Horserace
May 28, 2008 9:06 AM

Starting Gate: McCain’s Undertow

(AP)
After John McCain effectively wrapped up the Republican nomination, he paid a highly public visit to the White House to receive the blessing of his party’s leader for the last four years. Since then, McCain has done everything he can to erase that image of the two standing together in front of the White House.

McCain took a barrage of criticism from conservative radio hosts for supporting the view that climate change is a challenge that needs to be addressed. He’s taken road trips to places that probably haven’t seen a Republican presidential candidate in decades. McCain has gladly accepted Bush’s help raising money, as he did yesterday in Arizona – but behind closed doors.

But no matter how much McCain tries to distance himself from a president with historically low approval ratings though, there’s one issue on which they will forever be linked – the war in Iraq. Despite his early and frequent criticisms of the conduct of the war, McCain has been a staunch advocate of it. McCain says he would win in Iraq and accuses Barack Obama of wanting to “surrender” there.

Enter former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, whose accusations made in a new book about the selling of the war are sure to make life all the more uncomfortable for McCain.

McClellan charges (among other things) that the war in Iraq was sold to Americans through a “political propaganda campaign” that was “all about manipulating sources of public opinion,” according to a copy of the book previewed by the Washington Post. Most strikingly, McClellan concludes about the war: “What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

Should Hillary Clinton somehow still win the nomination, such accusations may have less impact since both she and McCain voted to give President Bush the authorization to go to war. But Obama just received new talking points to bolster his argument that it is judgment, not the experience McCain is selling, which is the more important quality for a president. Obama, whose early opposition to the war has helped him get within inches of the Democratic nomination, will certainly hammer this point home.

For McCain, the allegations made by McClellan are nothing but bad news. They may be one man’s opinion, but coming from a former press secretary whose loyalty has never been publicly questioned before, they carry weight. McClellan will have more to say as he launches his book tour tomorrow but already he seems certain to reinforce the growing sentiment that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

The GOP candidate can (and probably will) dismiss McClellan’s charges by pointing to the fact that, whatever came before, the war in Iraq continues and he’s the one who can bring it to a successful conclusion. But that’s not going to make the war – or those who supported it initially – any more popular. The Bush administration has become toxic for Republicans of all stripes, not just because of the war but primarily so. It is a rip-tide candidates at all levels are swimming against in 2008.

McCain was thought to be best positioned to avoid the undertow because he is not viewed as a typical “Bush Republican” and because he has clashed with the president in the past. But when it comes to the war, there’s been little distance between the two men. Allegations that an unnecessary war was sold to America through a propaganda campaign certainly won’t help McCain gain that distance he’s been seeking from Bush in recent months.
Tags:
McCain ,
Scott McClellan ,
Obama ,
Clinton ,
Bush ,
Iraq ,
war
Topics:
Starting Gate
Add a Comment See all 119 Comments
by shingles1 May 30, 2008 3:59 AM EDT
"Most strikingly, McClellan concludes about the war: %u201CWhat I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.%u201D"

Except that this conclusion is not "striking". Back before the invasion of Iraq a good chunk of the American public, conservatives, realists, and, oh yes, liberals, argued that going after Saddam made no sense whatsoever. Such dissenting views were buried by the so-called liberal media, which fell in line and cheered on the coming war (and the awesome ratings that war brings!).

Wild eyed liberals like William Buckley (RIP), Andrew Sullivan, the Cato Institute, Pat Buchanan, Bob Barr, Jeane Kirkpatrick (RIP),and Francis ******** have all argued that the war was not necessary, has diverted resources away from the fight against the real enemy (Al Qaeda - the people who actually attacked us and are alive and chillin'' out in Pakistan), and therefore was a mistake.

The idea that the Iraq War is one of the dumbest foreign policy mistakes in our lifetimes is not just held by liberals - despite what obama8years so desperately wants to believe.
Reply to this comment
by seah5 May 29, 2008 5:25 PM EDT
McCain is not Bush.

Those small minds who can not realize that. Need to go back to kindergarten.
Reply to this comment
by obama8years May 29, 2008 3:14 PM EDT
Follow the money. The book was published by a Soros owned publishing company....known for publishing anti Bush books. Much adoo about nothing. The little Judas McClellan will be used by the left and discarded, like Cindy Sheehan.....and he pretty much burned the bridge back to republican land.

Hope you have a GOOD lawyer....the dem congress is gonna want to talk to you. With your right hand raised. We''''ll see just how true all this really is.
Reply to this comment
by obama8years May 29, 2008 2:50 PM EDT
Ya looks like the 5+ lead in the latest poll really hurt Mccain... NOT.


