The last couple of days have been notable as the first real engagement between Barack Obama and John McCain. It might be spring training, but these guys are at least playing baseball:
The conventional wisdom on Hardball right now is that this is great news for Barack Obama. And I thought his remarks were effective today. But this could also be a case where Obama is on the right side of the wrong argument. For one thing, I think there is a bigger gap between the knowledge base of the pundit class and the public on non-Iraq foreign policy than there is on any other issue. We've seen that the public can handle fairly sophisticated debates on the gas tax and a health care mandate, but the intricacies of Hamas and Neville Chamberlain may test their patience. For another, Rasmussen polling indicates that national security is one area where McCain starts out with a big credibility/trust advantage against Barack Obama.
I'll say this: I think this is one time when it's going to be worth looking at the national tracking polls over the course of the next week or so. If Obama gets some kind of bounce out of this -- on what should be McCain's firmest ground -- then McCain could be in a great deal of trouble. If, on the other hand, the polling shows a shift toward McCain, we know that the Republicans will be pressing this issue from now until November, and Obama might need to think more seriously about a VP selection like Sam Nunn or Wesley Clark.
Friday, May 16, 2008
War Games?
-- Nate at 4:41 PM
Labels: foreign policy, mccain, obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments
"The conventional wisdom on Hardball right now is that this is great news for Barack Obama."
*snort*
Why not cite Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow too?
Anon,
If you read the whole post, you should see that he's pretty skeptical of the conventional wisdom in this instance.
What would you think about Jim Webb as a VP along those same lines?
SurveyUSA is supposed to have a bunch of polling out next week on VP tickets, at which point we might actually be able to do some analysis on this. As a partisan, I like Webb, but it's very difficult to evaluate the VP situation objectively without some kind of polling evidence.
I think most importantly is that Obama did an excellent job of lumping Bush and McCain together. It's clear that this is the main way Obama wants to frame McCain, which is probably a pretty wise strategy.
I think this is absolutely the correct move for Obama because it fits in with the entire theme of his fall strategy, on nearly every issue.
1) Staple McCain to Bush, and
2) offer a clear alternate path.
Since this argument was inevitably going to happen, it's a positive for Obama that McCain is making it so easy for Obama to conflate McCain's and Bush's positions.
Even those who lack the time and inclination to understand why Obama would negotiate with Iran but not Hamas can understand that McCain would negotiate like Bush, but Obama would do something different.
I like Webb too, and he puts Virginia more firmly in play.
I think doktarr is correct. One of the mistakes that Kerry made in 2004 was that he failed to offer a clear alternative to Bush. His entire campaign seemed to be merely "not Bush" while never laying out what Kerry planned, particularly with Iraq, which was the major issue by far in that election. Obama is not only a far, far, far better speaker and more electric person, but he's laying out clear (although not always specific) policy ideas that are starkly different from Bush and McCain.
As an Obama partisan, I was very pleased with today's press conference in South Dakota. Obama made his points clearly and firmly and, as a side benefit, the media behaved as if Obama is the presumptive nominee. I really look forward to the General Election. Voters are really going to feel as if they have a clear choice.
you are missing the obvious. Any time Bush gets convoluted with McCain, Obama wins.
re: Webb and foreign policy credibility.
I don't see Webb as the solution to anything for Obama.
1) As poblano notes above, the public's knowledge base on foreign policy is very low. And my guess is that most people have never heard of Jim Webb. Whatever you may think of Webb, politically he'd be a blank slate on which the two presidential candidates (and their surrogates) would be able to write.
2) If they hadn't figured out before 2004, the Kerry campaign should have taught Democrats that there are no candidates whose cv's give them automatic credibility on foreign policy issues. To the extent that the GOP has a generic advantage in foreign affairs (and some polls suggest that they retain this advantage), it consists of a vague, but persistent feeling on the part of many voters that Republicans are "tougher" than Democrats and therefore better able to protect us. McCain's reputation reinforces these feelings. That this impression of the Republicans has managed to survive seven years of Bush's disastrous foreign policy is a sign of how resilient it is and how little it has to do with reality.
3) There are really three ways that Democrats can deal with the Republicans generic foreign policy advantage. First, they can hope that this election won't be about foreign policy at all. Many elections aren't. This is how Clinton won in '92. With the economy tanking an "It's the economy, stupid!" campaign could win again. Second, Democrats could focus like a laser on the Iraq fiasco (and it's sibling the Afghanistan disaster), and hope that the public's feeling about these specifics (which voters at least think they understand) will trump their general preferences for the GOP on foreign affairs. Finally, Democrats could try to actually reframe the foreign policy debate so that the GOP might eventually lose this seemingly permanent advantage.
4) One thing the Democrats shouldn't try is to boost their foreign policy credentials on the GOP's terms. That was the mistake they made nominating Kerry and hoping that his record as a war hero would erase the Republican advantage. The proposed Webb solution makes the same mistake.
Vice Presidential picks are overrated in general, imo, but especially on these kinds of issues-based decisions. People vote for the President, and if the VP has a huge advantage on an issue, it just makes the Presidential candidate suffer by comparison.
Obama should pick an outsider of some kind (Feingold counts), with whatever complementary image traits they want. Gore was the only inspired VP choice recently because he reinforced the "young, energetic" image of Clinton while adding a lot of detail wonkiness to the team.
Really, though, it's a far-overrated process. As long as Obama likes the person and gets along with him/her, it'll be a fine choice.
After so many weeks being tied McCain pulled ahead by one point in the Rasmussen reports.
Saw this asked somewhere and I'm wondering the same thing:
Is there a reason why the daily tracking polls (Gallup, Ras) have the GE matchup much closer than the other polls (ABC, NBC, LA Times) that come out only sporadically?
Wow.
I´ve returned from my holidays and your blog draws more and more attention every day- you had not so many comments on every post a week ago.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
Dick Bennett fired another shot at you- and his final poll was indeed not far off. Just luck, we know, but bad for you at this time.
Post a Comment