Former Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, provides the latest high-profile endorsement of Barack Obama. Throughout, Obama has spoken of reaching out to what he sometimes calls "disaffected Republicans." Certainly Chafee would fit this descriptor, as Readers will remember the ignobility with which the GOP jeered him on his way out the Senate door in 2006.
Obama's central reliance on Independents and potential crossover Republicans has been the subject of much contemplation on this blog, as everywhere else. Of course, this is also a much-trumpeted strength of McCain's. If Obama versus McCain is the Showdown, we will in all likelihood see the two candidates slugging it out for the Lieberman/Chafee Block while relying (in Obama's case, exclusively) on the Veep nominee and mutliple surrogates to allay substantial elements of partisan distrust.
Happily for him "My Friends" McCain will blessedly be spared the discomfort of having to deal with a General Election operating as any kind of specific referendum on the last eight years of Republican rule.
6 comments:
The Veeps ought to play the role of the hatchet while the Presidential Nominee transcends the partisanship and appeals to both parties.
This is another reason why Clinton would not choose Obama as VP since they believe he would not attack like a Veep ought to attack. The problem for the Veep is that the attacks could return to haunt if the Veep wants to run for President. Cheney was effective as a Veep, in this sense, since he never planned on running for Pres. He could say anything he wanted knowing that it would not hurt him.
Another factor in this race is how McCain will position himself. If he tries to appease the right, he will lose the moderates and independents. If he plays for the moderates or independents, the moderates or independents may vote Obama (more on Clinton in a moment) since Barack would be the authentic candidate. Of course, if McCain attempts to gain the independents, then he may lose the support of the conservatives. In the past 24 hours, he changed his position on torture, which may mean he is moving to the right to appease the base. If this is the case, the moderates and independents may go elsewhere.
As for Senator Clinton, she may not receive the support from moderates and independents regardless of who the Republican is or how he acts, which she needs to win the general election. She has unquestioned support from certain demographics but she has problems adding to those groups. In this case, the moderates may go to McCain.
But who knows what events will take place between now and the end of the Democratic race, between the end of the Dem. race and the convention, and between the convention and the general election.
I think the preferred term for those Republicans is "Obamacans"
At least, that was what Obama called them on Tuesday in WI.
All of which goes to show, there is one thing we know will happen: there will be no referendum.
This saddens Harrogate, quite a bit. The American people are not by any stretch incapable of remembering what has happened, but 4 out of five dentists agree that the power of Narrative is far stronger than the power of Memory, in instances where the two are pitted against one another.
Misdirection writ large, in Harrogate's humble opinion. A narrative discouraging McCain as a continuation of something, suggesting instead that he be evaluated out of any context excepting the immediate campaign at hand.
Advantage, McCain.
The time for referendum on President Bush was 2004 or 2006, not 2008. After election day in 2004, Bush was no longer accountable to the general public.
By the 2006 midterms, the country repudiated some of President Bush's policies. Once the Dems won, the talk turned to the 2008 election. Bush receives no press at this time because he is insignificant.
The only people that may make this a referendum on Bush would be the Democrats. I would argue that in 2008 Independents do not want the Democrats to run against Bush but to tell the country what their vision will be...
Whenever Obama and Clinton invoke Bush in their stump speeches it is a problem-- you cannot run against the past. When watching Obama's speech in Wisconsin on Tuesday, he "got" this and tried to move forward. I do not think Clinton gets this yet.
This is indicative of a persistent disconnect, a talking pastness, at work in our discussions that Harrogate has many times unsuccesfully tried to banish.
It is not referendum of Bush that Harrogate is speaking of, but of GOP rule. 2006 did little to change this. Harrogate won't say it did nothing, because at the very least, we haven't seen Congressional openness to new invasions, or anything resembling the Shiavo fiasco. But the GOP agenda has rolled on largely uninterrupted, and continues to roll.
Solon, you continue to respond as though Harrogate is talking about Bush specifically when he never was doing this, when he has said again and again that Bush is merely reflective of broader GOP ideology and behavior.
Why do you carry on thus?
And, it is remarkably silly to speak of challenging GOP rule as "running against the past" when we are in the thick of it at this very moment and, in the event of McCain winning, it will be the case that GOP rule never relented.
This is what Hillary Clinton has known all along, but it doesn't appear that Obama gets it yet.
As to which democratic candidate gets it and which one doesn't, I guess it depends upon the terministic screen through which one views a particular situation.
Was not one of our contributors going to post on this very topic?
Post a Comment