McCain Campaign Spin Control Glitch: Palin Says War With Russia Might Be Necessary

Sometimes spin control plans — even those that audaciously change the rules of the media-politician game as practiced over the last half of the 20th century up until this month — can go wrong. ABC News’ exclusive and highly-touted interview with the still-under-wraps-from-the-media GOP Vice Presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin has produced a headline that is probably making the McCain campaign cringe

The Swamp reports:

ABC News offers this headline for its exclusive interview with Sarah Palin, the Republican Party’s nominee for vice president:

“GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY.”

And the interview tonight supports the headline: “Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help,” Palin says in the interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson.

ABC News billed the interview, Palin’s first with the national media since the Republican Party nominated her for vice president last week, as a far-reaching talk about many corners of the world. This is new territory for the governor of Alaska.

UPDATE: But did ABC News exaggerate? TV Newser headlines Sarah Palin: “War Has Got To Be A Last Option.” “We Must Not Blink, Charlie.” National Review’s The Corner says the transcript shows that’s not an accurate headline that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Which again raises the question: isn’t this the way our media and political cultures are now set up — to grab for the jugular as quickly and tightly as possible? Wasn’t it just a few days ago that Barack Obama used the phrase “lipstick on a pig” which some pundits affirm referred not to Sarah Palin but which set off a mainstream news media and blog headline war, ads from the McCain campaign insisting it was aimed at Palin herself? Demands for both accuracy AND not making a candidate’s words look as badly as possible are apparently relative (depending on whether it favors your own candidate or not…). Back to our original post as run earlier:

Now the question is how the Democrats will react to what seems to be a gift from political heaven. The reason: it plays right into their argument that Palin is under-wraps in an unprecedented manner — there is no comparison for any Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in recent history being kept at such arm’s length from the media — and is only being allowed to talk to the press on substantive issues in this one interview while she reportedly undergoes intensive prep sessions by McCain advisers (reportedly Bush administration supporters who will give her one perspective). MORE:

In the first of three airings of her interview with ABC’s Gibson, Palin characterizes the Russian invasion of Georgia as “unacceptable” and warns of the threats from Islamic terrorists and a nuclear Iran.

“We’ve got to keep an eye on Russia,” says Palin, whom supporters have credited with knowledge of foreign affairs for residing in a state that sits next door to Russia — “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia here from Alaska,” she says in the interview. “For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country (Georgia), unprovoked, is unacceptable.” Was it unprovoked, she is asked, and yes, she replies, it was.

Palin also is asked if she would support Israel’s right to strike Iran militarily if the Iranians posed a nuclear threat to the Israelis. “I don’t think we can second-guess what Israel needs to do to defend its nation,” she says, and repeats, when asked to clarify it a second time: “We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel needs to protect itself.”

There are two issues here.

The foreign policy issue and the issue of whether the Democrats are going to be totally outplayed by the Republicans in this campaign. If Joe Biden had made a foreign policy statement that could be taken by many as a bit “out there,” the Republicans would be all over it. Will the Democrats unwrap and accept the nice gift, or ignore it?

One of the aspects most notable about how Palin is being handled is the McCain campaign’s assertion that she’ll be made more readily available to the press when they want to do so and when the press shows proper “deference.”

This site and some other sites have people who either worked in the news media or continue to work in the news media. If you ask people who worked or work in the news media they will tell you that during political campaigns candidates don’t refuse to meet with reporters or take questions until reporters show “deference.” Few campaigns will ever attempt it because of a) how it would look and b) what it would signify.

In modern campaigns at all levels it is a “given” that candidates are ready to deal with the press on Day One. Why? Because although it can be debated whether the public has a right to know every little detail about private things, on issues the public DOES have a right to know where candidates stand by having candidates answer questions from people who don’t have a vested interest in their election on policies and issues. Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh interviewing Palin does not qualify as meeting the press. The Gibson interview was a start but will mean little if she is shielded from talking to reporters with hard questions.

If Palin goes through the campaign and wins election being shielded from the press it’ll set a new precedent — and candidates of all parties at all levels could also nix talking to the press unless they get their definition of “deference” first.

Cartoon by David Fitzsimmons, The Arizona Star