DNC vs. McCain

As Clinton and Obama continue to fight things out, it falls to the DNC to attack John McCain:

Ambinder says it's "a preview of how they'll run against him in the fall." If so, the good news is that they're going straight at his alleged strength on national security. The weakness, though, is that this attack really has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's good as a side dish or an appetizer, but the point needs to rest at some point not on McCain's occasionally contradictory mumbling but on his ideas. The Bush years have seen repeated disasters in U.S. foreign policy, and those disasters have been the consequences of Bush's ideas about America's role in the world, ideas that John McCain seems to share.

This is inherently a bit difficult to do without a nominee, since making a meatier critique of McCain's ideas is probably going to require sketching out a bit more of an alternative set of ideas. At some point, though, it's going to have to be done. This kind of poking fun at McCain is a good way to try to take the guy down a peg or two, but at the end of the idea he's still going to be a war hero and Clinton or Obama won't be -- purely personal critiques aren't going to cut it for the long haul.

Comments

Every time a Democrat appears anywhere they should be carrying with them that picture where McCain is hugging Bush. You know the one where McCain has Bush in a bear hug and Bush is basically ignoring him.

Posted by Rob | February 12, 2008 1:41 PM

It's good as a side dish or an appetizer, but the point needs to rest at some point not on McCain's occasionally contradictory mumbling but on his ideas.

No, No, NO! You have to hit McCain at his strength! We most convince everyone that McCain is not a straight talker. If he gets away with the "straight talk" meme he gets away with everything. This is exactly correct.

Posted by Mark | February 12, 2008 1:44 PM

But those ideas about America's role in the world are also shared by Bill Clinton, apparently by Hillary Clinton and pretty clearly by Obama.

The occupation of Iraq is indeed consistent with an idea about foreign policy--that force is sufficient to impose US will--that centers on fundamental imperialism.

Supporting an Iraq occupation, as I expect Clinton and Obama both to do, is consistent with a foreign policy that relies on occupations in Japan, Germany and South Korea in an environment with no material threat in any of those regions.

A real change of "ideas about America's role in the world" would be a renunciation of the use of force as a primary means of exerting American will. This would necessarily mean a smaller defense budget, unilateral retirement of nuclear warheads, ending all of the ABM programs, theatre and otherwise. This would mean a plan to withdraw from Okinawa, from Germany and from Korea, as well as Iraq.

To an analyst from Mars, this would seem an obvious course of action. The US is under no threat that requires nuclear submarines or jet fighters to address. The only plausible purposes for the level of US defense expenditure are 1) Imperialism and 2) Graft.

Matt, you were just pointing out that the blogosphere naively fails to understand the variety of views among DC democrats on security issues. You happen to be wrong about that; nobody who has paid much attention thinks that it is spinelessness keeping the US in Iraq. It's pretty obvious that the broad democratic consensus in DC is for an extended occupation.

So, no, having a nominee will not make this easier. The nominee will be forced to attack Republican incompetence rather than their ideas.

Because they, as you if I read you correctly, agree with the basic role of the US as a special agent above internatiional law and oversight.

Posted by jayAckroyd | February 12, 2008 1:47 PM

Seconding Mark, it will be pretty apparent to everyone that McCain is bad on the war- just as people thought Bush was in 2004. He'll win by seeming strong, decisive and honest. Obama's line about the straight talk express falling off the tracks is exactly right. And come to think of it only Obama can make this attack. Clinton can go after his policies but not his flip flopping.

Posted by Jack | February 12, 2008 1:50 PM

Bear hugs, Bomb Iran, and the 'maverick' thing needs to be taken down.

And "John McCain: a war hero who wants to create many more war heroes by starting many more wars" isn't unfair.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 12, 2008 1:51 PM

the point needs to rest at some point [...] on McCain's [...] ideas.

No, No, NO! You have to hit McCain at his strength!

The two are not contradictory: part of McCain's "strength" is not only that has is a "Straight Talker"(TM) but also that he is a "Maverick"(TM). Should McCain be the nominee, the Dems. should have already written (if not filmed, which is the more expensive part ... anybody could write the spot pretty much for free) an attack ad to the effect of:

McCain says he's a straight talking maverick (cue speech of McCain, looking and sounding tired and like he's reading from a script, saying "let me give you the straight talk") but what is the straight talk on McCain? He has supported this administration's disastrous strategy in Iraq at every turn, failing even in his responsibility as a Senator to oversee administration actions. Can we trust Keating-supporting, Bush hugging McCain to give us the straight talk, be a maverick and do what needs to be done in Iraq, with our current credit crisis, etc? No, we can only trust him to be a continuation of the Bush establishment.

Posted by DAS | February 12, 2008 1:54 PM

Barack isn't going to need to critique McCain. Only old fogies vote for McCain while all the young people will swamp the booths because they're inspired by Barack. LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 12, 2008 1:56 PM

"poking fun"? Did we watch the same video? I think this ripped a huge hole in his supposed military expertise, to say nothing of 'straight talk'. This is what MoveOn, frankly, should have been doing instead of endorsing a candidate.

There's a place for poking fun, i.e. the "Hugsy McCain" pics with Bush, but it's far more important to point out that McCain is both incompetent and dishonest when he claims he was a critic of Bush's strategy.

Posted by Jim | February 12, 2008 1:57 PM

Yes, I think "jayAckroyd" is exactly right. That's the same sort of problem that Kerry ran into last time.

It's true that the politics of this particular issue might strongly cut in Obama's favor since---unlike Hillary--- he did originally oppose the crazy Iraq War. But as far as I can tell, once he reached DC, the trimmed his sails accordingly, and those differences tended to disappear.

Remember, a very large and powerful slice of the Democratic top-donor-class still thinks the Iraq War was a great idea botched by the incompetent Bushies, and presidential candidates (and especially their commission-driven consultants!) regard fund-raising as an absolutely central aspect of their campaigns.

Does anyone want to take odds that a nominated Obama won't quickly tack "toward the center" on continuing the Iraq Occupation and other horribly stupid Mid East policies? Or that this won't cause his foreign policy attacks against McCain to start sounding an awful lot like those of Kerry?...

Believe me, I hope I'm wrong...but I don't think so...

Posted by RKU | February 12, 2008 1:58 PM

Does anyone want to take odds that a nominated Obama won't quickly tack "toward the center" on continuing the Iraq Occupation and other horribly stupid Mid East policies?

I'll take those odds. The center has moved pretty far towards getting the heck out of Iraq and Obama has been pretty vocal in his statements. Opposition to the Iraq war is what made it possible for him to compete aggressively against Senator Inevitable.

You're comparison to Kerry is backwards. Kerry spent the primaries arguing that deposing Saddam made us safer, then tried to make the case that Bush screwed up in Iraq. He was simultaneously for the war and against the man who made it possible. He couldn't out compete Bush on those terms.

Obamas not turning back on the issue and honestly I'm looking forward to a debate between "100 years in Iraq" and ending the biggest foreign policy disaster of our lifetime.

Posted by Jinchi | February 12, 2008 2:19 PM

Jinchi:

Well, I really hope you're right...

My own guess is that we may see a debate between "Mr. 100 Years in Iraq" and "Mr. Let's Keep Trying Another Friedman-Unit in Iraq"...

I still say that it's most likely "external events" (such as an American financial collapse) will be what finally gets us out of Iraq, hopefully before we also start a war with Iran or something else crazy.

Posted by RKU | February 12, 2008 2:24 PM

RKU, I think you're wrong. He is clearly committed to withdrawal from Iraq and concentration on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Posted by JackD | February 12, 2008 2:24 PM

But as far as I can tell, once he reached DC, the trimmed his sails accordingly, and those differences tended to disappear.

The telling difference was the vote on Iran. Clinton supported it and Obama did not. Obama showed he still has the principles going forward he had on Iraq.

Iraq itself is a big mess. Personally, I think taking money away from Iraq and forcing Bush to withdraw would be an actual mistake. (Not political, but real.) I don't trust Bush to handle the complexity; particularly without an actual budget. Our troops and our supporters within Iraq would be totally screwed. For now, the status quo actually is better than the clusterf@ck a Bush led withdrawal would be. Let Obama (or Clinton for that matter) do it correctly.

Posted by Mark | February 12, 2008 2:26 PM

I'm with Mark. The trick to defeating McCain will be planting the into the collective unconscious the meme that McCain is a big fat lying politician. This should be fairly easy to do with a few good "flood the zone" ads, because that's exactly what McCain is. Just as important as ads will be getting Democratic partisans on as many chat shows as possible to outright accuse McCain of lying.

McCain will be easy for either Obama or HRC to beat. They both are calling very clearly for us to get out of Iraq as soon as we can while McCain is saying we need to stay for 100 years. Plus, the big issue from spring through November will be not foreign policy, but the economy. McCain has no economic program other than more Bush style tax cuts for the rich.

Shackle him to Bush. Shackle him to the war. Label him a liar at every opportunity. The guy is toast.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 12, 2008 2:31 PM

"The Bush years have seen repeated disasters in U.S. foreign policy, and those disasters have been the consequences of Bush's ideas about America's role in the world, ideas that John McCain seems to share."

