly throughout his speech and lost my concentration in listening to his words because I was waiting for him to do idiosyncratically look down at the end of an important sentence. Maybe that's why on radio it seemed better.

September 5, 2008 10:20 AM

michael said:

As the campaign proceeded, McCain seemed more pathetic. It isn't just his age, the character switch to untie himself to Bush, the repetitive mistakes or even his obvious loss of more than a step since '00.

By the time his acceptance speech drifted back to the sixties he seemed to labor on for too long and his captivity was even sadder. The wretched years were overused by the speechwriters and it made him appear stuck back there. Telling more of it could have the crowd think more of him, but only while he was telling it. People thought more of him but it wasn't a story he could carry into the future, I've been dropping in the Lawrence line, "Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy." but o'l John has reduced himself to Willie Lowman and Sarah only sharpened the contrast between the new and old. The fighter past his prime and the lack of plans in the speech fit a person who was only hanging around to win and the new energy on the ticket better come through...

It was a speech for a hall of fame winner, someone accepting an honorary Oscar or even an introduction for someone else. But it was a tale of where he'd been rather than what he was planning.

Yes, I'm tired of hearing "...don't count him out, he's been down before, he's a fighter and keeps getting back up...". I heard that during the primary that he won and when his opponents took the stage the provided the same contrast that Sarah did: They were part of the present if not the future. When it was McCain's turn to make the sale he had to rely on nostalgia for what an honorable person had done but lacking in utility for the future.

For all the talk about how Biden would have to be careful to not insult, or appear patronizing to Palin I think she took the sympathy ploy out of play. But McCain will need more than a Salter "Let me tell you my story..." in a debate against Obama.

McCain's may have told a good story but it wasn't a good speech in terms of direction. Worse, much of it couldn't be defended. A debate is framing what you will do, not why you are grateful to finally be there. Obama know's where he's going and John better begin to see a future before the debates.

September 5, 2008 10:26 AM

icarusr said:

Literate: great post.  

"I've come to the conclusion that I am voting, not just for the candidate, but even more so for the party and its priorities."  

From day one, that has been my argument here.  I really don't like McCain - I didn't back in 2000 and have not been impressed by him since then - but that is neither here nor there.  I guess in Canada I'm used to voting for the Party and not the person; I have hated each and every candidate I have ever voted for, but have been satisfied, more or less, with the Party's programme ... in the US, the issue really does come down the issues, the policies, and at the end of the day, to the extent the person is relevant, judgement: McCain's selection of Palin was, or ought to have been, the last straw on that score ...

September 5, 2008 10:42 AM

benjamin81 said:

I also thought it wasn't a bad speech. I saw it on TV, but I guess I was looking away from the screen enough that I only caught the audio (and the bizarro green and blue screens behind McCain). It was markedly better than Palin's mediocre attack speech.

I hope this bodes well for Obama's performance in the televised debates.

September 5, 2008 10:43 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Ok, that's a fair case Literate and Charles.  

But how do I separate these two?

This is his party and his convention, his delagates, his surrogates, his VP doing the attacking.  

It's too big of a leap for me to do the old wink wink and allow that John McCain actually *respects* community organizers - a big professional category, BTW - when making scapegoats of them to pander while running for President.  

Obama has nothing but kind words for how John McCain's chose to serve his country, even after McCain has flogged the POW story to the point that it's become a sad parody.

Even though I do find your case fair, I'm of the mind that either you own it or disown or accept the consequences to your credibility.

September 5, 2008 10:44 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Willie Lowman - devastating Michael, perfect.

September 5, 2008 10:47 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

BTW - He does have a chance to redeem himself if he the moral courage he brags he has.  He has the perfect opportunity at Columbia actually.  What, is he worried about of assistant public health teachers are going to jump him?  

I have seen that moral courage too, but not for a very long time and its been a depressing spectacle to watch him squander that.  Shakespearan.

I had a framed picture of him on my kitchen wall for two years: NYT article with the headline: John McCain calls Christian Right 'Agents of Intolerance.'  That was thrilling.

Short lived, huh?  

He sold his soul to a place I can't follow him!

September 5, 2008 11:00 AM

literatehobo said:

Wandrey,

I understand. To draft off michael's point about McCain giving a Lifetime Achievement Award speech, I think I've come to view him the way I might, say, Brett Favre were I a Packers fan. Remember the greatness, respect the fight and the integrety, choose to overlook the late oddballness that diminishes his legacy. I will continue to respect him for the scope of his life and achievements while deciding that this particular version needs to be defeated, in the same way that a Packers fan would cheer Favre upon his trotting onto Lambeau for the first time in a foreign uniform, then proceed to boo him lustily throughout the game and thoroughly root for a Packers win. Not cognitive dissonance so much as compartmentalization.

Obviously the stakes are much higher here, which makes your point more salient that folks such as myself can't just rest complacently on "McCain's a good man, wouldn't be so bad if he won". We are accepting the consequences in that we have started to make significant (for us) donations to the Obama campaign and are considering finding time to volunteer once the growing season starts to wind down, whereas a month ago we were pretty much sitting it out. Does that help?

September 5, 2008 11:16 AM

singlespeed said:

One could almost sense the sadness listening to McCain try to garner any semblance of enthusiasm from the delegates on the floor (and these are supposed to be HIS delegates). I heard the speech from the other room so it was like I was listening to the radio. The sad reality is whenever I happened to catch bits and piece of the other speeches on the boob tube, by in large the folks in the crowd seemed rather blase and none to enthusiastic about the convention. Exceptions were the red meat speeches by Guliani and Palin. But even that seemed forced. The camera pans over the near lifeless crowd and lots of empty seats spoke volumes to the state of the small-tent party that McCain is leading.

When he ran against Bush I really felt he was the better person in 2000. But realized that the subsequent character assassination of the man during that election only made clear that for all the patriotic double-talk the Republican party prides itself for was too swift to hang out to dry a decorated Vet for what? Maintaining the GOP status quo. What respect I had for the GOP went out the door the moment they nominated Bush Jr. Now McCain has slowly slid into that good night from a man who could maneuver among the fringe of the GOP and get things done to become a parody of himself in order be a strident-tow-the line GOP presidential hack nominee.

