Last week the Straight Talk Express metamorphosed into the Swift Boaters’ Express by launching at least three shameful attacks on Senator Barack Obama; attacks that had absolutely nothing to do with the issues or with the fitness of Senator Obama to be president.
Regrettably, the “latest barrage of ads” that included a blatantly false smear on the Senator’s patriotism and concern for the troops (The “Landstuhl incident”), compared him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, etc., are only the beginning of what promises to be one of the dirtiest campaigns in recent years, reminiscent of the infamous attacks on Senator Kerry’s patriotism in 2004.
I say this because, last week, the co-author of the Republican bestseller “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” a book that contains numerous attacks on Sen. John Kerry’s patriotism and military service, has now authored a new book—one that also promises to become a Republican best seller: “The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.”
Oliver Willis says, “Jerome Corsi’s ‘Obama Nation’: Like Clockwork, Swift Boating Begins.” He is correct, right on cue, Corsi’s new book, all 384 pages, “scrupulously sourced with more than 600 footnotes,” promises to be a gold mine of material for innumerable inspiring and noble campaign ads by the new, re-invigorated McCain’s Swift Boaters Express. Stay tuned.
August 1st, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
John Avalon, who is perhaps the most prominent independent political book writer, columnist and speaker in the U.S. today, has told CNN that Republican party presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain’s negative ads against rival Democratic Sen. Barack Obama could cost him the support of independent voters.
Independent voters need to read this story in full, but here’s a meaty excerpt with a few comments from yours truly (who was described in a recent book on California Arnold Schwarzenegger as a quintessential California independent voter):
Q: How does the negative campaigning play with independent voters?
Avlon: Independent voters are very sensitive to when politics takes a negative turn. And you know it’s August, and the heat’s turning up on the campaign trail, and so is the rhetoric.
But candidates need to be very careful, because hypocrisy is the unforgivable sin in politics. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have campaigned as being a break from the politics of personal destruction we’ve seen in the past. So, whenever the campaign takes a negative turn, independent voters notice, and they’ll punish the candidate that takes it too far.
Negative campaigning is often a see-saw and partisans will try to play word games in defining whether their side is doing it or not. But it is clear that McCain — who has yet another NEW ad out that paints Obama as messianic (subtext: he’s a danger) — looks as if he has now signed over his campaign and political soul lock, stock and barrel to the same Bush operatives who ran one of the most infamous negative campaigns against him in the 2000 South Carolina primary. Right now McCain is the key practitioner of the kind of politics that many independent voters have decried for so long.
Q: So negative campaigning doesn’t work for independent voters?
Avlon: No. … The reason [independent voters] are independent is they’re reacting against the extremes on both sides. They want to see an end to this split-screen politics. They want to see people who put patriotism ahead of partisanship and the national interests ahead of special interests. That’s what the independent voters want.
And both candidates so far have been pretty attuned to that. But this is going to be the real test.
As noted here yesterday, I supported McCain in 2000 and was pleased he won the GOP primary race. But I am now concluding like Joe Klein that McCain is not the McCain I believed him to be. His credibility is nearly gone after a) the ads b) the unconvincing spin defending them c) the clear signal that more political “schmutz” is yet to come.
Q: According to a study of political commercials by the University of Wisconsin, a third of McCain’s television ads have actually been negative attacks on Barack Obama. The study also found that 90 percent of Barack Obama’s television ads don’t even mention McCain. Is this a risky strategy for John McCain?
Avlon: Isn’t that interesting? Yes. You know, John McCain is walking a fine line here because a lot of his credibility with independents comes from the fact that he’s always stayed above partisan gutter-ball politics. He’s always criticized those folks who’ve indulged in that, especially on the Republican side, in the past.
So, while [McCain] needs to play offense and define Barack Obama … Barack Obama is focused really on a larger target, the American people.
One more personal reaction from this independent voter.
On many issues, I’m actually closer to John McCain than to Barack Obama. But the John McCain I see today isn’t the John McCain I supported in 2000.
In my opinion, this is the way to attack McCain’s smear campaign: with incredulous laughter. Jon Stewart takes up McCain on the Paris Hilton ad and unleashes on both McCain and the media on the ‘Obama-eats-arugula-and-is-arrogant’ meme. Don’t get down in the mud with him; fight the smears by pointing and laughing…
Here is a Happy Friday memory jogger for everyone. About twenty years ago, a Democrat candidate with limited military experience went up against the former head of the C.I.A who literally (and figuratively) shell-shocked him.
