Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Advertisement
GENERAL ELECTION
Command Performances
"The presidential battleground shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan" 7/15 as Barack Obama and John McCain "dueled" over foreign policy (Sammon/Ferrechio, Washington Examiner, 7/16). In DC, Obama delivered "the most detailed outline yet" of his nat'l security strategy, while in Albuquerque, NM, McCain "changed course and advocated the deployment of an additional three brigades" to Afghanistan (Broder/Rohter, New York Times, 7/16).
McCain for the first time "called for a surge" of troops to Afghanistan, "one day after" Obama proposed an escalation of U.S. forces there, "which he said his plan for withdrawing combat forces from Iraq would make possible." Both candidates "advocated the need for a force buildup," but they "drew sharply different conclusions about the link between the conflict in Iraq and the increased fighting in Afghanistan" (West, Baltimore Sun, 7/16),
Obama: "Senator McCain said just months ago that 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I could not disagree more. And that's why, as president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be" (DC Examiner, 7/16).
Obama said the increased violence was "a consequence of our current strategy" in Iraq (West, Baltimore Sun, 7/16), which he said "distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st Century" (Dorning, Chicago Tribune, 7/16). Obama: "Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try and make it one" (AP, 7/15).
McCain "responded a few minutes later" from NM, "highlighting the success of the Iraq surge" and arguing Obama "was wrong." McCain: "I know how to win wars. If I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq" (Baltimore Sun, 7/16).
More McCain: "Senator Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan" (DC Examiner, 7/16). McCain "recommended doubling the size of the Afghan military" from 80K troops to 160K, "but he said other nations must help foot the bill to prop up the country" (Campanile, New York Post, 7/16).
McCain also "blasted" Obama for laying out his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before his upcoming trip there. McCain: "In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy" (Chicago Tribune, 7/16).
You Forgot Pakistan!
Obama "said he would act unilaterally" if the Pakistani gov't won't act to root out terrorists. Obama: "We must make clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have him in our sights."
McCain said, "I will not bluster, and I will not make idle threats. But understand this: when I am commander-in-chief, there will be nowhere the terrorists can run, and nowhere they can hide ... I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice" (Campanile, New York Post, 7/16).
I Will Follow
Surrogates and commentators had plenty to say in response to the day's back-and-forth:
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), asked why McCain is following Obama's lead on Afghanistan: "I don't think that Senator McCain has followed Barack Obama. Thank God the country didn't follow Barack Obama's lead when it came to Iraq. ... When it comes to Afghanistan, I think we do need to add more combat power, but Afghanistan is very much like Iraq; it is broken, and John McCain knows how to fix broken wars.
• FNC's Colmes: "But John McCain said he wouldn't add more combat troops until today. He flip-flopped. ... And now he's doing what Obama has said all along he would do."
• Graham: "I disagree. ... I've never heard John McCain rule out adding more troops into Afghanistan. He will listen to the commanders, and if the commanders say we need more troops, we'll provide them. But John understands war, and he understands you don't end wars" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 7/15).
• Independent Women's voice pres. Michelle Bernard: "I think that Senator McCain's statement today ... it could be seen as being somewhat analogous to Senator Obama last week when he said he would be open to listening to the commanders on the ground in Iraq in deciding what to do responsibly with regard to withdrawing troops from Iraq. ... And regardless of whether or not Senator McCain changed his position with regard to how we fight the war in Afghanistan, for all appearances' sake, it would appear that he, today, is actually following Senator Obama because of the conversation has shifted to Afghanistan and Pakistan" ("Verdict," MSNBC, 7/15).
• Joe Biden: "John McCain has switched his position acknowledging he has to send more troops to Afghanistan. He cannot send them anywhere but from Iraq. This is not about being commander in chief of Iraq. It's about being commander in chief of U.S. interests around the world. Barack Obama called for sending more troops to Afghanistan over a year ago" ("Today," NBC, 7/16).
• More Biden: "The truth of the matter is, John McCain's now realizing the desperate situation in Afghanistan" ("American Morning," CNN, 7/16).
• Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), on whether he is "resisting the notion" the war on terror has moved to Afghanistan: "I am. But I'll say that the active battle front may now be shifting to Afghanistan because we have succeeded in Iraq. If we had done what Senator Obama wanted us to do and pulled out of Iraq, today, Iranian-backed extremists and al Qaeda would basically be in charge of Iraq. That would be a tremendous boost for them in Afghanistan and that's why we're in such a stronger position. I think they're losing certainly in Iraq and that's why they've shifted some of their focus to Afghanistan."
• More Lieberman: "We now turn our focus to the battlefield in Afghanistan, as Senator McCain said yesterday, with strength and confidence and the terrorists in Iran are actually on the defensive there. If we get our act together in Afghanistan, like we did in Iraq, we can win that one, too. That will be another big victory in the war against terrorists" ("American Morning," CNN, 7/16).
• AP's Sidoti writes, "the return of Iraq and Afghanistan to the forefront" illustrates "how both sides increasingly seem to view the race as largely a referendum on Obama." The "race is on to define the still relatively unknown Obama, and whichever candidate does a better job making his case could well win" the WH (7/16).
• New York Post editorializes, "Will the candidates' (necessarily politicized) visions for action in Iraq and Afghanistan have any strategic relevance in six months, or thereafter? Doubtful" (7/16).
All Right, Kids, Who Wants To Listen To Some War Stories?
Commentators also had plenty to say about Obama's speech:
• Graham: "[Obama]'s ill-prepared to be commander in chief, and let me tell you, the best evidence of that statement that I just made is that he said today that Iraq is not a central battle in the greater war on terror, and it never has been. Well, General Petraeus has a different view, Lee Hamilton has a different view, Admiral Mullen has a different view, Osama bin Laden has a different view. If you can't understand that losing in Iraq would hurt us in the overall global war on terror, then you're not ready for the job" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 7/15).
• Washington Post's Kornblut: "I'm not sure he would have necessarily wanted to define the trip before he went. But given that he did get twisted up in whether he was refining his strategy or not, this really gave him an opportunity to define his trip, define his policies before McCain could get in and do it. He was starting to lose some control over his own storyline when it came to Iraq, and he's really trying to reclaim it on his way out the door" ("Race for the WH," MSNBC, 7/15).
• Kornblut, on why the Obama camp is going after the Iraq war issue so aggressively: "This is why you see Obama going out so aggressively today, making the speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, and also going up on the air with a new ad where he cites his work with Senator Lugar, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, what they've done on nonproliferation there. Not taking this lying down. I suspect they are seeing the same numbers in their own internal polling. And although it's not a major weakness for him, it's not going to lose him the election, it's one of the chinks in his armor. That's why they're going after it" ("Race for the WH," MSNBC, 7/15).
• Fortune's Easton: "I think he got spooked by the reaction to that comment about refining his policy. And, frankly, I think it was a big mistake to give this speech before he goes to Iraq. Not only does it open him to ridicule from McCain, saying you haven't even been to Afghanistan, you haven't met with General Petraeus, you missed hearings on Afghanistan, but it also boxes him in policy-wise, because here he is saying I want to withdraw from Iraq responsibly. And he uses that term a lot. ... When he comes back, it just doesn't leave him a lot of wiggle room to adjust to his policies" ("Special Report," FNC, 7/15).
• CNBC's Harwood, on whether Obama has a clear storyline for ending the Iraq war: "I think it's relatively clear. He says as soon as he goes in, he's going to give the commanders a new mission. That is, to end the war. He's got a timetable. ... You've got John McCain trying to get him coming or going. McCain says, well, he ought to go so he can learn something on the ground ... but he shouldn't take a position before he goes. It's a little ... backwards" ("Race for the WH," MSNBC, 7/15).
• Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer: "I think he thought he had to move to the center on the war because, obviously, the facts on the grounds are changing. As we see in those polls, public opinion is changing as well. ... That remark a couple of weeks ago in which he spoke not only about refining a policy, but saying withdrawal would depend on stability. 'Stability' was the new word. He never used it before, he hasn't used it since. ... I think the reason he gave [the speech] is to assure the net roots and his left that even if he goes he's not going to use the Iraq trip as an excuse. It was a perfect excuse for a shift, but he is essentially leading out, saying it can't happen and it won't happen" ("Special Report," FNC, 7/15).
Been There, Done That, Got The Credibility
Surrogates also weighed in on Obama's impending trip to Iraq:
• Lieberman: "He's going to Iraq, but he's already decided his position. He's not going to listen to Petraeus or our troops, he's not going to listen to his own eyes with what he sees there, and I think that's not the kind of leadership we need in the Oval Office" ("Fox & Friends," FNC, 7/16).
• Biden, on how important it is for Obama to inspect conditions on the ground in Iraq: "I've been there more than John McCain. That doesn't mean that I'm more qualified than John McCain. It does matter to go on the ground because you get a feel, a touch. ... Barack has had many meetings with military leaders. He's been on the Foreign Relations Committee since he's been in the Congress. He's had many leaders before it. The fact he didn't pick up the phone and call General Petraeus does not, in any way, reflect he doesn't know. He's talked to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's had intelligence meetings and briefings like the rest of us on our committee. So he is fully informed."
• More Biden, on McCain going after Obama for not having been to Iraq in awhile: "It's a scoring point for John McCain to say he hasn't been there. He's going there now. He's going to have a full view. And I think he's going to find when he gets on the ground that the military is more in line with his position on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq than they are with John's. Every trip I've made, and I've made a dozen now to Afghanistan and Iraq, the military says we need to draw down, to beef up in Afghanistan. That's what Barack's been calling for" ("American Morning," CNN, 7/16).
Wait, There's A Commander-In-Chief Test Today?!
There was also discussion on how McCain leads Obama in polls about who would make a better commander in chief:
• Salon.com's Walsh: "Hillary Clinton, in a lot of exit polls, scored higher as a potential commander in chief, and she didn't win the Democratic primary. So, it's a very crucial question and I don't want to dismiss it, but it is not the only thing that people are voting on. So I think [Obama] can close the gap, but he probably won't ever catch up" ("Election Center," CNN, 7/15).
• Ex-Romney nat'l press sec. Kevin Madden: "What Barack Obama is doing is re-litigating his position on Iraq. He's changed it in the last couple days. He's using rather amorphous language. He's trying to win on nuance, whereas, John McCain can go and make a very black-and-white issue. And that's where John McCain wins. He looks more like a commander of chief" ("Situation Room," CNN, 7/15).
• CNN's Cafferty: "[McCain]'s had an advantage there from the get go based, in large part, on his military background and his time as a POW. ... His military credentials exceed Barack Obama's. That being said, remember that phrase, it's the economy stupid? This election will be decided on the economy, I'm almost sure. And while the discussions of Afghanistan and Iraq are interesting and we can look back and look forward and debate what's going to happen next, the economy is collapsing around our ears. And that's the issue that will determine the outcome in November" ("Situation Room," CNN, 7/15).
• Biden, on how Obama can convince voters he's as strong on foreign policy as McCain: "By talking about it. You have a brilliant, relatively young man, who is the nominee of the Democratic party, who's leading John McCain on every area except the one where experience just intuitively suggests people think if you're experienced, you must know more. But 20 years of experience that has not been very solid, in terms of projecting what was going to happen, doesn't make you a better commander in chief. We don't need, as a commander in chief, a war hero. John's a war hero. We need someone with some wisdom" ("American Morning," CNN, 7/16).
Meanwhile, Rich People Are People, Too, You Know
McCain's "elite fundraisers have helped collect more than half" of his camp money, while Obama "has relied on his top fundraisers for about one-sixth of his coffers," according to a USA Today analysis. More than 500 top McCain fundraisers brought in at least $75.6M through June, while more than 500 top Obama fundraisers brought in at least $50.1M through May.
This "illustrates" that McCain "is relying on a group of well-connected Republicans to fuel hid bid," and that Obama "has turned to wealthy donors to help collect cash -- even though the bulk of his donations are from contributors who give $200 or less." But both camps "insist they are not beholden to bundlers" (Schouten, USA Today, 7/16).
Inside Mike Bloomberg's Deepest, Darkest Fantasies
NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I) "says he has yet to decide" whether to endorse McCain or Obama, "but wishes he could vote for both." Bloomberg: "Both have strengths and weaknesses. I think if you wanted to put together a dream ticket maybe you'd put together both of them and they'd flip to see who is on top" (New York Sun, 7/16).
I Like To Do Draw-rings
Syndicated columnist Ruben Navarette writes in USA Today, "the message Latinos take away" from McCain's talk on immigration is that he's "a fair-weather friend." But Latinos also "value loyalty, and many are inclined to stay loyal to McCain." Weighing the candidates' appearances before La Raza earlier this week, "I'd call it a draw" (7/16).
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Dick Morris writes in The Hill about why the race is still tied. "In the space of a month and a half," Obama "reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues." And unlike McCain's, "Obama's shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar." Obama "has set the bar pretty high" by running as "a different kind" of pol, "and, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short." If "moderate liberals are disgusted by Obama's obvious attempts at chicanery and repositioning, they might just cross the aisle," especially given McCain's position on oil drilling (7/15).
Roll Down The Ballot, We'll Have A Barrel Of Fun
Dem and GOP gov's groups "are raising record amounts" for their candidates, "and say a strong turnout for supporters at the state level can only help" their parties' WH candidates. "That could be slightly better news" for Dems, since Dem govs outnumber GOPers 28-22. The DGA raised $11M through June, with $13M CoH. The RGA hasn't yet released midterm figures, but had $15M CoH after the first quarter, when it raised $7M (Welsh-Huggins, AP, 7/14).
"Soul-Crushing" Still Counts As Peaceful, '00 Gore Voters
Boston Globe's Jacoby writes, the latest efforts to abolish the Electoral College are unlikely to succeed, "and a good thing too, for the Electoral College remains the best system for picking a chief executive suited to a nation like ours: a geographically large, ideologically diverse, socially complex federal republic. No political process is perfect, but this one has survived 220 yars and 54 peaceful presidential elections" (7/16).
McCain Will Never See It, Anyway
Newsweek's Henig interviews JibJab co-founder Gregg Spiridellis about the site's political animations, including '04's "This Land" and a new one featuring McCain and Obama, and their potential impact on the WH race. Spiradellis: "Our mission is to make people laugh. Where I do feel responsibility is to make sure there is no political message -- that it stays 100 percent about the fun and absurdity. The responsibility is not to inform. In my mind there are lots of other sources for information" (Newsweek.com, 7/16).