Credit to McCain
As has been well documented at TPM, John McCain ran a deceitful, jingoistic, superficial, nationalistic campaign which grew ever more incendiary towards the end. But there is one place that McCain did not go. He did not ultimately base his campaign on racial polarization. Yes, there were a few subtle coded messages, and McCain's attacks on Obama's patriotism harbored a racial undercurrent. Yes, there were Muslim rumors and Rev. Wright ads by third parties that McCain failed to publicly deplore. But in the end, McCain did not adopt a full-throated race-baiting strategy that probably would have helped his campaign.
Consider for a moment not what McCain did but what he might have done. First and foremost, he might have attacked Obama's association with Rev. Wright as Sarah Palin and others clearly wished he would do. Such an attack would have complemented the campaign's strategy of exploiting Obama's associations in order to question his patriotism. Why Bill Ayers and not Jeremiah Wright? Wright's criticisms of America were in many ways more explicit and more recent than Ayers'. Obama's association with Wright was also more profound and contemporary than his relationship with Ayers. I can see only one reason for going after Ayers but not Wright. Wright is black, and an attack on Obama's association with him would have been an implicit appeal to the deep-seated prejudices that still pervade this country. Indeed, had Wright been white or any race other than black, I expect that McCain would have attacked the association very hard. But John McCain made clear that he would not play the Wright card, and other than a brief reference last April, he stuck to that principle, even as the campaign grew desperate and as subordinates like Palin visibly chafed at the restriction.
John McCain did not go after Obama's association with Farrakhan. Only last week, Dr. Vibert White Jr., a former Farrakhan deputy, asserted that Obama's ties to Farrakhan were close, insisting that there was "an open line between them." This news was not widely covered by the mainstream media. Why not? The media did not hesitate to raise Farrakhan's name in the past; Tim Russert even challenged Obama to denounce Farrakhan on national television. Had the McCain campaign made an issue of the White's claims, the media would have dutifully covered the story, as they covered such stories in the past, claiming that it was newsworthy because McCain had made an issue of it. Associating Obama with Farrakhan would also have bolstered McCain's attacks on Obama's patriotism and added anti-semitism into the mix. Had the news about Farrakhan just before the election been more widely played, it would likely have cut into Obama's support just as the Wright news did in the primary. Why Ayers and not Farrakhan? Once again, I can only conclude that McCain held back because Farrakhan is black and associated with black nationalism.
John McCain did not attack Obama for being soft on crime, reliving Bush Sr.'s Willie Horton moment. He did not emphasize Democratic support for welfare benefits for poor black women. He did not embrace Confederate themes or coded "states rights." He did not try to marginalize Obama as a "black" candidate or insinuate that Obama would represent "special interests" at the expense of "ordinary" people. The New York Times reports that McCain was "devastated" when John Lewis, whom he admired, compared him to George Wallace. Newsweek reports that the campaign rejected ads that would inflame racial tensions:
[McCain] had set firm boundaries: no Jeremiah Wright; no attacking Michelle Obama; no attacking Obama for not serving in the military...Schmidt vetoed ads suggesting that Obama was soft on crime (no Willie Hortons). And before word even got to McCain, Schmidt and Salter scuttled a "celebrity" ad of Obama dancing with talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres (the sight of a black man dancing with a lesbian was deemed too provocative).
Perhaps these reports are simply campaign spin, but they fit the known facts. The campaign did not make an issue of Wright, Michelle, Obama's lack of military service, or crime policy and did not cut an ad showing Obama dancing with DeGeneres, which certainly would have fit in well with the celebrity attacks. After Lewis's criticism, McCain did tone down the rallies and rebuked his own supporters on a few occasions.
One might argue that McCain avoided racially polarizing attacks purely out of self-interest in order to avoid being accused of racism and alienating voters. But there are many ways to subtly exploit racial divisions without engaging in behavior that is unambiguously racist. That is the point of coded attacks that Republican politicians have often used effectively, from Reagan's states rights to Willie Horton to the "call me" ad used against Harold Ford. While such tactics might have turned off some voters, few of those were likely to vote for McCain in any case, and it would have been difficult for the Obama campaign to accuse McCain of race baiting without emphasizing Obama's skin color which the campaign clearly wished to avoid.
One might also argue that congratulating McCain for not exploiting race is faint praise, like complimenting someone for not cheating on a test. But this is politics we're talking about and Republican politics at that. Ever since Strom Thurmond and, more prominently, Richard Nixon, Republican politicians at every level have brazenly exploited race prejudices to their advantage. McCain explicitly broke from this tradition to his campaign's detriment. In a school full of cheaters, the one does not cheat does indeed deserve praise.
Some will doubt these arguments because they believe that John McCain has no scruples and that if he didn't focus on Wright and Farrakhan, it can only be because he saw political advantage in not doing so. But while McCain certainly does not have the level of integrity that the media once praised him for, that does not mean that he has none. Most people, however unscrupulous, have lines that they do not cross. And while I'm sure that the Obama campaign was prepared to respond to Wright and Farrakhan attacks, it's difficult to imagine that the campaign strategists wanted these subjects raised. So John McCain gave the Obama campaign exactly what it wanted--an election in which Obama's race was minimized. To project an unspecified political motivation behind this move is to show a lack of intellectual charity towards a man who, when it came to race, did exactly what he said he would do.
When I think back to how prominently the issue of race figured in the Democratic primary and how much worse I feared the polarization would be in the general election, it is amazing to me how small a part it played in the end. Other than a brief tempest surrounding the celebrity ads, race was absent from the political dialogue between Obama and McCain. John McCain could have made it otherwise. Other Republicans have done so, and his campaign would have benefited. He chose restraint. It is for that reason that in his concession speech, McCain was able to graciously praise the historic election of our first African-American president without dishonesty or hypocrisy. I credit him for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross posted at dagblog.com, where this is the first nice thing we've ever said about John McCain.
nice catch, genghis. i noticed mccain's respect for certain boundaries, too.
you did a stellar job putting the phenomenon into words, though, which is why you're blogging about it and i'm just reading.
November 6, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks spqr
November 6, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis are you actively truing to make me post my Confessions of An African American Hillary Supporter: NO I DID NOT SUPPORT A RACE-BAITING CANDIDATE piece early? I have a self-imposed 5 day celebration period where I've promised not to argue this crap. But to credit McCain with a more honorable campaign than Hillary?
Egads. We saw two very different campaigns.
November 6, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
D, I made a point of not accusing Clinton of anything or even mentioning her name. I don't want to go there. Whatever the reasons, and there were a number of factors, Obama's race figured much more prominently in the primary than in the GE. I never expected that. Part of the reason that it did not figure more prominently in the GE was because of McCain's restraint. That's what I was trying to emphasize.
November 6, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps his restraint came in part from watching how race played out in the primary. If the perception is that using race backfired on the Clintons...
And no D, I'm not saying they were race-baiting - But anything they said that was interpreted as such, even with no basis, were not good moments for the campaign. Hillary said some ill-phrased things. So did Obama. (Bitter, anyone?) So did McCain. ("women's rights"? Still wondering on that one.) And Palin...well, she's in a league of her own.
But "race-baiting" might, in 2008, not be such a good campaign strategy, which may have factored into McCain's decision.
November 7, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do. I am very interested to learn your thoughts on the matter.
November 7, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find your thoughts here giving credit was none was found. McCain ran a campaign he deserved and I am only glad he did as it gave Obama the opportunity to show a distinct contrast of a class act.
McCain is not an honorable man and I see your post describing a pile of shit as only eight feet tall rather than ten feet. No offense to you meant here just a strong disagreement to your opinion.
November 6, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said that McCain ran an honorable campaign, and I don't believe that he did. You seem to be arguing in black-and-white: people are either honorable or dishonorable, and dishonorable people cannot behave with honor. I do not believe that. I deplore McCain's Ayers attacks, among other shameless tactics, and at the same time praise his restraint on Wright.
PS No offense taken
November 6, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seemed to me during the campaign that McCain was not constrained by any moral code, but by what he thought may or may not work for him politically.
I think he knew that going after Rev. Wright explicitly when it was so deeply delved in to during the primaries was unlikely to help his campaign and would have painted him as a racist. And that would have guaranteed his loss.
He went after Ayers because that had only been touched on in the primaries. He was hoping that talking about Ayers and a general "dubious associations" meme would have rekindled the Rev. Wright story without having to get his hands dirty on race.
I would love to agree with you that Senator McCain was being noble about it, but think about it, what else was he noble about?
My instincts tell me he didn't go there for political reasons.
It also gives him an opportunity to say "ok so I said lots of untrue, distasteful things, but I didn't play the race card, so forgive me all that other stuff" and folks like yourself and Mark Shields on PBS will say, "bravo, what a guy".
Sorry I just don't agree
November 7, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting point, and I would apply it as well to his internal psyche. The fact that he showed restraint in some areas perhaps made him feel that he was still behaving "honorably" when he did not in others.
On your other point, I doubt that it would have been very difficult to bring out new information about Wright enough to make it a campaign issue. I suppose it's possible that the campaign thought Wright could bring them no political gain, but does that really seem plausible to you? I expected the campaign to be more wright-wright-wright than pow-pow-pow. With due respect, it just seems to me that you're adopting this position because you don't believe that McCain would have acted for non-political reasons, when it should be the other way round.
Also what of the Farrakhan news last week? That was explosive and did not come out in the primary. It was right before the election, so it could have had substantial impact? Why didn't McCain hype the news, put the guy in his last-minute ads, etc?
November 7, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW - thanks for your posts, they typically generate a good healthy debate and that's what a good democracy needs.
I hear your perspective. We both agree he didn't go "there", at least not overtly. I just think he avoided it because being seen as the candidate who raised/pushed incendiary racial matters would have guaranteed a loss in the election and he knew it.
He was preserving his campaign and possibly his reputation for after the campaign. Not being noble or honorable.
If he was an honorable man he would not have allowed his campaign to suggest Obama wanted to teach kindergardeners about sex. If he was so noble he would not have allowed his crowds to shout "terrorist" without responding at once.
November 7, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
There's no way to resolve this matter, since it's a hypothetical. I've tried to sketch out why limited racebaiting would have worked for him, but I can't prove it or add to what I've said already.
As for honor, I wouldn't call McCain an honorable man, but you don't have to be an honorable man to act with honor.
November 7, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've fairly stated the case that McCain might have been much worse. Now, I have niggling doubts about his motivation (e.g. maybe being seen to raise the race issue polled poorly; or maybe there was an agreement between the two camps on areas they wouldn't raise), but on the whole, I think you're quite fairly giving him some credit here. As you say, compared to what might have been raised, and what was raised by outside groups, the campaign definitely toned it down. Good piece.
November 6, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. There surely would have been some blowback from race-baiting, so like anything, the motivations were probably mixed, but I expect that McCain stood to gain more than he had to lose by focusing on people like Wright and Farrakhan. Those are not the most popular dudes in the country.
November 6, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
527's took care of that job though. Nationally they ran those ads all day and night. I do commend him for that but that's what 527's are their for.
November 6, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He may have restrained himself, but I think he could have done a better job of restraining his campaign and the 527s. Also I believe he could have done a better job with the rage that was coming from his crowds - I felt that was dangerous and I am still nervous.
I believe the focus on character assassination that defined McCain's campaign has left a lot of people (not just nut-jobs) with the false impression that Obama is a dangerous terrorist-loving racist who will strip them of there rights and give power to all the Black people.
Therefore, the small fact that he didn't totally "go there" with Rev. Wright (who I still say has been misrepresented as well) does not impress me.
Other than that, I look forward to your next post. :)
November 6, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike the swiftboaters, this year's 527s did not succeed in becoming media phenomena. This election could have been all about race as so many elections involving African-Americans have before. That would have been in McCain's interest. But he chose not to make this election about race. Given the possible repercussions of a race strategy, I don't consider that to be a "small fact."
November 6, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The unsuccessful result of the 527s is a testament to the people not McCain. The polls continued to show that the people were unimpressed; therefore the media was unimpressed. And while McCain personally tried to stay away from Wright he let his campaign continue with innuendos that Obama is "Other" and "Scary" instead of focusing on policy.
November 6, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its also because the whole Rev. Wright story was beaten to death in the primaries. People had already processed that association. If I remember correctly the swift-boat attacks were new revelations that caught media attention during the actual GE.
Plus many people are wise to the demonizing political tactics of Rove now and most have learned their lesson well.
November 7, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Where have you been, Genghis? This country just elected a black man for the highest office in the land. People made a conscious and deliberate choice between a black candidate and a white one.
You're living in the past, dude. Your whole post is an argument disproving "deep-seated prejudices that still pervade this country."
People can see that Obama is black. They don't need McCain to tell them.
I realize you want to cling to your elitism, Genghis, but Obama won. Time to reevaluate your own deep-seated prejudices.
November 6, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true. I'm sitting here sipping my latte, casting disparaging glances across the Hudson at those poor little people in other places and feeling nostalgic for the good ole' days when uneducated people could be counted on to be ignorant racists.
For sure, America has come far, and Obama's win is a testament to that. His election is a credit to the nation. But the fact that Obama won 52% of the popular vote, however, does not prove that there is not widespread racism any more than a Clinton win would have proved that there's not widespread sexism. I will accept that "pervasive" is perhaps too strong a word, but your broadside seems a bit over-strong for a semantic quibble directed at an aside that was not the point of the post. Perhaps if I were David Seaton, and I had written some screed about how stupid and racist Americans were, you would have told me how funny and insightful I was. Just speculating.
November 6, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, snark aside, I mean we need to readjust our thinking about this racist, shit-hole of a country to better comprehend the reality that Americans just elected a black president.
I'd argue it like this: McCain chose not to run a racist campaign because it's morally wrong. He does not want to be considered a racist. Why? Because it matters to him. Racism, therefore, has become a moral issue in this country; it is not an acceptable way of life. It's considered wrong, and a majority of the voters in this country voted for a black man for president: the guy who will determine their lives and their children's and grandchildren's lives.
I disagree with your premise, therefore, that if McCain had run a racist campaign, he might have won. I think he would have lost worse. I believe that if McCain had run a racist campaign, he would have lost by a bigger margin, because people would have rejected it, not embraced it.
So, I'm saying you're still stuck in an old narrative, Genghis. Despite the fact of our new president.
I'm not saying racism is suddenly nonexistent; I'm simply saying it's effectively become part of our moral compass.
And that's a good thing. That's progress. Let's all catch up with the new narrative, try to interpret it, and continue to work to make civil rights issues for all an integral part of the American moral compass.
November 7, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the thoughtful clarification. I agree with much of what you write: that McCain chose not to run a racist campaign because it's morally wrong; that for the most part, racism is no longer acceptable in this country, certainly not overt racism; and that Obama's election is evidence that the country is moving on.
And I don't actually think that a race-baiting strategy would enabled McCain to win. I do think that it would have helped him, though I have not presented a solid argument for that other than to note that there is still a lot of racism in this country, that some Republicans have exploited race polarization as recently as '06 as well as in this election, and that the Obama campaign clearly hoped to minimize race for political reasons as well as ethical ones.
November 7, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well-argued post on the specific points you make, sailing into the prevailing winds.
If it is accurate that, as you wrote, "After Lewis's criticism, McCain did tone down the rallies and rebuked his own supporters on a few occasions" I did not see that reported at tpm. If it was not, this would be a second recent example I'm aware of of disappointingly slanted coverage. I may have missed it.
Do you remember former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's concept of "Defining Deviancy Down"?
With McCain/Palin we had a case of Defining Campaign Ethics Down.
Thus the surreal, alternative-universe nature of the discussion here whereupon a candidate ruling out certain kinds of the baldest racially-based tactics is praised for a degree of restraint in what was otherwise a five-star sleaze festival.
November 6, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh noted it but offered an uncharitable interpretation: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/223572.php. Here's a more sympathetic take: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/10/10/mccain_denounces_pitchforkwave/. I wonder if Josh still feels the same way now that the dust has settled. Certainly, McCain had started to take some heat from the media for the virulent rallies, so Josh had a point. Still, publicly disagreeing with supporters to the point that the audience boos is unusual in midst of a heated and desperate campaign.
Thank you for raising Moynihan's point. I tried to address it in my post but may not have done so sufficiently. Certainly, it's a great shame that the Republican party has been a "school full of cheaters" with respect to race-baiting. One should not have to praise McCain for restraint. Nonetheless, I believe that individuals must be viewed in context. Henry Ward Beecher was a terrible racist by today's standards, and one would never praise a contemporary racist for acknowledging that slavery was wrong, but in his time, Beecher's abolitionist stand was progressive and courageous.
That is not to say that McCain has been at all courageous, and in many ways, his campaign has lowered the standard of his party. But regarding race-baiting at least, he has improved upon the Republican norm. Moreover, his stance was not the reversal of a recent downward trend but rather the rejection of decades of Republican practice. While this position shouldn't put him into any history books, I feel that it's worthy of note in a single blog post buried somewhere in the archives of the web.
November 7, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, in case I was not clear, while I'm not sure if I buy it, I agree that it was a worthy point and argument to make. More so because predictably it was going to generate some pushback. I recommended the post.
November 7, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. That was clear. I just wanted to address your intelligent points.
November 7, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ghengis-With all respect, I have to squint pretty hard to see what you're saying. I mean, I get your point, but do you mean to say that *you* credit McCain for holding back on race baiting, or that *one might* credit him? You make a good argument, but I don't know if I feel much conviction coming through.
November 6, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
*I* *credit* *him*
The lack of conviction is due to the fact that while I may credit him in this case, I don't have much respect for him overall.
November 7, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, point taken. I suppose that's magnanimous of you, in a measured way. And sorry to misspell your name in my initial reply.
November 7, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody does. I've never figured out why. Since it's not actually my name, I'm not offended.
November 7, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain ran a dumb campaign because he is and always has been a dumb person.
His campaign was the real McCain, McCain 'unleashed', not manipulated. The people he picked like Tucker Bounds Palin and Rick Davis were as dumb and self-centered as McCain.
If he ran as a sage and deliberative elder statesman with a qualified and smart running mate he might have won. But that is not what McCain is, he is not sage and not deliberative. He is a guy that spent five years in a box and has made a career out of exploiting that history.
More attacks about this black or that black extremist associate of Obama would not have made a hoot of difference.
November 6, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving aside what credit McCain deserves, was no one else surprised by how little race ultimately factored in this election? Does anyone remember how much shouting there was at TPM during the primary about what who was exploiting race and to what extent? In the GE, we had a bit of race debate regarding the celebrity ads and the Muslim slurs, but that was about it. I didn't really notice how quiet the race debates were at the time, but in retrospect, I'm shocked. I had feared that it would be so much worse.
November 7, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I've read in Newsweek's rather interesting behind-the-scenes piece, it appears that Palin went ahead with Ayers attacks before receiving approval from Sen. McCain himself. It's all a bit strange, really, and one gets the sense Sen. McCain wasn't running his own campaign, really.
I swear, the two times he has seemed most honest and comfortable speaking in the last few months were at the Al Smith dinner, and his concession speech. I have some theories as to why, but they are pretty half-baked.
November 7, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I noted that as well. McCain definitely seem to be ambivalent about the Ayers attacks, but he ultimately went ahead with them which he did not do with Wright. They seemed to be firm about that. Palin would have pushed the Wright associations without a second thought.
November 7, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, you ask: "Leaving aside what credit McCain deserves, was no one else surprised by how little race ultimately factored in this election?"
In your 10:41 pm reply to readytoblowagasket, I think you answered your own question when you wrote: "But the fact that Obama won 52% of the popular vote, however, does not prove that there is not widespread racism any more than a Clinton win would have proved that there's not widespread sexism."
What does "widespread racism" mean in this context?
November 7, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's way too tough to quantify and depends on how you define racism, but in that response, I linked to a recent survey:
I'd call that widespread (although perhaps not "pervasive").
Not sure how I answered my own question, since I asked whether other readers were surprised. I already knew that I was surprised. When I referred to race being a smaller factor than expected, I meant as a point of contention between Democrats and Republicans not as a factor in voter's decisions. People may have voted on race, they may have discussed it with their friends, but there were not many heated disputes between the campaigns or their surrogates about the infamous "race card," fewer than in the primary. I had anticipated many more.
