TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
23.06.2008
McCain's Good Week

The press corps seems to have decided that John McCain had a bad week. Mark Halperin does his "who won the week" schtick here. And over the weekend, the Washington Post reported:

In the two weeks since Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, John McCain has demonstrated a knack for driving the daily political debate, forcing his opponent to respond to a challenge to meet in town hall debates, accusing him of being "delusional" about terrorism and saying he flip-flopped on public financing for his campaign.

But even as McCain's strategists claim tactical victories, Republicans outside the campaign worry that underlying weaknesses in its organization and message are costing him valuable time to make the case for his own candidacy.

Hmm. Political campaigns are zero-sum. It's not the worst thing for McCain to lose the chance to make the case for himself if he can deny Obama the same opportunity. And McCain did a spectacular job of stopping Obama this last week. Obama was trying to focus on the economy, and he got virtually no traction because McCain has been driving the debate by attacking him on debates, public financing, and terrorism.

The first two, especially, seemed to take a toll. Political reporters are interested in politics, not policy, and a process fight will always eclipse a debate over economic plans. And it's pretty clear that Obama's image has been tainted by the process fights. Look at this passage from another article in today's Post:

In the opening weeks of the general-election campaign, Sen. Barack Obama has moved aggressively to shape his campaign and offered a clear road map for the kind of candidate he is likely to become in the months ahead: an ambitious gamer of the electoral map, a ruthless fundraiser and a scrupulous manager of his own biography in the face of persistent concerns about how he is perceived.

A few weeks ago, Obama's ability to inspire hundreds of thousands of people to make small donations over the internet was considered a sign of his appeal. Now it's "ruthless." The small, unstated assumptions like this about candidates' motives are really the things that drive political coverage and public perception. If McCain is getting reporters to think of Obama as an unprincipled operator, then I'd say he's doing pretty well.

--Jonathan Chait

UPDATE: Jon Cohn strengthens the case for McCain's good week.

Posted: Monday, June 23, 2008 12:06 PM with 13 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

basman said:

...Obama's ability to insire hundreds of thousands of people...

What is insiring: like siring within the family? Whatever: what a man!

June 23, 2008 12:47 PM

The Plank said:

Below, my colleague Jonathan Chait makes the case that John McCain just had a pretty good week. I agree

June 23, 2008 12:49 PM

parnest said:

It seems to me it's not bad that Obama is coming across as decisive and tough, "ruthless" if you will. That's what people look for in a President, especially voters who are securitiy-minded. It hurt Kerry that he let himself be portrayed as "effete".  Say what you will about Chicago politicians, they're not usually viewed as wusses.

June 23, 2008 2:21 PM

teplukhin2you said:

What parnest said. I'm a lot more enthusiastic about Obama l'Impitoyable than I am to Obambi. Finally, he and we can dispense with his Carterite new politics bullsh*t.

Ruthlessness defined Bobby Kennedy. That's a good and necessary thing in a political leader.

June 24, 2008 12:42 AM

aeromonas said:

"McCain's Campaign Has Badly Damaged Obama Recently--No Matter What The Pundits Tell You"

Talk about hyperbole.  Who writes the headlines on the main page, anyway?  And do they consult you guys?  Seriously, Chait's point boils down to "McCain had an okay week at least in comparison to the several mediocre weeks he's had previously" and Cohn is basically saying that Obama's short-term pain will pay long-term dividends.  Badly damaged?  Says who?  It doesn't seem to be you two, and yet it's your headline...

June 24, 2008 2:57 AM

PeteBeck said:

Contrary to the headline, all that Chait tells us is that one pundit at the Washington Post thinks that Obama was damaged -- without any evidence that a significant number of voters agree -- and another seems to disagree.  Tempest in a teapot.  Yes, a large teapot, but still a teapot.

Last night I listened for around two hours to a conference call between my local Republican Congressman and a few hundred voters of whom aroound 70 or 80 who chose to speak were given the phone one by one.  I was randomnly chosen to participate -- even though I  have been an active local Democrat.  The questions and comments were about gas prices, Medicare, Social Security, Iraq and Iran, offshore drilling, the environment, speed limits, gay marriage, MPG standards, job security, targeted scientific research, Medicaid benefits, and the like.  Nobody, literally nobody, asked about campaign strategy or debates or how much money the Congressman planned to spend.  No one mentioned his challenger's name, even though the contest is rated as very close, probably a draw at this point.  

The randomnly selected public is interested in things that affect people's lives, now and in the future.

In short, the public cares about substantive stuff that affect

June 24, 2008 9:13 AM

drdannyu said:

I had the same question, aeromonas.  The good news for McCain is decided qualified, and nowhere near "badly damaged" territory.

If I want headlines that dramatically overstate the interest/content of the articles, I'll spend more time at the Huffington Post.

June 24, 2008 9:13 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

The idea that he's been "badly damaged" (as it says on the homepage link to this post) is utterly unsupported.

I think Chait is just trying to lower expectations.

Very few voters are going to remember this past Sunday's talk show topics in November. This is all a distraction from the big picture.

June 24, 2008 9:30 AM

ericad said:

"Political reporters are interested in politics, not policy, and a process fight will always eclipse a debate over economic plans."  And as such, this is the type of analysis  the viewing/reading public will get.  Politics as spectator sport (ie, relentless tracking of polls and "what they mean") really turn people off.  But the average Joe and Jane may find getting "involved" in elections is less "elite" if the focus really would return to discussion and analysis of plans, analysis of true differences in governing approach and philosophy, and analysis of probability of enacting promised agenda based on the evolving circumstances in the government and in society.

June 24, 2008 12:07 PM

dbieter said:

Please don't say, as you have in your title on the main page, things like "no matter what the pundits say" again.  YOU ARE PUNDITS!

June 24, 2008 1:14 PM

johnalthousecohen said:

Obama hasn't been badly damaged -- no matter what the blog commenters say.

June 24, 2008 3:09 PM

thomasa said:

After citing Mark Halperin, and two stories from the Washington Post, the conclusion drawn is "if McCain is getting reporters to think of Obama as an unprincipled operator, then I'd say he's doing pretty well."  Well, that's kinda weak evidence for the antecedent.

Lots of good things about blogging, but one of the bad thingsis that the blogger's gotta chatter away even in the absence of much of anything to say.

June 24, 2008 3:16 PM

The Stump said:

Time 's Halperin says McCain won the week. If you agree with Chait about last week (I'm not sure

June 27, 2008 11:22 AM