Of Two Johns: One, If He's Smart, the Future Vice-President

John McCain appears to be threading the needle so far, but he hasn't yet sown his comeback crusade into one, overall theme.

And because simplicity is the hallmark of any successful presidential campaign, he'll eventually -- and soon -- have to tidy things up in a singular concept, especially as this southerly economy encroaches on his usual territory of national security concerns.

"There's still a need for a larger overarching strategy to win the nomination," said a former aide, which was echoed by another: "I think John McCain today is the front-runner for the nomination, but his status is going to have to be reconfirmed in places like Michigan and South Carolina, and he's going to face his own hurdles in doing that. He's not the George Bush of 2000. He just doesn't have that kind of campaign."

Well, John, you may just have to stand short and reinvent yourself. You may just have to wallow in the whorishness of co-optation -- you may, that is, just have to pull a Bush 2000: You are whatever your appealing opponent is, times two, even while strangely underscoring that your opponent is an ignominious lout.

You should be an expert on the strategy, John, since you were on the brutal receiving end a few years back.

The winning word then was "reform" -- oddly identical to "change" -- and overnight George realized that he was, lo and behold, not only the real reformer of the two, but the reformer with results. Never mind that those results were hazy at best. All that's really important in a campaign is an attractive and alliterative slogan, which he pounded you with as he also pounded your character. You were dust in no time. I trust you recall.

Just do whatever works, John. That's the key to principled politics, and, as the New York Times' Caucus blog, among others, points out, that's also one critical element of Hillary's resurrection:

"After her Iowa defeat, Mrs. Clinton adopted ... the [Bush 2000] approach against Barack Obama. She co-opted Mr. Obama’s 'change' theme but argued that she could act to produce it, while her less-experienced rival could only talk."

I would only add that the process started somewhat earlier than the Caucus observed.

But next will come the character-assassination routine, already previewed in shabby rumors of Obama's illicit-drug use.

In the meantime, however -- unless things start to look hopelessly bleak for Hillary and yet another tactical shift is required -- she'll emphasize her Bushian credentials: a "reformer with results," which, in modern parlance, emerges as "change with experience." And just like with Bush, the results/experience coefficient will receive that little extra kick.

Of course if Hillary were really convinced that the country needs experience above all other qualifications, she would have endorsed former congressman, former cabinet secretary, former United Nations ambassador and present Governor Bill Richardson from the git-go.

As she got up every morning, devoting her tender thoughts exclusively to how she could help you, she simply would have initialed Bill's resume and sent a check.

Yet now, it appears, Bill is headed permanently for parts West, thereby narrowing the Democratic field to three, and leading to one final thought: In the run-up to the showdown of Feb. 5, you're going to start hearing the less-than admirable word "spoiler" in regular connection to the remaining fringe candidate, John Edwards.

Should you happen to be an Edwards supporter, I hasten to add that I use the descriptive "fringe" not as an insult, but as a mere matter of fact. John is not going to win this thing -- period -- not by delegates, not by brokering, not by any political miracle ever revealed to mankind.

It's over, John, and that's just a political reality. That may be good, may be bad, but either way, that's the way the open field has broken.

Perhaps if Mr. Obama were to whisper sweet vice-presidential promises in your ear, you will reconsider your commitment to finishing the marathon. As a co-candidate of "change," your (as many would read it) heroic withdrawal and subsequent Obama-endorsement over the Democratic personification of Bush 2000 would swiftly decide this race -- and that's hardly a mere booby prize.

You're a young man, John. You'll still be a young man in 2016. It's the smart play -- even smarter than Hillary's.

Comments

[Catfish]

BINGO!!!

[Nate_O]

A field of three? What about Kucinich? If you're writing off Edwards, why not just say a field of two. It's talk like this by the punditocracy that ensures a crappy 'field' of candidates. I'll vote for the best person for the job. Thank-you very much, but I don't need the horse race.

[Kevin Schmidt, Ojai CA]

Yes, John "The Spoiler" Edwards is a fitting name. Edwards spoiled the 2004 Presidential Election by not fighting the obviously stolen election. He refused to fight for what was rightfully his, even as WE THE PEOPLE fought his battle for him and begged him to join us. But instead, he cut and ran like the good little corporate oligarchy minion that he is.

Then he has the audacity to shamelessly run for president again, as if WE THE PEOPLE would forget his treasonous behavior of four years ago.

Now he does the bidding of the Clinton royalty by splitting the anti-Hillary vote with Obama so Hillary can win the nomination. That is Edwards only purpose now, to bring down Obama by staying in the race.

Have you no shame sir? Apparently not! Edwards is a traitor to the Constitution and to WE THE PEOPLE and should be treated as such.

[simian]

You are just like all the other pontificators who "KNEW" Obama was going to win NH and the enevitable Democratic candidate. Only a couple of months ago Hillary was enevitable if you believed them. And then there's the Republican pigmies: First McCain, then Guiliani, then Romney, then Huckabee, back to McCain. Who should have dropped out?

Why do you want to be a hot-air wind-bag like Chris Matthews Spewing his meaningless dribble on who is or isn't a viable candidate.

WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
This may very well be decided in the convention. There is no reason for Edwards to drop out until some has cinched, and that may not happen.

