McCain's Speech a "C"

It's all USA all the time with McCain's speech.  "He's a true American."  "He loves his country."  I've never seen a more blatant wrapping of a party around the flag.  This is the alterization of Obama through a positive message.  The Republicans are very good at doing this--attacking through implication, never mentioning what they are even attacking.  

The protesters.  "Please don't pay attention to the ground noise and the static."  McCain smiled.  "Please...please...please...please."  Smile--"Americans want us to stop yelling at each other."  I thought that was a good line.  But then McCain looked really annoyed when the crowd started yelling "USA!" when he was trying to speak again.  It got under his skin.  

"She's worked with her hands and nose."  A funny flub: "She knows...", was what it was supposed to be.  He did it again with the "parents and students" line, when he had to start over and emphasize the right word to make the line make sense.  

"Change is coming."  McCain stole Obama's message.  Pretty good.  Palin allows him to do that.  

McCain's timing was off.  He couldn't decide when to stop for the applause.  Also, he kept looking down too at the end of each line.  Palin was much better at delivery, and Obama too.  McCain's speaking was really horrible.  It just doesn't come off as believable.  

He did show passion with fighting the big pork-barrel spenders in Congress.  He had kind of a Sister Souljah moment talking about how Republicans "lost the trust" of Americans.  "We're going to change that."  He delivered this line so flatly, however.  "He's really not a good speaker," said my wife.  "He strikes me as very insincere.  Let's get him off the stage and get Palin back up there."

There was a big monitor on the wall right under to the camera.  (I finally saw it in a wide shot.)  So McCain kept looking into the camera, just like Palin and Rudy last night.  It was much more effective than the Dems, because looking into the camera connects with TV viewers.  

McCain looked stiff walking out.  The podium was the right size--he didn't look like he was hiding behind it.  His arm disability was very distracting.  Brian Williams explained it last night, so we were looking for it subconsciously, and we never got over it.  

He talked about hearing the news of Pearl Harbor as a kid.  He's old!  A contrast with Obama, reminding me of Dole, of looking to the past.  He talked about "changing the way government does almost everything."  But this was belied by his look, which I always describe as doddering.  Does he have the energy to deliver all this new change?  He just didn't seem vigorous enough.  The night before he praised Palin on the stage and didn't know where she was and had to do a 360-degree turn, looking like an old grandpa who's not sure where people are when he's talking about them.  

The phrase "caretaker government" was ringing in my head as a description of what a McCain term would be.  All the talk of his biography--he's had a great life.  Now he should be put out to pasture?  I think the Republicans overdid it with his bio.  Why can't he be satisfied with the life he's led?  In other words, the question was not answered, why should he be president?  "Because he puts his country first."  That's alterization, not an answer.  The answer is "Because he's a maverick who will shake up Washington."  This answer was an afterthought, however.  It's clearly stealing Obama's message, but the important point is that it was actually McCain's bio that was front and center.  But loving your country and serving your country is not a reason why you should be president.  Then we would all be president!  His call to service was fine and all, but it did not answer the question, "So McCain serves a cause greater than himself, so what?  Why should he be president?"  It is an attack on Obama--he's only in it because he's power-hungry.  

At the end it was "fight this, fight that; stand up, stand up, stand up and fight."  I thought it fell flat.  My wife: "That was good."  I suppose it was.  What do I know?  

I give it a C.  Not bad, but certainly not good.  

Republican Convention Tuesday: Not Bad, Not Great

I'm watching the convention on network TV.  NBC messed up the feeds with President Bush's speech, such that his pauses for applause were batches of silly silence.  Really weird--Brian Williams gave a long explanation and apology.  But it was still really weird!  

Laura Bush tried to explain why her hubby couldn't get on a plane and come, the first time in 40 years that a sitting president didn't address his party's convention in person.  She didn't have an answer--it was awkward.  Plus Bush wasn't even in prime time--it was only clips that were replayed on the networks.  

What I caught of Thompson's speech was terrible.  Just terrible!  What a lousy speaker!  It's really remarkable that he could be that bad.  At the end he mentioned how McCain can't raise his hands over his head.  Interesting--the Republicans were too good to feature Dole's combat injury in 1996, but they're not above it now.  Also, it conjures up the image of Obama not saluting the flag--McCain can't, Obama won't.  

There was an ad in Ohio during the convention attacking Democrats.  Very effective.  At the end McCain is pictured and his voice approves the message.  Will voters hold the negativity against him?  No way.  Negative ads like that one ("The Democrats will bring you unbalanced budgets and higher taxes")  work.  Nobody likes the Democrats in Congress.  Even the hard-core Dems are mad, because the '06 election was about the war and Congress did nothing to end it.  

The signs in the hall are "Country First."  Lieberman said, "I'm here because country matters more than party."  The message is obvious: Obama is not really about country first.  This works on two levels.  The first is alterization--he's not really a true American, since true American's always put their country first.  The second is about Obama's meteoric rise to promenance--he's about "me" first and country second.  Brilliant!  If he was about country first, he would pay his dues, put in his time, and wait for his turn.  But he elbowed his way to the front, knocking over a woman to be first in line.  That's not someone you want as your leader, since he won't put the real common good of the organization first, but will always be thinking about his own prospects and perhaps abandoning everyone when a higher opportunity awaits.  I've already heard a joke somewhere about Obama running for President of the World his second year into office.  

The troops coming home in honor--Lieberman's statement.  Lots of cheers and USA!'s.  A great line, since it both conjures up ending the war and being able to forget about it without guilt, a twofer.  He spoke directly to Democrats and Independents towards the end, urging them to vote for McCain.  It was powerful stuff.  This is why they had Lieberman speak.  

Who benefits from foreign policy crises?

I'm trying to make sense of the crisis in Georgia right now. The NYT played it off as Russian aggression to unseat Saakashvili, and Bill Kristol had a predictable column about using force first and asking questions about our national interest later. Russia Blog's take is that Georgia started it.

McCain has (also predictably) taken the hawkish line about helping plucky little Georgia. But can the US help? It doesn't seem like we are in a position to do anything about the Georgian conflict. Or that we want to even if we could.

From the Telegraph:

Mr Saakashvilli may also have banked on support from his closest ally, US president George W Bush, whose administration is said to have given tacit support for a Georgian assault on South Ossetia in the believe that the territory could be recaptured within 48 hours.

But as events have unfolded differently, Washington has offered Georgia - one of the largest contributors of troops in Iraq - little more than lukewarm vocal support.

In a demonstration of the fact that Georgia could be abandoned by its chief ally, President Bush warmly embraced Mr Putin at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing on Friday.

With the West apparently unwilling to participate in a proxy war with Russia at a time when relations with Moscow are already highly strained, Georgia now faces potential isolation in its conflict with its giant neighbour.

From the articles I've read, it seems like this was just a manifest total failure of US foreign policy. If this becomes evident, it can't help McCain. But Obama is on vacation. Obama is leading McCain narrowly, but he is going to have to get in his face when he comes back. McCain is making inroads in defining Obama. That definition is the strategy of alterization with a corrolary: Obama is a globe-trotting uppity elitist wannabe technocrat. That is to say, that he is aloof, as 2008Central has been saying. "My opponent wants you to inflate your tires" said McCain at Sturgis. That line has been ringing in my head. "All the experts say!!!!...." was Obama's response. This definition is gaining traction.

And now Georgia happens, and Obama could put the focus back on McCain and a failure of foreign policy, McCain's Achilles' heel. And he's on vacation!

Obama is going to have to abandon the "new politics" (which were never new to begin with) and go as hard-hitting as he possibly can against McCain, or else this will be 1988.