Were he running as an independent he would/could have done more but I saw this RNC as a sad reminder of how much the man as fallen in his reaching for the ring. It's as if he knows he sold his soul to the devil and now knows he's got to meet his end of the bargain.

September 5, 2008 11:35 AM

michael said:

Wandreycer1, I suppose invoking a Willie Lowman can't be done without unloading a ton of bricks when the person is candidate is using the opportunity to head into the home stretch. It became painful to see him grasping for anything and everything in the past to justify why he was worthy.

He  was asking for a reward and did not promise a plan. His campaign had so relied on him being more qualified in years of service that the writers were deaf to a country begging for change.  A litany of merits can't be so great or numerous that the sum of good deeds will explain how he will govern us out of this mess.  

Yes, the saddest part of a salesman's life it you're only as good as your next deal.  

When I was fresh out of college ('78) I managed a boiler room. I had an guy on the staff, John C, Hutcheson. He was McCain's age and sold everything from grave stones to securities. He could spin the best tales all day but when he was on the phone with a customer he wasn't working, he was reminiscing. His charm, past expertise and convincing will to prevail didn't matter. He wasn't producing.

I realized he wasn't there for the measly money and I didn't have the heart to fire him. It would only confirm he was washed up.

Yeah, it would be tough to cast my vote for Barack in front of McCain. I don't want to tell him to his face that he lost his stuff and he'd be in over his head for the next four years.

September 5, 2008 11:42 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Literate, I wish I was as objective and calm as you always are.  I think if I had supported Hillary, I might have been able to give anything until the convention - if then.   I'm awfully loyal.  If you think I support Obama, it has nothing on my support for Bill Clinton.  I was a total Clintonista, I love that name.

I have found myself  really missing Hillary and feeling bad about the primary.  She's still someone whose bad side I would not want to get on, but that's part of her larger than life self.

You are very forgiving of McCain, I am not there yet.  I'm afraid I find the Christian Right to be wicked. I do prefer the term "Christianist," contrived as I know it sounds, its much more concise about who I mean. Accidentallly including my kind heaarted, progessive Christian Mom in that category is something I just can't do.

I know I'm doing the same thing they are, but I can't help it.  It is my truth.  

I am completely with Christopher Hiitchens on the Religion Ruins Everything school of thought, esPECIally in public policy or political power.  I've been watching us slide down that slope since I was in high school and Reagan came in office.  I started loathing those people then.  It was easy when it was Jerry Fallwell and the boys.  Remember the lovely Randal Terry?  Looked like an axe murdering maniac?  I let the air out of his tires once, which I'm infinately proud of, small as it is.

I'm not going quietly in to a theocracy in this country.  We have a separation of church and state for very good reasons.  Our country was founded on enlightenment principles of justice, wisdom inquiry, humility.  All of which are the anti-thesis of any religious fundamentalist, it doesn't matter which religion.

They raise my hackles in an almost cellular way, they strike me as enormously dangerous.  I refuse to cede another ounce of the public square - and certainly not my personal rights -  to them without a knock down drag out fight this time.  I will not be dictated to by religious fundamentalists in any way shape or form.  Period.

September 5, 2008 11:49 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

oops, make that "I might *not* be able to give anything until the convention, if then..."

September 5, 2008 11:55 AM

chmclean said:

What Wandrey said. Back when I thought HRC might win the nomination I swore I'd vote for McCain instead. I'm ashamed of that now, as it has been made clear that the Republican Party, and worse, John McCain himself, is still owned by the religious right. You're right, Wandrey; my biggest disappointment with McCain is his backsliding on the "agents of intolerance" statement. It's really pathetic to see him pandering to the lunatic fringe of his party with the Palin pick.

September 5, 2008 12:15 PM

Daily Intel said:

How could you possibly allow another puke-green background!?!

September 5, 2008 12:19 PM

michael said:

Wandreycer1, I think if you see a defeated McCain he can make it easier to understand him if not forgive him. I can see how and why he became so convinced there was a purpose to his suffering. The POTUS became a real and true proof, he could explain those lost years the longer he pursued an end so he was willing to pave the path with compromise that was first honorable and when that failed he cut the deals that were necessary.

He may not be a Dole who still looks back a '96 as a woulda, shoulda, coulda. A McCain who concedes with the intent to return to the Senate and not be a bitter obstructionist will have to abandon the fringe concerns. No, you may not forgive him for his desperate deals to get to '08 but it isn't impossible for him to earn respect for his conduct as a legislator and that is a valid path to redemption...if not for what he did to win the office of POTUS.

September 5, 2008 12:30 PM

sfifeadams said:

Great point about how it played on the radio.  My reaction watching last night was that it was a terrible speech, poorly delivered.  But re-hearing snippets on the radio this morning, McCain sounded sharp and confident; the impression I would have gotten had I not watched it was that he'd done a pretty good job.

September 5, 2008 12:51 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Michael - if he loses, no problem.  

But McCain still empowered them, allowed them to matastisize into a new generation of increasingly extreme fundamentalist politicos (as these things always go throughout history) more determinded than ever.  They'll even have thier victim card all revved up and ready to go- and that, no matter how much I understand and accept the yin/yang nature of people - is his legacy.

Yes, it is sad, because he knew that and tried to stand up to it, instead he sold his soul to it.  It has a Lord of the Rings quality to it, doesn't it?

September 5, 2008 12:56 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

In the end, if you are looking for a contrast in character that comes from this campaign - McCain did not trust himself and Obama did.  

McCain had an enormous opportunity to do the very best thing he could have done for this country: taken on the Taliban wing of his party, with no fear, balls to the wall - Kamikaze - with humor and energy.  I have no doubt in my mind that the polls would be tied still at this point.

And millions would still respect him, which seems what he constantly craves more than anything.

But he didn't.  And it was more important for him to get in that seat than to do the right thing.

