I agreed with Time's Joe Klein that John McCain went off the rails when he said the other day that Barack Obama "would rather lose a war than lose an election." Awful. But Klein went one step beyond where I would, suggesting the statement was so outrageous, it raised questions about "whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency." Later he said the reason a candidate shouldn't say such a thing is "It isn't presidential."
I don't think John McCain would make a good president, probably for some of the same reasons Klein has doubts, but suggesting someone or something "isn't presidential" seems like the worst Beltway group-think. It's a mentality that usually hurts Democrats: Michael Dukakis didn't look presidential in that tank; Jimmy Carter wasn't very presidential wearing a sweater to make a speech. We have people whose job it is to decide who's presidential, and it's not the pundits, it's the voters. They'll tell us in November.
DakiniDancer
Niece of Dakini
Sheldon The Wonderhorse
Susan Walsh
Big Uncle Jack
jimmymac1025
Salon.com
Comments
I think we have a national consensus that the current White House resident is a dumbass when it comes to communicating off the cuff. Dave Letterman has run the President Speech schtick for a couple of years now comparing articulate statesman- like speeches from past presidents with the ad lib buffoonery of Bush in smaller venues.
It'll be a step up with either of them.
"He's not presidential" seems like shorthand, lazy at that, for these other things. I don't think it is wrong or shortsighted, just vague.
When we start talking about whether people "look" or "sound" presidential, like the Dukakis example, then we're on the wrong track.
As for Obama's world travels... they appear to me to be a real swipe at Bush, even more than at McCain. And since McCain equals a third Bush term, we know what that's supposed to mean.
Someone's wrong on the internet, again.
And his answer was "Character." Nothing else. That's all he could come up with. An attribute that could mean something or nothing.
But that's all there was for him.
He's seeing the WWII fighter pilot---and I'm seeing Snoopy on prescription pain killers going after the Red Baron. . . .
screaming VICTORY!
I see Mr. Magoo when I look at him. A very robotic Mr. Magoo.
I fully agree with ktm. The world will welcome any non-Bush candidate at this point. Let Obama speak to them as he did today, and they will be enchanted -- how could they not?
The "pundits" on CNN are blathering on about Obama abroad just now as well as 527 commercials. Would anyone beside me like to smack Gloria Borger for her blind support of McCain? He must have told her she had a nice smile, or a cute ass, one time or something...Geez, Gloria, he already has a wife -- get a life!
But I shy away from putting McCain on the couch. I ain't Dr. Phil.
I can sense stuff in McCain, Webb, Hagel, and others - some men that I know. I sense it in myself. There's something about Vietnam.
There's something about all wars, common things about service, that people carry.
Iraq and Afghanistan vets will carry stuff too, but it will be different, possibly worse than the baggage from Vietnam. I hate to say that, but it may be true.
This stuff is harder for command-level types, for career officers, as McCain was. And he was deep water Navy, with the father and grandfather admirals, the academy, and all that.
McCain did some things in war and experienced unique punishment in war. He has to be given that, and he carries stuff around. He's starting to bark in an uncomfortable way. He's scowling a lot, like Capt. Queeg. He's scolding the young pup Barack as though Barack has never dropped to do twenty under the eye of a DI at basic.
And he hasn't. Bush did of course, but only halfheartedly.
McCain may, in his barking and calling attention to Obama's preceivd lack of security cred, show himself the door with voters in November, except for the "base."
The contrast between McCain, the grouchy old sailor, and Obama, the urban, cosmopolitan orator - as we saw today in Berlin - may be fatal for McCain.
It's "perceived" and "urbane."
Don't forget the numbers, as opposed to the rhetoric about winning, losing, who are the "bad guys," and who's on first.
The pressure on the military is real; and all real experts are saying that, from Webb, to Gates, to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
They want to bolster the force in Afghanistan, but the only way to do that right now is to draw down one to three brigades from Iraq, There are no other troops available to keep the numbers up in Iraq while increasing them in Afghanistan.
Take it from me, Gen. Sherman.
So, what is McCain saying when he charges that Obama wants to win a political campaign by losing a war?
Someone's wrong on the internet, again.
Um, yeah. They do. Just ask Gore and Kerry. Clinton knew how to do it, that's what helped him win against a WWII veteran incumbent (yah yah Ross Perot, I know). Hillary knows how. So does Obama, clearly. He just needs to not resist. Pretend to be all good on the outside, fight like hell behind the scenes.
That's fine, I guess we had different opinions on what constitutes "dirty." To me, "dirty" means illegal and Rovian. If you just mean "Clintonian-type" dirty, then I agree with you. That's fine. Hardball is one thing, but getting folks thrown in jail and ruining the careers of your well-meaning adversaries is entirely another.
The term is also, to a slightly lesser degree, a stand-in for "strong" or "resolute." This has often translated into some form of masculinity, and does have its roots in sexism as pertains to positions of power. Again, this concealed meaning has often been used as a shiv against Democrats.
I too generally disapprove of the rampant use of the empty term, but at the same time I think McCain's demonstrated lack of restraint and temperament need to be spotlighted where possible.
Reagan, bless his heart, was "presidential" til the bitter end.
But you have to remember that he was an actor first.
Neither McCain nor Obama have "executive hair" so the pudits and gatekeepers are flummoxed.
ChrisinDC, and others who've made a variation on this point, of course, I agree with you. I think if Klein had left his comments at McCain not having the temperament to be president, I might not have minded. It was that arrogant "It's not presidential" that I feel like I've heard before -- to dismiss passion, ferocity and a hard line on issues. Honestly, if McCain really believes Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign, why shouldn't he say it? The rest of us can get offended and say it's beneath contempt to accuse him of such a thing, but there's entirely too much prissiness in politics right now.
And of course, Klein's not the worst of the bunch; I associate that prissiness with Sally Quinn and David Broder and the rest of the folk who declared the Clintons white trash. I'm NOT trying to reopen a Clinton discussion; you can dislike them politically on their political merits but there was such a silly, snooty reaction from many Villagers.
Very true. Everything seems to pivot on an unending game of who can be more outraged at someone else's comments. It has, naturally, created a political environment in which telling the truth - or at least the truth as one sees it - is a punishable offense.
No wonder we keep getting politicians who are so clearly bullshitting us all the time.
"Executive hair." Very nice. Does that come in press-on form?
Dan Aykroyd as Beldar Conehead -- that looked presidential to me.
I know, I set impossibly high standards.