Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:44 AM

Obama Abroad, McCain Looks to Change the Subject

Newsweek

Suzanne Smalley files this report from the McCain roadshow:

John McCain may not be the shoot from the hip maverick of old, but he hasn’t lost his sense of humor. After a long day of loading on and off buses and planes, a press wrangler tonight told reporters the campaign had a “surprise” gift, adding that it is one that campaign officials, at least, consider “pretty funny.” With that, the staffer walked down the aisle and handed out laminated press ID cards emblazoned with the words “McCain Press Corps JV Squad” underneath a photo of the Statue of Liberty. The caption? “Left behind to report in America.” The reverse side of the ID offered a French translation of the same text along with a picture of a beret wearing pseudo-Frenchman pouring a glass of wine. Mon Dieu!

The “gift” was the latest in a succession of not so subtle hints that the McCain camp is displeased with the coverage of Barack Obama’s foreign trip. With Obama earning largely positive reviews abroad, McCain spent today fighting back. The Arizona senator slammed his rival for opposing the surge in troops that McCain famously backed when it wasn’t politically popular to do so.  He ridiculed Obama for never having met David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, before this trip. And he suggested that Obama must not understand what is happening in Iraq since he is refusing to acknowledge recent success there. But even with his campaign’s increasingly well-honed message, the Arizona senator has faced difficulty waging the debate on his terms. As the situation in Iraq improves, most Americans are focused on their desire for the war to end, a discussion that favors Obama. That reality, however, hasn’t stopped McCain from trying to redefine the conversation.

“This is a clear choice the American people have,” McCain told a crowd of about 400 gathered at a town hall meeting in Rochester, New Hampshire yesterday afternoon. “I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign then lose a war. It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” The inclusion of the phrase “in order to” sparked much chatter amongst the press corps traveling with McCain, who sit in town hall meeting after town hall meeting, often without hearing anything discernibly different. McCain’s words yesterday in New Hampshire—the state is in many ways a second home to the Arizona senator, having twice brought McCain’s political fortunes back from the dead—clearly represented a ratcheting up of his rhetoric. Add to the mix newly leaked reports of a McCain veep pick this week and it’s hard not to conclude that the McCain camp has an aggressive strategy for staking its claim to this news cycle. (Conservative columnist Bob Novak is on record saying he feels “used” by what he now thinks was a deliberate ruse by the McCain camp to gin up buzz for their candidate by leaking him bad information about McCain announcing his vice president this week. The alleged tactic comes as McCain’s team openly gripes about what they view as a media juggernaut bolstering Obama’s prospects with fawning coverage of his foreign trip).

Advertisement

You can’t blame the McCain camp for battling hard on many fronts. McCain can’t afford to cede any ground to Obama this week. According to recent polls, McCain is well ahead of Obama when it comes to voters’ perception of who is a stronger commander in chief. But McCain’s advanced age, lack of speaking polish and admitted weakness on the economy make it especially critical for him to maintain his edge on national security issues. To that end, McCain spoke extensively about Obama’s opposition to the surge yesterday. “My opponent said the surge would not succeed, that he wanted us out. If he had had his way we would have been out last March, we would have never done the surge, we would never have succeeded, and we would have had defeat,” McCain said at the town hall meeting, which was held inside a small opera house in downtown Rochester. Expect McCain to continue flogging the same message today when he takes advantage of Obama’s absence by barnstorming through the key swing state of Pennsylvania, with stops scheduled in Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, and Bethlehem.

For reporters on McCain’s plane the message discipline has its downside. McCain’s schedule has been tightly controlled with little of the freewheeling access that was once the norm. A small group of national reporters rotate covering press availabilities that are largely dedicated to answering questions from local reporters. Much of the senator’s time is also spent raising money. Yesterday a plane full of reporters flew to Baltimore solely so the senator could attend a fundraiser. Except for a small group of pool reporters, the press corps whiled away the evening at Mo’s Fisherman’s Seafood Factory, where the jumbo lump crab cakes were as big as baseballs. Some days may be slow, but at least they know how to feed us.
 

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Iamnotamused (July 24, 2008 at 8:21 AM)

Rapidron-that's because like I said, McCain doesn't have a platform.  He claims like he wants MORE media coverage but like I said in a post further below, he may want to NOT wish for it because then the US will see him as he really is...a pandering lunatic.  He has changed his stance so many times he's underwear changes can't even keep up!  What ever crowd he talks to, he tells them what they want to hear.  

So what he takes "questions" from his audience, it's full of only HIS supporters so the questions are either going to be questions handed to them by his campaign (and practiced on the answers for the particular crowd) or questions he has been so rehearsed on that he can automatically recall his answer.  That means nothing because he says nothing!


Posted By: rapidron (July 23, 2008 at 7:22 PM)

bojack27:

This plan you've heard of, what's your source?  Or do you just feel like that's what the democrats did?  I believe that when funding was being discussed, the president and republicans made a huge fuss about a congress with democratic majority (meaning plenty of republicans still in there) not giving funds for the war, when it was actually a congress that said they did not want to issue funds without any plans or strategy for withdraw.  In the end, they did push the funds through.

Criticism for going into Iraq includes the incompetence in which it was done, without a strategy, as well as the lies that perpetuated going in.  Criticism included the methods that the white house used to propagandize and lie to the public, and also the political spoils that seemed to go to those who could lie the most and spin the war against political opponents.  This is the whole reason why there are angry people like me saying you are a damn idiot if you want to follow their lies more.

If you can't understand that that there is criticism and then their is REASON for criticism, what is the point of talking to you at all?  Forgive me but that is just stupid.

I've noticed that each time you come on to answer one post or another you don't even address the reason for the post that was obviously answering your own.  I'm sure you're a nice guy and all bojack, but your attention span needs work.

The plan by the democratic congress when it first entered was to promote the will of the people which was for the president to make some kind of plan or strategy to bring troops home to stop this billion dollar, 30+ American soldiers a month war, and to TRY bring troops home.  Instead, the boy stuck his middle finger at America (as if it wasn't already up and as if he hadn't already done worse) and said he'd keep troops in Iraq as long as he wanted.

The WHOLE veto explanation was simply to tell you that any congress that wants to get anything done, due to the threat of veto, will often go with a president's whims, even if through some steep compromises.  Were you too simply to understand me answering your question in your previous post?  Or did you fail reading comprehension in remedial grade school?


Posted By: bojack27 (July 23, 2008 at 6:26 PM)

Rapidron

I will answer you quickly and will be back on later...... When the democrats came into power the agenda was clearly outlined to just frustrate and not give the sitting president any funds for the war and tried to force him to withdraw the troops from Iraq..... If you call that working together than I guess I'm not getting it as you say! The best approach would have been to say "Ok, we as Americans are going to provide you with our ideas for ending the occupation in Iraq"  Now for over two years I haven't heard of any idea of how to do that from the democratic Congress... along comes Obama and presents his ideas (weak) but at least i will give him credit for doing something Congress lack the intestinal fortitude to do .... and that was come up with a plan!

Now tell me what plan was presented by the Congress before Barack Obama mentioned his?

Only thing you heard was get out of Iraq and critism for going in to Iraq.... but NO PLAN.....


 
The Peek
 
 
PROJECT GREEN

For decades, tiny Barrow, Alaska, has been largely unknown and unnoticed. But with increasing global activity in the Arctic--especially from oil speculators--things are changing … fast.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu