The summer of 2008 has reminded us that events can intrude on the best-laid plans of political men and women.

One week soaring gas prices dominate the public mind. The next week a Russian invasion of Georgia becomes the main focus of attention. A third week a massive credit crisis that threatens our financial system overwhelms everything else, to the point that carefully crafted domestic policy proposals may well have to be scrapped or profoundly readjusted. That is the nature of politics. Sometimes it’s within your capacity to control events; and sometimes you accept the fact that you have to react to them.

Yet it’s still vital–despite ever-shifting political currents–to have a strategic game plan in mind and to adhere to it as much as one can. That is surely the case with the Obama and McCain campaigns. While they will make tactical adjustments along the way, they have a political roadmap they fully intend to follow.

The McCain campaign has, since Steve Schmidt took over day-to-day control, been much more impressive than it was: crisper, better organized, and more aggressive. The first thing Schmidt did was to put a frame around Senator Obama’s candidacy; he opted for portraying Obama as a World Celebrity, a popular but shallow candidate, inexperienced and unready to lead. That was the first order of business for Schmidt, and he was very successful in that effort.

Act II involved pivoting from focusing on Obama’s inexperience to putting forward a positive McCain narrative. In this instance, it meant portraying McCain as a life-long reformer, the authentic agent of change, and the person most able to shake up the status quo in Washington. This was the significance of the Sarah Palin pick; it underscored McCain’s reformist credentials and his commitment to reshape Washington politics. The fact that Palin turned out to be enormously popular among conservatives was a welcome addition–but her main credential was that she had established herself, even in her relatively brief political career, as a reformer. The McCain campaign has had more limited success in this effort. I rather doubt the public has a clear understanding of what a McCain presidency would stand for and the issues and governing philosophy it would be animated by. The McCain campaign still needs to cross that threshold and explain to voters, in practical terms, what a McCain presidency would do for them.

My guess is that Act III will focus considerable attention on Barack Obama’s liberalism. Obama is, after all, the most liberal member of the United States Senate (Biden is the third most liberal Senator, according to National Journal magazine). In fact, Obama is, based on his record, the most liberal person nominated by the Democratic Party since George McGovern. (For a quick review of Obama’s various stands on this issue, see my Wall Street Journal op-ed here.)

The McCain campaign has not fully exploited this fact. In the home stretch of the campaign, I suspect it will. America remains a center-right nation, and Obama’s political philosophy and past stands on the issue are out of step–and in some instances wildly out of step–with where most of the nation is.

Obama, understanding this weakness, has attempted to portray himself as a centrist. The challenge for the McCain campaign is to convince voters that Obama’s instincts and record are very much contrary to that. McCain needs to go further and argue, in a persuasive manner, that if Obama were to become president he would, in conjunction with a Democratic Congress, govern from the left/hard left.

The other, related topic the McCain campaign needs to focus on is Obama’s radical associations, from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, to the corrupt Tony Rezko, to others. To raise these matters in an honest manner is fully legitimate and, in fact, fully appropriate. Individuals are rightly judged by their past associations. (Can you imagine the intense, unremitting press interest if McCain had a close, long-time relationship with a pastor who was a white supremacist; or if McCain began his political career seeking the support and blessing of a person responsible for bombing abortion clinics?) We can’t know everything about an individual based on his associations, but they do tell us something important. And the reality is that Senator Obama, throughout his career, has attached himself to some troubling figures. That is not the sum total of Obama’s life by any means; but neither is it, as his supporters insist, unimportant or worth sweeping aside. We ought to take candidates in the totality of their acts and the totality of their lives, and Wright, Ayers, and Rezko are important data points.

The Obama campaign, as well as the MSM and Obama’s (many) defenders in the press, will hate this approach. They will argue that making an issue of Obama’s liberalism is outdated and simplistic, an example of “old politics.” About Obama’s past associations, they will cry foul, accuse the McCain campaign of employing divisive and desperate tactics, and insist that this ground has all been covered and there’s no need to revisit it.

I imagine the McCain campaign will not be distracted by the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will surely follow if McCain and his team make their case. It should still do so–forcefully, carefully, accurately, and with integrity. Senator McCain cannot allow the Obama campaign, or the MSM, to determine the field of play.

Senator Obama is still the favorite in this race, and McCain is entering Friday’s debate having experienced a very bad week. But one thing we’ve learned in Election 2008 is that things do not remain frozen for long. This race, more than most, has seen new dynamics take hold in the blink of an eye. With more than 40 days to go, then, the election is still winnable for McCain. But the hour is growing late. He needs to retake control of the race by putting Senator Obama on the defensive. Obama’s liberal record and his past associations are one way, and perhaps the best way, to do just that.

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link