Andrew Sullivan
Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000
Why is it so close? That’s been the chatter after these past two weeks in the three-month run of the Obama-McCain smackdown. The Obamaphiles are nervous that their man has stalled in the polls after what, objectively, was a successful trip overseas. The McCainites, terrified of a Democratic wave, are taking solace in the failure of Barack Obama to break away. The straggling Clintonites are busy preparing their told-you-sos.
There are any number of theories offered for the tightness. One is that Obama is too temperamentally aloof for most Americans. According to the columnist Maureen Dowd, he is the Mr Darcy of American politics, too proud, while Americans are still a little too prejudiced. Or maybe Obama is too popular with Germans for his own domestic good (he’s lucky he didn’t hold a rally on the Champs Elysées). Or is his orthodox liberalism in many areas seeping through, while America remains a centre-right country? Others posit that the only halfway normal Americans who focus on the campaign in early August are the elderly, and they are demographically more in tune with John McCain.
Who knows for sure? My view is that McCain was always the most appealing Republican in the current atmosphere and Obama is, for many people, a less well-known and riskier bet. But two factors are undervalued. The first is Iraq. It’s easily forgotten but Obama’s candidacy would never have gained the slightest traction were it not for his opposition to the war from the start. It’s what distinguished him from Hillary Clinton and, in the midst of apparent chaos and drift in Mesopotamia, his campaign gave voice to those who simply wanted to cut American losses and move on.
However, there’s a difference between Iraq in mid2006 and Iraq in mid2008. The swift decline in violence and the growing confidence of the government of Nouri al-Maliki have changed the debate from how to leave as quickly as feasible to the costs and benefits of staying longer or leaving sooner, and the tactics of each option. The catastrophe endures, of course; the political progress in Baghdad remains fitful, as the Iraqis’ failure last week to compromise on plans for provincial elections this autumn demonstrates; and the financial costs grow all the time. However, the sharp decline in American deaths has rescued the neo-imperial project from universal obloquy. McCain can rightly claim that he was more right about General David Petraeus’s tactical shift than Obama was. In some respects, he was more right than even Petraeus was.
To be sure, Maliki’s endorsement of Obama’s withdrawal timetable was a big blow to the McCain effort to describe the Democrat’s policy as surrender or betrayal. However, any news that takes the edge off Iraq as a total fiasco helps the Republican. Americans don’t like to admit defeat and the face-saving qualities of the surge give McCain an opening to end the war with less disgrace than might have been the case. McCain’s position, after all, was to hang in while Iraq burnt because the alternative was worse. His new position is to hang in and somehow turn a strategic blunder into a strategic success. This is a much, much better place for McCain to be than he was just five months ago. Still not great; but no longer awful.
The second factor, I’d argue, is, paradoxically, Democratic strength. The shift away from the Republicans is pronounced everywhere and few doubt that the Democrats could make big gains in both House and Senate this autumn. This is partly behind the worries about Obama: he’s trailing his party by a significant margin. However, it may be that the margin is precisely what’s giving voters pause. The threat of the kind of Republican agenda that propelled George Bush from 2002 to 2006 is, after all, much diminished. McCain, moreover, is not so bad a figure to deal with a Democratic Congress from the perspective of many independent voters, especially since Congress is pretty much reviled as well.
The choice has evolved to that between an all-Democratic government, headed by a senator whose newness is still one of the most striking things about him, and an old, familiar warhorse who irritated all the right Republicans at one point or another and has a record of bipartisan achievement. Seen in that light, the voters’ reluctance to swing behind Obama in landslide numbers is understandable.
Obama has huge liabilities. He has never held real executive office and has been in Washington barely for a single senatorial term. He came out of nowhere to dominate the scene in ways that many Americans are still trying to process. He has been criticised as a far-left extremist, a prissy elitist, a cynical centrist and a secretly Muslim fraud. Examining this figure who is asking to be president at the tender age of 47, watching him adapt and move on the national state, is a sensible precaution. Americans are a prudently cautious lot and it speaks well of them that many are reserving final judgment.