September 5, 2008 1:01 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Heard the first half hour or so on the radio, driving home, then read the speech on realclearpolitics.com, never saw any of it on the small or smaller screens. A few thoughts:

1. The voiceover and the music for the biopic-- again, I only heard this, didn't/haven't seen it-- were downmarket. Maybe I'm sensitive to voiceovers because I've been listening to the great, recently departed voiceover king, DOn LaFontaine, in recent days, but the Lawn Guyland narrator was annoying and weird. I could be missing something, but I don't see any connection between the son of Arizona-- over which, we're now told, the sun rises, instead of in the east-- and a voice lifted from The Sopranos. The music was cheesy, synthetic, had no coherence or logical progression. Together, these two diminished a story that should have, and in fact is, vastly more impressive than anything we've heard about or from McCain's opponent, who to me is underwhelming.

2. Following this disappointing start, McCain's voice was unimpressive. He lacked authority and energy, sounded hoarse and tired. The determination showed through, but he came across as old. Definitely older than I recall him seeming when I heard him and met him in person last summer, when his campaign was at its nadir and he prob. I notice the same variation in my 82 year-old father's voice. His will is iron but the stamina's not there.

3. A speaker like a dance partner or a lover does not perform in isolation; he has to play off of, give and get energy from, his partner which in this case is the crowd. McCain's audience was completely out of synch with him. He began talking about real pain suffered by real Americans and was interrupted by bizarre chanting -- IIRC they were actually chanting USA! USA! At another point he had trouble shutting them up. The effect wasn't so much surreal as sad. It increased my sympathy for McCain, but it made him seem like some kind of prophet without honor, or maybe Antony (?) trying to restrain the mob in _Julius Caesar_. Fair or not, this doesn't reflect well on the speaker, whose authority is diminished thereby.

4. Listening to the first half of McCain's speech, I couldn't detect a clear theme-- not because it wasn't there but because I was distracted and disturbed by the weird disconnect between him and his audience.

Now, this morning I read the speech on realclearpolitics.com and couldn't believe this was the same speech that I (partially) heard last night. The themes were clear, and powerful. The focus on economic insecurity was strong and compelling. An equally compelling focus on energy security. Proper length and weight accorded to Putin's fascist gangster regime.

As happened to me last summer in San Jose, I was astonished by the huge gap between McCain the halting and stiff speaker behind a podium and McCain one-on-one, between the standard American rubber-chicken or flapdoodle BS orator and McCain engaging you directly, five feet away from you, as I encountered him after his speech. The former is weak and dispiriting, the latter is impressive, funny, honest, engaging.

Here's hoping he can avoid having to stand behind a podium again. He's a genuine leader, the real deal, but the conventions of US political speechifying are all wrong for him.

Pity we can't have McCain as POTUS/Commander-in-Chief and Obama as Podium Speaker-in-Chief.

September 5, 2008 2:05 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Maybe the obvious disconnect between McCain and his party will encourage Obama to likewise detach himself clearly and forcefully from the MoveOnners and the anti-drilling, pigheaded Pelosi wing of the party.

Were Obama to have the stones and the vision to do so-- admitting he was wrong on the surge and reversing himself on drilling, perhaps also standing up for Yushchenko before he's either assassinated or overthrown in a Kremlin-engineered coup-- I'd be strongly tempted to support him. A big "if," I know.

September 5, 2008 2:23 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Tep, you are asking Obama to speak loudly and carry a hypothetical stick. A Presidential CANDIDATE can do nothing but talk on an issue like this. Even a threat carries the serious caveat, "if I am elected President."

The only thing I think the candidates could realistically do would be to stand together and make a common announcement (with Bush as well) that all three share a policy to stand up for Yushchenko. First, that won't happen because the candidates are trying to define separation between each other, and also between them and Bush. Second, what would it mean in any case? Would US or NATO troops go to Ukraine? Would any of them do anything other than bluster? If so, what exactly can they do? Please give specifics.

September 5, 2008 3:08 PM

icarusr said:

"prophet without honor, or maybe Antony (?) trying to restrain the mob in _Julius Caesar_. "

Um, are we talking about Shakespear's Julius Caesar?  Antony was not trying to restrain the mob, but to rile it up - against Brutus.  Prophet without *honor* sounds about right, though.

As for Obama: he has already moved on drilling; and on Fox, he said that the surge has been successful "beyond our wildest dreams", which is about as much as you can expect on that, given his basic opposition to the enterprise in the first place.

September 5, 2008 3:16 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Jeff - "what would it mean in any case? Would US or NATO troops go to Ukraine?" Of course not. Neither did we send troops to Czechoslovakia after Stalin engineered a coup there in 1948. But Truman diid finally pass the very controversial, bitterly opposed Marshall Plan shortly thereafter.

The equivalent of the Marshall Plan in 2009 would be an EU-US $200B alternative energy effort aimed at pooling our vast scientific, managerial and market and financial resources in order to subsidize, fund and in every way humanly possible, ACCELERATE the development of fuels and technologies that will eliminate Putin's only real lever, his use of pipelines as energy blackmail.

We could also include the Japanese, maybe even the Chinese. It would make no sense to include the Russians-- whose science programs have been gutted, anyway, by the general shambles that is the criminalized Russian state-- because Putin-Mobutu's entire strategy is based on Siberian oil and gas.

This isn't the kind of small-bore bullsh*t about Kiddie Korps yupsters doing community organizing for a year or two. Obama himself recognizes that stuff is feckless and meaningless. But this is the only real chance we have of ending Putin's blackmail and preserving the gains of 1989. A huge challenge that can only by met through combined EU-US resolve, and sweat, and many many billions of research $$ and subsidies.

Oh, and courageous, visionary LEADERSHIP.

September 5, 2008 3:39 PM

michael said:

tep, I wonder how many voters Barack would sway by running from the Pelosi wing, moveon and going further than he's done is explaining his positions on the surge?

Compare your list to McCain's refusal to admit invading Iraq was foolish, (Billo has) ignoring the Iraqi's demand for a date for withdrawal, not allowing any circumstance for abortion, keeping the Bush tax cuts, making health care part of tax reform rather than comprehensive reform and refusing to allow the top economic powers membership in world organizations.

