Obama to McCain: ‘Anyone running for Commander-In-Chief should know better’

The traditional dynamic for recent presidential races considers what the Democratic candidate will do when the Republican candidate goes on the offensive. I get the distinct impression that the Obama campaign wants to flip that equation and keep McCain on the defensive as much as possible.

On Thursday, the presumptive GOP nominee walked himself into an unforced error, telling a Wisconsin audience that U.S. forces in Iraq have been “drawn down to pre-surge levels.” This, of course, isn’t even remotely true. When pressed on the error, McCain’s campaign said it was a matter of “the tense of the verb,” because the senator’s comment will be true in a couple of months. This is both factually wrong and surprisingly foolish. Pressed to admit he misspoke, McCain refused.

Obama wasn’t about to let the opportunity pass him by.

“[I]t seems like Senator McCain’s a lot more interested in my travel plans than the facts,” Obama told a Montana audience last night, “because yesterday — in his continued effort to put the best light on a failed policy — he stood up in Wisconsin and said, ‘We have drawn down to pre-surge levels’ in Iraq. That’s not true, and anyone running for Commander-in-Chief should know better.

“As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. We’ve got around 150,000 troops in Iraq — 20,000 more than we had before the surge. We have plans to get down to around 140,000 later this summer — that’s still more troops than we had in Iraq before the surge. And today, Senator McCain refused to correct his mistake. Just like George Bush, when he was presented with the truth, he just dug in and refused to admit his mistake. His campaign said it amounts to ‘nitpicking.’

“Well I don’t think tens of thousands of American troops amounts to nitpicking. Tell that to the young men and women who are serving bravely and brilliantly under our flag. Tell that to the families who have seen their loved ones fight tour after tour after tour of duty in a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.”

I think this is generally known as “going on the offensive.”

As it turns out, the more the McCain campaign pushed back yesterday, the worse it got for them. The WaPo’s Michael Dobbs noted yesterday afternoon, “Prior to the conference call, I was inclined to give McCain a maximum of two Pinocchios for his misstatement about troop levels in Iraq. Everybody misspeaks once in a while. But the attempt by the McCain media machine to spin the mistake as a simple matter of ‘verb tenses’ is an insult to our intelligence.”

They would have been so much better off admitting that McCain misspoke, apologizing, and moving on. But, no. They fell in a ditch and kept on digging, not unlike McCain’s approach to the war itself.

I noticed that Joe Klein and Michael Crowley think McCain’s mistake is largely inconsequential and “not very revealing of anything.” I disagree. The entire basis for McCain’s presidential campaign is his expertise on military matters, his support for Bush’s Iraq policy, and his unwavering commitment to the “surge.” And yet, based on his own remarks, McCain doesn’t seem to have any idea how many U.S. troops we have in Iraq.

This is his signature issue. If McCain doesn’t know what he’s talking about on this subject, he doesn’t have anything in reserve. It’s not “nitpicking” to note that McCain seems incapable of speaking intelligently on the issue he cares about most.

What’s more, it’d be easier to overlook isolated mistakes if McCain didn’t screw up the basics of what’s going on in Iraq so frequently. McCain has been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq; confused about the source of violence in Iraq; confused about Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda; confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi’ia; confused about Gen. Petraeus’ responsibilities in Iraq; and confused about what transpired during the Maliki government’s offensive in Basra.

Worse, this isn’t a new phenomenon. Back in November 2006, McCain couldn’t answer a reporter’s question about his own opinions on the war without reading prepared notes on national television. As recently as March 2007, McCain was embarrassing himself by insisting that Gen. Petraeus travels around Baghdad “in a non-armed Humvee” (a comment that military leaders literally laughed at.)

I think any intellectually honest person would agree that if all of this happened to Barack Obama, he’d be laughed off the presidential stage, and the media would relentlessly insist that he was clueless and unqualified to be commander in chief during a war. And yet, it’s not Obama, it’s the Republican who claims Iraq as his strongest issue.

The point is, with each passing week, it appears John McCain simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Even the shillary-nuts should be able to see that Obama is ready to go toe-to-toe with the heir-apparent of dur chimpfurher.

The choice (which is actually over, but her and her supporters hang on) is clear – shillary has parroted many of the same talking points as mclame. Not surprising, they both rely on kkkarl rove.

If we want change, and American’s overwhelmingly do, they we need a candidate that is ready to call the neocon/repugs out on their lies.

After all, we can’t expect the mainstream media to do it.

