Today, the web wizards of the Atlantic Media Company will migrate this blog to a more advanced version of Moveable Type.
That’ll take a while.
I'll be back in a few hours.
In the meantime....
Assess John McCain's week and share your comments below.
« Who Are Independents And What Do They Want? | Main | Veepstakes Rumor Du Jour » A Respite And A Migration25 Jul 2008 09:13 am Comments (52)
I don't think John McCain's week was all that bad. Obviously he was aesthetically overwhelmed by Obama overseas, the trip is content-less enough that I can't see it having too much impact. Besides who is paying attention now? Also, the McCain camp's ability to drum up rumor about their VP pick is slight, but wise, I think. 
I actually kind of felt sorry for John McCain this week but then he kept whining and any sympathy I felt completely vanished. John McCain and his campaign seriously need to start being more proactive rather than reactive and it may be time to start offering ideas on where he wants to take the country rather than constantly attacking Obama. His campaign has become a B&M parade, it's quite irritating actually.
My assessment, Ambinder? You're a professional turd. Keep it up, as long as you're dragging the Atlantic with you into the mud.
Call this the week of unforced errors. Ed Rollins, in the NYTimes, has it almost right: "he got dragged into making a lot of stupid comments about Obama." McCain in this case is both draggee and dragger, making his week a total drag.
I think McCain looks like an angry baby when he attacks Obama. I also think whoever is organizing the places where he appears makes him look absolutely absurd most of the time. Sausage Haus? Dairy Delights? Jesus. I also think it's so very odd that Marc so often asks the readers what we think -- but enables comments so infrequently. So odd.
It amuses me to no end that some still see McCain as the "safe" and "competent" choice. Have they seen how these two campaigns are being run? On the other hand, I think the gas-price issue is starting to work in McCain's favor, take a look at this: http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-gas-prices-issue-is-working-in-mccains-favor/
McCain's week was terribad. The only question is how big will his loss be? Will he moderate his tone and message to keep things close, or will he keep up his angry old man act and lose in a landslide... If his path to winning includes PA (as someone who works there) he has no chance. None.
Yes, let's do some work for you only for you to turn commments off until you have another inane question. Why did you allow a guest post on the speech and then act surprised? bit slippery, wasn't it? McCain has made himself look ridiculous, and the fact that even you had to point out the chicken and egg shows he is screwing up big time, and if the press werent still smarting from SNL obamalove, they would have crucified him by now.
I'd say that the combination of the sense that McCain can no longer control his "base" and the whining from the press that Obama is the one controlling them, is really bad news for McCain. The press, including Ambinder, has spent a lot of ink explaining McCain's seemingly wrong-headed or incorrect comments ever since Obama became the nominee. Of course when he said the Surge he meant counterinsurgency, because he's always been talking about that kind of stuff. trust us! Forget the fact that if you go back and look at the history of McCain's critism of the war in Iraq, it has always been primarily a cowardly call more more troops. Troops he knew we didn't have. Up until this point, the press has been telling us what McCain really means when his says something stupid. With Obama, the analysis is always, 'how are stupid people and or dishonest pundits going to construe a perfectly valid statement into something that could hurt Obama with with voter bloc x, y, or z?'. At the end of the day though, I feel much better about Obama's chances with his image in his campaign's hands. The media will fall in line, just like they did with Bush. Do they want the photo-op or not? Do they want to have something to write or not? That's why the press is whining now, and why they'll shut up and write what Axelrod tells them to.
It seemed like an awful week to me with McCain with several of his major arguments refuted by events. McCain's has claimed that Obama's plan for Iraq was naive, reflecting his ignorance. Having the Iraqi prime minister effectively endorse Obama's plan undercuts that attack. Likewise, McCain has prided himself of his knowledge of Iraq, yet made multiple errors this week. The most important of which was his ignorance of the timing of the Awakening movement and the troop surge. I also did want to take the rare chance to say that I think Mark's reporting has been biased towards McCain. He supported McCain's ridiculous defense of his surge confusion. Marc added the comment that "Most of us equate the surge with troop levels, but for McCain, it has always been about a strategy; to executive the strategy, more troops were needed." Now maybe Marc's right there although some evidence would have been helpful. But when McCain talks about how Obama opposed the surge, he is referring only to the troop escalation. Tom G. As a side note, I think John's claim that Obama would rather lose a war than an election should cost him whatever aura of political honor still clings to him.
