I risk being accused of abandoning my honour for saying so, but like Douglas Carswell, I am a McCain sceptic and have been for years. I'm open to the idea that a McCain presidency is something to get excited about, but I've yet to be persuaded of it. While I remain undecided, I am cautious about thinking out loud on this matter. But I do think it worth paying heed to Matthew Yglesias' powerful cautionary note for those inclined to imagine McCain's experience is any sort of electoral magic bullet:
In terms of getting things done, what's John McCain ever accomplished? Beyond a minor, years-old procedural reform to the campaign finance system -- nothing. And he's had much more time in Washington [than Obama] in which to get something done. But in McCain's past 25 years in congress he's managed to author not a single piece of legislation that's been signed into law that helps any real people with any real problems. He's spent a lot of time posturing on the Sunday shows, and affiliated himself with a few pieces of modestly progressive legislation that didn't get passed, and then disavowed all those bills.
More broadly, though McCain is a formidable candidate in some respects, "experience" is the time-honored election argument of losers. If voters really valued experience, then veteran senators would be getting elected president all the time. Instead, it almost never happens because normal people don't think that long duration in congress -- an institution that's invariably incredibly unpopular -- is an appealing character trait.
Surprisingly, psephological evidence for personal character making a difference to the results of presidential elections (or British General Elections) is hard to come by. But in particular, anyone who imagines American voters picking a President will struggle to resist a long-serving Senator with a sterling Vietnam record has a very short memory.