McCain Flying High Again; Obama Edging Past Clinton; Clinton Facing Mass Skepticism

The decisive news from last night is that John McCain can turn his missiles on the Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, from this point forward. McCain was in perfect form this evening, suggesting subtly that Obama has a messiah complex about saving America while McCain humbly understands that America saved him. It's only the beginning. In this line of attack, McCain was echoing the Paul Krugmans and Clintonites suggesting that the Obama campaign is a "cult."

Faced with a genuine and surprising mass movement, the elites' immediately question the motives and mental stability of anyone willing to give up their creature comforts to campaign for a cause. By that standard, the American revolution was a "cult". The earliest town meetings were a threat to the royal governor of Massachusetts who complained that "the Meanest Inhabitants...by their constant Attendance there generally are the majority and outvote the Gentlemen, Merchants, Substantial Traders and all the better part of the Inhabitants."

But McCain's own story, apart from what he says of Obama, has its own power. I was in Hanoi last month looking at the very spot that McCain broke his arms parachuting from his fighter-bomber into an urban lake. I talked with the famed novelist Bao Ninh, author of Sorrows of War, who was one of the teenagers who rushed to pull McCain out of the lake into his six years of captivity. It was a story of epic proportions on all sides, like nothing that Obama (or Clinton) has ever experienced.

McCain is a worthy Republican candidate with an understated heroism of character, able to win independents and Western voters, who tends to be trusted by Americans who feel threatened by war.

Democratic consultants who plan to attack McCain on issues of age, character or temperament should forget such nastiness. They will only push independents and some Democrats in McCain's direction.

The real issues which many Democratic consultants and insiders fear to address are Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and "national security". They are haunted by the party's anti-war past, even though they understand that the Vietnam war was a disaster. McCain's strategists smell this Democratic vulnerability. They will try to achieve a bipartisan consensus that there is something called "Islamo-fascism", that the menace is unified, and that it is evil, that it can be confronted only by military force. Thus they can force Democrats into arguing that Iraq is a distraction from Afghanistan, that Marines should be transferred from Baghdad to Kabul in a downward spiral of fighting al Qaeda. They may find themselves trapped in McCain's battlefield of assumptions.

The hemorrhaging loser tonight was Hillary Clinton, who appeared caught up in escapist fantasy in El Paso as Obama swept through three more primaries. So far, she has failed to settle on a convincing contrast with Obama as time runs out. Her greatest problem is that 75 percent of voters have either voted against her (in Democratic primaries), have unfavorable opinions of her (40 percent overall), or even hate her (half of Republicans). She still can win against McCain in a Democratic year, but those are overwhelming odds. She seems entirely focused now on simply not losing in the primaries. But even Clinton wins in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - not guaranteed - will leave her short of a delegate majority and she could be trailing Obama 38-12 after the fifty primaries.

That leaves Obama, and little can be said about the brilliance of his campaign so far. He now is slightly ahead of Clinton in the delegate count, and eight percentage points ahead of McCain in the best polling data (six points more than Clinton). He is the frontrunner and, if past history is any guide, Obama will face the magnified media scrutiny and negative attacks that often accompany that status.

Any sudden and surprising development -- a hawkish turn by Obama that shocks his supporters, or an unknown scandal -- could demoralize or divide his idealistic and voluntary base. So far, there is no sign of these dangers on the horizon.

In an earlier version of this blog mistakenly sent out, I erred in implying that the Obama movement is passionately organized around proven campaign tactics and values of solidarity alone. If there is any "cult" in question, it is the cliques of New York Times military writers like Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, and the neo-liberal free traders who dominate the op-ed pages. If anything, the Obama movement needs to push its inherent populist and progressive spirit upwards to the higher circles where many of Obama's policy advisers themselves adhere to military, corporate and trade paradigms rejected or questioned by most of the world. They are eerily reminiscent of John Kennedy's "best and brightest" that brought us the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, before the young president took a different course. (More to come on the community organizing tradition and the Obama campaign.)