  • little bear, thank you for proving that the most obnoxious political fans in the known universe in 2008 are the obama zealots, who find it impossible to deal with any other issue than obama is greatest and clinton the worst.

    now, to turn to the actual topic of the posting: we are really going to see some cognitive dissonance at work over the next few months, as mccain’s base in the press will be confronted, over and over, with evidence that mccain is a loudmouth who knows very little but says it loudly. what fascinating excuses (or analyses of relative importance) we shall see.

    a lot of mainstream pundits (as paul krugman will remind you) that the it didn’t mean jack that bush did that little campaign number in 2000 with the 4 dollar bills that didn’t really add up; several trillion dollars in new debt later….

  • McCain is a front for the interests that have profitted immensely under the current president. These interests have worked their P.T. Barnum schick on us too long. McCain’s campaign is in for a hell of a long election season if he continues to represent himself as a Bush-lite candidate. I wonder how tired the honorable senator gets at the end of the day, day after day! I hope his health holds up. -Kevo

  • howard, man, you used to be sharper than this. Spend less than five minutes here and you’ll see that everyone, including Obama’s biggest fans here, either (tempting but pointless) bitchslaps or (much better) ignores little bear. He’s not representative of Obama supporters any more than Mary is representative of Clinton supporters and that should be bleeding obvious to anyone. Crazy people are just crazy people.

  • That’s right, Howard. Like Maria said, Cubby is our local embarrassment. I’m a big Obama fan, but I just skip over his rants.

    That said…

    Obama is going to be a devestating campaigner. This is just a tune-up. Just wait until the main event.

    WOW!

  • maria, i’ll tell ya: i don’t delve into the comments here very often because i’m so tired of the nature of the obama/clinton discussion here, but i thought the mccain moment was interesting enough to pursue. i have no clue who little bear is, but that’s why i gave him (her?) one sentence and moved on.

    Mae Coleman, sweet of you to ask rather than assume….

  • I have learned to pass over the little bear postings just as I had when Swan was posting. In fact, is little bear Swan? -Kevo

  • There are two possible explanations. The first, as you note, is McCain is clueless, refuting his experience claim. The second is he’s trying to blow smoke up our collective butt, negating McCain’s pledge of “straight talk”.

    Pretty bad in either case.

  • The context makes it worse: If memory serves, in the clip I saw, McCain was pointedly saying he could “look you in the eye and tell you” this piece of information about Iraq. In other words, he was evidently taking what he was about to say very seriously, and it turned out to be a “mistake.” In my universe, if you make a big deal about looking somebody in the eye and telling it like it is, and then you tell it like it isn’t, there is a name for that. It’s not called a grammatical error; it’s called a lie.

  • I usually don’t disagree with little bear in his/her sentiments, but I do with he’d stop with the nicknames. I don’t like Hillary very much right now, but I would prefer to refer to her as “Hillary”.

    I loathe and despise both Bush and McCain, but, with few exceptions, sometimes with Bush, I’d prefer to stay “adult” and refer to them by their names.

    We don’t have to be reduced to Republican levels.

  • We are not electing a Commander in Chief. We are electing a President and one of his many duties is to act as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy thus providing civilian control of the military. There is no requirement for military expertise real or imagined. Since WWII our society has become highly militarized and we now spend more on the military than all other countries combined. What’s wrong with this picture? Iraq.

  • So howard, not that I expect you to answer, for just what reasons should democrats accept the political and racist pandering of mclame’s advisor kkkarl rove and give him any credibility in choosing a candidate.

    And why should rush limbaugh’s candidate of choice be the choice of the democratic party?

  • maria thinks she speaks for the masses now – another little blog goddest…

    And you have influenced whom that makes you so important?

    Your proclaimations don’t make anything so – but anyone that reads these thread sees this on a regular basis.

    But if it make you feel important – go ahead – stand in line and pretend you are leading the little parade.

  • Gotta love the crowd that sides with rush limbaugh and kkkarl rove and proclaims to be progressive.

    Does it really get any more ignorant than that?

  • Well, it does get more ignorant – there are those that stand in line and proclaim they are the leaders too.

  • “Military expertise” from the moron who was so stupid that he had to get himself shot down committing an idiot’s mistake to make it from Lieutenant Commander to Commander by getting put on the “POW fast track.”

  • Great response by Obama. But as usual, we learn that there is no Republican gaffe so gobsmacking that it can not be poo-pooed into insignificance by the JokeLine Media™; likewise there is no “gaffe” so trivial that it can not be hyped into The Most Revealing Thing Ever Done By A Candidate if that candidate is a Dem. Such as: haircuts, bowling, cheese choice for steak sandwich, etc.

