No, not thatPutin, this one.

Well hell, if we're playing this game. From The Campaign Spot on National Review Online:

Never let the facts interfere with a good speech. C'mon.

Maybe he was talking in, uh, metaphors!

Actually, I found the 57 states gaffe a little disturbing. That's pretty basic, especially for a presidential candidate.

Can you imagine what would have happened if someone like Dan Quayle had said something like that?

Wow. Both McCain and Obama are looking rather clueless. I really want to find a reason to vote for one of these guys, but they are making it very difficult right now.

I haven't listened to it yet. Did he close with "Ich bin ein beginner" ?

eh, one could argue that the wall in belfast was defined by the people themselves in where they chose to live and whom they kept out.

You guys can pick and choose your gaffes, but there's a crucial difference:

Obama corrects his mistakes (it was a bill of his that went in front of the banking committee, there are actually 57 caucuses & primaries). Virtually all are simple verbal gaffes.

McCain, especially on important issues like the timeline of the surge or the difference between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, takes a long time to correct his mistakes, if at all. They're clearly not just verbal gaffes, but a momentary (or prolonged) misunderstanding or misremembrance of basic facts.

Oh, I agree. It's all going to depend on whether or not the mainstream media pick it up.


Color me surprised that the folks at the NRO have no conception of how things have changed in Northern Ireland. They probably think the IRA is still bombing London.

McCain in June:


McCain in July:


So it's OK for McCain to go abroad and pretend he's President (and attack Obama while doing so), but it's not OK for Obama to do it.

I don't know if I can handle another 3 months of this "straight talk".

fixed.

Gotta be honest here flere, I believe you're grossly overestimating the amount of importance most voters put on either of those specific points.

Again (as albion tried to explain me earlier), while it might matter whether a President can get either of them right if it doesn't matter/isn't clear to the voters then I can't think it's going to have any significant impact on votes.

And personally, considering how much candidates go through, I'm surprised either one of them gets their own name right 10 times in a row.

Obama speaks in Germany to an estimated 200,000 people:



Earlier, he meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel:



McCain does a photo op at a sausage house in Colombus, Ohio where he "addressed about a half dozen Ohio small business owners in the historic village":

Sorry, I don't mean to give that impression. I agree with you that most voters aren't going to care about those points. I'm more making the points that a) that's really unfortunate, b) they really should and c) this guy McCain, he really doesn't know what he's doing. :D

Haven't thought it through much but I think being involved in a campaign is not like being President. Almost like apples and oranges. I'm not talking about all the "promises" and double-talk that is expected to get elected and ignored when reality hit. I'm talking about the office of the presidency and mechanisms that have long been in place in being in the Executive Branch. There is a lot about that office that is rote, predictable and expected (in a handler type of way). You have the power of the federal govt behind you, which if far, far greater and more influential than any campaign staff and organization.

I doubt there's any job that really compares.

I think the point is that talking and pandering for votes (or the inability to do that well) has little bearing on the effectiveness of being President. The latter is a controlled situation while the former is salesmanship. There maybe a closer relationship to that of a Congressperson (since much of the job is pandering for votes, behind the scenes deal-making and the ever-present job of being re-elected), but not for a largely pre-defined role as president. Perhaps the one thing we can get a sense of during a campaign (apart from how telegenic a person is), is whether a candidate is over-rehearsed (thus, being more of a puppet) or stubborn (thus, my way or highway). I think Bush2falls in the former, while Clinton as the latter.

My bad, I really did think that was along the lines of the point you were looking to make. Tired, I don't read as well (between the lines or on the lines) as I do on the odd occasions when I can actually get a reasonable amount of sleep.

Good to see someone call McCain on this... A bit odd that it was Hagel, but I hope it gets some attention: Hagel Chides Candidates on Iraq - TIME

I agree about small gains came at a high price but if Hagel said is can't be measured, how would he know if it were small gains? Would the gains be greater or would the gains be there without a surge or something totally different?

I am still haunted by my readings on Cold Harbor in the Civil War. One has to place yourself in that moment without the benefit of hindsight. It seems it was a case of no gains coming at a very high price (about 12,000 Union casualties). But was it really? While it gave rise to intense anti-war feelings, it did serve a purpose (cornering Lee and the ANV). But they didn't have a clear idea that Lee was trapped at the time, only in hindsight.

