I’d like to point out and second this excellent post by Katha Pollitt chastising Democrats who think that beating John McCain will be easy. And this stands regardless of who is put up against him. I think reasonable people can disagree on who stacks up better against McCain, and at the end of the day, we’re all reading tea leaves. But what we must absolutely remember is that even though political junkie liberals see McCain for the phony, war-mongering, woman-hating, lobbyist-loving, K-Street sellout that he is, there’s no reason to think that our accurate perception is shared. And even when we do get it, we just hope that he looks so tired and worn out that people pick the vibrant, youthful-looking Democrat against him, which describes both candidates in the contest. There is a strong reason to think it won’t shake out that way.
He may look like a grumpy old man — specifically, as my friend Kathleen Geier joked, the grumpy old man who yells at kids to get off his lawn — or the nutty old uncle who rags on everyone at Thanksgiving before passing out in front of the football game. But that’s another way of saying McCain is a familiar, indeed family, character. It does not require an imaginative stretch to get John McCain. How many voters know someone like Barack Obama?
McCain is white, male, patriarchal, a war hero with decades in the Senate. So what if he’s old? In politics old can be good ( for men), especially to the older voters — older white voters — who dominate the polls. Besides, McCain’s not so old that he couldn’t get himself a much younger trophy wife, and even if Cindy McCain looks brittle and unhappy and like she hasn’t eaten in a decade, she is always there by his side, a visual reminder of his manly prowess. McCain is brash and sly and seemingly unguarded, unlike the famously self-protective Hillary Clinton, and he loves to schmooze with reporters, who adore him and like most of the rest of America, refuse to see how conservative he is. It’s like they’re saying, Oh go on, Uncle John! you’re just saying you love Sam Alito to get me riled up!
As far as I see it, this is what the Democrat, whoever he or she may be, has going into the race:
- Whatever campaign money they have in their coffers.
- The chance to smoke out McCain in the debates, which seems likely.
- People’s desire to oust Bush taints the Republican.
- The strong possibility of high turnout.
And that’s it, with some organizational and blogging power behind the Democrat as well.. Those are formidable things, but as we know from the past, all these things put together are often no match for a mainstream media that openly campaigns for the Republican. And if you think Bush had his ass kissed, wait until you meet McCain, who has the power to make the political weenies that make up our mainstream media swoon like Chester the Terrier to McCain’s Spike the Bulldog.* This fawning display, while sickening, is easily worth 10 times whatever the Democrat has in his or her coffers to spend on this election. And probably a lot more, putting McCain’s real world treasure chest at probably something over $1 billion.
All of this will be easy to overcome if the public accepts the idea that McCain=Bush. But this is what I really fear. The entire point of calling McCain a “maverick” is to insinuate—wrongly—that he’s barely a Republican at all. Just a formality, really. Goodness, he’s practically in the party so that he can go undercover with his maverick so-not-Bush ways. *swoon*
This is going to be the major problem of the entire election season, that the media will tell the story that McCain needs to win, about how he’s practically a Democrat, except that they don’t let grumpy white war veterans into the party. It’s a lie, but repeat it enough—say, 100 times a day from now until November—and it will have the glow of truth to it. That he’s not any different from any other Republican in any way that counts will not be the story that gets told. We can already kiss away any chance of substantive policy difference analysis from the press.
But it’s not yet time to give up and move to Canada, as bleak as things look. Bush had the same assets in 2000—a campaign and media environment where he was successfully portrayed as “Democrat, with a bigger cock”, the familiar and beloved type thing, a media that was willing to pretend that Presidential elections are exactly the same thing as high school popularity contests. And Gore won anyway. He didn’t win enough to keep the Republicans from stealing it, no, but a few things have changed since that dark election 8 years ago. The massive, unpopular war is the big thing that comes to mind, as well as a shitty economy that will motivate people out of their complacency. While the voting population is usually older on average than the regular population, we still have a substantial new group of Gen Y voters who’ve come of age in an era where being a Republican has become a dirty word. We have the blogs.
But let’s not let the new shake-up of things make us complacent. McCain is going to be hard to beat. In terms of real money spent on the campaign, if you take glowing media coverage into account, we’re financial Davids vs. well-financed Goliath McCain. We could very easily lose this thing, which is why I’m so miffed about the ugly primary that’s distracting people from the real battle ahead.
*Let’s hope that the Geek Pride generation takes over the mainstream media soon enough and quits passing out with joy at the chance to hang out with someone who reminds them of the jocks and bullies of their high school days. But I’m not holding my breath for that event.
110 Responses to “McCain will not just roll over”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The headline says it all:
John McCain May be Old, but He’s Still the White Guy
I think there’s a freudian slip in your post.
I went to see Clapton and Winwood last night at the Garden and they played the perfect song for Obama’s campaign.
Dear Mr. Fantasy
This is very true. I work in a somewhat conservative-leaning industry and already a couple of people have expressed their support of McCain to me. And then, yes, our pathetic excuse for a media will fall all over themselves and fight with each other in their race to suck McCain’s dick on television, and this will definitely help him.
I hope that someday we will be able to fire our media all at once. They would be useless for just about any other work, but perhaps we could pay them a stipend provided that they never say another thing again ever.
In the meantime, anyone have ideas about what the most effective way to attack McCain’s image would be?
Best thing is to hang the war on him. Which is one reason I think Obama is a stronger candidate. No “you were for the war before you were against it” flip flopper crap like they pulled on Kerry. Just remind people at every turn that he’s still a war supporter and there’s zero reason to think he won’t continue the bloody boondoggle at $12 billion a month.
Great post Amanda. Something which needs to be said.
