Daily Kos

McCain Could Win

Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:20:58 PM PDT

... And I don't mean the nomination, I mean the election.

I mean this diary as a "wake-up call", lest we get too confident. We need to be as prepared as possible.

Of course we don't yet know if McCain will win the Republican nomination. But let's assume for the moment that he does. And let's face it straight on: this guy has a great personality. He can be charming and disarming, and he's got the media on his side. And whether or not it's justified, he is in fact seen as the "straight talker" of politics. He has branded himself that way, and there's certainly some truth to it. He does speak more bluntly about certain things (such as, for example, manufacturing jobs in Michigan not coming back). As politicians go, he is fairly straightforward. That goes a long way with a lot of people, especially in the current climate of disgust with "politicians".

Now let's assume for the moment that Hillary is our nominee (not saying she will be, or that I want her to be, but ... let's just assume it for the sake of bringing up what I'd consider a "worst case scenario" as far as public perception of the candidates is concerned). I contend that there's no way Hillary can compete with McCain as a personality. He is and will continue to be the media darling. She has been type-cast as devious, calculating, and scheming, and she will not come off well next to him -- we need to face this.

Let me quote George Packer in his article on Clinton and Obama in the current issue of the New Yorker:

A few hours before Clinton’s rally in Hampton, I watched John McCain’s masterly presentation before a packed middle-school gym in Salem, which included many skeptics and independents. An accountant challenged him on his willingness to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent while claiming to be a deficit hawk, telling McCain, "You’re in Purgatory." The candidate shot back playfully, "Thank you very much. It’s a step up from where I was last summer." He was witty, combative, humble, and blunt (while embracing Republican orthodoxy on almost every position). Unlike Clinton, he engaged questioners in lengthy back-and-forths that showed he was capable of a respectful disagreement. After hearing Clinton that evening, I thought that she might have a hard time beating McCain in November.

I think so too -- which is one reason I am not supporting Hillary.  But there is certainly more than an even chance she will get the nomination.  I don't mean to suggest McCain will be an easy opponent for ANY of our candidates, but Hillary/McCain may be the least auspicious pairing from the Democratic point of view.  So ... how should Hillary (and by extension, anyone) handle McCain?

As I say, she can't compete with him on personality -- she shouldn't even try. She needs to draw the attention AWAY from his charm and onto his weakest point: his almost total embrace of conservative orthodoxy -- and by extension, the almost TOTAL FAILURE of conservative orthodoxy in the past 20 years.

Yes, I feel that this is the election where Democrats need to take on the bogeyman of conservative ideology -- stop being afraid of being labeled as "tax-and-spend liberals" and actually call a spade a spade: actually ILLUSTRATE to the American people that Republican policies have been a disaster.

Here are a couple of McCain issue positions, taken from his web site:

  • "John McCain will permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)" -- clearly an overreaction.  Repealing the AMT will cost the treasury millions of dollars of needed revenue. It needs to be modified so it is indexed to inflation, but it should remain in place. This is a giveaway to wealthy Republican contributers.
  • "John McCain believes it should require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes" -- an unnecessary limitation on the flexibility Congress needs, and a potential disaster for the country.
  • This is a doozy -- "John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts -- but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. John McCain will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. No problem is in more need of honesty than the looming financial challenges of entitlement programs. Americans have the right to know the truth and John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens [sic] our future prosperity and power."  Here he is hitching his "straight talk express" to the bogus issue of "Social Security crisis". He will go all out and say he is the only candidate who is "telling the truth" about the mess Social Security is in.  We MUST counter this effectively.

The fact of the matter is, conservatives are in a very bad position.  They have painted themselves into a corner -- the ONLY arrow in their economic quiver is the "cut taxes" mantra.  There is no way that any Republican candidate can advocate raising a tax, however obviously necessary it may be.  Surely there is a way for Democrats to turn this to their advantage, to assert that only Democrats have to flexibility to handle the myriad economic crises that are heading our way. Democrats should be swooping in like vultures on the tatters of the conservative agenda!

This is not a "here's the answer" diary. This is a diary that would like to hear people's ideas on how to, finally, confront the behemoth of conservative orthodoxy in an effective way.  Democrats have been way too timid on this issue. We MUST start undoing the thinking that while Bush was bad, conservatism itself as practiced since Reagan is a viable option.  If we don't, John McCain could certainly win.

Tags: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Conservatism, Reagan, 2008 Election (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 151 comments

    •  Senators lose to Governors (0+ / 0-)

      This year all we've got is Senators, so please let's not put a Governor up against our Senator. Let's put their Senator up against ours. McCain will lose, no doubt about it.

      And if you don't like looking at the track record, consider that McCain is old, short, and has been photographed giving Bush a bear hug.

  •  Can someone explain to me how Barack Obama (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jxg, raatzie, Boston Boomer, sandbox

    defeats McCain?

    •  By drawing Independents and mod. Republicans? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      demkat620, Webster

      a gallon of blood for a gallon of oil!

      by haruki on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:27:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Easy (5+ / 0-)

      McCain's key weakness is that he's the biggest Iraq War cheerleader out there, apart from maybe Giuliani. Obama has been opposed to the war from the start. It's tougher to make a starker contrast that that.

      Also, McCain's key strength is his star power as a "straight talking maverick war hero." I think Obama's star power, plus the fact that he'd be the first African-American President can take away a good deal of the oxygen that McCain gets.

      •  Cept Obama voted the same as McCain (5+ / 0-)

        Yes on funding over and over and over.

        Republicans are going to eat Obama alive, and then toss in some race politics for good measure.

        Obama is a great primary Candidate, he has never been tested in a General.

      •  Yes Obama would counter some of his advantage (0+ / 0-)

        He is also seen as having integrity and honesty.

        •  You are assuming that Republicans (0+ / 0-)

          will not use Rezko against Obama?  What if Obama is called to testify in the trial?  He just recently donated another $40K to charity, and there may be as much as $100K in Rezko donations left that he hasn't dealt with yet.  There is also the tricky situation with the house.  We can explain it away as much as we want.  That is not going to stop the Republicans from tarring Obama with anything they can dig up.

          There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

          by Boston Boomer on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:32:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Indeed they will (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Webster

            And it will be a good opportunity to re-acquaint the public with the Keating Five scandal.

            Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. Though McCain was not convicted of anything, he intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."

            •  Will that have traction? (0+ / 0-)

              It's been well known for a long time and has never made a difference.  I hope the Dems will be willing to go negative.  We have to assume that Obama will just reach across the aisle.

              What will the Republicans do with Obama's connections to Alexi Giannoulias?

              Link

              Another Link

              This was new to me.  Apparently Giannoulias is a big bundler for Obama.

              There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

              by Boston Boomer on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:08:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Um, the Traditiona Media has regulated (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JustinL

        the War on Iraq to Yesterday's news annoyance.

        Notice: This Comment © ROGNM

        by ROGNM on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:32:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think the youth vs. old man thing... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ablington, jeff in nyc, bernardpliers

      ...will work in his favor.

      "Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

      by revelwoodie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:29:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  youth vs. old man (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        burrow owl, zephron

        That went over real well for the GOP when Dan Quayle got pitted against Lloyd Bentsen.  Even though Bush won that election, Quayle clearly cost some votes.

        •  Obama is no Dan Qualye... :) n/t (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          sja, bobdevo, limpidglass, revelwoodie

          I'm not paranoid, I'm just well informed--SherwoodB

          by SherwoodB on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:11:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  at least Obama knows how to spell "potato"! n/t (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            SherwoodB, DrMicro, revelwoodie
          •  He's no JFK either. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            zephron

            There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

            by Boston Boomer on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's NOT what JFK's daughter said. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              revelwoodie

              The quote is:


              "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them," she wrote.

              "But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president - not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

              Game. Set. Match.

              "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

              by bobdevo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:32:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I disagree with her. (0+ / 0-)

                She isn't old enough to remember the 1960 campaign, and I'm sure she believes what she said.  I'm allowed to have mhy own opinion.

                Obama is very good at speechifying, he inspires young people, and he is still in his 40s.  Other than those very superficial resemblances, the two men are very different.  

                Kennedy was a war hero and had traveled widely before he entered politics.  He had lived abroad as a young man and had observed the events leading up to WWII close up when his father was Ambassador to Great Britain.  Kennedy also completed his education abroad at the London School of Economics.  

                Kennedy spent nearly 12 years in the the U.S. House and Senate before running for President.  He was far better prepared than Obama in terms of foreign policy experience and Washington experience.  Finally, Kennedy was a strongly partisan Democrat who did not argue for reaching across the aisle to make peace with Republicans.  He was a tough campaigner who did not hesitate to fight dirty if necessary.

                The differences between Jack Kennedy and Obama are much greater than the similarities, IMHO.

                There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

                by Boston Boomer on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:58:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think Carolyn's point was (0+ / 0-)

                  that like JFK, Obama has the ability to inspire people, to make them strive for greater possibilities than they ever dreamed possible.  Not to simply compare Obama's resume to JFK's.  

                  "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                  by Subterranean on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:31:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, I got her point. (0+ / 0-)

                    Even though I'm not inspired by Obama's ideas, I'm not stupid.  

                    I was inspired by JFK's ideas, not just his oratory.  that's my opinion, and as far as I know, there's still no law against my expressing it.  In my opinion, Barack Obama is no John F. Kennedy.  I don't even think his speeches compare to Kennedy's.  

                    There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

                    by Boston Boomer on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:46:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Make your case. (0+ / 0-)

      The trick is which of our candidates has the best chance of not only mobilizing our base, but also of getting in new voters given that McCain has some Independent appeal. Some people believe Obama can do this, and others believe that it would be Hillary or Edwards. Either way, a case for a candidate doesn't mean that is exactly how it will pan out.

    •  Because he is pretty much Bob Dole redux. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      global citizen, chicago minx

      It's a neighborly day in this beautywood. Relentless!

      by ablington on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:31:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Put the two of them on a stage (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jeff in nyc, bernardpliers

      You've got the tall, commanding, young Obama against the diminutive, blinking  senior citizen who muddles his syntaxes and can't quite hide the face lift and Botox.   The young guy wins.

      John McCain: Vowing to connect real leaders with real bowels

      by chicago minx on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:31:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or . . . (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        maja27, burrow owl, Boston Boomer, zephron

        . . . you have the war hero vs. the uppity punk.

        And the war hero wins.

        Let's stop with the assumptions, shall we?

        The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

        by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:33:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kerry and Dole were war heroes. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          bernardpliers

          I rest my case.

          John McCain: Vowing to connect real leaders with real bowels

          by chicago minx on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:34:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  True. Completely forgot their stays . . . (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JustinL

            . . . in those POW camps.

            You think the Republicans won't contrast McCain's "GI Joe - Real American Hero" service to Kerry's, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

            Not to mention that Dole and McCain ran against incumbents.

            The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

            by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:38:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  EIGHT years of a previous Republican prez (0+ / 0-)

              that's what any GOP candidate runs against.  It is virtually impossible for the WH NOT to change hands and go to the other party.  The only one who was able to do it recently was GHW Bush because Dukakis was so weak and because the Republicans were still so enamored of Reagan and they thought it would continue the 8 years of Reagan's glorious reign.  

              John McCain: Vowing to connect real leaders with real bowels

              by chicago minx on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:49:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your desperation does not make it so. (0+ / 0-)

                It is clear that you have convinced yourself that this will be a cakewalk for Obama.  I hope for all our sakes he isn't as foolish.  I fear that it might not matter.

                IMPEACH=Rock+Hard Place! Let every Rethug either publicly support the least popular president in 30 years, or admit their president is a traitor.

                by zephron on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:48:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Check out the numbers from South Carolina. (0+ / 0-)

                  More Democratic voters than Republicans.  What the fuck you think that means?

                  "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

                  by bobdevo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:33:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are counting your chickens before (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    beemerr90s

                    they've hatched.  There is no guarantee that we'll see the same turnout ratio come November.  Most of those voters are new and can't be counted on in the general.

                    IMPEACH=Rock+Hard Place! Let every Rethug either publicly support the least popular president in 30 years, or admit their president is a traitor.

                    by zephron on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:16:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Was that a Freudian slip? (0+ / 0-)

              You said Kerry instead of Obama.  He is sort of Kerry-like with those long explanations that have to be corrected over and over.

              There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

              by Boston Boomer on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:35:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  "uppity punk"? WTF? (0+ / 0-)

          Godsake go over to BarackObama.com and get informed.

          Grandpa is mean and he smells funny.

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:39:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, uppity punk is exactly ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... what the Repugs will say.  And no, most voters will not go to the Obama website.