So far this week we have had the “Celebrity” issue and the “Race Card” comments from the McCain camp…do you really think another Michael Dukakis moment is not going to happen?
A hint for Obama: stay away from Tanks…or any other vehicle that requires a helmet to drive.
In his “John McCain’s Metamorphosis From Smear Politics Victim To Smear Politics Perpetrator,” Shaun Mullen commented on the McCain smear tactic du jour. This time the one in which, in order to try to “portray Barack Obama as unpatriotic, John McCain and his surrogates are accusing him in a TV commercial and elsewhere of canceling a visit to wounded troops at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a military hospital in Germany, because he was not allowed to take reporters and camera crews with him.”
LANDSTUHL, Germany. “Although news outlets have reported charges that Sen. Barack Obama canceled his trip to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany because the media weren’t allowed to cover the event, U.S. European Command officials say plans were in place to allow limited press coverage.
All media, including local press and the more than 40 journalists accompanying the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee on his eight-day international trip last week, would have been able to photograph the Illinois senator entering and leaving the hospital, said Air Force Lt. Col. John Dorrian, a U.S. European Command spokesman.
There are reports that the McCain campaign had two versions of smear ads ready to air: version one for the contingency where Obama did visit the troops at Lanstuhl; version 2 for the contingency where Obama did not visit Landstuhl.
It now looks like they need to concoct version two-and-a-half for this latest contingency. Can’t wait.
“John McCain is one who proudly boasts (like many other politicians) of his ignorance about the Internet and e-mail. Its likely that McCain has never seen the videos produced by his staff on a computer monitor - but rather on a video tape sent to his home which he popped into his vintage Magnavox-VHS recorder to watch on his trusty Zenith TV … McCain shows by far the greatest weakness in terms of his connection to the real world. At a time when cyber-terrorism, espionage and crime are an even greater threat; when countries like China recruit whole armies of hackers to work against the West and plot the collapse of its IT-infrastructure - which could cost billions of dollars and millions of lives - it wouldn’t be bad if the President of the United States had at least a rudimentary knowledge of what’s at stake.”
Several of my fellow bloggers on TMV are reputable journalists, ex-journalists, editors, ex-editors, or in one way or another involved with the (news) media. Thus, I want to, in advance, hasten to say that the following is not directed at them, but rather the result of some frustration arising out of a couple of specific incidents. (Enough disclaimers?)
I would, however, be interested in any comments, advice or suggestions on how the “Average Joe,” like myself, might better deal with similar “media issues.”
Some may have read my July 25 post, “The Smear, The Rebuttal, and the Faux Pas.” In it, I described a “faux pas” in a Defense News “Early Bird” news brief where they reported on a false smear on Barack Obama as follows:
Army Refutes Slam Of Bam
[New York Daily News, July 25, 2008, Pg. 7]
An Army spokesman denied that Osama bin Laden “blew off” troops at an Afghan base in order to shoot hoops for a publicity photo.
The very same day I contacted Defense News informing them of the error (Osama bin Laden instead of Barack Obama) and got a courteous e-mail back thanking me for contacting Army Times Publishing, and stating, ” We were notified of this unfortunate typo this morning and our editorial staff has been made aware of it. Last I spoke to them they were preparing to re-send the Early Bird Brief with the correction in place.”
(I posted this on TMV.)
Well, this was July 25.
Not having seen an apology, retraction, or correction, I contacted Defense News again on July 30 and was told:
I have been communicating with members of our editorial staff and apparently the re-send of the Early Bird was supposed to occur the same day. I looked in my email in-box but did not find a second copy. This leads to me to believe there might have been a problem in re-sending the newsletter that was not known about at the time. There are plans to include a formal apology at the top of tomorrow’s newsletter.
Lo and behold, today, July 31, six days later, at the bottom of the newsletter there was:
CORRECTIONS
Correction
[ArmyTimes.com, July 31, 2008]
An item in the July 25 Early Bird Brief misidentified Barack Obama. We apologize for the error.
Is this a case of insufficient, but “better this and better late than never?” And, had I not persisted, would I have been “blown off,” also?
Now to my favorite newspaper, The New York Times.
On July 28, the Times published an opinion piece by the 2000 John McCain presidential campaign national communications director, Dan Schnur, titled “Did Obama Overstay?”. While the substance of the opinion piece is not germane–although from the author and the title, one should get the general idea–the subsequent “Readers’ Comments” are.
One comment (comment # 131), submitted by a “Mindy,” caught my attention because it was the very same false e-mail and allegations that have been refuted by the Army, and discredited by various news media, such as the Daily News on July 24:
The latest chain e-mail smear against Barack Obama: He “blew off” troops at an Afghan base to shoot hoops for a publicity photo. The letter was apparently written by a Utah Army National Guard intelligence officer in a linguist unit at Bagram Airfield who claimed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee was rude to G.I.s.
But angry Army brass debunked the Obama-bashing soldier’s allegations, which went viral Thursday over the Web and on military blogs such as Blackfive:
“These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect,” said Bagram spokesman Army Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel.
Dutifully, I wrote a comment advising the NYT Comments Blog of the “smear” post–others had posted similar comments. For example:
Google “TF Wasatch” #131. “Mindy,” you are at best a sucker. This is a phoney post that has been repeatedly debunked.If you oppose Senator Obama’s candidacy, fine - the political appointees in the Justice Department have not yet taken such rights away. But don’t do so by spreading false posts from poseurs claiming to be active-duty personnel.This kind of nastiness recalls the Swift-Boat liars of 2004, and even more so, the Ku-kluxers of 1928 and 1960. May they choke on their own bile. And may modern technology allow us to save our political process from suckers.
While my post was never published, the offending post was eventually removed. Amazingly, two days ago, the same reader, “Mindy”, had managed to post the identical false smear again in comment #177.
Dutifully, I submitted another comment to the NYT:
You removed “Mindy’s” discredited e-mail from the Battle Captain (#131); did not print my comment substantiating the false accusations against Obama; and printed another exact replica of post #131 from” Mindy” (post #177). Way to go New York Times.
I checked the NYT “comments” section this morning and comment #177 (of July 29) was still there.
In desperation I went to the NYT’s “Frequently Asked Questions About Comments,” to see if and how comments are moderated.
This is what I read, in part:
Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we have created a space where readers can exchange intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
I would not call repeatedly posting posts that have been clearly proven to be false and abusive creating “a space where readers can exchange intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information” nor effectively “screening submissions.”
New York Times, I expected better from you.
Now, to my fellow TMV media bloggers for advice/comments on my plaint. (Be kind).
The political Quote of the Day comes in two of Marc Ambinder’s three points about the Republican Senator John McCain’s Obama-is-a-callow-celebrity-just-like-Britney ad:
1. John McCain is the Republican least associated with the Bush brand of politics. His appeal is based on his independence, and particularly on his independence from partisan bickering. Eroding his brand could be really dangerous. The political cognoscenti thinks these new Marquess of Schmidtberry rules may work to McCain’s benefit in the short term. Longterm: tba.
2. Celebrity? How many movies and TV shows has McCain appeared in? How many SNLs has he hosted? Wasn’t a movie made about his life? Wasn’t McCain the original politician celebrity? Celebrity?
Yes, Virginia, there are some in the GOP who don’t think likely Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain’s negative campaigning blitz is a good idea….
In recent weeks McCain’s campaign has more than ever begun to resemble exactly the kind of campaign many independent voters have long said they don’t like to see: a Rovian-style negative campaign where the focus is on seek-and-destroy attacks aimed at character more than policy, quick response negative campaigning, versus a campaign based on issues where a candidate aggressively outlines his or her vision of the future.
And it starts a cycle: the other side will then feel it has to respond in kind.
The danger for McCain is that some independents are starting to conclude that the John McCain who they may have backed in 2000 and rooted for in the Republican primaries is starting to vanish in a crowd of Karl Rove proteges and campaign advisers who feel the way to win is to by demonizing Obama and Democrats and by aiming for yet one more party base mobilization election.
And this worries some Republicans:
In recent days Senator John McCain has charged that Senator Barack Obama “would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign,” tarred him as “Dr. No” on energy policy and run advertisements calling him responsible for high gas prices.
The old happy warrior side of Mr. McCain has been eclipsed a bit lately by a much more aggressive, and more negative, Mr. McCain who hammers Mr. Obama repeatedly on policy differences, experience and trustworthiness.