This election is going to be a squeaker. Obama or Clinton will have to keep every state won by Kerry in 2004 and either switch one big state (Ohio? Florida?) or switch three small states (Iowa? NM? Colorado?).
My dilemma going to the caucus was who will fair better in November. There is really not much policy difference between Clinton and Obama. They will both draw advisers, cabinet members and justices from the same lists. Either will be better than any Republican.
I opted for Obama because he seemed to have a better organization and I feel Clinton will just bring out too many Republican voters.
If the race is Obama/McCain then I think Colorado is in play. If the race is Clinton/McCain then I think Colorado stays Red.
If anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory it is the Democratic Party. It is a long way to November. Let’s keep our eyes focused on November 4.
Great post, Amanda. I’ve been troubled with those same fears of our being complacent again this election. I just haven’t expressed it as eloquently.
One little thing though, you wrote: “He didn’t win enough to keep the Democrats from stealing it”
I think that may be a typo. Or am I just reading it wrong?
This election is going to be a squeaker.
Then they’ll cheat, and we’ll lose. We can’t afford anything less than a landslide this time. I am worried.
One little thing though, you wrote: “He didn’t win enough to keep the Democrats from stealing it”
As someone said before, Democrats stole defeat from the jaws of victory.
The fact that Ed Rendell may have an important role in the possibly pivotal Pennsylvania primary, does leave me queasy.
Can’t forget his quisling-like performance as head of the DNC in December 2000.
Don’t forget Reagan. We like to call McCain “Crazy Grampa”, but Reagan really was the crazy grampa–alzheimer’s evident during his presidency.
But don’t say it–>He’s Grampa! He may be crazy and sleep through his meetings b/c he’s so old, but he’s GRANDPA! Dear Sweet Grandpa! Don’t bother him!
If McCain can engender that feeling, then even if he loses debates, it’ll be “okay” b/c it’s Grampa, and they shouldn’t pick on him.
We have got to push his 10,000 years in Iraq quote. McCain’s exit date is 12,008 He can’t budget money for anyone but the warprofiteers till 12009.
Stick it to him on that. We have to make him say it. B/c simply replying and winning a debate won’t work–>the Fundies bought W as WINNING b/c his idiotic pauses didn’t read to them as befuddlement, but sounded like their pastor in the middle of a sermon.
It’s not enough to reply. It’s not enough to tell them they are wrong. We have to make them loudly and clearly state what they want for our country.
And they aren’t going to want to do that, b/c they could give two fucks over what anyone other than the ultra-rich 1%ers want.
If anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory it is the Democratic Party.
The fact that Ed Rendell may have a role in the potentially possibly pivotal Pennsylvania primary, provides pause.
Can’t forget his quisling-like performance as head of the DNC in December 2000.
Let’s hope that the Geek Pride generation takes over the mainstream media soon enough and quits passing out with joy at the chance to hang out with someone who reminds them of the jocks and bullies of their high school days.
If my experience in a writing program is any indication, that will never happen. If there were ever a group more interested in taking over the roles of jocks and bullies in a new social setting, it’s writers, and I don’t think there’s much difference between them and journalists. It’s like hazing in fraternities–these people were picked on in high school, and now it’s their turn to dish out the punishment on the ones beneath them, and that means not challenging the ones in power.
Great post, Amanda. *We* democratically leaning types need to come up with a good strategy now for countering all the media spin that McCain is going to get. It’s hard though. I’m at war with my parents already because they will vote for McCain if the race is between him and Obama. They’ve swallowed the “he’s a straight shooter” pitch hook line and sinker, even when I bring up the Keating 5, his recent lobbyist scandal, the fact that he’ll keep us mired in the Middle East forever. Nothing seems to work. Any suggestions?
“I’m at war with my parents already because they will vote for McCain if the race is between him and Obama. They’ve swallowed the “he’s a straight shooter” pitch hook line and sinker, even when I bring up the Keating 5, his recent lobbyist scandal, the fact that he’ll keep us mired in the Middle East forever. Nothing seems to work.”
You think it’s bad now.
If McCain’s
Rethug henchmenadvisers figure out a way to get him in a flightsuit on the deck of a carrier (and since he’s an ex-Navy pilot, this might be easy to arrange), the manlove from all those swooning MSM types will be incredible…I’m at war with my parents already because they will vote for McCain if the race is between him and Obama.
For talking with people in general, I think Amanda’s advice is spot on. Talk about the war. Talk about how he has stated that he wishes the USA to remain in Iraq ‘for decades’. (I’m too lazy to look for it, but I think he said that straight up somewhere.) And don’t forget that he also stated that if he is elected, he will start more than one additional war to the two occupations our country is currently involved in. Continually show and describe how attached he is to the Neoconservative doctrine of neverending war.
As far as arguing with your parents goes, I usually find that to be of limited utility. I would talk with them, but if they seem dead set aginst Obama, I would probably just make some kind of Mutual Non-Agression Pact with them, in regards to political discussions, until November.
I think a lot will come down to the debates - how they perform standing next to each other and how that performance is perceived by the kind of voter who decides based on a gut feeling, not on their pre-existing ideological and political views. McCain could look old and tired next to an energetic Democratic candidate. Or some voters could think that Obama looks like a nice kid but there is no way in hell they are handing the country’s reins to a kid (at this point I think Obama is the likely nominee, though Clinton could still rally). It’s really hard to sit here in February and know how things will stack up in September and October. But McCain definitely will be the hardest Republican to defeat.
I hope so, Chin, but part of the problem is that the debates get obscured by the talking heads, who will be telling a story about McCain The Virile that might not be punctured by reality.
“I think a lot will come down to the debates - how they perform standing next to each other and how that performance is perceived by the kind of voter who decides based on a gut feeling, not on their pre-existing ideological and political views.”
