~ Check out the coverage, both sets compiled by First Read - who basically serve to echo the "conventional widsom" of the chattering class.
Obama v. McCain: Good timing or what?
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:21 AM by Domenico Montanaro
The Washington Post front-pages that as Obama met yesterday with Iraq’s leaders, a “spokesman for the Iraqi government declared that it would like U.S. combat forces to complete their withdrawal by the end of 2010. The comments by spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh mark the second time in recent days that a senior Iraqi has endorsed a timetable for U.S. withdrawal that is roughly similar to the one advocated by Obama. Dabbagh suggested that a combat force pullout could be completed by the end of 2010, which would be about seven months longer than Obama's 16-month formulation.”
The New York Times: “The Iraqi government on Monday left little doubt that it favors a withdrawal plan for American combat troops similar to what Senator Barack Obama has proposed, providing Mr. Obama with a potentially powerful political boost on a day he spent in Iraq working to fortify his credibility as a wartime leader… The central tenet of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is suddenly aligned with what the Iraqis themselves now increasingly seem to want. Not only have the developments offered Mr. Obama a measure of credibility as a prospective world leader in a week when his every move is receiving intensive attention at home and abroad, but it has complicated Mr. McCain’s leading argument against him: that a withdrawal timeline would be tantamount to surrender and would leave Iraqis in dangerous straits
The Los Angeles Times notes that the news “bolstered Obama's credibility on a key foreign policy issue, early in a weeklong trip to the Middle East and Europe that was designed to reassure voters concerned he lacks the experience to be commander in chief.”
The Washington Post’s Dan Balz adds, “
s political theater, the events of the past few days have played unfailingly in the Democrat's favor. On Friday, a day after Obama left for Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush administration officials announced that the United States and Iraq had agreed on a time horizon for removing troops. Then, twice in three days, Maliki embraced a withdrawal timeline similar to Obama's. Beyond that, McCain shifted ground to declare that he, too, favors sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.”
“McCain, campaigning in Maine, was blistering in his criticism of Obama on Monday. He said his rival has been ‘completely wrong’ on Iraq and "has no military experience whatsoever," and argued again that any withdrawal from Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground.”
“‘The fact is, if we had done what Senator Obama wanted to do, we would have lost,’ Mr. McCain said... ‘And we would have faced a wider war. And we would have had greater problems in Afghanistan and the entire region. And Iran would have increased their influence.’”
Also: “McCain appeared to leave a door open on Monday to a large-scale drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq in the next two years.”
The Boston Globe front page highlights yesterday’s contrast in images between the two candidates. McCain: Suited up, standing side-by-side with a white turtenecked, tan-blazered President George H.W. Bush in Kennebunkport, Maine. Obama: In a helicopter seated next to Gen. David Petraeus with headsets on. The accompanying story shows McCain driven around in a golf cart by Bush, the number “41” on one side of the windshield, and a sign that reads, “Property of 41. Hands off!” on the other.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/22/1213839.aspxMcCain: A gaffe machine?
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:19 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Politico writes: “Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said ‘Iraq’ when he apparently meant ‘Afghanistan’ on Monday, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition. Just in the past three weeks, McCain has also mistaken ‘Somalia’ for ‘Sudan,’ and even football’s Green Bay Packers for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Ironically, the errors have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise -- foreign affairs.”
”McCain will turn 72 the day after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) accepts his party’s nomination for president, calling new attention to the sensitive issue of McCain’s advanced age, three days before the start of his own convention. The McCain campaign says Obama has had plenty of flubs of his own, including a reference to "57 states" and a string of misstated place names during the primaries that Republicans gleefully sent around as YouTubes. But McCain's mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?”
The New York Times fact-checks latest TV ad, which blames Obama for high gas prices. “
ven before the recent spike, oil prices had been rising for a decade, the result of a variety of political and economic factors in places as far afield as China, India, Venezuela and Nigeria. So it is difficult to understand how Mr. Obama, a first-term senator, can be held responsible for that phenomenon. Aside from correctly stating current gasoline prices, is misleading on nearly every substantive point. But it is shrewdly conceived and may prove to be effective with undecided voters upset about having to pay as much as $100 to fill their gas tanks, yet uncertain as to the causes of the squeeze on their budgets.”
The Washington Post also runs a fact-check. McCain “may try in this ad to blame rising gas prices on Barack Obama, but after 7 1/2 years of the Bush administration, that's a stretch.” More: “It's a bit audacious for McCain to charge that "some in Washington" still oppose offshore oil drilling, since that was his position, most notably in his 2000 presidential campaign, until he reversed himself last month.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/22/1213832.aspx
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
