Something’s been niggling at the periphery of my mind as I listen to John McCain constantly repeating the refrain “I’ve been tested; my opponent has not.” Of course the implication is that McCain is Commander-in-Chief ready, while Obama has too steep a learning curve. McCain’s tests include his confinement in the Hanoi Hilton, where he was a Vietnamese prisoner of war. That certainly is a test of a person’s mettle. I’m not denying that his survival was an act of pure courage and strength.
But what of more recent tests? The tried and true tests of running a grueling and exhausting presidential campaign. The length and insanity of the electoral process also tests a candidate: tests their judgment, temperament, intelligence, executive skills and coalition building skills. How they conduct their campaigns tells us how a President John McCain or a President Barack Obama might handle whatever crisis (international or domestic) that may be thrown at him in the first several months of his presidency. So, let’s take a look at the candidates.
First, Senator John McCain. Regarding judgment, one need only look as far as his pick for VP. Even Republicans are disgusted with that glaring example of poor judgment. Just this morning, three days before election day, two former Republican EPA chiefs, Russell Train and William Ruckelshaus — lifelong Republicans — endorsed Barack Obama. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) also this morning was quoted in the Las Vegas Sun as saying that Palin is unqualified to be Vice President. He joins a long, long line of mainstream Republicans in doing so. Note that they never seem to mitigate the harshness of their decrees by claiming that Obama is equally (or more) unqualified. It’s even more interesting, and perhaps significant to note that Ensign is from Nevada, a red state in serious danger of turning blue.
As far as McCain’s long held banner that he’s a maverick, that he’s willing to “stand up” to his own party, again one need only look at the choice of Palin, the darling of the Republican base. From many reports, McCain actually preferred Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lieberman’s selection would have certainly shown McCain to be a maverick, willing to do what he believes, not what the party faithful want.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
This article is another reminder of how fundamentally many on the left misunderstand the McCain campaign and the conditions within the GOP.
McCain is not playing to the Republican 'base' - there is no single, monolithic base in the party. He is, in fact, playing very much counter to what most on the left assume the base to be. McCain's rhetoric and the issues he's pushing and his choice of Palin are specifically designed to appeal to working-class and middle-class independents, not the religious right. The religious right are becoming increasingly ostracized from the GOP and McCain is trying to create a new base.
You provide the evidence for this yourself. Look at who has turned against McCain. It's not moderates like Lindsey Graham or Arlen Specter, it's the hardline religious right nutcases like John Ensign. Ensign has a 100% Pro-Life rating and a 0% NARAL rating. He has a 20% ACLU rating, a 11% HRC (gay rights) rating and a 7% NAACP rating. He has a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition.
What you miss is that McCain is attempting to redefine what the 'mainstream' of the GOP is. He wants to have a more populist, pragmatic party, with less control for the extremists.
Those of you making assumptions about what McCain is doing and writing it off as a mistake may be in for a rude awakening in a few days.
Dave
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Don't worry, Dave - I honestly think McCain will probably 'win'...but not legally. Diebold and Dynacorp have it in the bag for him.
Obama's only hope is to have so many votes from electoral states where Diebold and Dynacorp have NO voting machines that he is still able to achieve 270 electoral votes. Otherwise, he's done and out.
And America will have lost this golden opportunity to elect someone who can truly LEAD the world, rather than someone who can only bully the world into obeying him.
Sun Tzu would not have approved of John McCain. McCain knows tactics, but not the overriding strategy. He knows what the military can do, but he doesn't know the tools available that keep us from needing to threaten military force. He neither knows the enemy, nor does he know himself (as is evidenced by his flip-flops on little things like torture). He does not know that the acme of generalship is to achieve victory without having to resort to military force.
McCain would NOT be a good Commander-in-Chief.
3 - Arch Conservative
Niggling?
You had better not use that racist language when discussing Obama Barbara or you might end up floating in the East River.
have a different take on the election Glenn. Obama has a legitimate hope in winning in that the millions of idiots out there that have fallen for his schtick will actually go and vote while many disaffected Republicans will not vote for McCain.
There's also the Acorn factor. If Obama can get the fictitios vote and the repeat vote to trun out he will probably win.
I have a question for you Glenn. How is Obama going to lead the world when roughly 50% of this nation doesn't even support him?
Why do leftists such as yourself always assume that if your guy gets into power everyone else that opposed him is suddenly going to have some grand epiphany which will cause them to change their worldview to your's?
4 - Cannonshop
The fun thing about knowing you've already lost, is that you can say things you wouldn't DARE say if you thought you had a real, and serious, chance of winning.
5 - Lisa Solod Warren
I have the same question for you Arch? How is McCain going to lead when roughly 50% of this nation doesn't support him?
Same question applied to Bush. Both times.
And your point is?
6 - Arch Conservative
Did I claim McCain was goingto lead the world Lisa?
7 - Lisa Solod Warren
No, you said "How is Obama going to lead the world when roughly 50% of this nation doesn't support him?" So I was just reframing the question using the other candidate's name.
8 - Barbara Barnett
Niggling?
You had better not use that racist language when discussing Obama Barbara or you might end up floating in the East River.
racist language? Hardly. "irritating, worrisome, perhaps painful annoyance..." hmmm. Sounds like some of my friends on the Right. Present company excepted, of course.
9 - Christopher Rose
I have a question for Archie:- how do you come up with that figure of "roughly 50% of this nation doesn't even support him?"
According to the poll of polls info I've seen, the national support is at 52%/41% in Obama's favour and this year's turnout is expected to be the highest since the 1960 election.
10 - Clavos
No, you said "How is Obama going to lead the world when roughly 50% of this nation doesn't support him?" So I was just reframing the question using the other candidate's name.
Fair enough, Lisa.
So now you've established that neither one can "lead the world," which is just as well, because Glenn and Arch are being typical hubristic, arrogant gringos in making the assumption that the "rest of the world" even wants the imperialistic, predatory americans, whose total disarray amply demonstrates they can't even govern themselves, (much less "lead the world") to lead them.
And Christopher, Obama has, as you point out, 52% of the electorate behind him. That means, that at this point 48% are not behind him. I would say that 48% qualifies as "roughly 50% of the nation."
11 - Lisa Solod Warren
Well, actually, Clavos, Obama has the advantage in that at the least 80 percent of the countries outside the US of A support his presidency and think he would be the better candidate in terms of getting our country back on a good footing with them re diplomacy issues. Which, I think, would be a good thing, seeing as we have global economic issues and a couple of wars going on.
12 - Les Slater
I live in Chicago and have talked with a few Black and Hispanic people that are planning to vote for Obama. Most of the ones I've talked to are pessimistic about whether Obama can solve the problems that most of face. Most would not want to see McCain as president.
I'm not sure what percentage actually support either candidate. There is a general fear that the 'other' candidate will be a disaster. This comes from both sides. My guess is that less than 25% have any confidence in either candidate.
13 - Arch Conservative
Barbara I wasn't calling you a racist. I was being sarcastic. You obviously haven't read a lot of my posts or you would have known that. I was using sarcasm to point out that Obama supporters will seize upon anything, regardless of how irrelevant, they can to portray anyone who opposes them as a racist.
Lisa you didn't pose it as a rhetorical question but directed it at me as if I had implied McCain would "lead the world." He can't. No mortal man can. That hasn't stopped the Obama cultists in speaking of him in messianic terms though.
Christopher, I didn't say 50% I said roughly 50%. Your using polls, which are not as accurate a measure of support as actual votes.
According to the 2005 census there are 197 million people in this nation that are eligible to vote. I guarantee you that Obama will not receive the support of half of those people in the form of 98.5 million votes come next Tuesday. Therefore we can conclude that over 50% of total Americans and over 50% of eligible voters don't support Obama enough to vote for him.
Despite what Glenn and other Obama cultists koolaid addled brains would have them believe, not everyone is in love with Obama. In fact there are millions upon millions of Americans that are not going to vote for him, don't believe in his ability to lead, don't trust him, don't believe he would be good for America and generally don't want to have anything to do with him.
But Glenn is implying that if Obama were to win, not only this nation but the entire world would come together and we'd all join hands and sing row row your boat as we skip down the yellow brick road together pausing now and then to take naps on marshmallow clouds and converse with cotton candy monsters about how it's raining gum drops again.
In order for this to happen that would mean that everyone who opposed Obama's grand visions before the election would suddenly have to abandon thier own ideals and values and adopt his. IT AINT GONNA HAPPPEN!
It's some might fucking powerful Lysergic acid diethylamide that "THE ONE" has been slipping into the koolaid his cultists have been drinking that makes them say the things they do and believe in them.
As for me I'll pass.
I'll pass on McCain to because he is a crazy old man whose main satisfaction in life seems to subjecting anyone who looks at him cross eyed to 5th grade verbal ridicule.
I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin because he exhibits two qualities that Obama and McCain don't. Honesty and common sense. That alone makes him a much better candidate for president than those two self righteous pricks who've done nothing but tell the American people for the past year. My support of Baldwin doe snot require that I become a brainded sheep chanting monosyllabic mantras such as "hope" and "change." It does not require that I baselessly attack anyone who opposes my guy with socially stigmatized hand grenades like "racist." It doe snot require that I deny that my guy has any faults or imperfections and refer to him as "the one" or "the leader who will unite the world." It does not require that I suspend all reason, common sense and objectivity with regard to my guy, his place in the world and the potential for change that he may be able to affect.
On CSPAN right now there is a debate being shown between Nader, Barr, and Baldwin. Any of these men would be light years better than McCain or the one but the corporate media has the average American idiot by the balls and they're too stupid to see it.
But let's not forget that I'm the crazy one around here. Don't pay any attention to me. Go back to your "hope" and "change."
14 - Lisa Solod Warren
Gosh, Arch, and you think McCain subjects people to ridicule, when you call everyone who disagrees with YOU sheep-brained.
Well, BAHHHHHHHHHH then.:)
15 - Arch Conservative
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is Lisa.
Obama, whom you support, has made all kinds of lofty promises on the campaign trail. I contend that he's not going to follow through on any of them and that you're voting for a fraud.
We can go make a list of all his promises and in four year's time if he has not fulfilled them or made significant steps toward fulfilling them you will admit I was right, you were wrong, and then we can dress you up in a sheep costume, take some pictures of you bahhing and eating grass or whatever it is that sheep eat and post them for everyone on this website to view.
16 - Cindy D
Barbara,
Great article! I would like to add one more thing on organization and preparedness.
Obama began developing his presidential transition team in July.
McCain STILL has not really been developing his. (NYT 10-25-2008)
Presidential nominees typically start preparing for transitions before the election, but Mr. Obama’s plans appear more extensive than in the past and more advanced than those of Senator John McCain, his Republican opponent. Mr. McCain has also assigned confidants to prepare for a transition but instructed them to limit their activities as he tries to rescue his foundering campaign, Republicans said.
That is my emphasis. Because not only is Obama prepared where McCain is not. Obama is more prepared than presidential candidates of the past.
17 - Arch Conservative
You say prepared.
I say arrogant, presumptuous and narcissistic.
Get ready world. Jimmy Carter part 2 coming to you next January.
18 - Les Slater
"Jimmy Carter part 2 coming to you next January."
No way. It will be much worse, but quite different.
19 - Arch Conservative
Well the term misery index was coined on Carter's watch Les.
Do you think we wil have to invent some new term to measure the despair the American people feel after three - four years of the messiah leading us?
20 - Clavos
Well, actually, Clavos, Obama has the advantage in that at the least 80 percent of the countries outside the US of A support his presidency and think he would be the better candidate in terms of getting our country back on a good footing with them re diplomacy issues.
What exactly does "80% of the countries" mean? Their "leaders?" Their sheeple? And what is the source of the 80% figure?
And in terms of getting our country back on a good footing with them re diplomacy issues does not necessarily mean a benefit or good for the USA; remember that their goals often are at odds with those of the USA.
The people of the US who vote for a candidate because he's highly regarded abroad are deluding themselves and doing a disservice to the rest of US. Leaders of other nations have their own self-serving reasons for wanting a given candidate to win, and those reasons are not necessarily in the best interests of the USA.
21 - Les Slater
Who's been keeping track of the misery index? I bet you it's much higher now.
Neither McCain nor Obama has any plan to reverse the economic crisis. As the economy sinks misery will increase.
22 - Arch Conservative
"What exactly does "80% of the countries" mean? Their "leaders?" Their sheeple? And what is the source of the 80% figure?"
I think it means that Lisa thinks foreigners should somehow have a say in our national election.
Maybe Lisa would like to have the new Democrat Congress enact legislation that would give the UN veto power over future legislation.
23 - Les Slater
Arch,
"Maybe Lisa would like to have the new Democrat Congress enact legislation that would give the UN veto power over future legislation."
This is what some on the 'left' say about NAFTA.
The problem with this argument from both the left and right is that the legislation isn't ours in the first place. The 'representatives' represent the wealthy, not the majority. Either the U.S. ruling class owns the U.N. decisions, or it just ignores them. The same is true for World Court or any of the stipulations of treaties like NAFTA.
The other side of the coin is that some laws are inconvenient for business and these 'extraterritorial' bodies do the business's dirty work for them.
Les
24 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, re your #10: "And Christopher, Obama has, as you point out, 52% of the electorate behind him. That means, that at this point 48% are not behind him. I would say that 48% qualifies as "roughly 50% of the nation."
So you think that everybody who isn't actively supporting Obama is against him? I certainly don't. I think his support is far greater than that and it looks like he might have one of the most decisive victories for many a year.
25 - Cindy D
Lisa,
Obama has the advantage in that at the least 80 percent of the countries outside the US of A support his presidency and think he would be the better candidate in terms of getting our country back on a good footing with them re diplomacy issues.
Here is something I think you might like. It's called:
Why "Conservatives" Can't Do Foreign Policy
If you do find it interesting, these two may also be worthwhile:
I have read some of Richard Hofstadter, whom the author cites. The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt
This essay by Werther*: When God is Pro War & Other Delicacies: Pseudoconservatism Revisited is fascinating to me. Just an aside: I disagree with what he says about liberals in the 1960's and 70s (normal is not necessarily right) but I do think his suggestion that being for "normalcy" at such a time gave Reagan an advantage.
I do think this guy is exquisite in his examination of his own conservative culture. This essay is scathing, but in my opinion, it sheds a precise light on what happened to conservatives and what we really have now.
*Werther is the pen name of a Northern Virginia based defense analyst