Debates almost never change anybody’s mind, especially after the primaries.
McCain supporters will see only reasons why McCain is a great leader and Obama is “untested”. These ideas will be used as cover for many to avoid the label “racist” as they justify why they are voting against The Black Guy.
Obama supporters will see a vigorous man with charisma who gives off the vibe of a natural leader, who speaks well, and marks a major break with the NeoCon/Reichwing politics of the last 7 to 8-years.
The die will already be cast. The only unknown is our fate, which will be revealed in November…
Well, this is one reason that the more wild-eyed Obama worshipers worry me. No matter who wins the nomination, the party’s going to have to rally behind the candidate and assess the chances of victory realistically. It won’t be a rout, and everybody will be needed to make it happen.
And McCain will undoubtedly have Rove on his side, if he hasn’t started using him already. No way McCain is going to go into this without someone to do to his opponent what Bush did to him in 2000.
Talking about the war won’t work. Now that the Surge has succeeded, Obama looks like a man on the wrong side of history.
Cindy McCain reminds me of Pat Nixon. Always loyal to her man, while secretly unfulfilled, lonely, and unhappy.
I am tired of these Stepford Wife Republicans. Laura was bad enough. When do we move into the twenty-first century?
One reason I like Obama is that his wife is highly accomplished, and a powerful speaker in her own right.
I don’t think debates change the minds of people who actually care and think about politics. I think most of those people already know right now who they are going to vote for. But those people are a small percentage of the electorate. And I think the Bush-Gore debates were pretty significant for people who go with some sort of feeling about “leadership” or “trustworthiness” or “I’d have a beer with that guy” or whatever. I thought Gore kicked Bush’s ass in the debates. Me and all my progressive friends were high fiving and mocking Bush through the whole thing. But in retrospect, I think a lot of people were reminded of the smart-ass who made them look dumb in front of the boss and voted for Bush out of some wierd sympathy.
“But in retrospect, I think a lot of people were reminded of the smart-ass who made them look dumb in front of the boss and voted for Bush out of some wierd sympathy.”
…which was the MSM meme on Gore from the very beginning.
The people who voted for Bush weren’t looking for him to defeat Gore in the debates. They just needed him to show that he could stand up in front of an audience and put couple sentences together (or read off the TelePrompter). It allowed them to confirm their intention to vote for Bush without reservation…
As for why I early-voted for Obama, I’ll put it this way: I’d rather start out in a better position in most purple (and a few states) vis-a-vis McCain than hopelessly behind, never to recover.
I’m no expert as to what will work in the general election, but I imagine “100, 1000, 10,000 years” and McCain hugging Bush (all the while showing how he’s abandoned Most Favored Maverick status to get in line with the Administration) will be a major part of it.
That should probably read (and a few red states)
Now that the Surge has succeeded, Obama looks like a man on the wrong side of history.
Get real.
I think there’s an important difference between expectations management and undue worrying. While a lot of things can happen, and we certainly shouldn’t be complacent, prophecies have a way of being self-fulfilling. If we act like we’re going to have a squeaker, we’re going to have a squeaker–and this is the first year in twelve that we solidly have the upper hand. Cautious conservatism is not the right strategy.
I’d add to Amanda’s list the fact that the GOP dislikes its own nominee, and his strength depends on a bloc of voters we’re entirely capable of winning for ourselves. McCain’s assets begin and end with his media-inflated “maverick” image, and I wouldn’t trade places for anything.
Best thing is to hang the war on him.
Which is why McCain is backpedalling like mad on his “We’ll be in Iraq for 100 years” comment. Now, apparently, he meant that the Iraqis will be in Iraq fighting the insurgency for 100 years. I’m sure he sees the light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq.
One reason I like Obama is that his wife is highly accomplished, and a powerful speaker in her own right.
Nothing spells power like knowing strangers are judging your husband based on the way you comport yourself. Some might call that the same old sexist straitjacket, but whatever.
I think there’s an important difference between expectations management and undue worrying. While a lot of things can happen, and we certainly shouldn’t be complacent, prophecies have a way of being self-fulfilling.
Yep. Considering today’s gloomy economic news and conflict between Iraq and Turkey, there is NO reason to panic. Be cautious, yes. Watch for landmines, yes. Be so frozen with fear that we give up? Not a good plan.
Independents hate the war and are pissed off about the economy. If we can hang Bush around McCain’s neck — and there are plenty of opportunities to do it — then he’s dead in the water no matter how hard the MSM flogs him.
I am “real”. Obama’s position on the war plays well with Democrats (especially left wing Democrats) and has given him an effective stick to hit Hillary over the head with. But to a lot of moderates and independents, it smacks of a Jimmy Carter-esque “surrender” policy.
But to a lot of moderates and independents, it smacks of a Jimmy Carter-esque “surrender” policy.
Dude, 70% of the country wants to get out of Iraq. It’s not just the big ‘left wingers’, either. Lots of even ‘conservatives’ want out.
As for the people who will find any criticism of US policy in Iraq to be insulting or traitorous, those people are already completely captured by McCain, with his statements about staying in Iraq for 100 years, and about starting new wars. Those people will never vote for Obama anyway, so it is beside the point whether Obama’s statements anger them.
The surge is “working”? Yahoo news has 712 articles on “iraq war suicide bombing,” too many to sort out. But, if I counted them right, there have been seven significant bombings since Sunday.
I don’t see how, from a military preparedness perspective, tying up our ground troops in Iraq for the next century is a good idea.
Three in five Americans (61%) think US forces should get out of Iraq within a year, including 24 percent who favor immediate withdrawal and 37 percent who prefer a one year timetable. Another 32 percent of Americans say the forces should stay until security improves.
32% = “a lot of moderates and independents” in eric’s world.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/394.php?lb=btis&pnt=394&nid=&id=&gclid=CPutkeC84pECFQ7GGgodZHGEeg
For comparison, the number of registered Republicans in the US is approximately 33% of the electorate. But i’m sure there’s no overlap between the two groups, or tons of moderate and independents are lying to the pollsters. Only eric knows the real truth!
Cheep up, MikeEss- with any luck, he’ll look as silly as Dukakis did coming out of the tank- with the head gear, he looked like Mickey Mouse!
I would love, love, LOVE McCain’s campaign to get him into a flightsuit and parade him around on a carrier. Seriously, I’m dead flat broke most of the time, and I would give his campaign $100 if they’d do that. It would be a fine investment, because we could start plugging that image, along with The Hug, into every ad from now ’til Election Day. “McCain is a crazy-ass warmongering Bush-humper.” Beautiful.
Obama is a smart cookie (and, in general, I much prefer him to Hillary), but if he is perceived as being “weak” in Iraq, it’ll be Nixon v McGovern all over again.
excellent post, Amanda. you’ve echoed all of my concerns, precisely.
“I’m afraid of American…”
McCain would just be one more to lend credence to that song.
“Obama is a smart cookie (and, in general, I much prefer him to Hillary), but if he is perceived as being “weak” in Iraq, it’ll be Nixon v McGovern all over again.”
For many (most?) of the supporters of McCain, any question of “weakness” related to Iraq will mean little.
Oh sure, they’ll TALK about it that way, but it’ll still be cover for “I hate The Black Guy, but I’m not a racist”.
There’s only about 20-30% of the country that are hard-core Koolaid-drinkers. McCain (or whoever the Rethug was) would have those people in the bag regardless.
When most of the rest of the “thinking voters” know that Iraq has been a disaster, it’s hard to see how this turns into a Nixon/McGovern redux.
If anything, it’s a lot more likely to be a Deukmejian/Bradley redux…
Ever hear of the phrase “Democrat war”? It wasn’t Nixon’s perception of strength in Vietnam that helped him; it was his not being of the party that started it and perpetuated it with draftees. Who, incidentally, couldn’t vote until they turned 21.
This one’s a Republican war.
Don’t get me wrong - I think McCain has an excellent chance of winning - but I think it will be in spite of, not because of, his opinions on the war, because he’s wrongly perceived as a “maverick.”
Best thing is to hang the war on him.
I couldn’t disagree more. He can trivially easily play the military experience card on that one, and he’ll have no trouble convincing people that he’s better equipped to handle whatever happens in Iraq than either Clinton or Obama. Right now he’s all war-mongery and the like because he has to play to the 19 percenters in the primaries. He’ll swerve hard towards the center after the primaries, and the contradictions will be completely glossed over by the lapdog press.
McCain’s weakness is lobbyists and insider dealings. It’s a signature issue for him, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Hang K street around his neck and relentlessly push the issue. Not only is it a serious issue that needs addressing, it’s also quite likely to piss him off badly enough to show his rage-filled nutcase side.
I suggest the following slogan - “It’s not what McCain’s doing to a lobbyist, it’s what he’s helping lobbyists do to America”
Obama is a smart cookie (and, in general, I much prefer him to Hillary), but if he is perceived as being “weak” in Iraq, it’ll be Nixon v McGovern all over again.
Like zuzu said, Democrat Lyndon Johnson was the one who escalated the Vietnam War. McGovern’s problem was that he was trying to defend Johnson and the Democratic Party while Nixon was promising a change of leadership and a new way of looking at Vietnam.
Hmm. Sounds kinda familiar there, doesn’t it?
I think Amanda forgot something: Senator Clinton is going on and on about how Senator Obama isn’t experienced enough to be president, rather hoping that the voters forget that he has been an elected official, with a wider range of responsible experience, than she has.
So, if Mr Obama wins the nomination, you’ll have evil conservatives like me pointing out that it was your own Hillary Clinton — and former President Bill Clinton — who said that Barack Obama isn’t ready for the job, compared to John McCain: Annapolis graduate, 23-year Naval veteran, combat veteran, former POW, with four years in the House of Representatives and twenty in the Senate.
Louise wrote:
Except that John McCain was a real naval aviator, who really did take off from and land upon an aircraft carrier; he flew 23 combat missions off the USS Forrestal and USS Oriskany.
Governor Dukakis looked like he was playing soldier (even though he did serve two years in the Army in the 1950s, which a lot of people didn’t know), while Senator McCain is already well-known as a combat veteran.
Zuzu wrote:
By November of 1972, President Nixon had dramatically drawn down the number of American troops in Vietnam, and it was clear that our participation in the war was near its end; he took George McGovern’s single issue away from him. And the Americans who were in Vietnam by the latter half of 1972 all volunteered for Vietnam duty — though some were technically draftees when inducted into the armed services, you had to volunteer for duty in Vietnam by then. My “draft year” (age 19) was 1972, and in Kentucky, where I lived, 18 year olds could vote at the time.
Re: McCain’s aviator past…
George Bush was a cheerleader in college; think HE wouldn’t look damned silly trying to remember “Glory Days” too? Sis boom bah!!!
Oh my god — Dana actually thinks the Iraq war is so close to ending that McCain can’t be hurt by it in this year’s election.
I …. don’t know what to say to that, except that you may want to see your doctor about those hallucinations you’re having.
Dana also doesn’t take into account that the Vietnam War had already resulted in the deaths of 25,000 or so American soldiers when Nixon first took office, and well over 50,000 when we were finally done.
The problem with Iraq is the death count isn’t close to 5-figures. And with no draft to force people to take the cruel realities of war seriously (lest their own kids be drafted, and possibly killed or injured), it hasn’t made a big enough impact yet…
Obama is a smart cookie (and, in general, I much prefer him to Hillary), but if he is perceived as being “weak” in Iraq, it’ll be Nixon v McGovern all over again.
I think the people who will conceivably vote for Obama are not the people who want their president to “look strong” on Iraq, in other words continue the occupation. The people who really need their president to “look strong” on Iraq are not the people who will vote for Obama anyway.
As cliche’d as it may sound, Obama voters are looking for a change. Change from the neoconservative policies of George W. Bush. People who will vote for McCain support the neoconservative policies. They are the ones who need a “strong on Iraq” president.
It depends how you look at it. I still think Dems (and Obama) are still stuck in 2006 mode, i.e., pre-Surge. To the die-hards, Iraq will always be a loser no matter what, but Americans in general don’t want us to fail there. That is where McCain has an edge, and Obama could be in trouble there because McCain never wavered in Iraq, even when it seemed like a very risky strategy to take.
“That is where McCain has an edge, and Obama could be in trouble there because McCain never wavered in Iraq, even when it seemed like a very risky strategy to take.”
So, once your country (and you) have decided to do something stupid, or something that turns out to be stupid, you have to stick it out, no matter what?…
When I visited Africa a year ago, everyone was excited about the possibility of either a woman president or a black president in America. It sort of sucked that I had to explain that they were running against each other. And yes, there was still a 50/50 chance it would be another white guy.
Dana, the “your primary opponent smeared you with this” tactic swings both ways. We’ll be happy to remind your Republican allies who has been saying McCain is on the wrong side of the immigration issue.
I still think Dems (and Obama) are still stuck in 2006 mode, i.e., pre-Surge.
Gosh, I thought it was a “pre-9/11 mentality” that was their problem.
That depends on whether you think the Surge is “stupid” or not. If the sense is that it’s indeed working, then Obama has boxed himself into a losing position. Ironically, Hillary (who I generally can’t stand) has taken a more reasonable stand, one that gives her some flexibility in Iraq. Obama, in contrast, runs the risk of events on the ground rendering him increasingly irrelevant.
Here’s eric, the day after the Iraq War is over (50-years from now, after they’ve finished killing the last American soldier): “See! I TOLD you Obama was wrong! But did you believe me?”…
Yep, the surge is working great! I mean, as long as you ignore the dead Iraquis, the invasion by Turkey, and the 40 dead servicemembers in January 2008 alone. If you actually look at what’s going on, it doesn’t look quite so pretty.
Oh, and when 64 percent of declared independents say they disapprove of how Bush is handling Iraq, you’ve got a problem in the general election.
I read and post and campaign and write to family members a lot and I have NEVER, EVER heard from ANYONE who thinks beating the Republican will be easy. Everyone knows what they did to John Kerry. Nobody takes ANYTHING for granted.
Cris wrote:
Thing is, that’s a policy difference; none of the other Republican candidates ever based their campaigns on “John McCain isn’t qualified to be president.”
In a way, that’s the only thing Mrs Clinton has: on the issues, Mr Obama and she are simply not that far apart. She has been trying to take a distinction on “mandate” vis a vis not mandatory universal health care coverage, but it doesn’t seem to be working for her; part of that, I’d guess, is that the voters are smart enough to realize that neither Mrs Clinton’s nor Mr Obama’s plans will be passed unchanged by the Congress, so the details don’t matter as much.
I guess George McGovern is supposed to be the bogey man. May as well throw Al Smith & Alf Landon on the wall and see who sticks.
Any GOP candidate that’s stumbling along against Obama at 50/44 in Kansas and behind 45/51 in Virginia is in deep trouble.
Pan American wrote:
Do you recall just how far ahead of George Bush Mike Dukakis was in the summer of 1988?
Great post, and I agree with most of it- but while there are plenty of things I don’t like about McCain, I wouldn’t call him “woman-hating.”
Now you’re on 20 years ago. Throwing historical candidates against the wall doesn’t address this electorate, these candidates or this campaign.
That depends on whether you think the Surge is “stupid” or not. If the sense is that it’s indeed working, then Obama has boxed himself into a losing position.
If the US public is convinced that Iraq was a good idea, if they want to ’stay the course’, then they will vote for McCain. If the US public is convinced that Iraq was a bad idea, if they want to change, then they will vote for Obama. My point is that there is no reason for Obama to try to look “strong on Iraq”, as it would not work anyway- he is percieved as being outside of the neoconservative ideology.
So, your criticism of him for not looking “strong on Iraq” seems beside the point to me. Obama does not benefit from tying to copy McCain and look “strong on Iraq”, rather, he benefits from getting the public to view Iraq policy critically and realistically.
I think there are two additional advantages the Democrat will have that you neglect to list:
a) The War
b) The Economy
It would be wrong to just consider these part of the “sick of Bush” advantage, because in a McCain race they bring unique aspects.
a) McCain is “Mr. War”. It’s in his blood; he can’t help it. When he says “All soldiers hate war,” you can tell it’s just something he says to soothe people. No one who hates war would chant, “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”. The American people are royally sick of this war and just will never pull the lever for someone who states unambiguously he has no intention of pulling out and might start another one if he’s so inclined.
b) McCain is just awful on the economy. He can’t even pretend to be interested in it. He’ll have a platform, but, it’ll be warmed-over Bush tax cuts redux, which no one will want.
That depends on whether you think the Surge is “stupid” or not
A good 66% of the electorate does. Seriously, surge or no surge, the war is not your strong point.
Seriously, Dana has a point. Dukakis was 20 points ahead of Poppy in July, 1988, and Poppy was not exactly embraced by the Republicans either. Then the GOP fell in line, Dukakis fell apart, and guess who wound up in the White House? It never pays to underestimate your opponent, whether it’s war or an election.
That’s what scares me about the Obama support. Yes, he makes a good speech, but if good speeches were all it took to win the WH, Adlai Stevenson would have won two landslides. I hate to sound like a scolding mom (and what a sexist stereotype that is) harshing everybody’s buzz, but it’s going to take a lot of work to get the WH.
Given that the title of the post is “McCan will not just roll over,” I don’t think anyone on this thread has been arguing that it will be easy.
It is also not hopeless. Saying that because Dukakis lost 20 years ago, or Stevenson lost 50 years ago, it automatically means Obama or Clinton is DOOMED!!! DOOMED, I TELL YOU!!! not only isn’t accurate, but is counterproductive at best.
Learned helplessness is what will be really counterproductive in trying to win the White House, and what I’m worried about is that the Bob Shrums of the Democratic Party will once again manage to pull defeat out of their ass just when victory is in sight.
No matter what the polls supposedly say, if there’s one thing Americans hate, it’s losing. If Obama is seen as being part of the Surrender Brigade in Iraq, he’s a dead duck, plain and simple.
If Obama is seen as being part of the Surrender Brigade in Iraq, he’s a dead duck, plain and simple.
That may be true. However, some US president is eventually going to have to surrender and get out, even if they can spin it as “peace with honor” or some such thing.
McCain is an expert at getting people on his side. He scares me.
eric, give it up.
At this point, for every American whose panties get twisted because we pulled the plug on a braindead war, there will be 2 or 3 who will be grateful that an adult has finally stepped up and has done what needs to be done.
We cannot keep bleeding forever. Americans don’t want their young men and women to die for no reason, and they don’t want to pay billions and billions for no benefit, except for the defense corps, the “private security” firms, and the evil global octopuses like Haliburton.
It was pointless before we invaded, it still hasn’t been justified by any “result” we have achieved so far, and it will be looked back on as one of the biggest strategic blunders in American history.
The diaper is full, and some adult (like always) will end up taking care of the ugly results…
No matter what the polls supposedly say, if there’s one thing Americans hate, it’s losing. If Obama is seen as being part of the Surrender Brigade in Iraq, he’s a dead duck, plain and simple.
Yeah, remember how Nixon didn’t get re-elected in 1972 because he withdrew the troops from Vietnam that year? That’s why President McGovern was elected — because people hate losing so much that they rejected Nixon’s withdrawal from Vietnam.
/eric’s fantasyland
The problem with the Obama “surrender monkey” position is they want to just “give up”, and let the terrorists win in Iraq. McCain believes in victory. Americans like a winner, not a quitter, which is why McCain will run over Obama like a bulldozer running over a dead chicken.
eric, the first time you may have done it without thinking, so you get the benefit of the doubt.
But if you use the phrase “surrender monkey” anywhere near the name Barack Obama again, you definitely will have earned all the scorn that your poor choice of words will summon…
The problem with the Obama “surrender monkey” position is they want to just “give up”, and let the terrorists win in Iraq. McCain believes in victory.
The problem with eric–aside from the one MikeEss pointed out–is that he’s parroting talking points and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. AQ terrorists only represent about 3% of the insurgent fighters in Iraq. The Iraqis despise the foreign jihadists of AQ for many reasons, but mainly because they are so sloppy about killing Iraqi civilians.
If we want AQ out of Iraq, we should withdraw. The Iraqis will slaughter them with a ruthlessness that would make SOCOM cringe.
eric may have a point that he isn’t making clearly. Just because 66 (and getting higher) out of 100 Americans want out of Iraq does not mean that they will not resent the President who actually has the stones to do it. He may be used as a cart onto which large segments of the public can dump their shame and embarrassment and humiliation at the defeat, allowing them to feel good about themselves and America. And if it is a Democratic President we can be absolutely certain that this rather basic psychological flaw will be constantly reinforced and validated by the CMSM, with endless talk of “surrender” and “defeat” and “weakness”.
seeker6079, that’s one of the qualities a real leader has: The ability to give you bad news without being resented for delivering it.
Bush knows he can’t do it - that’s one of the reasons this administration is incapable of admitting mistakes, even those that anyone can see.
If a Democrat makes it into the White House, he or she will be tested, severely, in that regard. Passing that test will be an important clue as to the kind of president and leader they really are…
Scorn or not, Barack IS a Surrender Monkey. He wants America to lose, and the terrorists to win. In a word, he sucks, and the American voters will kick his loser ass just like they did with Dukakis and McGovern.
eric, if you disagree with (what you feel to be) Obama’s stance on Iraq, fine. But using that phrase to do so is just flat out disrespect to Obama and all other African-Americans.
eric, don’t say I didn’t warn you…
(studiously ignoring cheeto-covered post 81_
Mike, conceded, but the problem is the framing. If the past fifteen years have shown us anything it is that the objective talents (or lack thereof) of the man in the WH has far less to do with it than the reporting.
Shorter eric: LALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!!!
Scorn or not, Barack IS a Surrender Monkey. He wants America to lose, and the terrorists to win.
Get real.
Mnemosyne,
Exactly where did I say Obama or Clinton was doomed? It’s certainly inaccurate and counterproductive to say I thought they’re both doomed when they aren’t. (OK, Clinton may be doomed, but Obama certainly isn’t.) What I DID say was that it was going to take a lot of work for all of us to get the eventual Dem nominee to the WH. If you think “Well, Obama will make a nice speech and then everyone will vote for him, because he’s a great speech maker and everybody likes him, so we can just relax and have fun at the victory party.” then, yes, Obama is DOOMED!!! DOOMED!! because that’s the same complacent attitude that led to Stevenson’s defeat, Dukakis’s defeat, et al. Amanda gets it, Pam gets it, and a lot of Obama supporters get it, but a lot of his supporters don’t seem to get the message.