And, as we learnt all too brutally in 2000, the US election is decided by the electoral college, not the national vote. There, a small advantage can translate into big wins, as the system is first past the post. Obama is now ahead by only two points or so in several key states: Colorado, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia. If he were merely to maintain his lead, he would snag 322 electoral votes to McCain’s 216. That’s a bigger victory than anyone since Bill Clinton’s second term and bigger than Jimmy Carter’s victory in 1976.
Put like that, and considering the racial Rubicon that Obama is hoping to cross, perhaps what’s striking is that a young black liberal Democrat is still the clear favourite. Nationally, McCain has yet to get much more than 44% of the vote, while Obama hasn’t sunk below 46% since May. Moreover, McCain has never led Obama in two months of a national match-up. That’s why it’s still Obama’s to lose. There will be some swings ahead, if the past is any guide, but so far the basic dynamic hasn’t really changed. And it’s McCain who has to change it. And soon.
Andrew Sullivan is an author, academic and journalist. He holds a PhD from Harvard in political science, and is a former editor of The New Republic. His 1995 book, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, became one of the best-selling books on gay rights. He has been a regular columnist for The Sunday Times since the 1990s, and also writes for Time and other publications.
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2006
£10,750
Great car insurance deals online
£Excellent+ executive benefits
Torres and Partners
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
Alstom Power
Europe
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Great Investment, River Views
Special Offers now available
At the new sophisticated
Encore Las Vegas Resort!
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
I didn't vote for Bush, but I think Bush is more qualified than Obama. Bush kept us safe after 9/11.This quote isn't true: "...McCain has yet to get ... more than 44% of the vote, while Obama hasnt sunk below 46% since May." I look at the polls at least two or three times per week.
Jill, Cleveland, USA
Might it be that he is a first-term senator with no significant executive experience. He might just be qualified for Lt. Governor - not the presidency!
Andre, Portland, USA
The clintonites must love war..... if they keep up there childish act Mcain will be elected and more people will die PERIOD.
Shawn, Gold River, United States
"And, as we learnt all too brutally in 2000, the US election is decided by the electoral college, not the national vote."
Decided by the Electoral College? Don't you mean, the Supreme Court?
It is amazing that there are people who voted for GW Bush yet believe Obama is not qualified to be President.
Albert, Hong Kong,
"The doubts starting to rein back Obama", the headline says. What's new? These doubts you have helped manufactured. They are many more been processed in the factory as we read.
Jide Salu, Victoria Island,Lagos,
Obama has the least impressive background of any candidate in the history of the country. It amazes me that HE thinks he is qualified to be president.
Lee Rea, Ventura, CA, USA
I will like to remind you of almost all the past president who became president at the ripe age of fouty something. When you talk about experience George W.Bush was supposed to have had experience but we all can see where his experience has brought us. Wall street has crumbled, our 401k has vanis
Ben , Cerritos, USA
Obama is stalling because of the Clinton supporters
Donna , Kingston, Jamaica
Well, Obama is the face of new generation, a bit more vocal. More commitment means more liability. Overall he sounds confident, albeit he may falter to keep the promises because of he may found himself overloaded with emerging issues-- election promises may take back sit. Hearing campaign advisors?
Mrs. Anindita Dey, Karnal, India
Now that you have done an expose on the "doubts" about Obama, do a similar expose on the "doubts" about McCain. In journalism that is called balance. I want you to uncover every gaffe and every risk that is posed by McCain.
And finally: A lead is a lead is a lead. Obama is leading!!!!!!
Mmualebe Lagagwe, Windhoek, Namibia
Read Obama's autobiography, and the one McCain had someone write for him. The phony criticisms of Obama are crafted by his opponents to deflect our attention from McCain's pathetic ignorance & lack of ideas, his big money backers (oil, pharmaceuticals) and his lack of support for women and veterans.
Andrea Rademan, Beverly Hills, USA
hey jack,
the war on iraq was not sold to us as just the removing of a tyrant. we were told he was dangerous (he wasn't), that efforts to contain him had not worked (they had - our own generals told us that afterward, look it up), that removal would lead to peace and democracy..... shall i go on?
joe, nyc, usa
To any person who calls themself christian. Think about the beliefs of Obama. If you believe in the bible and the ten commandments listen to obama stand up and condem them just by stating that he believes in a womans right to choose abortion. How many other liberal ideals does he promote.
Monica, Boquete, Panama
It goes to show you how screwed up so many Americans are that so many will support McCain for President this year in spite of the utterly disgraceful record of Republican leadership these last 8 years. Vote for McCain, you're insane.
Obama is clearly the most sensible choice moving forward.
Tim Silva, McKinleyville, California, USA
"McCain has never led Obama in two months of a national match-up. "
False. He's been up in the Rasmussen and Gallup polls a few times - by a very small margin, to be sure.
Knemon, New Haven, CT, USA
Mr Ziemann, I think you said it in a nutshell. A McCain win would be like America re-electing Herbert Hoover, never mind the Great Depression. Yes Obama is untried, untested and could be another Jimmy Carter. I wanted Hillary. But the alternative is worse, far worse.
David WIlson, Washington DC, USA
McCain wins office 'n it's business as usual for Republicans in the Exec returning to their desks the very next workday. Reviewing their track record/impact over the last 8 years, I'm reminded of Einstein's saying, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
James, London, UK
If White America, will look at the past and what past Presidents, excluding ( Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton) have done and stop looking at Colour and start thinking of what's best for America, Mr. Obama will be the next President. Our Judicial Houses will keep , Obama straight and True.
Lamont, Brooklyn, USA
If America elects another Republican president after Bush, we should be invaded for our own good.
G Ziemann, Tempe, AZ, USA
Jack,
Saddam was a tyrant. There are MANY tyrants all over the world, we (the US) stand by while they massacre thousands of people. The deciding factor for Iraq was OIL. We didn't go to Darfur, or to Rwanda because there was no economic reason for us to go.
john, Minneapolis, MN,
For a country thats crying out for change; America is still not ready for a black president, in the next coming months ppl will make every excuse not to vote for Obama, even though is clearly qualified. All the talk about experience LOOK at Bush the least qualified president ever. TIME TO WAKE UP!
Steven Jones , Melbourne, Australia
As a Republican, I have some doubts about McCain. As an American, I have profound doubts about Obama.
Clement R Knorr, Tucson, Arizona, USA
The "brilliant" DNC chose to pass over the Democrat who got the most votes and instead hand-pick The One with the fainting cult following, chanting "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" to his every utterance.
Yet again, the DNC has proven to be unbeatable at snatching Defeat out of the jaws of Victory.
Jan, Nashua, NH,
Those who still peddle the lie that the Democrats are high tax and fiscally irresponsible should look at the records of the Clinton and Bush admins. Clinton left a huge budget surplus which Bush frittered away on tax cuts for millionaires and his oil buddies. So who is irresponsible?
Roy, Hong Kong,
Obama's ego is so inflated that they are measuring his head for Mount Rushmore.
PE, Saint Louis,
To be honest I am put off by both candidates. McShame is to old and Opra-bama is to young. Unfortunatly this is not Goldilocks and out of nowhere the 'just right' candidate will pop up and all will be well. Sadly many people are going to opt out of this election and not vote at all.
Hedda Lettuce, NYC, United States
Unlike any other people in the world, the Yanks have an opportunity to have a bloodless revolution every four years. For well over 200 years, they have exercised or declined that option in a manner that in the view of history has proven them correct. (A minority of Chicken Littles aside.)
Bob Evans, Anaheim, California
I think if you listen to the voters, instead of the punduts, you'll find that Obama has steered away from the core causes that brought his main supportors to his banner. Essentially, he's leaning too far to the right, and, also he is wimping out in his remarks about McCain. We don't like that.
Nancy, NY state, USA
Helen,
The academic qualifications you describe may make a good presidential advisor, but not a president. Presidents learn leadership through executive experience: as governors, as military leaders. The fact that you think a J.D. is relevant says a lot about the way liberals view leadership.
