John McCain: The Worst Presidential Candidate in Modern History? (tops even Bob Dole in 1996)

I attended a forum last week with Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitisas and Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democratic Network (NDN). The latter asserted that John McCain was the “worst presidential candidate” in the nation’s modern political history, and contended that there was a “25% chance” that he would be replaced as the Party’s nominee. Having previously written Why McCain Can’t Win, I was not surprised by Rosenberg’s assessment. But he noted some key McCain defects that the traditional media has largely ignored, bolstering his case that the presumptive Republican nominee is a much weaker candidate than 1996’s Bob Dole. Markos, who many Kossacks had criticized earlier that day for lampooning the yellowness of McCain’s teeth, also made some important observations about the 2008 election that deserve wider attention.

McCain’s Media Honeymoon to End?

Rosenberg was part of the 1992 Clinton campaign and his group has invested tremendous resources in Spanish-language media for Democrats. He made a very strong case for McCain’s historic weakness. He noted the candidate’s inability to correctly identify the religious factions in either Iraq or Iran, his flip-flopping on aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina, and his even more flagrant backflips in his stance on comprehensive immigration reform.

He noted that no candidate in memory has so frequently misstated his own positions/track record. Rosenberg even cited an example where McCain took a position in a speech that directly contradicted his website; McCain explained the discrepancy by saying his own website was wrong.

To paraphrase George W. Bush, the presumptive Republican nominee is clearly a guy who doesn’t “get” the Internets.

Worse than Bob Dole:

Some believe that Dole was the worst national presidential candidate in modern history. But those who remember former Kansas Senator Bob Dole for something other than Viagra ads know that he had a wry sense of humor and was quite popular among his fellow Republican Senators. Despite having to play “hatchet man” as the VP nominee for Gerald Ford in 1976, Dole very much helped the ticket (his debate comment about WWII being a “Democratic war” notwithstanding.)

Dole was a weak nominee against incumbent Bill Clinton in 1996, but had the support of the Republican base. In contrast, Rosenberg repeated the widely held view that his fellow Republican Senators are actually scared of McCain having his hand anywhere near the nuclear button.

As Rosenberg observed, once groups like EMILY’s List get through exposing McCain’s staunch opposition to a woman’s right to choose, few will be claiming that Obama has a “woman problem.” (The fact that polls had him leading Clinton among women at the end of the race was widely ignored by the traditional media).

And McCain’s pre-2007 stances on comprehensive immigration reform (which he once supported but now opposes), hostility to right-wing preachers (he’s now their buddy), and support for campaign finance reform (he has since manipulated the public financing law as part of his primary campaign) estranged him from the Republican base. His shift to the right since 2007 will not lead the party’s base to go all out for him as they did for George W. Bush.

The long list of McCain flip-flops, which include his support for Bush’s waging of the war, is not widely known. According to Rosenberg, this is about to change, and we should start seeing evidence of this less favorable coverage of the “maverick” Republican this week.

Rising Latino Voting:

Rosenberg’s chief expertise is in Latino voting, and he and Markos made two important points that I have not heard elsewhere.

First, Rosenberg said that the number of registered Latino Democrats in Florida now exceeds Republican registered Latinos for the first time since the Cuban Revolution. Since Cuban Republicans are the bulwark of the Party’s statewide political clout, this is a potentially major shift that could put Florida in the blue column in presidential elections for years to come.

(Perhaps acknowledging his concern over Florida, McCain is said to be seriously considering Governor Charlie Christ as a running mate. This may explain why Christ, long rumored to be gay, went out of his way last week to be seen publicly canoodling with a female socialite—as if he knows he is being considered and wants to dispel conservative concerns about his sexual orientation.)

Second, both pointed out the incredible job of the Clinton campaign in getting Latinos out to vote in South Texas. Turnout was off the charts in that region, and if it continued in November, Texas would potentially be in play for Obama (Rosenberg said that meetings are being held now to determine if Obama could potentially win the state).

Back in the 1970’s, Tom Hayden said he started the Campaign for Economic Democracy (CED) in California because, among other reasons, the state had a greater chance than Texas or Florida to vote Democratic in presidential races. He was right. Now, however, rising Latino voting for Democrats is moving the other two states in California’s direction, with dramatic implications for the future course of U.S. politics (Rosenberg predicted Latinos’ going Democratic this fall by a 74-26% margin.)

Obama’s VP Choice

Kos identified his own three favorites for the vice-presidential choice: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. He emphasized a point that those who keep arguing that Obama needs someone with foreign policy experience miss: that such a pick would primarily serve to highlight Obama’s own perceived deficiency.

I have made my own case for Sebelius. McCaskill’s early endorsement of Obama was a courageous and critical move, and she seems to have a good personal relationship with him. Kaine does as well, though he is less known nationally than even Sebelius, and is less effective than the other two in conveying a message of change.

I would be quite surprised if Obama did not pick a female running mate.

2003 v. 2008

When Daily Kos began in 2003, Howard Dean was perceived as “too liberal” to win the presidential nomination by the traditional media. Why? Because he opposed the Iraq War, backed universal health care, and supported civil unions for gays and lesbians.

In 2008, Barack Obama won the nomination with similar views, which now are widely held by the broader public.
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5751

I agree, McCain's a pretty shitty candidate, but how realistic are the chances that they'd replace him? And who would they replace him with?

Maybe Bloomberg, Fred Thompson, Giuliani or Bobby Jindal would replace him at the last minute??

I hope to see more of her... she's very impressive.

....nobody with two brain cells left to rub together thought he was presidental material...the MEDIA RULES...and the computer voting machines promise a win for whomever the powers that be...WANT to be put under the puppet masters control...regardless of any reason or logic. :nopity:

Bush had Conservatives believing in his promises of smaller Govt and no "nation-building" - they were solidly behind him in 2000 and again in 2004 with the War still not being the nationally recognized fiasco that it is.

McCain is hated by Conservatives, especially the Immigration voters, is pissing of the Evangelicals and is actively chasing Indy's and Hillary Dems. He couldn't possibly be cracking his own foundation worse if he tried.

And even though Bush has his speaking issues, he always had that 'likeable' factor for Repubs that McCain simply doesn't. He's just too creepy and no believes a word out of his mouth. The one and only argument any GOPer has at this point is that he is not Obama. That doesn't win elections.

I may eat my words, but if we can't beat a sorry ass candidate like McCain in this environment we should just give up.

Here's what I'd do. Have McCain pull out "for health reasons." And nominate Condi Rice.

I hesitate even to say this, it's so scary and so potentially brilliant (a black AND a woman AND "experienced" AND...). But I had to spit it out. Cuz we should be warned. No matter that she's an architect of the Iraq War, the lies, the torture, everything. No matter that SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people oppose this war and want it ended. They've got Diebold and brethren for that. And they can write a plausible narrative to back it up.

With the Bushites still having fresh plans for nuking Iran, or invading South America (in support of fascist secessionist states in oil-rich areas of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia--plots that are in progress), they must have some kind of ideas for retaining power. Could this be it? Condi?

He's being sacrificed. Bush's huge turd-pie called "Iraq" didn't go off as planned. I believe the GOP know it's losing this one. I believe that's why Edwards was knocked out early on--the corporations knew they couldn't win against his populist campaign.

Perhaps the GOP thinks it has a better chance against Obama, but the GOP movers-and-shakers don't want to get their hair mussed and are wating for 2012.

You assume the GOP wants to win this election, I don't. With all the strong Republicans out their McCain was the BEST they could do? Look, this country is in pretty shitty shape thanks to the GOP. Their is NO way they can fix it. The GOP's only hope is to let the Dems have it, hope they screw it up more and come back in 2012 to save the day.

Things are so screwed up right now, there is no way a 1 term President can do it. I'm sure thats why Romney pulled out as quickly as he did.