By doing so, Mr. McCain is clearly trying to sow doubts about his younger opponent, and bring him down a peg or two. But some Republicans worry that by going negative so early, and initiating so many of the attacks himself rather than leaving them to others, Mr. McCain risks coming across as angry or partisan in a way that could turn off some independents who have been attracted by his calls for respectful campaigning.
The drumbeat of attacks could also undermine his argument that he will champion a new brand of politics.
In reality, the damage is probably already done. The growing sharpness of McCain’s campaign rhetoric, its focus on responding to Obama and verging on name calling that sometimes seems akin to a “troll” in a blog comments section just doesn’t jibe with the 2000 John McCain. And if he manages to win a campaign on this basis, he will take over the Oval Office with a reservoir of polarization-hubris-bad-will that will make it difficult for Democrats to work with him or risk backlash from their constituents.
(Be sure to read the UPDATE further down in this post…)
“The McCain campaign, I think, is being pulled in two directions,” said Todd Harris, a Republican strategist who worked for Mr. McCain in 2000. “On the one hand, this race is largely a referendum on Obama, and whether or not he’s going to pass the leadership threshold in the eyes of voters. So being aggressive against Obama on questions of leadership and trust and risk are important, but at the same time I think they need to be very careful because McCain is not at his best when he is being overly partisan and negative.”
The McCain campaign said that Mr. Obama had been taking shots at Mr. McCain for some time, and that Mr. McCain was simply trying to draw the contrast between the two candidates.
That’s a good response spin — but it’s not quite true. McCain is indeed drawing “contrasts” — but it is the tone, anger and seeming contempt with which McCain is speaking that is drawing the attention.
Many analysts have noted in recent weeks that McCain has now moved from being someone promising a more high-minded campaign to someone whose campaign is resembling the same kind of aggressive Karl Rove style campaign that unfolded in 2000 and 2004. Those campaigns worked. But they also helped perpetuate an era of political polarization and ill-will that many had felt McCain could help end.
Criticism of McCain has not only come from Democrats, unnamed Republicans who talk to reporters and independent voters who he’ll need to win,. A sign of the emerging conventional wisdom is seen in this Politico post which contains former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s comment in his role as a Fox News contributor on how McCain responded to Obama’s media-saturated overseas trip last week:
Frankly, I thought he looked more like Bob Dole in the last days of the 1996 campaign saying ‘look at the record, look at the record,’ and there was some anger and sense of frustration there.
He shouldn’t show that. He needs to show that nothing is getting to him, it’s rolling off his back, and I think he missed an opportunity to do that last week.
And, indeed, most articles and posts — including those written by yours truly — have been polite in characterizing the McCain campaign’s evolving tone: it is now morphing into the epitome of the kind of campaigns run by the late Lee Atwater and Rove with the same kind of angry, lashing-out character attacks that led some to also criticize the latter part of Senator Hillary Clinton’s Democratic primary campaign. It isn’t a shift in gears away from the polarizing politics of the 1980s-2008 but a continuation of it.
The contempt that many McCain aides hold for Barack Obama rivals the contempt that McCain held for Mitt Romney a year ago. McCain’s advisers know that McCain is apt to treat those held in contempt contemptuously, but no inside McCain’s campaign believes that aggressively negative television ads and McCain’s public dismissals will “damage one of the most unique and most popular brands in American politics.”
The cadre of McCain allies who aren’t part of the campaign are very worried. They believe that McCain’s current crop of advisers are playing to his worse instincts, particularly his pride and his ego. When McCain is privately content, he comes across publicly as happy-go-lucky and magnanimous; satisfied; when he is combative, he comes off as combative and reactive. They worry that he is obsessed with Obama’s character and willing to attribute motives to Obama that are simply unbelievable outside of an echo chamber filled with those who are predisposed to believe Obama’s a phony.
This would include cable and radio talk shows that echo the official line. Since July 1 I have been on a drive through 3 states, sometime driving 650 miles in a single day. I have listened to a lot of talk radio and many of the conservative radio shows are wall-to-wall medleys of anti-Obama riffs that mirror McCain or GOP strategy.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but what about a political poster? Its charm, brilliance –or its insidiousness and crassness — depends on the political eye of the beholder.
Today, the international media’s eyes will be on Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama who will speak in Berlin to what is expected to be a huge crowd. His speech has been prefaced by what some consider a “snub” aimed at Republican presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain by the nation’s Prime Minister:
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel has praised Barack Obama’s political and physical strength as “Obamania” reached the highest levels of state on the eve of the Democratic presidential contender’s feverishly anticipated visit to Berlin today.
