Hard To Master For Some, At Any Rate
The art of losing, that is. Senator McCain, for example.
If, as I expect and, at this point, hope, McCain loses his bid for the Presidency, what is losing going to do to him?
Well, based on McCain’s behavior after losing to George Bush in 2000, and based on his body language in the latter stages of this campaign, I’d guess he’ll spend the next couple of years consumed by anger and bitterness.
Bitterness about what? Apart from losing as such, about what McCain cares most about: the stain on the honor of the United States as President Obama attempts – slowly, slowly – to reduce our presence and profile in Iraq, and accept something far less than the “victory” that McCain is holding out for.
I think there’s a real possibility that Senator McCain will spend between November of this year and the summer of 2010 (when he’ll be absorbed in his own reelection campaign) promulgating a stabbed-in-the-back narrative for the Iraq War, and generally making it as difficult as he can for Obama to pursue his foreign policy with something resembling confidence.
Both the Democrats and the GOP need to start thinking now about how they want to handle McCain if this is indeed the direction he chooses to go: the Democrats because if an Obama Administration spends its first two years looking nervously over its shoulder on foreign policy, it may very well fail (see Obama’s approach to the Russo-Georgian conflict for Exhibit A); the Republicans because it will be difficult for them to pursue a genuine rebuilding effort if they allow themselves to be swept up in a McCain-centric campaign of the sort I fear.
If I were Barack Obama, I would be thinking along the following lines: appoint a Secretary of Defense who will give me credibility with the uniformed services and bolster public support for my policy (I think Hillary Clinton would do will in this role); find a suitable surrogate in the Senate who is eager to take McCain on directly and on his own turf (I think Jim Webb is ideal for this); and find as strong a challenger for McCain’s seat as I possibly can as early as I possibly can (I have no particular ideas here). There’s no need for Obama to be aggressive. He just needs to put the pieces in place to win if McCain chooses to go to war.
The GOP is harder to advise, because they have no leader – which is precisely why they may be vulnerable to such a move by McCain.
Um… Did you mean to say Webb for Defense and Hilary for surrogate?? Webb’s the one who ran the Navy, right?
— Chris Floyd · Oct 8, 03:38 PM · #
Hillary Clinton as SecDef – that seems insane to me. The SecDef not only has to inspire political confidence in the masses as mediated by the media, they also have to inspire confidence and leadership within the Pentagon itself and among the troops. My guess that a Clinton would be uniquely unqualified to perform such a task.
— Randy · Oct 8, 03:40 PM · #
I’d send McCain to negotiate a settlement with the Pashtuns. He’s the kind of man they would respect.
— Steve Sailer · Oct 8, 04:01 PM · #
Hillary for defense secretary? Can we please get someone in there who isn’t a politician, who is okay at doing something competently and quietly?
— bcg · Oct 8, 04:04 PM · #
How likely is it that McCain retires instead of running for reelection in 2010?
I think the more interesting question is how combatants in the upcoming Republican power struggle will treat McCain — whether he’ll be derided as an apostate whose heresies forced Barack Obama upon the nation or seen as a relic of an earlier era who stood in the way of some vague “reform.”
He may also just wind up being gracefully forgotten — aside from his quite good speech at the convention this year, how often have you seen John Kerry in the news lately?
— Zack · Oct 8, 04:12 PM · #
I’d been wondering about HRC at Defense recently, but isn’t her problem that she’s been indifferent to defense issues her whole career? Isn’t that why she supported the Iraq War? Used to be the case that you could just be mindlessly hawkish and not have to face scrutiny—at least, until this year’s primaries. I get the sense that Clinton will soon be at HHS and will be Obama’s chief healthcare pointman. I think that somehow cajoling Bob Gates to stay in the Pentagon could neuter McCain’s upcoming criticism, should the public buy into it (and they ain’t buying it now).
I think the best thing Obama could do to marginalize McCain would be that Obama pursues immigration reform early in his administration. McCain then becomes a pariah to his party once again, and loses re-election. And, as for McCain’s challenger, it’s pretty simple: popular two-term Governor Janet Napolitano.
Is this whole scenario really a concern, though? I was under the impression that McCain had hardly any friends in the Senate and no influence with House Republicans. I doubt that Republicans are going to resort to a twice-failed ancient presidential candidate, especially if Boehner and Blunt draw leadership challenges next year and there’s some fresh blood in that tank.
— Lev · Oct 8, 05:22 PM · #
I hate to pile on, but Clinton for SecDef? Do you think Obama is insane? Nor, for that matter, do I think Clinton would particularly want SecDef. If for some reason she wants to go into the Cabinet, which I doubt, and if Obama is willing to have her there “keep your enemies close/cabinet of rivals”, which I also doubt, look for her being tapped as AG, which would also be a good resume filler for her until the next SCOTUS slot opens up.
If he would take SecDef, Webb would be the obvious choice. Lower profile but probably better would be Jack Reed, maybe Jack Murtha (older than McCain though) or one of the several generals on Obama’s side (Kerrick might be a good choice – intel background and originally on the Clinton team).
— bayesian · Oct 8, 05:40 PM · #
“I think there’s a real possibility that Senator McCain will spend between November of this year and the summer of 2010 . . . promulgating a stabbed-in-the-back narrative for the Iraq War, and generally making it as difficult as he can for Obama to pursue his foreign policy with something resembling confidence.”
This is just silly. Every President has this to deal with. Look what Gore has been doing. Look what Carter has been doing. Clinton? Get real. If Obama can’t deal with this then he is far, far too weak and ineffectual to be President. That may be true, but McCain can’t be blamed for that.
— back40 · Oct 8, 06:47 PM · #
Hillary would be a disaster as SecDef, but Webb might not be much better. He knows a lot, but he also has definite ideas – reorienting U.S. defense policy towards a much larger Navy and Marine Corps, combined with a much more aggressive confrontation towards China. He is a COIN skeptic and as such, given current trends within the Army especially, would likely make an enemy of our largest and most crucial service, the Army.
I’m a Marine grunt, so I’d probably love him, but Webb’s particular hobbyhorses overall might not serve us as well in the COIN fight in Afghanistan.
Hillary? In what world is she credible at all?
More likely is Richard Danzig. The best way forward would be to ask SecDef Gates to stay.
— tequila · Oct 8, 10:19 PM · #
I agree with Zack. One can already hear voices in the Republican party beginning to talk about how McCain blew it. Note today’s POLITCO piece about Republican pundits “scratching their heads.” McCain was not a leader of the Republican party before he became the party’s candidate for president and he will not be a party leader after he loses. There will likely be an interesting debate after this election on who represents the voice of Republican conservatism, but I seriously doubt McCain will be a serious component in that debate. Rather he will be a convenient target, an example of all that went wrong. Someone who managed to represent all that people dislike when they hear the term “right wing” without actually being a conservative.
— Comrade PureGuesswork · Oct 9, 08:14 AM · #
My husband’s in the Army – trust me, appointing Clinton as SecDef will lead to mass resignations all around. No way, no how, no ma,am.
— Jean · Oct 9, 10:12 AM · #
My impression is that “stabbed in the back” narratives are often very effective in enabling defeated political factions to regain power, so I don’t see why that sort of narrative would be a problem for the Republicans. That was certainly Reagan’s narrative with respect to Vietnam. McCain himself is probably too old to be a Republican leader going forward, not that he was much of a party man to begin with.
— y81 · Oct 9, 10:16 PM · #
Another interesting question is—what will Palin do. I see her going back to Alaska of course to finish out her term and perhaps run again. I also see her firming up her resume and looking to 2012 to make her own bid for president. Given the DIFFICULTIES of our time, I could see Obama being vulnerable in 2012 (if he does particularly poorly, look for a tedkennedyisk run by HRC.
Obama would be wise to be non–partisan in his cabinet choices. We’re in a time when we need to put the country first and the party second.
— dennis · Oct 13, 01:41 PM · #