An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

They’re Off & Running! A Baker’s Dozen Observations On The Obama-McCain Race

01aaafistbump.jpg

01aaacindee.jpg

(1.)

Obama must continue to keep things simple, something that he did to great and historic effect during a grueling, bullet-dodging primary campaign, while reminding voters at every turn that a McCain presidency would be the Bush III edition of Nightmare on Elm Street.

(2.)

Obama’s strategy of campaigning hard early in red states while trying to heal intra-party wounds and selecting a running mate who is a counterbalance to his relative lack of experience makes sense.

(3.)

While McCain’s life story is salutatory, Obama’s rags-to-success tale also is inspiring. It is important that he help voters try to get beyond his skin color and the fact that he’s really really not a Muslim through bio-based TV commercials.

(4.)

McCain’s best hope of winning is to succeed in convincing enough voters that he is indeed a maverick by blurring his impeccable conservative bona fides and running hard from the fact he shamelessly voted the Bush line 95 percent of the time in 2007 and 100 percent of the time so far this year.

(5.)

While McCain’s advisors hold Obama in open contempt, Obama must continue to frame McCain as an honorable man but not be afraid to play hardball and get under his notoriously thin skin.

(6.)

McCain is hopelessly uncharismatic, but he desperately needs a crash course in public speaking after his speech last Tuesday night, which was an unmitigated disaster in contrast to Obama’s primary-ending stem winder of an address.

(7.)

While Obama is blessed with a powerful speaking style and ability to connect with audiences, as well as get them to open their wallets, he must leaven the pretty talk with a detailed blueprint of how he will take back America without driving it deeper into hock.

(8.)

There is no reason for Obama to defend fist bumping or the fact that he hung with a guy who did some bad stuff 40 years ago in order to silence right-wing yammerers, but he also cannot abide below-the-belt pushbacks against McCain by wannabe surrogates.

(9.)

Obama must spend quality time in Iraq while threading the eye of a needle: Extolling the troops while explaining why the Surge’s “success” is illusory and phased troop withdrawals will commence as soon as he takes office.

(10.)

Obama must address Iran and the Middle East in the context of the Iraq war being the biggest reason for regional instability while discrediting the Bush-McCain policy of bombing first and asking questions later without appearing to be soft on national security.

(11.)

Obama needs to exploit the wedge issue of Social Security as a way to court elderly and white-collar voters by hammering home the point that McCain would destroy Social Security as we know it through the discredited concept of private savings accounts.

(12.)

Saddled with a tractor-trailer load of Republican lemons, McCain will have to try to make lemonade. One way to do that is to try to exploit the fact that Democrats will control Congress and as president he would be a counterbalance to their “tax and spend” mentality.

(13.)

If the campaign plays out as I expect, Obama will squeak by in the popular vote and win the Electoral College by a hair’s breadth, but all bets are off if the economy continues to crap out. In that case you can expect an Obama landslide.

  • Marlowecan
    Excellent analysis on the whole. I was struck, in particular, by Point 8:

    "There is no reason for Obama to defend fist bumping or the fact that he hung with a guy who did some bad stuff 40 years ago ... but he also cannot abide below-the-belt pushbacks against McCain by wannabe surrogates."

    Lately we have seen two of the most prominent bloggers on the Left - Kos and Aravosis - mock McCain for (respectively) 1) his bad teeth and 2) his receiving a disability for being unable to life his arms (both in consequence of his POW years). Kos was almost universally denounced by his own Kossacks for this low blow.

    Considering this is only June, the fact that this has come out already suggests a nasty campaign . . . and these types of attacks could be badly damaging to Obama.

    I am reminded of how, in a Canadian election in the early 1990s, the reigning Conservative Party made a TV ad ridiculing the appearance of the challenging Liberal leader Chretien - "Would you want this man to represent Canada?" - for half of his face being effectively frozen by a childhood disease. This appalling attack contributed to the Conservative's defeat...and Chretien's Liberals went on to win the following two or three elections as well!