McCain had an excellent week of making Obama's case for him that McCain represents business as usual and an extension of both the policies and politics of George W. Bush.
Mixed review for McCain: I thought some of the stuff he did was pretty funny; the visit to the schintzelhaus was actually witty, in a bitter-but-not-much-so-way, for example, and the jibe at the press yesterday wasn't so bad either. On the other hand, the visit to the oil barge debacle, the golf-cart photo op disaster, and especailly the persistent gaffing (did anyone catch him forgetting about the Afghanistan war?) suggest a campaign that's trying too hard to stay relevant and a candidate who just isn't up to what they want him to do. The more McCain speaks, the more unforced errors he makes. They should keep him in controlled environments like these "town halls" which look increasingly loaded with republicans to me--the misstatements and outright lies are starting to catch up with him, and the concern about his gaffing is going to join up with concerns about his age to make him into the gaffing geezer if he doesn't watch out. When even AP is writing about it, it's a problem.
John who???
I think the most important thing that happened was the times rejecting McCain's piece. Were it not for that the media would be free to cover a great week for Obama seeming really presidential getting the Iraqi government to endorse his plan for Iraq. At the same time McCain showed poor understanding of Iraq and the surge seeking to redefine the term to mean counterinSURGEncy which probably will seem just silly to anyone paying attention. Showing a poor mastery of the facts of the Iraq situation. However the the NYT issue really colors everything, people will be skeptical of all the good press Obama is deservedly getting and of all the bad press McCain is deservedly getting. The media will be sensitive of this perception of bias and downplay McCain's fairly serious errors and play up Obama's non/minor errors "citizen of the world"/ “People of Berlin -- people of the world -- this is our moment. This is our time”. There is this notion that is common in the MSM that you aren't doing your job if you don't treat each side equally well. This leads to an equalizing bias. McCain had what seems to be an objectively bad week. Obama had what seems to have been an objectively good week. So in covering the events of the week fair is not treating them both like they had a complicated week with highs and lows. Fair is treating the weeks winner like he won by as much as he won by. The Economist is not a perfect publication but one of the many things that it gets right is that it evaluates claims through a fairly consistent and specific lens, criticizing and praising as events dictate. The Economist will criticize Obama for appealing to anti-globalization voters in Ohio. Ambinder will criticize Obama for having a problem that people can't put their finger on him. Which very well might be true, but is particularly not insightful. There is little functional difference for writing with the assumption that your reader is dumb and actually being dumb.
It has been an amazing week. The candidates are occupying each others' supposed strong territory. Obama is currently dominating on Iraq and McCain is stunningly on the defensive. On the other hand, McCin has a coherent response to the major economic issue at home: drill drill drill. It's not what a lot of people want to hear, but at least they are hearing it. Obama needs to find a way toget his economic message to be heard and accepted, or he could be in trouble. Pictures of massive crowds in Berlin I think may make that harder rather than easier.
I agree with some assessments here that, on balance, the week actually could have gone worse for McCain. This is principally because, as Mr. Foody noted, the press, in knee-jerking to be "objective" treated McCain's un-enthusiastic and gaffe-prone week as equally newsworthy when, quite frankly, no matter whose side you're on, it was not. A fair argument could be made that McCain's trip overseas while the Dems were still bickering was not covered in-depth in the same way, and I'm not sure why the McCain camp isn't playing that card more effectively. The general tenor of the McCain whine-fest is extremely off-putting to anyone not already waiting for Murder She Wrote to come on before the Early Bird, but I don't know if it's late enough for that to matter. As an likely Obama voter, I do admit to some reticence that the Germany speech, while it plays well to folks like me, could backfire, but I'll trust the guy who got this far, besting the Clinton machine in the process, over my own nervousness. At this point, as it's been noted, it's shaping up like Obama's to lose rather than McCain's to win. The difference is, I can still see avenues where this happens.
Remarkable. He did everything that should sink a candidate, made a lifetime of lethal errors and is not only still viable, but gaining ground.
Mark, I realize you are touring with McCain as a reporter but you have to at least let some analysis creep in. In your recent post on McCain and the tax on cigarettes you stated that McCain believes higher taxes on tobacco would actually lead to more smoking. This would seem to strongly contradict what most people understand about supply and demand. Did he provide any support beyond 'because I say so'? What do experts say about sin taxes and demand? I assume if McCain said that HIV was caused not by a virus but rather by aliens in miniature space-ships you would at least offer a 'this seems to contradict many in the scientific community' boilerplate. Please, PLEASE provide some context along with what the candidate said!
You do have to give McCain credit for making the ultimate Iraq withdrawal pivot without so much as word from the press. He went from 100 years, to it doesn't really matter as long as troops aren't getting killed (read permanent bases), to 'victory' in his first term, to 2012. And he already has help from pundits trying to shave 2012 down to 2011. I mean, it's just one number differernt. The difference between Obama and McCain is now MONTHS, my friends! He did it all in less than a month. And of course it's complete bullshit, and every reporter on the planet knows it. Maybe he didn't have such a bad week after all.
Ugh. I hope the new blog software allows for both commenting AND comment moderation (blocking IPs of people who launch nasty negative attacks). I disagree often with Ambinder and share concerns with some about the media's tendency to explain away McCain's gaffes while trying to figure out why Obama's gaffes will make stupid people hate him, but none of this (minor) disagreement calls for nasty personal attacks.
One of the more important events of this week was the bickering over the surge. The Iraq issue is a must-win for McCain, and this week offered him an opportunity to feel out some arguments. And somehow, despite making a major gaffe, McCain may have built a very solid ground for himself by successfully changing "the surge" into "any positive strategy in Iraq." If that sticks with the press he can simply say "Obama didn't support the surge, and we've made important gains, so Obama supports defeat." It doesn't matter that the whole storyline is essentially disingenuous.
McCain's not doing so bad for an eighty year old who still has Maliki's knife stuck in his back.
Mcthuselah and his cronies in the "Liberal media" had an awful week. I label them the worst persons in the world
It is very simple: The only area where Obama was supposed to be weak on, Foreign Policy, Obama handled it head on and ended up winning the week in a landslide. This week showed that Obama not only did great on visuals but also on substance. While Obama's week was very strong, McCain's week was full of gaffes and other problems:
This week would not have gone any worse for McCain.
I miss Sullivan. This would have been a good week to hear his views. Hope you get off JV circuit soon.
I miss Sullivan. This would have been a good week to hear his views. Hope you get off JV circuit soon.
heather Andrew Sullivan? Last I heard he is alive and blogging.
A week like would have destroyed any other candidates' chances. But Halperin, Broder, and the rest will continue to prop up the old man's campaign. It really is that simple. McCain's string of gaffes shows that he is not well-informed enough to be president. His childish whining the past week shows that he's tempermentally suited either. But you'd never know that from the media's coverage of him.
will continue to prop up the old man's campaign It is all very Weekend at Bernie's-esque, isn't it? (I'm looking at you, CBS News--what was your job, again?)
will continue to prop up the old man's campaign It is all very Weekend at Bernie's-esque, isn't it? (I'm looking at you, CBS News--what was your job, again?)
I think the McCain campaign has reached the point this week that Hillary Clinton's campaign reached after Super Tuesday, where they've just realized that they are screwed, and are reacting by throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. It may keep them alive in the short run, but I sincerely doubt it is going to work any better in the long run than it did for Clinton. Clinton is a much more skilled politician than McCain seems to be.