The Clintons both get it; that’s one of the reasons why Bill’s been the only Democratic President reelected since FDR. They’re working even though they know it’s an uphill battle against a hostile media, GOP moles, and a constant longing for change. That’s why I voted Hillary in the caucaus, and keep supporting her, even through increasingly long odds that she’ll be the nominee. As my Irish ancestors might have said “Work’s work, and them that does, gets.”
As long as Obama stands for surrender, he will lose. He is pro-terrorist, and Americans loathe that position.
eric’s kind of a moron and all, but “surrender monkey” is a bit of a simpson’s reference. i mean, it doesn’t make much sense and all when you cut up the original “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” and apply it to someone that’s not french, but rhetorical skill doesn’t seem to be eric’s strong suit.
As long as Obama stands for surrender, he will lose. He is pro-terrorist, and Americans loathe that position.
Cheetos: they’re not just for breakfast anymore.
Oddly, I didn’t say anything even vaguely resembling that in this entire thread. And I’m pretty sure no one in the thread said that. As I said above, I’ve seen the national Democrats seize defeat from the jaws of victory one too many times to think this is going to be easy.
I’ll just say, if you’re completely convinced that there’s no way that Obama can beat McCain, take care that it doesn’t become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Oh, he can beat McCain, but only if we all work for it, and even then there’s no guarantee. At this point in time in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton was behind both Poppy and Dole (just as McCain is in front of both Obama and Hillary) but Bill and the Dems dug out of that hole both times. Of course, that may be partially because Bill, like Barak, has a pleasing baritone rather than a “shrill feminine voice” like Hillary.
Steven is correct. Yes, I left out the “cheese eating” part, but it was still obvious that it was a “Simpsons” reference, and had nothing to do with race.
That said, perhaps I’m being unfair. Obama may just be very naive. Like it or not, we’re IN Iraq, and we can’t just leave until the job is finished. McCain gets that. Obama clearly doesn’t.
Like it or not, we’re IN Iraq, and we can’t just leave until the job is finished.
The “Job” will never be “Finished”. The US will eventually either ‘win’ by exterminating and brutalizing the Iraqis into submission, or will decide that sacrificing US soldiers and US dollars to a colonialist occupation is not a good policy, and will withdraw. In either case, the result will be absolutely nothing like a stable, secular, democratic state in Iraq. You cannot “finish” a task that has no achievable “end”.
atheist, you’re correct, but a nimrod like eric can’t understand.
He (and the rest of the Iraq War cheerleaders) is like those idiots that wanted to keep Terry Schiavo hooked up forever.
You could explain until you were blue in the face that she was never going to wake up, leap out of bed, and become a contestant on Dancing With The Stars.
All they knew was if you disconnected her, she’d die.
All they know is if we leave Iraq, we lose. Nevermind that we actually already lost a long time ago…
Sorry, but we’re winning in Iraq. McCain understands that. The Surrender Monkey doesn’t.
eric, you’re wrong about Iraq, and you’re a disgusting racist…
For a second or two there, lower-case ‘eric’ seemed sane. But then he kept posting.
Wingnuts have got to have a little endurance to hold onto that illusion effectively.
As to Iraqis dealing relentless death to AQI, is there anything stopping them from doing it currently? (AFAICS, the only force capable of stopping them would be us.)
I said before - it’s a Simpson’s reference. Only a pinhead would think it has anything to do with race.
eric, who the fuck cares what you think?
You’re a disgusting, unrepentant racist scumbag, who continues to use inflammatory language to attack a man just because he’s not a WASP.
If you can’t express your idiotic opinions about Iraq and Obama’s chances in the election without using racist language, you aren’t worth listening to…
BTW, only pinhead would continue to use slurs when he’s been enlightened about them…
You’re not exactly my idea of “enlightened”. You’re being a pinhead, seeing race based crap where there isn’t any. In short, you come off as a pushy, belligerent jerk.
As for Terri Schiavo, it was her family that wanted her kept alive, and the (somewhat creepy) ex husband who didn’t. Tho what this has to do with the war, McCain, or Obama is somewhat of a mystery to me.
eric, you’re a racist. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on…
Irag War = Terry Schiavo because they’re both braindead, they’re both hopeless causes, they’re both obsessions of the Reichwing, and the only reason either was/is an issue is pure, unadulterated, cynical, manipulative politics, in the service of raw power.
Other than that, Terry Schiavo and the Iraq war have nothing in common.
But you’re still a disgusting racist asshole with ignorant opinions about Irag and Barack Obama. Go wash your white sheet again to make sure it’s white enough for the next Klan rally…
You sound like an uptight, left wing nut who desperately needs a sense of humor.
…and eric, you’re a disgusting racist who thinks it’s just great to use the word “monkey” to label a Black man.
But I guess that’s exactly what we should expect from a Koolaid-drinking, unthinking supporter of the Iraq War, who sucks John McCain’s knob…
If you can’t tell the difference between a comic reference from a cartoon character on a popular TV show, then you’re an idiot. I don’t care about Obama’s race any more than, say, Tiger Woods. In some respects, he’s an impressive figure. But that doesn’t preclude me finding his positions on Iraq to be naive at best, and dangerously misguided at worst. Please grow up and get a clue!
Oops, that should have read “If you can’t tell the difference between a comic reference by a cartoon character and GENUINE racism, then you’re an idiot”.
“I don’t care about Obama’s race any more than, say, Tiger Woods.”
RIGHT…
Bet you wouldn’t have the balls to walk up to either Tiger Woods or Barack Obama and use a phrase denigrating their performance or ideas which prominently featured the word “monkey”…
“Please grow up and get a clue!”