    Obama is known for his discipline...but the potential nastiness of his surrogates represents a great potential problem in this election.
  • elrod
    True enough, Marlowe. The problem here is that the term "surrogates" applies to people so far removed from the Obama campaign. The blogosophere - even the strongly pro-Obama sector - is just not under the control of the Obama. Less so, even, than the 527s. It's up to the pro-Obama blogosphere to lead by example then. That's why it was so heartening so many Kossites rebel against the teeth post. The blogs will need to exercise discipline themselves.
  • runasim
    Elrod is right
    ...about the all important difference between surrogates and fans.
    Any lunatic can put an Obama sticker on his bumper, but that hardly means that he represents Obama.
  • runasim
    I've had a very touchy question on my mind for years, but I've refrained from asking it - up to now.

    What exactly does a military record, even one as poignant as McCain's, have to say about presidential capabilities?
    For that matter, what does success in business say?

    Prowess in one field can be as limiting as it is helpful in leading an entire nation, which is so much more than its militray capablities or economic success. Expertise in one area can lead to seeing the whole world in only the terms of that expetise, and that' would not be a good thing.

    I respect McCain's record immensely, as I do the success of such people as Romney and Bloomberg. But I have conflicting feelings about that being a qualifier for presidency.

    Where am I wrong to doubt?
  • shaun
    Runasim:

    An appropriate question with an easy answer: Being a veteran who served with distinction does not qualify someone for being president, but it is a good indicator of whether that someone would have the leadership qualities to be president.

    In McCain's case, this somewhat of a double-edged sword and one that I note with great care.

    McCain's supporters expressed outrage when it was suggested in a New York Times Magazine article that he did not experience the disillusionment of soldiers like John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb because he was locked away in the Hanoi Hilton for most of the war. The catharsis that these senators experienced on the battlefield and afterwards over the fundamental wrongness of the Vietnam War rather logically led them to oppose a war in Iraq that McCain so slavishly embraces.
  • You're right runasim. Being captured and tortured doesn't add a shred to matters of judgment or decision-making or other aspects of competence. In McCain's case, it doesn't even predispose him to oppose torture, apparently. Maybe some need a "hero" in the white house, but Kerry's hero status didn't do it. Neither should McCain's.
  • runasim
    My question had an important, to me, subtext:
    Could having a military past inordinantly predispose someone to applying military solutions?
    Could success in business inordinantly predispose someone to see everything in terms of the bottom line?

    The emphasis is on the word INORDINANTLY, and the concern is about an unbalanced perspective.

    As background I refer to patients with difficult to diagnose symptoms. A specialist in disease X is likely to guess that this could be X. A specialist in disease Y is more likely to suspect Y. Meanwhile, the accurate diagnosis Z is being ignored, and the patient goes untreated.
  • shaun
    Runasim:

    You're on a roll today. An off-the-top-of-my-head response to your question is "not necessarily" when you consider that the following presidents had military backgrounds.

    Were these men inordinately predisposed to apply military solutions:

    Teddy Roosevelt: Absolutely.

    Truman: No.

    Eisenhower: No.

    Kennedy: Mixed verdict.

    Carter: No.

    George H.W. Bush: Mixed verdict.

    George W. Bush: Absolutely.

    I think what you find from this quick-and-dirty synopsis is that more than the mere fact of military service goes into using military force.
  • runasim
    Shaun,

    Thanks.
    I think Eisenhower is the most reassuring. also, the highest in rank.
    i wonder what that means- no, you needn't answer.
  • superdestroyer
    The number one question is what is going to happen after Senator Obama is elected president and the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate. Will the Democrats be able to control themselves or will they go crazy again. Reading some of the progressive blogs, it looks like the Democrats will have a hard time controlling their worst impulses once they become the one dominate party.

    The idea that Senator McCain has any chance of winning is laughable. He is beginning to make Senator Bob Dole look like a good candidate.
  • mvy
    The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.

    Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

    The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    susan
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC