Why John McCain could still beat Barack Obama in presidential race

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, I got the first part right. Regular readers may recall that all those months ago, when

Hillary Clinton was a dead cert for the Democratic nomination and John McCain was the RINO

("Republican in Name Only") outsider who had too many enemies within his own party to be

a plausible candidate, I went out on a crazy limb and predicted that Barack Obama and McCain

would be fighting each other for the presidency come November.

So now for the second half of my prediction: that John McCain would win the general election.

John McCain seems more able to relate comfortably to ordinary

working people than Barack Obama

This bit may seem even more far-fetched, especially if you are following all this through the

eyes of the British media, whose cynicism about domestic politics seems to be bizarrely

mirrored (which is to say, reversed) by naivety about American politics. But I am standing by it.

If anything, the events of the past few days have confirmed my view.

Why? Because the historical point that should have looked like Obama's irreversible moment

of destiny - the vanquishing of his immensely powerful rival, Mrs Clinton - did not, in fact, lift

him into clear triumphal territory.

Given the ecstasy of his own followers and the support he has had from the mainstream media

in the United States, that event should have brought with it a sense of inevitability, an

overwhelming tide of belief that he was now unstoppable: that the future belonged to him.

It should, in short, have given him a real bounce in the polls. But it didn't. What he got was a

very small spike.

The two polls taken immediately after Hillary's withdrawal speech (and her effusive expression

of support for him) gave Obama leads so small as to be virtually within the margin of error.

Some of this could be put down to the disappointment of Clinton followers, which may be

expected to dissipate over the coming months. But the other explanation is that Obama's support

has peaked: that his coalition of the young, the urban liberal and the black community has

already max-ed out at its highest point and is going nowhere from there.

It is not really difficult to make a case for that being so. Even his supporters among the

American commentariat are unsure whether Obama is the liberal dream of a reincarnation of

John Kennedy (or, in some versions of the script, Bobby Kennedy) or the liberal nightmare

of George McGovern, who assembled an almost identical Left-liberal coalition of idealistic

supporters in 1972 and went on to win exactly one state in the presidential election.

Only the context in which this election is to be held can tell us whether Obama is likely to be

one more false liberal dawn or the beginning of a new era in US political life. And the context

is this: dire economic news (the Dow Jones fell 400 points last Friday; unemployment figures

and the price of oil were both up) means real insecurity at home, particularly for working-class

voters, and the continuing threat from Iran means that foreign policy judgments are going

to be seen as crucial to American national security.

Those two factors are going to be increasingly important over the five months leading up to

the general election, while Iraq is going to recede as an issue. In fact, since Obama is rapidly

"walking back" (as the Americans say) his demand for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq,

the most important distinction between the candidates is likely to be a measure of how much

they seem genuinely to identify with the interests of the US troops there.

So how do the two biggest issues - the economy and the aggressive threats from Iran - play

for the two men? It is certainly true that economic hard times tend to be good for Democrats.

They are still the party of Franklin Roosevelt, of the New Deal (which rescued so many poor

Americans from the worst effects of the Depression) and of a general sense of being "for the

little guy" when capitalism gets rough.

And given that the hard times have developed under a Republican administration that is widely

loathed for all sorts of reasons, this must be good news for Obama, right? Well, maybe.

Except that he has shown himself to be profoundly unable to communicate with the little guys.

The blue-collar workers who normally look to the Democrats for succour see him not only as

a member of a privileged elite who has little understanding of their problems and who may

actually despise their attitudes and assumptions, but as a man who has alarmingly little

experience of government and leadership.

Obama's brilliantly effective strategy for winning the nomination involved effectively writing off

many of the big states with large working-class populations and, so far, he has offered almost

nothing by way of practical remedies to the country's economic problems: his oratory may lift

the heart as Franklin Roosevelt's did ("we have nothing to fear but fear itself") but it is

singularly lacking in the sort of substantive programmes that gave substance to Roosevelt's

inspirational message.

But it is also true that John McCain is not a market leader on economics. He, too, is from a

privileged background. Interestingly, however, he seems more able to relate comfortably

to ordinary working people than Obama.

This may well be a function of his background as a military officer who was conspicuously

loyal to his men, having refused to abandon them when he was offered release from a

Vietnamese POW camp.