In a remark that could be interpreted as casting aspersions on his 71-year-old Republican rival John McCain, Ms Merkel told reporters: “I would say that he is well-equipped – physically, mentally and politically.”
One side issue — in a campaign now unfolding of partisan-fought side issues — is whether the poster above printed in German is inspiring or creepy. And, in the nature of political politics, the interpretation sometimes rests on partisan bias or an intent to find something to cast in the worst possible light (a light that probably would be interpreted a tad differently if it was referring to the candidate backed by the person doing the blasting). Witness some reaction to the brilliant/scary (pick a term that fits your political bias) Obama poster:
I can only listen to the Limbaugh show a little bit at a time.
Yesterday morning was one of those “little bits,” and I immediately noticed an unusually shrill, angry, agitated tone in the voice of the man on loan from Godddddd.
His ranting appeared to be directed at, among other, the huge media attention Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is receiving during his overseas tour: the “planeloads” of “drive-by media”—or perhaps it should be the fly-by media—accompanying Obama; the attentive and enthusiastic reception he is getting from foreign leaders, the public, and especially from our own military while in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But most of Limbaugh’s ire was directed at Senator Obama personally—a man he mockingly called the “Messiah”, insulted as a “jerk”, and for whom he used every other slur in-between.
Well, it appears that Limbaugh is not alone these days in expressing frustration at the popularity and respect the U.S. presidential candidate, “the jerk,” is getting abroad. There are scores of pundits–and McCain staff—who are reacting in similar ways and ascribing the phenomenon to a variety of reasons—some plausible, some ridiculous, and some just plain insulting to the foreigners who sincerely like and admire Obama and to their native countries, most of them our own allies.
Some, however, are very slyly trying to turn Obama’s popularity abroad into a negative, a liability, a “black mark.”
Arianna Huffington published a very interesting article on this very same subject yesterday.
In “Tell Me Again, Why Is Obama Being Popular With Our Allies a Bad thing?” she asks, “I understand why John McCain’s campaign is desperately looking for negatives in Obama’s overseas trip. But why have so many in the media internalized the McCain campaign’s claptrap?” and examines some of the amazing reactions and allegations. Here are some:
Here is the McCain line on Europe, delivered via Politico by a nameless campaign aide: “I don’t know that people in Missouri are going to like seeing tens of thousands of Europeans screaming for The One.”
And here was Gloria Borger on CNN […] “…as the McCain campaign points out, he can’t appear to be seen as running for the president of Europe. He’s going to be really cheered in Europe, he’s going to give a huge speech. He’s going to have a lot of support there. But he’s running for the president of the United States. And so they have to walk a very, very fine line here because they don’t want to be seen having too many adoring people after him in Europe because he’s running for president of the United States.”
And,
L.A. Times’ Michael Finnegan:
In Europe, where he is highly popular, Obama plans a speech in Berlin on U.S. relations with allies. He will probably find a warm, even rapturous, reception — which poses its own challenges. ‘There’s such a thing as being too popular overseas,’ said [William] Galston, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. ‘And that may create some misgivings here at home.’
Of course, in my humble opinion, all this rhetoric is pure spin, sour grapes, envy, and worse.
But, again, Huffington says it best:
What do Borger and the McCain campaign think would play better in Missouri, Obama getting off the plane in Germany and having the locals throw tomatoes at him? Would that endear him to the people in Middle America — who, in McCain World, are like an insecure girlfriend, panicked by just the thought of someone else finding their guy attractive?
And,
…as Jason Linkins points out, George Bush keeps giving them reasons for ongoing disdain and ridicule. As does McCain. Is it really better for America’s standing in the world to have a president who doesn’t know that Czechoslovakia no longer exists and who thinks there is a border between Iraq and Pakistan?
Let the partisans and naysayers continue to rant. I for one am delighted that America—as represented by one of its presidential candidates–is finally beginning to regain the respect and friendship that we have lost during the past seven-plus, long years!
Shaun Mullen discusses the ramifications for McCain’s of McCain’s argument here. Michael Stickings rounds up commentary by bloggers here. This piece rounds up related quotes and commentary, including a couple of fairly lame counterjabs from the McCain-supporting (or Obama-dissing) side which prove to be fairly easily seen off. After all, McCain’s whole argument against Obama’s position is founded on a pile of yesterday’s news clippings.