And the punchline is that McCain actually spoke to more people who will be voting in November than Obama did.

The fascination with Obama's speeches and big crowds is getting really close to being creepy.

Where would Obama be in politics right now if he wasn't so eloquent?

True, I mean, if my mother had balls she'd have been my father.

I don't get the "European tour" in Germany, meeting with Iraq/Germany's PM, ect.

Last time I checked, he is NOT the President or any cabinet member. He's just a young senator from Illinois.

I'm not a fan of Obama (I think he lacks substance and is more of the same in his proposals), however I think he could turning voters off with the "rock star" approach. The use of the Broncos field for the convention is kind of creepy as well.

Sure, that never ever happens and McCain would never consider doing that.


I mean, he knows that this never happens.


hxxp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/06/gordonbrown.labour



I'm sure senator Hagel ( R ) wouldn't consider doing this either.

The thought of senators meeting world leaders is absurd.


hxxp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGM2ZTE4Y2ExNDU3NGMyNmNhMWNkYjU3ZWNhYTk0NGQ=

Senator Bill Nelson, not a president or cabinet member would never meet a foreign leader either.


hxxp://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:kzbB6LMRP7EJ:vcrisis.com/index.php%3Fcontent%3Dletters/200501291926+senator+meeting+dictator&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Jeez, who's this Obama think he is? He's not the president or a cabinet member but he's doing things that are simply never done by senators and clearly his esteemed opponent is way too honorable to even consider such a tour. Man.

lets not let facts get in the way of a good talking point, right SFL?

The BBC spent quite a bit of time last night talking about Barack Obama acting as if he had already won the race.

As their correspondent said, nobody has ever won a US election because they were popular in Europe.

Oh yeah! But when I pointed it out some Obamaniacs, they thought I was just jealous of him! They said so its that everyone who wants to be there can be. Really? He can't speak at the convention floor like everyone else? It just seems so utterly egotistical, like I want more than merely 20,000 in attendance to bask at my glory!

Do you honestly believe McCain wouldn't do the same thing if he had the ability to draw the same kind of crowd?

Actually I do. I think the example I brought up is that I'm sure Reagan could have filled a stadium when he was running for reelection in 1984.

I really don't see McCain being as full of himself.

Unlikely. McCain spoke to 6 people, who we can assume were all registered voters. Out of 200,000 people in Berlin, I'm sure more than 6 were Americans (and not just the press, even).


Poor comparison. Reagan didn't need to do any such thing in 1984 because the election was almost from the start a foregone conclusion.


Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you there.

You think Obama is doing that because he needs to show himself being the Messiah by getting Pope sized crowds?

Who originally tagged Obama as the Messiah? Was it the Left or the Right?

Let's be clear here:

Obama's done this trip for two major reasons: one, it's good press. Two, it makes him look Presidential, which is good given that one of his weaknesses with voters is the perception of whether or not he's up to the job.

Reagan didn't do it because he was already President and was facing a very easy re-election campaign. There's no comparison.

McCain's not doing it (although he did travel to both Canada and Colombia, before he started critizing foreign trips) because he can barely get a crowd for his U.S. events.

Or to put it another way - how many Democrats are more qualified to president than Obama. 500? But he talks pretty and thus has cult-like status.

Obama fans bragging about how many people he can get at a German rally is kind of disturbing. He has you all under his spell.

It also makes him look presumptious. With this trip (where people think he's getting ahead of himself in acting like a President rather than a candidate), the whole flap with an Oval Office like seal on a podium he was speaking at, and the Invesco thing, people are going to start thinking he believes this to be a coronation and not an election.


How many speeches did McCain give to the Canadian or Colombian people? Its not the trip he's criticizing, but the way it is being done... like Obama is running for President of the Mid East and Europe as well.

The not-exactly-left-leaning Economist:

It's funny, but I thought the whole point of campaigning was to convince the public that you can be President.


It's very plainly sour grapes. McCain's #1 argument was that he's good on foreign policy, and Obama's week has made McCain into a sausage-house sideshow. Of course, McCain hasn't helped himself, but there you go.

