Barack Obama has been scoring some hefty endorsements from prominent members of the right, among them Colin Powell, journalists Christopher Buckley and Christopher Hitchens, and even Ken Adelman, the man who introduced Dick Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz. These respected righties seem to have decided that Obama’s, rather than McCain’s, temperament is better suited to the office of the president. One hopes that they also have seen, in this most important election of their lifetimes, America’s opportunity to send a message to the world that it finally has the guts, the know-how and the integrity to correct its bad behavior and to redeem its sullied reputation. Indeed, it’s time for all American voters to face the reality that a John McCain victory will not send such a message.

Are you talking to me?

Has any candidate in recent memory inspired so much confused head scratching? His voting record indicates a consistent pro-Bush administration slant, but on many issues he has blatantly contradicted himself. Case in point, McCain’s declarations never to engage in negative campaigning, then running only negative campaign ads, many of them oozing dangerous innuendo designed to win votes by inciting fear and paranoia. And the current financial crisis saw him changing his mind daily about solutions. Then he declared that he must go immediately to Washington to help design the proper bailout package but he spent the night in New York. Finally, at the Capitol bailout meeting, he reportedly sat in near silence.

But perhaps more frustrating (and troubling) than McCain’s contradictions are his responses to being called on them.

There is a notorious clip from Meet the Press that has Tim Russert confronting McCain with a quote in which the speaker has called for a withdrawal of troops, explaining that the U.S. should not be in the business of nation building. McCain interrupts to defend our presence in Iraq, responding before Russert can reveal the identity of the speaker he’s been quoting. When Russert announces that the quote, in fact, was made by McCain himself in 1993 (regarding our military presence in Somalia), McCain responds, “Mm—hmm.” The quote didn’t ring a bell. Well, 1993 was so long ago… He’s made so many proclamations since then.

Time and time again, when confronted with his reversals, McCain displays bewilderment, amusement, or more often fails to acknowledge the charges at all, his words instead often taking the conversation in a different direction. Check the Internet for clips from his appearance on The View. Is he ignoring his hosts, who ask sincere questions about his campaign, or is he dissing them, or is he hard of hearing, or what? He has displayed this behavior in the debates, failing to offer appropriate, meaningful, explanatory answers to his opponent’s charges and questions.

If you had an old uncle who went on national TV and “reversed” himself, or seemed to have forgotten his own very serious proclamations, then got called on it, then displayed no embarrassment from, nor any awareness of, the charges, what would you say to him at the next family picnic? You’d say, “Jesus, Uncle Johnny, have you stopped taking the gingko?” And you’d be urging your Aunt Cindy to make that very important doctor’s appointment for him.

Take my wife – please!

But no, his surrogates tell us, he’s not senile, deaf, nor a liar. He’s just a maverick, refusing to go with the flow, choosing his stances according to… what, some sort of inner voice? More and more the word “maverick,” when applied to John McCain, seems to be a euphemism for some other quality. The word “erratic” could describe this quality, but to use it would be simply to fall back on the Democratic talking points. Is “impulsive” more apt? Maybe “opportunistic.” How about the episode in Sturgis, SD, when McCain inappropriately offered his wife as a contestant in the Miss Buffalo Chip “beauty pageant,” eliciting roars of approval from the audience of bikers? News footage of previous “pageants” showed women “competing” by ripping off halter tops and doing lewd things with fruit. If McCain had no idea what this contest entailed, then he’s an impulsive personality who can’t see the value of doing maybe five minutes of research before he opens his mouth wide enough to accept a $500-shoe-clad foot. If he did know what kind of contest this was, he is a crude, misogynistic opportunist. Either way, this was some pretty frightening, if not erratic, behavior, not to mention behavior indicative of a personality disorder somewhat further south than “loose cannon.” What is that inner voice? Intuition? Doubtful. Conscience? Not a chance. (To my knowledge McCain has never reversed himself on his beauty pageant stance.)

Where’s James Garner when you need him?

But we were talking about maverickiness. Confusingly, while suffering from acute “reversalitis,” McCain simultaneously has managed to cling stubbornly to lots of bad policy, voting with the Bushies 90% of the time and adhering adamantly to the worst of the current administration’s programs: playing favorites with oil companies, choosing bombs over diplomacy…and on… When confronted with this fact he once again veers off in another direction, reminding us that Obama voted 96% of the time with his own party. But that’s a red herring. Because McCain is the one claiming to be a maverick. (Besides, Obama voted with his party because they were trying to fix the messes made possible by McCain’s very unmavericky voting record.)

About the only administration policy ol’ Maverick has bucked lately has him adamantly vowing to keep our troops in Iraq while the administration itself has begun negotiating a time table for withdrawal. Oh, we know where he stands on Iraq, all right. Here he has been unwavering, less like a maverick and more like some family’s resident geezer, harping during cocktails, through dinner, past dessert, until the brandy does him in and everyone can finally retreat stealthily to the quiet and comfort of rationality.

All in all, the man is a cipher – the geezer metaphor a good one, since we all know how confusing geezers can be. We must love and respect our geezers, for sure. But we can’t let them run for the presidency.

The wisdom of experience…

While we wait for this geezer to fall into slumber, his surrogates remind us that he’s a real military strategist, uniquely qualified to serve as Commander in Chief. But it’s a flawed logic that argues so cavalierly his claim to the Chiefdom, based on his time as a P.O.W. and, more importantly, his years of military and public service. Hey, I’m a teacher with over twenty-five years of classroom experience. Does that qualify me to be Superintendent of Schools? And many of us have pet dogs who have sniffed hundreds of butts, but that doesn’t mean we’ll be letting them oversee our colonoscopies.

The “success” of the troop surge in Iraq has been offered as proof of McCain’s keen sense of military strategy, but you don’t have to be a brilliant military strategist, or even a decent Risk player, to understand that lots more troops could possibly mean at least a few more results. And, in fact, the surge’s success has been limited, while the Iraqi government, despite remaining unstable, wants us to leave.

As for McCain’s P.O.W. status, well, certainly he’s a bona fide American Hero. But could that experience also have made him the bona fide bellicose old warhorse he is? Could he perhaps be harboring some sort of vague, even unconscious, grudge? In a recent Rolling Stone article Tim Dickinson quotes Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, who has known McCain for twenty years:

I’m not sure that much time in a prisoner-of-war status doesn’t do something to you…psychologically…that might make you a little more volatile, a little less apt to listen to reason, a little more inclined to be volcanic in your temperament.
Wilkerson also says, “I’m not sure that’s the kind of character I want sitting in the Oval Office.”

McCain has boasted he’d keep us in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary. He’s sung, “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” Do these bellicose pronouncements truly represent his so-called “wisdom of experience,” or are they, rather, a manifestation of some angry, war-loving tic forged in a North Vietnamese prison?

If you’re so patriotic why ain’t you rich?

No one would ever deny McCain’s sacrifice for this country. But why has this episode become for him a favorite way to counter criticism? On a recent Tonight Show Jay Leno tried to have some fun with McCain around the gaffe the senator had made regarding how many homes he owned (He didn’t know!). Instead of employing his self-deprecating sense of humor (which has endeared him to friends and foes), McCain chose to refer yet again to his time in the war prison, as if to remind us that, as a patriot first and foremost, he’s concerned more with serious issues and less with frivolous ones. (Though, interestingly, his in-service behavior, before and after his internment, was often frivolous: buzzing Spain with a Navy plane, cutting power lines and thus causing a blackout; choosing post-war service in Rio where he could most easily “get laid”.)

As MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has suggested, McCain should be able to confront honest attacks on his character in an equally honest manner. And especially in this case, since his failure to know how much real estate he owns, and his dismissal of the issue as trivial, would seem to indicate the very elitism he has ascribed to Obama. Does he truly not see the irony here?

It’s that old uncle again, with yet another worn-out rant. And it’s a bad judgment call on McCain’s part, as this war story, which should be special, loses heft with each retelling, doomed to elicit yawns when it should inspire awe.

Levi’s future mother-in-law

But let’s talk about the man’s “judgment,” or lack thereof, exemplified by his choice of running mate.

Sarah Palin is one gun-totin’, baby-makin’, Super Christian firecracker, all right. She’s part yuppie (“us hockey moms”), part backwoods cornball (“you betcha”), part fear-mongering hellcat (“Obama = terrorist”). She jets around the lower forty-eight with a brood in tow whose back story hints at more freaky drama than a William Faulkner novel. But don’t look at her cross-eyed, or she’ll pounce on you like some wounded wolf with sharp one-liners, then dismiss you like some schoolmarm with a wave of her index finger! Ouch.

What’s not to like about this wilderness-bred Washington outsider who wants to be our next favorite folk hero? So what if her lies are monumental (“Thanks, but no thanks on that bridge”)? So what if she calls herself Mrs. Six Pack but dresses as if the six pack were a case of Perrier-Jouet? So what if she takes important questions like some school kid faking an oral report (Bush Doctrine?). So what if she hangs with tongue-speaking, witch-hunting clerics? So what if she continues to appeal to the basest instincts of dangerous wackos (rally attendees: “Traitor!”)? Heck, she’s “only been at this” a couple of months now. Cut her some slack — just enough slack to put her a heartbeat away from a president who, according to medical records, would seem to have too few heartbeats left. Show her some love!

I can’t love her much. She lost me during her convention acceptance speech when she slammed Obama’s community service. Having myself served the community for years, down at ground zero where I could observe firsthand what the Bush administration had wrought upon the poor and struggling in this country, I found her remarks insulting. And inappropriate, since, at the time I had no sense of the qualifications that allowed her to make them. It has now become clear she possesses no such qualifications.

Oh well, she’s just following the Republican credo: the best defense is an offense. Oh, and never seem wishy-washy (McCain could learn a lot from Palin in this regard). When in doubt be as decisively offensive as possible. Conservative columnist David Brooks has observed that Palin compensates for her lack of experience “with brashness and excessive decisiveness.”

Survival of the bitchiest

Not a very charming approach. But effective, apparently, to some. Why? Well, maybe there’s a clue in the popularity of the so-called “reality” TV programs jamming our cable lines. These shows tell us that life’s a bitch and it takes a real bitch (or son of a bitch) to take home the prize. Politics is seen by many as a dirty game anyway, so why not throw manners and substance out the window if winning is everything?

Winning sure is everything on Survivor, the granddaddy of these shows. And it’s not difficult to imagine Sarah Palin competing there. After all, she hails from the wild northern outdoors where wolves run free and where, we’re told, she’s killed herself a caribou or two. And she’s got the character for it – brash, competitive… And she’s no stranger to subterfuge and treachery – you know, like when a Survivor contestant makes an alliance in order to score points, only to turn around later and throw her partners under the bus in order to score even more points.

Palin has a history of dishonoring alliances.

Just ask Rick Hartford, a former Alaskan state Senate president (Republican). He helped her get elected governor (alliance made). But soon afterward, as theWashington Post has reported:

[J]ust before a vote on a ballot initiative to strengthen environmental restrictions on the proposed Pebble Mine – an enormous project critics say would damage salmon-rich Bristol Bay – she broke with a long tradition in which Alaska governors have not taken public positions on such citizen initiatives and announced that she opposed it. She had not alerted Rick Hartford…who was a leader of the pro-initiative forces. It failed [alliance broken].
There are other examples of this kind of behavior on Palin’s part, leading the Post to conclude, “Time after time, Palin’s pursuit of her goals would trump her allegiances.”

McCain, watch your back. She’s already expressed a desire to expand the powers of the vice presidency (even before memorizing the Constitution’s definition of the current powers).

People love this Survivor “ethic,” and Sarah Palin (guilty of ethics violations) exemplifies it. She’s perfect for Survivor, getting off as she does on the requisite treachery, sniping, vitriol… And forget about sensitivity. That’s for wimps. During her debate she oozed folksy charm, then dropped the pretense by refusing to acknowledge Joe Biden’s emotional reference to his son’s near-death experience. Hey, Joe, no room for tears in this campaign – that’s the Law of the (Sarah Palin) Jungle.

I betcha that same tough love is behind her daughter’s upcoming shotgun nuptials. And, by the way, Bristol’s “choice” to keep her baby is the kind of choice the McCain/Palin ticket does not want any other women to have.

How can McCain, in good conscience, foist Palin on America? To claim “country first” and to suggest this half-baked Alaskan as our future is to insult us deeply. His campaign wastes its time touting her as presidential material. Better they should petition Jeff Probst.

Some much needed rest and a new talk show

This election has already been guaranteed a glowing chapter in the history books. On November 4th we’ll have the opportunity to write another, even more glorious one. This is probably the most important presidential election in U.S. history, for two reasons. First, we’ll be ridding ourselves of the worst administration we have ever suffered, one which saw our country’s reputation sullied, its Constitution shred, and thousands of innocent lives lost unnecessarily. Second, we have a chance to elect a very capable man who believes in empowering the general populace, as evidenced by how he has revolutionized the election process, making it work more equitably than ever before, from the bottom up. And, amazingly, he is a man of color whose election to the presidency, given our nation’s past and recent history, can make us proud of ourselves in a way we’ve never felt before.

We can respect John McCain for his heroism, his tenacity, his ability to stand erect at his advanced age. But most of us know someone like him, someone who sadly has gotten old, cranky, stubborn; someone who selfishly refuses to yield the floor or the steering wheel, thereby blindly putting others at risk. And sooner or later we have to realize it is our responsibility to urge this person into a tranquil retirement, not into a new job, and certainly not into the White House.

And what of Sarah Palin, if McCain loses? She’ll be fine. We’d be foolish to think this limelight-loving survivor would just disappear, though no one could blame us for wishing such a thing. The street buzz says there may be a TV talk show in her future.

By denying McCain/Palin a victory we’ll be doing ourselves – and maybe them – a huge favor.