A Campaign We Can Believe In?

[RunInRed 18,172]

Hillary Clinton’s concession speech Saturday was the story of the weekend. But the dueling speeches by John McCain and Barack Obama on Tuesday night, after the last primaries, are what voters — and campaign operatives — should be revisiting.

McCain chose to speak early in the evening, before the polls closed in South Dakota and Montana, thereby getting the jump on Obama. He read a disjointed set of remarks at a badly staged rally at the Pontchartrain Center in Kenner, La. Here’s part of an e-mail message I received as McCain spoke, from a Republican who admires him: “They could have done so well tonight, shown a tone of confidence. Instead it looks like a bad Congressional race: dumb green puke background, small crowd ... Makes me want to cry.”

Soon after Republicans finished shedding tears of frustration, Democrats were weeping tears of joy. Obama spoke about an hour later in a packed sports arena in St. Paul, Minn. His speech was well written and well delivered. He closed with quite a peroration, promising among other things that “generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

It was lofty oratory, exciting and even moving. Only later, in the light of day, might one pause to wonder: Would Obama’s election really mark the moment when Americans began to care for the sick? And while Obama would surely seek legislation regulating greenhouse gases, isn’t it a little much to promise that his election would not only slow the rise of the oceans but cause the planet to begin “to heal”?

In his evocation of healing powers and dominion over the waters, Obama summons up echoes of the Gospels and Genesis. His comment a week earlier at Wesleyan, that “our individual salvation depends on collective salvation,” I might add, would seem at odds with much of Christian teaching. But I’ll let Obama take that up with his minister.

In any case, with the battle against Hillary Clinton behind him, everything seems to be going swimmingly for Obama. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign dog-paddles along. And almost every Republican I’ve talked to is alarmed that the McCain campaign doesn’t seem up to the task of electing John McCain.

Several of these worried McCain supporters cited the decision by the campaign gurus that McCain’s Tuesday night speech should consist in large part of criticisms of Obama’s various proposals. The attacks often concluded, “That’s not change we can believe in.” Is it wise to begin a general election campaign by making fun of your opponent’s slogan and presenting yourself mostly as a debunker of his claims? Even hard-hearted Republicans think a general election message should be a bit more positive than that.

Actually, to be fair, there was a positive message Tuesday night. It was stenciled over and over on the now-notorious green backdrop behind McCain: “A leader we can believe in.” This was another play on Obama’s “change we can believe in” — and a foolish one. Because McCain doesn’t really ask for the electorate’s “belief.” Let Obama be about belief. McCain’s message is that he’s a leader we can trust, based on a record of many years, and that his character has been tested. McCain at least seems to grasp what his most effective message is. I’m told that it was McCain himself who insisted on the most effective passage in his Tuesday night speech.

Discussing the surge of troops and the new counterinsurgency strategy of early 2007, McCain pointed out, “Senator Obama opposed the new strategy. ... Yet in the last year we have seen the success of that plan as violence has fallen to a four-year low. ... None of this progress would have happened had we not changed course over a year ago. And all of this progress would be lost if Senator Obama had his way. ”

Early 2007 was as close as we’re going to get to a commander in chief moment for Senators McCain and Obama. They had to make a judgment in a difficult real-world situation — not on the healed planet of Obama’s dreams. With the Iraq war going badly, McCain took the lead in calling for a change in military strategy and a surge of troops. Obama, by contrast, went along with his party in urging withdrawal. Now, 18 months later, McCain seems pretty clearly to have been right.

Can McCain get voters to compare his judgment with Obama’s in a moment when the two of them were confronted with a weighty choice? Can McCain get voters to consider his leadership in this instance, and get them to ask when Obama took a similarly courageous stand on any issue? Yes he can — but it’s not clear if his campaign will be much help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

[RunInRed 18,172]

A little more about our good friend Bill...on Fox News Sunday, December 17, 2006...

KRISTOL: You know, Bill Clinton won a nomination in 1992 against a weak field. Mario Cuomo, the governor of New York, chose not to run. George Mitchell, the Senate majority leader, chose not to run. Al Gore and Dick Gephardt, who had run in '88, chose not to run. The heavyweights didn't run. Bill Clinton had a sketchy field against him and won the nomination, despite various missteps and flaws.

Hillary Clinton, it looks like to me, is now going to follow in Bill Clinton's footsteps. If she gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she's going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then. She wants to be the centrist.

I think she's taking some risks in staying on the center, not going to left, which is intelligent. She can still beat the left-wing democratic candidates, I think. And then she's pretty well-positioned for the general election. So this is all good for Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single democratic primary. I'll predict that right now.

http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%...amp;blogId=2480