The Choice
Lest anyone wonders why I was so apparently ga-ga over Barack Obama in my last post, let me explain why. In the head-to-head matchup two years from now between the Republican and the Democratic candidates the Democrats need to present an alternative to Republican-lite, which is what they're been selling since Bill Clinton. My crystal ball tells me that two personalities are likely to emerge as the Republican candidate in 2008: John McCain or Newt Gingrich. The latter would represent a Republican party attempting to get back to its intellectual roots, sort of a "Contract with American" for the 21st century. Gingrich is sleazy, dishonest and perhaps a bit insane but he is intelligent. Despite this, I'm not convinced that the Gingrich will be able to salvage the legitimacy of either its intellectual or political legacy. I think his candidacy would allow the Democratic challenger to win rather handily, regardless of who it is.
Since Gingrich was a national figure 10 years ago, the news media have already decided upon a narrative for him. Being lazy, reporters on the campaign trail for 2008 would pick up the same Gingrich narrative, which is not favorable to him. He would get the Al Gore treatment. McCain, on the other hand, has been blessed by the news media as a "straight shooter/talker" who champions bipartisanship and moderation. He's earned the respect of the press corps who seem incapable of throwing hardball questions at him. This, I submit is a tremendous advantage for St. John (credit to Atrios for the appropriate appellation). The only way to counter it is to demythologize McCain and provide an alternative to his bullshit express. Hillary Clinton is not that person. She's too collegial with him, too willing to adopt Republican talking points to make her seem more "moderate" when really she's just posing as McCain-lite. Given the tweedledee and tweedledum choice between the female McCain and the real McCain, I think I know where the voters will gravitate. True, Obama teeters on the the slippery slope of Republican-lite but makes it his own and coveys authenticity. I feel that he would truly distinguish himself from McCain in a matchup.
Why am I so down on McCain? It wasn't always this way. If you had asked me my preference amongst the Republican candidates in 2000 I would have endorsed McCain. Unlike Bush, he was (and still is) competent. Unlike Forbes or Keynes, he wasn't insane. What I didn't know at the time (due to my admitted political ignorance) was that McCain was the initial choice of the neocon contingent who brought us such hits as the Iraq War. That is to say, had 9/11 occurred on President McCain's watch, we probably still would have gone to Iraq, although it might have been executed better. But since this is just theoretical, it behooves me to cite concrete examples of McCain's disingenuousness. McCain, like Max Cleland and John Kerry after him, was a war hero who was slimed by Karl Rove in order to further the Bush agenda. McCain lost the nomination in 2000 because of these attacks on him. But all is forgiven today and I am forced to wonder: if McCain was willing to shrug off these disgusting attacks to further the interests of the Republican party, then does he really stand for anything genuine other than power? In this regard McCain closely resembles his Democratic counterpart, Joseph Lieberman. Together the two of them represent the worst behavior in politicians. Both are willing to subsume their convictions and indulge in contradiction and hypocrisy in order to maintain power. That is why Lieberman is "flip-flopping" his position on Iraq (when he talks about it) during his re-election bid this year. It is why he lost his primary and now is running as an "independent." The only difference between him and McCain is that McCain hasn't been in the media spotlight in recent memory. Instead he usually emerges as a leader of some bipartisan consensus, the dealmaker cutting through the bickering in Congress to enact important legislation, such as the legalization of torture. That is why I do not trust and am repelled by John McCain.
Exposing McCain's bullshit will be key to defeating him in 2008 (if he runs). He will forge a middle path in the electorate's mind in order to obfuscate his legislative record of rubber-stamping the Bush administration's policies. He has to run away from Bush to win in 2008. For such deviousness he does not deserve to be president. Again, I don't think Hillary is the right Democrat to stand up to the mythology of St. McCain. I hope I'm wrong about that. But to be safe, I'd like to see a genuine alternative, and that's most likely to come--I predict--in the form of Barack Obama.
Update
(This post by Glenn Greenwald summarizes the bullshit behind the "independent" candidate, of whom McCain is the most dangerous because the media is in love with him. This post questions McCain's foreign policy credentials, which is supposed to be his--and the GOP's--big selling point. What can I say? They're full of shit, including enablers on the other side of the aisle and "liberal hawks" in the news media. Why are we supposed to take these assholes seriously? Especially when they contradict themselves.)