See, I think it's over for John McCain. Why do I say that? Just look at the media coverage of this election. The media usually sees fit to let Obama make his case directly to the American people via extended video byte. Surrounded by smiling and adoring devotees, using his best ministerial prose, voice booming, challenging, awake, bright eyed, vibrant, he sounds like he's already president. If the media even mentions McCain in contrast, they usually quote him. His words come across as out of touch or weak, and maybe even cringe-worthy. In the rare cases where there is a video of McCain speaking for himself, it's even less impressive. McCain is going to flub at least one word, and you almost wonder whether he filmed the video himself in his basement, in front of a green curtain.
It's not just media bias, although the rampant ageism that the media seems to engage in is an atrocious and disgraceful spectacle. John McCain is running a horrendously terrible campaign. His recent gaffe on the Czech Republic is just another in a long string of cases in point. His comments about not knowing much about the economy or the Internet add to the idea that McCain is a stodgy, old fuddy duddy - and these are comments being made by McCain himself. The "average Joe" theme may have worked a few years ago, but after eight years of Bush, being an average Joe is political suicide. Further proof that the end is near for McCain, we never hear him talk about his views, he only talks about why Barack Obama's views are wrong. This election will not be a referendum on Barack Obama.
This election is over. I will pull the lever in November in support of the GOP but it will be a half hearted vote. Too bad I couldn't agree with Obama's platform because I'd love to be one of the people voting for the first black president. I guess I will have to go on with the rest of my life being one of "those people."
And the election of Obama isn't going to be some nightmare scenario. I really don't think a President Obama would be as bad as some suggest. And I'm not talking about his recent jump to the center either. He simply won't be able to mess things up as bad as people think, just like, despite the impassioned pleas by the "Bush Deranged Left" to the contrary, Bush didn't mess things up too much either. What's that you say? What about the Iraq war and the economy and Katrina and the endless string of wrong track polling? I'm trying to be fair about what an Obama presidency will look like, so I'd as you to be fair about the reality of Bush's impacts as well.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baritone
Arch,
Obviously, we don't agree on much of anything - we've had some hot exchanges - but my hats off to you with this posting.
I still sit well left of you, but I do believe that you've struck the right chord in your assessment of a probable Obama White House.
As I've said in the past, I don't look upon Obama, nor anyone else as the second coming or anything. But, an Obama presidency is not likely to be either as great as some seem to believe or hope nor as awful as others fear.
If nothing else, after 8 years of Bush and the Reps., it's our turn. You had to suffer 8 years of Clinton and prior to that we had to grin and bear not only Reagan's two terms, but GHWBs 4 years as well. It's just what goes around comes around, don't you know?
The tone of your piece seems to be one of resignation. I would suggest though, that unless Obama manages to put together 8 really great years, the pendulum will likely swing back your way, and if he manages to really fuck up, you guys might find yourselves back in the catbird seat in 2012. Who knows?
B-tone
2 - Baritone
Oh, and one other thing. McCain still might pull it off. A lot can happen between now and November. I'm not trying to mollify you, but simply make note of the still real possibility that McCain, as much as it pains me to consider, might well be our next president.
B-Tone
3 - Dr Dreadful
"Obama will be able to appoint his way to a strong left majority in the Supreme Court."
Are you really expecting most of the right-wingers on the Court to croak or retire over the next few years, Obnox?
Oh, and B-Tone? I really don't think Obnox is Archie posting under a pseudo-pseudonym. He's way too level-headed!
4 - Dan Miller
Obnoxious,
Thanks and a tip of my hat as well. Excellent article.
I don't yet think that Senator Obama has the Presidency sewn up, and am not even sure that he has the nomination completely sewn up. Things can happen between now and the convention, and if they do the choice will be even worse. The recent polls -- despite Senator McCain's gaffes and lack of luster -- suggest that Senator McCain still has a better chance than a snowball in the hot place.
Dan
5 - Baritone
Woops! My mind is turning to lumpy gravy. Forget all the Arch thingys. Just think Obnox!
Sorry
Baron er I mean Baritone
6 - STM
So is the judiciary in the US appointed according to political leanings, and thus expected to make decisions based on that? What's that about?
