I’ve been shying away from predictions about the outcome of the presidential campaign. But I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that this Politico article will stand out as one of the dumbest pieces of the fall, regardless of whether Obama or McCain wins.
Tag: John McCain
Let the excuse-making begin
In my latest for the Guardian, I find that conservative pundits aren’t even trying to make the case that John McCain won last night’s debate with Barack Obama. Instead, they’re blaming the economy, the format and even McCain himself.
Open thread for tonight’s debate
Let’s try something different tonight. I’m not going to live-blog the latest Obama-McCain debate. I’ve been under the weather the last couple of days, and I just want to watch, more or less uninterrupted.
But feel free to post comments while the debate is taking place. I’ll try to check in a few times during the course of the evening.
A good night for Obama
In my latest for the Guardian, I round up media commentary about the Palin-Biden debate — and argue that Barack Obama caught a break, as not even conservatives thought Sarah Palin did quite well enough to be declared the unambiguous victor.
Readying the Ifill excuse
Today was the first time I’d heard there was any controversy over the choice of Gwen Ifill as moderator of tomorrow’s vice-presidential debate. It seems that Ifill has a book coming out that is largely* about Barack Obama.
Adam Reilly does a good job of putting together a timeline that shows everyone knew about Ifill’s book back in July and August, but that no one on the Republican side cared until John McCain and Sarah Palin began to tank.
Jack Shafer, meanwhile, observes that few media figures are as fair as Ifill. He’s right. The McCain campaign couldn’t possibly believe Ifill is going to stick it to Palin tomorrow. Ergo, it looks like excuses are being prepared in advance in case Palin performs poorly.
*Thursday update: Not even. It’s partly about Obama.
Kristol mails it in
Bill Kristol barely rouses himself in his New York Times column today. Simply as a student of opinion journalism, I’m amazed at the extent to which he’s willing to make assertions without even trying to back them up.
Today’s effort isn’t a bad column because he’s a conservative, but because he’s so lazy. Here are three examples:
1. “McCain’s impetuous decision to return to Washington was right. The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.”
I have not seen one account of the negotiations that shows John McCain had anything to do with the outcome; I’ve seen quite a few that suggest his parachute jump was a distraction. I make that point not to claim that I’m right, but to explain the conventional wisdom that Kristol, as McCain’s advocate, needs to puncture.
As if. Here was Kristol’s golden opportunity to work those inside connections and tell us why everyone is wrong; to say that McCain did X and Y, and that it’s time he got some credit, damn it. Kristol doesn’t even try.
2. “McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her — aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she’s a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.”
As we have all seen, Sarah Palin can’t answer simple questions about any issues of national and international importance. The reason McCain’s aides have been so parsimonious about her public appearances is that she stumbles every time she opens her mouth. We wouldn’t be talking about how she’s being handled if she could answer the questions.
Again, the columnist’s job is to tell us why everyone is wrong — to explain, on the basis of evidence, that the reason her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were so damaging was because McCain’s handlers have gotten inside her head and made it impossible for her natural wisdom to flow forth. Or whatever. In other words, give us some plausible explanation for us not to believe our own lying eyes and ears.
And again, Kristol doesn’t bother.
3. “On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words ‘middle class.’ … The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama’s eloquent memoir, ‘Dreams From My Father.’ There Obama quotes from the brochure of Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright’s church — a passage entitled ‘A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.'”
Why, yes, the McCain campaign might very well consider doing that. Would it be a good idea? Who knows? Kristol doesn’t make any attempt to try to characterize what the brochure says.
Wright has indulged in some pretty nasty rhetoric. But he is, after all, a minister. If Wright calls on people to disavow “the pursuit of middleclassness,” might he be urging them to eschew materialism in favor of service to one’s fellow men and women? Who knows? What we do know is that, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, Kristol manages to insinuate that Wright was seeking a race war against bourgeois society.
How much is he getting paid for this?
McCain and Middleborough
I’ll leave it to others — Gladys Kravitz, perhaps? — to ponder the deeper meaning of this. But it looks like those of us who are trying to stop a gambling casino from being built in Middleborough have one more thing to worry about if John McCain is elected president.
The media debate the debate
In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that though McCain and Obama may have debated to a draw on substance, media reaction suggests that McCain’s grumpy, condescending demeanor may have given the edge to Obama.
What to look for tomorrow
Assuming McCain shows up, that is.
My Northeastern colleague Alan Schroeder, a leading expert on presidential debates, writes in the Politico about what McCain and Obama need to accomplish tomorrow night.
Schroeder’s bottom line: McCain is better than Obama in conversational settings, but he’s been inconsistent this year; and Obama is better than McCain at giving a speech, but has rarely showed the ability to seize the moment in unscripted settings.
Neither, he says, is a master of the debate form on the order of John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Schroeder’s latest addition to the pantheon — Hillary Clinton.
No help for their candidate
Maybe I’m reading to much into this. But if congressional Republicans wanted to help John McCain, wouldn’t they have slowed things down and tried to make it look like McCain’s parachute drop onto Capitol Hill was — well, if not exactly crucial, then at least helpful?
Instead, Republicans and Democrats have reportedly just about wrapped up the bailout legislation, leaving McCain looking foolish, and with nothing better to do Friday evening than to head to Mississippi for the first presidential debate.
Here’s a hilarious tidbit from the Politico:
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that “nobody mentioned McCain” during the several-hour-long meeting on the $700 billion market rescue plan, other than Frank. “They winced when I did,” said Frank. He went on to compare Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to “Andy Kaufman and his Mighty Mouse: Here I am to save the day.”
I am amazed at how unsteady McCain’s behavior is compared to eight years ago — or, for that matter, eight months ago.