No, I don't know why voters may be unsure but I doubt if your list will tip those who are conflicted and McCain may need to do more than agree to my longer list to move toward center.

But if both agreed to cross off the above? You'd be pleased and Barack wouldn't show much more of a gain but we'd see McCain lose most of his base and not be able to offset their lose with gains from the center.

You may be typical of a voter ripe conversion. That is, Obama agrees with you and wins. I think both candidates and their supporters are divided over a list of issues and your concerns aren't among their top 10-20.  Even if the polls are correct in reflecting a close race that isn't the same as assuming one two or three policy changes on the margin will move a few key states.  

Clearly, McCain needed to be more popular with his base and may have done so without changing his policies...he added glamor to the ticket. But voters have concluded which policies they associate with each person and unsure does not mean don't agree.  

However, you do explain why John stayed away from details last night. A clearer display on where he stands would only close the deal for Obama by proving he's on the wrong side of the most vital issues. His only hope is with the flash of Sarah and the tired and unfounded insults of Obama. Simply put: McCain has lacks a platform to lock up the unsure so he's buying time by keeping them confused and afraid.

But I'd be curious to see you list the fewest issues that would move the most unsure one way or another. See, I think the dynamics are complicated and any tampering to force the undecided will do more net harm to the those who are locked in on either side. Yes, it's beyond pleasing them or you and citing the need for minor or major shifts is not why this is a seemingly close race. When people decide and are honest for their reason, Barack should roll over McCain. His loss or a close finish means they care about something and it isn't issue or policy oriented.

September 5, 2008 4:11 PM

teplukhin2you said:

A note to the above: BHO says he wants to spend $15b per year. I'm arguing for $200b every year, across the US, EU and Japan, with shared admin and other support services so that every single dollar possible goes to the scientists and consumer-adopters.

September 5, 2008 4:29 PM

ironyroad said:

"Neither did we send troops to Czechoslovakia after Stalin engineered a coup there in 1948. But Truman diid finally pass the very controversial, bitterly opposed Marshall Plan shortly thereafter.

The equivalent of the Marshall Plan in 2009 would be an EU-US $200B alternative energy effort aimed at pooling our vast scientific, managerial and market and financial resources in order to subsidize, fund and in every way humanly possible, ACCELERATE the development of fuels and technologies that will eliminate Putin's only real lever, his use of pipelines as energy blackmail."

Yes yes yes!  This comes closer to what a lot of us have been saying, tep.  It's pointless speaking loudly and then looking around for your stick at a moment of crisis, which has been McCain's (and the administration's -- with the execption fo Bob Gates) theory of how to respond to Russian assertiveness.  We have to think clearly, avoid bluster, and reconstruct the kind of transatlantic understanding that provided for both our defense and the defense of Western Europe during the Cold War.  It wasn't perfect, there were considerable disagreements -- including over Viet Nam -- but it was a robust relationship that made crucial sense at that moment in history.

High-flown rhetoric about democracy aside, the point of NATO, as one British political leader cynically put it, was to keep "the Americans here [in Europe], the Germans down, and the Russians out."  It's going to be difficult, and maybe dangerous, to try to recreate that dynamic if the "here" extends to the eastern borders of the Ukraine.  I'm not saying it's wrong to go down the path of NATO membership for sovereign states that apply, but increasing Russian paranoia is not going to give Georgia or the Balts more restful nights in the longer term.  Nevertheless, it is in the interests of everyone not to allow new democracies to slide back under Russian domination (I strongly suspect the Russians will not try anything with the Baltic States, as their integration with the West is substantial at this stage, but the Ukraine will be a knotty one).  But let's at least be honest with those countries, with Russia, and with ourselves about how far we'll go to defend their independence.

I agree that something like a North Atlantic Energy Consortium is needed to pool both American and European research and other strategic assets toward the creation of Russia-proof fuel supply structures, at least to the degree that Russia cannot blackmail any longer as their slice of the market becomes reduced.  However, we can't give up on democratic forces in Russia either, and turning the country into a pariah is not going to help Georgia, the Europeans, or the United States in the medium-to-longer term.

September 5, 2008 4:40 PM

teplukhin2you said:

michael - I'm not giving Obama advice on how to win. If I were his paid campaign advisor-- paid to win, mind you-- I'd be advising him to play every nasty card in the deck, and slam McCain on his age health and fitness to be president. Take no prisoners, so to speak. That's what campaign advisors do.

That's not what this discussion is all about. I'm talking here about what's best for the nation. That said, in MI OH and the rest of the rustbelt, there probably is some upside from the Energy Marshall Plan, a goodly chunk of which would go toward worker retraining in the installation, servicing etc of all those alt energy technologies. You could easily create, in short order, as many green collar jobs as have been shed by Detroit's Big 2.5 in the last five years. (There you go, you've just sewn up Macomb County MI and are well on your way to winning MI's 17 EC votes.)

None of this is very new or original, I know, except for the RATIONALE. This is where Obama blows it. The goal is not, per Pelosi's idiotic formulation, to "save the planet" but to save what used to be known as The West. ie the community of free nations whose independence and self-respect are now threatened by fascist oil producing gangster states.

Frame it in those terms-- national security, freedom, dignity and self-respect-- and you'll win over the swing voters. This is especially the case for Obama, who gives off a very strong green-crunchy oneworld vibe that blinds him to the clear and present danger posed by Putin and Ajad.

September 5, 2008 4:43 PM

tomeg said:

Thanks for the tip, tep. ("tip, tep"?...whatever) I will read the text. I could not bring myself to watch or listen yesterday. I ran out of jam for electoral politics this week - G-d, how long has it been since this year's campaign started? January 2007? No, don't remind me, please.

Also, though I didn't watch her acceptance speech either, Palin, (I never stop being astonished and dismayed by Republican candidates, the weird stuff they do and say. I'm highly biased, though [obviously], so please forebear.)

September 5, 2008 4:48 PM

teplukhin2you said:

michael - "I'd be curious to see you list the fewest issues that would move the most unsure one way or another. "

Fewest? That would be one, right? Easy: energy security as the core of national security AND economic security.