So, too, domestic policy!

Posted by Greg Anrig | February 12, 2008 2:39 PM

RKU

Obama won't have to tack back to the center. Unless he changes his position in some clear way, he has made no commitment to be out of Iraq by any date certain, or by any other criterion.

This is a central refutation of Matt's point above

he point needs to rest at some point not on McCain's occasionally contradictory mumbling but on his ideas. The Bush years have seen repeated disasters in U.S. foreign policy, and those disasters have been the consequences of Bush's ideas about America's role in the world, ideas that John McCain seems to share.

Neither Obama, nor Clinton, nor, FTM, Matt actually have a difficulty with the basic ideas that underlie McCain's or Bush's positions. He picked the wrong country, and did it badly, but the basic idea that the US has a special status that permits it to use force in its interests is central to all three candidacies. They have to run against this particular war not against the ideas that Madeline Albright advocated:

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."

The criticism therefore cannot be of American exceptionalism and right to hegemony. The criticism has to be in failing to see farther into the future accurately. If you look at the DNC ad, that's what it is saying. McCain failed to judge the outcome accurately, and the war should not have been waged because of the properly anticipated bad outcome. But the underlying ideas are fine.

And, as I say, Matt and liberal hawks, agree with those underlying ideas.

(It'd be interesting to know whether Fallows does. He has a much better grasp than most about the multitudinous world we live in.)

Posted by JayAckroyd | February 12, 2008 2:40 PM

Rob Mac

It is extremely unlikely that under either of these candidates the US will be out of Iraq by Nov 2012. What do you think this means for the Dem candidates?

Posted by JayAckroyd | February 12, 2008 2:43 PM

"but at the end of the idea he's still going to be a war hero and Clinton or Obama won't be -- purely personal critiques aren't going to cut it for the long haul."

!!!

Do you remember the 2004 campaign (GWB, draft dodger, vs. John Kerry, war hero) or not?

Posted by captcrisis | February 12, 2008 2:50 PM

I am once again going to disagree with you here. McCain's biggest advantage is, as many commenters have pointed out, the idea that he's a decent, honorable person who wants to do the right thing, not a typical lying politician. The presidential race is fought over character in the media, and having a pre-existing identity as an honest, forthright, good guy is a powerful weapon. If you can reverse or undermine that perception, you're fighting on a more even playing field.

(his second biggest advantage is, as i noted in the other thread, that nobody talks about his domestic voting record.)

Posted by SDM | February 12, 2008 3:04 PM

You attack McCain on two fronts. First, you destroy the idea that he is a different type of politician, a maverick, one who goes his own, high-minded way, even when it hurts him politically. There is ample evidence that he acts very much in his own narrow-minded interest (The Keating 5, dumping his first injured wife, his pandering then-and-now views on bush's tax cuts, the religious right). Second, you make the case that McCain would be Bush Redux. His views on the war, taxes etc. provide the evidence of this.

Posted by charlie | February 12, 2008 3:39 PM

"He is clearly committed to withdrawal from Iraq and concentration on Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Right.

Brilliant.

Leave one disaster, then move all the troops over to Afghanistan and Pakistan and create two BIGGER disasters.

You can't make this stuff up, folks! People really think Obama has a clue on foreign policy - because they don't.

He's going to mire the US into at least two, and probably three - Iran - of the worst military disasters in US history.

The fact that he MIGHT withdraw US troops from Iraq over the next four years to do that isn't exactly a great comfort to me.

Read my lips: There is only ONE way Obama can not screw up. He can remove all US troops from Iraq - and from Afghanistan - and refuse to attack Iran - and refuse to insert US troops into Pakistan.

That's it. He does anything else, we're in trouble - again - just like Bush.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 13, 2008 12:36 AM

This is one time I hope Hack's wild and usually unsupported assertions come true.

It is patent nonsense to advocate attacking Iran or Pakistan, with or without US troops "mired" in Iraq. I am quite sure Obama knows this, and is just playing around with the idea that such foolish acts are really sensible, only prevented by the situation in Iraq. This is a political dodge aimed at undermining Hillary and/or McCain, and is only taken seriously by folks with strategic deficit disorder like JackD and Jinchi.

I think the best evidence for a prediction is provided by those like RKU, JayAkroyd, and Rob Mac who note the strong and long bi-partisan consensus on military strength and national interest that will most likely produce a long, long denouement in Iraq no matter who wins the election.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 13, 2008 11:30 AM