Rasmussen Tracking 05/25 - 05/28 1600 LV 42 47 McCain 5.0
Gallup Tracking 05/22 - 05/27 4411 RV 45 46 McCain 1.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 46 46 Tie
Reply to this comment
by b-easy63 May 29, 2008 2:35 PM EDT
Do you think after changing the rules (because to win, that is what will be required by HRC) that blacks and others will just bite the bullet and support the cheater? You really believe that? You may want this really badly, but have you thought about what happens if you get it?

Consider that--because it is a real possibility. Most Independents are Independents because they don''t like the games and cheats of each major party--most will NOT accept a cheat for either candidate or a new change in rules or disregarding the rules. But seriously--what will you and HRC do, if she would get the nomination, but the DNC lost the support of Blacks, new voters (who overwhelmingly are for Obama) and Independents? In short, what would you do if a HRC nomination ended up in a huge loss? Consider it--because most pundits agree--if Obama is cheated out of the Nom or rules are changed midstream, there will be a backlash. Just how much do you think calls for unity will mean? Indies have no loyalty to your party and after denying the (to them) "rightful win of the black candidate--just WHO would be left in HRC''s corner? HRC supporters are only 18%of the entire voting electorate. That''s all. Remember that.
Reply to this comment
by b-easy63 May 29, 2008 2:34 PM EDT
If any candidate should be asked to step aside, I would ask Senator Obama to consider it.Posted by Alicerea1 at 07:29 AM : May 29, 2008


After being in the lead, having the most delegates, keeping his pledge to the DNC rules and for the most part not campaigning in a negative way--just what do you think would happen if Obama stepped aside?

Do you think the Independents and Dems who support Obama will then support HRC?

Because if you do--you are wishful thinking. It would be cheating. Seating the delegates after the rules said NO would be cheating, discounting the delegate count would be cheating...

What do you think Blacks would do? Stay home or vote? What do you think most new voters would do? Stay home or vote? What do you think Independents would do? Vote for McCain or Hillary?

If HRC requires a cheat to win--what will you do if Blacks, Independents and many former Obama supporters rebel and do not support her? next post

Reply to this comment
by b-easy63 May 29, 2008 2:26 PM EDT
If they are not all seated, if Senator Obama doesn%u2019t fight for them, they certainly will not forget the outcome in the general election. Is it really worth the risk?


Posted by Alicerea1 at 07:23 AM : May 29, 2008


If the DNC does not stand by their own rules, next election there will be a free for all from many states as they do what they want, knowing there can be no true consequences. There will be chaos. Unfortunately, the boat that Michigan and Florida are in is one of their own making--for the future, win or lose it is one that the DNC cannot afford to treat differently.

It would be the same as saying stealing is wrong and will be punished with prison time, but when the time comes to sentence--letting the thieves go free. What message do you think that would send?

Sometimes losing is more noble than winning--especially when the alternative is to compromise one''s integrity. Changing rules to win in the middle or disregarding other rules is a bid for dishonesty and chaos and HRC ought to be ashamed for ever making a pledge and not keeping it--there was a time when doing just that would have ended a campaign.
Reply to this comment
by aldon61 May 29, 2008 2:24 PM EDT
Jack 3213: You must be insane to want four more years of same old policies. This economy is in the tank buster, amd McCain ADMITS that economical issues are not his strong suit. Know who one of his key advisors is? Try Phil Graham, he who wrote the bill de-regulating financial institutions. That directly led to the collapse of Enron and Bear Sterns. I won''t bother going into the Iraq situation, you obviously want more of our military personnel to die over a war that wasn''t necessary. I suppose you support McBush''s reluctance is expand our military''s benefits too, don''t you wise-a$$? If you''re going to vote for McBush, fine, but don''t come on the site throwing out your little wedge issues and progaganda, try dealing with us with facts, or do you have any?
Reply to this comment
by jack3213 May 29, 2008 11:02 AM EDT
Clinton ( ''the old dog'' with the same tricks) will be the demise of the party she wishes to unite. Obama speaks of change- and he neither has the knowledge or experiance to know what that means. Wishing for change for the wrong reason can produce very bad consequeneces. If you vote Libertarian you will destory any chance of making any positive change. Vote McCain 2008.

Reply to this comment
by alicerea1 May 29, 2008 10:29 AM EDT
Many media outlets have discussed unfavorable characters related to Senator Obama. These are just a sampling of what is being circulated and will be hammered against Obama by the Republican party:

%u2022Senator Obama has publicly lied about his relationship with his mentor, Reverend Wright.

