Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

And now, the end is near.... In Newsweek, Nate Silver provides a useful hour-by-hour description of what to expect tomorrow.  Meanwhile, I see that David Broder thinks this has been the best election campaign ever.  Yeah, not so much. It was the greatest primary campaign ever.  Both the Democrat and Republican races being seen as up for grabs for much longer than anyone anticipated, and from a narrative perspective, the eventual victories of McCain and Obama were entertaining.  By comparison, the general election has been a bit of a bore.  In part, this is because the expectations for both McCain and Obama were higher.  They were both seen as interesting, idiosyncratic, atypical politicians with broad-based appeal.  The general election campaign has not earned any of those adjectives.  However, I will make one prediction -- whoever loses should give an awesome concession speech.  It fits with both campaigns.  For McCain, it would be his chance to do the honorable thing -- and help to improve his media image.  For Obama, it would be consistent with his message of reaching across party lines.  I like the ritual of concession speech, and this year it will be more important than ever.  If Obama wins, there will be a lot of angry GOPers upset over a foreign Muslim socialist who had his memoirs ghostwritten liberal Democrat winning office; Obama will be lucky to have McCain's imprimatur.  If McCain wins, the collective shock from the media and the Obama faithful will be enormous -- so big that only a good concession larded with lots of grace and promises that the election actually was free and fair.  Question to readers:  what are you looking forward to the most tomorrow? 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Daniel Larison has an excellent post at Eunomia on the Obamacan phenomenon, of which I guess I'm a reluctant member.  His main point: 
Pretty clearly, the Obamacon phenomenon is on the whole not really an endorsement of Obama or anything he proposes to do, which is why most of the endorsements coming from the right cannot withstand much scrutiny.  That’s the whole point: the Republican ticket is so unappealing to these people that they will vote for its defeat in full knowledge that there is little or nothing to say on behalf of the man they’re electing.  
He's got a point -- when I read the policy platforms of both candidates, I like more of McCain's than Obama's.  But recall what I said way back in January
[T]hings like pesonality and leadership style are relevant to voting decisions (and are tough to capture in suveys). A candidate’s policy positions are not the only thing that matter. The way in which the candidate will try to implement these policies matters too. I wouldn’t vote for a candidate who shared my precise policy positions but decided to implement them by constitutionally questionable methods, for example. Process matters just as much as substance.
And this is where I disagree with Larison.  The one positive trait that conservatives of all stripes have linked to Barack Obama is his first-rate temperament.  A more conservative way of saying this is that Obama understands and practices prudence.  This doesn't mean that he's timid -- simplu put, he reflects before he acts.  Does this mean that I agree with everything Obama says and does?  Hardly.  I do, however, respect the way in which he arrives at his decisions.  I can't say the same thing about John McCain's decision-making process. 
EXPLORE:POLITICS, MCCAIN, OBAMA

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

A few months ago I blogged the following
I think the notion that mere election of Obama would represent a “soft power surge” as it were, should be tempered.  It’s not that there would be no Obama effect.  It’s just that it would be concentrated in places where elites are enthusiastic about him and his policies.  This would mean Europe, Africa and Latin America, I suspect.  Other regions — the Middle East, Russia and Asia — might be less receptive. 
As the race draws to a close, I see prominent commentators are starting to speculate about whether electing Obama would bring a soft power surge.  Hey, now we have some real live data!  Foreign Policy and Gallup have run polls in 70 countries from May to September 2008.  The big findings
Gallup Polls conducted in 70 countries from May to September 2008 reveal widespread international support for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain in the U.S. presidential election. Among these nations, representing nearly half of the world's population, 30% of citizens say they would personally rather see Obama elected president of the United States, compared with just 8% who say the same about McCain. At the same time, 62% of world citizens surveyed did not have an opinion.
Looking at the interactive map, I see that my initial supposition was partly in error.  I was right about Europe and Africa leaning heavily towards Obama.  I was surprised to see, however, that Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia all trended towards Obama as well.  On the other hand, large swathes of Latin America and South Asia are pretty indifferent to the whole election.  As for McCain, there was no country in which enthusiasm for him outpaced Don't Know/Refuse to Say.  He did the best in Georgia (23% to 18% over Obama, with 62% not knowing or saying).  One final thought -- it's too bad that other countries (Russia, China, Brazil, Ukraine, Iraq, Israel, Indonesia) were not polled.  UPDATE:  Two online and unscientific global responses:  one from the Economist and one at If the World Could VoteAt The National Interest, Nikolas Gvosdev points out that the global affection for Obama could be fleeting:
It would be foolhardy for the Obama team to assume that these strong ratings can easily and swiftly be translated into renewed acceptance of U.S. policies. And publics in other countries that are expecting an Obama administration would reverse or alter every last policy of the Bush administration are going to be disappointed. 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

I think Jane Mayer's New Yorker essay on Sarah Palin was intended to be the shiv that finally does her in, but it had the reverse effect on me -- and I'm no fan of the current Sarah Palin.  Compared to Noam Scheiber's TNR essay, which showed Palin as someone hostile to elites and elite-y things like policy expertise, Mayer's essay actually made me like Palin much more.  Mayer reveals that Palin courted DC concervatives by hiring DC lobbyists and talking to Weekly Standard and National Review types when they came on Alaska cruises.  So, in other words -- gasp! -- Palin was ambitious and good at power-schmoozing.  Meh. Ambitious politicians are not exactly unusual, and Palin's ambition has never been a concern.   Her utter conviction that she already knows enough to become the leader of the free world, however, scares the living bejeezus out of me.  Mayer's article is a damning indictment, but not of Sarah Palin.  It's the DC conservative cocktail circuit and John McCain who come off worse for wear.  Fred Barnes, William Kristol, Jay Nordlinger and Dick Morris come off as besotted teenagers suffering from Rich Lowry's Syndrome.  They're the ones who believed her to be ready to lead, and are now blaming McCain's handlers and a hostile media for her crash and burn on the national stage.* McCain, meanwhile, comes off as a follower and not a leader in his own campaign: 
By the spring, the McCain campaign had reportedly sent scouts to Alaska to start vetting Palin as a possible running mate. A week or so before McCain named her, however, sources close to the campaign say, McCain was intent on naming his fellow-senator Joe Lieberman, an independent, who left the Democratic Party in 2006. David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, who is close to a number of McCain’s top aides, told me that “McCain and Lindsey Graham”—the South Carolina senator, who has been McCain’s closest campaign companion—“really wanted Joe.” But Keene believed that “McCain was scared off” in the final days, after warnings from his advisers that choosing Lieberman would ignite a contentious floor fight at the Convention, as social conservatives revolted against Lieberman for being, among other things, pro-choice. “They took it away from him,” a longtime friend of McCain—who asked not to be identified, since the campaign has declined to discuss its selection process—said of the advisers. “He was furious. He was pissed. It wasn’t what he wanted.” Another friend disputed this, characterizing McCain’s mood as one of “understanding resignation.” With just days to go before the Convention, the choices were slim. Karl Rove favored McCain’s former rival Mitt Romney, but enough animus lingered from the primaries that McCain rejected the pairing. “I told Romney not to wait by the phone, because ‘he doesn’t like you,’ ” Keene, who favored the choice, said. “With John McCain, all politics is personal.” Other possible choices—such as former Representative Rob Portman, of Ohio, or Governor Tim Pawlenty, of Minnesota—seemed too conventional. They did not transmit McCain’s core message that he was a “maverick.” Finally, McCain’s top aides, including Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis, converged on Palin. Ed Rogers, the chairman of B.G.R., a well-connected, largely Republican lobbying firm, said, “Her criteria kept popping out. She was a governor—that’s good. The shorter the Washington résumé the better. A female is better still. And then there was her story.” He admitted, “There was concern that she was a novice.” In addition to Schmidt and Davis, Charles R. Black, Jr., the lobbyist and political operative who is McCain’s chief campaign adviser, reportedly favored Palin. Keene said, “I’m told that Charlie Black told McCain, ‘If you pick anyone else, you’re going to lose. But if you pick Palin you may win.’ ” (Black did not return calls for comment.) Meanwhile, McCain’s longtime friend said, “Kristol was out there shaking the pom-poms.”
I actually think Black's assessment was correct, but surely someone as obsessed with honor as John McCain might have cared just a little bit about post-election governing, no?  *One meme that I've seen forming in the past month is that Palin has done fine except for the Katie Couric interview, and that was only because Couric asked follow-up questions.  With all due respect, that's a load of bull.  Her interviews with Gibson and Hannity were almost as bad as her Couric interactions.  Her debate performance wore thin after the first 15 minutes.  She's committed a variety of smaller gaffes at her campaign rallies.  Between her convention speech and her Saturday Night Live appearance, almost every Palin action that a camera has recorded has not treated her favorably.  She's been listed as a key reason for a string of conservative editorial board endorsements of Obama.  This cannot be chalked up to a few miscues.  Palin's campaign performance has been an abject disaster. 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

I think Matt Yglesias best explains why, over the three debates, pundits across the political spectrum gave McCain better grades than the snap polls: 
To me, the crux of the matter is that McCain can’t get out of the habits that served him very well when he was a Senator building a glowing national reputation largely by talking directly to elite members of the political press. If you watched the previous two presidential debates, plus the VP debate, plus about half of the Democratic primary debates, plus the prime time speeches at the Democratic National Convention, and you’ve seen a dozen Obama surrogates yakking on cable a dozen times each just since Lehman Brothers went under then it gets kind of boring to watch Obama stay calm and repeat his talking points on the key issues. But the debate is targeted at folks who haven’t watched all that stuff. And a lot of McCain’s best moments will have gone way over the heads of most people. For example, he alluded at one point to a desire to allow more imports of sugar ethanol. Now if you’re familiar with the details of the ethanol debate, you’ll know that McCain’s stance on this is correct on the merits. And you’ll also know that Obama is a big support of corn ethanol both because they grow corn in downstate Illinois and because they made a big push for the Iowa Caucuses. McCain, by contrast, has a long and principled record on corn ethanol that’s hurt him in Iowa. This isn’t the biggest deal in the world, but it is a nice illustration of some of McCain’s key campaign themes. And yet he didn’t try to explain it at all. Similarly, he’s had a knack for besting Obama on national security issues nobody cares about, like the relationship of US-Colombia trade deals to the US-Venezuela proxy conflict playing out in the Colombian jungle. People figure that Obama seems like a smart guy, and if something important happens involving a guerilla group nobody’s heard of fighting a president nobody’s heard of in a country nobody cares about, that Obama’s up to the task of coming up with a good idea — meanwhile, McCain has no education policy.
UPDATE:  Props to John Podhoretz, who also made this point.  On a related point, Patrick Healy points out that Obama excels at getting otherwise disciplined politicians to lash out.
EXPLORE:POLITICS, DEBATES, MCCAIN

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

My latest bloggingheads diavlog with Megan McArdle is up.  Topics include the financial panic, policy responses to said panic, Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize, and who we're voting for in November. So, yes, I'm voting for Obama.  I do this with little joy.  Obama's trade policies are blinkered -- I mean, seriously blinkered.  From his campaign ads, he seems to think that there are a fixed number of jobs in the world, so if China is creating new ones, we must be losing them.   I don't think bailing out the auto sector is a terribly good idea.  Oh, and he's not terribly open with the press, either.  So why Obama?  To quote Kerry Howley, "The only thing I know about Obama is that he is less scary than the other guy."  McCain's behavior in the past month has instilled zero confidence in me about his executive abilities.  Sarah Palin was an abjectly disastrous pick for VP, especially when John McCain is 72 and looks like he's 80.   McCain is the perfect Senator, because it allows him to focus on the issues he cares about.  That's not how the presidency works.  Based on his decisions and pronouncements to date, he'd be a disaster in the Oval Office. Finally, the fact is, my erstwhile party was in charge of the whole shebang for a few years and royally screwed up almost everything it touched.  If markets are supposed to let failures fail -- not the trendiest idea right now, I know -- then the Republicans have no right to be rewarded for their performance over the past eight years.  Let the GOP have its comeuppance and come back under new management. 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Back in the summer I blogged about how the fundamentals in this election were stacked in Barack Obama's favor.  After a Palinesque convention bounce, it appears that the financial crisis has brought those fundamentamentals back to the fore.  Pollster.com's Steve Lombardo puts it this way
The past 14 days have transformed this election. The financial crisis has catapulted Obama into the lead both nationally and in key states. We have been saying for six months that the political environment has favored the Democrats significantly, but it took a near global financial meltdown for things to finally reach the tipping point. The economic situation has virtually ended John McCain's presidential aspirations and no amount of tactical maneuvering in the final 29 days is likely to change that equation.
Intrade now gives Obama a 68% chance of winning.  Nate Silver now gives Obama an 88% chance of winning.  Conservative columnists like Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks are now conceding that Obama will win.  So, my questions to readers:
  1. Short of a complete fiasco of a performance by Obama, will the debates make any difference from here on in? 
  2. Short of a 9/11-style attack, will any external news-making event affect the fundamentals?
  3. Will the character mudslinging that framed yesterday's news cycle turn off voters for both men?  Who will deal better with the inevitable "Ponytail Guy question" in tonight's town hall? 
  4. The question that really interests me -- how is McCain going to go out?  This is normally his favorite political terrain -- a complete and total underdog.  He's not going to get much sympathy, however, by using the Ayres/Wright/Rezko -- no one cares about that stuff when the credit markets are shutting down.  Will McCain decide to go out as the valiant but honorable loser?  Let me second Ross Douthat here:  "McCain is almost certainly going to lose this election. He can go down trying to talk about the issues that voters actually care about, and trying to make some headway in the debates that are going to dominate our politics for the next few years, or he can go down trying to change the subject. I really don't see any percentage in the latter."  Indeed.
Nate Silver points out, correctly, that pundits watch these debates differently than the rest of the country.   So, as a follow-up to last night's post, which focused more on the substance of what they said, here are some random thoughts about the surface stuff:
  1. John McCain looks much worse in person than he does on analog television, and I was wondering if that would show up if 2008 would lead to an HD/analog split in reaction to the debate that 1960 had for radio/television.  I was pleasantly surprised to see that the answer was no.  [Pleasantly?--ed.  Yes, this is a really stupid reason to prefer one candidate over the other.]  McCain looked better than expected, while Obama looked more sallow.  Curiously, the more whiskey I drank, the better both of them looked.  UPDATE:  Wow, Ann Althouse and I agree!
  2. Ah, the perceived slights.  Josh Marshall highlights McCain's unwillingness to make eye contact with Obama.  I would say that McCain evinced some disregard for Obama -- but I'm not buying the "low-ranking monkey" hypothesis (seriously, I can't believe Josh posted this).  McCain was not afraid of Obama -- he just doesn't like him.
  3. Meanwhile, Amy Holmes at NRO is miffed that Obama kept calling John McCain "John" rather than Senator McCain.  Holmes suggests that Obama picked this up from Joe Biden.  I've found, in talking with Obama staffers, that this is just how that campaign talks.  They all call Obama "Barack".  The fuddy-duddy in me finds this absurd -- if you're worried about a stature/experience gap with your opponent, the last thing you do is call everyone by their first name.  But it's not something directed at McCain specifically.
  4. The most grating moment came when John McCain called himself a maverick.  As Megan McArdle observes, "no one should ever, ever refer to themselves as a maverick unless they are currently James Garner." 
  5. Amid all the debate over who won the debate, the answer seems clear to me -- the candidate who left themselves more vulnerable to the cold-open Saturday Night Live skit tonight loses.  I think McCain's performance is more ripe for satire -- but we'll know in about 14 hours.   
Like, that's all. UPDATE:  OK, this is, like, pretty fascinating:   

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

11:30 PM:  The clear winner of tonight's debate was me -- for making the decision to sip whiskey while I was watching it.  Time for bed.  11:25 PM:  Marc Ambinder points to a CBS poll of undecideds that give Obama the edge by a pretty wide margin -- but as Nate Silver points out, "Obama didn't win by anything like a 2:1 margin."  CNN just reported a post debate poll that had Obama winning 51% to 38%, but I have no idea how they weighted their sample.    11:10 PM:  Gee, Joe Biden went on CNN to do post-debate spin.  Sarah Palin?  CNN asked her on, but she mysteriously failed to show.  10:58 PM:  I think the fallout from the debate rides on the following: 
  1. Given McCain's erratic behavior this past week, did his decent debate performance improve voter perceptions?
  2. McCain kept reiterating that Obama's foreign policy approach was naive.  Did voters agree with that perception?
  3. Which clips get repeated on YouTube? 
  4. What does Henry Kissinger really think? 
10:49 PM:  Watching the post-debate on CNN... and I'm struck that the GOP operatives are praising McCain for the very things that they derided Al Gore about in 2000.  "He cited a lot of names!" 10:37 PM:  Thank God that's over... I think both of them did better once the questions shifted towards foreign policy.  On a tactical level, I'd give the edge to McCain for trying to hammer home the contrast between his experience and Obama's alleged naivete.  On a strategic level, I think Obama did hold his own on the issues --and by demonstrating a coherent connection between strength at home and strength abroad, refuted McCain's claim.  10:30 PM:  McCain is clearly doing everything possible to demonstrate that a) he's been around the block on foreign policy, and b) Obama is naive on foreign policy questions.  I think McCain has had the snappier one-liners in this debate, but I don't think that sheer repetition on this point is really going to fly.  10:27 PM:  On Russia, McCain gave an answer that sounded like Al Gore in 2000 -- "see how many names I can list?"  Obama gave a decent answer that connected Russia to energy security -- but McCain had a good comeback on how no one from Arizona would oppose solar power.  10:16 PM:  The Iran question is the first one of the night when I saw a clear-cut winner -- Obama cleaned McCain's clock (right until McCain gave a mock dialogue on taking with Iran, which probably played well).  10:07 PM:  And at the fifty-seven minute mark, the Official Blog Wife has fallen asleep.  10:04 PM:  McCain implies that a League of Democracies could impose meaningful sanctions on Iran -- which is, I'm sorry, horses$#t.  India won't sign onto it.  South Africa won't sign onto it.  Brazil won't sign onto it.  And, obviously, Russia and China won't sign onto it.  Which means it's a toothless claim.  9:59 PM:  I was actually pretty impressed with both of their first responses on Pakistan... until McCain started yammering on about his biography.  9:49 PM:  McCain is not really addressing the question on Iraq, going back to talking points.  Obama seems determined to go back to 2003 in answering the question.  A draw on this question -- which is a question where McCain would be expected to trump McCain. 9:42 PM:  Obama says that, "Al Qaeda is stronger than at any time since 2001"?  Really?  Juan Cole would beg to differ9:39 PM:  And we have our first foreign policy question during the foreign policy debate. 9:38 PM:  McCain repeats the Miss Congeniality line.  9:36 PM:  I think McCain is going after the veteran vote... 9:26 PM:  Ah, that implant I put into Lehrer's brain is working.... 9:23 PM:  So I'm getting the sense that Obama is not a libertarian... 9:21 PM:  Why is neither candidate discussing how the cost of the bailout package affects their fiscal plans?  Why isn't Lehrer pressing them? 9:15 PM:  McCain, "the evils of earmarking"!!!!  Look, I don't like this stuff, but "evil"? 9:13 PM:  I'm already depressed, because the answers so far are almost... Palinesque.  9:11 PM:  From the wife:  "Lehrer is like a couples therapist -- 'Talk to each other!  Talk to each other!'" 9:08 PM:  Lehrer, "Let's get back to my question (about the bailout)."  Good for him!  Except that since the plan is kind of changing, it's a bit meaningless.  9:06 PM:  Obama's opening was... eh.  McCain was smart to give a shout out to Kennedy. 9:02 PM:  Hey, the global financial crisis is part of foreign policy!!   9:01 PM:  In accordance with the wishes of the Official Blog Wife, we're watching this on PBS... even Jim Lehrer seems a wee bit nervous... and, I might add, the sound synch is a bit off.... switching to CNN... oh sweet Jesus, what the hell is going on here?  Switch madly to ABC... ahhhhh.  8:55 PM:  Due to the financial crisis, the blog has had to make some adjustments.  In completely unrelated news, have I mentioned that the best way to watch this debate is with a glass of Johnny Walker Blue? 8:53 PM:  Hmmmm.... TNT is showing Con Air, and USA has a House marathon, and the Red Sox game is underway [Resist!!  Resist!!--ed.]  In a few hours, the hard-working staff here at danieldrezner.com will be here to liveblog tonight's economic policy foreign policy probably a bit of both debate.  If the press releases are to be believed, each side thinks the other side's guy is an awesome debater.   Until then, you have time in the comments to offer drinking game tips to watch the debate.  I think one way to guarantee that you're completely sloshed by the ten minute mark is to drink any time either of the candidates says the words "I resent...." 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

One of the conundrums about what I do for a living is that it's good for my profession when we live in interesting times -- and by "interesting" I mean, "teetering on the brink of disaster. " Today is gonna be an interesting day. First, there's going to be the market and political reaction to yesterday's bipartisan compromise failure to reach agreement on the bailout plan, and the extent to which John McCain is responsible.  There are conflicting accounts about what exactly happened -- but I'm curious to see if a consensus emerges during the day about a) a bailout plan; and b) Obama and McCain's role in a bailout plan.  My one substantive thought about this:  I don't like the "tranche" idea of giving Treasury the money in installments.  The one reason I can see for Treasury's $700 billion number was to signal to the markets that the Mother of All Backstops is available to insure liquidity and solvency in the financial system.  If you segment that out, it weakens and dilutes the signal (see Greg Mankiw for a longer defense of the contours of the Treasury plan).    My one political thought about this:  Hey, remember when McCain and Obama claimed, again and again, that they could reach across party aisles to get things done?  During this crisis, has either of them taken a step that even remotely backs up this claim?  If I were Obama, I'd give Boehner a call just to leak the fact that I'd tried to reach out -- same with McCain and Pelosi.  Second, there's the debate tonight.  Nate Silver makes a shrewd point here:   
Perhaps, however, rather than trying to postpone the debate, McCain is instead seeking to increase its importance. Surely the drama of the past 30 hours has made it an even more captivating event, probably leading to increased viewership. Moreover, with the subject matter likely to be expanded to include the economy, and the candidates having had less time to prepare, the entire exercise becomes less predictable, with gaffes more likely to occur, but also the potential for "clutch" performances.
I don't think McCain intended to do this -- that would require long-term thinking and based one what he's said in the past two weeks I don't think McCain's time horizon extends past 12 hours on anything right now.  What matters is that McCain's actions have undoubtedly upped the ante tonight.  I'll definitely be live-blogging the debate -- so be sure to show up! Have an interesting day! UPDATE:  Slate suggests other McCain gambits that we might see.  My fave -- "Sells Alaska to Russia for $700 billion." More seriously, I'm wondering if McCain will attempt the Albright Maneuver.  When Madeleine Albright was U.N. Ambassador, she would sometmes atten NSC meetings by satellite.  This had the psychological effect of increasing her leverage at the meetings, because she was a giant talking head on a big screen.  I would not be surprised if sometime in the next few hours the McCain campaign offers the following to the Commission on Presidential Debates -- "I'm not going to Oxford, MS, but I'll appear via satellite from my Senate office because I'm working so hard on this bailout."  Wouldn't that be the ultimate brinksmanship play? ANOTHER UPDATE:  No Albright Maneuver
Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans.  The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon.  Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Here's the latest Obama ad for Michigan: 
 
I have no doubt this will play in Michigan -- but the ad has a different effect on your humble blogger: 
  1. The ad implies that Obama's willing to give out loan guarantees to Detroit.  Question to Obama's economic team -- are there any industries you are not going to offer a federal handout?  And no, oil doesn't count. 
  2. My Democrat friends keep insisting that Obama doesn't mean any of his protectionist rhetoric.  But how many ads about "shipping jobs overseas" does it take for one to wonder about Obama's foreign economic policy? 
  3. This ad actually brings up one of the few actual "straight talk" moments for McCain in this campaign -- when he told Michigan auto workers that he wasn't going to be able to bring their jobs back. 
  4. One of the side benefits of the widening number of swing states is that the rust belt starts to matter less.  Which means that maybe in another election cycle or two protectionist pandering like this becomes less necessary [You're dreaming, you know that, right?--ed.  Oh, let me have this fantasy.]
I'm not necessarily going to vote for McCain -- but ads like this sure don't give me warm fuzzies about Obama. 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Ross Douthat raises a point I've been thinking about as well.  As content-free as John McCain's campaign has been to date, so was George H.W. Bush's, and he turned out to govern in a completely different manner than he campaigned (and I don't care what Charles Pierce says, I've very glad Bush was president between 1989 and 1992 rather than Dukakis). Actually, the McCain/H.W. Bush comparisons go deeper than that:
  • They were both pilots who were shot down in wartime;
  • They both had decades of Washington experience;
  • They are more interested in foreign policy than domestic policy;
  • They both are lousy public speakers
  • They both lost a close primary to a more ideological two-term president eight years before they became the GOP nominee;
  • They both made dubious selections for their VP candidate; 
The thing about analogies, however, is that it's easy to find the parallels and harder to find the contrasts.  So I'll put this to readers -- in what ways is John McCain not like George H.W. Bush.  The most obvious difference to me is are their foreign policy approaches and their temperment.  What am I missing? UPDATE:  MSM takes on the question of whether McCain's campaign would mirror his governance style.  The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus says yes.  Over at the New York Times Campaign Stops blog, David Brooks offers this hopeful contrast:  "McCain would run an administration totally unlike his campaign. It would be a series of commissions run by the old establishment types McCain likes doing business with — Hillary Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Henry Kissinger, etc." 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

