Can McCain defeat Obama?

[Democratic Hawk]

For a guy with seven posts, you show a great deal of wisdom. 

This has nothing to do with wisdom. You can just see the similarities to 1988. There's this liberal from a Democratic state against an older moderate Republican.

For the Republican Party to nominate a moderate, rather than a conservative, as its presidential nominee, smacks of insincerity. Most Republicans, after all, are not moderates

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

McCain is his own person and would make his own decisions irrespective of the ideological position of the majority of party members.

I'm not so sure about that as I once might have been. His fawning all over conservatives at CPAC was enough to make me wanna puke - and some of them still didn't buy it!

If McCain wins, he might not even dare be his own man and if he does then I just don't see him getting an easy ride, despite the show of unity, from more putridy ideological congressional Republicans. It will be payback for all those times he's rubbed their faces in it to carry favor with the liberal media

I, of course, have endorsed the much more humble Sen. Barack Obama. Unlike Senator Clinton, he doesn't think he's entitled to the Democratic Party's presidential nomination

But as far as McCain goes, well, it's eight years too late. Bush has run American prestige into the ground and I'll never forgive him for it

Can McCain defeat Obama? Of course, but as someone who desires closure on Bush (and McCain can't guarantee that), I hope not

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

The last time that an inspirational/charismatic speaker lost to a man of mediocre oratory was, as far as I can remember, 1908, when Taft beat Bryan. Maybe lightning will strike again one hundred years later for John.

Nixon almost beat Kennedy. Besides, most charismatic figures are knocked out in the primaries. The reality is that true demagogues very rarely win the presidency. Reagan and Kennedy are among the few examples. Usually some variety of establishement politicians wins out.

Is it fair to characterise Obama as a demagogue? He's a gifted orator, no doubt about it but a demagogue?

Obama is a very modest, very unassuming man. It's true that he's, politically, appealing to people's hopes and expectations for a better future, but not to their fears or prejudices; which is why I've come to see him in a highly positive, rather than negative, light

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Time will tell if Obama can beat McCain. Right now, I think he loses. Too many people are out there who understand that while we talk about the economy and Iraq...one major thing looms. FOREIGN POLICY. Terror. The threat is real. Here we are 6 years after the crash of four airplanes and our nation still feels the impact. Never in the history of war did we elect a person with no experience. If we do...I hate to see the world in 2012.

And we all know what a complete utter FAILURE Bush has been on foreign policy. I'm not convinced McCain would mark enough of a clean break, a change of course, from His Ineptness, who has not only rallied enemies but antogonised allies

Coming up 7 years since 9/11 and Bin Laden, still at large, national security is something which should be working against Republicans now

It took a Democratic Congress to finally legislate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That tells me Democrats are every bit as serious about protecting America. That said, I don't approve of Democrats failing to extend the Protect America Act of 2007. In the security vs liberty debate, I'll always err on the side of security

The argument that Lieberman makes that in a time of war, McCain is the man to be president doesn't quite wash with me. Be that the case, what is to stop Republicans taking their sweet time in prosecuting wars and continuously using this as a reason to make the case for a Republican president in perpetuity [shudders]. That gives weight to Kennedy's argument that the Republicans concocted a war for political gain. The fact that I disagree with Kennedy on that is neither here nor there but as far as Republicans go, I'm increasingly cynical

Had Bush not been, frankly, so piss poor, I might have been more susceptible to McCain going through 2008 but sorry he has aided and abetted Bush's incompetence way more than either of the potential Democratic nominees. In fact, Republicans want to hang their heads in shame for not nominating McCain in 2000, perhaps then America, and the world, would have been in a better state than what it is today. Had McCain been approaching the end of his presidency, I dare say, all events being the same, Iraq would have turned out for the better sooner rather than later

Whether we are approaching, a new era working towards peace, prosperity along with not only effective, but enlightened, leadership I don't know but it is a very attractive prospect to a failing status quo

Obama talking to Iran, Cuba, wherever, would be pretty much in the tradition of Nixon talking with China and Reagan talking with the Soviets. And if I recall correctly, they were pretty successful when it come to foreign policy. As for conditions, they can be thrashed out there and then

If I thought Obama was lacking in policy detail and substance, he would not have secured my 'endorsement'. The argument that his words are but empty does not wash with the Hawk and, after a wasted eight years, the Democrats deserve their fair shot. Staid, old and tired McCain is, frankly, eight years too late

Experience and foreign policy credentials, relative to Obama, are, undoubtedly, McCain's strengths but when that experience and those credentials are pretty much tied to the notion that America is moving in the 'wrong direction' they out to count for little. In 2008, as in 1980, there is a strong case for 'change' when you consider the failed years which immediately preceded them. As if John McCain could possibly be an agent for 'change'. He's coming up 72, though he looks more 80, and has been on Capitol Hill since dinosaurs roamed the earth

What Obama is proposing goes way over and beyond change for its own sake. The change he espouses is something, I consider, to be sorely needed. And no my support for Obama is not born out of adulation. I've never been one to blow sunshine up politician's arses and I ain't starting now

In fact, I don't envy whoever will be the next president be it McCain, Obama or Clinton, not one iota, given the mess they are about to inherit; which is why this realist will be keeping his expectations low

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Okay, Hawk, what are those changes Obama is proposing which goes "way over and beyond" change for its own sake? Because, amusingly enough, in your response claiming Obama has substance you didn't actually give any specifics.

I've already discussed, at considerable length, why I'm supporting Senator Obama, why I've withdrawn my initial 'endorsement' of Senator Clinton and why I'm not supporting Senator McCain

Should I disagree with Sen. Obama over the course of this campaign, I'll be saying so. I won't be blowing sunshine up his arse. I'm sure there are many issues at which I'm at significant variance with the senator just as there will be issues on which I'm closer to Senators Clinton or McCain

You're backing your guy and I'm backing mine. And that's all I'm saying on the subject

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind on Obama.  I won't vote for him, but he does provide substance on his website.  It's liberal substance, but it is substance none the less.  As of yet, he's not provided a lot of it on the campaign trail though.  Truthfully, he hasn't needed to do so.  The message of hope has been enough and why get mired in details if he doesn't need to do so.  Attachment to a candidate is more powerful than the details.

Quite an accurate assessment, I'd say

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes - especially if the Dems. continue this infighting.

The Democratic Party 'establishment', despite being heavily tied to the Clinton's, will throw themselves behind Obama should he have the most pledged delegates and when it becomes clear Clinton can't catch him. It's Obama who is, primarily, energising all this primary enthusiam and, thus, making the difference, which is why I feel he is best positioned to motivate Democrats going forward

It won't be like 1972, when the Demoratic Party establishment as well as much of its blue collar and southern base, shunned McGovern. Besides the 'McGovernite' coalition, now, is a much greater part of the electorate than it was in 1972 and as we know Obama is reaching well into and beyond that. Why? Because Obama, arguably, has run the best campaign of any potential candidate from either party this season and it's his message that is resonating

But if I was to say that I was confident that the Democratic nominee would retain 90% + of their rival's primary support, I'd be lying. Although most Democrats are likely to be happy with either as their standard-bearer, it's difficult to see there being no animosity whatsoever and that could be a drag moving forward

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind on Obama.  I won't vote for him, but he does provide substance on his website.  It's liberal substance, but it is substance none the less.  As of yet, he's not provided a lot of it on the campaign trail though.  Truthfully, he hasn't needed to do so.  The message of hope has been enough and why get mired in details if he doesn't need to do so.  Attachment to a candidate is more powerful than the details.

Quite an accurate assessment, I'd say

Dave

I never said he had no substance. But same-old liberal policies is not change. But if you don't want to give even a single example of the sweeping changes Obama will effect, I guess that's your choice.

Given the abysmal failure of Bush's policies (and I don't see McCain being such a deviation from those, except, most notably, on the environment, as well as he being more fiscally responsible than Bush; which wouldn't be that difficult), liberal policies will be change. American prestige has, undoubtedly, tanked. That dreaded word 'stagflation' seems to be rearing its head again. There you have two parallels with 1980

And that was the time when a certain Republican was accused of running on nowt but words and hopes and was, of course, too conservative to win. He, of course, went on to win ... and win again

I'm not saying Obama will or won't win, I'm not confident at all (I wish I was), especially when the inevitable distortions, lies and smears get into full swing

If I said, that I had no reservations as to the 'experience' question, I'd be lying; indeed, that goes some way to explaining why I, initially, endorsed Sen. Clinton but things were said that forced me to withdraw that endorsement but three days before the South Carolina Democratic primary

Since then, however, Obama's message has struck a pretty powerful chord with me and I've came to see him as the one candidate, this cycle who, I feel, is best positioned to make a difference , change the tone and bring the curtains down on the last eight years

I'm sorry but the appalling presidency of George W Bush, alone, is reason enough not to even remotely consider having another 1972 moment. There is a strong possibility I might have endorsed McCain had he challenged Bush for the GOP nomination in 2004. Not that he would have won but a valiant effort to stop the rot wouldn't have gone a miss

I'd have endorsed Gore in 2000, but I was never that struck on Kerry; indeed, my endorsement of Kerry, in 2004, was more anti-His Ineptness

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

He's looking old McCain, I'll say that much

Johnny kept him waiting but the happy couple were soon united. It seems a good match as their political views are very compatible.

Yep. McCain has aided and abetted His Ineptness these past 8 years far more than any Democratic presidential nominee

Only those happy with a faltering economy can surely support the Republican nominee this fall. Had the economy mattered more to voters in 2004, Bush would have been out

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

He's looking old McCain, I'll say that much

Johnny kept him waiting but the happy couple were soon united. It seems a good match as their political views are very compatible.

Yep. McCain has aided and abetted His Ineptness these past 8 years far more than any Democratic presidential nominee

Only those happy with a faltering economy can surely support the Republican nominee this fall. Had the economy mattered more to voters in 2004, Bush would have been out

Dave

Protectionism and an even larger deficit will sure help the economy.

That's not the point. Besides, it's about time the middle class and working families had a president who stood up for them. I seem to recall an economy doing pretty well under the last Democratic president. Not to mention a balanced budget and record surplus. Didn't take Bush long to run up a record deficit, did it?

And on the issue of taxes, the so-called 'Straight Talk Express' couldn't lie straight in bed

The bottom line is when the Republicans screw up, they should take the consequences

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes