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.
