Monday, March 03, 2008
It will be McCain Vs. Obama After Thursday
Stanley Fish at the NY Times has an interesting piece today entitled "Why McCain Would Vote For Obama." I think the column is mistitled by the editors. In reality, the article is about how the Iraq war position held by McCain is an asset to McCain, while Obama's position will fast become a major liability for him.
His basis for this thought is:
On the one hand, he [McCain] voted to authorize the invasion. On the other, he consistently disagreed with the administration’s prosecution of the war in general and with the judgment of defense Secretary Rumsfeld in particular. And on the third hand, he advocated for a course of action that was at last implemented in the so-called “surge,” and with some success.
So, at any moment, he would be able to present himself as a strong patriot, and at another moment as a critic of the hard-line hawks, and at still another as a hard-line hawk with more experience and military knowledge than the others. And, depending on which position he was occupying, he could deny that he was an uncritical supporter of the war or that he was inattentive to the needs of the troops, or that he had nothing positive to offer.
Meanwhile, as McCain was nimbly moving around, Obama would be standing still, stuck in the one-note posture he has assumed from the beginning of the campaign.
At the end of the piece, the writer speculates ever so briefly that were McCain to vote in the Democrat primary he would vote for Obama over Hillary. Well, maybe so would I,... if pigs flew.
So how will things pan out tomorrow:
Hillary will win by a small margin in OH, by a decent margin in RI. She will lose big time in VT, and by a small margin in TX. I think by Thursday, the writing will be on the wall, but in the Old Book, when Balshazar witnessed it for the first time in history, and the Prophet Daniel explained to him that it was the end, he really didn't quit either. But what happens to him is rather ugly, and I am afraid, so will be the end of poor Hillary.
His basis for this thought is:
On the one hand, he [McCain] voted to authorize the invasion. On the other, he consistently disagreed with the administration’s prosecution of the war in general and with the judgment of defense Secretary Rumsfeld in particular. And on the third hand, he advocated for a course of action that was at last implemented in the so-called “surge,” and with some success.
So, at any moment, he would be able to present himself as a strong patriot, and at another moment as a critic of the hard-line hawks, and at still another as a hard-line hawk with more experience and military knowledge than the others. And, depending on which position he was occupying, he could deny that he was an uncritical supporter of the war or that he was inattentive to the needs of the troops, or that he had nothing positive to offer.
Meanwhile, as McCain was nimbly moving around, Obama would be standing still, stuck in the one-note posture he has assumed from the beginning of the campaign.
At the end of the piece, the writer speculates ever so briefly that were McCain to vote in the Democrat primary he would vote for Obama over Hillary. Well, maybe so would I,... if pigs flew.
So how will things pan out tomorrow:
Hillary will win by a small margin in OH, by a decent margin in RI. She will lose big time in VT, and by a small margin in TX. I think by Thursday, the writing will be on the wall, but in the Old Book, when Balshazar witnessed it for the first time in history, and the Prophet Daniel explained to him that it was the end, he really didn't quit either. But what happens to him is rather ugly, and I am afraid, so will be the end of poor Hillary.
Labels: 2008 Election
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]