TOM HAYDEN is the author of The Tom Hayden Reader (2008) and Ending the War in Iraq (2007)

Comments

[Guitarsandmore]

McCain's gamble is that he can convince the American people that staying in Iraq for a hundred years is somehow fighting the war on terror. At the same time he is fighting this hundred year war he will balance the budget and nurture and economic environment of prosperity for all. The man is, was, and always will be a military strategist with no economic background. We have had enough military for a long long time. Goodbye McCain.

[Guitarsandmore]

I just want the Republicans out. No more winning at all costs as I end up being one of the "costs" everytime. There is nothing to win.

The Clintons were good at the old "in and out" and my opinion is if we're going to go in, let's get out real quick.

What troubles me about Obama is that he continues to talk about Nuclear Energy and Coal as the future,the new alternatives, a script right out of the George W. Bush's State of the Union message. Not too smart.

Hillary sees alternative energy as solar, wind, fuel cells, geothermal, wave, and the rest. Very smart.

McCain continues to talk about a hundred year war as if it is a good thing. McCain is a patriot who thinks we should all die fighting for liberty, a dream I do not share with him. Let's all live long, free, and prosper, instead of blowing up our guts on the battlefield, John.

Obama's voting record has pluses and minuses but I would hold my nose and vote for him should Hillary not get the nod.

[vsign]

I don't think there will be freedom of speech under a President Barack Obama. His followers don't want it.

I could compare this Obama movement to Jim Jones leadership. The drinking of the kool aid came when an investigation began.

Maybe it is more like the religious right taking over the republican party.
It has taken eight years of radical rule to discredit them.

I think the best comparison is Nazi Germany where new technologies gave
Hitler's voice more influence than it should have had.

The republicans recognize the danger. They told their members to talk to
their children to make sure they weren't being influenced by Obama.

The danger is within.

[Dovel]

Sounds like you've been drinking Kool Aid the past 7 years.

[gopindrag]

"vsign"? v for what? valentine? vegan? venereal?
volvo? tell ya what, go finish the kool aid before you answer that question.

[Fabienne]

Do you know how silly this is?

[Herrington]

Yes vsign knows, but he keeps looking for a slander that will stick. It's called push polling.

[GhiaccioPronto]

Difference between a cult and a movement is that cults form around a figurehead, and movements around ideas. Is Obama an idea made flesh, sprung full formed from the head of the DNC as Erica Jong put it? Few have noticed the centrality of McCain's subtle humility bomb, or its power. Your analysis flounders when you push aside the veil, the dissonance between the "populist spirit" and "the higher circles" is because you ignore the birth of his "movement"

Y

[jsarets]

One of the most important campaign metrics is the ability to grow over time. Obama's campaign has already grown leaps and bounds. He's a vastly better candidate today than he was a year ago. But we ain't seen nothing yet. Obama has, intentionally, I believe, been holding back while he was the insurgent so that he can demonstrate growth as he becomes the front-runner and presumptive nominee.

We've been fed a steady diet of pep-rally Obama. He's now beginning, in Wisconsin, to unveil professor Obama, where he cuts straight to core of the ideological debates that surround economic policy. Instead of defining what is economic progressivism, with the laundry lists we normally get from Democratic candidates, he'll skip straight to making the case for why economic progressivism.

The result is fewer promises but more ideas, in particular the idea that government has a crucial role in converting economic growth into social prosperity. In the process, the candidate who is billed as young and inexperienced will showcase his strikingly mature and balanced understanding of economic issues, juxtaposed with McCain's admitted weakness.

McCain can patter on about Iraq and the grand ideological considerations wrapped up in the perception of "winning" or "losing" an occupation, but what really matters to Americans is restoring our confidence that the fruits of our labor and the resulting economic growth are being equitably distributed, that we're getting a fair deal. The desire for a widely prosperous nation will necessarily trump the desire for a widely hegemonic empire.

[Dovel]

Wow, I'm impressed. Barack should put you on his staff.