Matt Ward, Greenville, SC
Thanks for this article. I was beginning to wonder if anybody is still thinking clearly in all this empty Obama euphoria. The nation will be better off with a centrist President McCain and a Democratic congress instead of a leftist Obama and an even farther left Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid congress.
Milton, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Just what record of "bipartisan achievements" has McCain really had? McCain-Feingold, which he now regularly violates? He has voted with Bush 95% of the time. He has a lousy record. He is also running a disgusting campaign of lies, cheered on by the most degenerate elements of the radical right.
Joseph Miller, Kapaa, United States
Good article (though about 75% of these comment are hilarious and make me feel bad for both sides at once). At this point, though, only people who read political commentary for fun are watching the race closely. Trying to figure out what the public at large thinks amounts to reading tea leaves.
David Birch, Chilliwack,
A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
Hal, New York, U.S.
Replying to Helen Clark:
I think you just explained why we should vote for McCain. We're looking for a national leader, not a exam proctor.
WT, Plattsburgh NY, USA
I am always interested in knowing how we are viewed from abroad, from people and their institutions that see us from a very different perspective. The American public is not a very good voting group, while they make fun of "banana republics", which they help create they do not appreciate democracy.
Arnoldo Torres, Elk Grove, United States
The world needs a US that is loved, not hated. That is why Obama, not McCain, needs to win, because that is when people will start doing favours for the US again - help bring down the price of oil, give much needed support to the US economy etc...
Just a shame some americans don't get it.
Terry, London, UK
The Republicans have entirely failed by any measure - the economy, wars overseas or preventing terrorism (Bin Laden is still at large). The world, not just the US, is in a much worse state than 8 years ago. So the next president MUST be a Democrat, and since they've chosen Obama, it must be him.
Graham, Bath, UK
You say, who will pay these taxes Under Obama? The same ones under Bush who pay for the sub-prime mess; for the stock market at the same level as when Clinton left; for $4.00 a gallon gasoline; for the budget surplus that has turned into a multi-trillion debt; for the sinking dollar; + so much more.
Lee, sterling, usa
The more OB runs his mouth, the more we get to "know" him...and, it ain't good. He is so politically immature it is frightening.
DC, North Florida, USA
Replying to NC Little Rock re qualifications. I took the trouble to research the qualifications of McCain, Barack and Clinton.
McCain has Military College, Barack has majored in International Relations, degree in political science at Columbia Uni. followed with law at Harvard graduating J.D mcl.
Helen Clark, Albany, USA
Bush hasn't been a *total* looser. The economy's done surprisingly well considering two wars, 9/11 and oil at $100+ a barrel. Two excellent Supreme Court nominations may save the Constitution from the liberals. And history may yet record Iraq as a masterstroke, though a badly executed one.
W M Morgan, Mobile, AL, USA
Mr. Sullivan, wake up! Obama hasn't tacked to the left, he's veered way off to the right. Obama's stall in the polls is because much of "the left" is disgusted with Obama's flipflops and transformation into a candidate who embraces policies and rationales of the right wing.
ongho, Easton, USA
I do not like either of the 2 candidates, but you know whats been going on secretly since the past 8 yrs the US has been trying to start a war with Russia, all the republicans have been, mainly because who owns stock in the defense contractor firms,I prefer Obama he wont cause WW3 wake up people.
Denord, New York, USA
It because the American people are simply not ready to have a bi-racial man as President. American for all its charm still hold to the mind set that whites are the only one to hold that power. As a Black Woman in America I still see the signs of the Civil Rights Era and that is not progress.
Pricilla Collier, Fontana, USA
Obama was the "dream" candidate, all the good things people wish for... but as reality rears its ugle head, we are seeing he's just another shady Chicago pol, hanging out with anti-American pastors, far-left Hollywood kooks, and he has plans to use failed Marxist policies to destroy the US.
