Could McCain fall off the radar?
Is Ben Cameron actually another person writing under a pseudonym... ?
I ask having just seen this from Karl Rove: "A long Democratic battle doesn't automatically help the Republicans. In fact, it hurts the Republicans in certain ways. Mr McCain becomes less interesting to the media. Stories about him move off page one and grow smaller. TV coverage becomes spotty and short. There are not yet big and deep and unbridgeable differences between the two Democrats and there is plenty of time to heal most wounds (except, perhaps among the young if Mrs Clinton were to win). Continuing to build a profile and lay the predicate for the short fall campaign against either Democrat becomes the challenge for Mr McCain while the Democrats battle it out."
This is .
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
The fact is John McCain is old. Old people are soooooooooooooo 2004.
You hate to ever be in agreement with the loathesome Rove but he does make an excellent point here. There certainly "are not big and deep differences" between the two Democrats; or between them and McCain either, he might also have added. All the Xerox candidates support big business and America hegemony around the world so what is their left to talk about. "Rollercoasters" and "cliffhangers" and "rock stars",,, and oh yes, if you're more astute, the length of one's trousers. Welcome to an America "election". The great issue of the day in the last nominal presidential "election" was, who would you most like to share a casual beer with? Anything but the issues, because there really isn't much to disagree on there, not if you want the big money to buy that ever more expensive ticket of admission to the prostituted Oval Office. Ask Rove, he knows as well as anyone. But you can bet the press will dig up some petty gossip to fill out their "stories" given the great dearth of issues to discuss.
No more Ron Paul and his silly principles
last updated: March 05, 2008 04:23:34 AM
It is wonderful to see that the Republican Party has chosen John McCain as its probable nominee. We won't have to listen to Ron Paul talking about freedom and restoring the Constitution and a sound monetary system anymore.
We can now move on as a nation with open borders, higher taxes, runaway inflation, more manufacturing jobs moving out of America, higher gas prices, a national ID card where our government can keep track of us 24 hours a day, a private banking system called the Federal Reserve system that can cause boom or bust at any time, a 100-year war with Iraq, our troops in every nation.
We won't have to listen to Paul wanting to restore the republic that our forefathers set up. What a waste of time to think we can become a nation of freedoms again. We need to continue paying our income taxes so that we can pay the interest on our national debt. It's great to see that the Republican Party wants to remain status quo and not interrupt any of our systems all in the name of democracy. Congratulations to the Republicans that voted for John McCain.
MIKE MONAGHAN
Turlock
Well said Justin. You hit the spot.
Was John McCain ever really on the radar? It's painfully obvious the media darlings are the democrats - Obama in particular - and covering McCain is something they need to do to avoid being criticized.
Being old is good in this world of old politicians. History helps to catch the other old guys in other countries lieing, as politicians do so well. Lawyer, Politician, and liar are interchangeable no matter where they live in the world. I would rather have someone in charge who remembers how good things can be, by experience, instead of a young person who is moved by rhetoric, instead of facts. Wisdom is gained by time and reflection on the things that cause situations to get out of control. When 80% of the registered voters vote we will have our country back moving in the right direction. Then we can have an annual national referendum to address real issues with lobbiests and politicians running for cover. We old Hippies didn't die we are the baby boomers and we understand the frustration of our governments inability to do the right thing for it's citizens. I am also, proudly, a "NAM VET". Canada didn't would have been cowardly!
Do the Democrats want to win the White House? If so, the Democratic Party and Democratic voters surely need to face the fact fairly quickly that Hillary probably cannot beat John McCain. Obama probably can. He appeals to independants and republicans in sufficient numbers to deny McCain the majority he needs to win. President Hillary will inevitably be a kind of Clinton third term. Furthermore, what is this much vaunted 'experience'that Hillary has? Does being First Lady count as 'executive office'? I don't think so. I would rather have Barack Obama - surrounded by experienced (possibly republican) advisers - dealing with that 3am phone call!
Richard, London.
If Justin had ever watched Fox News (on cable) he would have already heard Karl Rove say (on multiple occasions) that McCain would be relegated to the 3rd, 4th or 5th pages of newspapers. While I don't usually find Fox as "fair and balanced" as it would have us believe, their coverage is excellent and Mr Rove made some very interesting points about what the future holds - and not merely from a right-wing standpoint. I was greatly impressed by his knowledge and grasp of the situation in which the Democrats find themselves. If he was for hire, he would be an asset to whoever could afford him!
Good for Brett, you hit the nail on the head. But with a flawed electoral system, the two main parties have a built in monopoly. The fact that a candidate such as Obama has to raise 30 million bucks to have any chance is an outrageous obscenity and the antithesis of democracy. Besides with one candidate over 70, one half-Kenyan born a Muslim and the wife of an ex-president it's obvious that anyone with any sense doesn't want the presidency
A big big dilemma for the democrats is the now apparent lack of result after the primaries. They can not go on to the convention and wait for a result there. First reason, we won't know the running mate until a candidate is chosen, and by the looks of things a deal between the two has been struck, but as loser at the convention it would be hard to stand up and take the vice-presidency, so who will their running mates be? Secondly both candidates will spend rediculous amounts of money fighting each other and not the republicans. Third reason, Obama and Clinton will try and put dirt on each other for much longer than they need to. If it was decided now, people wouln't remember the fighting amongst them come November. But 5 or so more months of this will make the comments rather fresh in the general election.
I have several Democratic friends who would vote for McCain before they'd vote for Obama because he is weak on defense.
While the Iraq war is unpopular, not all Americans think we should just walk out of Iraq and leave them to fend for themselves. There are Americans who want to stay in Iraq until they reach some kind of peaceful governance. To them, "cutting and running" is a mistake.
Obama's promise to pull out of Iraq immediately, while pleasing to anti-war Democrats, will not necessarily appeal to moderates.
Age is by no means a negative for McCain here - especially if up against Obama. You can be sure the Republicans would be drawing all the distinctions Clinton is - just much more clearly and aggresively (difficult to believe, but true).
God forbid, if the US should be reminded of a Terrorist threat at any point up until November (for instance, a foiled or uncovered attack), McCain could expect to see a number of people flocking to him to take "that 3am phone call". The fact is, if National Security becomes the No 1 issue, or at least becomes more prominent than it is currently, McCain's age and foreign policy experience will be a huge plus over Obama.
This is the "risk" of Obama for the Democrats. He might be better placed to beat McCain, but equally, a few unfortunate events and easing in momentum could knock him off the rails more drastically than Clinton. She's a more secure bet - things are less likely to go drastically wrong. It depends if the Democrats feel they need to take the risk on Obama in order to win. If they feel that a decent, unremarkable campaign would see them through to the White House - they're more likely to punt for Clinton.
MIKE MONAGHAN very well said!
Who cares about freedom, liberty and the constitution anyway?
Lets just have the same ol' sleeze government we've had for the past 40 years. Most everything the founders of this nation proposed and risked their lives for has been long since trashed by the very people we elected to serve us.
Washington and the Major mass media could never allow a true American man like Dr. Paul become President. After all he actually might correct all the evil pervasive throughout Washington and it's self-serving, 'esteemed' members of Congress.
I agree with many of your points, Richard (post #7). I know that this is pretty irrelevant to the conversation, but it has something to do with Obama鈥檚 electability. Some people in the U.S. have been saying that there is no way a person with the middle name Hussein would be elected president post 9/11. Even Republicans have tried to play on people鈥檚 prejudices (which is quite repulsive and backward). Well, there was a backlash against this 鈥渟care tactic鈥 and now U.S. bloggers who support Barack Obama are signing their names Mary Hussein, John Hussein, Olivia Hussein, etc. I take issue with people who discriminate against others because of their name, ethnicity, religion, lifestyle (and the list goes on). Apparently, a lot of other people feel the same way and that is music to my ears.
Senator McCain was probably the only reasonable candidate amongst the bunch forwarded by the Republican party this year. Romney coming in second. The others have been pretty much been ignored as being too extreme or too uninterested.
In the end, to see the meagre fare on the Republican side as anything but another indication of American voters' disinterest in things as they are and in search of a change, is to ignore both the indicators of the 2006 election, the record turnouts on the Democratic side, and the great number of folks here turning Independent from Republican. Yes, some of the new "social independents" may find McCain appealing, but Americans are also very tired of the war in Iraq, it's what this Bush Administration is best remembered for (well, this and Katrina maybe), and I believe that while the economy is everyone's big worry these days, there's an underlying acknowledgement that whoever gets in is getting us out.
As an impartial Brit I must admit that I am amused at it all.
On the one hand a geriatric who,if elected, may not see the end of his tenure.
On the other, it'll go to the line and be decided solely on who has the best smile.
Obama appears to be a Trojan Horse. Nicely packaged but no one is sure how his roots will impact upon his actions and inactions in the future. Can he be controlled, is he manageable? Probably but due to ethnic considerations this control has to be carefully managed.
Hilary is seasoned and dangerous as she is intelligent, considered and bides her time. Attributes not noted of recent Presidents. Can she be controlled ? Oh yes and she [and Bill !] know it. Only 30% of the iceberg is above the water.
A recent article by Richard Adamson on the Guardian's website explores Hillary Clinton's role in 'Nafta Gate', suggesting that she also played down her Nafta stance to Canada media. Some comments below the article allege that Clinton also has links to Tony Rezko.
I honestly believe that the Democrats will lose with either candidate come November. Hillary because she will unite the Republicans and Obama because I don't believe he can win the big states that have the large numbers of electoral votes. He may take New York and California but he won't win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida or Texas - and that loses elections.
Moreover, Obama still has to be seriously attacked by the GOP - at least with Clinton we know there are not any skeletons in her cupboard as they are all in the public domain. You just can't know with Obama - and call me cynical but I've yet to meet or see a politician who does not have some dirt that can be raked up.
The only way I can see the Democratic candidate winning is if Obama and Clinton run on a joint ticket (either as VP by the way) - both would bring together diverse groups of the population with Obama supplying the big picture and Clinton the detail.
The sad thing is that they probably do not have that much fundamentally different in their policies.
Gumption! How many vote with a gut feeling of seeing gumption in a candidate. Gumption that you'd want to see in your boss. In all that we have seen till March 4 neither of the candidates comes close to my idea of the solidity in a president, not just of US, of any nation. That in itself is a remark against the 70 years that McCain has served US and the 8 years that Hillary has been in White house. If experience is the yard stick this sould be the rank order of the public confidence rating. Just based on that Obama attracts merit for running for president in his first term as a senator and inspiring all these people that he has. President or prime minister, as is relevant, is a middle man with a set of ideas that make a difference in and beyond his 4 years and has the resourcefulness to make them materialise. This kind of a self-realisation would give one a sense of purpose and a aura of infallibility-gumption.
This election is a battle between old baby boomer politics and the new generation of leaders. If Hillary wins the primary, we continue the old politics of the 20th century. If Obama wins the primary, we have a chance to pass the reins to a new generation of leaders. It is time for the baby boomers to move over and let the next generation lead this country forward into the 21st century. America is our birthright, and we are ready. We are educated, strong, and will fight to preserve the principals that made this country great.
Justin, any chance you could post an entry detailing the actual policies of the three candidates? From this side of the Atlantic I see little but the hype - can you give us the substance? Could this enormously long process be shortened by the publication of a manifesto? Together with, perhaps, a more aggressive media, like here in the UK?
Bryn
"Moreover, Obama still has to be seriously attacked by the GOP - at least with Clinton we know there are not any skeletons in her cupboard as they are all in the public domain"
Perhaps it is more true to say that her cupboard is in the public domain... but we still don't know how many skeletons it contains.
She has done a wonderful job of getting the press to focus on Obama's comparatively key-ring sized skeletons.
Justin, are you going to give one tiny reason why you think it is suddenly a "likelihood" in your opinion, that Hillary will win the nomination AND that Obama would accept the vice presidential candidate role. A lot of people are asking...or are we all just election fodder?
As a "Clinton 1st term Republican" (feel free to coin that) in Atlanta, I'm all about voting with my head as well as my heart - and sometimes my feet. I want this to last all year from a pure edu-tainment perspective...because at the end of the day on November 4, there will be a Democrat elected to the Presidency. Oh how we wax and wane philospohically about how a Hillary nomination will electrify the GOPers. It goes both ways. Look, the overwhelming and burning desire to rectify the disatrous Bush legacy, the stagnant/recessive economy, $100+ bbl oil, high gas costs, ZERO fresh fiscal policy ideas or thinking from the McCain camp, et al....need I go on? A 'vote against Bush the Lesser (McCain)' trumps a 'vote against Hillary' (or BO) in the general election. Thoroughly enjoy this blog and have shared this site with my office mates and family. Nice job Justin.
Bryn. This should help.
Policy Positions of the Candidates
I wouldn't normally post on something to do with politics but I feel the democratic campaign this time around has been much more interesting and engaged far more people who otherwise would have happily gone about their lives oblivious to the political jamboree that primary season generates; and on seeing this fundamental change in the cynical views of some and in particular the inspiration of the young in actively getting involved in the political and democratic process that we in the west hold so dear, I find myself asking why? The short answer to this question is the senator from Illinois Mr Obama, who new to politics has yet to be tarnished and soured by the tawdry world of Washington and who seems like he can actually bring fresh ideas and impetus to an America deeply wounded by the 2 terms of Mr Bush who has in many ways held it back for so long.
I think it's fair to say that many people out there question Mr Obama's substance, he certainly says the right things but will he live up to them? My answer is that sometimes people at the top need to set the bar for the rest of us to follow and that by asking for change and expressing idealism akin to that of Former President Kennedy will in itself form a catalyst to move America in the direction that is so clearly needed and restore peoples confidence in their leaders.
My outsider鈥檚 view is that not only is Mr Obama the best candidate for America, but he also sets the example for what we in the UK are so clearly lacking, a politician we can believe in.
Good luck Mr Obama!
I want Obama to accept the VP role for one reason only: I want Hillary to make mince meat of the Republican candidate. The Republicans seem to think they have exclusive rights over smear campaigns and negative tactics and proudly tell of how they'll tear Obama apart etc. They hate Hillary cause she's just one of them and will destroy McCain. She will make everyone and the media look at him as senile and unfaithful and wishy-washy and economically asinine etc. The Republicans deserve a taste of their favored pill and Hillary serves that perfectly.
The point is valid; so who cares if ben cameron is a pen name?
If people think the same, they start using same words to express their common meanings...
As a "Clinton 1st term Republican" (feel free to coin that) in Atlanta, I'm all about voting with my head as well as my heart - and sometimes my feet. I want this to last all year from a pure edu-tainment perspective...because at the end of the day on November 4, there will be a Democrat elected to the Presidency. Oh how we wax and wane philospohically about how a Hillary nomination will electrify the GOPers. It goes both ways. Look, the overwhelming and burning desire to rectify the disatrous Bush legacy, the stagnant/recessive economy, $100+ bbl oil, high gas costs, ZERO fresh fiscal policy ideas or thinking from the McCain camp, et al....need I go on? A 'vote against Bush the Lesser (McCain)' trumps a 'vote against Hillary' (or BO) in the general election. Thoroughly enjoy this blog and have shared this site with my office mates and family. Nice job Justin.
Consty@26: Hillary making "mincemeat" of McCain is an interesting thought - but why would she have to do that?
You see, McCain has been suggesting lately that he'll run a clean and 'decent' presidential campaign. Now, if I believe him, then I'd feel safe with my first choice of Obama running against McCain for president. But what if McCain doesn't run a 'decent' campaign? Much as I don't like to admit it, I think Hillary would be better able to fight fire with fire. Make mincemeat, even.
So I guess I want an Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama ticket to cover all bases. Obama's promise of clean politics and change is what I want most, but I guess the dirty-tricksters of old aren't going to just disappear. So why not have Hillary around to deal with them?
Of the three, it really doesn't matter who wins. Hillary's ambition far exceeds her leadership ability. She's just a dirty republican in drag. Scandal will be the only thing out of Washington.
Obama's administration is doomed from day 1. No one who has any real power is going to give him any respect what so ever, either American or from any other country. He will be tested from all sides. His will be the weakest administration EVER.
McCain Will get the support he will need to run the country, but it will come at a price. American policy has been up for sale for many years. The difference now is that it is a buyer's market. To keep himself from becoming the republican Cater in his mind, he will have to let the rich and powerful dictate policy, which means He will be holding a fire sale. I'll let you figure out who the players are. Don't be surprised if you find a new name put in the list.
I believe that next four years are going to be some of the worst that the US has seen since WWII. I hope our mother country steps up with strong world leadership. We won't be in a position to provide it.
if I have no experience, and reach the position of president, I then listen to the experienced advisors - the old cogs of the establishement, so
out the window goes my agent of change identity,
it was just a gimick to deceive the young, the stupid, the mentally challenged, the naive, the simple the unsophisticated, the poor of spirit blinded by long words...
After what the Republicans have done to this nation, I don't care which Democrat gets elected president. Either one would be fine.
And truthfully, I don't like either of the democratic choices.
Senator McCain is pathetic, old fashioned and lacks charisma. He is nothing but trying to swing both ways. He supported the war, he then was critical of the war and the president's policies, then he helped the president to win the election in 2004 by speaking in favor of him in the republican convention. He now says Iraq is better than ever in fact it is not and is calling for a continuation of the Bush legacy. He seems to me nothing but a typical two-faced politician having no principle and values. It is time for America to vote these people out of the political spectrum. Instead of him I think Senator Chuck Hagel would make a better presidential candidate.
Arnold.
I believe the election of any party candidate would bring much change on the national scene for it will be business as usual after election. The real problems of us on the street, working hard daily to meet both ends meets, are not really addressed by both candidates from both parties. Because, the present two party system is corrupt and the lot that get elected, save a few, are not life long committed to do good for us on the street. Many who get elected would not last in a successful world business more than a few months. What we need in America is:
1. Publicly Financed elections and a many independent parties to get a lot more and better candidates for selection by voters and their election.
2. Total Ban on corporations or PACS influencing or giving money to get favors and rewards by members of Congress.
3. Term limits on all elected officials. No more than two terms like that for US President.
4. While in office all elected officials get attractive compensation and benefits so that the best candidates come forward, not just those with lots of money and connections.
5. Strict ethics rule enforced by a independent group on Government officials. Violations means straight disqualification and discharge.
I wish American people who I feel are more attuned to football and baseball in their daily lives than Politics come out of their enclosed cocoons or worlds to learn and feel the real world outside of their own country.
I just have to wonder what is to happen next? The candidates seem to be pretty much independent operators and not representatives of their party.
They are all just sort-of there. In reading what I have, I get no sense that there is a coherent plan from any of them about anything at all.
Without lots and lots of people in either party really behind real initiatives electing a personality seems less than we need at this time.
USA type politics is adrift. Winning a popularity contest is not exactly democracy. Democracy is not so much about John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. The big story is about so many people not voting and not participating before and after election time.
There is just so much Television talk and print about big time politics and nothing happening underneath at the state and local level.
I think the whole world needs to be concerned about the USA because there is no way to predict what will be the tone of things here no matter who wins the big vote.
This politics of ours is getting way more random than many will give credit to presently. The three candidates are there because we have heard their names. For god's sake none of them have really done anything all that great that they deserve such an office.
I think it's true that McCain will have a tough time keeping his name on page one while Democrats are still battling it out.
It's easy to see Clinton picking Obama as her running mate if she secures the nomination, and they would be a formidable ticket.
But if Obama should win, I see very little chance of him selecting Sen. Clinton and even less chance of her accepting. Why would the "Star" of the show want to have two 800-pound gorillas playing the next-door neighbors, and after having already been the stars why would you accept second and third billing?
As for McCain, he needn't worry too much yet. The real contest doesn't begin until the fall, and a few weeks off the radar screen is no tragedy.
Saw this comment from McCain:
"Everything's fine," Mr McCain told a news conference, according to AP. "Like most Americans, I go see my doctor fairly frequently."
If you wanted an example of how disconnected McCain is from the day to day realities US citizens are facing its hard to imagine a better example, might be to his benefit to 'drop off the radar'.
The big implication is that if John McCain could become President than, the Bill of Rights applies to all at Guantanamo Bay. Wow!
It starts with a simple hypothetical: Could a person born at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station grow-up to become President of the United States some day?
Senator McCain was born on a US military Base in Panama, so the same if a kid was born today of US parents serving at Gitmo.
In other words does the long reach of the US Constitution and its Amendments and Rights apply to US military facilities overseas; Yes? Or No!
Section I article II
鈥. No Person except a natural born Citizen, .. shall be eligible to the Office of President
Department of State Administrative Policy:
鈥. U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth 鈥
Well who cares if McCain is related to Robert the Bruce, Rasputin or General Custer. The important issue at hand, and future historical concern, should be the intelligence of the people of the United States not electing him as their next President - for the sake of world equalibrium, liberty and peace.
Shamefully, and parochially he's travelling the same route as the incumbent, in endorsing the need for the USA to involve itself militarily in other people's affairs -instead of getting its own house in order. Fortunately McCain has shot himself in both feet by his shallow opportunism, sabre rattling and premature self promotion - as he travels outside his own country.
Go home Mr McCain and play with your memorabilia. The world has changed but you are still stuck within the 'covered wagon' mentality of history.
Nobody of intelligence believed nor believes that the USA and its poodles should have gone into Iraq, manufacturing lies about WMD, and the (non) presence of external terrorists. Why cannot McCain admit that and say that America was wrong, regardless of whether or not the next US President pulls out US military (as they should), before more brave young men and women, and innocent Iraqi people are maimed or lose their lives.