[abt]

John Edwards the "populist" graduated from law school and went on to make a fortune. Hillary Clinton graduated from law school and worked in corporate law for many years. Barack Obama graduated number one in his class from Harvard Law School and turned down huge dollars to become a community organizer and teach Constitutional Law.
Re this "cult" accusation:
I am 52 years old and a lifelong Democrat.
Hillary Clinton:
- Voted for the Iraq war
- Voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment
- Accepts money mainly from lobbyists
- Has run a lying and racist campaign (re the lying - search YouTube for "Lorna Brett Howard"; re the racism, see Mark "Cocaine" Penn, Bob "Madrassa" Kerrey, Bob "drug dealing" Johnson, Bill "Jesse Jackson / fairy tale" Clinton - etc.)
Sen. Obama has run a brilliant, dignified and clean campaign that has brought a whole new generation of voters into the Democratic Party.
He swamped Hillary up in my neck of the woods -Washington State - by an overwhelming margin.
He will bring the White House back into Democratic hands, and we can start ending this obscene occupation in the heart of the Arab world - which is costing U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month.
If I'm wrong on any of the above points, please do tell - I'm all ears.

A.T.
Seattle

[MariaHopeful]

I say amen Abt. Amen!

[Fabienne]

A.T., You said what needed to be said.

[gouge]

If Hillary Clintons campaign is any indication of how she would run this country -and I believe it most definetly is, Barrack Obama, who's as Tom notes, 'brilliant campaign' has stayed on message from day one, has not fired, backstabbed or, (Hillary's specialty) thrown anyone under the bus...indicates a far more focused, intelligent, non- poll driven organization. It speaks volumes about how he would conduct his presidency.

Hillary has never fought a hard campaign before, and, apparently felt that she was entitled to the democratic nomination. As for her parroting Obama about being the candidate of change, the only change she has brought about thats noteworthy is...., well I guess she and Bill could claim credit for the current administration, after having hung Al Gore out to dry with their unending antics and shady behavior...

Thank god! -and Barrack Obama, for providing us with an alternative to both of the mediocre families/their ensuing dynasties that have been perpetrated upon us over the last three administrations. Enough is enough.

[Petey]

Yes, there's a reason these campaigns go on for awhile. So many talents (or lack thereof) are on full display. We keep hearing reports from the Clintons of infighting, lack of control, shifting strategies, etc, etc. Don't forget too, that Obama has been repeatedly ridiculed for his "naive" strategies and stances, only to be repeatedly vindicated some weeks or months down the road. You know what that's called? It's called leadership.

[PizzaGuy]

The real "cults" are the political machines like the Clinton/Bushes that stage manage events, control their audiences, exclude dissenters, and spread propaganda.

[l.blissett]

interesting that no one so far mentioned the last 2 sentences of mr. hayden's essay. if i may repeat them again...

If anything, the Obama movement needs to push its inherent populist and progressive spirit upwards to the higher circles where many of Obama's policy advisers themselves adhere to military, corporate and trade paradigms rejected or questioned by most of the world. They are eerily reminiscent of John Kennedy's "best and brightest" that brought us the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, before the young president took a different course.

case in point: obama national campaign co-chair claire mccaskill voting hook line & sinker in favor of the FISA bill yesterday.

for those of us independents who are willing to see behind the rhetoric & zeitgeist, this is the KEY fundamental issue that will determine whether the good senator truly means what he says or is simply more of the same ol' same ol'...

(thank you tom for briefly and coherently elucidating the lingering knot in my gut)

[Petey]

Let's not forget, however: One of Obama's promises is to surround himself with a real diversity of thinkers. He's sincere about that (as you can tell from various profiles). It may not go down well with all progressives, but it is a fundamental aspect of, not only his inherent sensibilities, but his strategic methodology for reshaping politics. I suspect he'll get a fair amount of flak about this until, gradually, as president, he builds up a reservoir of trust. After exposing himself to serious and philosophical debates, will he generally make wise decisions? I support him because I not only trust his strategy, I ultimately trust his judgment. Sure, he could prove me wrong, but from everything I've seen and read so far, I'd bet the farm on him.

[outnow]

Tom,

I for one know exactly what you are saying even if it is between the lines. Most of the left-leaning people see Obama as being less of a populist economically than was Dennis Kucinich or where John Edwards eventually positioned himself in this race. I say "where" because of John Edward's conservative background of voting for the war and for the Bankruptcy Act.

Krugman felt that Obama was all "fluff" on economic issues. He was implying that Obama is more the "rockstar" charismatic leader that rouses the rebels but in this case, rouses something else - but we don't know what. Having said that, there is the fact that this election is unique. The issues are about transformation of more than the economic dynamics that separate labor from capital - left from right.