[simian]

Kevin--
It wasn't up to Edwards to fight the vote count of 2004--that was up to usless Kerry, the presidential candidate. Kerry is going to back O-bomb, not Edwards shortly. Shows how usless Kerry is--if he didn't think Edwards was up to the job in 2004 why'd he pick him then? Sour grapes for Kerry, I think. He can't stand thinking his former running mate might become pres and not him.

[Wow]

Here's a novel idea...

Stop the state to state primaries.
Let all candidates roam the country from June 1 through mid-January. Campaign all they want. On one day January, voters from all states go to the polls and vote for the nominee of their choice. At that point, shazam! We would know who the candidates are: Democrat, Republican and Independent. More campaigning and debates for the presidency then, first Tuesday in November, Americans vote their choice for president and its over!

Americans are so turned off by all of the state primaries and hot air that they are tempted not to vote when the actual time comes. If we had one nationwide primary to pick a nominee, this could be intelligently simplified. And it would eliminate the struggle with states to be among the first few primary states. Too many times the first few primary states pick the nominees for the rest of the country and that just doesn't seem right.

[Zounds]

As an Edwards supporter, I agree that he's out of it. However, I can't see Obama offering him the VP slot. I'd be willing to bet that Obama would want to go with someone like Biden or Richardson to plug his vulnerability on foreign policy experience.

[Bobby Decker]

After Hillary loses in 2008
someone needs to call Ted Kennedy
and HAVE HIM REMOVE THE FEEDING
TUBE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
as its obviously as fuck BRAIN DEAD....Republicans know their ABCS
ANYBODY BEATS CLINTON...I have a good bumper sticker for Hillary
after the sham primaries are over
HILLARY 2008 KISSING ASS AND TAKEING NAMES....when will you people learn...YOU CANT OUT TAX CUT REPUPLICANS....YOU CANT OUT FREE TRADE REPUBLICANS...YOU CANT OUT MORALIZE REPUBLICANS...
the 2008 elections starting to look like its straight the hell out of THE TWLIGHT ZONE

[Wow]

Zounds,

I agree with your post. Richardson would be a good VP choice not only for his foreign policy experience, but he could sway the Hispanic vote too. Knowing that, an Obama/Richardson ticket would be near impossible to beat.

[Alex]

What hillary has going here is a "base" strategy. she only seems to get the base of the dumbocrats.
Independents are moving to Obama not hillary. And Obama also attracts many core dems, especially much younger ones just beginning to get involved. And some repubs are for him as well. The question: How does hillary,if given the nomination, win the general election against any republican? I just do not see it. Many in the dem base are like the repub base: the repubs worship Reagan. Why, I do not know. A big portion of the dem base worship the Clintons. Why? I don't know. But I do know that the American public is virtually brain-dead when it is time to vote for your favored candidate. Hillary can talk about experience all she likes, and even though the public(or a portion of it) says that is important, they are either lying, Irrational,too easily deceived, or our politicians are truly satanic masters of deception.( I think that gives them to much credit.)A number of democrats were much more experienced than she, and yet they dropped out. They just could not find the support based on thier exp. The exp. rationale is just plain bullshit, from clinton and the public.
On NH primary nite, John McCain spelled out the real reason that most people(well connected corpritist or elitist types) run for high office(WH or Con). Self-service.Of course, John McCain was trying to appearas if he was above that by stating it. Cynical you say? Washington DC is well deserving of it. I keep wondering, When are the American people going to get off of this merry-go-round to nowhere? We will probably never know!!

[Zee]

I read as far as "dumocrats" in relation to Hillary and looked to see the useless underhung brat male name, Alex. So sorry your mom didn't suckle you, white male brat. Next!

Interesting ideas by simian and wow, thanks.

I say, go, John, go! The only misstep I've noted by him is not picking off Obama instead of Hillary.
He should be our nominee, but other than that, all you white male brats better not "misunderestimate" the female vote. We'll kick you in the balls and enjoy every exhillaryating moment.

[Alex]

I see that "zee" is enjoying the ride on the merry-go-round to nowhere. A very "uninspiring" post! I doubt you could do better. Poor deluded thing.

[skullgrin]

I think PM is way off! If the Dems want to win they need Edwards. The Reptilians are vulnerable and it's the Dems for the taking, IF THEY DON'T BLOW IT! the coasts are relitively safe and so is Illinois. thus, Obama and Clinton bring nothing to the table. Anyone willing to vote for them would have voted Demo anyways. WE NEED AT LEAST ONE SOUTHERN STATE. Check your history = if the Dems want to win you NEED a white, male, southerner [ie. Carter, Clinton] This is not racist or sexist this is the reality of our messed up nation. Believe it or not there are people out there who voted for Reagan AND Clinton and for Clinton AND Bush Jr.! These are the votes you need to snag. This is no time to be experimenting with gender and race issues - play it safe! Oh, and by the way, he's been beating on the economic issues I've been most concerned about longer than any other candidates. Kids to send to college, elderly parents with shaky healthcare, etc. etc. Damn we need this guy!

[epppie]

I think Edwards can still win, but by elevating his rhetoric , not by dumbing it down.