Based on a quick surf of the web:
1. There’s lots of talk about McCain’s inability to deliver a speech. Why does he think he would benefit from lots of events on the same stage with young and eloquent Barack? Mac will have to practice a lot to get the convention bump that always comes from nailing a stirring acceptance speech. Even our president rose to those occasions, but he’s never thought for a moment that he was above the need to practice.
2. If the election were held today, according to the various studies, Obama would probably win--unless McCain managed to sweep the rust-belt states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Obviously regular guys have issues with bobo Barack. But will they be able to resist voting for CHANGE in the face of a weakening economy and for a man who’s virtualy incapable of seeming to feel their pain?
3. Surely the cleverest thing Obama could do with Hillary is to make it clear to the voters that she would be his first appointment to the Supreme Court. That would in a way lock her up for good. And the idea of HER on the Court would thrill feminists of all stripes.
If BO publicly promised that HRC would be his first Supreme Court nominee, that would constitute criminal bribery, wouldn't it?
A "corrupt bargain"? He is going to have to make some sort of bargain.
Given the bombardment of anti-Obama emails (from both guys and girls) I get, that is a strong impulse out there. If that is not, unfortunately, pro-McCain, it still means Obama's election is far from sure, even if the election were held today, which, happily, it is not.
"Why does he think he would benefit from lots of events on the same stage with young and eloquent Barack?"
Maybe because McCain has the self-awareness of a cocker spaniel.
That deal with HRC would be too transparent to have any legs...no one would rank her among our best legal minds.In fact she would be among the least credentialed nominees ever and that includes Harriet Miers
A couple weeks worth of practice would work wonders on his ability to deliver a speech. Natural eloquence can't be imitated, but one can learn to deliver a speech.
Over a year and a half ago I said that the nation was being set up for a communication backlash, after the, shall we say, limited verbal abilities of the Texan President. I suggested then it would likely inure to the benefit of Gingrich or Giuliani. Seems like the GOP didn't get the memo, but the Dems did, selecting a guy without substance, but a guy who can deliver a speech someone else crafted for him.
McCain isn't going to close the distance between him and Obama, at least in terms of communicative skills, but he surely can narrow the distance. And that might prove decisive.
And Peter, Hillary would face a filibuster from the GOP, and would only get through were the Dems to secure a fillibuster proof Senate, and they were able to hold party line on her nomination to the high court. And that's not likely. Senators like Landrieu and Nelson might balk at being asked to vote Hillary to the high court. And in fact, promising that ahead of time might hinder Obama's chances for The White House, for that would provide additional fodder on the campaign trail. Imagine the GOP getting to campaign on preventing Hillary's ascension to the Supreme Court.
Obama doesn't have to do much regarding Hillary. The MSM is going to take care of his flank, by describing his interaction with Hillary as considerate, magnanimous, respectful, solicitous. He won't have to do much of anything, what with the MSM taking care of business for him.
McCain probably thinks, and there might be some evidence of this from the campaign trail, that he's better at town hall style give-and-take, and Obama is better at giving set speeches.
1: Because they would be town-halls and not speeches.
Dear Professor Lawler,
Here are some of the pros and cons of McCain/Obama debates from the McCain perspective.
1. Con - McCain lost his heads up debates against George W. Bush in 2000 (technically Alan Keyes was involved too, but McCain and Bush basically ignored him). That can't bode well against the more eloquent Obama.
2. Con - McCain is now eight years older than in those debates and hardly seems quicker or more dynamic.
3. Pro - While Obama should not be taken lightly as a debater (he did fine in the Democratic primary debates) he does not shine in the debate format the way he does giving a prepared speech.
4. Pro - Could the contrast in a town hall meeting be any less to McCain's disadvantage than the dueling speeches Tuesday night?
5. Pro - Town hall style debates are less predictable than set speeches. One man or another could stumble badly. On balance it is more likely that McCain would be the one to stumble, but as the decided underdog McCain has less to lose. Obama knows this, which is why he is ducking McCain's challenge.
It is not in HRC's self-interest to be a Supreme. When has she shown any interest in being a judge? That would take her out of presidential politics effectively. And the nomination hearing would be fireworks, just to begin with Whitewater.
She would want Secdef, since Sec of State has already been done by women.
But I persist in the notion that her goal would be making another woman VP. That would sink Obama and pave the way for a real woman candidate in 2012, while making her appear to be on the cutting edge of feminist politics.
"...unless McCain managed to sweep the rust-belt states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan."
I can only wonder why real folks like Peter Schramm, Joe Knippenberg and Steven Hayward have decided that a jerk like Lawler has anything worthwhile to say...
I mean, only a convoluted sense of intellectual conservative Guilt, could probably explain this nonsense. Uh, what I really mean is, what else could you expect from pathetic little minds from likes of "rust-belt states of Ohio"?
I'm not fooled by yer tiny-minded jerkism. Lawler, though I am a bit perplexed at how you've managed to bamboozle your elders.
Definitely a good list. I'd say the pros and cons boil down to this: Joint town halls may not help McCain a great deal, but they are still to his advantage. He will always have a large disadvantage in money, grassroots, and the enthusiasm of his support. He will always have less favorable media. The town halls would give McCain exposure in the format in which he is most likely to shine. Even if one presumes a tie between the two candidates in terms of performance at the town halls, McCain needs them. To maintain the relatively high respect he has from the public, McCain must communicate directly with the public in some way, and rather frequently. The town halls are his best bet.
In my view, Ken is absolutely correct about HRCs plan. Her enthusiasm for Barrack in that speech was so syrupy as to make me feel like I needed a bath after hearing it and I was listening right after a shower . . . She wants to sink this guy. He had better not even consider appointing her to be dogcatcher . . . or else he needs to keep her VERY close.
Yes on the townhalls, of course. But Obama is not stupid and not THAT arrogant. He knows this is his potential weak spot which is why I predict that he will not agree to do this. He might do a couple of these (early on) but the rest of the debates will be old school. Of course, then McCain can play the manly card . . . (BO won't go to Iraq, meet with Petraus or meet man to man in debate?)
Hillary won't do our work for us, and neither will her disappointed supporters. Most are just having a temper tantrum or a "good cry." Hillary's interest in remaining a major player in Democratic politics and a potential future nominee, and her ideological desire (remember that?) to advance left-liberal goals, both dictate strong support for Obama. That is what happened on Saturday, "syrupy" vibe or not. And it will continue.
David, that's a good one, her supporters are having "a good cry."