John McCain: Underdog

David Brooks wavers, it seems to me, between thoughtful philosophical conservative and Republican talking head. Today he writes in his capacity as the latter.

John McCain, apparently, is at a disadvantage. He isn't getting to play the kind of politics he wants, where he appears to be the post-partisan healer of the country to Barack Obama's left-wing nutjobness. His campaign is being forced against his will to have structure, and to attack people. This isn't the kind of good-natured, easy-going presidential race John McCain signed up for. And this means that he's fallen behind and has had to turn to a more nasty, traditional kind of politics. Now, this doesn't come naturally to him, of course, and he's really had to work at it, but after long last his newly minted tactics of personal attacks and mocking of truth and justice have paid off. He's nearly neck-and-neck with Obama, and so in Brooks's own words, "a long-shot candidacy now seems entirely plausible."
And the American Dream is saved.

No. No no no. John McCain is not a long shot. He has never been a long shot. John McCain has held office in the United States Senate for over 21 years. He ran a nearly successful race for the Republican nomination for President in 2000, and has had more publicity than nearly all other senators for many years. He has the endorsement and financial support of hordes of super-wealthy Republican donors, not to mention a little cash in the bank of his own.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, emerged recently from extremely local politics, is the first viable African-American candidate ever, and defeated the most powerful family in the Democratic party to become the nominee. I'm not going to say it's truly a long shot, because his family does have some background in politics and he has served in the Senate, but he's a hell of a lot closer than McCain.

I know that I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but it really does irritate me when people use John McCain's poor policy choices and lack of charisma to characterize him as some kind of David to Obama's Goliath.

Obama Phenomena

Tom Tomorrow (cartoonist extraordinaire, if you didn't know) has a rather clever strip this week about the varying perceptions of Obama. I probably fall in most closely with the "Obamanologists" who "strive to explain the difference between what Obama says and what he means." I have a feeling that most Democrats fall into one of these categories. Broockman is clearly a "disillusioned acolyte," and I know a couple folks would be fall in the "ubiquitous apostates" category.
Aside from being amusing, the strip also affirms Democrats' own perception of "I belong to no organized party, for I am a Democrat" (thanks, David). Obama's done a pretty good job of representing himself, but aside from the occasional email from Howard Dean, I haven't heard anything from other prominent Democrats since the primaries. The Party needs to revitalize its own clout and create a coherent image of its candidate that everybody can fall in with, instead of splintering off into their own incomplete ideas about him.

Be true to your school (of thought)

Nicholas Kristof has an opinion piece in the Times today similar to opinion pieces in many many papers these days. Clinton is really going to fuck over the Democrats by staying in too long. While I somewhat agree, this isn't what I'm most worried about right now. What concerns me more than the general chances of the Democratic party in November is the poll Kristof cites indicating that 19% of Obama supporters would consider defecting to McCain if Clinton were the nominee, and 28% of Clinton supporters would vote GOP if Obama were picked at the convention.
This is really really scary. I know that people have strong feelings about their favorite candidates, but they're really not that different. I think Obama's policies are slightly better, and that he's much more charismatic. Clinton supporters think her policies are slightly better, and that she's more experienced. Fine. Whatever. But none of those reasons are good enough to engender the kind of bitterness it takes to abandon a party.
I don't know what those 19% of Obama supporters are thinking, but I imagine it's along the lines of, "Clinton is too divisive and bitchy and won't get the world's respect, whereas McCain's a stand-up guy." So what if he's a more "real" than Hillary? He's still a Republican with very very conservative views; the kind of views we've all been hating on for nearly 8 years now. As to the 28% of Clinton's camp who would go to the Reps, I imagine you're thinking, "experience is too important for me to trust Obama. Clinton's gotten a lot of shit for her phone call ad, but there's some truth to it. I really don't think Barack is qualified to get stuff done." To you I say: okay, experience is helpful. But, once again, as we've seen with Bush, experience that's bad is worse than no experience at all. GWB was governor of a major state, has a gazillion connections and has since birth, has politics in his blood, and can't run a country worth jack. McCain may be a respected senator and a war hero, but that won't help him get America out of the problems we have now. The guy either doesn't know or chooses to ignore that Iran is a Shiite nation, and no doubt will do with both foreign and domestic policy whatever the fuck he wants.

Obama is better than McCain. Clinton is better than McCain. Al Gore is better than everybody, but unfortunately that's irrelevant.
Do the right thing. Vote Democrat in 2008.

Edit: Here's the link to the actual poll, and here's what you should do now.