Mr. McCain has more cross-party appeal than Ms. Clinton, thanks to his somewhat maverick record in the Senate. And the Nader factor is worth toting in, too. Ralph Nader is, from a Republican view, an ideal third-party candidate, because he subtracts votes almost exclusively from establishment Democrats. Which makes him, by my assessment, a spoiler for Ms. Clinton, but less a spoiler for Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama emerged, late last fall, when he suddenly caught fire rhetorically. Prior to that, he had been a rather bland speaker with nothing substantial to say. His Senate track record was similarly undistinguished: no sign of leadership on any question of policy. His attraction was novelty and a specious charm.
But without acquiring any discernible policy interests, he suddenly mastered the alchemist’s art of making empty phrases turn golden when touched by sparkle words like “hope” and “believe,” and by communicating to the inexperienced young the notion that “change” can happen by the Peter Pan magic of everyone wishing it simultaneously. As David Brooks has pointed out, Mr. Obama is master of the minds of those whose consciousness is invested in Facebook and YouTube and open-source software. Perhaps he should also have mentioned Harry Potter.
In the course of this transformation, Mr. Obama became the photogenic media darling, replacing Ms. Clinton in that role so completely that the media now turn on her, and on her superannuated husband, whenever they dare suggest that Mr. Obama has no clothes.
We must assume that in a race between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, the media commitment to the former will be total, and that the latter will be horsewhipped for any word of criticism. The New York Times has already started testing various mud mixtures, to see how well they can adhere to McCain – descending below the tabloid level by insinuating, for instance, a sexual affair that obviously did not happen, and corrupt interventions on behalf of special interests by the Senator who has been most spectacularly hard for special interests to buy.
But Americans (unlike Canadians) rank journalists below lawyers and politicians in esteem, and the media have lost many elections. Indeed, their efforts to conceal the weaknesses of John Kerry in the last presidential election, when all the material was available on the Internet, contributed directly to the re-election of George W. Bush.
So it remains to be seen what will happen when the distractions of the primaries clear, and open political warfare can resume between Democrats and Republicans. Will Mr. Obama stand up to withering fire from an opponent who has no good reason to fear alienating “identity” constituencies on which the Democrats already have a lock? In particular, will the huge Democrat Hispanic constituency, that has overwhelmingly favoured Ms. Clinton heretofore, consider McCain v. Obama an open choice?
And will the question, “Whom do you trust as Commander-in-Chief?” – a fair question for the electorate of the world’s pre-eminent superpower – advance to the front burner? For that is a question that knocks Mr. Obama out of consideration, and he can only hope to win as long as people can be persuaded not to think about it.
If they persist in thinking, his own rhetoric could easily sink him, for on foreign policy he is incoherent. His official position now, towards America’s allies in the Middle East, is to divide them into two groups, abandoning some, such as Iraq, bombing others, such as Pakistan, with perhaps a mixture of abandonment and bombing in Afghanistan. Getting from there to somewhere credible will take more time than a presidential campaign provides.
- Robin Hoodism is on the rise - Sunday January 2, 2011 at 9:35 am
- Taking on the Reformation - Wednesday December 29, 2010 at 8:53 am
- The miserly Canadian - Wednesday December 22, 2010 at 5:23 am
