Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (385317)	5/20/2008 8:32:12 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574953

The call of Obama A top McCain strategist delivers a stunner: he'll dump his candidate if Obama is the Democratic nominee. What does it mean? Michael Tomasky Here's the sort of campaign news you don't often see: An adviser to John McCain has, according to Newsweek, told his campaign that if the Democrats nominate Barack Obama, he'll leave McCain because he can't see himself opposing the Illinois senator. The adviser is Mark McKinnon, who may fairly be described as a universe of one in US politics. A Democrat, McKinnon nevertheless signed up with George Bush in 2000 as chief media adviser. In those days, he and his television advertising helped finish off McCain's 2000 candidacy. But McKinnon is working for McCain these days. And now, McKinnon has apparently told his colleagues in the McCain campaign that "while he opposed Obama's policies, especially on Iraq, he felt that the Illinois senator - as an African-American politician - has a unique potential to change the country." Did I write that this is the kind of campaign news you don't often see? Let me clarify: This is the sort of campaign news you never see. I've covered these things since 1988, more or less, and I'm confident I've never seen a consultant - not just any consultant, but a famous and high powered one - say to his candidate that he might have to bolt from the campaign so he can support someone from the other party. It's completely unheard of (assuming that McKinnon said it; there are no actual quotes in the Newsweek item). So it's stunning news. But how significant is it? For now, I'd "reasonably," say for three reasons. First, McKinnon's apparent sentiment is a good symbol of the potential that exists in Obama's candidacy. While he trails Hillary Clinton and even sometimes John Edwards in most polls, it's also the case that he does seem to have more crossover appeal than they do. He tends to do better against the three leading Republicans in head-to-head polls than either Clinton or Edwards, which means by definition that he's getting more support from independent voters. The idea at the centre of Obama's campaign - more precisely, the central gamble - is that America (or at least 51% of America, i.e. enough to win) is sick of our red-blue schism and wants to be united. Edwards is running a more aggressively liberal campaign, and Clinton, though the most centrist of the three major Democrats, has some obvious hurdles to jump on the unity course. So Obama has self consciously pitched himself as the one with the most crossover appeal. This makes some liberals suspicious of him - that is, if the likes of McKinnon is all right with him, then there must be something wrong with him. But since liberals constitute only about 20% of the electorate, a candidate has no choice but to go fishing in other ponds. Second, the news constitutes a small shot in the arm for an Obama campaign sorely in need of one. It's a fact that his campaign hasn't been racking up the victories in the last few months. The best thing that's happened to Obama since he announced his candidacy in February has been not anything he's done, but something done to him: the Clinton campaign's attacks on him in the wake of David Geffen's remarks to New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd. That incident made it clear that Clinton feared Obama, and it gave him some momentum. But since then, Obama has been sort of flat in debates and hasn't scored a major endorsement or had a big moment. Clinton has won the debates and been endorsed by the Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, and others. The McKinnon statement isn't a "big moment"; it matters only to junkies. But since it's largely only junkies who are paying attention now, it will register with insiders and get them thinking more about the plausibility of Obama winning the Democratic nomination, which is something most junkies haven't been thinking about lately. And the third reason this news has significance? It has to do not with Obama but with McCain. This is not a good sign. Campaigns are corporations, with dozens or hundreds of employees, in intense competition with the other corporations for talent and resources. Loyalty must be blind; discipline must be comprehensive; cohesion must be complete. If the loyalty of your arguably most famous adviser is so conditional that he'll leave you for someone from the other party, that has to have a big internal impact. This is not a tornado; just a quick strong wind. But it blows at a good time for Obama and a bad time for McCain. commentisfree.guardian.co.uk