How to beat McCain/How to beat Obama

Posted February 13th, 2008 at 10:12 PM by D. Boon

2008 Election

If your looking for an insightful read on how the general election may play out you could do much worse than these two summaries:

John Barbender, Republican Media Consultant:

Obama shows that anyone can rise up if they’re smart enough and talented enough, but the question is whether he has the experience to lead the country in turbulent times. That’s a huge question mark. McCain is a PC and Obama is Mac. People like the look of Macs but there are a lot more PCs out there. McCain is an extremely safe choice for America and people may decide they can’t afford to do anything but make the safe choice.

Cathy Allen, Democratic Political Consultant:

McCain is very vulnerable. He is old news. He looks like someone who should be your grandfather–at a time that you, as a grandchild, think it’s your day. I see it as a generational election, especially if Obama is the nominee. He’s an exciting, inspirational speaker and next to him McCain looks like he’s from your grandfather’s generation.

Interesting stuff. Read the rest, it is worth your five minutes. :)

D. Boon's blog

On February 13th, 2008 at 11:55 PM, ewjohnson said:

Rather vapid stuff from both.

Interesting that Cathy Allen touches vacuously on the subject of Farmers feeling deceived by Republican candidates

but she fails to mention the considerable opposition to McCain among Republicans especially Conservatives,

and she ignores the considerable opposition to the Iraq War and McCain's warmongering. Could it

be that O'Bomba is not offering any real alternative?

I would certainly not consider McCain to be safe, unless "prepare to duck and cover" is your idea of safe.

Pick your city. Doubtless if McCain is elected, the target city of choice is NYC,

to finish the job. Blowback^2

ewjohnson

On February 13th, 2008 at 11:58 PM, D. Boon said:

Of course I wonder when these conservatives developed their opposition to Iraq War. Were you all out on Prospect Avenue protesting during the winter of 2003? Or did this opposition develop once it became clear that the war was pretty much a huge failure? I know Ron Paul voted against the resolution back in '02, but I walked the line with AWARE during those heady days of 2003 and I sure don't remember any conservatives out there.

Except the ones who threw eggs at us and called us traitors, that is.

On February 14th, 2008 at 12:30 AM, James Mortland said:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other."

-John Stuart Mill

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence settled their fates quite nicely. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

-Robert Heinlein

"It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it."

-General Robert E. Lee

On February 14th, 2008 at 12:43 AM, ewjohnson said:

TO EVERYTHING there is a season, and a time for every matter or purpose under heaven:
A time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to pluck up what is planted,
A time to kill and a time to heal, a time to break down and a time to build up,
A time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance,
A time to cast away stones and a time to gather stones together, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
A time to get and a time to lose, a time to keep and a time to cast away,
A time to rend and a time to sew, a time to keep silence and a time to speak,
A time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

On February 14th, 2008 at 01:08 AM, one who hopes t... said:

congrats, this is under the blog links on capitolfax.

On February 14th, 2008 at 01:12 AM, D. Boon said:

So in other words you were for the war before you were against it. What changed your mind?

At least we have established that the war will be a crucial part of the campaign, though I am not sure who has the advantage on that issue. Success in Iraq does not seem to be translating into higher approval for Mr. Bush, will it bring voters to McCain?

It seems to me that the worse things go in Iraq the better the issue will work for Republicans - it's a dangerous world, etc. If it stabilizes and the nation's attention turns to domestic issues I see the Democrats having real advantages. Ironically, McCain's support for the surge and that surge's success may be the undoing of his bid for the White House.

Or not.

On February 14th, 2008 at 06:51 AM, James Mortland said:

If that was intended for me, D Boon...

1) You have no idea what my thoughts are on "the" war, or war in general.

2) The opinions that I do have on "the" war and war in general run far deeper and are much more complex than a 1-line sound bite.

On February 14th, 2008 at 07:59 AM, xian said:

James, it's easily to defend against absolutist strawmen. It's also foolish to say, "One should NEVER EVER EVER NEVER inflict pain on one's children!" But that doesn't mean I ought to beat my children brutally, daily and arbitrarily...

On February 14th, 2008 at 08:37 AM, James Mortland said:

Slow down, Xian.

All I did yesterday was post about 8 quotes on 2 threads. I personally argued for or against nothing.

That being said, the "fighting against absolutist strawmen" applies to you as well. While a little twisted (don't get me wrong, I like new and unusual analogies - it beats the heck out of cliches), your analogy implies that I am 'for war, all the time, everywhere.' I provided the quotes for two reasons. First, the majority of them are deep thoughts from great writers and speakers, and in some cases warriors, and I believe that their words bear reading and heavy contemplation. Second, the general (no pun intended) theme of the quotes was to point out that 'war is all hell', but is SOMETIMES a necessary evil (hence, the 'applies to you as well' comment - no one in their right mind would argue that war should be fought whenever possible). Whether or not that applies to Iraq (which I believe was what D Boon was getting at with "the war"), I believe depends on your point of view.

My opinion on the war in Iraq, at least in civilian circles, is irrelivent, and as I have always stated on this blog, I won't expand on that.

Finally, it's easy to judge the Iraq war itself and the conduct of specific US soldiers in the Iraq war in black and white terms when standing in the safety of a classroom or on North Prospect holding a sign, when all of your intel comes from unclassified information from MSM and "indy"media, that make black and white judgements for you. It's easy when your opinion of it has absolutely no direct bearing on your life (save for the 1 or 2 soldiers you "know" and how well you sleep at night). It's far more difficult to come to consistent, logical conclusions and to see the whole picture, when you deal with ACTUAL intel, and your life, and the lives of your 'family,' friends and cohorts are on the line every single day since this began.

On February 14th, 2008 at 09:20 AM, D. Boon said:

Is it always this hard to keep a thread on topic? Interesting discussion and all, but does anyone have any insight into how the two parties might strategize their campaigns? I really am interested in thinking about that a bit more, if possible.

That said:

It's easy when your opinion of it has absolutely no direct bearing on your life (save for the 1 or 2 soldiers you "know" and how well you sleep at night). It's far more difficult to come to consistent, logical conclusions and to see the whole picture, when you deal with ACTUAL intel, and your life, and the lives of your 'family,' friends and cohorts are on the line every single day since this began.

I don't think my opinions on the war have no direct bearing on my life. Frankly, I think your dismissive attitude is almost more repugnant than the war itself. By any rational measure this war has been a fiasco. It has spun so far away from the original, bogus purposes sold to the American Public that now even conservative posters on this site routinely admit that it is about oil. Do you not remember that when the protestors said it was about oil in 2003 they were labeled traitors? They were told to "love it or leave it"? Was it "moonbeams" or "tin-foil hat brigade"? I forget.

No, my opinion has a great bearing on my life. This thing will cost us over a trillion dollars when it is all said and done (imagine the response that would have received if an AWARE protestor had DARED to make that claim in February of 2003). It has cost us thousands of lives and limbs and done extreme damage to the trust the American people and the world have our their leaders. These things are all very real. And they are all very important.

But your point about intelligence is not lost on me. I wonder what intelligence reports are landing in Washington this very morning, outlining the threats this nation faces. Is it now our duty to eliminate every threat to this country, to the extent that we can invade and conquer nations of our choosing at the time of our choosing? This is and always has been a very dangerous world. It always will be that way. It requires real leadership and discernment to understand when and where we will make the choice to use force to secure our country. Iraq was a bad place at a bad time. Don't try and pretend anyone who is against the war is against using force to protect Americans. We are not against smart, necessary wars. We are against stupid, unnecessary, nefarious wars waged in our names with our tax dollars and our children's lives.

On February 14th, 2008 at 09:31 AM, James Mortland said:

Duly noted.

On February 14th, 2008 at 09:03 PM, History Guy said:

In a effort to get this thread back to its original question, I offer a slight tangent from the "How to Beat McCain/How to Beat Obama" question D. Boon posed. Maureen Dowd, writing in the New York Times, details how she believes Clinton is a flawed test for feminists and feminist interests. Money quote: "But Hillary is not the best test case for women. We’ll never know how much of the backlash is because she’s a woman or because she’s this woman or because of the ick factor of returning to the old Clinton dysfunction." Being a moderate, right-of-center type of voter, my almost innate dislike of Hillary Clinton kinda surprises me; I don't view myself (and others don't view me) as a stereotypical Clinton-hating, down the line Republican. But I cannot see myself voting for Clinton, in any conceivable world. It's not because she's a woman, it's not because she's a Democrat, and it's not because I think she's "the weaker sex". It's because of who she is.

Regarding the two articles from Harper's Magazine...I enjoyed reading them, and thought they offered a perceptive (albeit very early) look at the opening stages of a McCain/Obama Presidential race. One of my few criticisms comes in the piece with Cathy Allen. Her answers, in the main, tended to emphasize Obama's freshness, his speaking abilities, his attraction to those who don't normally vote, and so on. While those points maybe (are?) true, she seems to be seriously discounting the counter of McCain's experience and body of work. My initial read of her answers, something that's stayed with me in every following reading, is that she comes off as totally unconcerned about any counter McCain would presumptively use (experience vs. inexperience, deep body of work vs. shallow public service record, etc). I mean, I know she thinks Obama is great, and is the best candidate, but that shouldn't blind you to the "pluses" of the (presumptive) opponent.

Just my two cents.

On February 14th, 2008 at 11:28 PM, D. Boon said:

HG - I actually agree with much of what you are wrote. The Republican consultant, for whatever reason, seemed to come off as more objective to me even though he obviously also has his bias.

But I think Allen's overall points are well taken. I was struck on Tuesday evening by the flatness of McCain's victory speech after the Potomac Primaries. I think he was reading off a teleprompter and his delivery was really just awful. There were maybe 200 people in the room. The speech came directly after the live feed from Obama freestyling in front of almost 20,000 enthusiasts in a basketball arena up in Madison. The contrast could not have been more stark.

So I do think McCain will need to counter that enthusiasm somehow. It will be tough, as Obama seems to represent what many of us see as the future of this country. And McCain's ties to the Bush crowd won't help.

Obama's message is hope and change. McCain is experience and safety. It will be a clear choice and the critical element will probably be the level of fear felt in America at the time of the election. Which is depressing because it probably means the neo-con crowd will do their best to scare the pants off the average American. But I truly believe Obama is betting on the American people. Betting that they will overcome their fear and vote with their hearts. I don't think the hope message has ever failed in a large election. But these are serious times.

Thanks for your response. It is super interesting to me to play out the possible scenarios. I used to think it would be a Democratic blowout, but now I am not so sure.

Cheers!

On February 14th, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Gregg said:

On February 14th, 2008 at 12:12 AM, D. Boon said:

" Success in Iraq does not seem to be translating into higher approval for Mr. Bush"

Nor does it for the Congress, Both Democrat & Republicans that continue to vote in favor of funding the war, they have the lowest approval rate of all time!