For McCain: show that he cares about and has a meaningful plan to reduce economic insecurity-- GOP/ClubforGrowth ideological orthodoxies be damned.

For Obama: show that he cares about and has a meaningful plan to enhance national security-- Dem/MoveOnner/Academic OneWorlder ideological orthodoxies be damned.

Solution for McCain: Energy Marshall Plan with huge subsidies to create greencollar jobs ASAP.

Solution for Obama: Energy Marshall Plan with strong emphasis on bucking up Germany and saving Ukraine, Balts, Poland and the rest of the gains of 1989.

September 5, 2008 4:49 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"It's going to be difficult, and maybe dangerous, to try to recreate that dynamic if the "here" extends to the eastern borders of the Ukraine"

I wouldn't know how to thwart the, well, Byzantine manuevers going on now in that country and in the Kremlin, but in terms of possible outcomes, perhaps the best we can hope for is that Urkaine splits in two, with the western 2/3ds joining the EU, the eastern Russian-dominated 1/3d being absorbed into Russia, the Russian fleet remaining in Sebastopol and a new US naval base elsewhere on the Black Sea.

IOW, 21c Ukraine as a less-militarized version of late 20c Germany: divided, balanced, not at war or fully at peace, but offering no surprises. Stable.

September 5, 2008 5:01 PM

ironyroad said:

"This is especially the case for Obama, who gives off a very strong green-crunchy oneworld vibe that blinds him to the clear and present danger posed by Putin and Ajad."

Tep, I think we have to make an important distinction here between those aspects of policy that are genuinely transnational and those that involve the strategic interests of the U.S. and our allies (apparently we still have a couple).

There is no way that we can bully or quick-fix our way toward energy indepdendence, and every reason to grasp that climate change is something that has a global framework that can't be wished away by bellowing U-S-A! U-S-A! and hoping the noise will drown out the science.  Policies on emissions, technology impact, and territorial/geological/climatological crisis need international cooperation or they won't happen.  American air isn't different from other people's air, and shifts in the Gulf Stream, for example, could affect all sides of the Atlantic world.  Our job is leadership on those major problems confronting humanity, not pretending that the Border Patrol will do the job.

On the other hand there are clearly strategic problems that are unlikely to be solved by appealing to the self-interests of all governments.  Iran is an obvious one, Russia is now another.  Confrontation may come about, even if we don't want it.  However, in the longer-term, some way has to be found that will permit a de-escalation of tension (where possible) and the Bush-Cheney tendency to sneer at that option for years on end while grudgingly embracing it in the last months is not exactly an impressive model.  Obama has said nothing that would suggest he's unrealistic about this -- and in fact, I'd be a tad worried that he'd feel he'd have to prove his f-p cojones by risking something that he might otherwise think inadvisable).

In any case, I think it's important to distinguish between these two areas of policy, one in which the problems and solutions have to be transnational, and one in which traditional power politics still rule -- we need new thinking on both, and a crunchy-green one-world vibe may be one useful way we can regain global credibility in certain areas that matter.  Soft power is power too, and it's only when you lose it that you realize how valuable it was.

September 5, 2008 6:52 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Tep, I like your alternative energy Marshall Plan, but it will take years and that may not be a timescale that helps Ukraine. What can we do for Ukraine this year, given that we are not going to invite them into NATO effective immediately?

September 5, 2008 7:01 PM

teplukhin2you said:

1.  Push Merkel and Sarko to support fast-tracking EU membership for Ukraine.

2. Freeze the assets of one or more of the Ukrainian bandit-stooges of the Kremlin who are now trying to overthrow Yushchenko. The FBI went after Lazarenko (?), the former PM IIRC, of Ukraine who had laundered millions into California real estate, at the end of the 1990s. THey can go after a few others now.

3. If there's another deep water port on the Black Sea in Turrkey or Bulgaria, start negotiating with that country about a US naval base there. In any case keep sending warships through the straits. Show the flag.

4. Most important of all, stop US political bickering at the water's edge. Brzezinski and McFaul should prevail upon Young Obama to come out, strongly, in favor of Yushchenko and Ukrainian sovereignty. Demonstrate to Putin there can be no divide and conquer strategy in the US, that both parties will vigorously contest his fascist thuggery and attempts to roll back 1989's achievements.

September 5, 2008 7:25 PM

tomeg said:

JEFF FREY:

"What can we do for Ukraine this year, given that we are not going to invite them into NATO effective immediately?"

Forgive me for butting in, but re: Ukraine (and for that matter, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, not to mention Poland) this would be an excellent opportunity for Obama's "aggressive negotiation," by lassoing Germany, Britain, UK, and If they could ever go along to get along, France, (China??) to collectively make clear what will not be tolerated, and what will happen if Russia oversteps again.

Could that realistically be done? Tep???

September 5, 2008 7:32 PM

tomeg said:

What tep said.

September 5, 2008 7:34 PM

tomeg said:

Sorry, Britain and UK are, uh, the same, aren't they? Duh.

September 5, 2008 7:55 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Hooray for some specifics!

Tep's 4 points sound good to me, and I agree that all of this is ultimately tied to energy security. The EU needs to act to make sure that EU countries can redistribute oil and gas within the EU as needed so that Russia cannot starve out any single EU member on energy without taking on the EU as a whole. One thing that is interesting about that is that energy security and a free market for energy are not completely compatible. After all, the price vis a vis other alternatives is why Germany, for instance, is now so dependent on Russian oil and gas. Are our Republicans such absolute market fanatics that they would not be willing to act against market forces in a case like this? I wonder. But Obama would have no ideological problem with such a program.

Russia will REALLY not like Tep's #3. Which means if it is done we must be prepared to deal with the negative consequences of it.

September 5, 2008 8:00 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Yes. Go after the money.

All of Putin's gangsters, who pretend to such great patriotism, have their money, and most have their families, in Britain, Switzerland, France or NY-NJ. We know where they are, and I'm sure that we can find out where most of the money is. (Hint: UBS and Credit Suisse are desperate not to lose their charters in the US. They're eminently persuadable).

