by publius
Steve Benen writes that the Democrats (via Howard Dean) have announced they won’t officially go after McCain’s age. Too Atwater-ish, Dean says. Benen adds, though, that age seems to be a real problem for McCain with the voters:
Dean went out of his way yesterday to suggest Dems aren’t going to exploit the age issue, and I suspect he’s right. Unless the general-election race got very ugly, I’d be surprised if the DNC and/or the Democratic nominee emphasized McCain’s personal weakness.That said, the media may not be talking about the issue, but voters care, and it may be this year’s sleeper issue.
Color me unconvinced that Democrats will ignore age. True, they won’t explicitly call him old, but the campaign narratives they adopt will almost certainly implicitly incorporate age. Indeed, we’ve already seen this tactic to some extent. Here’s Obama on Potomac Primary night:
John McCain is an American hero. We honor his service to our nation. But his priorities don't address the real problems of the American people, because they are bound to the failed policies of the past.
I suspect we’ll see this language more often. By framing a McCain-Obama contest as one between “the past” and “the future,” Obama can not only tie him to Bush but can more subtly note his age.
This is one part of the larger problems facing McCain this fall. Obviously, the fundamentals are all bad for him — bad war and bad economy. But McCain also faces a serious “narrative problem.” It’s very easy to frame the election in a simple — yet honest — way that is very unfavorable for him. For instance, Obama can quite easily frame the election as “past vs. future” or “change vs. the third Bush term.” Thus, Obama not only has a compelling metatheme (“change”), he can easily squeeze McCain into an unfavorable metatheme (“the past”). On that note, can anyone tell me in a sentence what McCain’s campaign is about?
That’s why I worry a bit less about the extended primary campaign. It’s true that Dems need to be defining him. But the ultimate anti-McCain narrative is going to work so well and so easily this year that I don’t think it’s going to take much time to sear that message into public consciousness.
There isn't any need for the Dems to explicitly attack McCain's age. It will be unavoidably apparent to anybody who watches the debates.
Posted by: Ron | April 11, 2008 at 11:47 AM
"But McCain also faces a serious “narrative problem.” It’s very easy to frame the election in a simple — yet honest — way that is very unfavorable for him. For instance, Obama can quite easily frame the election as “past vs. future” or “change vs. the third Bush term.” Thus, Obama not only has a compelling metatheme (“change”), he can easily squeeze McCain into an unfavorable metatheme (“the past”)."
Interestingly, Clinton will have a much harder time with this theme, as she represents the past much more strongly than Obama.
Posted by: Sebastian | April 11, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I've seen Obama mention McCain's "50 years of service to our country". It's not hard to imagine that that's a way of bringing up McCain's age while making it seem like a compliment.
Posted by: Chuchundra | April 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM
seb - precisely. That's a big part of the reason why I'm pro-Obama. I'm not really anti-Clinton (though emotions get the best of me at times), but I think her message would be muddled. In other words, the contrast wouldn't be as sharp. and why am i using capital letters - sorry
Posted by: publius | April 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM
compared to the fight with Clinton, if Obama wins the primary, it will be a relative walk to the presidency.
Posted by: rob! | April 11, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I doubt seriously if Obama and the Democratic Party (given its track record on framing national debate) can keep this election focused on change vs. the Bush/Republican record.
The Republicans will make this a debate about national security in the face of the frightening prospect of the Islamofascist terrorists and their desire for a world caliphate - or some such nonsense. Then we will have the war hero, experienced, but "moderate" McCain, who after all is a "maverick" rather than a lockstep Bush Republican vs. the inexperienced, naive, "liberal" Obama. Then there will be the Rovian dirty tricks and the constant reminders to the knuckle-dragger crowd that, after all, Obama is - dare we say it? - black.
There is certainly a good narrative that could be used against McCain. It would involve a repudiation of neocon interventionism, conservative economic policy, and arrogance. I doubt Obama will be able to make that case.
Posted by: Charles | April 11, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I think you're right that the DNC won't have to make the case that McCain is old--the narrative is already built in so deeply that they won't even have to mention it. It's Clinton vs. Dole all over again, only now times are bad, which reinforces the idea that old, conservative ways are the wrong ones for this place and time.
Posted by: Incertus (Brian) | April 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM
This seems like an election that both sides should be trying to lose. Let the other party get stuck holding the rather large bag of problems, then jump in for the next election when things are turning around.
Posted by: Al | April 11, 2008 at 01:12 PM
On that note, can anyone tell me in a sentence what McCain’s campaign is about?
Unfortunately, "Four more years!" isn't a sentence.
Posted by: Gregory | April 11, 2008 at 01:15 PM
On that note, can anyone tell me in a sentence what McCain’s campaign is about?
We wish that McCain rather than Bush had been elected in 2000 because then everything would have turned out fine, so this is a do-over.
Also, I want a pony.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | April 11, 2008 at 01:21 PM
What are you basing your prognostication on -- reading tea-leafs, or casting the I-Ching?
The average of all the head-to-head polls show public preference about dead even, for Hillary-McCain, and for Obama-McCain...
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 11, 2008 at 02:06 PM
On that note, can anyone tell me in a sentence what McCain’s campaign is about?
"Who do you trust?"
worked well for Bush in '92 so why not repeat a past winner.
Posted by: tarylcabot | April 11, 2008 at 02:11 PM
I posted this at the end of the Not Ready.. thread, don’t know if anyone but Incertus saw it— made him sick to his stomach (sorry Incertus).
Unexpectedly and counterintuitively, casts him as (here’s yr sentence) The candidate who will bring us all together; or alternatively, The candidate who listens and will bring us all together.
I can see it as a genuine threat. A feel-good mom-and-pop warm-and-fuzzy pony.
Posted by: felix culpa | April 11, 2008 at 02:22 PM
I'm not worried about the kindly father figure -- plenty of video to turn that into not-quite-with-it, unpredictable, and scarily loopy old uncle: bomb-bomb-bomb, the 100 years, the constant confusion about Al Qaeda/Shia/Sunni... and maybe even the temper, though that's harder.
Just keep hammering home what he's for: Letting hundreds of thousands of people lose their houses because "they got themselves into it with their own irresponsibility" (not an exact quote, but there are quotes that communicated the sense). Staying in Iraq with no end in sight.
More of the same, for four more years.
Posted by: Nell | April 11, 2008 at 02:46 PM
I want a pony!!!
Posted by: dfkj | April 11, 2008 at 03:00 PM
>>What are you basing your prognostication on -- reading tea-leafs, or casting the I-Ching?<<
such a polite fellow you are, JJ. good to know you respect other people's opinions who don't line up with yours, so you goof on what i said. tell me Jay, what color is the sky in your world? a dark, menacing grey, or do the orderlies not let you near any windows so you can see the sky?
anyway...
those polls are meaningless, as meaningless as the ones they took in summer 2007 when clinton was way ahead. once Obama made his move(s) look what happened. even Clinton herself didn't expect it.
i'd love to see an Obama/McCain debate. he'd filet McCain and look classy while doing it, and throwing in a compliment in the same sentence.
people hate this war. bush would've been thrown out of office in 2006 if he'd been on the ballot, so the people did the next best thing. plus, the economy sucks.
yeah, President McCain--SURE.
Posted by: rob! | April 11, 2008 at 03:04 PM
On that note, can anyone tell me in a sentence what McCain’s campaign is about?
Vote for me now before the fact that I am a doddering old fool becomes any more apparent ?
Posted by: ed_finnerty | April 11, 2008 at 03:23 PM
previously I wrote:
We wish that McCain rather than Bush had been elected in 2000 because then everything would have turned out fine, so this is a do-over.
Pony snark aside, there is a serious point here which Democrats ignore to their peril.
McCain is going to run on the proposition that the problems which happened under Bush were due to some combination of malfeasance and incompetence, and that nothing is wrong with the underlying policies if honorable and competent people are put in place to pursue them, this time with greater success.
This sales pitch has a lot of appeal to indy's and moderate Republicans, essentially casting Bush/Cheney as the national scapegoats for the various sins and failures of the last 8 years, and running against Bush without denouncing Bushist policy.
You haven't really seen this yet because it would not have been a very effective theme to campaign on during the GOP primaries, but now that he is the nominee McCain can run with this line in the general election and bet that if forced to choose between remaining loyal to a lame-duck Bush or supporting a continuation of his policies from the WH, the GOP base will pick the 2nd option rather than the first.
To defeat McCain Democrats will need to convince swing voters that the problems of the Bush administration were inherent in their policies (and if continued will produce the same results) and not just due to incompetent execution of those policies. Trying to paint McCain as a Bush clone won't work because too many voters are going to give him a presumption of innocence (on a biographical basis), we need to delegitimize the policies instead.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | April 11, 2008 at 03:36 PM
"On that note, can anyone tell me in a sentence what McCain’s campaign is about?"
Frankly, I think it's going to be "Guess who's coming to dinner?"
Posted by: Rococo | April 11, 2008 at 03:41 PM
can anyone tell me in a sentence what McCain’s campaign is about?
War is the answer, and I've forgotten the question.
Posted by: Hogan | April 11, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Left Turn is right.
The pic of McCain hugging Bush will help.
So will an attack ad about his lockstep voting for Bush. That's an honest way to use a classic Rove play: attack the opponent where he thinks he is strongest and force him to spend all of his time proving what he thinks is obvious, so he never even gets a chance to shore up his weaknesses. Make McCain work hard to recapture the maverick label. Even if he manages it, he will demoralize and alienate a fair chunk of his base in the process.
Posted by: trilobite | April 11, 2008 at 05:19 PM
Excuse my cynicism, but isn't saying "We are not going to make his age an issue" making his age an issue?
Posted by: john miller | April 11, 2008 at 06:21 PM
We need to attack this version of history. McCain was calling for an attack on Iraq back in 1999. And he was totally on board with Bush and Rummy's war plans right up until it became clear to any objective observer that things were going wrong. It was one of his many "flip-flop" moments when he finally said that he did not have confidence in Rummy.
Posted by: FredinVermont | April 11, 2008 at 10:07 PM
To defeat McCain Democrats will need to convince swing voters that the problems of the Bush administration were inherent in their policies (and if continued will produce the same results) and not just due to incompetent execution of those policies. Trying to paint McCain as a Bush clone won't work because too many voters are going to give him a presumption of innocence (on a biographical basis), we need to delegitimize the policies instead.
Good luck with that. I think many of the Bush administration's policies were unwise from the beginning, but the "it was the execution, not the gameplan" is going to be a powerful cognitive dissonance tonic for independents who supported the war - especially since there is some evidence (albeit disputable) that it is correct.
I also think the Democrats dismiss McCain's current biography flogging at their peril. He's setting himself up as a man of honor and patriotism, and you can expect a pivot in the general election contrasting his embodiment of these two qualities with the absence of the former (Clinton) or the latter (Obama) in his opponent.
McCain is a formidable opponent. Do not underestimate him.
Excuse my cynicism, but isn't saying "We are not going to make his age an issue" making his age an issue?
I'd say so, given that this technique (called paralipsis in formal rhetoric) was already so shopworn by the time of the Roman Republic that it was an expected feature of any standard political speech.
Posted by: Xeynon | April 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Personally, I'm looking forward to voting for Bob Barr this fall, and the prospect of McCain winning fills me with about has much fear and loathing as Obama or Clinton.
So it's not with any particular sense of triumph that I say this: I think both Obama and Clinton screwed the pooch today.
It's been pretty obvious how Democrats have been playing down your party's historic hostility towards 2nd amendment rights, ever since it cost you Congress in '94, and the White house in 2000. Didn't these two get the memo? Obama unloads on Pennsylvanian gun owners, and Hillary declares that she wants a new 'assault weapon' ban.
In a year when the Heller case is going to put the 2nd amendment front and center at the height of the general election campaign.
Is there some kind of death wish operating here? I thought the plan was to lay low on this until after the election?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM
McCain is a formidable opponent. Do not underestimate him.
I agree. This election is no walkover for the Democrats. There's some serious overoptimism here.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | April 11, 2008 at 11:34 PM
i'd love to see an Obama/McCain debate. he'd filet McCain and look classy while doing it, and throwing in a compliment in the same sentence.
Even better, get him to explode in one of his patented obscenity-laced temper tantrums.
I agree it won't be easy for the Democrats to win, but it's important to note it's not McCain himself that's formidable, but the media shell that's been built up around him. The same ultimate result, but not quite the same thing.
Posted by: Geoduck | April 11, 2008 at 11:49 PM
There are four basic types of Democrats:
Type 1: Working Democrats, flying the flag, seeking a fairer shake.
Type 2: New Age Democrats, seeking the therapy that comes with giving things away.
Type 3: Down-With-Whitey Democrats.
Type 4: Manipulate the Masses for Personal Gain Democrats.
Type 1 Democrats will break in large numbers; they are the 20% of Hillary supporters who will vote for McCain. Type 2 and 3 Democrats are in Obama’s camp with the exception of some Hispanics (Type 3H Democrats). Type 4 Democrats control both Hillary and Obama and serve no function in the election other than hosting fundraisers.
There are three basic types of Republicans:
Type 1: Working Republicans, similar to Type 1 Democrats but with more money.
Type 2: Old Money Republicans who avoid the inheritance tax through trust mechanisms.
Type 3: Republicans similar to and interchangeable with Type 4 Democrats.
McCain will split both Type 1 and Type 2 Republicans who will have to choose between party loyalty and their convictions. Significant numbers of these Republicans will vote for Obama because they recognize that he would unify the party and peel Type 1 Democrats away.
But none of this matters.
No democratically-elected political party will have the strength to address the entitlement bubble ($70 trillion), which will make the housing bubble ($2-3 trillion) look like a non-event.
I hope that when the smoke clears, the powers that be will hand the reigns over to something like the Constitution Party.
www.constitutionparty.com
Something old, something new.
Posted by: Brick Oven Bill | April 11, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Oh, come on, people. Dean is bringing up McCain's age to state, in fine stentorian tone, that the Democratic Party would never -- never -- bring up the age of the doddering, gibbering, elderly Republican opponent. No, never, won't happen, would be quite unfair to the elderly and infirm among us, those citizens whose golden (if somewhat addled) years should be greeted with sunshine, respect, and Postum shakes at afternoon tea.
And every time it happens (I would bet, if the Democrats have somehow re-discovered how to campaign in the last few years), I'm sure that Howard Dean, or Barack Obama, or some other D will cluck sorrowfully about how wrong it is to constantly, repeatedly, make fun of that noble old (OLD!) man.
Posted by: stickler | April 11, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Yes, I think that's true. And I hope that Dean (or, better yes, someone completely unconnected to the Obama campaign) will continue to make it clear how wrong it would be to make a big deal of McCain's age, especially after his honorable service in the Korean War. (Or was it the Spanish-American War?)
Posted by: Matthew Austern | April 12, 2008 at 12:19 AM
"And I hope that Dean (or, better yes, someone completely unconnected to the Obama campaign) will continue to make it clear how wrong it would be to make a big deal of McCain's age, especially after his honorable service in the Korean War. (Or was it the Spanish-American War?)"
C'mon, the Great War wasn't that long ago.
And it took a hero to fly in those biplanes, you know.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2008 at 12:34 AM
I know you're a sensitive fellow, and easily offended, so I'll answer this with as much restraint as I can muster from the dark chamber of my tortured psyche:
It will be like Jack Nicholson (McCain) debating Wil Ferrell (Obama):
McCain: The truth? You can't handle the truth!
Obama: First we'll make snow angels for two hours, then we'll go ice skating, then we'll eat a whole roll of Tollhouse Cookie dough as fast as we can, and then all the bitterness will disappear like magic...
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 12, 2008 at 12:54 AM
g. farber: “And it took a hero to fly in those biplanes, you know.”
And if Barak was around in those times, I'm betting he wouldn't have been anywhere near a biplane, but would have opted for a tricycle he could peddle somewhere safe, away from where the big boys played…
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 12, 2008 at 01:03 AM
Jay, I disagree with you about Senator Obama (hey, I didn't know you knew him on a first-name basis!) but at least I can usually understand what the heck you're talking about.
Not this time.
What the heck are you talking about?
When exactly did Barack Obama play it safe?
Or do you just despise him because he didn't join the military during peacetime?
Posted by: trilobite | April 12, 2008 at 01:38 AM
So, Jay Jerome, I beg your pardon indeed in that I'm sure you've answered this question from me a dozen times, and I've missed it, but with apologies in that I have, indeed, missed your past replies, what is your response to my query as to what you intend to do should -- somehow, impossible as it undoubtedly is, and purely hypothetical that this question is -- Barack Obama be the Democratic nominee: will you vote for John McCain, sit on your hands, or what?
Thanks, and again my apologies for having undoubtedly missed your previous responses to this question.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2008 at 02:04 AM
There's an old joke about a lawyer at the Pearly Gates who pleads to Saint Peter that there must be some mistake: "I'm only 42."
"Gee," Saint Peter says, "going by the hours you've billed, we figured you for 85."
If McCain wants to tout his tremendous "experience", he cannot simultaneously complain about shots at his age.
Still, I don't want the election to be about age. I want a showdown: is the country stupid enough to elect a man who proudly calls himself a "conservative Republican", or not? If a majority of my fellow citizens are THAT dumb, I'd rather know it sooner than later -- and know it definitively, without age muddling up the answer.
-- TP
Posted by: Tony P. | April 12, 2008 at 02:05 AM
I was certain that Clinton would defeat Dole, back in 1996, when this joke went around: when asked, "briefs or shorts?", Clinton replied (something) and Dole replied "Depends".
Dole was also a partially crippled veteran, so past heroism is clearly no guarantee of electability.
Posted by: bad Jim | April 12, 2008 at 04:06 AM
[snark]Obama inna biplane? They wouldn't have any [n-word] near a plane in those days. And (then) Young Johnny shot down that Brick-Oven (or whatever his name was, the one with that uppity triplane) guy before being downed by Hermann Göring and spending his time in a KZ until G.Bush(sen.) freed him in 1945, so he could run for president under the pseudonym John MacArthur*[/snark]
*no, that is not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McArthur>confusing given names
Posted by: Hartmut | April 12, 2008 at 05:09 AM
john miller: Excuse my cynicism, but isn't saying "We are not going to make his age an issue" making his age an issue?
Exactly. And even Republicans know it is an issue because there is a lot of focus on who his VP pick might be.
Haven’t seen you around much lately John. Everything OK? Just busy (good busy) I hope…
Posted by: OCSteve | April 12, 2008 at 06:19 AM
I don't think Dole is a very good guide to the electability of Republicans; So far as I could tell, he regarded the nomination as a kind of retirement gift, like a gold watch, and once he got it, really stopped trying. Indeed, he seems to regard the general election campaign as an opportunity to vent against all the Republican factions he was pissed off against; Went through them like he had a list, burning his bridges and making a check mark.
I don't particularly like McCain, and I think he'd be awful for the country, (We're in for a bad patch, they're ALL awful for the country.) but he shows no sign of self destructing in that manner.
Obama, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have yet adjusted to today's reality that, if you craft an appeal to people in one place, it's going to be heard by people everywhere else. So you just can't go talking down one group you need in front of another.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 12, 2008 at 06:33 AM
Brett: So it's not with any particular sense of triumph that I say this: I think both Obama and Clinton screwed the pooch today.
Yeah, what the heck was that anyway?
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he said.
Wow. I like the guy but that’s going to really hurt him. And “anti-trade sentiment”? Democrats seem to be making anti-trade part of their platform in this campaign…
Posted by: OCSteve | April 12, 2008 at 06:43 AM
I quite liked Obama's explanation:
Posted by: hilzoy | April 12, 2008 at 08:20 AM
OCSteve, can you explain what exactly is incorrect about what Obama said? Because, from what I sit, what you seem to be thinking is that Obama is wrong, and thus that the people he's discussing really are overly religious, isolationist, xenophobic gun nuts, rather than sublimating their frustrations.
Surely that's not better than what Obama said?
Posted by: Phil | April 12, 2008 at 09:06 AM
OCSteve, thanks for noticing my absence. I can't get this site at work anymore, and my evenings have been pretty full.
Anyway, I am not as distrubed by Obama's comments, but I do see them as potential ammunition that will wound, but not totally disable him.
A lot of people are saying that he is putting down gun ownership or religion, which is about as far away from the truth as you can get. Others are saying that people's religiosity is a result of their bitterness is what he i saying. Again, couldn't be farther fomt he truth.
People harp on the clinging phrase. Well, in times of trouble, fear, anger, etc, people cling to what is familiar and cmforting to them. That is not a knock, it is a reliable description of human behavior. And the fact that Obama recognizes that shows exactly how much he is in touch with people and how nonelitist he really is.
Hillary's response shows just how out of touch she really is. She is doing th very cheerleading that people have heard inthe past and have become bitter as a result of.
Posted by: john miller | April 12, 2008 at 09:33 AM
I went to Ireland for a couple of weeks and when I came back my whole perception of America had changed.
We are an impoverished and angry and fearful country, once yu get out of the big towns, Frankly it's elitist to deny this.
Rural and small town Washington is littered with shabby house traiers with three dead cars parked out front, a shed form Home Depot that functions as an additional bedroom out back, an American flag somewhere visible, and of course a Ron Paul sign.
We are all propagansized from birth intothinking that this is the greatest country so of course this kind of economic decline and these frustrated stunted lives must be an acceptable part of the freatest coungtry on earth and anyone who tries to change thinngs is a critic of the greatest country on earth...
It is only in contrst to a nation of well nourished healthy middle class people who see life as full of possiblities (Ireland! Denmark, Sweden, Norway! canada!)that the US looks so depressing and miserable.
I can see how it is essential for McCain and the Republicans to smear Obama as an elitist--they have to smear him because they are the elitists. McCain will run on the usual R lie that he is ging to clean up Washington on behalf of the little guys when in true R form he is part of Washingon and intends to keep on screwing the little guys.
The shameful player in this is HRC who once again is using a rightwing lie against a fellow Dem.
I have no idea how the angry bitter gun loving religious people of the small town economic fringes will interpete Obama's remarks. That demofraphy has in the past shown a remarkable ability to be manipulated against their own interests. After all the citizens of the greatest country on earth can't be bitter because that would imply a criticism of the greatest country on earth.Maybe they will manipulated agains.. Being mostly white it may be hard for them to see that the one candidte in this race who actually does give a shit is the black one.
Posted by: wonkie | April 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Phil: can you explain what exactly is incorrect about what Obama said?
Putting aside the fact that PA is hardly in the mid-west, they are ranked 16th in personal per-capita income (2005). And the cost of living in rural PA really isn’t that bad. I give up trying to get more than one link by the spam filter but cut and paste pennsylvaniasheartland.com/costofliving.htm. Unemployment was at 4.3% mid 2007 (vs. 4.6% nationally).
Forget all that even – it’s an offensive caricature of the rubes. Frankly I think he just cost himself the state.
Posted by: OCSteve | April 12, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Jeeze. I can't even get a single link through anymore. Version of this with links was trapped by the filter...
Phil: can you explain what exactly is incorrect about what Obama said?
Putting aside the fact that PA is hardly in the mid-west, they are ranked 16th in personal per-capita income (2005). And the cost of living in rural PA really isn’t that bad. Unemployment was at 4.3% mid 2007 (vs. 4.6% nationally).
Forget all that even – it’s an offensive caricature of the rubes. Frankly I think he just cost himself the state.
Posted by: OCSteve | April 12, 2008 at 11:04 AM
OCSteve, sorry, I still don't get the charicature part. Please explain.
Posted by: john miller | April 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM
OSCteve, you are making the elitist argument here. You are denying the reality of some people's experience by quoting statistics that don't apply to them.
that sort of reasoning has been used to report the "success" of trickle down economics for years.
Washingotn from a statistica point of view is in excellent shape. But get out of Seattle and rive around annd the view is different.
Heck, get off my isalnd and the view is different.
The only people in mason County who have any money are the wealthy retirees. The people who were born here will never make enough money to retire. There's a fundamentalist church on every corner, the local "Democrat" in the legislature is in fact a Republican, the locals think that they are being screwed by liberal elites when they are being screwed allright but it's by the rightwing politicians who use wedge issues to exploit them for their votes.
This isn't unique. This is rural or semi rural America. The whole country has turned into Alabama.
Posted by: wonkie | April 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM
John: I took it as a caricature as in “gun totin’ bible thumpin’ bigots”.
Keep in mind that the context here was him describing middle-class Pennsylvanians to wealthy SF donors.
I do understand where he was going, but I think it’s a bad gaffe that’s going to leave a mark.
Posted by: OCSteve | April 12, 2008 at 12:20 PM
g. farber: “what is your response to my query as to what you intend to do should -- somehow, impossible as it undoubtedly is, and purely hypothetical that this question is -- Barack Obama be the Democratic nominee: will you vote for John McCain, sit on your hands, or what”
It will depend on the VPs on both tickets.
If it’s Obama-Clinton I’ll vote for them (and longingly re-read the biographies of Lucrezia Borgia during the campaign as many times as possible – Go Lucrezia, go).
If it’s Obama-and-someone-else, and McCain picks Colin Powell for VP, I’ll vote for them, and root for democrats to win both houses nationally.
Any other combos of McCain-Obama I sit out the presidential election, and vote for the best local candidates for state senate, etc.
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 12, 2008 at 12:25 PM
In this election cycle the gun issue is a non issue. Obama may have a problem over his petulant condescending remarks about 'bitter' gun owners, but Hillary's proposal for a new assault weapon ban will help her with voters nationally, and especially in Pennsylvania, where Ed Rendell, an outspoken advocate of gun control, was elected in a breeze over the pro-gun Republican candidate: and this in a state boasting 300,000 NRA members.
That's because being an NRA member (or owing guns in general) doesn't mean you're not in favor of stricter gun control legislation.
A Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania voters asked this question: is it more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or more important to control gun ownership.
The answer: controlling gun ownership was more important-- 55% to 40% among all voters, among Democrats it was more important 69% to 28%.
And as an issue of concern for voters, gun rights is not even in the top 15 - Casino Gambling and the Condition of Roads was more important.
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 12, 2008 at 12:37 PM
hilzoy: "I quite liked Obama's explanation"
From the book: Cognitive Dissonance, or Why What's Good For The Goose Is Not Good For The Gander.
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 12, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Well, now that Jay Jerome and Brett Bellmore are discussing issues among themselves, I can go back to bed, he said, without a trace of seriousness.
Random observations, in no particular order:
I'm not underestimating McCain. If the guy can keep his cool for five years of misery in North Vietnam, he has the strength to not go kablooey in the debates.
Now, if he shows up like Nixon looking like he's had a bad night and with the telltale bead of pissed-off flopsweat moustaching his upper lip, then Obama will seem like the Republicans' worst air-conditioned nightmare.
Besides, the republican surrogates (see Redstate lately if you wanna know who the base fears) are stocking up on their rhetorical machetes, the rotten fruit Lee Atwater put up years ago, and product from the wrong end of talk radio's dysentery brigade.
They'll handle the heavy lifting.
Pennsylvania:
Jay, the appearance of the "Condition of Roads" on PA voters' concerns is, well, like a burned-out sun rising every morning --- no surprise in a state in which everyone has the pothole that swallowed Scranton at the bottom of their driveways.
Also, PA is a very old state, demographically. You can look down into the pothole the voters reside in and they want many things at once (the Sebastion pickle): their Social Security checks and Medicare, taxcuts to, well, zero, and they want to be angry as hell at Washington for not giving them both.
When they find out the first two are mutually exclusive, then, and only then, do they rummage through their closet for that firearm.
Incidentally, Jay, I differ with your Obama/biplane/bicycle imagery, except the part about Obama not getting anywhere near the plane.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but Obama would not have gotten anywhere near a biplane at that time for the same reason he wouldn't have stood a chance of playing center field for the New York Yankees.
However, I suspect had he been placed at the controls, when his opponents recited his name: Barack Hussein Obama for the usual stupid effect, he could say:
"Yep, that's my name, but you can call me ACE, since we're all going to be close friends soon."
One last thing:
The Republican Party has mastered the eye-poking soundbite. The Democratic Party has mastered "explanations".
Rubes or not, the American people collectively have the attention span of a gnat's eyelash, so there you go.
Posted by: John Thullen | April 12, 2008 at 01:50 PM
Isn't Obama 1/2 white? Why are you ignoring that part of his racial heritage? Maybe if he (and you) pushed his 'whiteness' as much as his 'blackness' those mostly white 'angry bitter gun loving religious people of the small town economic fringes' will interpret his remarks more favorably.
All those countries you mention have Caucasian-European population majorities. So why are those predominantly 'white' populations more optimistic than our own multi-ethnic multi-racial multi-gender citizens? And particularly more optimistic than the 'bitter' gun-toting religious small town whites living in Home Depot sheds?
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 12, 2008 at 01:50 PM
john thulen: "Obama would not have gotten anywhere near a biplane at that time for the same reason he wouldn't have stood a chance of playing center field for the New York Yankees."
Yes, an anachronistic analogy for the biplane, but I was responding to Gary Farber's equally anachronistic cheap shot at McCain flying one -- my point being that McCain has proven himself to be courageous and resolute-- personal character traits you may or may not think important in considering the worth of a candidate -- and Obama hasn't proved he has either.
And by the way, John, in fact there was at least one American black WWI pilot, who, along with many other American pilots enlisted in the French Lafayette Flying Corps --Eugene Jacques Bullard -- who risked life and limb flying those fragile aircraft.
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 12, 2008 at 02:16 PM
Jay:
Thanks for the link.
Why is it that, when it comes to race integration and sex, the French see the light first, the military second, and baseball third?
No wonder Alabama is no fun. I kid.
I do think that if Obama had the opportunity to fly with the French Lafayette Flying Corps, I could go over to Redstate and read Frog insults, too.
Me, if Hillary wins the primary, I'll vote for her.
After all, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter won't be sitting in November, their doth-protesting-too-much aside.
Posted by: John Thullen | April 12, 2008 at 02:47 PM
"Why is it that, when it comes to race integration and sex, the French see the light first, the military second, and baseball third?"
Because they drink a lot of bad cheap wine?
Posted by: Jay Jerome | April 12, 2008 at 03:07 PM
"In this election cycle the gun issue is a non issue."
I can certainly see why some Democrats would want it to be a non-issue, but I believe that assessment is a bit delusional. The fall election will be the proof of that, of course. But I think you'll find that most of the people who vote on the basis of gun control positions are against it.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 12, 2008 at 06:25 PM
jay are you seriously suggesting that the reason why the Irish ( among others) are happier is becuase htey are white? And that the people Obama was referring to aren't?
Maybe I misunderstood you.
BUT the reason why the Irish and other Northern Europenas are happier is that they have a reasonable stndard of iving and the expectatin that the next generation will too. They have health care and affordable education beyond their version of high school for example. Yhey live in countries where most of the people are at more or less the same income level and it's a comforatable level.
it is true that may of those countries are having trouble absorbing Middle Eastern immigrants but that isn't relevant to the discussion--Obama wasn't talking about unabsorbed immingrants. He was talking about poor, working class, and low income whites.
Who don't have health care, affordable opportunities for education beyond high school or the expectation that life will be better for thier kids.
AS for the [ossiblitiy that some people might not recognize that Obama is the only one who really gives a shit--of course he's hald white but what does that have to do with it? part black is all black in America. Also I wasn't suggesting racism. It's more subtle thatn that. McCain and pther Republicans use triblaism to get people to vote for the politicians who are screwing them. It is harder for rural or semi-rural people to see a black man as being a member of their tribe than it is to see a white man that way.
Posted by: wonlie | April 12, 2008 at 06:48 PM
I forgot to sum up: this Obama is an elitest is a prefect example of divide and conquer. I'm certain that McCain will run as the Real True American who is Just Like You no matter who the Dem candidate is.. HRC's use of rightwing faux outrage over imaginary elitism won't protect her from being the target of exactly the same tactic is she gets the nom.
Posted by: wonkie | April 12, 2008 at 06:57 PM
And I fully agree that my passing casual joke about Senator McCain was 100% cheap as it gets.
I'm fairly doubtful that Colin Powell would accept the Republican Veep nomination, assuming it was offered to him, but, of course, I'm just guessing, and could be entirely wrong.
You've probably seen this, this, etc.
Thanks muchly for your response, Jay Jerome. I appreciate your making clear where you stand.Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2008 at 08:17 PM
BrettB: But I think you'll find that most of the people who vote on the basis of gun control positions are against it. Emphasis in original.
I suspect that you are right. What I find curious is that, what with the war (remember that?) and the economy and global warming and the further rise of an "imperial presidency" and immigration and (if we must) abortion and gay rights and a few (!) other issues, there is apparently a significant subset of the American electorate who "vote on the basis of gun control positions."
Or is there? How many people, when push comes to shove, say "Screw everything else, I gotta vote for the gun guy"?
Just curious.
Posted by: dr ngo | April 13, 2008 at 11:19 PM