You Read It Here First

On March 12 I predicted in this blog that the Republican policy on the subprime economic crisis would be to save the banks and to throw defaulting borrowers to the wolves. John McCain said exactly that today.

“Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy,” Mr. McCain said, speaking before a business group in Santa Ana, Calif.

He went on to add hypocrisy and insult to proposed injury, saying,

“it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

Since the Bear Stearns bailout has already made it clear that the government will in fact bail out irresponsible big banks, who does that leave for the government not to bail out? Surprise!

Admittedly it takes something less than a genius to figure out that the Republicans would do whatever it takes to rescue the banks and nothing at all to help would-be middle class homeowners. The surprise is that they said so openly and early enough to be held accountable in the election.

The only reason for such a politically seemingly-suicidal course would be that the McCain people, like the Clinton people, are intimidated by the enormous pile of cash accumulated by Obama. Money wins elections. [An obvious proof that democracy doesn't work.] Obama has $80 million, twice as much as McCain and Clinton combined. The reason McCain would make such a remark to a group of Orange County businessmen may well be that right now he needs money more than he needs votes.

I am rapidly being polarized off my 'plague on both your houses' nonpartisan perch. My growing antagonism against McCain and the Republicans also informs my preferences in the Democratic nomination struggle.

I confess that I have preferred Clinton because she has become willy nilly the candidate of both women and working people (now that Edwards is out). Obama represents a coalition of suburban liberals and black people, neither of whom I identify with. White wine and beer versus red wine and malt liquor. But looking forward to the general election, it is urgent that the Democratic candidate be someone who can mop the floor with McCain.

McCain has three liabilities:
a) He is no debater. He could barely out-debate a mutt like Mitt Romney. Mitt the mutt.
b) He has, or is being forced into, indefensible positions.
c) He is unlikable.

Clinton's liabilities complement those of McCain
a) She is not as good a speaker as Obama.
b) She has a longer record and more to defend than Obama.
c) She is less likable than Obama.

I am now disposed to prefer Senator Obama. It is in large part to avoid the frustrations of 2004. That year the Republican incumbent went around the country saying one stupid and indefensible thing after another and John Kerry was never quite articulate enough to refute and confound him. Kerry never got traction and he never got elected. One can see that happening to Clinton. One can't with Obama.

Ironically the modern precedent for the success of a candidate whose qualifications are largely intelligence and effectiveness as a speaker and debater, is Senator Clinton's husband.

If Obama is the candidate, the McCain campaign will do everything it can to limit the number and length of the debates. But with the availability of instant film clips on TV and the internet, whenever McCain speaks, Obama can be shown refuting his remarks on the same day's news reports. Even if the McCain people evade direct debate, there will be virtual debate.

It would be frustrating beyond bearing if the Democrats, facing an unpopular president, an unpopular war, a failing economy, and a weak Republican candidate, should still manage to lose the election.


.