Too far by the McCain campaign?
I'm obviously not impartial in this election, but, to me, this feels like it seriously misses the national mood.
Or maybe this, directly from McCain himself,
These statements feel like they're more about McCain being "hurt" and angry about the current campaign flow.
I see a striking similarity, although on a different topic, to the frustrations that vented out of the Clinton primary campaign.
"Barack Obama admitted tonight that he would rather see failure in Iraq than concede that he was wrong about the surge," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement. "A candidate who places his political ambition ahead of our national interest does not pass the threshold to be commander in chief."
Or maybe this, directly from McCain himself,
The Arizona senator disparaged Obama as "someone who has no military experience whatsoever."
"When you win wars, troops come home," McCain said. "He's been completely wrong on the issue. ... I have been steadfast in my position."
On Afghanistan, McCain said, "I've always said it's long and tough and hard."
As to Iraq, "We've succeeded. We're not succeeding, we've succeeded," McCain said later at a fundraiser.
These statements feel like they're more about McCain being "hurt" and angry about the current campaign flow.
I see a striking similarity, although on a different topic, to the frustrations that vented out of the Clinton primary campaign.
posted by mikevotes at
6:57 AM
3 Comments:
I find the use of the term "disparaged" interesting. They could have said "criticized" or "drew attention to the fact," but they said disparaged. Which, to me, means "criticized but in a very un-cool way". One who disparages another often splashes a little mud on himself, if you get what I'm saying.
And finally, McCain doesn't know what the frick he's talking about! "When you win wars, troops come home," McCain said. "He's been completely wrong on the issue. ... I have been steadfast in my position."
Exactly what "war" has McCain won? More importantly, what war has McCain prevented? Here's the point... or a point: McCain has no idea, no plan, no definition, of victory. His Iraq/Afghanistan plan is simply this: Continue an aggressive, reactionary military presence until your enemies (whoever they are) just give up and victory (whatever that is) is laid at your feet.
McCain has demonstrated he has no clear idea who the "enemy" is, beyond the vacuous soundbite of "radical Islamists." Nor does he have a articulated vision of what victory is. Again, beyond the vapid John Wayne-ian swagger of "never give up, never surrender, arrrrgh!!".
In my opinion he's shooting blanks AND aiming at the wrong target. America 2008 is not America 2004.
Where's the Obama rapid response team on this stuff? Are they ALL overseas and out of the domestic media loop?! Certainly they are not.
By
-epm, at 8:39 AM
"I've always said it's long and tough and hard."
Sounds like he's looking for a job at Pfizer.
By
Anonymous, at 8:50 AM
EPM, I'm kinda leaving aside the body of the "disagreement" because I think it's pretty clear that Obama's right here.
McCain IS running a 2004 campaign, but alot of that is because he's tied himself to the Bush rhetoric. "central front in the war on terror," leaving equals losing, etc. Also, the 65% of his party that still support Bush are still in 2004.
And, maybe the rapid response is quiet because they don't want to tread on Obama's trip? McCain's not scoring as many points, so why mess up the dynamic?
....
Anon, It worked for McCain's parallel Bob Dole.
By
mikevotes, at 10:20 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home