The campaign is getting nasty, and Kevin Drum thinks this is bad for whomever wins:
If McCain wins, he'll face a Democratic congress that's beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk. They won't even return McCain's phone calls, let alone work with him on legislation. It'll be four years of all-out war. And what if Obama wins? The last time a Democrat won after a resurgence of the culture war right, we got eight years of madness, climaxing in an impeachment spectacle unlike anything we'd seen in a century. If it happens again, with the lunatic brigade newly empowered and shrieking for blood, Obama will be another Clinton and we'll be in for another eight years of near psychotic dementia. Am I exaggerating? Sure. Am I exaggerating a lot? I don't think so. McCain, in his overwhelming desire for office, is unloosing forces that are likely to make the country only barely governable no matter who wins. 
Meh.  Kevin might be right.  In this Feiler Faster Principle age, however, Labor Day memes can get washed away pretty damn quickly.  What matters is whether these tactics actually work -- and no, a post-convention bounce does not count as working.  If this stuff works in November, then Kevin might have a point.  I have my doubts, however.    Question to readers:  is Kevin exaggeraing a lot or a little?

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

John MCain drew a record audience for his acceptance speech, and based on the distribution of viewers, part of what put him over the top was holdover viewers from the New York Giants/Washington Redskins game.  Could it be that Matt Yglesias is in the minority and that football-watchers are more likely to lean Republican?  I don't know -- but that's the best segue I can think of to link to Paula Lavigne's fascinating ESPN.com article on which sports figures are backing which presidential candidates.  The article is very long well-researched, but here are the tidbits I found interesting: 
  • "Professional athletes and executives have given $445,334 to the two nominees -- 55.8 percent to McCain and 44.2 percent to Obama, according to ESPN analysis of figures from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group."
  • "The difference this election is that pro sports donors are more divided. In the past two presidential elections, the Democratic nominee has struggled to muster at most 16 percent of pro sports donations."
  • "Professional sports figures have given twice as much money to all presidential candidates combined during this election than they have to candidates in each of the past two races. And almost two months of fundraising remain for the two nominees."
  • "McCain has lots of friends in the dugout, but his biggest fans are in football. Six of McCain's top 10 pro sports donors are with NFL teams, led by the San Diego Chargers, Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans."
  • "NBA staff topped Obama's list of pro sports donors at $24,360."
  • "[Rudy Giuliani] cashed in a total of $210,900 from pro sports donors, including $86,300 from NASCAR employees and drivers and $17,000 from his hometown New York Yankees."
This should have been the early tipoff about the Yankees' fortunes this year :).  Read the whole thing.  And props to the athletes -- their reasons for their various endorsements were very cogent. 
The campaign controversy of the moment seems to be whether McCain has been telling lies about his opponent, with the additional accusation from the opposing camp that he is also engaged in race-baiting.  Of course, he is telling lies, and he isn't engaged in race-baiting, but in this bizarre election cycle you can be sure that he will be rewarded or at least forgiven for the former and then punished for something that he isn't doing.
Daniel Larison

Most Arab columnists writing about Obama have concluded that the exigencies of American politics undermine any efforts by politicians to change the country's foreign policy in the region. "With every American election, Arabs investigate the potential presidents, while forgetting that every American president who enters the White House will be governed by American interests and by the information that is presented to him," Alhomayed wrote. "Our problems have been left to us to deal with, and we are the biggest losers."

That's pretty savvy analysis, if you ask me.  More generally, I think the notion that mere election of Obama would represent a "soft power surge" as it were, should be tempered.  It's not that there would be no Obama effect.  It's just that it would be concentrated in places where elites are enthusiastic about him and his policies.  This would mean Europe, Africa and Latin America, I suspect.  Other regions -- the Middle East, Russia and Asia -- might be less receptive.  [What about McCain?--ed.  He would certainly get an enthusiastic reception in East Asia, and given his trade policies I expect Latin America and any country that wanted an FTA with the United States would be keen on him.  He would play less well in Europe, Russia and the Middle East.] UPDATE:  Oh, there's also this from Greene and Delap:  "The idea that some might consider him a "Muslim apostate," as Edward Luttwak controversially proposed in The New York Times, has been notably absent from Arabic op-ed pages."  

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More