Why aren't they regarded as fiercely independent? I'm all for judges being appointed rather than elected, especially on merit, as I believe that election of the judiciary leads to ridiculous populist decisions and causes even more problems, but is it not accepted that they will make fair and valid judgments, political leanings or not?
Surely the nod to that and an expectation of independence is what is good about the judiciary, even when the law's an ass.
And I'm with B-tone ... if you want to live in a representative democracy, you take the good with the bad and the decisions of your fellow citizens on the chin.
Isn't that what's kept us going (collectively) for the past 350 years since the time of the Glorious Revolution in England, and then more of the same good stuff in the American Revolution??
Isn't that what has shaped us and makes us different (all of us in the English-speaking nations, not just you guys)?
We shouldn't ever be arguing over the results of democratic votes by the people, even if we don't like the result. It's why we don't have coups and military dictatorships.
7 - Dr Dreadful
So is the judiciary in the US appointed according to political leanings, and thus expected to make decisions based on that? What's that about?
It's all part of the intricate system of checks and balances, Stan. It's a president's way of making his influence felt long after his administration has bitten the dust. Once a justice is appointed, the job is his or hers for as long as he or she wants it - sometimes that's for life, and one thing judges seem to have an extraordinary talent for is longevity. I have a suspicion that some of the old duffers in the current Supreme Court were appointed by Andrew Jackson...
On the other hand, Congress can check the President's choice of justice by disapproving of, or talking him out of, a nominee who is too politically unacceptable or, as in the case of Harriet Miers, completely unqualified for the job.
8 - STM
At least in the UK now, the Supreme Court is appointed by an independent judicial appointments committee, although I don't know what the situation is with the privy councillors. Anything to do with the House of Lords has been a worry (especially considering they seemed to spend most of their time in the House sleeping), but didn't Blair change it?
We still have judges appointed here, and there have been some murmurs, although the general concencus is that while there has been the odd political appointment to the High Court, mostly it is done on merit. So they say ...
BTW, I saw a COPS episode on cable the other night and it was in Fresno. It looked like a big bush town, Doc, with dirt roads and what have you on the outskirts. So is it a proper small city Doc, or was I right - a big country town?
9 - STM
And if what I saw on TV is any guide, to echo another commentator on here, I really don't know of anything that's keeping you in the central valley :)
Well, apart from the missus, obviously.
Why is she so keen to stay in the US? Family?
I still reckon you guys need to get on a plane and head on down to the sun-kissed paradise-by-the-sea. Americans are allowed to become citizens now as well.
And you get half yer flag back Doc ... you know the one, the corner of ours that you pinched and claimed as your own.
10 - Andy Marsh
Hey Stan - I saw a movie the other day about a cute young aussie girl that's locked up in Indonesia I think...it was called "Ganja Queen". I was just wondering, are all you Aussies so potty mouthed? SOunded like a bunch of us yanks on the tube!!!
11 - Joanne Huspek
Damn, Dude, that was some rant. Unfortunately, I'm afraid your predictions will all come true.
12 - Baritone
Of course each president afforded the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices during their terms in office attempt to choose from among those believed to be politically aligned with that president. Generally, at least over the last several years - at least until up to the GWB appointees - that hasn't necessarily worked out as expected.
Often SC judges have in fact proven to be quite independent in their respective decisions, often much to the chagrin of the president who nominated them.
Currently, the court has a decided conservative balance. There are 2 justices who are like 130 years old or so, who will likely retire during the next presidential term, although there are no guarantees. There must be something about being a SC judge which seems to elongate their working lives. I suppose the necessity of keeping the cranial juices flowing have something to do with it. Few SC judges bite the dust early. I just hope the two oldsters on the court manage to hold on for the remainder of the year. If Obama wins the WH, then it will be his fortune to choose their replacements. Should McCain get the nod, his appointees would more than likely mirror Bush's. Perish the thought!
B-tone
13 - Dr Dreadful
BTW, I saw a COPS episode on cable the other night and it was in Fresno. It looked like a big bush town, Doc, with dirt roads and what have you on the outskirts. So is it a proper small city Doc, or was I right - a big country town?
It has elements of both, Stan. 'Downtown' looks like a typical American small city and during the day it bustles and functions like one. At night, it empties completely and no-one but bums and baseball fans (there's a spanking new stadium which it was hoped would revitalize the CBD) are to be found there.
Urban sprawl has expanded Fresno to half the size of Greater London, although with far fewer people - hence the 'bush' appearance in some parts of the city. That's steadily changing as the vacant tracts get homes, offices and strip malls built on them - those Cops episodes were I think filmed several years ago.
That said, from downtown you can actually get into the countryside very quickly. The town grew up alongside the Union Pacific railroad - joined later by Highway 99, which runs parallel - and expanded to the north and east. To the south of the train tracks, it's still all fields.
Why is she so keen to stay in the US? Family?
I still reckon you guys need to get on a plane and head on down to the sun-kissed paradise-by-the-sea. Americans are allowed to become citizens now as well.
We're reckoning on getting out of Fresno ASAP, Stan. Only two things are keeping us here right now: the missus needs to stay at her current job for another year so she can get vested and take her employer's retirement contributions with her when she leaves; and we need to get our condo into a fit state to be rented out.
Family's not a big issue as she and her parents squabble constantly, one sister has already moved away and the other wants to.
I did have a look at the Australian immigration website and was quite staggered at the list of trades and occupations which the country is supposedly desirous of. I think it would have been easier to make a list of the professions Australia doesn't need...
14 - The Obnoxious American
Are you really expecting most of the right-wingers on the Court to croak or retire over the next few years, Obnox?
Doc,
Given the last few important supreme court decisions, decided by 1 vote each, it only takes one to croak my friend. Not that this is a huge concern of mine personally. The Keller decision should make any revisit of the 2nd ammendment moot as it should now fall into the "settled" law category. I couldn't care less about Gay marriage and I'm not so concerned about abortion rights. But that's just me. The experience does show just how important these elections are in terms of our rights.
I've said this before, but it is interesting how the GOP supports gun rights, but is against the right to abort or marry if you are gay. A bit of an inconsistency of the main platform, but I suppose that is the price you pay to own the morals vote. Thing is I don't think the morals vote is worth a damn in 2008.
Another point, I thought McCain's speech in front of the NAACP yesterday was nothing short of brilliant. Who would have thought that McCain would garner a standing ovation at the NAACP with Obama as his opponent. Perhaps this is a result of McCain's staff changes, and if so it is a welcome change.
15 - Dr Dreadful
A "brief" standing ovation, according to USA Today, in contrast to "the thunderous enthusiasm that had greeted Obama".
I didn't see the speech, but I gather that his reception was warm and polite and that his audience was, by and large, appreciative that he'd taken the time and trouble to stop by and share his plans with them. But it doesn't seem as though he'll be changing many hearts and minds in that demographic.
And yes, SCOTUS is split down the middle at the moment. Four justices will pretty much always go one way, and four will go the other. They seem happy enough to do that and subsequently be rude to each other in their written opinions.
I believe Kennedy has been the swing vote in all the recent landmark decisions.
Stevens and Ginsburg - both liberals - are the oldest justices and probably the most likely to retire or pop their clogs in the immediate future. Obama would appoint liberals to replace them, McCain would plump for conservatives. So the overall balance of power probably won't be changing in favor of the left any time soon.
16 - Ruvy
I know I'm late to the party, but other things have been going on that do not have to do with this magazine.
Anyway, you've put out a workmanlike article with which I have one quibble.
It runs like this: you talk about a lot of us wanting to believe in a higher power, and then observe or lament that the president is not a god.
That Higher Power is not some dipshit politician, but G-d Himself. If you really understood the Jewish heritage you are heir to, you would understand that with crystal clarity.
As for your prognostications, I think Obama will win in the vote, both the popular vote and the electoral one. Going beyond that with the American election, I will not do. Too much is in the air at the moment.
Love and kisses from the mountains of Samaria,
Ruvy
17 - Baritone
One should remember that there are those who neither believe in or pine for any higher power, other than, of course, the Federation of Planets.