            You may not like the way the primaries are playing out, but I guarantee that the general will make this look like a love-fest.  Your guy better have a damned good plan.  Something beyond "go look at the website".

            IMPEACH=Rock+Hard Place! Let every Rethug either publicly support the least popular president in 30 years, or admit their president is a traitor.

            by zephron on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:51:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How about the fact (0+ / 0-)

              that Obama got twice as many votes as McCain in the South Carolina primary.  You got a way to make that look like a negative?

              A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

              by Webster on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:27:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I hope they turn out in November. (0+ / 0-)

                We will have to see though.  We will also see how many Rethugs turn out against who ever has been vilified by the right-wing echo chamber.

                IMPEACH=Rock+Hard Place! Let every Rethug either publicly support the least popular president in 30 years, or admit their president is a traitor.

                by zephron on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:13:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  no they won't. (0+ / 0-)

              they actually respect Obama, something the Clintons should learn.  The Clintons respect McCain, hell Hillary is friends with him so says Bill.

              Grandpa is mean and he smells funny.

              by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:54:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ha ha ha! (0+ / 0-)

                The Republicans respect Obama?

                You're a fucking lunatic!  This comment will follow your delusional ass.

                Jesus H. Christ.

                What the fuck is wrong with you?  Are you high?

                See that'd actually be funny if it weren't for the fact that you actually believe it.  Wow.  Sorry, I just have trouble processing that you actually said that.  

                IMPEACH=Rock+Hard Place! Let every Rethug either publicly support the least popular president in 30 years, or admit their president is a traitor.

                by zephron on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:36:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  "Uppity" is a racist term, and even the (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          cedubose, sja

          Republicans wouldn't touch it.  Can't understand why you do.  It's flat out racist.

          "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by bobdevo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:36:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I wish it was that simple... (0+ / 0-)

    •  By simply being a democrat (0+ / 0-)

      and not to mention that, a democrat who can reach out to independents.

    •  If Barack Obama is our nominee (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      cedubose, Crestingwave, bernardpliers

      He wins over McCain hands down - if Clinton is our nominee then McCain has a real shot at victory.  

      My nightmare scenario is that it will be McCain versus Clinton in the general, and the country will be completely divided again with the election coming in at 51% to 49% and the Dems could very well be on the losing end.

      •  Alas, I agree (3+ / 0-)

        For this reason I have decided to "pull a kos" and support Obama in the Calif. primary, even though I'm an Edwards supporter.  I really feel we need to stop her.

      •  Well, I'm worried about the opposite. (0+ / 0-)

        Obama is our nominee riding the wave of a promise of "new politics" and the support of throngs of new, and necessarily soft, voters.

        In the general Obama gets slimed by an untold number of shady groups, none of which can be directly associated with the GOP nominee.  The press suddenly revokes Obama's free pass and "reports both sides", which really means gives voice the smear and says Obama denies it.  Obama can't, of course, even suggest that he is being treated unfairly lest he play in the narrative of the "angry black man" that the GOP is salivating for.

        The notoriously disinterested public notices only that Obama is being slimed, and doesn't bother to really find out if any of it is true.  This successfully takes the shine of Obama and his "new politics" as the meme that he is just an example of "old politics" born in the "Chicago machine" takes hold.

        Wide swaths of the idealistic first time voters, now infected with the seeds of cynicism, just stay home in November and the massive primary-scale turnout doesn't materialize.

        We get 8 more years of a crazy fucker in the White house.

        Of course, we can all play these kinds of games.

        IMPEACH=Rock+Hard Place! Let every Rethug either publicly support the least popular president in 30 years, or admit their president is a traitor.

        by zephron on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:02:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Um, (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      sja, bwintx, Crestingwave

      McCain speaks -- Obama speaks -- who keeps you awake?  That's the wake up call.  McCain sounds like he needs a jolt.

      My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:46:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yesterday Obama got twice as many votes as McCain (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Woody, sja, bwintx, Crestingwave

      in conservative South Carolina

      McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.

      by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So true, in fact (0+ / 0-)

        Senator Obama earned more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined in freaking South Carolina. I agree that the R's will throw everything that isn't nailed down during the general and we need to be prepared. However, those primary results in SC sure are encouraging.

      •  Weather was bad in SC during the GOP week (0+ / 0-)

        by SC standards at least.

        So it's not apples to apples. However, even if a general election run in SC were just close and not a win, we'd be virtually assured the White House.

        Ahmadinejad is a conservative

        by BlueEngineerInOhio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Past vs. The Future. (0+ / 0-)

      It's that simple.  McCain is playing to the old politics of fear, and Obama is asking the American people to let go of their fear and believe again.  Where McCain says we can't bring back the old jobs, Obama says we can get people employed in good paying jobs once again (although maybe not in the same factory or industry).  When McCain says we must "stay to the course" in Iraq, Obama says no there is a better way forward.  The same concepts that Obama is using in the primary will also work in the General Election, especially if McCain is the nominee.  Obama would be after all the first non-baby boomer to run for President on one of the major party tickets.

      Would McCain be a formidable opponent?  Sure, but I think Obama is up to the task.

    •  JustinL: its becoming increasingly clear.... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, Woody, sja

      ... that ANY Democrat will beat McCain. You can look at today's polls, but I think we all know the the election will turn on the economy which McCain, like Bush, knows jack about. Couple this with the lack of any clear economic policy difference with the current misadministration, and people will be a lot more hesitant to put their family's economic welfare into this guy's hands.

      We can argue the relative advantages ad nauseum, but the bottom line is that either Obama or Clinton would whip McCain's ass. 10 months out, McCain sounds good. When people realize their economic future could be on the line, people will adjust their voting preference.

    •  Well, it's possible... (0+ / 0-)

      ... that the generational contrast works in Obama's favor. But that can cut both ways, with McCain attempting to portray himself as the candidate who's experience can be trusted. I think that matchup would tend to favor McCain, since Obama has yet to prove any real appeal to working class white voters, and McCain does not have the baggage with Hispanics that most of the other GOP candidates have.

    •  It's called a landslide. (0+ / 0-)

      And it happens when a candidate excites the somnolent parts of the electorate.

      "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by bobdevo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:29:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fresh candidate, new generation (0+ / 0-)

      new politics, broad political spectrum appeal, and oratorical ability not seen in over a generation...

      vs.

      Smelly old fart who's trying to make his POW years count for something by winning Vietnam in Iraq, who stands on stages singing about bombing Iran to the stale tune of a Beach Boys song - who also happens to be hated by his own party's base of bible-thumping wackos.

      Or, we could run Hillary against McCain.  HRC could toute her 35 years of experience at changing stuff, and McCain could say, you were changing into your party dresses at Yale while I was taking shrapnel in fucking 'Nam, and then he would crush her at the polls.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the corporate media... (7+ / 0-)

    ....insists on worshipping McCain, this could be a tough election, if he wins the nomination. On the other hand, McCain also has some serious weaknesses, too. First off, he's not the guy who gets the Republican base all fired up. That vaunted 72 hour mobilization that hurt us badly in 2002 and 2004 is a lot less of a threat when Republicans feel demotivated. While McCain is popular with independents, he's not a favorite of the Religious Right or of the right-wing bloggers or conservative talk radio fans. This could cost him a) votes and b) volunteers, which are incredibly important. His second key weakness is his hawkishness. I can't imagine that public opinion on Iraq is going to be much changed, come November. So the guy who said that we should be there 100 years is not exactly going to go over well with an antiwar public.

    •  I agree (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Boston Boomer, gsbadj, revelwoodie

      Our ads should be replaying the "100 years" comment non-stop.

      You are right that the base hates him -- but I worry that they hate Hillary more.  I think they will hold their noses and vote for him if Hillary is the nominee.  In fact, her presence, I predict, would motivate them almost as much as a candidate they really liked. When the votes are counted, there's no difference between an enthusiastic vote and a "held my nose" vote!

      •  The Hillary haters... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        KibbutzAmiad

        ...are a big factor.  I know many people who are planning on voting for a Republican IF Hillary is our nominee.  I like Hillary myself, and I think they're a bunch of idiots, but unfortunately, idiots can still vote.

        "Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

        by revelwoodie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:34:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know several REPUBLICANS (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          KibbutzAmiad, gsbadj, Webster, revelwoodie

          who are thinking of voting for Obama, but will definitely vote for whatever Republican is the nominee if Hillary is the candidate.

          Both Obama and McCain have some crossover appeal -- Hillary, alas, has none.  And even though she's not my candidate, I don't think she's THAT bad.

          •  i have to wonder how big the hate group really (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            burrow owl, revelwoodie

            is? while she has high unlikability numbers, those same polls say they would vote for her. in talking to my repub mom today, she mentioned many republicans still don't believe McCain is one. that may cause some republicans to stay home as they wouldn't see much difference in the 2, perhaps? they def aren't pulling in much in the way of primary voters. also, i think Hillary can talk to some of the issues better than McCain, like the economy which should be the same or worse in Nov.

      •  Still though... (0+ / 0-)

        ....hating the other side's candidate isn't enough to put you over the top if your candidate isn't inspirational. The Republicans faced that problem in 1996. Their based despised Bill Clinton, but Bob Dole wasn't the sort of guy who'd get them to go door to door for him. We had a similar problem in 2004. We were united by our hatred of Bush, but Kerry was, unfortunately, not the greatest standard bearer out there.

    •  Yeah, but... (4+ / 0-)

      ...if he tones down that rhetoric for the general we need to be prepared for it.  We also have no idea where we're going to be at with the War when November rolls around.  I say we keep the War argument ready, but focus on hitting him hard with the failures of Conservative policies, especially the financial ones.

      Equate him a lot with Bush.  That will hurt.

      "Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

      by revelwoodie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:32:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And he's not as convincingly 'independent' (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Webster, limpidglass

      as he was when he ran in 2000. Since then, he's sucked up to the Bob Joneses and George W Bushes that he was brave enough to actually run against last time around. There's a lot of evidence to erode his independent status.

      Help Russ Feingold help progressive candidates - support the Progressive Patriots Fund.

      by scardanelli on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:33:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He's 72 (6+ / 0-)

    He better pick a really good VP or a lot of people are going to count that against him.

    •  Like Lieberman? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Guitar Hero

      Joe has been campaigning with him and I wonder if he's McCain's idea of a vibrant, youthful counter-balance. Hahahaha!

      •  He Could Do Worse (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Guitar Hero

        Not that I think it's going to happen, but McCain could do a lot worse, politically, than picking Lieberman. It'd be unprecedented to reach outside your party (at least going back to Lincoln picking Andrew Johnson), even more so to pick the other party's VP candidate of just 8 years before. The initial media reaction would likely be a big ode to bipartisanship. Democratic critics of Lieberman might be at least partially rebutted by replaying all the favorable things said of Joe when he ran in 2000. Joe might even move Connecticut into the GOP column in the Presidential race. However, as is usually the case, I expect McCain will use the VP slot to shore up his support in his own party, going with a choice that satisfies GOP conservatives.

  •  Important point in our favor: (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    cedubose, global citizen

    The "tax and spend" crap is a lie.  When there's a Republican in office, spending goes up, period.  The data will easily prove the Democrats to be infinitely more fiscally responsible.  Point out over and over what the last 8 years of Republican rule did with the Clinton surplus.

    Republicans want to cut spending, but only the spending people actually need.  When they're done with the inflated defense budget that gets their corporate cronies rich, THEY SPEND MORE.  A fact that's easy to prove and impossible to refute.

    "Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

    by revelwoodie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM PDT

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      revelwoodie

      The difficulty is getting the Democrats to agree to even bring UP the issue.

      It seems like they are so cowed because of all the right-wing attacks of the last 20 years, they just avoid the whole issue of taxes and spending.  If someone brings it up, they try to change the subject.

      This has GOT to change!  As you say, it's a lie, and they have to grow some balls and start talking as if we are RIGHT, and stop being defensive.

    •  That'll be a tough winner given all the spending (0+ / 0-)

      proposed by all the (D)s.  

    •  Your assuming that elections have anything (0+ / 0-)

      to do with facts.  I'd argue that the past 8 years have resoundingly rejected that idea.

      IMPEACH=Rock+Hard Place! Let every Rethug either publicly support the least popular president in 30 years, or admit their president is a traitor.

      by zephron on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:06:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republican Victories are All about... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the Vice President, now.

    Once we see that, we'll know what we're up against.

    Pluto now orbits Overnight News Digest ʍou sʇıqɹo oʇnld

    by Pluto on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM PDT

  •  That's crazy talk, diarist. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    linnen, zephron, revelwoodie

    Obama has "hopedacity"!

    What does McCain have, other than the MSM, a war hero reputation, an (undeserved) reputation as a maverick and a 25 year Senate career?

    Oh, wait.

    The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

    by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:31:13 PM PDT

    •  Well, he has large portions (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      KibbutzAmiad, Webster, global citizen

      of his party that hate his guts, including such luminaries as Rush Limbaugh. Also, he has advanced age, and a clear contrast (physically and otherwise) to the Maverick of 2000 that he once was, but is no longer.

      He is eminently beatable.

      It's a neighborly day in this beautywood. Relentless!

      by ablington on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:34:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who do you think they hate more? (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        linnen, zephron, Mr SeeMore

        McCain?

        Or our eventual nominee?

        The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

        by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:35:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Doesnt really matter. (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Webster, chicago minx

          It just has to be discouraging enough for them to not be thrilled to vote. Dems will be motivated, they wont be.

          It's a neighborly day in this beautywood. Relentless!

          by ablington on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:37:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just like I voted AGAINST Bush . . . (0+ / 0-)

            . . . and not so much FOR Kerry in '04, the Republicans will turn out in droves to vote, not FOR McCain, but against our nominee.

            The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

            by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:42:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They are demoralized (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              ablington, sja, Webster

              Look at the Dem vs. Republican primaries--the Dem turnout is enormous.  The Repubs aren't thrilled with any of their nominees.

              John McCain: Vowing to connect real leaders with real bowels

              by chicago minx on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:45:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which doesn't meant they won't turn out (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Mr SeeMore

                . . . for the nominee in the general.

                The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

                by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:47:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So what do you propose? (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  limpidglass

                  Surrendering to a 72 year old semi-demented, neo-con warmonger who is sensible enough to acknowledge climate change is real, but probably won't do much about it and might oppose some forms of torture, though not any forms of wire-tapping, if he is in the right mood?

                  We have only just begun and none too soon.

                  by global citizen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:52:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course not. (0+ / 0-)

                    Obama wins this thing in a slam dunk.

                    How silly of me to dare suggest otherwise.

                    Let's just get the Republicans to agree to cancel the election and plan the Obama inaugural.

                    Certainly, they, like such a politically astute observer as yourself, rexognize the utter hopelessness of their quest.

                    The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

                    by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:55:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Of course they will turn out (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  ablington

                  but there are more of us than them, particularly if the energized youth vote storms the polls for Obama.  And before you dismiss me as some Obama college student, I'm 55 years old.

                  John McCain: Vowing to connect real leaders with real bowels

                  by chicago minx on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I could swear I heard this four years ago. (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Mr SeeMore

                    I'm trying to remember how that turned out for us.

                    The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

                    by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:56:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Bush was a wartime president (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      ablington, limpidglass

                      running against an aloof Boston Brahmin, and he still nearly lost.  McCain doesn't frighten me at all.  He's barely holding his own against Willard "Dog Torturer" Romney.  Bring him on.

                      John McCain: Vowing to connect real leaders with real bowels

                      by chicago minx on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:00:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My bad. (0+ / 0-)

                        I hadn't realized we'd withdrawn from Iraq.

                        The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

                        by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:05:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Bush won't be running this time (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          chicago minx

                          the field is clear. We're still at war, but there will be no wartime incumbent to challenge.

                          •  You think Bush not running this time . . . (2+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            burrow owl, Mr SeeMore

                            . . . is an ADVANTAGE?

                            The Republicans awaken every day thanking God for the 22nd Amendment.  It's the only reason they have a chance this year.

                            The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

                            by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:13:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  you've clearly given up all hope of winning (2+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              nota bene, ablington

                              so what do you suggest we do?

                              •  Pride goeth before the fall. (0+ / 0-)

                                That's all I'm saying.

                                The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

                                by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:17:34 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  do yrself a favor (1+ / 0-)

                                  Recommended by:
                                  sja

                                  and compare the turnout numbers in purple IA, blue NH, and red SC. For some reason, Democratic turnout is beating the pants off of Republican turnout so far. And the Independents seem to be heavily skewing to the left.

                                  Hell, did you see that Obama outran McCain and Huckabee combined in South fucking Carolina?! Not to be overconfident, but it looks even better than 2006 did.

                                  •  And, for the eight millionth time today . . . (0+ / 0-)

                                    . . . I note that that translates in general election victory how?

                                    Kerry won the Iowa caucuses - lost Iowa

                                    Kerry won the New Hampshire primaries - lost New Hampshire.

                                    The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

                                    by raatzie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:42:10 PM PDT

                                    [ Parent ]

                                    •  so what? (1+ / 0-)

                                      Recommended by:
                                      limpidglass

                                      he was running against an incumbent. There's no incumbent in this race. I'd look up the actual vote totals, but Bush was running for re-election. Recall that this is the first presidential election with no incumbent running since 1928 (if you don't count Bill Clinton....). What better way then to predict turnout in the general than to look at actual votes cast in the primary?

                                      Look at it like this: SC is a Republican state. Bush beat Kerry by 17 points (about 278,000 votes). Obama set a record for Democratic turnout by himself in a three-way race. And 2nd place Hillary damn near beat out 1st place McCain.

                                      And you think that doesn't mean anything at all? You tell me how come more of those SC Republicans didn't turn out to vote (or waited a week to vote in the Democratic primary).

                                      Democratic turnout in the primaries has been running above expectations in every one so far (AFAIK). It's not just one state, it's all of them. This is a national trend. We saw it in 2006 and it's not done yet.

                              •  Not me. (1+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                limpidglass

                                I agree that we should work like hell and donate lots of money, but the Republican field is so pitiful that I feel damn good.  You cannot win 12 consecutive years of one party unless 1) Those first 8 years are sensationally good (LOL!) and 2) The successor to the incumbent party is sensationally good against a lousy challenger.  As if!

                                John McCain: Vowing to connect real leaders with real bowels

                                by chicago minx on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:18:31 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                        •  2004 support for the war (2+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          nota bene, limpidglass

                          vs. 2008 support for the war.  You do the math.

                          John McCain: Vowing to connect real leaders with real bowels

                          by chicago minx on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:10:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  the strife among Republicans is unprecedented (3+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  cedubose, bwintx, chicago minx

                  a lot of them loathe McCain.

                  Bush was a gift from heaven to the Republicans--a GOP blue-blood insider with friends in big business who could pass as a folksy Christian cowboy, taking the support of the religious right.

                  McCain doesn't have the support of the Christian right. And he's not really a machine candidate like Bush was.

                  In Freeperland there's plenty of McCain hatred:

                  “McCain No Way”

                  I’d sooner see the nation destroyed by a dim than a supposed Repub.

                  McNuts is off the hook, unhinged, elevator doesn't go to the top floor, hamburger short of a Happy Meal, etc. The guy is psychologically unbalanced.

                  If McCain gets the nod it will be an easy year for me. I’ve been pounding the pavement for Republicans since 1993. I won’t waste the hours or the shoes for someone who has been poking me in the eyr for nearly a decade.

                  McCain would be the worst. A disaster as President, a Republican signing every tax increase, amnesty, regulation, and idiocy the Democrats in Congress send him. And Republicans would take the blame.

                  Can you imagine them saying this about Bush in 2004?

                  For the first time the Republicans aren't being told whom to get behind by the GOP high priesthood. And the result is total chaos.

  •  John McCain is attacking Romney.. (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    cedubose, ablington, bwintx, haruki

    Saying he wants to withdraw from Iraq.

    NORTH FORT MYERS, Fla. - John McCain, battered by criticism from Mitt Romney that he is unfit to handle the economy, yesterday sought to shift the focus back to Iraq, accusing Romney of wanting to set a date to withdraw US troops.
    More political coverage:

    Romney, however, vigorously denied ever calling for a withdrawal from Iraq and demanded an apology from McCain.

    Think about this.  They are competing to see who wants to stay in Iraq the MOST!  Will people really vote for one of them over the Democrat if this is their message?    

    Iraq Forever?

    •  ah, that explains what i heard them saying today! (0+ / 0-)

      i caught part of the McCain show today and it was all about Iraq. amazing how they could work that into everything. must have learned the Rudy 911 Formula.

  •  I am concerned that McCain would carry the South (0+ / 0-)

    against Clinton,Edwards and Obama. The old Confederate states as it were.

    I hate to say it but I am afraid McCain could possibly win the general election against any of our top three candidates.

    Some people on this site believe it is a forgone conclusion that we will have a (D) in the White House. I hope they are correct.

    "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, US AG

    by Mr SeeMore on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM PDT