More on McCain's Strategy

My last post played up the strategy of alterization for McCain. Make Obama seem like he's not American enough to be president. But how to do this? The obvious way for McCain's campaign is to play up his personal bio as much as humanly possible. He's been doing that already, of course. The other is to portray Obama as a newbie, someone who doesn't deserve to just show up and lead, who hasn't earned it. This was tried by Hillary, of course, and she lost. But very narrowly.

The Britney/Paris/Obama ad was brilliant. Talk about getting bang for your buck, the ad only ran briefly on the air, yet got over a million views on YouTube! Right when Obama's overcoming a lack of presidential stature by appearing very presidential, McCain goes right for the jugular. Obama's a phenomenon--do you want to vote for a phenomenon, or for a president? People who are on the outside looking in to the rock star rallies feel left out. McCain can capitalize on this big time.

Letterman is now making jokes about Obama's overconfidence, how he seems like he is entitled to the presidency.

There's a debate online about race. This ties into alterization, of course. But every time race was brought up in the primary (by Bill or by Axelrod) Obama gained from the exchange. Will this be the same in the general? Josh Marshall thinks it won't, that it hurts Obama. Daniel Larison and Ana Marie Cox think not. I don't know. I suppose I agree that it will be like the primary, that Obama will look like he's being unfairly picked on, and the historic nature of his candidacy will be emphasized yet again. Obama certainly thinks so--his big Berlin speech began with "I don't look like previous Americans blardy blar blar." There could be backlash though, with the same idea as above, viz. lower-class whites (Hillary's voters) who already feel left out of
affirmative action will feel left out with having to elect a black president to prove you're not a racist. Lower-class whites don't have to prove that anyway; it's only in the higher echelons of society in which you actually have a lot to lose if there's any whiff of an emanating penumbra of racism.

McCain's Game Plan

More bad news for Republicans--the Dept. of Justice violated hiring rules, and Ted Stevens is indicted. It just keeps piling on.

Charlie Cook has a great post today on the Obama bounce in the aftermath of his overseas trip. I want to go through it.

First of all, Gallup's tracking poll now has Obama outside the margin of error. As Cook notes, this is meaningless as a predictor of what will happen on election night. However, it gives us a sense about the present state of the race. Obama is up. He hasn't sealed the deal, as Cook notes, but he's up.

Cook writes:

But over the last two weeks, McCain and his campaign have taken on an edgier, angrier and even mean-spirited tone. As one observer put it, it gives the impression of McCain as a cranky old man standing on his front porch in a bathrobe and slippers barking at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn.

Should this race get to the point where Obama is seen as more presidential and McCain is perceived as angry and bitter, a campaign that is legitimately competitive won't be for long.

This is heading where I though it would. I always said that McCain's edge as a "Maverick" was due to the media loving him, and now that he is what is standing in the way of a historic Obama presidency, he has lost a major part of his advantage, viz. good media coverage. I have also said that McCain's temper and his free-speaking, qualities gained from a long period in the Senate, would be a hindrance on the presidential campaign trail. As soon as the spotlight is on, I thought McCain would wilt. That seems to be happening to some degree now. McCain's campaign is somewhat in a shambles. They could and will rebound, but right now ask yourself the question, What is their strategy? What are they going to do to beat Obama?

The strategy I thought they were going to use was alterization. But McCain goes to the NAACP and complements Obama. This left right-wing radio hosts scratching their heads. Why is he doing this?

The key to beating your opponent is to attack him/her without it looking like you are attacking, that is, without looking angry and mean and desperate. McCain's hammering of Obama just as it looked like his trip was a great success looks like all three of these.

Cook notes that 13% of people think the country is on the right track, and only 30% support President Bush. This is Watergate territory. But as Cook also rightly notes, the electoral college could be a lot tighter than the popular vote. Obama will run up the score in liberal states, but they're still worth the same electoral votes.

One last quote:

And for this particular matchup, when 55 percent chose "this is a time when it is important to look for a person who will bring greater changes to the current policies even if he is less experienced and tested," compared to 40 percent who chose "this is a time when it is important to look for a more experienced and tested person even if he brings fewer changes to the current policies," it does not bode well for McCain.

McCain needs Obama to fumble the ball. Bush 43 benefited greatly from Gore making all kinds of petty lies and then veering wildly from one style to the other in the debates. McCain should avoid the anger and pandering to hopelessly Democratic constituencies, and attack Obama subtly as not experienced enough or American enough to be President.

The polls are meaningless (almost)

Polls at this point in time are absolutely worthless in terms of their predictive value. At this time last year, if you had believed the polling, Edwards or Hillary would have won Iowa. Or nationally, Rudy Giuliani would be the Republican nominee! See what I'm saying?

Intrade is no better, pace Michael Brendan Dougherty. Buying Obama and McCain futures this time last year would have netted you a small fortune (more so with McCain, but also with Obama).

CBS Horserace writes:

In those blue states being talked about by Republicans as possible targets, Obama is doing more than holding his own. In Pennsylvania, the RCP average has Obama up by 7 points. In Michigan, it’s a 7.2 point lead, 11.2 points In Wisconsin and 12 points in Minnesota. When it comes to those states Obama is looking to flip into the Democratic column, the race is much closer. McCain holds an average lead of just 0.7 points in Virginia and just 3.8 points in North Carolina. Obama meanwhile leads by 3.6 points in Colorado and holds a slight 0.5 lead in Indiana. And in Nevada, it’s a dead heat. Meanwhile, some of the more traditional swing states look to be tilting slightly towards the Democrat. Obama holds the lead in poll averages in places Republicans have won in recent cycle. He’s up 4.5 points in Ohio and 2.5 in Missouri. Obama is holding strong in Iowa, with an average 7.4 point lead. McCain clings to a 2.2 point average lead in must-have Florida and New Hampshire is a toss-up. In other words, Obama is looking much stronger in the states Democrats have relied on in the past two close elections while appearing to make real inroads in traditional Republican states and competing very well in big swing states like Ohio.

Stuart Rothenberg says the bellweather states will be Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada and Michigan. Obama has small leads in all of these, except in Michigan where he's up by 7+.

Obama is doing the right things right now; moving to the center during the summer when nobody's paying attention; grabbing all the headlines (for those who are) by going overseas. The trip is looking like it will be a masterstroke; Barack looks presidential, McCain is diminished by comparison.

Could Obama slip up and harm his candidacy? Of course, but that can happen with anything. He's dominating the airwaves so far and will continue to with his overseas venture. The more people just get used to the idea of Obama being their president, representing them to foreign leaders, etc., the better off he is.

He's got four months to do this, yet the drawn-out primary campaign helped immensely. Obama was not dropped on us from heaven; he had to earn it gradually over a grueling schedule of primary after primary. All these voters seeing his name on the ballot, hearing about him on the local news. And the campaigning sharpening his presidential campaigning skills. I will repeat until doomsday comes that a plethora of democracy only helps a party (and the US as a whole) and the people who only see the divisiveness have no imagination and miss the big picture entirely.

So to pose the question put by CBS Horserace (not excerpted) why isn't Obama up by more? I think the answer is that the heat has not yet been put on John McCain. McCain is benefiting from the surge's short-term success, and the fact that the economy dominates the headlines distracting people from Iraq. People are not thinking about the election. When they do the poll numbers will move around. No doubt McCain will have a lead at some point in time. But there is plenty of ways for Obama to go after McCain, and not a whole lot of ways for McCain to go after Obama, except alterization, the impact of which is/will be blunted by the fact that Obama has/has had time for people to get used to him. The media fawning all over him doesn't hurt, along with the fact that McCain has finally met his match in the media-darling category; now he's standing in the way of what the progressive media elites most desire, which is new for him.

Tack away from your weakness

Here's the schedule:

May 13 West Virginia--28 delegates
May 20 Kentucky--51 delegates, Oregon--52 delegates
May 31 DNC bylaws committee meets to decide fate of Florida and Michigan
June 1 Puerto Rico--55 delegates
June 3 Montana--16 delegates, South Dakota--15 delegates

Obama is ignoring Hillary and acting like the primary race is over, and that's the subject of this story from the Politico. What is going to happen when Hillary whomps him in West Virginia tomorrow? I guess there's no good way to manage expectations. The media have been pushing this idea that the contest is over, and not incorrectly, but it is also true that Obama and Hillary are basically tied, with Obama having a small lead in the endgame. "She missed by an inch, not by a mile," as democratic strategist Steve McMahon said on Morning Edition yesterday. By emphasizing that Obama will be the nominee, the headlines help Hillary because tomorrow's result will seem to surpass expectations.

Meanwhile the two presumptive nominees need to get their acts together. Of Obama, Doug Shoen writes this:

Exit polls in Indiana and North Carolina show clearly that fewer than 60% of white voters believe Mr. Obama shares their values. In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, only 45% of the American electorate said they can identify with Mr. Obama's values, compared to 54% who say they can identify with John McCain's values.

The reason for this is perfectly straightforward: Michele, Bittergate, and Wright. Shoen concludes that Obama needs to start wearing a flag pin, in an all-out strategy to prove his true-blue Americanism. I absolutely agree. There's not a moment to lose for Obama. He should go out of his way on every occasion to talk about how he loves his country. McCain is going to hammer him on this. It's the only thing McCain's got, but it is a huge advantage.

The Jeremiah Wright matter really hurt Obama in Appalachia. I'm listening to West Virginia Public Radio and a woman just said she's so turned off of Obama that if Hillary doesn't win she won't vote for Obama, sheerly because he must share some of Wright's views. She wasn't the only one interviewed who expressed such sentiments.

There's time for Obama to move beyond Michele, Bittergate, and Wright. But he needs to get on with it. I've been talking about the alterization strategy against Obama since early March. What I don't understand is why the campaign doesn't move aggressively on this front. If you know the line of attack you will face, why don't you do something about it sooner rather than later? It's the same with Huckabee failing to deal with talk radio and his religious marginalization, or Hillary failing to deal with Obama's edge in not voting for the war. If you know what the problem is, you need to act to deal with it. But it's different with candidates who don't really want to be president (the Huckster?), and Obama needs to start wearing that pin now and repeating that he loves his country to anyone who'll listen.

But back to Hillary and the war for a second. This is the reason she is losing/will lose to Barack. I praised her Iraq strategy in early August of '07 and again in late September. The idea was not to have any kind of big apology moment where she would take back her October of '02 vote on the war, but rather move her position to the antiwar side over time. OK, that's a good idea if you underestimate your competition. And I think it's clear that Obama was underestimated. He was underestimated by me first and foremost. But that Iraq vote gave Obama a major opening, and he took it to victory. What's the lesson here? That you can finesse a position or a speech but not a hugely important congressional vote. That's why it's so hard to become President as a Senator.

McCain has loads of votes that will be picked apart, Obama much less, giving Obama a major advantage in the general. Mitt Romney aide Kevin Madden said yesterday on Washington Journal that McCain can win because he consistently outpolls Republicans. David Yepsen repeats the "most electable" mantra. Karl Rove wrote this last week in WSJ:

Mr. McCain is very competitive. He is the best candidate Republicans could have picked in this environment. With the GOP brand low, his appeal to moderates and independents becomes even more crucial.

But is this true? Does McCain's vaunted appeal to swing voters make him the strongest candidate Republicans could have nominated? McCain has won elections in Arizona by 56% or more for over twenty years. His appeal in presidential politics definitely lies with swing voters and weak Republicans, based on 2000 and 2008 primary results. But inferences for general elections cannot be made based on primary results. Everyone assumes that McCain will appeal to swing voters and independents in the general election. Rove feeds this perception. But we simply don't know that this is necessarily true. The independent vote in primaries is not the same as the independent vote in the general election. Independent voters in primaries are less motivated by policy, it seems to me, and more motivated by candidate personality and backstory. McCain has the straightalker image and a great backstory, so he wins these voters. But swing voters in general elections are another animal. Are they primarily swayed by personality and backstory? Of course they are, to some degree. But there is something else which dwarfs this, I think. And that is "nature of the times." If things are going well, the "direction of the country" question which is constantly being asked, then you stay with the incumbent. If not then you kick the bums out. The 2006 election was clearly a nature-of-the-times election. Why won't 2008 be as well? In that case McCain's got big problems, because the economy and Iraq are not getting any better, and McCain is tied to the incumbent president on both of these.

McCain needs to break with Bush. I thought McCain was beginning the Big Tack back at the end of March. But since then it hasn't seemed to go anywhere. He's tried to shore up his base a little, giving a speech on the judiciary last week. He tried to make light of his connection to Bush on the Daily Show, also last week. But it's thorny, as you can see on this video. He's going to have a much harder time with his tack than Obama.

The Democratic party is coming apart at the seams

Matthew Continetti (Weekly Standard) gave a breakdown on C-Span on McCain's dilemma.

As all the attention remains on the Democratic side, McCain could become invisible and lose momentum.

However, the Democrats are tearing themselves apart right now, so that could benefit McCain.

McCain's trying to prepare for a general election campaign, but he doesn't know which general election campaign. If it's Hillary, then he'll try to win independents. If it's Obama, he'll go after "McCain Democrats."

First of all, this analysis is exactly right. If it's Obama, McCain cedes much of the independent vote, but can make inroads with Hillary's lower-class voters through an alterization strategy. If it's Hillary, he plays the independent card. I've tacked against the McCain's-only-chance-is-Hillary conventional wisdom because motivating independents is more difficult inherently, and very very difficult when you have a huge long track-record of legislative votes that will be picked apart with a fine-tooth comb. Plus it's harder to attack Hillary because she's a woman.

Here's the answer to "McCain's dilemma." Don't worry too much about struggling to stay relevant. It's certainly not a good thing to appear to have dropped off the face of the planet, so he has to worry about it to some degree. But McCain has had a charmed campaign so far, and his luck is only continuing with what's going on with the Democrats.

What's going on is the Democrats are ripping themselves apart.

It was the Obama campaign that started it, by going after Ferraro. Then Obama was on the defensive with the Jeremiah Wright story.

How did the Jeremiah Wright story get going?

The Politico:

The fracas started Thursday morning, when ABC’s “Good Morning America” ran a Brian Ross expose on Wright that included old video of him saying: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God bless America’? No, no, no. Not God bless America. God [expletive] America.”

According to a caller on the Matthew Continetti interview, the clips were played on the Rush Limbaugh show the Thursday before, followed by other right-wing radio hosts. A search on Limbaugh's website did not verify this, however.

From the NYTimes:

On Friday, Senator John McCain’s campaign forwarded to reporters an article in The Wall Street Journal in which Mr. Wright was quoted as saying, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run,” and accusing the United States of importing drugs, exporting guns and training murderers.

The point is, it doesn't seem to be a Clinton-initiated story, though plenty of people on the blogosphere think this. And it very well could be.

The important thing is what people think anyway. A lot of Democrats across the country have voted. In the process, they've identified themselves with their candidate. When this happens, they start to get emotionally involved--my candidate can do no wrong, is just misunderstood, is viciously attacked by miserable opponents, etc. The negative campaign will rip the Democratic party up. There is a lot of anger concerning Hillary's tepid disavowal of Ferraro; Olbermann's rant was striking, as is this interview with Hazel Trice Edney, who asked Hillary at a campaign event how 4 out 5 black people were offended by Bill's ghettoization strategy in South Carolina. The negativity between the candidates in recent days has been poisonous.

Humpty-Dumpty has come apart on the Republican side, and we're witnessing the same thing now for the Democrats. It's McCain who's the clear winner in both.

Klein on alterization

What I call here the alterization strategy against Obama, Joe Klein calls Obama's "patriotism problem":

There is a segment of the American populace that just can't get past his name. There are Internet sleaze purveyors — a few, sadly, with roots in the Jewish community — who have exploited this fact to spread slanderous nonsense about Obama. Hillary Clinton disgraced herself by playing into these innuendos by telling 60 Minutes that Obama isn't Islamic "as far as I know." Over the past few weeks, though, both Barack and Michelle Obama have given ammunition to the smear artists. Michelle's moment was her extremely unfortunate statement that the succss of her husband's campaign had made her "proud of my country" for the first time in her adult life. The Senator's moment came in the Ohio debate when he played political word games before rejecting the support of the bigot Louis Farrakhan. The hesitation was noticeable — and unacceptable. There are other guilt-by-association problems floating out there: the occasional over-the-top racial statements by Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright; the fact that Obama has been described as "friendly" with 1960s dilettante-terrorist William Ayers. It seemed clear on primary night that Obama was aware of this potential problem, as patriotism replaced hope as a theme of his concession speech. He echoed John McCain in citing Abraham Lincoln, and called America "the last best hope on Earth." That was the only "hope" he mentioned — a fascinating calibration.

McCain's strategy

McCain said this in his victory speech, which was in front of a huge American flag:

Now, we begin the most important part of our campaign: to make a respectful, determined and convincing case to the American people that our campaign and my election as president, given the alternatives presented by our friends in the other party, are in the best interests of the country we love.

The country WE LOVE--here's the strategy I posted on yesterday. Does Obama reflexively love his country, is he patriotic enough, proud enough? Is his wife proud enough? We need a name for this; how about McCain's alterization strategy. The Clintons tried the ghettoization strategy, which hasn't really worked. More than likely McCain's won't either. Obama was already responding in his victory speech: "We will not stand for a politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon."

Road map for the general election campaign

Paul Waldman over at the Prospect has exactly the right take on what's going to happen in the general election matchup between McCain and Obama.

He writes:

Consider the smears of Obama that have slithered around the internet and over the airwaves in recent months: He's a secret Muslim. He attended a fundamentalist madrassah as a child in Indonesia. He's tight with Louis Farrakhan. He takes advice from a cabal of Israel-hating anti-Semites. He doesn't put his hand over his heart when he says the Pledge of Allegiance. He took his oath of office on a Koran, not a Bible. He doesn't wear an American flag pin. And most of all, his middle name is Hussein, two syllables of menace revealing him, the conservatives hope voters will conclude, as everything those voters are not—not white, not Christian, not a foe of terrorism, not American.

It isn't enough ... to reject the Democrat; he must be feared and despised. But unlike previous nominees, Obama will be cast not as the cowardly, effeminate traitor, standing weakly aside as our enemies gather strength, sapping our collective manhood. No, Obama will be the barbarian from outside, the foreigner pounding on the walls of our homeland, half-crazed with bloodlust and ready to do us in. Above all, the message will be: He's not one of us. He's one of them.

That'll be the plan! I'd be shocked if McCain doesn't go this route. If you can't identify with Obama, you'll be much less likely to vote for him. Lower-class voters haven't been voting for Obama--they're voting for Clinton--and there the ones who can be targeted with this approach.

McCain did better with less-educated voters in California, but also better with higher-income voters. He did better with both less-educated and lower-income voters in New York (with the exception of the "some postgraduate work" category, those voters choosing McCain). This same pattern on education repeated itself in South Carolina, and on income, he lost support as voters earned more (with the exception of the top income category, of $200,000+ a year). The same exact pattern happened in Florida. In Missouri he tended to loose support as voters had more education, but gain it as they got more income.

In sum, McCain has a real opening with lower-class voters who might be suspicious that Obama is not "one of them." Hillary does not have such a liability. Does this mean she would be more electable than Obama? Nope, because people don't like her.