And this brings me to what may still prove to be the most significant fact about McCain:

he is a war hero. (Indeed, in this respect, he bears more of a resemblance to John Kennedy

than does Obama.)

He has proved himself to be unflinching in danger and courageous under fire. When people

(especially Americans, who still regard military bravery as an exemplar of virtue) come to

choose the man to lead them through a crisis, that will count for a lot.

To European eyes (and to some American ones, too) this is an election to determine how

America sees itself: can it elect its first black president? Can it present itself to the world in

an entirely new guise - as a member of the modern European club of social democratic

societies?

But to most Americans - the ones who are less beguiled by rhetoric and more concerned

with financial survival, and those who need practical reassurance more than inspiration -

this election will be about proven character and tested judgment.

link

[native 0]

Well, I got the first part right. Regular readers may recall that all those months ago, when

Hillary Clinton was a dead cert for the Democratic nomination and John McCain was the RINO

("Republican in Name Only") outsider who had too many enemies within his own party to be

a plausible candidate, I went out on a crazy limb and predicted <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/01/07/do0703.xml" target="_blank">that Barack Obama and McCain

would be fighting each other</a> for the presidency come November.

So now for the second half of my prediction: that John McCain would win the general election.

John McCain seems more able to relate comfortably to ordinary

working people than Barack Obama

This bit may seem even more far-fetched, especially if you are following all this through the

eyes of the British media, whose cynicism about domestic politics seems to be bizarrely

mirrored (which is to say, reversed) by naivety about American politics. But I am standing by it.

If anything, the events of the past few days have confirmed my view.

Why? Because the historical point that should have looked like Obama's irreversible moment

of destiny - the vanquishing of his immensely powerful rival, Mrs Clinton - did not, in fact, lift

him into clear triumphal territory.

Given the ecstasy of his own followers and the support he has had from the mainstream media

in the United States, that event should have brought with it a sense of inevitability, an

overwhelming tide of belief that he was now unstoppable: that the future belonged to him.

It should, in short, have given him a real bounce in the polls. But it didn't. What he got was a

very small spike.

The two polls taken immediately after Hillary's withdrawal speech (and her effusive expression

of support for him) gave Obama leads so small as to be virtually within the margin of error.

Some of this could be put down to the disappointment of Clinton followers, which may be

expected to dissipate over the coming months. But the other explanation is that Obama's support

has peaked: that his coalition of the young, the urban liberal and the black community has

already max-ed out at its highest point and is going nowhere from there.

It is not really difficult to make a case for that being so. Even his supporters among the

American commentariat are unsure whether Obama is the liberal dream of a reincarnation of

John Kennedy (or, in some versions of the script, Bobby Kennedy) or the liberal nightmare

of George McGovern, who assembled an almost identical Left-liberal coalition of idealistic

supporters in 1972 and went on to win exactly one state in the presidential election.

Only the context in which this election is to be held can tell us whether Obama is likely to be

one more false liberal dawn or the beginning of a new era in US political life. And the context

is this: dire economic news (the Dow Jones fell 400 points last Friday; unemployment figures

and the price of oil were both up) means real insecurity at home, particularly for working-class

voters, and the continuing threat from Iran means that foreign policy judgments are going

to be seen as crucial to American national security.

Those two factors are going to be increasingly important over the five months leading up to

the general election, while Iraq is going to recede as an issue. In fact, since Obama is rapidly

"walking back" (as the Americans say) his demand for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq,

the most important distinction between the candidates is likely to be a measure of how much

they seem genuinely to identify with the interests of the US troops there.

So how do the two biggest issues - the economy and the aggressive threats from Iran - play

for the two men? It is certainly true that economic hard times tend to be good for Democrats.

They are still the party of Franklin Roosevelt, of the New Deal (which rescued so many poor

Americans from the worst effects of the Depression) and of a general sense of being "for the

little guy" when capitalism gets rough.

And given that the hard times have developed under a Republican administration that is widely

loathed for all sorts of reasons, this must be good news for Obama, right? Well, maybe.

Except that he has shown himself to be profoundly unable to communicate with the little guys.

The blue-collar workers who normally look to the Democrats for succour see him not only as

a member of a privileged elite who has little understanding of their problems and who may

actually despise their attitudes and assumptions, but as a man who has alarmingly little

experience of government and leadership.

Obama's brilliantly effective strategy for winning the nomination involved effectively writing off

many of the big states with large working-class populations and, so far, he has offered almost

nothing by way of practical remedies to the country's economic problems: his oratory may lift

the heart as Franklin Roosevelt's did ("we have nothing to fear but fear itself") but it is

singularly lacking in the sort of substantive programmes that gave substance to Roosevelt's

inspirational message.

But it is also true that John McCain is not a market leader on economics. He, too, is from a

privileged background. Interestingly, however, he seems more able to relate comfortably

to ordinary working people than Obama.

This may well be a function of his background as a military officer who was conspicuously

loyal to his men, having refused to abandon them when he was offered release from a

Vietnamese POW camp.

And this brings me to what may still prove to be the most significant fact about McCain:

he is a war hero. (Indeed, in this respect, he bears more of a resemblance to John Kennedy

than does Obama.)

He has proved himself to be unflinching in danger and courageous under fire. When people

(especially Americans, who still regard military bravery as an exemplar of virtue) come to

choose the man to lead them through a crisis, that will count for a lot.

To European eyes (and to some American ones, too) this is an election to determine how

America sees itself: can it elect its first black president? Can it present itself to the world in

an entirely new guise - as a member of the modern European club of social democratic

societies?

But to most Americans - the ones who are less beguiled by rhetoric and more concerned

with financial survival, and those who need practical reassurance more than inspiration -

this election will be about proven character and tested judgment.

link

whats that AEROSMITH song..oh yeah here it is- DREAM ON. hes soo fake its unbeleivable. he cant even tell a joke on tv without looking stupid. no offense to you,but hes not my candidate.

[Teacher Mark 53]

This isn't locked up by any means. It's a long time until November. There's always the possibility of another bombshell from Obama's former church surfacing, like the rumored "Whitey" tape that was attributed to Michelle Obama. Obviously that one hasn't surface, but there may be one like it out there (or it's being manufactured as we speak).

Edited June 9, 2008 by WideAwakeInTheUSA

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

If you get Barry away from his teleprompter he's gonna get OWNED! He's full of pie in the sky B.S. Ppl suck it up like they are a bunch of CRACK whores. It's so hillarious to watch ppl buy into it.

[Teacher Mark 53]

If you get Barry away from his teleprompter he's gonna get OWNED! He's full of pie in the sky B.S. Ppl suck it up like they are a bunch of CRACK whores. It's so hillarious to watch ppl buy into it.

People are getting hammered right now and are desperate for change.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

McSame's Double Talk Express isn't going to get him to 1600 Penn Ave. Bush and his poodle will be retired.

[GaryC 7]

McSame's Double Talk Express isn't going to get him to 1600 Penn Ave. Bush and his poodle will be retired.

Speaking of double talk and flip flops it seems your messiah is good at it as well.

There are a lot more but I think you get my drift. Your messiah, Carter 2.0, is a two faced politician just like any other. Nothing special about him.

Top Obama Flip-Flops

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

ad_icon

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8022402094.html

FNC's Rove Highlights Obama's Flip-Flop on Iraq Troop Withdrawal

By Brad Wilmouth | March 2, 2008 - 20:21 ET

On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, FNC analyst Karl Rove quoted an AP story by Christopher Wills from September 18, 2004, which had reported not only that Barack Obama had previously been open to a U.S. troop increase in Iraq when he was running for Senate, but had warned against a premature troop withdrawal as a "slap in the face to the troops fighting there" which could make Iraq "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity." (Transcripts follow)

After devoting his "Talking Points Memo" to debunking Obama's recent claim that "there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," Bill O'Reilly started his interview with Rove by asking why it is "bad strategy for Obama to go out and say that the Bush administration fouled it all up and we need to get out."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Rove began: "To answer that question, I might read the words of a United States Senator," referring to Obama, before quoting from Wills's article, titled "Obama Willing to Support More Troops in Iraq."

