And this critique of the McCain campaign.....

is brought to you by our dear friend, Jordan C. Clark, who writes:

McCain's campaign has consistently seemed to rely on a warped philosophy that suggests that the truth is less important than what people are willing to believe.

The insulting fact of the way they've run the campaign is simple.

They banked on a majority of Americans to be the Fox News audience who trust and buy into the "spin-free zones" and empty polls, or choose the least articulate liberals to defend valid perspectives against any member of the right-wing elite willing to appear.

They lie, or, at the very least, mislead the public and the reach they have is stunning, but they gambled on a majority that just isn't there. Unfortunately for them, there are a fair number of Republicans with analytical, critically-thinking minds, who are not fooled by the same sources over and over again.

Perhaps, of the unthinking masses, this may be true, but in supposing that the dumbest sector of their voting base made up enough of a majority that they could win the election with only their votes, they abandoned the most valuable, thinking members of their party. (Example: George Will)

Maybe there is more to it.

If the candidate were able to back himself up, make a real case, then maybe he would have been able to win the intelligent republicans by speaking articulately, clearly communicating his strengths as a candidate. Instead, his opportunities to face off with Obama have been squandered with vague responses when he should have offered clarity, attacks where he should have tooted his own horn, and condescension when he should have been respectful. If his strength isn't policy, but rather his honorable character, then he should have worked harder at being more charismatic and less insulting, both to his opponent, and, in this longed-for town hall format, to those asking questions ("You probably never even heard of Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac before two weeks ago!")

McCain was vague and avoided questions, but wasted plenty of Tom Brokaw's time with condescending quips directed at question-askers and "that one."
Obama, on the other hand, directly and articulately addressed people's questions, like what the "Rescue Plan" (yeah, okay, sure) did for regular Americans, and why it was necessary. McCain didn't do that - he just pointed fingers and said that he had mentioned Fannie and Freddy two years ago, even though as recently as this spring, he was touting deregulation policies.

Another insult to the general public was his bet than the undecided women, following Hillary's loss in the primary, could be con over with another female on a ticket - any ticket, even one that favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the taxation of health insurance such that anyone with a comprehensive policy actually pays more money, drilling for oil when that is obviously not the way of the future, and as American innovation is falling behind in the changing scope of the global economy. (Did ANYONE read PART of Zakaria's book???)

Proposing a moratorium on spending, excepting Defense and Veteran's Affairs is maybe the WORST idea ever, since so many domestic programs are at or beyond the brink of failure. But maybe for a candidate who banks on ignorant voters, education shouldn't be a priority. Welfare? Who needs it! If the people who needed it actually got it, then it would only extend their life expectancies, granting them the opportunity to elect more Democrats. If they didn't get it, then they'd starve, die sickly and depressing, lonely deaths, and decrease the blue to red ratio on the maps, simultaneously decreasing the demand for said programs. Social Security? People today won't ever reach retirement anyway. In the economy post-crisis, they'll be working until they die. Besides, by the time we reform that program, generations who could actually see the benefits will never have even heard of such a thing. By then they won't even know it ever existed.

But maybe McCain's campaign hasn't been all wrong. Maybe they simply assumed that even though they were insulting the intelligent members of their party's base, they could count on those votes anyway, because the thinkingest Republican brains could be trusted not to vote for Obama's policies, just because they didn't like McCain. They'll still support McCain before they'd vote for Obama, for gosh sakes.

McCain's "maverick" reputation has thwarted fundamental Republican initiatives in the past, and his hasty decision-making has been a real head-scratcher. Barack Obama has shown a skill for being an inspiring and mobilizing force on both sides of the aisle. Maybe the intelligent Republicans can say, in the face of W's imminent departure from the White House, "No, it's time for intelligence, and it's time to do something that the country can be proud of." Maybe it will all be okay, and maybe McCain's biggest mistake was assuming the worst of the American voters. If he turns out to have been right in this gamble he's made, and enough American voters really are that thoughtless (and stupid), I fear for the future of this country, because with a McCain administration, education won't get the reform it needs, and Americans will never get smart enough to think critically about what's being said to them.