The McCain Shipwreck

Senator John McCain's Presidential Campaign is coming to an ignominious end.

Even some Republican-leaning pollsters are predicting an Obama landslide.

This past Sunday's New York Times Magazine offered a not-as-premature-as-you-might-think post-mortem of the McCain Campaign.

In the end, Senator Obama's community organizing background may have given him the edge in creating what, by all accounts, is an unprecedented ground organization.

Would the McCain organization have fared better against Senator Hillary Clinton? Perhaps. But in many ways, the campaign imploded. The following is a summary of the NYT's piece from Chris Cillizza's "The Fix":

• In attempting to adapt to the constantly-changing (and worsening) political environment, McCain has tried on a series of themes -- "a fighter, a conciliator, an experienced leader and a shake 'em up rebel," writes Draper -- which has contributed to the average voter losing his/her sense of who McCain really is. "In constantly alternating among story lines in order to respond to changing events and to gain traction with voters, the 'true character' of a once-crisply-defined political figure has become increasingly murky," writes Draper. This is dead on. The key for any campaign is to be able to sum up what their candidate means/embodies in one word. For Barack Obama that word is "change." Try doing the same for McCain. Tough to think of just one word.


• Draper lays the idea of McCain suspending his campaign during the early stages of the financial crisis at the feet of Steve Schmidt, the man placed in charge of the day to day operations of the campaign in early July. Schmidt, writes Draper, saw the financial crisis as a "'true character' moment that would advance his candidate's narrative" but adds that the gambit failed because "scene by scene, McCain failed to deliver the performance that had been promised." Draper does credit Schmidt for the idea of casting Obama as a celebrity -- an idea and a message that arguably represented McCain's high point in the race to date.


• Although the staff insurrection last summer in McCain's campaign is old news now, Draper rightly puts the blame for the near-catastrophic incident where it belongs: on the candidate's management style (or lack thereof). "McCain, it's fair to say, was not a big believer in organization," Draper writes. "The important decisions were all made by him, with various confidants of ambiguous portfolio orbiting around him and often colliding with one another." Draper writes of the tensions between McCain's own "Iron Triangle" of John Weaver, Mark Salter and Rick Davis and how those tensions eventually created a power void in the campaign into which Schmidt stepped. Absolutely fascinating stuff.


• The germ of the Sarah Palin pick began with an interview in 2007 on "The Charlie Rose Show" where the Alaska governor faced off with Arizona Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano. The interview caught the eye of campaign manager Rick Davis; "what he liked was how she stuck to her pet issues -- energy independence and ethics reform -- and thereby refused to let Rose manage the interview," writes Draper of Davis' reaction to Palin's performance. Schmidt was on board with the pick early on; Salter was convinced later after meeting with Palin personally.


• Politicians hate to be publicly psychoanalyzed (who wouldn't?) but Draper deftly paints the mind of McCain. "The flipside of John McCain's metanarrative of personal valor has always been palpable self righteousness," he writes, adding that McCain's sense of code and honor has been violated by his perception of the unfairness of the media coverage and by the fact that he does not believe that Obama is ready to be president. That contempt for both the media and his opponent has come out on the campaign trail -- most notably during the final presidential debate when McCain's eye-rolling and exasperation at Obama's answers were a major part of the post-debate analysis. "By extension then, if the McCain campaign's conduct would appear to be at odds with the man's 'true character', it is only because the combination of a dishonorable opponent and a biased media has forced his hand," Draper writes. "Or so goes the rationale for what by this month was an increasingly ugly campaign."

Old Soldiers Never Die . . . .

In his farewell address to congress, Gen. Douglas MacArthur quoted a popular barracks ballad, that "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away . . . ."

After a brilliant command of the Pacific Theater of War in WWII, and subsequently running afoul of President Harry Truman, a feisty MacArthur was relieved of his command. MacArthur wanted to stand up to China, rather than limiting the Korean War; Truman disagreed and fired MacArthur. Unbowed, General MacArthur returned home, and addressed congress including that quote.

In watching the demeanor of Senator McCain last evening, I was reminded of Gen. MacArthur; I believe the two personalities are similar. And by making this comparison, I certainly mean no disrespect to either man.

But on stage, we did see "McNasty" (one of Sen. McCain's boyhood nicknames--see the Rolling Stone article). And frankly, Senator, you scared me. You projected the image of a petulant ideologue whose new campaign slogan recently became "fight!" And there are too many petulant ideologues running countries across the globe--these are men with far less personal discipline than you (and who may not have to answer to a US Congress)--men like Chavez or Ahmadinejad. These are men who weren't paying attention when collaboration was being taught.

Whether or not Truman's decision about Korea was correct is still debated; what is clear, however, is that once that decision had been made, retiring an old soldier was necessary. The post-war era required cool heads (like Jack Kennedy during the Cuban crisis) rather than saber-rattlers. The global game is more like chess than ice-hockey.

Senator Obama stayed cool, even smiling throughout the debate; but we should not confuse demeanor with disinterest. Collaboration and dialogue are the tools of diplomacy; policy making is less about ideology than about practicality. The recent economic downturn shows clearly that not only are our vulnerabilities not all solved militarily, but that a uniform global response may be the only effective solution.