November 7, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
There once was a time when I respected John McCain, there once was a time when I believed
him to be an honorable man, there once was a time when I would have happily voted for him; however those days and that man have virtually disappeared from view.
What has replaced him is a shabby and vulgar counterfeit of a once respectable politician who cannot win back my respect with 5 minutes of pretty words in one concession speech.
I am quite sorry, but the man that was McCain, is long gone, forgotten and replaced with someone who should be ashamed of their conduct.
November 7, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the point--or ignored it. I don't respect McCain either, but you don't have to respect someone to praise them. The praise that I offered does not concern a nice speech but rather what came before.
November 7, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is so true. I totally don't respect you. But I've always thought you had good taste in shirts.
November 7, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leave to Orlando to play the shirt card. At long last, have you no sense of decency, madam?
November 7, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big G, could part of the lack of race in the general election due to the fact Obama himself, after the 'race speech', refused to make it an issue. He did not talk about his 'civil rights' or his 'black history'. In fact, after the famous 'race speech' that won high praise from all corners, McCain would have been rather foolish (or more foolish) to bring it up and risk bringing on another national speech and therefore more praise. I understand what you are saying and you are somewhat right but I think it's only because the campaign didn't go on any longer.
November 7, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign certainly downplayed race, but Plouffe and Axelrod made no secret of their belief that Obama had to rise his race in order to win. So for Obama, it was politically expedient to downplay race in a way that it was not for McCain.
While the race speech was a brilliant move, it's not at all clear that it undid all the damage done to Obama by Wright. And having already delivered the race speech, Obama couldn't exactly give it again. So I doubt that the prospect of such a speech was what kept the McCain campaign from racebaiting.
November 7, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
i respectfully disagree with you sir......i found mccain's campaign to be very divisive and polarizing...give credit to mccain all you want, but let's not forget that sarah palin was part of the campaign....just because mccain wasn't shouting N*gger from the mountain top doesn't absolve him of any responsiblity for letting the innuendos slip by without lifting a finger to downplay them....sarah palin was every bit the race-baiter and her rallies proved it.....in fact the MSM media all but ignored the negativity at her rallies and tried to draw false parallels between the opposing teams' rallies. what a crock of you know what!!!!! as early as the night that mccain conceded, you can clearly see the difference between obama's camp and mccains....obama mentions working together and mccain's name, we clapped...mccain did the same and we got negativity in the end...
mccain's concession speech was classy but it was a day late and a dollar short...damage already done...not to bring up hillary c again but mccain's campaign reminded me of hers....i think she was more of a cheerleader for the race-baiting than mccain was, but mccain made up for it with sarah palin and the barracuda out-performed hillary c by any conceivable measure....
i dont remember hillary c rallies where folks were openly using racist slurs....please refresh my memory....
djamo, no need to run and pretend that obama was the race baiter...you have always been in denial about hillary c's nasty little ploy to garner votes at the last minute...it backfired on her and it most certainly backfired on mccain! in fact, i was pleased to see all of hillary c's lies debunked--blue collar workers, latinos/hispanic (yeah for me), women etc we all broke for obama!!!!
this post is going out of its way to stretch the truth to make mccain some sort of victim..he earned his keep because he ran a deplorable campaign...i felt that hillary c earned her loss too b/c she failed to run a good campaign....my advice to mccain and company is to emulate hillary c-she moved on and he should also...i think he did!!
ps..that sarah palin just keeps on giving doesn't she???? the cat is out of the bag now and boy is it juicy lucy!!!
November 7, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, Genghis.
I think one reason this is hard for us Dems to acknowledge is that we've gotten used to thinking of Republicans as Rovian masterminds who always win by doing brilliantly evil divisive things.
When you look back at the McCain campaign, there's a lot not to like. A lot of lies, and a lot of triviality.
But very little of it really belongs in the "brilliantly-evil" category. A whole lot belongs in the "what the f**k were they thinking?" category? Organize your campaign around an attack on Paris Hilton -- WTF? Nominate a VP you've met once -- WTF? Call a graduated income tax "socialism" -- WTF? Suspend your campaign -- then get nothing for it, back down, and attend the debate anyway. Oh my god, WTF? Center your campaign around Joe the plumber, who isn't named Joe, isn't a licensed plumber, and admits he would get a tax cut under Obama's plan -- WTF?
To repeat Talleyrand's line, "it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake." We need to acknowledge the possibility that the other side was just lame.
I'm not sure why McCain didn't go all-in on race-baiting. I'm sure some of it was enlightened self-interest. But I also think we need to consider the possibility that the guy was actually trying to run an honorable campaign. "If that's true, why did he do so many dishonorable things?" Because he's terrible at thinking these things through, relies on terrible advisors, believes his own goddamn spin, and tends to make stupid mistakes.
Thank God that Obama won, because in this race the other side was worse than criminal -- they were lame.
November 7, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Well said.
Only disagreement is that McCain himself said and did things that were clearly "dishonorable." Blaming it all on poor advisers and stupidity is too charitable or, to use Josh's favorite term, tireswinging. I suspect that McCain has some notion of honor that he tries to uphold but that it's fairly flexible according to his need. That's speculation though.
November 7, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. That's exactly what I mean by believing his own spin. The line between stupidity and evil is often fuzzy, because people who never doubt their own self-interested instincts often end up doing things that are *both* foolish and dishonorable.
November 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Redbush also made a point upthread that I liked, though I've decontextualized it. McCain's restraint on race may have helped him to rationalize the other shit that he was pulling by making him feel as if he was running an honorable campaign. That would also explain why he may have been taken aback by Lewis's accusation (if the reports are true). He may have convinced himself that he was being the good guy and so was shocked to be accused of pulling a Wallace.
November 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the reason McCain didn't adopt a "full-throated race-baiting strategy" was that it was too risky. It risked further damaging McCain's reputation, particularly among his "base," the media. It risked triggering African-American turnout far beyond what actually occurred in this election. (Although Obama's support among African-Americans was around 95% and their turnout increased, the increase wasn't spectacular.) It risked depressing support for McCain among some sectors of the Republican electorate. A race-baiting strategy could have led to riots, for which McCain would have been blamed. And finally, we know that the threats to Obama's life increased significantly after Sarah Palin began to whip up her pitchfork-carrying crowds. What if one of those threats had become a reality? Did McCain really want to risk being blamed for the assassination of the most promising African-American leader in decades?
Maybe I am giving McCain too much credit for rational thought, but I doubt that any fundamental decency (of which McCain exhibited precious little) was a factor in the decision not to go there.
November 7, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dithered about the phrase "full-throated" when I wrote it. Certainly there is a point beyond which a race-baiting strategy would have backfired and had very severe repercussions. But there's a lot of area between that and where McCain went. Attacking Obama's associations with Wright and Farrakhan would not likely have led to rioting. Many would have accused him of exploiting racial divisions, but his response would have been to shrug innocently, explain that he was attacking Obama's patriotism not his race, and accuse the critics of playing the race card. We've seen that game played before.
November 7, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh yeah, could it be that mccain didnt wish to bring up rev wright b/c sarah palin had her own pastorial issues? muthee with witch hunting and such???? probably not, after all, sarah palin was talking about patriotism when her husband wanted to alaska to cut itself loose from the US of America....
November 7, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
so what if one black man speaks to another? farrakan for all of his divisive politics have done some good things--remember the million men march? mccain has troubled associations of his own...all obama had to do was name a few of them....the guilt by association failed when hrc tried and it certainly failed with mccain....
face it--obama is clean....the best we can do is try to attribute third party actions to him, but impress me with an action executed by the man himself that deserves our reproach....can't find none? neither could the majority of the american public; hence, the baseless attackes FAILED!!!
November 7, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If one black man speaks to another, isn't that technically considered an angry mob?
November 7, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe McCain just didn't want to risk that even some of his less educated supporters would realize that if Obama went to a Christian church, he most likely isn't a Muslim.
November 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for not skinning babies alive while writing this post, ☠enghis.
November 7, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. I was really disgusted with a lot of what he did in this campaign. But between his refusal to exploit the Wright controversy and his classy concession speech, perhaps there's still hope for him to rebuild the reputation and the respect that he had earned over so many years.
November 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But in the end, McCain did not adopt a full-throated race-baiting strategy that probably would have helped his campaign."
Look, this assumption that underlies your above assertion seems nonsense to me. Let me explain. The Democrats NOMINATED this guy--race-baiting would not work with them. The Republicans applauded the nomination of Sarah Palin who certainly kept their base energized so I doubt very much that these folks needed to be persuaded.
This leaves the independents--or those without a partisan tie--or those who procrastinate on important decisions--etc. What makes you think that this group would have been swayed to McCain by his presentation of a race-baiting campaign?
Look, we have at least two choices: (1) credit the independents with the assumpton that race-baiting would NOT work and that McCain recognized this and so didn't use it OR (2) McCain took the high road even though he thought race-baiting would work.
You're crediting McCain with honor instead of this group of voters. Explain, please.
November 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I try to generalize over large varied groups of people like "independents." There are many racists among independents, as there are among Republicans and Democrats, not all of whom voted for Obama in the primary. As I recall, there was an intense primary battle with someone named Clinton, lots of racial animosity and people vowing never to vote for Obama.
You can also peruse the study that I keep quoting:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-raceNovember 7, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCain on national tv was given a chance to backtrack on Sarah Palin's "paling around with terrorists" rabble rousing pronouncement and he said,
"It's true, it's true."
Threats to Obama's life went up during those Palin revivals according to the Secret Service and the FBI.
--
Good-bye Mr. McCain, dishonorable non-hero.
Reference:
Make Believe Maverick
Rolling Stone Magazine
November 7, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, this argument just doesn't work for me. You're basically giving McCain credit for not running an overtly racist campaign on the order of a George Wallace or David Duke. McCain was, after all, the nominee of a major party in 2008 and one that, despite its insularity and history of race-baiting, has provided the country with two AA secretaries of state. We're not beyond racism in the country, but we are beyond something, though it's not the innuendo and the silence about things like the crowd reaction at Palin's rallies.
November 7, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duke and Wallace are not the comparisons I made. It was rather Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Palin, and Bob Corker, people who are not explicit racists but who were willing to use coded messages to exploit racial animosity.
Because McCain comes from this tradition, I expected him to go after Obama's associations with Wright and Farrakhan among other avenues. But he said he wouldn't go there, and he did not go there. There is something to be said for that.
November 7, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, this thread has been dismaying too me. Not because people disagreed with me. There were some coherent rebuttals, which I always appreciate. But too many people seem to be incapable of imagining that someone who has done bad things can also do good things. If you view the world in terms of bad guys who can do no right and good guys who can do no wrong, than you have bought into the same blind hatefulness that you have so stridently decried.
November 7, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has made it very difficult in recent months for me to look at him as the principled man that I once did. Take race out of it for a second, and he still changed course on issues I thought important to him (immigration, torture, among others.). That bothers me much more than the way he ran his campaign. Did ambition trump his principles? Or were those never his principles? Hard to know. Watching him over these months has been like watching one of those cartoons with an angel on the right shoulder and the devil on the other.
At times I felt sorry for him, and other times he simply angered me. A man who once prided himself in honesty and principle became shrouded in deceit and secrecy and moral vanity. That's hard to get over.
I've heard from personal sources that McCain's ambition is indeed his most noticeable and prominent trait. And regardless of his motives, I still appreciate the good things he's done over the years. I thought his concession speech was gracious and struck just the right tone.
It remains to be seen what the next chapter for McCain is. I hope he returns to the Senate to champion the causes he once believed in, and work to compromise in the coming years. I hope his own party does not marginalize him in the name of shifting further to the right in the name of "party rebuilding."
He is a complicated man, as we all are.
November 7, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, that second to last sentence is a little redundant, but you get the point.
November 7, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm certainly not one to deny the complexity of human behavior. I'm also not one to understate the incompetence of the McCain campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if they missed the Farrakhan comments altogether in the chaos of the final week. If so, that would leave you with only the restraint about Wright to credit McCain with, and he certainly didn't stop the RNC Wright "gd-America" ads. They were front and center in my market in the days before the election.
November 7, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink