Would McCain Vote for Obama?
Since I wrote my last post on the electability of Barack, I figured I needed to address the opposite view that Stanley Fish talked about. Fish claims that in fact McCain has more flexibility in his stance than Barack, meaning that Barack is not willing to adjust and reform his approach to the war depending upon the route that the war is taking. McCain's view of the war has in essence mirrored that of a large portion of the public. Many people forget that they actually supported the war in the beginning (although many faulted the reasons we went in), but have in time come to criticize the execution and length of conflict. McCain was a regular criticizer of Rumsfeld and his approach to the war and was also a supporter of change in the form of a surge, which has had a modicum of success. In contrast, Obama has simply said no no no, out out out.
Another interesting thing that often is overlooked or glossed over in the media when looking at Barack's stance on the war, is that Barack was not actually in the Senate at the time of the vote and therefore did not actually vote against the war. Granted, his public position may still have been against invasion, but its very easy to say that you are against something when it has no immediate political consequences for you. Barack was an outsider looking in at the time, not susceptible to the strong response fever that swept much of the government in the wake of a terrorist attack. He could just as easily turned around and said that he would have voted for the war, as he could have said he would have been strong enough to oppose a movement that was undeniably popular in politics at the time.
Fish bases his view that Barack is potentially defeatable on the fact that all of Barack's criticism of Hillary does not apply to McCain. Hillary voted for the war mostly on political manuevering rather than conviction. I think however that Fish underestimates the power of the war. The anti-war feeling is so strong that any support of it is still likely to take a vote away. Ultimately I do think that Barack is still more likely to be able to defeat McCain than Hillary, but he will have to change his tactics and responses slightly.
Another interesting thing that often is overlooked or glossed over in the media when looking at Barack's stance on the war, is that Barack was not actually in the Senate at the time of the vote and therefore did not actually vote against the war. Granted, his public position may still have been against invasion, but its very easy to say that you are against something when it has no immediate political consequences for you. Barack was an outsider looking in at the time, not susceptible to the strong response fever that swept much of the government in the wake of a terrorist attack. He could just as easily turned around and said that he would have voted for the war, as he could have said he would have been strong enough to oppose a movement that was undeniably popular in politics at the time.
Fish bases his view that Barack is potentially defeatable on the fact that all of Barack's criticism of Hillary does not apply to McCain. Hillary voted for the war mostly on political manuevering rather than conviction. I think however that Fish underestimates the power of the war. The anti-war feeling is so strong that any support of it is still likely to take a vote away. Ultimately I do think that Barack is still more likely to be able to defeat McCain than Hillary, but he will have to change his tactics and responses slightly.
posted by Cara Lee at
5:26 AM
4 Comments:
The state of the war will become even more important around election time of course.
The war in Iraq seems to be the prevailing issue surrounging this election. Different issues are important, but I feel that many people will place their vote based on how they feel about the war. Coming into this election I was relatively neutral before "finding my candidate." The only reason I would never vote for Obama is because of his stance on the war.
In the 2004 election the main Republican criticism of John Kerry was that he was a 'flip-flopper' who often changed his stance on various issues. Bush, on the other hand, was praised for his steadfastness, particularly on the issue of the Iraq war, using statements such as "I will not waver" and "You know where I stand." Maybe Barack's unwavering stance on the war has something to do with that.
That's a really good point that Obama wasn't actually in the Senate at the time and didn't actually vote against the war. Maybe I've just missed it, but I feel like that is something the opposition hasn't really exploited (yet?). I'll be curious to see if they (Hillary especially) start to pick apart his words more as the nomination/election gets closer (i.e. "I voted against the war all along" vs. "I never voted for the war"), because if it was used strategically in an attack ad, that could really make some people think he was misleading them about his record all along...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home