B-tone
18 - Dr Dreadful
Or The Schwartz.
19 - Baronius
Obnox - I think you missed one very important issue, relations with Iran. Obama is far more likely to get the US into a war (or at least some regionalized conflict) than McCain.
McCain will probably keep our mideast policy the same. He'll shut down Guantanamo and gradually bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda will keep losing. McCain will avoid war with Iran.
Obama is more likely to have an erratic foreign policy. He'll be torn by his advisors: moveon peaceniks, Clinton-era interventionists, establishment internationalists, the cautious and the radical. He'll be so preoccupied with not erring that he'll overreact to something. Consistent foreign policy is the best thing; second-best is absolutely psychotic foreign policy that scares your neighbors. The most dangerous foreign policy is inconsistent.
Also, Obnox, I don't see Obama or McCain lasting more than one term. We've gone through a recent stretch of two-termers, but that's uncommon. Certainly, with the country so evenly divided, there's no reason to assume that this election will set the tone for 16 years. (Has there ever been a two-termer whose VP went on to be a two-term president?)
20 - El Bicho
Eisenhower-Nixon, but I think you mean consecutively, so no.
21 - Baronius
Yeah, Bicho, it's a tough move. Not many VP's become president, except the unfortunate way. I don't know why we assume that a president will make it eight years, much less extend his influence two terms beyond his presidency.
I can't imagine a President McCain running for a second term. He doesn't want to be President; he just wants to be elected President. He wants to get the job that Bush "stole" from him. A President Obama would still be youthful during a second term, but his possible VP's? Clinton, Richardson, and Webb would all be bumping up against 70 by the end of a second Obama term.
22 - Steel
An excellent piece. I think the actual threat to America and the move toward a more socialist system will come from a Democrat controlled Congress moreso than a president Obama. The problem is that those who believe at this moment in time this will be a good thing won't recognize it's not a good thing to trend toward more socialism until it is too late. That realization will occur when the rich can't be soaked for any more and the taxes of everyone begin to rocket skyward.
23 - Baritone
Baron,
You underestimate Obama and his ability to think for himself. He will effectively shut out the crazies. I don't see him pandering to please every Tom, Dick, and Hillary when it comes to Iran or anything for that matter. Obama is no more (nor less) guilty of that than any politician. You presume far too little of Obama.
Barack is not the one singing "Bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran" or making similar stupid remarks that reveal McCain's basic lack of depth. A public figure seeking the highest office in the land should not be saying such things, even in jest. It borders on a gutteral level of human disregard.
And you're right. McCain doesn't really want to BE president. He just wants to win it. And perhaps he likes the IDEA of it. It's rather like teenage girls who pine for having babies, thinking how great it will be to cuddle some helpless little doll like creature without a thought to the fact that that little "doll" will eat and cry and poop and get sick, and will quickly be wreaking havoc on her life.
B-tone
24 - bliffle
Wake up Steel. We already have socialism - socialism for the rich and powerful. It's only the consumers and workers who have only token socialism, who must endure the slings and arrows of brass-knuckles capitalism.
Bear Stearns starts to go belly-up as a result of the predatory mistakes of it's overpaid execs and the Bush administration snaps to attention and coppers a $30billion bailout. FNMA starts to take on water as a result of the machinations of it's overpaid execs and once again the Bush administration snaps to attention.
But if 2 million american homeowners go bankrupt and lose their houses No Mercy For Them!
Hard-nosed make-or-break capitalism for the least powerful people in the country. A severe lecture about irresponsibility and risk taking when they fail.
Corporate welfare for the most powerful - who happen to be the biggest campaign contributors to Bush/Cheney.
We have socialism already: selective socialism.
25 - Baronius
I do have a very low opinion of Obama. We'll see if I'm underestimating him.
He'd never joke about bombing Iran. He'll be against military action six months before he orders it. But he'll paint himself into a corner and realize it too late. He's also petulant enough that he'll find himself wanting to go to war, because Iran or the international community isn't respecting him enough. (If you think crazy invading America isn't respected, wait till you see the international reaction to wussy retreating America.)