I like Chuck Todd (and his posse of deputies Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro) but I think they’re off in the tall grass on this:
[…[D]oes this entire episode remind anyone else of John Kerry’s botched joke before the 2006 midterms — when Kerry’s mangled swipe at President Bush got twisted into a slap at US troops?
That’s a misreading of what’s happening here because Clark’s point was made with far more intelligence and articulation than Kerry’s (despite Obama calling it “inartful” but that’s another story).
Here’s how I see it:
McCain, trailing badly by most meaningful metrics, wants the Obama camp to hit him hard. Why? Three reasons:
- So that he can get as much free media as possible, but more importantly…
- So he can play the aggrieved victim, which leads to…
- Drawing the Republican base closer to him (McCain) in his defense.
That’s it. So how’s he doing? Not so good.
Obama is not the candidate that will lash out at his opponents. McCain should know this by now — Obama is preternaturally cool (for a national politician) — it is McCain who is the hothead. Instead of lashing out, Obama has repeatedly stated how much he honors McCain’s sacrifice, but…that isn’t enough to qualify McCain to be president. The longer McCain strikes back, the weaker and more petty he looks.
I think I know what McCain is trying to do: he (consciously or otherwise) is trying to take a page out of Richard Nixon’s campaign playbook circa 1967. Back then, Nixon was perceived as a has-been, a loser that no one in their right mind would listen to. But Nixon figured out that if he could goad LBJ into lashing out at him personally, he could elevate his stature to that of the sitting president. And (more importantly) he could paint himself as a victim/outsider being picked on by the bully/insider. Nixon understood the simmering resentment against Johnson and knew that as soon as Johnson struck back it would draw the Republican base closer to him. It worked for Nixon back then.
But it won’t work for McCain today because Obama isn’t a bully and McCain isn’t an outsider. Oh, he’ll draw the Republican base closer to him because these are the same people that give Bush a 60% approval rating and they’ll believe just about anything. But as far as getting the independents and disaffected Democrats…not so much.
Furthermore, the free media thing isn’t working out so well either. For one thing, Wesley Clark has made his point with clarity … and humility: Clark honors McCain’s sacrifice, but will not concede that it automatically makes McCain the superior candidate for president. In my book, this makes him a decent candidate for Secretary of Defense or Chariman of the Armed Services Committee … but not Chief Executive of the United States. Of course, McCain’s camp simply won’t accept that and continues to play the “sacrifice card” and the “military experience” card. But that misses the point and gives Clark yet another chance to repeat his point.
And you know what? Every day that this story stays alive cuts against McCain by allowing Clark’s argument to be discussed in greater detail. It gives Sen. Webb a chance to weigh in. It gives McCain another opportunity to screw up by bringing in the bad actors from the Swiftboats for Slime — the guys who trashed Kerry by trashing his military career.
Bad move Senator McCain: now YOU look like the bully. Can’t you see? No one is trashing your military career. Not Clark, not Webb, not Obama. They are simply making a simple case: Being a hero yesterday does not punch your ticket to the Presidency…tomorrow.
Everyday that this issue is discussed AGAIN is another day where we get to consider whether we elect a president based on his judgment instead of his sacrifice. Hillary tried to frame her fight with Obama in a similar way — experience versus judgment. She lost. If McCain wants to fight that battle again, he’s going to lose just like Hillary did.
Elections are about the future, not the past. If McCain doesn’t know that by now, he’s doomed.
Even McCain himself can’t tell me why his service record qualifies him to be President:
Lame, lame, lame.
And angry!
This far from the election, on such an issue, all press is good press.
How so?
Well, less than a week now and we’ve already moved on to other things. There is no lasting damage (or gain) from these little media skirmishes. They have always struck me as more beneficial to easy media ratings (the low hanging fruit) than they are beneficial or negative to the candidates. This issue will never be significant when those among us who are not news junkies start paying real attention to this thing.
McCain is going to have to really start to focus on his accumulation of “senior moments” though. They are really starting to pile up and it isn’t too hard to put together what the ad is going to look like in October.
McCain is quite the candidate. I can’t think of too many major party nominees who have tanked two — count em two — campaigns in one election cycle.
It’s like he’s trying to lose.
“This issue will never be significant when those among us who are not news junkies start paying real attention to this thing.”
You mean like Al Gore lying about inventing the internet and John Kerry lying about his war record. The “not news junkies” are exactly who this shit is designed for and who it most effects – because they don’t know enough to know better.
Ara,
Yes it is. Did he hire Dole and I missed it? 🙂
shep,
Al Gore lost because he is almost as bad as Nixon was on TV. The internet was a petal on a rose on the icing on the cake. I’m not touching Kerry because I know my view of that situation will only lead to a lot of posting that goes nowhere. As to the issues that matter to the pay no attention crowd, do you think they lie significantly in exit polling?
Lying isn’t really necessary. When you’re pulling an important decision out of your ass, everyone is capable of making up a reason whether they really believe it or not. Yours reflect the “no-nothing” media narrative perfectly, BTW.
As to the issues that matter to the pay no attention crowd, do you think they lie significantly in exit polling?
Emotions are what move voters; issues matter but only insofar as they elicit positive or negative emotions about a candidate or his party.
I think what happens is that voters may say that they voted for candidate X because of his stand on issue Y. But so often what’s really happening is that candidate X really turns that voter on — or candidate Z rubs them the wrong way. As a consequence, they rationalize their vote by “quoting the issues.” This can be especially baffling when it appears that the voter went against his own self-interest.
Is that lying? Not really. It’s just human nature.
For the record, I agree with Ara on this. The exit polls reflect nothing more than a chance for voters to put a label on that emotion, even if the answer would appear to be based on intellectual consideration.
And, shep, not even I would say that the media ALWAYS gets it wrong. They’d look mighty foolish denying the obvious re. Gore on TV.
“And, shep, not even I would say that the media ALWAYS gets it wrong. They’d look mighty foolish denying the obvious re. Gore on TV.”
Eric, Eric, Eric…was the “wooden” candidate Gore really worse than the stumbling, bumbling candidate Bush? And, if you really believe that it wasn’t a contrived media narrative to make Gore seem inauthentic (what they do to nearly all Democrats but few Republicans), so what?
shep,
Since I have been politically aware, I do not think there has been a good candidate for President (1980s well before I could vote). So let me start there before we go any further.
In the America that exists today I do think that most people judge wooden to be less desirable than frat boy. Absolutely. Our entire culture is based around the preference for one over the other. You can point out stumbling, bumbling, but that isn’t the issue. Americans will forgive a lot (or overlook) if a person looks like someone they would enjoy spending time with.
So, no, I don’t think in Gore’s case it was a “contrived” narrative. To support this I would point you to the parodies of Gore. They are successful because the stiff/egghead caricature resonates with American audiences. Comedy doesn’t work without the right truth. No amount of cable news coverage can change that.
“They are successful because the stiff/egghead caricature resonates with American audiences.”
Well sure. It “resonated” because they heard it over and over again in ways both subtle and not so subtle – that’s the whole point (and how much “truth” do the tuned-out masses really need to have it take hold). And where was the comparable “dumb frat boy” narrative or the “self-indulgent prick” narrative for Bush that had plenty more truth to it but was never telegraphed by the Beltway elites?
Now that you’re politically aware, you should read this guy:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
He can explain how this works better than I.
I’ve had him bookmarked for years. He occasionally runs into a decent point.
“Americans will forgive a lot (or overlook) if a person looks like someone they would enjoy spending time with.”
And let me point out that that is a pretty damning indictment of the American public (with which I take no exception) who happens to be electing the freeking president of the most powerful nation on earth, not high school class president (and I’d still pick the smart “wooden” kid).
Never look to me to defend the intelligence of the American public. I’m quite certain that an equal or greater amount of time has been dedicated to HS Pres. or Prom king/queen as most Americans devote to selecting a President.
To support this I would point you to the parodies of Gore. They are successful because the stiff/egghead caricature resonates with American audiences.
And yet, inevitably, the parody includes Gore “inventing the Internet” something he never said or even suggested. And plenty of other, similar, stuff.
What you’re describing, Eric, is a parody…of a parody.
Not inevitably. Sure it happens, it is an easy target. So is “Under my plan.” I don’t recall South park leaning heavily on ‘inventing the internet’ either. Yet, Gore was still wooden.
South Park!? Those libertarian nutjobs probably didn’t thing you could win a Nobel Prize for man-bear-pig either. Funny people.