The jury’s still out on whether McCain’s first three negative ads and accompanying attacks will sway voters. But there’s no doubt that they’ve already succeeded in driving a week’s worth of news, as talking heads debate whether the Illinois Senator is an out-of-touch celebrity, a troop-disser, a race card–player, or a fussy hysteric. Critics, including a onetime Republican rival and one of McCain’s own former top campaign aides, say the salvo has made him seem bitter and unpleasant, which is surely true. But Obama’s reactive posturing seems mostly like a slightly more competent update of previous Democratic losers. He expresses dismay or bemoans cynicism but doesn’t use McCain’s own words to make the sort of emasculating, delegitimizing point that seems most appropriate: John McCain is a sniveling whiner.
After all, what is the Republican really arguing for in his newly ferocious incarnation? He’s not actually talking about leadership, or plans to leave Iraq. He’s complaining about Obama’s good fortune. Boo hoo! The press likes Obama. Sob! The general public enjoys novelty and spectacle. Does someone have a hankie? Some people find his race an appealing reason to vote for him. Cry me a river. And forget pointing out the hypocrisy of such a line of criticism from the guy who’s never lacked an invitation to “Meet the Press,” nor been shy to accept one. Pointing out hypocrisy is for losers. Pointing out un-American wussiness, especially in someone whose life story involves plenty of the contrary, is a tactic the GOP’s own strategists would recognize. Ronald Reagan would have known just what to say in Obama’s place: “There you go again.” He’d have found a way, sweetly, to suggest over and over again that McCain ought to grow a pair. The response would have simultaneously belittled McCain and preempted future recurrences of the attacks. More importantly, it would have established an easy--and extremely unflattering--framework for people to interpret further Republican negative spots: as yet another example of the party’s inability to shut its whiny pieholes.
Painting the Republican as the whiner’s candidate isn’t exactly a stretch. Like the Democrats of an earlier generation, the Republicans in their own age of hubristic overreach seem to revel in playing the victim. Things are always so darned biased against them: The media harps on negative news from Iraq. The secular elitists look down on the religious fundamentalists. The neocons are invariably misunderstood and discriminated against. Those poor young conservatives can’t even get a date on an Ivy League campus. The griping has long been part of the Republican style, but in 2008, with the rest of their brand so thoroughly damaged, it’s all they’ve got left. And when a political movement changes its focus from complaints that are based in reality (illegals are pouring over the border!) to gripes about process (the mean, mean New York Times asked for rewrites of McCain’s op-ed!) its candidates start to look awfully puny, however heroic they used to be. If only their opponents would point it out.