%u2022Semator Obama has lied about his relationship with Anton Rezko (Chicago Tribune)

%u2022Senator Obama never talks about his Muslim father, (NY Times Magazine)

%u2022Senator Obama has been on the cover of Trumpet Magazine with Louis Farrakhan (Fox News: Hannity and Colmes)

%u2022Senator Obama has support from Nation of Islam: Farrakhan recently had a Saviour%u2019s Day rally for Obama in Chicago with 20,000 members in attendance. (Chicago Tribune,Lou Dobbs Tonight)

%u2022Senator Obama worked on the %u201CWoods Foundation%u201D with William Ayers, a domestic terrorist ( Fox news Hannity and Colmes)


%u2022Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago teaches Black Liberation Theology based on a 10 point African American philosophy. (Fox News, Trinity United Church of Christ web site)

%u2022Senator Obama%u2019s supporters has recently been dismissed because of his meeting with Hamas. (NY Times May 13-17 and CNN %u201CPolitical Ticker%u201D CNN Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer)

Is this an example of our future Democratic nominee. If any candidate should be asked to step aside, I would ask Senator Obama to consider it.

Reply to this comment
by alicerea1 May 29, 2008 10:23 AM EDT

Plea to All Democrats:

Senator Obama is not the right candidate for the Democratic party to win the general election against McCain.

Many Americans feel deceived by the many irregularities in Senator Obama speeches and by the bias favoring him in the media. In addition, Clinton supporters are certainly unhappy with the outcome of Michigan and Florida primaries.

The newspapers and the news media are not including the total amount of votes or delegated needed for 50 states. Instead of 2025 for 48 states. Shouldn%u2019t they be looking at 50 states outcome of 2209? When will the media finally change the real number, after the primary is over?

If the proper number of delegates needed for 50 states were on charts and maps in newpapers and on TV, months ago as they should have been, this race would not have been close. These are over 300 delegates and millions of votes being held back from Michigan and Florida. They certainly are watching the outcome of the DNC%u2019s decision at the end of May.

If they are not all seated, if Senator Obama doesn%u2019t fight for them, they certainly will not forget the outcome in the general election. Is it really worth the risk?

Reply to this comment
by amirmesr May 29, 2008 5:47 AM EDT
yeah, there war was built on a lie, everybody knew that, the whole world was out there protesting the war before it was launched.
But now what about the destroyed Iraq, what about the hospitals, mosques andn houses the american forces have destroyed, what about the hunderds of thousands of deads,
what about the injured and disabled,what about the stolen oil, what about the two million
iraqi that flee their country..can anybody tell me???
Reply to this comment
by jack3213 May 28, 2008 10:42 PM EDT
Scott is nothing more than a disgruntled politician crying foul because he didn''t get the ball enough times. Geesh, such idiots. Others will come oout with books to cry , too, and I can''t help but wonder if they even care how they look after the fact- If they had problems then why didn''t they speak up?!
Reply to this comment
by liberty4you May 28, 2008 10:30 PM EDT

Well, Well. Propaganda machines selling the war to the American public. It''s like the 2000 election.

Fox news says it''s so and it''s so.
Fox isn''t even owned by an American.

What is interesting is Katie Couric interviewing McCain as NBC did for Bush in 2000/2004.

Now NBC is anti-Bush? Talk about a flip flop nuclear GE power outage.
Reply to this comment
by massindy May 28, 2008 7:43 PM EDT
No mention in this column of McClellan''s indictment of the mass media, including, and maybe especially, networks like CBS, for toeing the line and swallowing the war whole, straight from the lying mouths of the White House.

That is a big oversight.
Reply to this comment
by massindy May 28, 2008 7:43 PM EDT
No mention in this column of McClellan''s indictment of the mass media, including, and maybe especially, networks like CBS, for toeing the line and swallowing the war whole, straight from the lying mouths of the White House.

That is a big oversight.
Reply to this comment
by massindy May 28, 2008 7:42 PM EDT
No mention in this column of McClellan''s indictment of the mass media, including, and maybe especially, networks like CBS, for toeing the line and swallowing the war whole, straight from the lying mouths of the White House.

That is a big oversight.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti May 28, 2008 7:42 PM EDT
McBush, he who voted in lockstep (100%) with the crime family in 2007. And 95% of the time in 2006. I am deeply troubled that such a dirt bag could even have the slightest hope of even being elected to the Senate, let along being president.

It goes to show just how far America has fallen in the department of intelligence, knowledge and common sense.
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 May 28, 2008 6:14 PM EDT
Another Bush Basher. Wow, I''m too impressed.
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 May 28, 2008 6:14 PM EDT
Another Bush Basher. Wow, I''m too impressed.
Reply to this comment
See all 119 Comments

About Horserace

Description for Horserace

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn