except that John McCain actually is a dottering old guy...

"The perception of McCain as a doddering old guy could easily become on a par with the perception of Al Gore as a serial exaggerator[.]"

It _could_ be, but only if, instead of commenting archly about how this sort of thing could be damaging to McCain, political journalists started reporting the gaffes as gaffes and asserting, rather than commenting on, the idea that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about. See, that's the infuriating difference between the national political media's coverage of Democrats and Republicans. When it's a Democrat, he is a serial exaggerator or a flip-flopper. When it's a Republican, he might be perceived as not knowing what he's talking about. Enough already with the hesitation! Just start reporting that McCain is dangerously uninformed and can't tell one war from the other without all the hedging about perceptions and coulds.

What Rhubarbs said.

"Iran" and "Iraq" are different countries.  (Tricky, those terminal consonants.)  If would be comforting to know that the country's C-in-C could differentiate them on a map.  That McCain has concerns about a non-existent border isn't getting NEARLY the play it should.

Report, people!

Here's hoping!

I third Rhubarbs.

John McCain (Blessings and Peace be upon his War Record) has gotten away with gaffe after gaffe for far too long, while the media can only speculate interminably about the *danger* of a possible campaign-obliterating Obama-gaffe while overseas. I suppose that's what counts as a CW-bucking "opposing view" these days.

Doddering old guy is deadly, but only if McCain has a senior moment during a high profile event in the fall campaign. If he flubs during a debate for example, the coverage afterwards (and the late night jokes) would be relentless and he'd be toast. (This is the way Gore got a permanent label as an exaggerator.) On the flip side, he can overcome this label with a smooth debate performance, like Reagan in 1984.

Yet another hold-your-nose election. The geezer vs the BS artist. Sigh.

The reason that the Gore "serial exagerator" theme was so deadly --particularly the "I invented the internet" line (which he never actually said but which was intermiably ascribed to him) is that it didn't require any real independent knowledge on the part of the public. The late-night hosts could make any oblique reference to Gore inventing the internet and people would get that it was silly. They'd get the joke.

Now, McCain's inability to keep foreign nations and foreign borders straight is of far greater "real" concern. But it doesn't come across so smoothly on late-night. The problem is that the audience has to actually know something about world geography.

When journalists report that McCain mixed up Shiites and Sunni's, it doesn't resonate with most Americans because they don't know the difference themselves.

I"m afraid that is the problem, so far, getting the doddering old-guy image to stick. Now if McCain had mixed up the Yankees and the Middies at the game last Sunday with Rudy, well that would be a different story.

blogs.tnr.com/.../photo-of-the-day-july-21.aspx

Another thing Obama knows more than McCain: negative emotionality weakens you and creates an environment for mistakes in a candidate.  McCain's anger and the gaffes only highlight Obama's disciplined temperment.

If McCain wants to stamp his feet and seethe, he should feel free. But its going to throw him off more and more and the gaffes will only get worse.  He's never been a Zen guy and God bless him for it, but he should try harder.

He should also consider openly addressing the ugly ageism that is rampant in this campaign. Obama should second him on it.

Wandreycer, we've already been down this road. Cast your mind back to late spring, 2008:

Obama: And I honor Senator McCain for his five decades of service to his country.

McCain: Stop saying "five decades." That makes me sound old.

(When, in point of fact, the correct phrase is "six decades," since measuring length in "decades" most commonly refers to the number of calendar decades in which a thing has happened, and McCain has been in uniform or in office in every decade since the 1950s. We're talking about a guy whose birthdate is closer to the Civil War than it is to the present day.)

Tep,

Is BHO now officially not the "Messiah" and now a BS artist?  If so you can save space in your posts and eliminate this for the next 2 weeks until you come up with your next moniker and save everyone the time of having to read it when you include it incessantly.

Peace

Greg

Obam in Jordan made the biggest "gaffe" of all.  Or was it merely dissembling, when he asserted that the Surge had nothing to do with the pacification of Iraq, that somehow his policy of precipitous retreat would have had the same outcome, and that the equal "cause" of peace in Iraq was Sunni tribesmen changing.

I can tolerate some gaffes.  Outright denial and lying are a little harder to swallow from a supposedly new kind of politician.

And, of course, the Big Lie Obama is attempting is being echoed by the Democratic Party leadership, and his media star handmaidens.  

Rhubarbs, the best two presidents of the past six decades were past sixty:  Eisenhower & Reagan.

"When, in point of fact, the correct phrase is "six decades," since measuring length in "decades" most commonly refers to the number of calendar decades in which a thing has happened."

Aha!  Obama should thank McCain for his centuries of service!

...or better yet, his millenia of service!

Chan - since most sensible reviews of the situation I've read agree that the pacification of Baghdad was largely due to our buying off the Sunni tribesmen (negotiating with terrorists no less!) I'm not sure how this qualifies as a "gaffe".  Unless by "gaffe" you now mean "straight talk"

I've yet to see a serious examination of the situation on the ground (other than :"the surge worked") actually credit the increased number of troops with pacifying Baghdad.  Rather, it appears that applying sensible counter-insurgency strategy and buying off the locals did the trick.  

Feel free to link away to positions that disagree with this, I am actually interested in reading them.

Chan, 2008-1948 includes someone better than either of them by the name of Truman.  

All 57 states where Obama has campaigned want him to be the president for the next 8-10 years, Obama's brilliant plan for Afghanistan is to bring more Arabic translators. When this all happen we all will be able to be proud of this country for the first time.

jacobt - I realise that you're trying to be funny (or ironic?) with the "57 states" jab but it does sort of make you appear rather geographically challenged.  

Get back to us when Obama opens up campaign operations in any of these other 7 states.

If Obama was making the gaffes that McCain was making -- screwing up names of countries and borders and details about Islamic faiths, the right wing would be having a party and saying how these gaffes prove that Obama is not ready. The mainstream press would devote time to it just like they did to Gore's "fabrications." It would become a campaign issue.

But since it is John McCain and his six decades of public employment and service, he gets a pass. Old and senile is the new black.

Nari224  said:

" Get back to us when Obama opens up campaign operations in any of these other 7 states."

Ask Obama:

latimesblogs.latimes.com/.../barack-obama-wa.html

"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

Rhubarb - it makes me nervous. Intentionality is everything, but when the geezer jokes become biting and cruel, I don't like it.  

Ageism is OK because we're liberals and its all for the cause of Obama?  Or that McCain represents a party that has caused so much pain and destruction that he becomes a proxy for our anger about it?  I can understand that a bit more, but I still can't deal with it.  I know too many older people who could rip my lungs out without breaking a sweat and who run companies, etc.  Wrong is wrong.

As you know, I go easy on the righteousness of  the "isms" but again: wrong is wrong.  

Also, McCain says enough dumb, dishonest, dishonorable things all on his own, his age doesn't even need to come in to it for these things to be thumped and mocked with abandon.

jacobt - Ah, and here I thought you were being clever by insinuating that Obama is confusing European and other nations that welcome him as US states "that might vote for him" (ala Marty over at the Spine).

Instead you're treating an obvious slip of the tongue near the end of a grueling primary as "evidence"... of what?  The man was tired?  That he really thinks that there are 57 states?  That he's lying there?

What?

Crock1701 writes, "...Chan, 2008-1948 includes someone better than either of them by the name of Truman"

Thanks for that, Crock.  Harry Truman was a year and a month short of 60 when Roosevelt died.  And was 68 when he left office.

Nari224, we have been successful in Iraq using a combination of carrot and stick, intelligent use of force, building and leveraging relationships with various factions.  

And because Al Qaeda discredited itself with its horrific violence and lost the support of the people they n eeded to harbor them.

But you can't hand out the carrots without the sticks making it possible to do such groundwork.  the dramatic change came after the Surge and with the leadership of Petraeus.

The Surge and the tactics that went with it have been steadfastly supported by McCain.  Not to mention by Bush.

Obama is very dishonestly trying to discount the effect of the Surge, and so is the Democratic Party, because it shows how wrong and unwise both have been.

Being as the largest block of voters is probably Boomers;  and being as the first wave of Boomers are old enough not to see McCain as far removed from them, it is perhaps not wise for Obama to be in any way associated with dissing us old farts.

Still, I'd say there's a mile's load of difference between being between serving from 60 to 68 (especially as spry old Truman lived another 20 years afterward) and serving from 72 to 80.  It's not ageism to say that a job this important, this stressful that already tends to greatly age its occupant might not be the best place for a seventy two year old individual.  Most of our Presidents, and most of our successful ones, have served in their 50s (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR), with some outliers either taking office in their 40s (TR) or early 60s (Truman).  Not exactly a ringing endorsement to bring on the geriatric Presidents.

"Also, McCain says enough dumb, dishonest, dishonorable things all on his own, his age doesn't even need to come in to it for these things to be thumped and mocked with abandon."

You took the words right out of my mouth.

As much as we might be tempted to make codger jokes about McCain, the facts remain that 1) he is in perfect control of his mental facilities, and 2) he continues to lie with the straightest of faces (Steeler's front four, accolades from EVERY veteran's group in America, leasing Federal land to Oil Companies causes barrels of oil to appear out of thin air).

What do we really know about this pathological liar?

Jacob - you officially became a parody of yourself for that one.

CHan, of course Obama isn't going to diss old farts. But remember, since Baby Boomers became eligible to vote, the candidate with a more distinguished military record has lost every time but one. John McCain just has to stress his service in Vietnam enough, and he'll lose the election all on his own.

Anyway, Truman was in fact 60 when he became president -- almost 61; he was born in 1884 and became president in 1945, which is so simple even I can do that math -- and Zachary Taylor and James Buchanan were also over 60 when they became president. If you sort Wikipedia's list of presidents by age at ascension:

en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_age

You'll see that the better presidents tend to be younger, with most of the really good chief executives taking office well before their 60s. Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Polk, McKinley. TR and first-term Cleveland were both in their 40s. Remove all the presidents who took office past the age of 60, and it's a wash, at best. Sure, you lose Reagan, Truman, and Jackson, but you also lose Buchanan and Taylor, along with a bunch of non-entities. Given Buchanan's role in fomenting the Civil War and 600,000 American deaths, arguing the quality of our old fart presidents is pretty much a losing proposition.

Chan:

"the dramatic change came after the Surge and with the leadership of Petraeus.

The Surge and the tactics that went with it have been steadfastly supported by McCain.  Not to mention by Bush.

Obama is very dishonestly trying to discount the effect of the Surge, and so is the Democratic Party, because it shows how wrong and unwise both have been."

from juancole.com, 2008-07.21:

"Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.

*That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq!* (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday). The hype around last year's troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now! Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me. You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren't for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn't be able to visit Iraq. Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine."

Chan, agree with some of what you are saying, although that "carrots and sticks" talk sounds awefully familiar. Regardless of the Hope that carrots can represent, you say:

"The Surge and the tactics that went with it have been steadfastly supported by McCain.  Not to mention by Bush. Obama is very dishonestly trying to discount the effect of the Surge, and so is the Democratic Party, because it shows how wrong and unwise both have been."

Basically, my problem (aside from fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity) is that we were promised the Iraqi government would give us our 18 benchmarks if we gave them "The Surge", and yet "The Surge" is complete and we have only 15 of our benchmarks. Bush and McCain get a A for effort, but a solid F for not accomplishing the benchmarks they promised.

"I can tolerate some gaffes.  Outright denial and lying are a little harder to swallow from a supposedly new kind of politician."

(Obama's statement aside) From what kind of politician should outright denials and lies be easy to swallow? Hrm?

This thread's dead I reckon, but here goes...teplukhin, in what way is Obama a BS artist?  I just don't get it.  Okay, so you think his resumé is too thin, and you think he's taken a half-assed position on health care reform.  I partially share your concerns, on the second point especially, but in what respect has Obama shown himself to be full of shit?  I find your default negativity in this regard frankly baffling.  

Are you depressed?  No snark intended; I ask the question in all seriousness.  Not that I can or should make any suppositions at all about the person behind the teplukhin handle, but your online persona would seem to fulfill DSM IV criteria for major depressive disorder.

aeromonas, you should google news some of last years news articles for "obama moulitsas" and review any quotes that pop up, then tell me what you think.

God another hijacked thread by Teps' Troll service, the nattering nabobisms of the day.  Skip it, it writes itself at this point.

aero - does FISA mean anything to do? Jerusalem, the surge, merit pay etc etc

More importantly, you're a man of science. So tell me what you conclude from polling data that shows

a) the Democratic Party trounces the GOP on just about every single issue-- that is, we are favored by the public by in many cases 20+ point margins

b) despite an avalanche of favorable publicity, our candidate is running neck-and-neck with his tired, disorganized, fumbling GOP opponent

I mean, really, aero, even Dukakis was up by double digits at this point vs Bush 41. (Effing EIGHTEEN points, IIRC). Elections don't open up; they get closer as Election Day approaches.

To my mind-- all honesty, no snark, as rational s I can be about this-- the evidence that we nominated a weak candidate who, should the election center on him, may well lose what should have been a landslide election in our favor. That's a disappointment.

That so many here on these boards refuse to see this, to my mind, obvious and empirically-supported conclusion is also disappointing-- not depressing, just a wasted opportunity to realign US politics and really get lots of things done.

best,

t

woo hoo! Some Straight Talk from the Tep express! Thank you, Jesus!

"a) the Democratic Party trounces the GOP on just about every single issue-- that is, we are favored by the public by in many cases 20+ point margins"

Unfortunately, this has everything to do with general image of Democrats and their domestic policies, and nothing to do with any particular Democrat. It means Obama has his work cut out for him in the "selling America on his policies" department, and allows him to focus on the "sell himself" department.

"b) despite an avalanche of favorable publicity, our candidate is running neck-and-neck with his tired, disorganized, fumbling GOP opponent"

First, either you are of the opinion that any coverage is good coverage, or you are not aware of all the coverage of Obama. That there is an avalanche of publicity, no one can refute. But that level of examination of a single candidate is never good for the simple fact that when the coverage ends we'll hae a detailed list of one nominee's every flaw, and whatever list the other nominee decides to provide. Second, McCain himself may be tired, disorganized and fumbling, but his campaign staff is not. In fact, right now they're chugging along smoothly and running on all cylinders.

"evidence that we nominated a weak candidate who, should the election center on him, may well lose what should have been a landslide election in our favor."

What you have brougth forth thus far is a) a succinct and subjective summary of opinion polling regarding America's sentiment towards various democratic party policies which only indicates that Democrats should have it easy and make substantial gains this fall, b) the McCain campaign has turned the election into a referendum on Obama by the MSM, and c) your skeptical pessimism. What you have mentioned thus far is neither evidence of a weak candidate nor empirical evidence.

"That so many here on these boards refuse to see this, to my mind, obvious and empirically-supported conclusion is also disappointing"

I don't disagree that a) November should be a landslide for Obama, nor b) that Obama can screw the pooch on this if he plays his cards wrong. However, as a realist, my incredibly less pessimistic and skeptical appraisal of the situation says that things are not yet as dire as you would have me believe.

Agree with GSpinks.

1. Polling data are unreliable. (You know, Teppy, it is possible that McCain is the Dukakis of this election - just because Dukakis and Obama are Democrats means exactly zero.)

2. In case you have not noticed, Obama is different.  Very different.  He's - OMG - exotic.  It does not make him weak; it means he has to sell himself.

3. After the beating he got from Billary, it is a wonder that Obama is still standing.

This is not to be complacent, nor to be unduly pessimistic.  It is to look at the facts that we have, and put them in their proper context.  

ick, you surprise me. You're not addressing the data with any coherence. Obama *** as candidate for POTUS *** detracts from the Democratic brand. He obviously raises a great number of concerns among a large number of voters who naturally incline toward our side, on issue after issue.

First you assert (1) it doesn't matter! never mind the polls!

Then (2) you implicitly agree that the data are correct but cry racism, with your fey  "exotic" "allusion.

Finally (3), you admit that he's taken a "beating", and blame it on Hillary.

So it doesn't matter, and even if it does, Americans are racist, and in any case Hillary's to blame. You're a trial lawyer, right? Do you really make these kinds of "Would you believe..." Don Adams-style arguments before the bench?

Rhubarbs, yes, of course your math is correct.  Truman was a month short of 61 not 60, when  he became president.

And, I wish McCain were younger, too.  If only to make it more likely he could serve two terms.  But, anybody who can handled todays marathon, multi-year presidential campaigns can hardly be called dottering, or geriatric in the perjorative sense that it was meant by a poster here.

Meanwhile, Buchanan was both a boob and craven in his 60s as he was a boob and craven in his 40s.  I've never read his failures attributed to his age.

You'll notice I referred to presidents of the last 6 decades.  There is a lot of evidence that healthier lifestyles and better medicine have rendered people on average much more vital and effective at later ages than previously.  And Washington died at 67, FDR at 63.

But the real point, I'd rather have an older man with a lot of relevant experience, superb character, good judgement and honesty than a younger man with very little apt experience, poor judgement, and honesty that is put to question almost every day lately.  Especially as it comes to admitting he was 180 degrees wrong about The Surge.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, tep.  Firstly, what I called you on was your naming Obama a "BS artist."  In response you mention several of BHO's policy positions which you intend as evidence of his BS.

Let me take them one at a time in reverse order

merit pay [for teachers]--The NEA doesn't like it, and I don't like it either if it isn't linked to across the board pay increases for teachers--something Obama also says he supports--but regardless of the merits of merit pay, in what respect is this bullshit?  Does the bullshittiness come in because this is a policy proposal you'd expect from a Republican?

the surge--So maybe Obama was wrong to oppose it.  But back in January 2006, it would've been a pretty hard call.  A lot of smart people thought the surge was too little too late.  And even now, quite a few people think the surge was fairly well beside the point.  There's circumstantial evidence that the violence has subsided less because of 20K additional US soldiers than because the Shiites won the civil war and completed their ethnic cleansing.  And anyway, what do you want Obama to say about it?  "When it comes to the surge, I was wrong and John McCain was right?" The fact that he doesn't commit sepuku by saying such a thing makes him a bullshit artist in your eyes?  Please.

Jerusalem--I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  His presser this week?  Sure, it's all theater, but so is all of politics.

FISA--Okay, so I disagree with the legislation and I do wonder whether in his heart of hearts Obama too disagrees with is, i.e. I wonder if on this point he's acting hypocritically, as a bullshitter.  But two months ago you were calling for him to pull a Sister Soulja on call-based affirmative action.  What if, in his heart of hearts he still believes in race-based affirmative action (as I suspect he might), if then he followed your advice in this respect and pandered, would he then be a bullshitter?  So he's chosen to pander on an issue by taking a position with which you disagree.  But does that make him through and through a BS artist?  I just don't see it.  I find his statements refreshingly fact-based and realistic by and large.  In contrast, say, to McCain's ad linking high fuel prices to Obama's refusal to endorse offshore drilling.  THAT is bullshit.

As for your fear that Obama is a "weak candidate" whose going to blow a sure thing in November, I just don't share your fears.

For the forth or fifth time:

Obama by a 7% national popular vote margin with wins in OH, FL, PA, CO, VA, NV, and NM.

"I'd rather have an older man with a lot of relevant experience, superb character, good judgement and honesty than a younger man with very little apt experience, poor judgement, and honesty that is put to question almost every day"

Shilling pretty hard for the Republican nominee, I see. So much for intellectual honesty...