Through the long Democratic nomination process, the candidates did not want to risk alienating either side of the party by debating their few substantive differences. Each had one of the two main party constituencies, and almost all of the media coverage was about the "horse race", with very little being about the policies. As the contest shifts to one between the two parties, Obama has a huge advantage if the focus remains on form and McCain is not able to move it to substance.
First, Obama is a great orator and has demonstrated the ability to run a masterful political campaign. There will continue to be soaring speeches in front of adoring crowds. He will try to minimize any necessary town hall debates where McCain's mastery of the facts, and better ability to joust with conflicting opinions, would run the risk of exposing Obama's weakness on substance.
Second is money. As of April 30, Obama had raised about $272 million to McCain's $102 million. While he had to spend much of this money in the primaries, that campaign provided the opportunity to establish organizations in virtually all states, and the spigot is wide open. We tend to think of the money advantage in terms of media buys, but it also provides staff for myriad purposes, and buses to take nursing home residents to the polls. And a Chicago politician does understand how to use "street money."
Third, his media advantage is substantial. With the exception of Fox (which thankfully remains the most watched news network), the mainstream media has generally refused to engage Obama on substance, and much of talk radio is still upset with McCain's lack of "true conservative credentials". Equally significant, Obama's campaign "gets" the internet in terms of both fundraising and viral communication. Even Matt Drudge seems to have given up his conservative tilt in favor of the larger internet audience of Obamites. The McCain campaign website reflects an understanding of Netpolitics 2.0, but cannot get away from an orientation toward defined options on how to participate, and presentations of positions, as opposed to more open-ended interaction appropriate for the blogosphere.
All of that is depressing, particularly with an ongoing war, a cyclical economic downturn, a small Democratic plurality in the electorate, and low ratings for both the president and congress. But, and there is a huge but:
John McCain understands that the United States is the greatest nation in the history of the world in terms of economic dynamism, innovation, global strength, and opportunity for its diverse citizens. He has a personal history of sacrifice for this nation, and believes in it. America is built on change, and an extra appetite is to be expected after any two-term president, but the public would like to know - what change? If the discussion is about substance, it will become clear that, as between the two, McCain's vision includes lower taxes, more reliance on the individual than on government, greater confidence in America's ability to compete in global markets, and more reliable support for our international friends. The litany of Obama's questionable friends, his history of avoiding commitments which might have a political cost, and his naivete in foreign affairs shine through when he is pressed on the question of "What change". Let the town hall meetings begin.
In running a campaign, it is good to know your base and to expand from there. McCain is starting from the base of Hoover voters, and since that is rather small now, he will expand.
More seriously, there may be a parallel, involving Roosevelt. In the next administration - with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a possible Obama presidency, we will see the greatest expansion of the government in generations. Universal health care; cap and trade on carbon emissions; more regulation of banking and business in general. The Supreme Court will be the last refuge, unless Obama comes up with the idea of adding a few jurists to bypass the current majority.
Posted by: Tester | June 18, 2008 at 02:01 PM
The last paragraph of this blog taken without reference to 2008 reads well. Within the context of 2008 - it sounds suspiciously like Herbert Hoover.
Posted by: Burt Goldstein | June 17, 2008 at 07:48 PM