Whether I lack in those areas or not is not for me to say. If somebody I respected (which wouldn’t include you) expressed that opinion, I might listen.
As it is, I’m inclined to believe that if YOU have a negative opinion about something, it must deserve a long second look. It probably has a lot of merit.
In any case, at least I’m smart enough not to call a black man something untoward containing the word “monkey”. But I guess my mother raised me to be better than that.
eric, try to spin it any way you want. You’re still an idiot, you’re still naive about Iraq, you’re still a mindless Koolaid-drinker and a McCain Knob Polisher, and you’re still a racist…
You’re the one with racial hangups, seeing stuff from a TV cartoon as having racial connotations. i don’t buy into it at all. My point is Obama doesn’t have a clue what to do in Iraq, and seems bent on surrender there. you don’t have a response to that besides mindless name calling.
“You’re the one with racial hangups, seeing stuff from a TV cartoon as having racial connotations. i don’t buy into it at all.”
…because it’s impossible for animation on TV to have racial overtones? Ever heard of South Park?
“My point is Obama doesn’t have a clue what to do in Iraq, and seems bent on surrender there.”
The Reichwing NeoCons you love got us into something bad. They also don’t have any idea how to “win”, and it’s not clear that “winning” was even an aim of our curious expedition in Iraq. Other Interests Largely apply in this situation…
“Winning” is just not possible when we’ve precipitated a civil war and then inserted ourselves right into the middle of it.
When an adult comes along, recognizes a hopeless situation, and realizes it won’t, can’t, and shouldn’t go on for another 10-more, 100-more, or 1000-more years (as your favorite Grandpa McCain has indicated he would support), and then suggests that we should follow what the the military experts say and GET OUT, that person IS ACTING RESPONSIBLY. He or she is NOT SURRENDERING (whatever you think that word means in this context), he or she is extracting us from a hideous mess.
I would use some analogies to Nixon and Vietnam, but you’re probably too young, too ignorant, and too naive to understand, especially the military history aspects.
Look, eric. You’re an idiot, you’re naive about Iraq, you’re a mindless Koolaid-drinking McCain-Knob-Polishing Tool, and you’re still a racist troll…
The “good news” is you have some friends…
You Lefties compare everything to Vietnam.
The only analogy I can see is that, if we just pull out as Obama wants, the country could turn into another Cambodia. Who wants that?
Unlike Obama and the far left, I trust Gen Petraeus and the military experts, nearly all of whom are saying that the Surge has worked, and is continuing to work. Why just give up? Surrender, especially when most objective reports say we’re finally winning?
Obama’s main claim to fame is “I was against the war from the start”. Fine, that was 2003. It’s now 2008, we’re there, we’re winning, and what does he propose to do about the situation on the ground as it stands today? Right now, I put a lot more faith in McCain’s judgment than the rookie from Illinois.
“Unlike Obama and the far left, I trust Gen Petraeus…”
…the guy they finally found who would tell those magnificent “military experts” in the Cheney/Bush administration (men like “It’s A Party In The TANG” Bush, and Big Dick “5-Deferments” Cheney) what they wanted to hear.
Which just makes Petraeus the military version of the same old power and glory obsessed ladder-climbing suckups that litter Corporate America. Cool!…
“…and the military experts, nearly all of whom are saying that the Surge has worked, and is continuing to work.”
eric, being a contributor to NRO or RedState does NOT make one a “military expert”. And just about any Real Military Expert whose career is no longer tied to being worshipful of Cheney/Bush says “The Surge” is not working. You need to read stuff outside the Axis Of Wingnuttia, and watch other things besides Faux News…
“Why just give up? Surrender, especially when most objective reports say we’re finally winning?”
I’m sure the Koolaid tastes great and all, but there isn’t an “objective” report that says we are winning in Iraq.
I’ll tell you what. Find an objective report (NOT produced by some crypto-wingnut “institute” or “thinktank”), give us a link, and we can discuss it futher…
“Obama’s main claim to fame is “I was against the war from the start”. Fine, that was 2003. It’s now 2008, we’re there, we’re winning…”
I suspect the word “winning” does not actually mean what you want it to, just like the word “fascist” does not mean what Jonah “Poster Child For Wingnut Welfare” thinks it does.
And being against the pointless invasion of Iraq from the beginning indicates Obama is orders of magnitude smarter than the idiotic NeoCons that bluffed Congress into supporting the worst military blunder in American history…
“…and what does he propose to do about the situation on the ground as it stands today?”
Obama proposes what anybody with any sense proposes in the wake of the Iraq War blunder - get out and cut your losses. Staying there another decade, century, or millenium will not get America any closer to “winning” than we are now - and we are no where near “winning” now…
“Right now, I put a lot more faith in McCain’s judgment than the rookie from Illinois.”
…right, because doing the same stupid things over and over while continuously telling everybody “We’re Winning!” has worked so well so far.
Let’s face it - McCain represents another 4-years of Cheney/Bush bad policy…
“You Lefties compare everything to Vietnam.”
Because some of us have seen this movie before. The lies, the manipulations, the claims that his war is about protecting America, the idiot “justifications” for continuing American deaths - the whole ball of wax.
In short, there are people in the US who knew this was bad news going in. And now that we’ve been proven correct, you robotic Right Wing Authoritarian Cultists just can’t accept that you were wrong. You were, you are, deal with it.
BTW, I was born and raised a Republican. It took many years to see the light, but I escaped and found the real world to be quite different from what I was told.
May you reach enlightenment sometime too, eric. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it…
And eric, as usual you’re an idiot, you’re naive about Iraq, you’re a mindless Koolaid-drinking McCain-Knob-Polishing Tool, and you’re still a racist troll…