Initially, the Iraqi government denied that Maliki had intended to endorse Obama’s plan. Now it seems that Maliki is endorsing Obama’s plan.
[A] statement issued by Obama’s congressional delegation, including Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), said that Maliki is now serious about demanding a time frame for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Iraqis want an aspirational timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces," the statement said. "Prime Minister Maliki told us that while the Iraqi people deeply appreciate the sacrifices of American soldiers, they do not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces." (Chi-Tribune)
According to The Chicago Tribune, Maliki has apparently told Obama ‘he hopes the troops will go home "by the end of
2010," according to Maliki’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, marking the first time the Iraqi government has specified a time limit on the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.’ (Chi-Tribune)
As noted elsewhere, this timetable is notably cognate with Obama’s own aspirational 16-month timeline. (NYT)
Was the campaign of Democratiic presumptive Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama sending a publication — and perhaps the press in general — a petulant or hard-ball message? Or was it strictly coincidence?
And if it is to explained and dismissed by some as a coincidence is it as believable as being a coincidence in the political world as to the weekend clarification through a spokesman (a U.S. military spokesman…after the White House called Baghdad) of Iraq Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s comments about favoring Obama’s withdrawal timetable?
No matter what, the Politico reports something that won’t help the Obama campaign in its future press relations since it shows either a)short-sighted, stumbling staffing or b)counter productive political vindictiveness:
Forty journalists, including such leading correspondents as Dan Balz of The Washington Post, will be aboard his plane for next week’s swing through Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England.
The campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane.
Among those for whom there was no room was Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent of The New Yorker. The campaign, which was furious about the magazine’s satirical cover this week, cited space constraints in turning him away.
But the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, whose long, long article on Barack Obama’s early political days in Chicago’s ward politics (available here) was the reason for the magazine’s controversial cover by Barry Blitt depicting Obama as a Muslim, has been barred from traveling with Obama on his foreign field trip this week.
…..More than 200 media folks applied to fly in Europe with the freshman senator. But, alas, the Obama campaign said it simply was not able to find a seat for Lizza.
Now, that’s Chicago politics.
In a MUST READ, The Huffington Post looks at an incident that could contain the seeds of a future political boomerang. Here are two key portions:
This hasn’t been the best 24 hours for presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Sen. John McCain. But the good news is that after 24 hours of news of stories that are unlikely to help him gain new voters, Democrat Barack Obama will now be under the media’s vetting microscope in Iraq — and McCain is unlikely to make the same number of blunders. And if he does, they won’t get the same play.
Here are three key McCain blunders.
1. BLUNDER NUMBER ONE: STICKING FAR TOO LONG WITH PHIL GRAMM
It leaked out yesterday morning in a report from widely read conservative columnist Robert Novak that McCain had essentially accepted former Senator Phil Gramm’s apology and that Gramm would remain a McCain adviser and campaign surrogate.
Perhaps details will soon come out about what kind of response the campaign got due to that report. But by the end of the day Gramm had resigned as the McCain camp’s co-chair, blasting (of course) the Democrats for making him resign since it was clear the Democrats were going to make Gramm an issue. And Gramm was correct: the Novak report meant Christmas had come early for the Democrats — but now Santa has revoked his gift. If the Novak report was a trial balloon, the balloon didn’t just pop. It loudly exploded. If Phil Gramm has a name in Chinese it probably is Ahn Too Longh.
2. BLUNDER NUMBER TWO: REVEALING A BIT ABOUT OBAMA’S IRAQ VISIT TIMETABLE:
He all but gave Obama’s arrival time. As James Joyner notes, it was not exactly the biggest secret in the world that Obama was going to Iraq. But it also is not correct as some McCain partisans are now are suggesting in dismissing McCain’s unwise revelation of details that it wasn’t a blunder that raises — and should raise - eyebrows. There is a valid security concern and McCain should and does know better.
This adds to the image that McCain is either not as thoughtful as many felt, does not measure his words and/or is not as savvy on security matters as he and his partisans insist. If you say you’re the country’s top maven on national security, you can’t then tip the world off to all but Obama’s arrival time. It was not a smart move.
3. BLUNDER NUMBER THREE: ECHOING HILLARY CLINTON’S COMMENT ON OBAMA:
