John McCain's Blunder

John McCain has made a terrible mistake.

Recognizing the likelihood that Barack Obama is going to be his opponent in the general election, John McCain has begun directing his attacks toward the Senator from Illinois. Our first taste was with McCain's victory speech in Virginia, where he criticized the "platitudes" that form the basis of the Obama candidacy. Days later, McCain began a line of attack that has continued into multiple news cycles, accusing Obama of reneging on a pledge he'd made to accept public financing in the general election.

On its own, it is generally a good line of attack against Obama. For all of his misguided policy positions, McCain is generally regarded by the media as trustworthy, and could benefit from shaping a debate to suggest that Obama is not. The problem of course is that John McCain does not have the kind of campaign finance record that he would want to share. The loan he took out to save his campaign was to be paid back by taxpayer dollars, not his own, through the federal matching funds program. A taxpayer funded bailout is certainly not the kind of scenario that proponents of public finance envisioned.

What's worse for McCain is that this may have been his best hand in a race against Obama, and he played it far too early. First, his strategists should have recognized that the best way to defeat Obama was to help Hillary defeat him first. John McCain fairs far worse against Obama than he does against Hillary in general election match-ups. Simply put, the best way to beat Obama is to avoid running against him.

Instead, McCain has opted to elevate Obama to the national stage, beginning the general election battle a few months early, marginalizing Hillary with every attack. To confound her problems, incredibly, she has taken to joining in on the attack against Obama on public finance, actually articulating publicly, a general election scenario which wouldn't include her.

McCain's first strategic move should have been to target Hillary, weakening her as a general election match-up while elevating her in the Democratic primary. Instead, it appears that McCain doesn't believe a Clinton nomination possible, and so wants to focus his energy where it will be needed most. Even so, the move was a terrible blunder... for other reasons.

Trust is an especially difficult angle from which to attack Obama. The trust he has built among his supporters is a substantial part of what drives his campaign. For McCain, there will be very few places to grasp for a deceitful Obama moment. But if he can succeed in shaking those foundations, it could prove worthwhile.

Public financing may well have been McCain's best opportunity. But rather than wait until the general election was in full swing, rather than wait until the media would give it above-the-fold attention, John McCain began his attacks before the race had begun. The story line is a negative one for Obama, and yet it's being dissipated, if not completely diluted, in the wave of momentum that Obama is currently riding. At a time when no one, not even serious political observers, have moved on to the McCain/Obama race, McCain dropped his best gambit in the trash. He gave a Page 1 story a Page 4 death.

The negative press will be blunted. Soon, Obama may give a definitive answer on public financing, ending the story and whatever value it may have had. When the timing is finally right for John McCain to bring it up, it will be a rehash, stale and not worthy of recycling.

The Obama campaign should take advantage of this moment by kicking the story out of the news cycle quickly. Obama should give a definitive answer against publicly financing the campaign. Like most of the best responses from the Obama campaign, the truth will be the appropriate spin.

After all, when Obama preserved the option to publicly finance his campaign, no one could have conceived that his campaign would already be financed by the public. The Obama fundraising operation has broken every record by staggering amounts, almost entirely from small donors. With over 900,000 donors, no special interest money, and less than three percent of the donor base maxed out, Obama could not have asked for a campaign to be more "of the people." The spirit of the pledge is being upheld. And more importantly, Obama owes something to the movement he has helped to create. Having told so many that their role in the campaign was essential, he has to let them participate.

Comments

[cskoog]

This issue can certainly become a very hot potato. De facto, Obama campaign financing seems generally within the spirit of what should be happening in a democracy, thanks perhaps to the new role of the internet currently. It is in principle correct that the financial support of many should be able to enhance the projection of his message. And Obama should weigh the will of all of those who have given what they can to make the possibility of change real, before he changes horses amidst our times very crucial stream. However, 'campaign finance reform' is also a broadly important issue that Obama has signed onto. Because the time is so urgent, I nevertheless hope he can see his way to retaining the advantage that his current funding process gives. Nevertheless, if he doesn't accept public funding there will be on the one hand damage control that needs to be done, and on the other some way of advancing rather than abandoning the cause of campaign finance reform that needs to happen. To this end I suggest producing a video to be highly publicized and freely distributed on the net and on free CDs that explains the issues, the choices he is making, why he changed his mind, and what he suggests concerning the future of campaign finance reform. Apart from demonstrating the depth of consideration that he gives the issue, and the positive model of his own fundraising, the video should be absent of 'campaign material'. The entire issue is too complex for any number of sound bites or oped columns. He can afford such a video and with widely forced distribution it would become an unavoidable part of any debate about the choice he made, at the same time it could function like a FDR 'fireside chat' that could bring Obama as a more thoughtful, less oratorical, presence into many 'living rooms'. Anyone who likes this idea, please pass it on! Yes we can!

[poppaculture]

I like that Obama's campaign IS FUNDED by the public (lots of small donations from families like mine).

And he will need our money (lots of it) to counteract ALL of the ATTACKS from numerous 527 groups. - Senator McCain can act like this election's finances are clear cut, but as long as biased 527 group can raise money to attack Obama, why can't I GIVE MONEY to Obama to defend himself?

[BUSHsurvivor]

Funny thing is, should Obama turn out to be the nominee...­.I definitely will get a kick out of all those idiots who created and paid for anti-Hillary sites and mailings. They may get their wish in not having Clinton as the nominee, but they would then have to go against Obama's "movement.­"

[rich3324]

John and the "No Hope Tour" keeps running off the road. At least he did not have his cast of zombies with him for this speech.

[laocoon]

I am thinking about buying a bullet proof vest to wear around when the campaign is on. when asked why I will say I heard that this street is a safe place and isnt that what you wear in safe venues like McCain does.

[HowardRoarke]

that's good

[S1m0n]

Absent a mechanism for combatting republican 527 organization 'volunteers' to the McCain campaign, unilateral or even bilateral disarmament is out of the question.

[Dandy12]

McCain is a blunder. He's an old man trying to peddle an unpopular war, negativity "my friends", more fear, tax cuts that mean more deficit spending and curtailment of social services benefitting the general welfare. If you love Bush, you'll like McCain.

[LarksTongue]

McCain's campaign against hope may seem like a well deserved quickie to his tired bunker buddies, but to the reenergized independent or first time voter, it is nothing more than premature triangulation.

[DemandTruth]

The negative press will be blunted. Soon, Obama may give a definitive answer on public financing, ending the story and whatever value it may have had. When the timing is finally right for John McCain to bring it up, it will be a rehash, stale and not worthy of recycling.

Hah! Good one! Haven't been paying attention to the press in the last decade, have we? They're STILL rehashing Whitewater (or whatever it was called) and that Clinton-connected dude who killed himself. The media will help John McCain by continuing his "straight-talk, trustworthy, honest-man" narrative, when there's ample evidence out there that he's just another common self-serving LIAR like Bush is a LIAR! They'll pump that narrative while attacking Obama on everything they can find or make up. Hashed and rehashed and corned beef hashed! It's how they roll, y'know?

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Obama has responded on the public financing issue, in USA Today. As a "fair play" oriented politician, he is seeking equality in how much both sides will spend in the general election. It will be interesting to see how McCain responds.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html

Opposing view: Both sides must agree
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.

By Barack Obama

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

(snip)

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

(snip)