The danger of McCain

John McCain has an uncanny ability to convince reporters that he is principled, rather than inconsistent. More than anyone from recent memory, McCain is, prima facia, assumed to be honorable and correct. Things he says would often be lambasted if spoken by other politicians. Case in point is the difference in perspective between Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, (who generally has one of the most level headed, analytical, Election '08 process blogs out there) and Ezra Klein at The American Prospect regarding some statements McCain made about future troop withdraw from Iraq.

Both Ambinder and Klein quote this:

Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. “You’ve heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I’ve heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German…the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?” McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. “I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence,” he responded. “And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.”

Ambinder's commentary, after adding in some more of the quote is this:

...the full context of the interview he gave in 2005 suggests that he modeled a
long-term US commitment to Iraq on South Korea, albeit with a big difference: a major corps would not necessarily have to embed itself in the country. Soldiers, euphamized as "military advisers," would maintain a presence. But McCain has never said that he favors keeping combat troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time.

Where does Ambinder get evidence that McCain is euphamizing soldiers as military advisers rather than changing his position on whether we should have a real contingent of soldiers in Iraq? Nope, I have no idea either.

Klein, on the other hand, sees this:

The point isn't that McCain flip-flops, which he does. It's that his strategic
thinking on matters like Iraq is curiously soft and immature. He's never come
out with a statement explaining why he ceased believing that we should reduce
our footprint and lower our visibility, nor how the last few years convinced him
that the Iraqi people, far from resenting our presence, would in fact prefer to
host our troops for the next century or so.

Take a look at the full context on Ambinder's blog and judge for yourself. Ok, so how meta is this post? My point is not really to get into the weeds on McCain's statements. It seems pretty clear that he specifically rejects the South Korea model before he accepts the South Korea model (which he did even more specifically on the Charlie Rose Show, here). What I want to highlight is Ambinder's perspective. If Marc can't get this one right and feels a reflexive need to defend McCain against the scurrolous attacks of the Democrats at The Huffignton Post and the DNC, how can we expect the MSM will even come close? More evidence of why we would be in a much better position if we had a nominee to highlight these issues, rather than expecting the media to do it for us as we fight eachother.

Pertinent but Unrelated

From the recent summit in Bucharest:

"While Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov talked, the two presidents danced with a Russian folk troupe, prompting Mr. Putin to declare Mr. Bush “a brilliant dancer.” (NYT)

Picture is of "Tap Dancing & Waiting for McCain" President Bush, not "Russian Folk Dancing & Trying to Pretend He's Still Relevant to International Diplomacy" President Bush. There curiously seem to be no pictures of the latter.

Non-NCAA North Carolina News

A new North Carolina poll is out, showing Obama leading by 23 points up from 7 only a month ago. Political Wire jumps onto more defection numbers, these reflecting that 56% of Clinton supporters would go McCain over Obama in November, despite the myriad reasons that these numbers are almost worthless.

The more interesting notes, however, are that this poll reflects similar gains that Obama has been making in Pennsylvania and that 77% have followed the Bosnia scandal. Despite 63% of respondents agreeing that "most politicians lie or embellish the truth when discussing their own accomplishments," 23% and 25% agree that it's a very important and somewhat important issue, respectively. While it's unlikely that Clinton will be giving a concession speech under media-induced sniper fire, persistent press problems and continued internal turmoil with the resignation of Mark Penn are ensuring that the campaign slips on any footholds it might stumble across. If Clinton expects to make this a competitive race again, and to convince the vast swathes of the party who believe that it ceased to be one some time ago, these problems cannot persist.

Peak Obama

The Times falls even further from the mark this evening with this article by Adam Nagourney. I've been growing progressively more irritated by some of his arguments since this one on "three breaks" Hillary Clinton needed to win the nomination, ignoring that each of the three were integrally intertwined, but this piece might be a new low.

Titled "Obama's Support Softens in Poll, Suggesting Peak has Passed," Nagourney argues rather straightforwardly that, because Obama's favorables among Democratic Primary Voters have dropped from seven points, to the only rock-star level of 62% among Democratic primary voters, it's the beginning of the end. Never mind that Obama was actually behind Clinton in the head-to-head nomination polls a few weeks ago, and that he was "weaker" in September with a favorable rating of only 52% (DPV), albeit with more respondents yet to pick a side. Also ignore that his favorability ratings among all respondents remain virtually unchanged from the two prior polls. This isn't to say that he will be stretching to new heights in the popularity contest, but he is at the very least soundly beating Hillary Clinton. If this is the beginning of the end for Obama, I shudder to think of what it is for her.

The (Good?) Long Road

Though the article called “Clinton’s Persistence could help Obama" has rather little to do with Clinton's longevity and it's direct impact on Obama, Katharine Seelye takes a much needed step back from the minute-by-minute fluctuations of the Democratic primary race. Mired in the Rev. Wright muck for much of the last few weeks, it's been easy to lose sight of a contest whose landscape is rapidly changing for the better.

When the prospect of a protracted nomination fight first appeared, I wasn't convinced it was an inherently bad thing. While the GOP might be given time to coalesce around a candidate, there would be no opponent for them to be defined in opposition to and the news media would be far less interested in covering the elect than the yet-to-be elected.

Of course, the intra party squabble also ran the risks that were realities in early March. In the fight for daily tactical advantage, the end goal can fade from sight. While the Wright controversy will likely be seen as little more than a bump in the road, or perhaps even a fortuitous occurrence if only for coming before the convention, there was little gained from the "monster" rhetoric and backhanded McCain endorsements that created the climate where the infamous defection poll's results were unsurprising.

If the campaigns can maintain their current tenor - whether they’ve come about because Hillary has given up or sees more to be gained by stating positive - the long primary may be far better for the party than most pundits dared to hope.

We might as well give up.

They're generally spot on, but the kids at On Call have got this one all wrong. I think this is the most important endorsement he's got. Who needs Joe Lieberman or John Hagee when you have Heidi Montag? I didn't think McCain had a hope, but now that he's got the teen implant crowd, I'm going to have to rethink my entire analysis of the election.