Dan, Columbus,
Yes, your analysis is correct and most of the pundits have been wide of the mark. The man`s relative inexperience is what bothers so many Americans but when we put that issue in the context of contemporary American history, we will see that the issue is moot.
geoffrey ellis aronson, mexico city, mexico
You really should allow us more than a few hundred characters. You had your say in an unrestricted way, please be more considerate.
Harry Truman had less than a year as a vice president before ascending to the presidency. Jimmy Carter had only 4 years as a governor as did Ronnie Reagan.
geoffrey ellis aronson, mexico city, mexico
If Obama had McCains' policies, even being a republican following Bush would not stop him being miles ahead. It's a testament to his appallingly damaging policies that even with his extra-ordinary charisma he is dead-heating with McCain.
John, Londion,
It is sad that you have to resort to calling Obama a "a secretly Muslim fraud" to give your flimsy argument traction.
Joel Harte, Seattle, USA
Who are these mythical people claiming Obama is a muslim?!? I know the Clinton campaign said some racist comments, referred to him as a drug-dealer, etc. But name some people. Quit speaking in generalities that people assume are true but nobody can prove.
Joe, Albany,
You are wrong Andrew Sullivan. The problem is Americans are just plain old DUMB. And if they elect McShame we are SCREWED.
And as for the GOP talking heads, you all say the same thing. Bush has totally RUINED this country. A vote for McShame is a vote for McSAME
Tony, New York,
"Experienced" people like Cheney led us to a war of choice. Bush (former governor) with the so called executive experience is leaving us with trillions of debt. Mccain has been there for over 20 years. Do we wanna continue along the same failed path?Turn the page for your children's future
emily, Richmond, Virgini, USA
Mark ... clearly, if you can ask that question, you haven't realistically imagined Saddam still in power.
Perhaps you have him confused with the one in the Michael Moore movie. That was fiction.
Phil, Columbia, MO, USA
It's pretty simple for the taxpaying portion of the US electorate: the combination of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with increased majorities and no one to check their excesses is lethal. Only the welfare recipients and vulture capitalists like George Soros and Warren Buffett can afford Obama.
Cincinnati Rick, Cincinnati, US
Mark, VA...
Couldn't be said any better.
Young wasted American lives, only justified by those of ignorance.
F.S.Summers, NY.,
It should be noted that George H W Bush was down by 17 points in the polls at this time in early August of 1988. The Obamaites have good reason to be nervous. Why was Obama so freely and openly associating with the self professed domestic terrorists William Aries, socially and professionally?Pause??
Bill McCarthy, Gallup, NM , USA
At least you didn't imply, like many US op-eds, that we're racists if we don't vote for Obama. Obama has big negatives - liberalism, inexperience, dubious friends. His lack of qualifications is scary. Also, his oposition to the war was made as a lowly Illinois senator. He should wait for 2012.
NC, Little Rock, US
Jack Williams writes, "Imagine Saddam still in power."
Ok, I've imagined that.
Now, imagine 4,000 dead young Americans could come back to live full lives.
And then tell me why they died.
Mark Dobbins, Charlottesville, VA, USA
It's amazing to me that we dwell on Obama's Iraq stance and his lack of experience. What we should be worried about is his plan to "reinvent" the US economy with income redistribution and taxes on everything that breathes or moves. Just who will be left to pay these taxes?
Chuckiechan, Antelope, USA
Obama is trying to force race as an issue-it's not to most of us. We already have a socialist congress and a dictatorial judiciary. We don't want a socialist in the WH. He may be good for the NE liberals and Left coast fruities, but the rest of us recognize this smooth charlatan for what he is
arthur, huntsville, us
To Jack Williams - your thinking is broken. No one loved Saddam Hussiein. Many of us, however, believe the same as candidate G.W. Bush - who famously said that american troops should not be involved in nation building.
Michael Heuss, Gainesville, FL, United States
What was it about Saddam Hussain newspaper "intellectuals" loved so much? Was it the rape rooms? the 3 wars? hundreds of thousands dead? 10 million barrals oil in the ocean? Removing that lunatic was "no strategic blunder," except in the eyes of the obtuse. Imagine Saddam still still in power.
Jack Williams, Metairie, Louisiana, USA