In his new perch at ThinkProgress, Matt Yglesias is back to his prodigious blogging, and today offers a good reminder (in the contest of a new AFL-CIO direct mail piece) that Social Security could be a big problem for John McCain in the stretch-drive of the campaign.
I can’t recall a competitive major-party presidential candidate who was as dependent on the votes of older voters as John McCain is today. His past and prospective support for Social Security privatization (in the context of an overall fiscal plan that guarantees perpetual raids on Social Security revenues), and his recent attacks on the basic pay-go structure of the program as “disgraceful,” expose him to some very real problems with seniors.
But the time bombs ticking away in the substructure of McCain’s campaign go far beyond Social Security, and extend to issues that currently may be working in his favor. Sure, the present Russia-Georgia conflict may be giving him a good opportunity to talk tough. But it also will increasingly draw attention to his overall foreign policy posture of wanting to fight in Iraq until “victory,” while increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and rattling sabers against Iran, and now Russia. The unsettling reality about John McCain is that his foreign policy thinking combines the pre-9/11 conservative obsession with a new cold war against superpower rivals (then China, now Russia and China) with the post-9/11 neocon obsession to fight a new world war against “Islamofascism.” How many wars, cold or hot, regional or global, are Americans really ready to undertake?
Similarly, McCain is getting some traction from his flip-flop favoring offshore oil drilling. But that’s about all he has to say about the economy, other than the same cut-taxes-and-deregulate-and-promote-free-trade message Republicans have offered for eons. At some point, the fact that his health care plan is even worse than the status quo will get noticed, along with regressive and pro-corporation tax policies that blow up his credibility as a fiscal hawk, and an unconditional pro-trade-liberalization commitment that should represent a deep political problem for him in battleground states like Ohio and Michigan.
And for those of you who may believe policy really doesn’t matter to voters because it’s all about “character” and “trust” and “likeability” and so forth, McCain’s vulnerabilities go beyond wonky subjects like the fate of the country domestically and internationally. His much-vaunted “maverick” persona continues to be threatened by a vast track record of solidarity with George W. Bush and the GOP, and his reputation for a positive, transpartisan approach to politics may not survive his campaign’s steady descent into negative attacks on Barack Obama. And if his past behavior is any indication, there’s also a good chance that McCain will do or say something on the campaign trail, or in the debates, that makes him a lot less “likable.”
It’s always possible that McCain will successfully navigate all these potentially lethal problems, or that Obama and Democrats will fail to fully exploit his many vulnerabilities. But he’s got a tougher path to victory than a lot of nervous Democrats seem to realize.

With the publication (and quick rise to the top of the bestseller lists) of The Obama Nation, a nasty anti-Obama screed penned by Jerome R. Corsi, the same bird who co-authored the 2004 anti-Kerry book, Unfit to Command, Democrats are quite naturally worried that the “swift-boating” of John Kerry is about to be replicated. Kerry himself seems to share this concern; his PAC has just launched an anti-smear website devoted to defending Obama and other Democrats from “swift-boating,” citing his own experience as a cautionary tale.
This is all perfectly understandable, and obviously, no one should have any illusions about the willingness and ability of GOP-allied operatives to pull off Big Smears. Corsi’s 2004 book was indeed the immediate precursor to the Swift Boat ads, and featured some of the same Kerry-hating personalities. And both phenomena fed directly into the frenzy of attacks on Kerry’s credibility and defense views at the Republican National Convention.
But there are reasons to think that the past won’t be repeated.
As Byron York of National Review pointed out today, Corsi’s 2004 book got attention in no small part because his co-author, John O’Neill, and most of the people “speaking” in the book via interviews, had actually served on Swift Boats in Vietnam. Corsi’s anti-Obama book has none of that ostensible credibility or news value; it’s just a collection of attacks on Obama by a thuggish right-wing hack, no different from what you’d hear on a right-wing talk show.
Secondly, and more importantly, the Swift Boat smears were perfectly aimed at the soft strategic underbelly of the Kerry campaign. They occurred immediately after a Democratic Convention that placed enormous emphasis on Kerry’s Vietnam War record as his preeminent credential for the presidency, without, unfortunately, presenting his record of Vietnam War protest (a big part of the Swift Boat attacks) in the right context as the other side of the same patriotic coin that led him to volunteer to fight in the war in the first place. The “revelations” in the Swift Boat assault were effective not just because Kerry didn’t challenge them aggressively enough, but because his campaign didn’t prepare for them in advance in how the candidate was presented to the public.
For all the talk about Obama’s “charisma” and “story,” he actually may be less vulnerable than Kerry was to attacks on his “personal narrative.” As a new Pew survey today illustrates, Obama’s credibility as a candidate is heavily based on the popularity of his policy positions. McCain is the candidate who is dangerously dependent on “character” and “biography” as a credential.
Finally, of course, there is zero chance that anti-Obama smears will go unchallenged. The Obama campaign decided a long time ago to abandon the once-prevelant belief that responding to smears gives them too much attention. And the fact that most attacks on Obama’s “story” inevitably go over the line into thinly disguised racism is a problem for the smear artists as well, as is evidenced by all the disengenuous whining from the McCain camp about Obama’s willingness to play “the race card.” Racist appeals are far more effective when they are subtle and implicit, not over-the-top. The fact that the whole political world is aware that race is a factor in this election means it won’t be as easy to deploy racial weapons under the radar screen.
So: I just don’t think this sort of crap is going to work for Republicans this time around. It doesn’t mean they won’t try it, but Democrats should skillfully fight back instead of panicking.

In what could be good news for Barack Obama’s campaign, Ohio election officials have announced plans to establish a one-week window from September 30 until October 6 when eligible voters can simultaneously register to vote and then cast early ballots. The window seems tailor-made to facilitate a strong turnout among first-time voters, particularly college students, of whom there are an estimated 470,000 in the Buckeye State. In national polls, Obama has been beating McCain by better than a two-to-one margin among younger voters (66-30 among voters 18-29 years old in the latest Washington Post/ABC poll).
There’s another small but potentially significant Ohio opportunity for Obama that I’ve been meaning to write about. One of the odd data points contributing to George W. Bush narrow win in 2004 in Ohio was his relatively strong performance among African-Americans: 16%, as compared to 11% nationally. (A gay marriage ballot initiative is generally thought to have been a factor in skewing the black vote in a conservative direction). Black turnout wasn’t particularly impressive, either (African-Americans accounted for 10% of the statewide vote, as compared to 12% in the Ohio Senate race two years later). There’s every reason to think that Barack Obama will improve on Kerry’s 84% support-level among African-Americans, perhaps by a significant margin, with much higher turnout. For all his appeal to certain categories of Democratic and independent voters, John McCain probably has less of a natural connection with black voters than Bush, if only because of the latter’s famous religiosity. If McCain’s campaign and/or supporters are perceived as engaging in race-baiting (a pretty good bet, as Peter Beinart argues today in the Washington Post), , then Obama’s advantage among African-Americans could become a real factor in a close statewide contest.
All in all, this supports Tom Schaller’s contention that a major investment in minority voter registration and turnout in Ohio by Democrats would be a very good idea.

There’s been some buzz over the last couple of days about a hint dropped by McCain operative Rick Davis that John McCain might revive the earlier-discarded idea of promosing to serve only one term. Steve Benin of the Carpetbagger Report provides a full analysis, and weighs the pros and cons (as does Tom Schaller at Salon’s War Room, where he concludes more emphatically that it makes no sense).
I dunno. McCain’s age isn’t the only issue here. Pledging to serve just one term–aside from creating some serious media attention thanks to the sheer novelty of the strategem–would reinforce McCain’s claim to be just a highly patriotic guy who’s answering a call to service rather than pursuing his own personal ambitions, or his party’s ideology. It might also appeal to voters who have doubts about both candidates, but who might be persuaded to prefer four years of one to a presumed eight years of the other.
But one thing is for sure: a one-term pledge would significantly raise the stakes on McCain’s Veep selection, who would immediately be viewed as a 2012-presidential-nominee-in-waiting. So it could really backfire on McCain if he chooses a running-mate who either (a) offends any of the various tribes of the conservative movement, or (b) has any potential 2008 general-election vulnerabilities. It would narrow his options significantly.

Yesterday I characterized the abortion plank in the draft Democratic Platform as “the most forthright pro-choice plank in party history,” and noted a few factors in the wording that led me to this conclusion.
But today a lot of people who want the Democratic Party to be more hospitable to anti-abortion points of view are hailing the platform plank as a step forward from that of 2004, mainly because it endorses some measures that “abortion reduction” advocates have promoted.
Now it could well be that each side in this argument will notice that the other side seems happy, and reconsider its own positive feelings. But as someone who has been tangentially involved in platform drafting in the past, I know how hard it is to write something coherent on a subject like abortion with everyone watching every turn of phrase. And for now at least, you have to give this year’s Democratic platform wordsmiths a big gold star for coming up with language on one of the most emotional topics in the world that seems to please all Democrats.

So: do you know anybody who is strongly pro-choice but is considering a vote in November for John McCain? If so, you should send him or her a link to today’s New Republic article by Sarah Bluestain, which demolishes the common belief that McCain is a “moderate” on abortion policy, or perhaps even covertly pro-choice. Looking at his voting record in Congress over a quarter of a century, and talking to people on both sides of the issue who know him well, Bluestain establishes pretty clearly that McCain’s brief expression of opposition to the overturning of Roe v. Wade during his first presidential run in 2000 was completely out of character:

To many voters, the McCain of 2000 is the true McCain, with his latest statements constituting an understandable, if undignified, pander to the GOP’s right-wing base. They simply cannot believe that the maverick who defied the party’s hard-core social conservatives on embryonic stem cell research and campaign finance reform would toe the conservative line on abortion. But, in truth, it was his 2000 position on abortion that was the outlier–a short-lived attempt to court the center after George W. Bush had locked up the religious right’s support. McCain is not, and never was, a moderate.

It’s very important that Democrats get across to persuadable voters that this characterization of McCain is accurate on a broad array of issues. His entire campaign depends on perpetuating the “maverick” image he cultivated during and immediately after his 2000 presidential bid, before returing emphatically to his conservative roots on domestic policy and epitomizing the neoconservative point of view on international relations.
Sure, some conservative activists don’t quite trust McCain thanks to his 2000 rhetoric, but he’s done everything within his power in recent years to convince them the “real John McCain” is a man who would continue and on some issues even intensify the conservative ideological commitments of the Bush administration. Given the political dynamics of the country right now, McCain offers the Right the only plausible strategy for hanging onto the executive branch of the federal government, and extending their control of the judicial branch, and with it, the Constitution. So conservatives will cooperate with McCain’s “maverick” deception, even as they rely on its ultimate emptiness.

The Democratic Convention Platform Committee formally approved a draft 2008 platform in Pittsburgh over the weekend, and though the final version isn’t presently available online, the draft they were working from is here. It’s true that party platforms don’t matter remotely as much as they used to (it will almost certainly be approved at the Convention on a voice vote with no real discussion), but they do occasionally reflect party positioning on certain hot-button issues.
According to press reports, the only major changes approved involved the health care language, where a compromise was worked out to accomodate Clinton supporters wanting something closer to HRC’s own plan, and also to head off a proposed amendment endorsing a single-payer system.
Assuming the draft platform’s language on abortion was retained (a good guess absent any publicity about proposed amendments), it appears pro-choice activists prevailed over those calling for a clear endorsement of “abortion reduction” strategies. The brief abortion plank begins with the most unambiguous statement of the party’s pro-choice principles I can recall, and while the nuts and bolts of “abortion reduction” are supported, they are contextualized as measures that might reduce the “need for abortion” rather than the number of abortions, a formulation acceptable to pro-choice activists. The “safe, legal and rare” mantra about abortion first popularized by Bill Clinton in 1992 does not appear in this draft, and there’s also no “conscience clause” explicitly expressing respect for, and acceptance of, differing views on this subject. This is probably the most forthright pro-choice plank in party history.
On another front, there was an unsuccessful effort by some Clinton supporters in Pittsburgh to promote a platform plank condemning caucuses as opposed to primaries as means for selecting future Convention delegates. The proposal was ruled out of order and referred to the Rules Committee, where it probably belonged. In any event, there was never any possibility that the platform committee would retroactively adopt the Clinton campaign’s late-spring effort to deligitimize Obama’s string of caucus victories. But this is an issue that will come up again after Election Day, when–win or lose–Democrats begin looking ahead to the nominating process for 2012.

Over at The New Republic, Eric Zimmerman has a brief but interesting report on the behind-the-scenes struggle going on over proposed “abortion reduction” language in the Democratic platform. A small band of anti-abortion Democrats want language committing the party to measures ranging from prenatal health care to greater access to contraceptives in order to tangibly reduce the number of abortions occurring in the country. And while many pro-choice activists have no problems with some of the specific proposals, and wouldn’t mind language about reducing the need for abortion, they unsurprisingly tend to reject formulations that treat abortion as an unambiguous evil.
This particular controversy has become a common one in recent Democratic platform deliberations, and is generally conducted within the boundaries of Democratic support for the constitutional right to choose. Among Republicans, of course, abortion platform fights tend to revolve around radical proposals not only to reverse Roe v. Wade, but to create constitutonal prohibitions that would eliminate the state role in abortion policy.
Speaking of abortion, I’ve strirred up a bit of a blogospheric debate on the question of why white evangelical Protestants consistently provide greater support for restrictive abortion policies than Catholics. My original piece at Beliefnet is here. Ross Douthat of The Atlantic has responded twice, here and here. Those commenting on the exchange have included Steve Waldman and Rob Dreher.

With the Summer Olympics opening ceremony on tap for tomorrow, it’s obvious by now that the hoary tradition of viewing August, and particularly Olympic Augusts, as “down-time” for presidential campaigns has been abandoned, as Carrie Budoff Brown explained in The Politico yesterday. Both campaigns (first Obama, then McCain) have made heavy media buys for NBC’s broadcast and cable coverage of the Games. While Obama will personally take the first week of the Olympics off for a vacation, his campaign won’t miss a beat, and McCain will continue to hit the trail throughout August.
The idea of an “Olympic Hiaitus” probably died once and for all four years ago, when the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry–considered by many Democrats to have been the pivotal moment in the entire general election–broke out in the middle of the Games.
The big remaining question is whether either candidate will defy the old CW to the extent of announcing vice presidential selections during the Olympics. Heavy rumors that either or both would move on this front prior to the Opening Ceremony have not, obviously, proved accurate. The Olympics don’t end until the day before the Democratic Convention, and only four days separate the Denver gathering from the Republican Convention in the Twin Cities. So the odds have significantly increased that Obama and/or McCain will announce their veeps during the Conventions themselves–an ancient tradition that has been largely abandoned by both parties after 1988, on the theory that a pre-convention announcement will earn “bonus” media attention and avoid distractions from the Main Event.
Still, I wouldn’t be too shocked if either or both candidates (and McCain appears to have decided to let Obama “go first”) unveiled the Veep during the abandoned “Olympic Hiaitus.” For one thing, the theory that you need unobstructed media attention for the Veep announcement is based on the assumption that the choice will be an unambiguous positive development. It’s pretty obvious by now that the most likely options for both parties are vulnerable to reactions of disappointment, either because they are considered underwhelming safe-and-sound figures (e.g., Evan Bayh for Obama, Rob Portman for McCain), or because some element of the party faithful will react poorly. In Obama’s case, any Veep other than the exceedingly improbable Hillary Clinton will generate some heartburn among the HRC supporters who will be heavily represented at the Convention. Veep possibilities like Tim Kaine or Sam Nunn could produce an ideological backlash. And McCain is walking a tightline among GOP conservatives who view his Veep selection as a critical indicator of the party’s future direction, particularly on limus test issues like abortion.
If I’m right about that, then it makes abundant sense for both candidates to get the Veep issue out of the way before the Conventions, if only to let the inevitable grumbling subside. And a mid-Olympics announcement that gets less than total attention from Games-watching voters or vacation-going political reporters might not be a bad thing, either. We’ll see soon enough.

David Brooks’ New York Times column yesterday riffed extensively on a familiar theme in anti-Obama polemics: his status as a “soujourner” who’s wandered through an extraordinary life without putting down the sort of roots in any community or point of view that voters can recognize or identify with.
Salon’s Joan Walsh published a sound rebuttal of Brooks’ suggestion that successful American politicians are those who are unambiguously rooted in a clearly defined geographical, cultural, or temperamental mileiu. She cites John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and most of all, the synthetic cowboy George W. Bush, as presidents with complex and often self-contradictory backgrounds that rival anything “rootless” or confounding about Barack Obama.
Walsh could have gone further, insofar as complicated people have been the rule more than the exception among residents of the White House.
There was Richard Nixon, whose entire career (as best documented by Rick Perlstein’s brilliant book Nixonland ) involved an endless ambivalence towards the elite circles he despised and longed to join. There was LBJ, who aside from the ambiguities involving his views on race and economics, was a pathologically domineering personality whose political ascent was based on playing the submissive son to a series of powerful father figures (FDR, Rayburn and Russell most notably). Even an ostensibly “simple” figure like Eisenhower was actually a master Machiavellian who deliberately cultivated the false image of a genial and apolitical national father-figure.
Herbert Hoover? This paragon of sturdy heartland conservative values spent much of his adult life roaming the globe as a do-gooding cosmopolitan. FDR? The very symbol of progressive principle was generally considered a supreme opportunist, and a bit of a conservative, well into his presidency. TR? Hard to imagine a more complicated figure shaped by vastly conflicting personal and ideological impulses. Wilson? A born-and-bred fanatic who ultimately became identified as the epitome of global liberalism.
And you can go all the way back to the Founding Fathers, typified by the slave-holding egalitarian Jefferson.
In the last century, Coolidge, Truman and Ford are about the only presidents who stand out as what-you-see-is-what-you-get figures completely rooted in a particular and familiar time, place and culture.
All in all, Barack Obama’s in fine company as an unusual man seeking the unusual power of the presidency in this unusual country. Tomorrow James Vega is planning to post a follow-up to today’s piece on defining John McCain, with suggestions on how Obama can best define himself. It’s in the context of our long history of exceptional political personalities–of sojourners in a sojourner nation–that these suggestions should be understood.