Proof positive that politics is not a blood sport for Barack Obama can be seen in his unprecedented reaching out during the transition for advice and help from John McCain.
Tonight McCain will be guest of honor at a black-tie dinner celebrating Obama's inauguration but, beyond such ceremonial gestures, the President-Elect has been consulting his former rival about potential nominees to national security jobs, in one case even pursuing answers to questions McCain had raised.
According to Lindsey Graham, McCain's close Senate friend, the Republican candidate has told him "many of these appointments he would have made himself."
With Joe the Plumber reporting from Gaza and Sarah Palin sulking in Alaska, Obama has been healing election campaign wounds, not only by dining with conservative pundits, but discussing with his former rival McCain's proposals to cut "corporate welfare," curb waste in military procurement and overhaul immigration rules, according to Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff.
In the months ahead, McCain could turn out to be one of Obama's strongest Senate allies, representing the traditional wing of the Republican Party rather than the extremists who took over and wrecked his presidential campaign.
With Hillary Clinton in the Cabinet, it's conceivable that, when McCain's Senate term expires next year, Obama could turn to him as a replacement for interim Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to complete a truly Lincolnesque team of rivals.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. John McCain. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2009
Saturday, June 21, 2008
"Did I Mention He's Black?"
Barack Obama started out running as a race-neutral candidate, but Jeremiah Wright and the "white working class demographic" made the issue inescapable, and the presidential campaign will benefit from having it out in the open.
At a fund-raiser last night, he previewed the underbelly of the Republican attacks to come:
“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” Obama told supporters. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
And to cap it all: “He’s got a feisty wife.”
It takes rare confidence and courage to anticipate and drag out into the light the kind of prejudice that thrives on darkness, to do what John Kerry, to his regret, failed to do in 2004--confront the 527 slime machine that John McCain deplored back then but has yet to disavow fully and forcefully now.
What Obama is doing is not only challenging the decency of fair-minded voters who might be influenced by such attacks veiled in darkness and silence but would be shamed to tolerate openly--but his opponent's as well.
They, and John McCain, have a decision to make.
At a fund-raiser last night, he previewed the underbelly of the Republican attacks to come:
“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” Obama told supporters. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
And to cap it all: “He’s got a feisty wife.”
It takes rare confidence and courage to anticipate and drag out into the light the kind of prejudice that thrives on darkness, to do what John Kerry, to his regret, failed to do in 2004--confront the 527 slime machine that John McCain deplored back then but has yet to disavow fully and forcefully now.
What Obama is doing is not only challenging the decency of fair-minded voters who might be influenced by such attacks veiled in darkness and silence but would be shamed to tolerate openly--but his opponent's as well.
They, and John McCain, have a decision to make.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
"9/10 Mindset" vs. "1984"
The McCain campaign is pouncing on Barack Obama for a "9/10 mindset" in his approach to the treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.
In a conference call with reporters, they trotted out former CIA chief James Woolsey and others to charge that Obama’s is, to resurrect an old GOP Cold War word, "soft" on terrorism.
“If a law enforcement approach were accurate," a McCain policy adviser said, "then you wouldn’t have had Sept. 11."
They were inspired by Obama's approval of the Supreme Court decision that detainees have the right to seek habeas corpus relief.
"(W)e have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims,'" Obama said. “We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.”
Obama's camp will no doubt respond, but conservative columnist has already done that for them in today's Washington Post by parsing McCain's response that it was "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country":
"Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?
"Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court--meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees--a campaign issue."
Will, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning Reagan supporter, may just be out of step with the new conservative thinking. He may just not realize that a "9/10 mindset" is more dangerous these days than going back to the totalitarian mindset of George Orwell's novel, "1984."
In a conference call with reporters, they trotted out former CIA chief James Woolsey and others to charge that Obama’s is, to resurrect an old GOP Cold War word, "soft" on terrorism.
“If a law enforcement approach were accurate," a McCain policy adviser said, "then you wouldn’t have had Sept. 11."
They were inspired by Obama's approval of the Supreme Court decision that detainees have the right to seek habeas corpus relief.
"(W)e have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims,'" Obama said. “We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.”
Obama's camp will no doubt respond, but conservative columnist has already done that for them in today's Washington Post by parsing McCain's response that it was "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country":
"Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?
"Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court--meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees--a campaign issue."
Will, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning Reagan supporter, may just be out of step with the new conservative thinking. He may just not realize that a "9/10 mindset" is more dangerous these days than going back to the totalitarian mindset of George Orwell's novel, "1984."
Friday, May 30, 2008
Obama-McCain Numbers Game
Reading tea leaves from the new November polls is as hard as it was a year ago to see what was really going behind the numbers that showed Hillary Clinton running away with the Democratic nomination.
Now, despite post-Bush Republican disarray, the new Pew poll shows "a tightening general election matchup between Obama and McCain" under a headline that says, "McCain's Negatives Mostly Political, Obama's More Personal."
It's tempting to decode that as racism, but the reasons are surely more complicated.
For a start, there is the question of familiarity. Like Clinton, McCain has been in national politics much longer than Obama with a reputation for being strong-minded and independent, an edge that may account for some of his support as it did in the case of the former First Lady last year among voters who don't follow politics closely.
Moreover, the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama are still fresh, as reflected in figures that show only 46 percent of her supporters saying the party will unite behind him in November.
Over the next five months, Democrats will be faced with healing those wounds and winning over Obama doubters who find his promise of change threatening rather than hopeful.
The candidate himself will have to do the heavy lifting to persuade the 82 percent of voters unhappy with the way things are going that he is a better answer to their disaffection than a Republican, no matter how personable, who will continue Bush's policies on the economy and the war in Iraq.
Obama's choice of a running mate will weigh heavily in that equation. After that, he surely will have to go to Iraq and show himself as a potential commander-in-chief who can connect with the troops while winning the respect of their senior officers, even as he proposes to change the policies that have mired them there.
The election is his to lose, no matter what the tea leaves say now.
Now, despite post-Bush Republican disarray, the new Pew poll shows "a tightening general election matchup between Obama and McCain" under a headline that says, "McCain's Negatives Mostly Political, Obama's More Personal."
It's tempting to decode that as racism, but the reasons are surely more complicated.
For a start, there is the question of familiarity. Like Clinton, McCain has been in national politics much longer than Obama with a reputation for being strong-minded and independent, an edge that may account for some of his support as it did in the case of the former First Lady last year among voters who don't follow politics closely.
Moreover, the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama are still fresh, as reflected in figures that show only 46 percent of her supporters saying the party will unite behind him in November.
Over the next five months, Democrats will be faced with healing those wounds and winning over Obama doubters who find his promise of change threatening rather than hopeful.
The candidate himself will have to do the heavy lifting to persuade the 82 percent of voters unhappy with the way things are going that he is a better answer to their disaffection than a Republican, no matter how personable, who will continue Bush's policies on the economy and the war in Iraq.
Obama's choice of a running mate will weigh heavily in that equation. After that, he surely will have to go to Iraq and show himself as a potential commander-in-chief who can connect with the troops while winning the respect of their senior officers, even as he proposes to change the policies that have mired them there.
The election is his to lose, no matter what the tea leaves say now.
Monday, April 07, 2008
The Least of Obama's Problems
William Kristol, who writes as if he were being paid by the word, today gives us a diary of his recent expense-account travels and reports "that lots of conservatives and Republicans expect Barack Obama to be our next president."
But undaunted, Kristol dredges up "an experienced Democratic operative" who thinks McCain is going to win with this brilliant analysis:
"Obama isn’t growing in stature. Once I thought he could be Jimmy Carter, but now he reminds me more of Michael Dukakis with the flag lapel thing and defending Wright. Plus he doesn’t have a clue how to talk to the middle class. He’s in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in.”
In a close race, Kristol comforts his fellow conservatives, that “dash of Harvard disease” could be the difference.
Comparing Obama, a once-in-a-lifetime political talent, to the clueless Carter and lead-footed Dukakis, is grasping at straws and expecting an electorate, panicky about the economy and worn out by the war, to find McCain's version of Bush Lite irresistible borders on the delusional.
Between now and November, Democrats have hard work to do to assure retaking the White House, but overcoming Obama's Harvardness is not high on the list. After all, the voters didn't hold George W. Bush's Yale background against him, and he proved that a President's college education ia no measure of how he will do in office.
But undaunted, Kristol dredges up "an experienced Democratic operative" who thinks McCain is going to win with this brilliant analysis:
"Obama isn’t growing in stature. Once I thought he could be Jimmy Carter, but now he reminds me more of Michael Dukakis with the flag lapel thing and defending Wright. Plus he doesn’t have a clue how to talk to the middle class. He’s in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in.”
In a close race, Kristol comforts his fellow conservatives, that “dash of Harvard disease” could be the difference.
Comparing Obama, a once-in-a-lifetime political talent, to the clueless Carter and lead-footed Dukakis, is grasping at straws and expecting an electorate, panicky about the economy and worn out by the war, to find McCain's version of Bush Lite irresistible borders on the delusional.
Between now and November, Democrats have hard work to do to assure retaking the White House, but overcoming Obama's Harvardness is not high on the list. After all, the voters didn't hold George W. Bush's Yale background against him, and he proved that a President's college education ia no measure of how he will do in office.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Lost McCain
If he had not been sidetracked in 2000 by the Bush-Rove smear machine, John McCain might have attracted enough Independents and so-called Reagan Democrats to win the White House without the help of the Supreme Court.
In that event, would we have been spared not only the Bush years but the far different McCain who is contending for the Presidency this year?
In power after 9/11, McCain would not have had a Dick Cheney and his Neo-Cons to torture intelligence into a case for invading Iraq and, even with his own quasi-religious faith in military force, might have presided over a saner response to the threat of Islamic extremism.
But that McCain, who charmed the media with his candor, is long gone, vaporized by bitterness over what Bush et al did to him back then, by his decision to court the Religious Right he once disdained, by tailoring his views on tax cuts for the very rich to win over the Grover Norquist gang in the primaries, by hooking up with the likes of Joe Lieberman to become the champion of a war he might never have started.
In the coming months, Democrats will have to work hard to make voters understand that this year's Republican standard bearer is not the John McCain of 2000, who would not have needed Lieberman to whisper in his ear after confusing Iran and al Qaeda, who would not be entrusting his own professed ignorance about the economy to those who helped deregulate us into recession, who might have included Independents and Democrats in an administration back then but would be too compromised to do so now.
McCain has always had a romanticized picture of himself that an admiring media has helped perpetuate. His favorite movie, "Viva Zapata," is about an uncompromising man of the people done in by petty politicians, an image that helps explain constant battles with members of his own party in the Senate and displays of temper when challenged.
As the rightmost Republicans who changed him over the past eight years try to sell McCain as the man he was then, it will be up to the Democratic candidate to bring down that Wizard of Oz façade without alienating voters who respect his lifetime of service to the country.
When all the primary garbage is cleared away, Barack Obama will be in a better position to do that than Hillary Clinton.
In that event, would we have been spared not only the Bush years but the far different McCain who is contending for the Presidency this year?
In power after 9/11, McCain would not have had a Dick Cheney and his Neo-Cons to torture intelligence into a case for invading Iraq and, even with his own quasi-religious faith in military force, might have presided over a saner response to the threat of Islamic extremism.
But that McCain, who charmed the media with his candor, is long gone, vaporized by bitterness over what Bush et al did to him back then, by his decision to court the Religious Right he once disdained, by tailoring his views on tax cuts for the very rich to win over the Grover Norquist gang in the primaries, by hooking up with the likes of Joe Lieberman to become the champion of a war he might never have started.
In the coming months, Democrats will have to work hard to make voters understand that this year's Republican standard bearer is not the John McCain of 2000, who would not have needed Lieberman to whisper in his ear after confusing Iran and al Qaeda, who would not be entrusting his own professed ignorance about the economy to those who helped deregulate us into recession, who might have included Independents and Democrats in an administration back then but would be too compromised to do so now.
McCain has always had a romanticized picture of himself that an admiring media has helped perpetuate. His favorite movie, "Viva Zapata," is about an uncompromising man of the people done in by petty politicians, an image that helps explain constant battles with members of his own party in the Senate and displays of temper when challenged.
As the rightmost Republicans who changed him over the past eight years try to sell McCain as the man he was then, it will be up to the Democratic candidate to bring down that Wizard of Oz façade without alienating voters who respect his lifetime of service to the country.
When all the primary garbage is cleared away, Barack Obama will be in a better position to do that than Hillary Clinton.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
The Subtext of '08
What do we know about voters' desires after watching them winnow down a score of presidential candidates to three?
To start, George W. Bush has ruined their taste for the usual white middle-aged male, or we wouldn't be left with a woman, an African-American and a Senior Citizen who doesn't play well with others in the political sandbox.
What the survivors have in common is that, among the choices available, Clinton, Obama and McCain seemed the least likely to lie to them all the time, a rarity for most voters under 40 after their years of Bill Clinton when the testosterone was high and Bush all the time.
"Authenticity" became the buzz word, and a sensed lack of it in Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, among the others, certainly played a part in their elimination. Obama and McCain are obviously who they are, and even Hillary Clinton, although faulted by some for calculation, is no chameleon.
When the Obama-Clinton choice is made, authenticity will give way to a ramped-up argument about experience vs. change, particularly if Obama is the Democrat candidate. At the edges there will be "too liberal" and "not conservative enough" grumbling, but the essence of the campaign will be how far voters want to go in escaping the Bush years to find something better.
McCain will offer some variations on conservative orthodoxy and a new, improved Iraq war rather than a rejection of its rationale. Either Democrat will promise not just to shuffle the deck on the economy and the damage to individual rights but go back to the traditional rules of the game and get out of a misbegotten war as quickly as possible.
When the shouting is over and the ballots are counted, we will have an unfamiliar figure in the White House--a woman, an African-American or the oldest maverick ever--not the stereotypical middle-aged man from Central Casting.
That much has already been decided, and it would be hard for anyone to fault the electorate for that.
To start, George W. Bush has ruined their taste for the usual white middle-aged male, or we wouldn't be left with a woman, an African-American and a Senior Citizen who doesn't play well with others in the political sandbox.
What the survivors have in common is that, among the choices available, Clinton, Obama and McCain seemed the least likely to lie to them all the time, a rarity for most voters under 40 after their years of Bill Clinton when the testosterone was high and Bush all the time.
"Authenticity" became the buzz word, and a sensed lack of it in Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, among the others, certainly played a part in their elimination. Obama and McCain are obviously who they are, and even Hillary Clinton, although faulted by some for calculation, is no chameleon.
When the Obama-Clinton choice is made, authenticity will give way to a ramped-up argument about experience vs. change, particularly if Obama is the Democrat candidate. At the edges there will be "too liberal" and "not conservative enough" grumbling, but the essence of the campaign will be how far voters want to go in escaping the Bush years to find something better.
McCain will offer some variations on conservative orthodoxy and a new, improved Iraq war rather than a rejection of its rationale. Either Democrat will promise not just to shuffle the deck on the economy and the damage to individual rights but go back to the traditional rules of the game and get out of a misbegotten war as quickly as possible.
When the shouting is over and the ballots are counted, we will have an unfamiliar figure in the White House--a woman, an African-American or the oldest maverick ever--not the stereotypical middle-aged man from Central Casting.
That much has already been decided, and it would be hard for anyone to fault the electorate for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)