It is more important to beat John McCain even if some of the economic populism isn't the leading issue. Unfortunately, the economic issues will not disappear. It is the time in history for a multicultural revolution to occur in Western leadership. The leader of the Free World will be the leader of the "fair world" who will seek justice for people everywhere.

When else have we seen such leaders since the Sixties who have inspired young people? I believe in the hallow effect - give the man the times and the conditions and he will lead the revolution that will transform the world. The change is ready to happen - finally.

I know that Obama doesn't walk on water but when the ice forms underneath - who knows? The lake is ready to be walked upon.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

The "cult" and "messiah" thing is just offensive, and if Hillary goes that route in criticizing Obama she'll merely turn off more voters. I hadn't heard or read McCain's version of that attack, but Republicans are so out of touch with the real problems Americans face-- such as a recession-- McCain can't really call himself the practical solutions candidate.

It's a little more difficult to paint McCain as the Washington insider-- as Romney tried to do-- because he has gone against his party on a number of occasions and has spoken out against pork barrel spending (without having actually stopped it).

If Obama is the creation of the American public, that is not such a bad thing. Because it means the desire for change and for a message of hope is real. If it hadn't been real, Obama's campaign would be over by now.

So if he stays on the same themes right on through to November, I believe Americans will just prefer the thought of Obama in the White House over the thought of McCain. He doesn't have to attack very much-- and he doesn't need to spend a whole lot of time defending himself (and coming off as "defensive").

When you have Obama's oratorical abilities, you simply talk your way to success. Some people resent this-- people who have mediocre public speaking skills, for instance. But it's all there-- all the issues, all the plans and the specifics of those plans. He has them. It's what else he has-- a gift for making speeches which impresses even the people who were fortunate enough to hear MLK, Malcolm X and JFK in person.

[Pippen]

I wonder what Obama's rhetorical skills will do when the swiftboaters unload the "ODINGA" bomb? Oh yeah....you want baggage ? Let me paint a picture. Odinga, a Muslim anti-American who is related to Obama and has photo ops with Obama supporting his regime and he is converted his tribe in Kenya to full fundamental Muslim.

Vote Obama is a vote for McCain.

They swiftboated Kerry and he's a war hero.

They swiftboated Gore and he's brilliant and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

What has this noload green Senator done ?

Visit Odinga in Kenya? Sorry not qualified to be President of the United States of America.

very poor judgement.

[Fabienne]

Pippen, you are apparently out of touch. McCain's campaign manager said on NPR yesterday that though he supports McCain absolutely and feels he is the most able man for the presidency, he would quite the campaign if Obama is the Democratic candidate because, even though he disagrees with many of Obama's positions, he does not want to go negative against Obama. This is the man who, in 2000, ran Resident Bush's campaign against McCain. If you don't think this is something completely different in American politics, perhaps you have not been paying attention.

[rudyinbama]

In other words, we can count on a great concession speech from Obama come November.

[glorija]

I wish I could know the future as well as you can. But, then, I imagine that you probably thought that this "green Senator" would have been gone by now, right? And I imagine that your arguments were that he was not capable enough to build a strong campaign, that he was too young to raise the money needed for it, that he was too weak to stand by his ideas....
So, here is to you all: go ahead and prophesize as much as you want. But, when you take a deep breath, and have a moment to think, ask yourself: how much of your prophecies came true thus far?

[Jackalheadedgod]

I have been voting Dem since 1972 and voted for Bill the first time and Nader the second because the Clintons looked like the ultimate young republicans to me. I held my nose last time and voted for, I can barely say it, Kerry. If the supers stir it up and nominate Hillary it will take a pantload of vodka for me to push her button on the vote stealing machine.

Krugman, who for the past several years has been spot-on is now off-track with his nonsense about this race. Get a grip. McCain = bomb, bomb, bomb..., and Hillary = Bill. Obama = roll of the dice. I am up for that, being pretty damn disgusted with most everything these days.

[strangelet]

Mr. Hayden -- based on your many years as an activist, politician, and political observer, I am certain that you understand the difference between the terms "cult" and "cult of personality". However, in this article you choose to pretend ignorance, and suggest that Paul Krugman and "the Clintonites" have likened Obama's campaign to a "cult". You then make fun of this supposed attack.

I don't know about the totality of "Clintonites", but Krugman's reference was clearly to point out that the Obama campaign is beginning to show the signs of a "cult of personality" -- that is, a movement in which the central, defining factor is the *identity* of the leader, rather than issues or even ideology. The phrase has little, if anything, to do with the generic term "cult", with its implications of unswerving obedience, unthinking acceptance, etc.

I happen to agree with Krugman that the Obama campaign has become too personality-driven for my taste. This does *not* mean that I consider the campaign, or its supporters, to be in any way "cult-like". For you to imply that Krugman, I, and others who may share my concern about personality-centrism, do view the Obama campaign as a "cult", is sloppy thinking at best, or an intentional straw-man attack at worst. I expect better of you.

BTW, the main problem with a personality-driven campaign may be seen in some of the comments here -- as in "I don't care about his foreign policy, he'll figure it out later". Recall that the last true personality-Prez was Reagan -- there are lot of people out there who never did figure out what they were really buying in terms of issues and policies.

[vipersdad]

you are insulting a whole boat load of intellingent, independent-thinking Democrats, and also behaving illogically and irrationally when you attempt to make the case that Obama's campaign and it's supporters are part of a campaign that's dominated by personality.

Before you say something like that you ought to think it through and look for ACTUAL evidence for and against such a claim. Perhaps talk to people who support Obama - you may find that we are more reasoned than.... you are? Let's keep the ad-hominems and straw men in the closet where they belong and talk about issues.

[Herrington]

I appreciate the detail of what you say strangelet. But "cult of personality" is also deliberate derogatory escalation when the appropriate critique is the opponents campaign is lacking in substance.

Politics is not a sport for the gutless. One of the most repugnant things, other than attack ads, that happens is that the competition steals your argument if appears to have appeal. And one of the toughest things to do is to play that part of your hand, and only that, which is necessary to win. In this way you keep reserves of specifics if you need them. If you can win without them, then do so.

Granted I am reading tea leaves here, but I suspect that a campaign brilliant enough to get this far on generalities is brilliant enough to have answers in depth. A rookie would have spilled his campaign"s guts right off the bat.

None of this is comforting to hard boiled politicos who want legislative agendas and unassailable arguments. It devolves to trust. If Obama can get elected on it he will. Otherwise you will see specifics.

[arvada]

i dont know who obama's supporters are.
all i know is
he is rolling to the white house

[cincigal]

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF "CULT OF PERSONALITY.NEED ONE SAY MORE???

[vipersdad]

Actually - no it's not a perfect example of that..so you should say more if you want to explain yourself.
It's actually an example of a witty remark. Made me chuckle.... uhm - not your comment but arvada's.

[DietrichMoody]

Your Quote: "Any sudden and surprising development -- a hawkish turn by Obama that shocks his supporters, or an unknown scandal -- could demoralize or divide his idealistic and voluntary base. So far, there is no sign of these dangers on the horizon."

Only arrogant people will become demoralized.
THE POST 9/11 GENERATION SHOULD BE USE TO SHOCKS if not we are in deep doo doo. Believe you me. And its arrogance and a lack of reflecting in a Post 9/11, post Lewisky, Post Guantanamo, post Bush, post Iraq, post Plame United States that we can be shocked. Have we really become that sensitive. If anything, its the American PEOPLE not the candidates that have been battle tested.

Short of Obama praising Hitler, the politics of winning ugly will demoralize "the country" and make the US appear weak to its enemies around the world, more so than any campaign shock. I'm shocked by the mentality sometimes, is this 1992??

Obama should not be held to any higher standards that even one shock will demoralize his supporters and cheer those standing by waiting for his fall. Obama is no Messiah. They label every effective politician this way. Nothing new. But in a reality, meat and potatoes kind of way - Obama appears to be an effected executive, campaigner and leader.

So its ok until they are in office to be shocked by their actions??? Sorry. No thank you. They way some of these politicians are running their campaign is shock enough for me and a preview of what's to come in their Administration.