Senator McCain (the soldier) sees the world as clearly divisible into "right/wrong" and "victory/defeat" and "friend/enemy". Senator Obama (the law professor) sees multiple shades of gray. The McCain "America First" slogan tends to present our country as dominant (like an acid); perhaps we need to be more soluble, more catalyst, less acid.

The skill-sets of a soldier may be fundamentally different than those of a statesman; rarely have we seen both in the same leader. We need both viewpoints; but the current administration has tried to manufacture evidence to make all of the gray-seers believe that things were much more black and white than they really were. And we're not ready to be taken down that path again.

And while (in last night's debate) you were quick to point out that you "aren't Bush," (as was stated in another debate) you are also not Jack Kennedy.

Barack Obama, John McCain on Foreign Policy

Senator Obama:

After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

Senator McCain:

America needs a president who can revitalize the country's purpose and standing in the world and defeat terrorist adversaries who threaten liberty at home and abroad. There is an enormous amount to do. The next U.S. president must be ready to show America and the world that this country's best days are yet to come and be ready to establish an enduring peace based on freedom.

While now over a year old, the journal Foreign Affairs had a series of essays written by the various candidates, including both Senators McCain and Obama.

While the focus of most voters has turned to economic issues, it's still important to know what each candidate feels to be America's place in the world (especially since our economic leadership position may now be in question).

In looking over just the titles, I'm reminded of another quote I've seen recently in relation to the investment crisis: Losers focus on the risk, Winners focus on the rewards. Interestingly, during a time when the Dow was at 14,000, the Republicans were shaping their foreign policy based on the risks, while the Democrats were couching their essays in the language of the opportunities.

Senator, Don't Look So Surprised!

From the McCain Campaign Trail:

A man in the audience stood up and told McCain he's "scared" of an Obama presidency and who he'd select for the Supreme Court.

"I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as President of the United States," McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted "Come on, John!"

"If I didn't think I'd be a heck of a lot better, I wouldn't be running for President of the United States."

Another woman at the town hall asks softly: "I've heard that Sen. Obama is an
Arab terrorist."

McCain quickly cuts the woman off.

"No, maam. He's a decent family man and citizen," McCain says. "He's not. Thank you."

Senator, did you really think that the tone you and Gov. Palin have set in this race is going to set the example for conservative voters to carefully weigh the issues and then with utmost rationality vote for you???

Or did I miss the rule that says that Senators must act with civility, but Presidential candidates can act any old way they want????

We Can't Take Another "Fiscal Conservative"

Pablumizing the Presidency

In the most recent "Knight Rider" television show (NBC), the artificially intelligent car, Kit, observes that "many public servants regularly deceive their constituents yet remain in office." Such a shocking revelation from one with no "skin in the game."

In Friday night's first Presidential debate, Jim Lehrer (PBS) continually tried to get each candidate to reveal how the current economic crisis would change their announced spending plans--and neither man would. Standard political theater: candy first, castor oil later.

What I wish I would have heard:

Mr. Obama: After years of deregulation and a costly war we should have never begun, the economy is in a mess, folks. And we need to do something to keep our economy afloat—which may mean pumping federal dollars into multiple levels—the banking industry, wall street, and to struggling taxpayers who were victimized by unscrupulous lending practices.

And these federal dollars have to come from somewhere.

John McCain thinks we need to continue to wage wars—that we must be safe before we can be prosperous. And I don’t disagree with the premise—but after thousands of our men and women killed or maimed, billions of dollar spend—are we any more secure? Especially if we define security more broadly—to include economic security—are you feeling more secure???

All throughout the primary season, I’ve been putting forth the thing’s I’d like to get done during my administration—and my position hasn’t changed on any of them.

But our current economic situation has changed; we need to make sure our national priorities are reflected in our budget. Some hard choices need to be made.

But folks, this is YOUR MONEY. You should have a say in how it’s spent.

So it’s your decision—as we stand before you, candidates to be your President—whose values, judgment, and priorities reflect yours. Choices will need to be made, and the foremost one will be made by YOU in November.

And then, Mr. McCain could have responded with reasons to continue funding the war over domestic programs, but how other spending could be cut.

Honestly looking into the eye of the electorate, and treating us as sentient beings. We can be given meat to chew and digest; we may even get a stomach ache. But we cannot reach an informed decision with a steady diet of rice cereal coming forth from the campaign offices.

We insist that our candidates reflect the values of their respective parties--so John McCain brings on a rabidly rightest running mate with less foreign policy experience than the Olympic volleyball team. Am I to believe the the 2008 version of John McCain will stand up to Osama BinLaden when he won't stand up to James Dobson??

Mr. McCain IS an American Hero; we cannot nor should not deny him that designation. But THAT John McCain took decisive action and stood his ground. Today's John McCain is making knee-jerk decisions (VP choice, suspend the campaign until an agreement is reached, cancel the debate until an agreement is reached . . . .) We don't need a knee-jerk President.

Mr. Obama followed up his debate performance with a campaign ad that explains his position on the bailout a bit more clearly:



With as large a viewing audience as was watching, why couldn't he just have laid that out to us in the debate? Certainly, Mr. McCain could have rebutted (which an ad doesn't allow), and Jim Lehrer would have pressed for details--but we want to see a President who can lead us through an argument line by line while under fire.

Gentlemen, you both get high marks for being politicians; neither of you gave a convincing performance as a President.