There has been an average of, IIUC, ~$20b in capital flight from Russia per annum for the last 17 years or so-- $21B in the last month alone, per the FT. So at least $200b in Russian gangster money in Western property, banks, shares. And keep in mind that "gangster" means state connected. In one way or another, they're all connected to the Russian government.

September 5, 2008 8:00 PM

ironyroad said:

I'm sorry to be pouring cold water on everyone's plans for teaching the Russians a lesson, but these plans are long-term solutions that depend upon a certain amount of luck, planning, and vision.  The vision, however, cannot consist simply of facing down Putin in a particular limited context and hoping that it all blows our way afterwards.  For example, there is a fairly substantial proportion of the Ukranian population who feel Russian and see themselves as Russians.  Are they to be excluded from Ukranian civic life, because they don't have the same agenda?  This is a demographic reality that can't be resolved by announcing a speed-track for EU membership.  

In fact, EU membership is contingent upon a certain number of basic political, legal, and economic structures being in place.  The other EU countries may not see it as just a quick ok, and the Ukraine can go ahead and print the new passports (in fact, there's a kind of fissure opening up at the moment between the working-class/populist and middle-class/educated parts of the electorate in many EU countries -- witness the Irish referendum on the "constitution" and the hesitation of the Czechs on the same issue).  Europe-wide geopolitical decisions may run into a lot of trouble.

In fact, current Russian bluster (which it is, although rather more successful than ours) hides the fact that their system is weak and profoundly unattractive -- in contrast to Europe.  The attempt to assert a kind of military might as an act of political nostalgia seems like a scream of defensiveness and resentment.  From the POV of the Russian leadership and a huge majority of the population, they've been treated like pond scum for too long and now it's payback time.

September 5, 2008 9:59 PM

CharlesFosterKane said:

Come on, people, aren't we supposed to be talking about Palin's pregnant daughter? Bristol over Putin.

Seriously, though, thanks all for keeping me informed. That's why I like this website (when I'm not taking months off to recover from primary fatigue, that is).

September 5, 2008 11:12 PM

tomeg said:

"Russia will REALLY not like Tep's #3. Which means if it is done we must be prepared to deal with the negative consequences of it."

That is why some form of #3 is needed. If Russia's nose isn't seriously put out of joint by the response, that will mean she hasn't really got the message, yet.

September 6, 2008 11:12 AM

GSpinks said:

Its not that I don't disagree with Tep's plan for insulting, humiliating and aggravating the bear in the woods, but it seems to me that we have two weaknesses which must be addressed significantly before we start something: military depletion due to Iraq and Afghanistan, and petroleum consumption.

And all else aside, there is only 1 candidate who has convinced me, to any degree, that they not only understand these issues, but have a plan to directly address them. Hint: it isn't McCain.

September 6, 2008 12:24 PM

GSpinks said:

s/don't disagree/don't agree/g

September 6, 2008 1:47 PM

michael said:

Tep, I agree that a dramatic Marshall-type energy plan would be a brain-number for the GOP but I can hear the Big Government reply already. Their standard health care un-fix is "Do you want government between you and you Dr.?"

You isolate the Rust Belt states and I live in one (IN). The problem isn't Obama's policy, foreign or domestic. The 10-20 point difference between issues (his) where they agree and his numbers is all to be found in the 40-50+ demo. He has a giant lead among under 40's. Indiana is closer than anyone expected (It's within a couple points here, Bush beat Kerry by 20+ and no Dem won since LBJ...not bad, 'eh?)

There is clearly a more insidious hurdle that only new-voters, turn out of the young can overcome.

But no, the energy proposal will keep the detail pickers busy and suck the oxygen...the GOP will still paint it as too costly, subject to corruption..bla, bla.

So, sign some kids up and pray.

September 6, 2008 3:49 PM

ChanRobt said:

dsmith writes, "...But this should be a Democratic year, and a few years out of power will probably be salutary."

This will be a Democratic year, dsmith, no matter who is elected president, there is little doubt that the Congress will remain Democratic.  Probably morse so than it currently is, and with a likely filibuster-proof Senate.

Having McCain as president will be the only check (outside of surviving Blue Dogs) against a Leftist slate of legislation and a retreatist foreign policy.

What you call "salutary," dsmith, I see as potentially cataclysmic.  I don't think we can afford the luxury of punishing Republicans generically without punishing the nation permanently.

September 6, 2008 5:16 PM

ironyroad said:

Normally I'd agree, but I think the last decade or so makes punishing Republicans generically a completely justifiable way to go.

September 6, 2008 6:24 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"insulting, humiliating and aggravating  the bear in the woods"

Let's be clear: Russia is a great nation. Russia and its citizens deserve respect (and gratitude for defeating, almost singlehandedly, the Wehrmacht-- the Eastern Front was more than 10x greater in terms of casualties, both civilian and military than all the other fronts combined).  

I want to "insult, humiliate, aggravate", shame and freeze the ill-gotten assets of the gangsters who have taken over and criminalized the Russian state. They are not Russian patriots. They are not acting in Russia's national interests when they gut the state, loot Russia's vast natural resource wealth, destroy respect for and rule fo law in Russia, and assassinate dissidents and journalists and invade and bully their neighbors.

September 6, 2008 9:13 PM

teplukhin2you said:

michael - "There is clearly a more insidious hurdle that only new-voters, turn out of the young can overcome"

If by "insidious" you mean pernicious, and, to be blunt, racist, then I vigorously disagree with you. Older people respect battle scars, dues-paying, hard-won experience. Obama has none of the above. It's not about race.

September 6, 2008 9:16 PM

ironyroad said:

McCain's scars, earned honorably, are being used to justify something beyond what they support.  Getting shot down and surviving as a POW demand respect and not forgetting.  But let's be clear about one thing:  if Colin Powell was Democratic candidate, the Republicans would be denigrating him as much as they could, because they are that kind of party now -- they weren't before, but now they are.

It's kind of about race, actually, but in a way that people won't admit.  Obama represents a shift in what America is about, a sea-change in our idea of ourselves, and a lot of people are ok with that, but others aren't --- or need some time to think it through.

September 7, 2008 2:32 AM

michael said:

tep, I could have substituted subtle or complex but race is only part of what is an obstacle for a class-demo-psychographic. Many people would admit that Bill's charm and bullshit was so effective that they could admire it while not liking him. He was the salesman you wanted to tell, "OK, I'm convinced so let's hurry up I've got stuff to do.". Older or less educated people all knew several Bill Clinton's in their life and his wonkiness didn't stand out, it was woven into his pitch.

Barack can intimidate on two levels. The same power of his public speech that is charismatic or motivating is intimidating because television and radio and the telephone has reduced all communication to 1:1. A sports event? Fine for someone over sixty or so. Stadiums have been full of cheering fans who turned out for a team for the past century. But a rock star? Anyone who is too old to have experienced the phenom of a singer or a band in that setting probably has no positive reference point. It's the line after Sinatra-Elvis and Beatles-Stones. People watched a Vegas show and on is part of a rock concert. The very power to influence large groups which is familiar to many is threatening to those who associate it with the radical persona of the 60's. It might evoke anti-war or counter culture for a generation. Altamont or Woodstock? Not good and not a Super Bowl crowd.

On the personal level Barack is the opposite of his dynamic public character and few people see his style outside of a college classroom. It isn't the professor of a lecture hall but anyone who has had con law classes or even some philosophy would be comfortable with the plodding logic and his halting search for the correct word. But he's the opposite of Slick Willie and a less smart person will find his intelligence too sharp and his delivery provokes so non-critical thinker in insulted as opposed to the degeed person who is engaged.

I didn't mean to write a book but this thread will disappear anyway. And compared to the above public and more personal perceptions? His race is the least significant barrier in 2008. The whitest whites have plenty of AA in their ranking of people they not only respect but may have been a sort of hero in their life.  

The Barack who draws Woodstock crowds and the Dr, Obama who is answering a question in an interview and is "too smart for me" is a bad combo for a not small class of people.

My addy is in my bio and I can go on, but this is enough for online...

September 7, 2008 10:09 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Michael - agree that age is the correlation that leaps out of the data, but not your assessment of why age, not race, is the driver. When the social scientists try to parse the reasons why Obama underperformed this year-- specifically why so many Democratic voters split their tickets-- I believe that the really definitive social characteristic will be age, not racial bias. Older people can see a mile away that Obama's winging it and is out of his depth. This is what hard life experience teaches you.  

Your pop phenom notion doesn't make much sense. A 16 year-old bobby soxer ca. 1944 would be 80 years old today. Someone who went gaga over Elvis as a teen in 1955 would be 70 or older today. Hardly a man or woman is now alive who does not remember those famous rides. Whatever our age, we're all totally familiar and comfortable with the young pop-star phenomenon.

I just don't understand this line about how Obama is so unbelievably smart that degreed people will love him and uneducated people necessarily find him "intimidating." This doesn't square with his many and continuing extemporaneous performances-- in the debates, at Saddleback, after the invastion of Georgia, to name a few -- in which he comes across as fumbling and out of his depth. Mature adults, whatever their education, will agree that he's bright, but that's not the issue. He just hasn't done this before.

Like a rookie surgeon, or a rookie corporate VP rookie trial lawyer fresh out of (med)(business)(law) school, Obama when he's not in front of the teleprompter gives off an air of unearned confidence. His lack of experience in the national political arena is obvious. Many people find this very troubling.

September 7, 2008 11:41 AM

teplukhin2you said:

John Lewis commands instant respect. So does Colin Powell. Their character or capabilities would not be the main issue. Obama is untested, unknown, unproven. He clearly gives off an air of the hotshot young super-salesman who wants to be CEO before he's ever met a payroll of managed a P and L-- kind of like Carly Fiorina at HP.

September 7, 2008 11:45 AM

ironyroad said:

I just wonder -- you know, thinking out loud, mulling it over -- if the fact that older black people don't share the apparently unchallengeable wisdom of older white people doesn't undermine your theory, tep.

Oh I see -- older white people are smarter, right?  It comes along with being white.

September 7, 2008 12:52 PM

ChanRobt said:

irony writes, "....I just wonder,,,if the fact that older black people don't share the apparently unchallengeable wisdom of older white people..."

Look, irony, the vast preponderance of blacks are going to vote for Obama, and who could blame them?  Given the egregious history that his nomination seems to promise to reverse, you could hardly expect a black person, young or old, to carefully weight the fitness of Obama vs McCain for the presidency.

This is just a given like Catholics voting for Jack Kennedy, and the likelihood that a lot of middle class and working class women from small towns are going to vote for McCain because of Sarah Palin.  It's just the way it is.

We also know that a certain kind of white person will vote for Obama because of white guilt.  And another type of white person will vote against him because they just can't vote for a black man.

But, I believe the vast majority of the electorate will not be motivated by any of these considerations.  They will vote for the man who they believe has the character, the beliefs, the personality, and the kind of life and political experience that their guts feel comfortable with.

I think that almost all-- if not all-- our presidential elections have been decided that way.

September 7, 2008 2:58 PM

ironyroad said:

I agree, but tep's reading of it leaves out the realistic distinction in your para #4.  I think I might also be a bit more skeptical about what lurks behind the "character" and "pesonality" argument in your subsequent para.

And, although I've argued recently on another thread that some candidates like JFK embody an intuitive vibration of change, a tectonic shift in the way the country sees itself, it's also true that only a very slim majority of Americans felt that about Kennedy in 1960, whatever the legends say.

I may recognize the poetry of Obama's style and promise -- but others don't have to see it that way.

September 7, 2008 4:17 PM

michael said:

tep, I had ten years in rock radio & securing a target demo is more complicated than DOB + Cultural Event (or Artist) + Years Since Event.  An example is Woodstock. What demo supported Hendrix, The Who or Joplin sales for the past 40 years? Take away everyone not around in '70 and they'd have no sales.

Artists of the late 60's lost the support of 'their generation' quicker and in greater numbers than the Democratics lost the same peeps. Most people 60+ are only mythical fans of the culture. A McCartney concert draws older demos out of proportion because they can afford a $400 ticket.

A free show for The Who at Hyde Park last year was mostly people born after TOMMY.

I dare you: Program a radio station with 40 year old music and show me you have the greatest share of 60+ listeners in your market and that demo is also the largest segment of your audience. But you expect Obama to pull that demo? Clinton, Gore and Kerry sucked with whites born prior to '55-'60.

The guys with Legion and VFW hats at the GOP convention were more typical of the male 65+ voter. I don't think most 65+ 'get' Obama any more than they listen to Blind Faith or Randy Newman. Most people who were 20 in '68 left that world shortly after. The music preferences, their politics and lifestyle did not change this year or in the last decade. Liberal baby boomers were getting scarce by the early '80's. It's not Barack's fault..

September 7, 2008 5:46 PM

ChanRobt said:

michael, I think your music station demo analog is apt enough.  To a point.  But you choose your president from a different part of your brain or gut than you choose the music you listen to while  you drive.

I get Obama big time.  I understand his sensibility-- I know plenty of people who share it.  And, I both get and appreciate his intelligence.  I doubt if few people have missed that.

And, for what is's worth, I've been a Randy Newman fan since '75.  Though like Randy himself, was born before '55.

But, I'm still not going to vote for Obama because I don't believe he will defend the interests of the United States by the particular lights I possess to interpret those interests.

I don't think it's a generational thing in the way it is usually meant:  old = set in ways, unhip, obtuse to the reality of the 21st century.  

It's a generational thing in that as you get older you are less easily dazzled, even by dazzling intelligence.  When you are young, "new" is de facto "good".  Well, I'm old enough to have seen plenty of new things pass through that are now lost in the dustbin of bad ideas.

September 7, 2008 6:14 PM

michael said:

Chan, I'll buy that...but you don't make a case why any Democrat would fare well with the 60+ demo & do well enough to counter the boost Barack is getting from younger demos.

See, the Democrat to win you over loses all the push from the bottom. In that sense a national election must do what no radio station is expected to do: Pull listeners from 18 to Dead. They tend to be close for that reason, no?  

But I do defy your wisdom even if I accept your reasoning. I'm 53 but haven't felt (for me) "It's a generational thing in that as you get older you are less easily dazzled, even by dazzling intelligence." I do believe it's a fair reason, but I can't yet call upon it.

And I do not believe "new" is de facto "good". That is, for me the appeal of Barack is something solid if cerebral rather than radical. I don't see McCain as thoughtful or stable.

September 7, 2008 7:13 PM

teplukhin2you said:

MIchael - as Daltrey sang, Won't get fooled again.

Voted for Carter. Didn't vote for Reagan, twice. Studied Russian politics and heard and saw convincing evidence from top Soviet foreign affairs specialists and from top Columbia U profs that Reagan was right, that realpolitkers like the men in the Politburo respect only the correlation of forces, not institutions and insitution-building US presidents. Obama is a one-worlder who doesn't understand realpolitikers like Putin.

September 7, 2008 8:11 PM

ChanRobt said:

MEANT TO WRITE

And, I both get and appreciate his [Obama's] intelligence.  I doubt if many people have missed that.

September 7, 2008 9:03 PM

ChanRobt said:

Michael, I think I missed something in your logic trail.

I would expect that Obama would like to win Boomer men if he could.  After all, they (we) are still the demographic pig in the python.  

Boomers hold a lot of votes and older people are more likely to exercise that vote.

Historically, the enthusiasm of the young has been harder to convert into actual votes in the box.  The young tend to shine it on, forget to register, sleep late after partying and getting laid Monday night, etc etc.

But, Obama didn't invent or create the problem.  No Democrat has won the white male vote, I think since '64 or '68.  Let alone winning the older white vote.  Older now being the the Boomer male vote.  Same problem with Democrats and married women.

As has been true for a long time, the more stable, settled people meeting their responsibilities vote Republican.  The big exception to that are the highly educated, high income, knowledge class types who Obama has and  previous Democrats have as well.

And also, in general, the Democrats are a coalition of groups who don't have that much in common except that they have special grievances they want redressed.  Minorities, gays, feminists, etc.

Republicans tend to be people who have pulled something together that they don't want undone or siphoned off by a greedy government.  The comfortable that the Left always wants to afflict.  

Of course, they are not truly that comfortable because they are always in fear that the Democrats will get in and fleece them, then make sweaters for all the aggrieved Dems.

September 7, 2008 9:16 PM

michael said:

tep, same song..."Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

...yep, my addy is wfga@

I wuz too also skooled in politiks. Filosofie also a degree.

Intellectual rigidity as in Putin's viewing all policy though the single lens of real (or ideal) might give one less to think about but less thinking is usually a bad thing. And Barack's ability to juggle more than one theory to deal with complex problems-solutions is guaranteed to offend.

But foreign policy demands flexibility as one size doesn't fit all regions or challenges. I'm sure Obama is perceived as the opposite of what you see and that would be where he agrees with you. Nuance is not bad even though it may be tempting to grab the first hammer to swat a fly on the window.  

September 7, 2008 9:51 PM

michael said:

ChanRobt  said:

-----Michael, I think I missed something in your logic trail.

I do that without trying.

----I would expect that Obama would like to win Boomer men if he could.  After all, they (we) are still the demographic pig in the python.  

One pig, two snakes? Go for a smaller pig the other snake is ignoring and fatten before eating.

----Boomers hold a lot of votes and older people are more likely to exercise that vote.

In Axelrod versus Penn that theory cost Hillary the nomination. We'll see if Obama calls up a new demo in large enough numbers to win the final round.

----Historically, the enthusiasm of the young has been harder to convert into actual votes in the box.  The young tend to shine it on, forget to register, sleep late after partying and getting laid Monday night, etc etc.

I agree. But 2 million donors was laughed at a year ago and I think there was some surprise when Obama pulled in $10 million form 130,000 donors after Palin's speech.

----But, Obama didn't invent or create the problem.  No Democrat has won the white male vote, I think since '64 or '68.  Let alone winning the older white vote.  Older now being the the Boomer male vote.  Same problem with Democrats and married women.

A