The McCain campaign's rapid response to the Times story has been deft.
(1) Don't hide -- John and Cindy McCain answered any and every question from the press, in a single setting, less than 24 hours after the story broke. They appeared calm and collected; the symbolism of the two together was reassuring.
(1a) -- Don't let the candidate respond immediately. Last night, McCain was asked by a reporter for comment. He smiled and said he hadn't read it yet... that gives the impression that he wasn't worried about it enough to read it immediately.
(2) Find an enemy -- this one's easy: the New York Times -- the "liberal" New York Times, according to McCain adviser Charlie Black. Use phases like "Jason Blair" and "Judith Miller."
(3) Shame reporters -- imply that it's shameful for reporters to ask questions about the romantic angle... imply that they're engaging in gutter politics when they do so.
(4) High-powered surrogates -- they blanketed the morning shows for McCain, and they'll be everywhere else this afternoon.
(5) Detailed rebuttals -- not even to the whole article, mind you -- but any sort of word-expensive response like the 1200 word essay the campaign released last night -- is likely to foster the impression that the campaign has facts on its side, too.
| 
Glory be, actual political analysis from Marc Ambinder ... unless, of course, Marc has a new source in the McCain campaign ...
I think you make two errors in your analysis, though. You seem starstruck by the Great White Maverick, and unduly impressed by the man answering questions (likely from an audience as credulous as you) with his wife. Second, you seem to discount utterly the fact that there's the possibility of actual wrongdoing that wasn't reported because of the lawyers or perhaps the phone call to Bill Keller -- I mean, for a guy who's not all that worried about the article, that's a pretty big preemptive step to take. And if there's something to this story, every news outlet in the country will be working it (as many of them have been doing for some months); they won't be able to pidgeonhole it to the librul NYT. Finally, I don't think the non-denial denial reassures anyone not in love with the Great White Maverick -- quite the opposite in fact -- and my quick perusal of materials released since then looks a little like a data dump designed to divert attention, but I could be wrong about that.
By reading this comment you agree that it is not obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Jeff Larson does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), he reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that he deems to be in violation of this rule.
Posted by Jeff Larson | February 21, 2008 10:52 AM