Stanley Fish in The New York Times on how wonderful an issue the Iraq war will be for John McCain, if Obama is his opponent in the Fall campaign:
If it is McCain vs. Obama in the general election, look for something to happen that was unthinkable only a short time ago. The Iraq War will become a Republican plus. […]
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. In the democratic primaries and caucuses, Obama’s strong suit – the club he used to beat up Hillary Clinton – has been the absolute consistency of his position on the war: he would have voted against it had he been in the senate at the time; he has spoken out against it repeatedly since becoming a senator; and he has promised to end it and bring the troops home within a short time.
But once McCain, and not Clinton, is his opponent, that position becomes a liability, because it can be attacked as being inflexible and without nuance. McCain can ask, Don’t you see that the situation has changed in recent months, and shouldn’t a responsible leader adjust his or her stance according to the facts on the ground? And he can add, I too had my doubts about the conduct of the war, but now a policy I long advocated has been put in place with good results. […]
With Obama as his opponent, McCain has the advantage every which way. He continues to get mileage out of the straight-talk express, and at the same time he also has the political flexibility that comes along with having taken a few detours along the way, and talked out of several sides of his mouth.
This is the wisdom of our betters, dear readers. Wisdom important and sage enough to place prominently within the op-ed pages in arguably our most significant major American newspaper. According to Fish, McCain should clearly hope that Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, and thus his opponent this Fall. Never mind the polls that generally show Obama beating McCain nationally and in state after state in head to head match ups. Ignore for a moment the fact that economic issues trump the issue of the war with voters now as the economy continues its long slow slide into disaster. Never mind that voter registration is higher among Democratic constituencies in virtually every state. Nevermind that Obama has rekindled enthusiasm in Democratic and Independent voters of all ages, and that the number of votes in Democratic primaries is vastly larger than in the Republican primaries. Nevermind that a prominent Nobel prize winning economist and former World Bank Vice president has stated that the continuing costs of the Iraq war are helping to destroy the American economy, a message that should counter any “stay the course” enthusiasm for keeping American troops over there in the minds of millions of Americans facing uncertain financial times.
None of that matters apparently. According to Fish, McCain is (or should be) slathering slavering at the thought of campaigning against Obama. Because McCain’s best chance to win in November is against poor inexperienced, naive Mr. Obama rather than the fighting off the reconstituted battle hardened Clinton political machine. Beating Obama for McCain should be like shooting — well — like shooting fish in a barrel, according to Fish.
Dear Mr. Fish. I’m sure that’s what Hillary Clinton and her advisers thought also. And look where that got them. Maybe you could give them a call and ask them what they think now.
By the way, Mr. Fish is a “liberal columnist” at the Times. Just for the record.
Believe it or not there are many new Democrats in Wyoming. Lots of them.
LINK
And I’ll bet they are registering primarily to cast a vote for Barack obama in the March 8th caucus. But then, from the banks of the Hudson one cannot see Wyoming. Or any of the other flyover states. So they don’t count. And of course they would prefer McCain to Obama in the Fall. We know that thanks to Mr. Fish’s astute analysis.
Dear Mr. Fish. I’m sure that’s what Hillary Clinton and her advisers thought also. And look where that got them. Maybe you could give them a call and ask them what they think now.
They should call at three a.m. because she’s the only one who picks up the phone at that hour.
Wasn’t there are a really right-wing Fish family in New York politics? It would fit the newspaper’s MO. I wiki’ed and came up with the foremost Milton expert in America, so it must have been a different guy.
Nope, same guy. Also an “expert” on reader-response interpretation of American law. Also, since he was at the University of Chicago, moving increasingly to the right.
Why does Fish’s rather weak analysis not surprise me?
He is one of the chief spokespeople of a brand of “leftism” that thinks literary analysis is more important than actually focusing on politics and economics.
It is indeed as many of us have suspected. The people of Fish’s ilk would prefer to deconstruct the text, play at being leftists, and then when it comes down to a choice between someone who is moderately progressive and someone who comes out of the right wing of the party, makes a rhetorical choice to support the right wing of the Democratic Party.
According to Fish, McCain is (or should be) slathering at the thought of campaigning against Obama.
I think you probably mean slavering. Sort of like slobbering, but more high falutin’.
Yes, my memory fails me again. Thanks for the needed correction.
.
BAGHDAD — It’s a damning indication of how poorly things have gone for the United States during its five-year misadventure in Iraq that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can drive in broad daylight though this war-ravaged city and spend the night at the presidential palace, but George W. Bush can’t.
…
Unlike Mr. Bush’s cloak-and-dagger visits here – fly-in trips to heavily guarded U.S. military bases that only last a few hours, often with no advance notice given to even the Iraqi government – Mr. Ahmadinejad’s schedule was announced days earlier. He spent last night at Mr. Talabani’s palace, across the Tigris River from the fortified Green Zone that houses the massive new U.S. embassy.
≈ Cross-posted from my diary — Ahmadinejad Walks the Streets of Baghdad on Landmark Visit – Updated ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
So if the enemy of our enemy is our friend, then the friend of our friend must be our enemy.
In Bush’s world, if I chant this while doing this——-
then it will likely make perfect sense.
U.S. directed an air attack against a small town in Somalia just across the border from Kenya “to go after terrorist suspects.” I think this is near where Obama wore “traditional garb” back in 2006.
I think most people here know why the U.S. would target a warlord duking it out with another warlord in Somalia.
This is the kind of propaganda you can expect between now and November. And how many hayseeds will be able to parse the propaganda to understand what is happening?
.
The United States conducted similar strikes in southern Somalia in January 2007 against al Qaeda targets, hoping to kill some of the militants suspected in the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
U.S. officials later confirmed they did not believe they achieved that goal.
(BBC News) Jan. 9, 2007 – Witnesses told the BBC Somali service that areas near the town of Afmadow were being bombed. They report hearing heavy firing in a number of areas and have seen military helicopters flying overhead. Later, the nearby village of Hayo was bombed.
“My four-year-old boy was killed in the strike,” Mohamed Mahmud Burale told the BBC from the area.
Local MP Abdulkadir Haji Mohamoud Dhagane told the BBC that 27 people, mostly civilians, had been killed near Afmadow.
Obama in traditional dress worn in Ethiopia
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Many people disagree with their spouses each day, but their still married to each other at the end of the day. Much like McCain may have disagreed with W, but he is still married to W’s Iraq policy. And Obama has the right to say has the war in Iraq made America Safer? The answer is no. Just look at how many containers we inspect each year.
This is a wartime election, which Democrats haven’t talked enough about in my opinion,” said Clinton.
Look who’s running as Republican…trying scare up some votes..Hillary clinton.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_el_pr/clinton
Bill oughta know.
Boo,
I’m too tired to spell this out just now, but see if you catch my drift: This brilliant analysis by Prof. Fish is as good an example as any, of what Barack Obama has understood and magnificently exploited in this campaign — namely that willful stupiity is the Maginot Line of American politics. Fish is the one of th great apostles of the theory that there is nothing to “truth” other than “social construction.” What these guys have done is use their social-political influence to construct a “truth.” Except of course, it’s NOT true. They make it up as they go along, and the only way to keep it going is to more or less believe it oneself (“faith”). Not only is this kind of faith NOT religious, but a religion that puts its main emphasis on this kind of faith is a bullshit religion. A real religion believes in TRUTH. ANyway, it’s kind of like the Emperor’s New Clothes.
Theoretically, a lot of people could have done this. But only Obama has had the combination of guts and “perfect pitch” to get the ball rolling. Fifty years from now, guys like Stanley Fish will still be wondering what happened.