And he didn't even get to go to the BBQ!
Scherer is reporting on the hearings. [updated with link] How does he kick his article off?
Hillary Clinton rested her chin on her right hand, and wore her glasses to read the poster board graphs. Barack Obama reclined in his chair with a studied look. John McCain exuded optimism.
Clinton and Obama are passive. But John McCain is actively exuding stuff even when he is just sitting in his chair. Or as Swampland commenter Paul-no not that one put it
Physical description, physical description, fan boy take.
But that's not what really ticked me off. Consider this:
McCain has promised to campaign in favor of an open-ended commitment with the clear goal of achieving a broad victory of a stable, functioning nation. The Democratic candidates will campaign on the promise of a limited commitment that would willingly leave behind a less stable nation to reduce the U.S. cost of blood and treasure, while allowing for an increased military commitment in Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban. McCain has not yet defined any limits on his commitment, if the U.S. effort began to fail, and the Democrats have yet to clearly define the extent of instability in Iraq that would be acceptable to leave behind.
WTF is up with that?
First off, there is nothing in the least bit clear about McCain's goal. As the Obama clip in the intro makes clear, there is no definition available for "success," no definition of an end state, and no way of saying that stability has been achieved. McCain has certainly never made any such "clear" statement. All he does is echo the President, with talk of prevailing, winning and not waving the white flag of surrender. Now Scherer is on the McCain beat now, so he can no doubt clear up that little detail. But for now, I'd say it'd be more accurate to just leave it at "open-ended commitment." Or as Hendrick Hertzberg put it in this week's New Yorker:
McCain's wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal—that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay.
So having spun McCain as positively as could be spun, he goes on to completely mischaracterize the Democratic positions. They've never said that they'll willingly leave less stable Iraq behind. What they've said is that the continued occupation of Iraq is not helping the situation become more stable and has made the US less safe by not focusing on al qaeda. (Yesterday, Joe Biden got Crocker to admit that this is true, by the way.)
This misstatement of their position, to contrast a strong committed McCain with a weak, fleeing Clinton/Obama is a profound distortion.
This does, however, illustrate the dangers of an anti-occupation positions. It allows reporters to distort your views. Much better to adopt a clear, positive stance for responsibly ending the occupation. And, whaddaya know? Darcy Burner and her team have put one together.
If you haven't signed on, now's the time. Oh, and send a copy to your Member of Congress.