Also, any thoughts on McCain's fundraising on his trips, which is expressly forbidden by legislation that bears his name?

Why post an article which says the trip made him risk looking presumptuous, but other events happening may have saved him from that?

Lots of new polls (NOTE: most pollsters say we're probably a week away from seeing any impact from Obama's trip):


There's a lot of commentary about the Quinnipiac results, which are generally pretty different from recent polling, but there you go....

No huge surprises. MN looks closer than it has recently. ND continues to be much closer than anyone expected it would be. Wisconsin (if you can believe Quinnipiac) has gone from a potential McCain pickup to firm Obama territory (I can hear st.cronin's screams from here).

1. I thought the article was interesting.
2. It's the Economist, which is based in Europe, so offers a foreign perspective.
3. It's the Economist, which isn't pre-disposed to like someone like Obama.

Proving that you can be President and acting like you've already won the job before the Convention are two, vastly different things.


We'll see what happens in the upcoming months, but I believe that it will start to come out more and more that McCain was right on the surge.

As the not so right leaning NY Times pointed out:

NY Times Advertisement

Obama was, as he tends to be, quite vague on the actualities.


If he's violated the law, then go after him.

Though if I recall, the campaign, prior to the event, refunded the treasury for flights and expenses relating to overseas fundraising on his London trip.

This is so bizarre.

Obama has outshined McCain on foreign policy this week because he's in Germany yapping about bridges and playing basketball with the troops, and McCain's instead in America?

I don't get it....

What's the big selling point on Obama (compared to other Democrats, not McCain)? His "vision"?

Compared to other Democrats? That's somewhat irrelevant. He's running for the Presidency against John McCain. Let's stick to comparing him to McCain on foreign policy.


Sure. Hey, you're going to think of Obama's intentions what you want to think of Obama's intentions. I can't change that.


I'll leave that to Chuck Hagel:


Anyone even casually interested in Iraq knows that the "Surge" worked because:

1. The Anbar Awakening gave Al-Qaeda real problems.
2. Al-Sadr called a ceasefire during the middle of the "Surge".
3. Hagel's point above (which, frankly, refers further back to the "Powell Doctrine" which McCain initially opposed).

Without points #1 and #2, we're probably only marginally better off in Iraq today than we were when my brother served there.

You're forgetting the part where McCain can't remember how the "Surge" started, doesn't understand that Iraq and Afghanistan don't share a border, and confuses Somalia with the Sudan.

Heck, he can't even keep the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers straight! :D

I'm pretty confident that if you asked McCain, point blank, not on the campaign trail, do Iraq and Afghanistan share a border, or when and how the Surge started, he'd know the answer. (Just like Obama knows that Canada doesn't have a "president"). You're either confident in that or you're not - if you are, it's completely irrelevant, if you're not, then well, I guess I can understand why you wouldn't vote for McCain.

But if we're just looking for the candidate that commits the fewest gaffes, we can probably find someone better than either of these guys.

I also think the number of people in a crowd in a given week is irrelevent, and a pretty strange thing to brag about. Why aren't the poll ratios 200,000-6 in favor of Obama?

How do you account for McCain mixing up Sunnis and Shiites, while in Iraq, while giving a prepared speech?

Look, I understand I'm biased here, and I'm pretty sure you all think/know the same thing and read what I write with the correct grain of salt. But I honestly believe that a good number of McCain's gaffes are the result of an actual mental confusion or even lack of understanding on McCain's part, and I think people should find that worrying.

So you think he really doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites? I guess I just don't buy that. I guess I'm also not concerned about him mixing them up - it's not like any serious US policy is going to be compromised or "backwards" because McCain got them mixed up. What's the practical effect of confusion like that if he was president?

And I'm not sure what Obama's European road show is supossed to tell us about his ability to handle foreign policy, except that young unemployed Germans apparently like him. His speeches are an event, no doubt. People in their 20s went in huge groups when he came to Boise, and then drank downtown afterwards. It was a party. I don't know how many of them are voting though.

This campaign is just starting to annoy me - hopefully the debates bring in some substance.