...
idealism is the new pragmatism? (pt2/ pts 1, 2, 3) now just assume he gets 8, obama’s first 2 years would be so essential. they can have no plan that is not based on an 8-year term otherwise he will never build the kind of capital he is going to need for health care. he needs a unilateral recall of this war by executive order within the first 6mos. its not that i think that is necessarily the smartest thing to do strategically in iraq, and its of debatable value to the region. he needs to follow through in the same window by divesting iraq of us troops and putting them in Afghanistan as he says he will do. again, this is not military strategy, this is political.
now the war ramps up on the other side of iran, Israel is less of a good idea to them (ie, if you fly a bomber from Iran through Iraq, why not drop bombs all the way to the med?). so, you get a debate going, yaddah diplomatic surge the way it should be, blah blah the news slows (though actually casualties are higher out of afghanistan of late). this gives an up front good faith measure that partisans and campaign supporters who put in their 5$ can see immediately; gain some trust.
all that assumes a smooth what for; but essentially it’s in everyone’s interest for us to be in afghanistan except iran and a.q.i. for both it will require a complete realignment of resources; unfortunately both are more mobile than us. consequently, as dems are want to do (ask jfk & jimmy carter), the CIA gets a big bump as does the intel community as a whole (head over to etrade if obama gets elected). (better not fear no black ops!) anyway, once 2010 rolls around youre dealing with midterms. campaigning reps shouldnt be seen as a negative, rather as a positive for happy-smiley legislation that they cant possibly pass on. this is where you do the coalition, unity thing. go after a border wall. do it. do it now. go after all the wedge issues that the gop would use if mmcain werent the nominee. i hate immigration as an issue; its so dead its no longer red but rather a pickled herring.
however, its so prime for undermining all republican efforts throughout the midterm and such a good way to keep and build trust from the 2008 election. a) the fence itself isnt necessarily controversial and obama is in favor of it and he can explain that to the base as long as he doesnt start to condescend to talk to us like adults. b) the fence is beloved by 2nd arms budding gop single issue wtf’ers because its so obvious as a good idea to ‘stem the tide of illegal immigration.’ get those three things done by the first of the midterm elections and youve got an 8-year tenure. if you dont, there will be no health care anything. nothing. nothing. nothing. just ask hillary and bill.
now, they faced a significantly different situation back in the day; this two year plan will make ripe the change they couldnt accomplish (after about 3 years of capital/C…ol consolidation?). thats not to say they couldnt be the spear-heads of the second go-around (psst, theyd love it!). there are so many left over, non-issue issues to be thrown as bones to the partisan hacks on both sides that a unity government should be a fairly straightforward task though give and take will be the language of the day.
actually, i could see many of the dems being more averse to the risks obama will pose on their subsidies than mmcain. who do you think would gut ethanol? take the farm/city boy out of illinois and plop him in the big chair? hes likelier to make diverse investments in office than mmcain. mmcain i see needing the ethanol lobby and farming lobbies generally as they will be his inside track to yellow dogs and midwesterners.
what issues will mmcain be able to throw overboard for the sake of a message’s buoyancy? what lobbies could he divest? he cant; his base of support is not diverse and faceless. mmcain will need to look in each of their eyes; and they will know he’s a desperate man.