"McCain had to cancel his brainy idea about going to a oil-rig for a photo-op because of the OIL SPILL in New Orleans." The oil spill was from tankers -- those are what you use primarily when you have to import and export oil, rather than draw from it domestically. Offshore oil rigs almost NEVER spill. One, in particular, in the Gulf was hit by Katrina and didn't spill a drop.
"McCain had to cancel his brainy idea about going to a oil-rig for a photo-op because of the OIL SPILL in New Orleans." The oil spill was from tankers -- those are what you use primarily when you have to import and export oil, rather than draw from it domestically. Offshore oil rigs almost NEVER spill. One, in particular, in the Gulf was hit by Katrina and didn't spill a drop.
Mick, you probably already know this, but I'll say it anyway. Oil drilled domestically does not go directly into our own supply. This assumption is ridiculously off-base. Oil drilled domestically goes into the world market where it is refined and sold -- on the world market. Secondly, about offshore oil rig, I get the idea that you again don't know what you're talking about.
ambinder and the atlantic delete comments that either did NOT criticize mccain and/or mention the "liberal media's" bias. The atlantic really should include a disclaimer noting that only pro obama comments are allowed. That way people don't waste their precious time typing comments that will only be deleted. Just say'n.
ambinder and the atlantic delete comments that either did NOT criticize mccain and/or mention the "liberal media's" bias. The atlantic really should include a disclaimer noting that only pro obama comments are allowed. That way people don't waste their precious time typing comments that will only be deleted. Just say'n.
his week, the political news was that McCain's foreign policy rationale fell apart. At heart, all it was was a critique of Obama as "naïve and inexperienced" It's just not a credible line of argument anymore. But what I think the press is missing is that Maliki just pointed out a BIG foreign policy challenge to the next President. The prime minister of Iraq has said troops must be out by 2010, a position supported by Obama but not by McCain. The press has focused on how that's a vindication of Obama as a serious person, but they really need to look at Maliki's statement out of the context of the horserace. This is a warning. If you believe John McCain, that having 160,000 American troops instead of 130,000 American troops was the key factor in pacifying a nation of 30 million, then Maliki's statement should not concern you in the least. (Of course, by this logic you should also believe that the failure of American troops and tactics caused the escalation of violence in 2004-2007, but let's put that aside. Let's also put aside the bizarre fact that while 160,000 Americans could pacify Iraq in 2007, 250,000 troops could not stop the looting in 2003.) But if you hew to Obama's understanding of the decrease in violence, which was a combination of changes in the Iraqi political situation (Sunni Awakening, Shiite cease-fire, ethnic cleansings' completion), aided by the increasd US troops and American tactics of supporting even the people who had been shooting at us, PLUS the fact that Iraqis from the leadership on down to the man in the street came to believe the American people would not tolerate staying in Iraq forever--well, then you should be paying much more attention to what Maliki is saying. Because, see, Maliki is telling us that if we don't leave when they ask, the Iraqis are going to stop asking and start shooting. McCain is wrong about the significance of the surge, just as he has been wrong about every issue of consequence in Iraq (WMDs are a real threat, there is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, the war will be quick, we will be greeted as liberators, capturing saddam is incredibly important in terms of ending the violence in Iraq, it's not a civil war it's dead-enders or al quaeda, Al Quaeda will take over the country if we leave, etc.). McCain has, however, been very good at playing domestic politics with the situation in Iraq. He has routinely suggested anyone who disagrees with his strategic interpretation does not respect the troops and/or hates America. Once again, he is playing domestic politics on the surge, suggesting that it's an insult to the troops to say that anything was more important than the surge. This is a very dangerous thing to believe. Once again, Obama is right, although it is a hard soundbite and bad domestic politics. Our troops simply did not cause the stability in Iraq--they paid an incredible price and worked incredibly hard to be a small part of the solution. American soldiers were absolute heroes who sacrificed greatly for other people, and it hasn't been more recognized because no one will publicly acknowledge the bad politics, that we are working with the iraqis who killed their fellow soldiers. But we must see reality as it is and not as we wish it to be. Iraqi factons are really driving the situation in Iraq, not external players like us. And the current stability depends in large part on every faction believing those external players are going to leave, that they intend to respect the soverignty of Iraq. Why is it important to be clear about what's behind the decrease in voilence in Iraq? Because this may really be our last chance for victory in Iraq. Because of we don't go now, they will turn on us. That is Maliki's warning. If you're John McCain and you are honestly stupid enough to believe that Americans can "win" against 30 million Iraqis who don't want us there, then by all means, play domestic politics. Play "Obama was right on the invasion, McCain was right on the surge, so now it's a tie and it doesn't really matter which one of them you pick." Just remember, McCain has been wrong about EVERYTHING in Iraq to this point. He now says it doesn't matter if we leave when the Iraqi government asks us to. Osama bin Laden has gotten away, Iran is stronger, 4,000 dead 30,000 wounded and half a trillion spent. Can we really afford to listen to McCain's again and stay, especially when leaving would do do much good? When it would strengthen the Pro-American and moderate forces in Iraq? We do not have the power to win Iraq by staying. We have it by leaving. We show we are their ally, who respects their soverignty. That all the stuff we said about freedom was true. That we know it's messy, but we believe it gets better results. That is the only real option we have, because if we stay, we are the enemy. Listen to Maliki.
Well, my comment got deleted too, hadenough, and it was pro-Obama, I think a random glitch related to the updating the blog is the more likely cause.
hey marc, what were you talking about a few posts down when you said you weren't going to write about ""that story-you know about him". i actually don't know. could you enlighten me? at least tell me what you were referring to? it's driving me a little nuts (and yes, i know i'm probably already nuts toget worked up over something like this, but oh well).
hey marc, what were you talking about a few posts down when you said you weren't going to write about "that story-you know about him" i actually don't know. could you enlighten me? at least tell me what you were referring to? it's driving me a little nuts (and yes, i know i'm probably already nuts toget worked up over something like this, but oh well).
Marc, Johnny McCain is interesting, but I wish to draw your attention to this from the New Republic. "Around midnight on July 16, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney received a terse e-mail from Barack Obama's press office. The campaign was irked by the Times' latest poll and Nagourney and Megan Thee's accompanying front-page piece titled "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race," which was running in the morning's paper. Nagourney answered the query, the substance of which he says was minor, and went to bed, thinking the matter resolved. But, the next morning, Nagourney awoke to an e-mail from Talking Points Memo writer Greg Sargent asking him to comment on an eight-point rebuttal trashing his piece that the Obama campaign had released to reporters and bloggers like The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder and Politico's Ben Smith. Nagourney had not heard the complaints from the Obama camp and had no idea they were so steamed. "I'm looking at this thing, and I'm like, 'What the hell is this?' " Nagourney recently recalled. "I really flipped out." Later that afternoon, Nagourney got permission from Times editors to e-mail Sargent a response to the Obama memo. But the episode still grates. "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others," Nagourney tells me. "I thought they crossed the line. If you have a problem with a story I write, call me first. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But they never called. They attacked me like I'm a political opponent." Adam Nagourney's wail was conveyed through Gabriel Sherman of the New Republic. Wait a minute, Adam? Gabriel? So an 'Adam' starts a story that Obama will be held back by race, and a Gabriel wails that the Obama camp replied to the Adam. And then I remember that the Liberal American Jewish editor of the New Yorker was hard pressed to pass of his incendiary cover of Obama and Michelle as terrorists. And I remember that Jon Stewart has had a distinct change of tone as soon as Obama moved from strong contender to almost certain bet! Marc, you need to take up the matter of whether the Liberal American Jewish Camp is working subtly to stop the Obama Goliath with a few well slung stones!
Hans, I think he was probably referring to the John Edwards rumors. (The National Enquirer claims they caught him visiting his "mistress" and "love child" in a hotel. No proof has been forthcoming, yet. Many news outlets are [rightfully IMO] loath to publish the rumors before they've been substantiated, but there is a ton of chatter out there.)
I stoped paying attention to John McCain long time ago because he is becoming like Rudy Guliani. A verb, A noun and the Surge
I stoped paying attention to John McCain long time ago because he is becoming like Rudy Guliani. A verb, A noun and the Surge
The biggest blunder from McCain was his own unforced error. The unforced error is about McCain acting like a nasty attack dog during this week. Usually campaign staff does the attack dog kind of work. But here McCain acted like an attack dog and looked very angry and nasty. So, what made me think this way? It was my co-worker. My co-worker is a very independent guy but today he told me that he has decided now who he is going to support. I was very surprised since he had told me again and again that he may wait till last minute. What was the reason for his change of mind? It was McCain's nasty attacks during this week that it reminded him of Bush styled negative politics. He told me that the way McCain attacked Obama this week was totally in contrast to McCain's cultivated soft, nice guy image of all these years. But this week's attacks by McCain reminded him of Bush-Rove styled negative attacks. He said that this turned him off because McCain sounded like a mirror image of Bush and he does not want to see the same old for another four years. In his words, "this week I realized that McCain really sounds like Bush" and "enough is enough". So thanks to McCain for pushing away one independent in a swing state. I bet that many more people see McCain as a negative attack dog kind of politician now than last month.
The biggest blunder from McCain was his own unforced error. The unforced error is about McCain acting like a nasty attack dog during this week. Usually campaign staff does the attack dog kind of work. But here McCain acted like an attack dog and looked very angry and nasty. So, what made me think this way? It was my co-worker. My co-worker is a very independent guy but today he told me that he has decided now who he is going to support. I was very surprised since he had told me again and again that he may wait till last minute. What was the reason for his change of mind? It was McCain's nasty attacks during this week that it reminded him of Bush styled negative politics. He told me that the way McCain attacked Obama this week was totally in contrast to McCain's cultivated soft, nice guy image of all these years. But this week's attacks by McCain reminded him of Bush-Rove styled negative attacks. He said that this turned him off because McCain sounded like a mirror image of Bush and he does not want to see the same old for another four years. In his words, "this week I realized that McCain really sounds like Bush" and "enough is enough". So thanks to McCain for pushing away one independent in a swing state. I bet that many more people see McCain as a negative attack dog kind of politician now than last month.
Hi Marc,
Hi Marc,
Here is the BREAKING news: McCain now agrees with Obama's 16 month troop withdrawl timeframe if the conditions on the ground are good. He used the word "16 month timeframe" while talking with Wolf Blitzer. Yes, he did it. The cranky old man agrees with Obama now! **************************************************
Here is the BREAKING news: McCain now agrees with Obama's 16 month troop withdrawl timeframe if the conditions on the ground are good. He used the word "16 month timeframe" while talking with Wolf Blitzer. Yes, he did it. The cranky old man agrees with Obama now! **************************************************
McCain's doing fine. He's fighting from behind, but not too far behind, and he's getting out to small events in Middle America. This may be an unwinnable year for any Republican, but if any can do it, it'll be him, and it'll be by convincing voters ten and twenty at a time that he's the guy.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'd summarize this week as "petulant."
He made errors, then whined that no, he didn't actually make them. (The surge thing.) He goaded Obama about making a trip to Iraq, then whined when Obama did (and got coverage of it). He whined about the press coverage he gets vs. Obama.
Overall, he seemed to finally start irritating the press. They seemed to finally start covering his gaffes, with the effect of this week seeming especially gaffe-tastic just as Obama was overseas exuding gravitas and commander-in-chiefiness.
So, not a good week for McCain.
Posted by Jenna | July 25, 2008 9:25 AM