Below is the portion of the article quoted by Rove as originally written by Wills:

America cannot afford to withdraw immediately, said Obama, an early opponent of invading Iraq. That would create more chaos in Iraq and make it "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity," he said at a meeting of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to "a slap in the face" to the troops fighting there, he said.

Wills also reported that Obama, at the time, was open to a temporary increase in the number of troops in Iraq:

Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.

"If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that's something I would support," he said.

Rove later questioned Obama's logic in a way the mainstream media have so far failed to do, in response to Obama's assertion that "there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." After pointing out that Obama admitted that Al-Qaeda is already in Iraq and that it would be bad if Al-Qaeda gained control, Rove continued:

He has this internal conflict of, saying, okay, I admit they're there, it would be bad if they got control, bad enough that I'd send American troops back, but I want to withdraw them in the meantime. Now, isn't it easier and better to beat them while we're there without allowing them to get control of the country?

Below is a complete transcript of Wills's AP article from September 18, 2004, titled "Obama Willing to Support More Troops in Iraq," followed by the relevant portion of the segment with Rove from the Thursday February 28 The O'Reilly Factor:

From the September 18, 2004 AP:

Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.

"If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that's something I would support," he said.

America cannot afford to withdraw immediately, said Obama, an early opponent of invading Iraq.

That would create more chaos in Iraq and make it "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity," he said at a meeting of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to "a slap in the face" to the troops fighting there, he said.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has accused President Bush of hiding a plan to mobilize more National Guard and Reserve troops after the election. Kerry says if elected, he would withdraw American troops from Iraq within four years - a timetable that Obama said he can accept.

"Given the situation on the ground, I think if we had our troops out in four years, that would be an extraordinary accomplishment," Obama said.

Obama said Bush has bungled the war in Iraq, letting it distract from efforts to hunt down Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida terrorists.

His Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was scheduled to address the broadcasters group by telephone later in the day.

Keyes has grabbed headlines with a series of controversial statements - comparing terrorists and women who have abortions, for instance, or calling gay people, including the vice president's daughter, "selfish hedonists."

Obama labeled it "slash-and-burn politics" that gets attention but not support from the public.

"I don't think it has worked in terms of actually persuading voters," he said.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth...roop-withdrawal

Obama’s flip-flops

Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian-American whose work I greatly admire (and whose daily press round-up on Palestine, Iraq and the Middle East is a must-read), has written a great editorial on the implications for the Middle East that Bush’s victory has. While I encourage you to read the whole thing, one of the most interesting parts of the article is about Barack Obama, the new superstar of Democrat politics, and how he has (like so many others before him) abandoned a nuanced stance on the peace process to endorse the Israeli position:

Against this background, Bush has shifted the goal posts of the Palestine-Israel debate such that Likudist thinking is now viewed as centrist. This was demonstrated by Kerry’s campaign which warmly endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s policies. But the bankruptcy of the discourse was brought home in a most personally disappointing way.

Illinois swept Barack Obama, a rising star in the Democratic party, into the United States Senate with a stunning 70 percent of the vote - a rare Democratic gain. Obama, whom I’ve met many times, has served as my local state senator in the Illinois legislature. I found him to be an inspiring politician, not least because he appeared to understand Middle East issues and take progressive views supporting Palestinian rights and opposing militarism. He participated in many events in the Chicago-area Arab community including a 1998 fundraiser with Edward Said as the keynote speaker. I even made contributions to his campaigns.

But following Obama’s nationally-televised address at the Democratic National Convention everything seemed to change. In the campaign’s final weeks, Obama proclaimed his support for tough sanctions and military strikes against Iran if it refused U.S. demands to give up its nuclear programs. According to the Chicago Tribune, Obama now says that the onus of peace in the Middle East “is on the Palestinian leadership, which … must cease violence against Israelis and work ‘to end the incitement against Israel in the Arab world.” The unique fact about Obama’s campaign is that he did not need to parrot the pro-Israel lobby’s standard line to get elected. He ran effectively unopposed. Such a capable and ambitious man must have calculated that any hope of higher office requires that he not offend when it comes to Israel and its interests. This begs the question: If a man like Obama will not speak frankly when it comes to Israel, what hope is there for a change in U.S. policy coming from within the establishment?

As they say in right-wing blogs, indeed.

http://arabist.net/archives/2004/11/06/obamas-flip-flops/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you get Barry away from his teleprompter he's gonna get OWNED! He's full of pie in the sky B.S. Ppl suck it up like they are a bunch of CRACK whores. It's so hillarious to watch ppl buy into it.

People are getting hammered right now and are desperate for change.

Exactly. They don't want partisan rhetoric...they want things to change for the better.

[mawilson 2,133]

If you get Barry away from his teleprompter he's gonna get OWNED! He's full of pie in the sky B.S. Ppl suck it up like they are a bunch of CRACK whores. It's so hillarious to watch ppl buy into it.

People are getting hammered right now and are desperate for change.

Exactly. They don't want partisan rhetoric...they want things to change for the better.

What exactly is so bad right now that you think Obama will fix and McCain won't?

Is the Republican Party responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis?

Or the increased demand for oil in India and China?

What exactly are the "failing Bush economic policies"?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you get Barry away from his teleprompter he's gonna get OWNED! He's full of pie in the sky B.S. Ppl suck it up like they are a bunch of CRACK whores. It's so hillarious to watch ppl buy into it.

People are getting hammered right now and are desperate for change.

Exactly. They don't want partisan rhetoric...they want things to change for the better.

What exactly is so bad right now that you think Obama will fix and McCain won't?

Is the Republican Party responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis?

Or the increased demand for oil in India and China?

What exactly are the "failing Bush economic policies"?

Fair or not, the conventional wisdom is the incumbent party gets all the credit for the state of our economy, and in general, they should. If McCain and the Republican Party are saying that have no effect on the economy then they have a lot of explaining to do to the American people...like, just what is it that they do when elected into office?

Edited June 9, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[dalegg 143]

What exactly are the "failing Bush economic policies"?

I've often wondered that myself. I think it has to do with tax cuts for the wealthy.

I haven't quite worked out how raising taxes on the wealthy is going to help people pay their mortgages off and produce lower gas prices, but from the speeches I've heard, somehow there's a connection.

It might also be that Bush is not strong enough on China, or perhaps have something to do with immigration policies. Neither of these issues will be solved by any candidate running for election this year, no matter what they try to say, but its fun to point fingers.

Or, it could just be that Bush has spent a lot of damn money in Iraq that could be better spent on other stuff.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder what defining issue/s McCain and Obama will base their election campaigns on - I don't think anyone is going to get very far with pontificating on national security issues. Not anymore. With $4, $5, or $6 gas - I can't imagine that people's highest priorities will be on the War on Terror or Iraq. That's bad for both candidates really - given that the war was one of the defining issues of the nomination campaign.

I imagine the Reps will have a hard time of it - as Steven says, because the incumbent party is usually held accountable for the current state of things. McCain's already put his foot in his mouth and said he doesn't understand much about the economy, and Obama doesn't seem to have much of a plan other than his "change" stuff.

If Barack can't define himself beyond this intangible idea of change, I don't think he's going to get very far. That said - I really can't see McCain winning by a landslide, not at all.

[Fandango 1,439]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Happy Bunny

[zqt3344 21]

Have you fainted yet while watching your boy in your living room on TV? You cannot be serious, change what, don't you get it, the guy is the piped piper, he is a career politician and has been running for next highest office he could find or align himself for, what in the world has he done or accomplished along the way? NOTHING! Mr I abstain 131 times in the Senate, that means he is gutless and would not vote since he did not want to look bad, now is this the kind of change agent leader you want? Sadly you Ovomitbots are allowing yourselves to be brainwashed with cheap parlor trick talk. Truly amazing how weak minded people are in this day and age. And if someone comes along and promises some pie in the sky, you call it hope or change, I call it for what it is, pandering to the populace with bold faced lies so I can get elected even when that candidate knows they cannot even come close to delivering the goods on any stance or issue they take!

If you get Barry away from his teleprompter he's gonna get OWNED! He's full of pie in the sky B.S. Ppl suck it up like they are a bunch of CRACK whores. It's so hillarious to watch ppl buy into it.

People are getting hammered right now and are desperate for change.

Exactly. They don't want partisan rhetoric...they want things to change for the better.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

Exactly. They don't want partisan rhetoric...they want things to change for the better.

want change? try looking here.