MoveOn On McCain

New ad continues to hit the 100 years theme:

They're obviously making a rhetorical point at the end about being worse than Bush, but my guess is that on Iraq as such McCain is likely to be somewhat better as he has over the years seemed more engaged with the various tactical questions about how best to proceed. Where he's most likely to be worse than Bush concerns our relationships with other major countries like Russia and China, where Bush has generally been cautious but McCain might take a substantially more confrontational approach. Still, for political purposes probably nobody's going to care about Russia and China, so the fact that McCain, like Bush, will ensure that troops keep fighting and dying in Iraq for as long as he's in a position to order them to do so does seem like the salient issue.

Comments

There's no chance of confrontation with China. There are extremely powerful interests that want peace and none that want war or brinkmanship. There are think-tank scribblers who want more tension, but there's no organised political power to back them up, whereas in the relation to Iraq and Iran the Israeli lobby and others provide an powerful environment for a militaristic policy and there's no Wal-Mart and co acting as a restraint.

You follow these things too much in terms of personalities and not enough in terms of organised interests.

Posted by otto | April 30, 2008 4:38 PM

Matt: "my guess is that on Iraq as such McCain is likely to be somewhat better as he has over the years seemed more engaged with the various tactical questions about how best to proceed."

This is bullshit. It just means McCain will be more likely to screw up even MORE than Bush rather than the opposite. I suppose some small case could be made that McCain, being ex-military rather than a flunk-out like Bush, might be more likely to listen to the Pentagon on certain matters. But given that he's likely to keep that asshole Petraeus in charge, that isn't going to help much.

Also notice that Matt doesn't ONCE mention Iran. Does Matt think McCain attacking Iran in the first three to six months of his administration is "being somewhat better than Bush"?

Of course, I think Bush will attack Iran in the next three to six months, so I suspect the question is moot.

But again: Matt simply can't talk about Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 30, 2008 5:11 PM

Well, maybe I shouldn't say anything...but I seem to notice that all the pro-Obama bloggers have suddenly gotten really, really quiet about the primary race, which they used to always focus on 24/7.

Can't possibly imagine why...

Posted by RKU | April 30, 2008 5:17 PM

"but my guess is that on Iraq as such McCain is likely to be somewhat better as he has over the years seemed more engaged with the various tactical questions about how best to proceed."

But tactics aren't going to have much of an effect unless the strategic goals are kept in mind when designing tactics. There's really nothing to indicate that McCain has the least bit of understanding about the strategic situation.

Posted by malraux | April 30, 2008 5:20 PM

As Steve Benen observed about a month ago, McCain should be leading by 10 in the national polls at this point. The fact that he isn't reveals the Democratic strength come November.

Obama most likely will win the nomination and the presidency. Hillary could get the nomination but could lose in November. The national and state polls show that BO is a stronger candidate, and the Republicans know HC is a better opponent for them, thus their implicit - and not so implicit - support of her.

The point of all this is that we need a Democrat in the White House this fall. No one should ever forget that.

Don't fck this up America!

Posted by Jvb | April 30, 2008 5:22 PM

RKU -

Perhaps its because the primary race is nigh impossible for Sen. Clinton to win mathematically, making it almost a foregone conclusion that Sen. Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president. Thus, why not focus on issues of importance, rather than feed the desperate frenzy promulgated by Hillary devotees that just can't let go...

Hugs & kisses.

Posted by Trigger | April 30, 2008 5:26 PM

RKU said... but I seem to notice that all the pro-Obama bloggers have suddenly gotten really, really quiet about the primary race

Huh? Have you actually been following this blog? Try looking at this entry for plenty of comments. There's really not that much to say, except that the tide continues to go out for Hillary.

If Obama simply comes close to maintaining his lead in pledged delegates, he already has enough supers to lock the nomination.

Clinton needs to take all the remaining pledged delegates 60/40. I don't know if she's won any single state by that margin in the entire contest. (Arkansas maybe? She couldn't even take Michigan with that split, and she was the only one on the ballot!) Once that feat is accomplished, she STILL needs to take the remaining supers 2/1. It ain't happenin'.

Just today, in fact, Obama has picked up 3 and Clinton 2. Y'day it was 2-2. The day before it was 1-0. Since his "horrible week" following the PA primary, it's been 10-6 in Obama's favor. Hillary desperately needs to flip those numbers, but she hasn't been able to do so since Super Tuesday. Every day she doesn't change the ratio and more supers endorse, the tide slips out a little farther.

Drip, drip, drip.

Posted by LFC | April 30, 2008 5:34 PM

While good to focus on that remark, I wish Moveon would focus more on the money. The intense anger out there about the increasing price of things, the 500 billion dollar deficit, and the general sense that Bush is whacko form the ad by themselves. Instead of a birthday cake, a cash machine. A magic cash machine. Kchinging up the costs from May 1, 2003 - Mission Accomplished day! Get a clown to play the magic cashier.

Posted by roger | April 30, 2008 5:38 PM

"McCain should be leading by 10 in the national polls at this point. The fact that he isn't reveals the Democratic strength come November."

I think the relevant opposite point is that if Obama can't lead a senile, war-mongering old fart like McCain by a lead of 10 at this point - even without the nomination - the Democrats need to ask why.

The Clinton problem certainly is part of it, but I'm not sure that explains it all.

If this is a close race at all by, say, September, the Democrats are in real trouble if Bush starts a war with Iran in October.

Somebody needs to wake the Dems up. They CAN lose this one big time. The Republicans are counting on that fact. All they need is a war and some vote fraud and they're back in for another four years.

The Dems need to sink this "war hero" crap with McCain and paint him as a "war monger" and "four more years of Bush" as well as a "flip flopper". a liar, involved with the Keating scandal, relying on his wife's money, a cheat on his first wife and possibly his second (where IS that blond lobbyist, folks? In a marshland some where?) and anything else they can come up with.

They also need to EXPLICITLY renounce attacking Iran and make Obama back off on that and specify how disastrous such a war would be for this country and then tie it around McCain's neck so if Bush does start it, it doesn't work as well for McCain.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 30, 2008 5:51 PM

Man, that photograph of McCain hugging Bush is iconic at this point. Love huggy bear!

Posted by Beth in VA | April 30, 2008 9:17 PM