    I honestly don’t think this is a matter of political bias so much as one of image management on the part of the commentariat, demonstrating that the myth/master narrative of Left Wing Media Bias holds sway for ever and ever amen. “I can not be seen to be part of that crowd,” saith JokeLine and his ilk, that crowd being of course the DFH hordes; “Here is yet another opportunity to demonstrate my Independence by (only, ever, always) agreeing with the GOP line! For thus do I prove that even though I’m a liberal, I’m not one of them.

  • “Obama is going to be a devestating campaigner.”

    Absolutely. The debates will be stunning to watch. When Obama goes head-to-head with McCain, it will be pointedly clear how much Obama outclasses McCain.

    Part of the reason Barack is such a good speaker is that it’s evident he understands what he’s speaking about. McCain, like Bush, obviously hasn’t a clue. The campaign hasn’t even heated up yet, and McCain is a bumbling fool already. Just wait until the fatigue of a long fall, with even Republican strongholds very much in play, and McCain will completely melt down.

  • I too like to ignore Cubby and am embarrassed by the rants, name calling — we all do it, but not the way Ursus Minor does — but I have to say this in the direction of the den(Apologies in advance for any typos, btw. A cortosone shot is keeping me from concentrating.):

    Have you, in your support for Obama, once bothered to understand him, his campaign, or where he’s coming from?

    He’s about respect, not name-calling.

    He has been trying to get people to ignore the distractions, the personalities, and the non-issues, and to concentrate on the issues. (Smart! He knows he wins on all of these, but a pissing contest pulls the real issues down to the same status as the nonsense.)

    He is a truly great politician (and for me that word is a compliment, not an insult) and he realizes that the idea of politics is to create consensuses behind specific issues. This means working, if necessary, with people who you disagree with on everything else — as long as you hold your position and convince them to come to you. Triangluation is not at all the same thing. His accomplishments — and he has at least as many as McCain — who can get his own Republican colleagues to hate him — or Hillary — have come from just that skill.

    Remember, he worked with Tom Coburn on his ‘open government’ proposal, even though he’s been willing to state how nutty he thought Coburn’s ideas were. (It was an overlooked comment he made during a debate when the Wright affaire was just coming up.) And that took a stronger stomach than I could manage — I couldn’t stand being in the same room with the man.

    He could have ‘won’ his motion to have all Illinois police investigations by going with just the Democrats and a few Republicans — and declaring the rest came from hopelessly ‘moronic’ or ‘racist’ districts. He knew how much stronger the bill would be if it was bi-partisan and he managed to get it passed unanimously.

    You talk about Sen. Clinton using ‘Rovian’ tactics — rightly, and every Obama supporter here has criticized her for it — because she is lying, wrong on the issues, and cuddling up to people who can’t wait to destroy her. But Rove/Atwater techniques focus on giving people reasons to vote against your opponent, attacking him or her personally, and creating fear and hatred aimed at your opponent, your specialty.

    So will you think about this, ask yourself why so many Obama supporters — even those who have declared their disgust towards Hillarious’ tactics — have condemned you, and most of all ask yourself this:

    If Obama showed up here at TCR and read your comments, would he praise you, or would he beg you to STFU — more politely, of course — and walk away shaking his jead at how little a purported supporter understood what he was about?

  • Thanx, Okie. I was going to say it anyway, but Cubbie’s paw-slaps at you earlier made sure I’d finish it and get it out.

    Ironically, Cubbie could learn from Mary. Mary has her facts wrong, and misstates Obama’s position — and gets a lot of deserved flak for it — but she has almost always remained calm during the worst attacks and has never blasted her critics or personalized the debate. We may find her annoying, but I think, overall, she’s been a positive factor in the debate, if only because we need someone to be making the Clinton position and she is a faithful reflection of it, ‘warts and all.’

    Cubby is, supposedly, ‘on our sides’ yet I can think of nothing positive he’s contributed.

  • McCain is rapidly reaching the point where he can no longer hide the unfortunate truth about himself, which is:

    He is an old man and his mind is wandering more and more. He cannot focus his thoughts to the degree required to perform the duties of the job he’s trying to acquire. He’s used to the power and perks of being a senator where his dwindling mental capacity could be easily ignored since he was only one of a hundred others, but that protection has vanished now. He’s one man on his own and he must stand or fall in the glare of a spotlight from which he can neither run nor hide.

    Does this make him a bad person? No, in fact I would go so far as to say that his campaign so far has been a lot less toxic than a lot of Republicans’ would have been. Does this make him unfit to be President of the United States? Yes, it absolutely does and pretty soon even the most obtuse among us shouldl start to catch on, if only a little.

  • “McCain is rapidly reaching the point where he can no longer hide the unfortunate truth about himself, which is:

    He is an old man and his mind is wandering more and more. He cannot focus his thoughts to the degree required to perform the duties of the job he’s trying to acquire. He’s used to the power and perks of being a senator where his dwindling mental capacity could be easily ignored since he was only one of a hundred others, but that protection has vanished now. He’s one man on his own and he must stand or fall in the glare of a spotlight from which he can neither run nor hide.”

    I’m not sure I agree here. I think that what McCain is demonstrating this year is how much he’s been coasting for the last twenty years. He doesn’t have half the experience that anyone who’s been in the Senate as long as he has ought to have, and it’s showing more and more as time goes on.

    Bob Dole would kick his ass. So would Ted Kennedy. Heck, Ron Paul is the same age as McCain and I’ve been impressed by Paul’s intelligence and tenacity. I don’t think Paul would be a great President because he’s too ignorant of issues outside of his own personal interests, but in his own area of expertise, Paul comes across as committed, enthusiastic, and knowledgeable. This makes McCain’s ignorance about the Iraq War (supposedly his area of expertise) all the more apparent.

    In fact, I think the worst thing about McCain is that when it comes right down to it, he’s a typical Republican. His entire electoral platform is “I’m a Republican and that means anything I say about the military has to be taken seriously”. The party has used this as a club for decades, and McCain is the embodiment of it.

  • They would have been so much better off admitting that McCain misspoke, apologizing, and moving on. — CB

    They couldn’t. They couldn’t afford to concede twice in the same day.

    Only a couple of hours earlier, Obama chased them up another tree — the use of Petraeus in their fundraising mailer. They kind-of apologised, said it wouldn’t happen again, figured that storm was over and relaxed, knowing they’d done a good deed and avoided a losing fight.

    Which is when Obama hit them with the much heavier ammunition — the numbers. And they were left in a cleft stick. Had Obama *started* with the numbers, they might have said McCain mis–spoke and then blown off the Petraeus mailer (much fluffier attack, IMO). But they were already on record conceding Petraeus. They couldn’t concede the numbers as well.

    So, they replied with the “verb tense” nonsense, leaving Obama to pursue that — bigger — issue not just in a little press release, but in front of a crowd of supporters. Not much chance of his points passing un-noticed there.

    I think Obama was absolutely *brilliant* with that one-two punch and the sequence of events. And, in front of a crowd of voters was also the perfect place to point out McCain’s essential lack of wit as well as callousness. McCain’s screwing up the numbers the way he had, suggests that either he doesn’t have a clue, or else that he doesn’t give a damn (what’s another 10thousand here or there). Or both.

    Re Ursus Minor: never let it be said that it’s not good for anything; in reaction to its infantile name calling, I decided to grow up and stop doing it myself. Or, at the very least, to vary them a bit 🙂

  • After reading this blog, I’m more convinced than ever that John McCain is really dimwitted. Hell, George W. Bush actually looks almost intelligent compared to this foolish bellicose Neanderthal.

    Just because McCain has been around Washington, D.C. for decades does not make him an expert on anything – other than corruption (e.g., the “Keating Five” scandal), bankrupting the government (e.g., embracing Bush’s budget-busting tax cuts for the rich), and spouting jingoistic inane rhetoric about the need to “bomb, bomb, bomb” Iran or whatever country he doesn’t like on a given day. Don’t forget that this man might just have another temper tantrum someday. I, for one, don’t want his scrawny little twitching fingers anywhere close to the nuclear button.

    Besides, is it really any surprise that this clown doesn’t know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites? Is it really surprising that someone who once said that the Iraq War would be over very quickly is confused about the main political actors in the region today? After all, he was a terrible student in his college days, even graduating fifth from the bottom of his class at the academy in Annapolis.

    Senator Obama, in contrast, is very knowledgeable about foreign affairs. He studied international relations in college and consequently understands the important nuances of foreign policy.

    He has brought his academic expertise to the U.S. Foreign Relations committee and has worked in a bipartisan fashion to chart a new American foreign policy. For example, he has worked closely with Republican Senator Richard Luger to re-emphasize the importance of helping eliminate “loose nukes” in Russia and Eastern Europe – a project that had been vastly under-funded by the Bush Administration. Most importantly, Obama had the intelligence and good judgment to oppose the Iraq War from the very beginning.

    Unlike McCain, Obama knows exactly how many U.S. soldiers are serving in Iraq and will do everything in his power to bring each and every one of them home before they die needlessly in this unnecessary war. He will also use his diplomatic skills to help bring together disparate Iraqi factions and fully involve Iraq’s Muslim neighbors and the United Nations in a multilateral effort to achieve lasting stability in the region.

  • Comments are closed.