« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
MSM overlooks McCain's Obvious Gaffe
In its predictable eagerness to declare that Friday's debate produced "no game changers," the mainstream media outlets have overlooked what should be a disqualifying mistake by John McCain. His claim that Obama did not understand the difference between tactics and strategy was simply one of his many attempts to depict Obama as ill-informed on every issue. McCain proceeded, as the exchange continued, however, to show that he, not Obama, was confused over this fundamental distinction.
An obvious criticism of McCain's current Iraq position has been that his obsession with the tactical successes of "the surge" have blinded him to any clear conceptualization of the US's strategic dilemma there. Now McCain implies the surge is a strategy and that the tactics in Iraq lead us toward . . . well, I don't know what. This reasoning is completely nonsensical. McCain is the graduate of an American service academy and served in wartime. He has participated in numerous foreign policy discussions as a Congressman. And yet, he seems to lack a clear grasp of how a political leader must move back and forth between tactical choices and strategic options. McCain's statements in the debate were not sadly laughable. They show a colossally dangerous flaw in his foreign policy reasoning. Even if one wanted to charitably grant that he didn't exactly say that we should be in Iraq for 100 years, McCain's reasoning shows that he cannot think himself out of the Iraq quagmire.
Why has the MSM failed to make more of this? Joe Klein on Time.com at least pointed out that McCain was flat wrong, but not much more. James Fallows on Atlantic.com interpreted this as indicative of McCain's tactical muddling, more a personality tic than a clear failing. Joe Biden complained about McCain's reasoning on MSNBC, and yet not one of the commentators seemed willing to engage the point, let alone admit the sweeping significance of McCain's blunder.
We have seen for the entire election cycle how miserably the MSM has covered, run, and analyzed debates. Voters might have hoped that post-debate analysis might include at least one foreign policy expert who could point out the meaning of this gaffe. Instead we got all the same pundits, horse-race handicappers, and body language experts. They swept all the content under a rug.
Comments (11)
Yes I found that troubling as well. Considering McCain was so forceful about being INCORRECT is kind of disturbing.
September 28, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might be cynical, but maybe the MSM have fallen for the exact trap that the general population has. We respond to one-liners or landing a knock out swipe.
It might be sad, but out of everything the most common negative judgment against McCain was his tone and body language. No one really cares about the difference between strategy and tactics. Everyone wanted Obama to pounce on this and other Iraq McCain weaknesses he opened up for attack. But no matter how much Obama reasoned his opposition, nothing would be taken away unless it would have been in the form of a zinger.
No matter that Obama, in his answers, proved that he is not naive. Unless he said something like, "You have repeatedly called me naive, in spite of my policies and illustrated understanding that proves your accusations as nothing more than name calling. I am a big boy and can handle it. But you also must think the American families and middle class are naive to think that four more years of Bush policies that you have followed almost to a T will be good for them - But I won't let them be misled by another disconnected Government Administration - you accuse me of being unknowledgeable - but they know who is to blame for their troubles today - I am standing up for their interests." That's a knock out, no matter if he can actually back it up.
Everyone is desperately waiting for someone to put their foot in their mouth, a gaffe, a gotcha. Supposedly, nothing sensational happened during the debate, although they debated on some of the largest issues today. The more a debater can speak in terms of value-laden, non-committal and accessible language, the more apt they are to "win." Everyone deems that talking "on-point" is essential. Well, you can't honestly or responsibly discuss international affairs and stay on-point.
Maybe it's ego, it's certainly economic, the source of their motives. MSM reports things that get play, ratings and has entertainment value. Commentary and punditry has outplayed news reporting.
September 28, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the MSM learned their lesson well with the primary season. They were strongly rewarded for making much of the "close" race between Clinton and Obama so they are trying to repeat it. I don't want to be accused of defending the MSM but the body language was very strong in this debate and worth noting. And as discouraging as it may be when people focus on thing like this to make decisions on who to vote for I did read about a study that found that voters who had supported a candidate on the basis of impressions usually supported the same candidate when filling out a policy questioniare.
September 28, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree with the appropriateness of reading body language and don't mean to down play its role, especially in comparison to the things they are saying. It would be interesting to see what a psychologist would say as they analyzed the debate with no sound, maybe in the form of a PIP block. Do there body language reflect confusion, confidence or defensive in fault? It would be much more interesting than that silly onscreen polling graph.
September 29, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most Americans assume "tactic" and "strategy" to be completely interchangeable words, so they are prone to think that such arguments are "nitpicking". But composure, bearing, attitude -- those really ring a chord with the average voter, and there, Obama won by gang-busters.
September 28, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Management 101--we know tactics are the actions you take to move forward on a strategy. Of course "the surge" was a long overdue tactical move but It is beyond me what the strategy was at that point (mostly political I would imagine). How an Annapolis grad, Navy man and wannabe POTUS could confuse strategy and tactics is frightening.
September 28, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps that's why he never made Admiral.
September 28, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
#894 out of 899...
September 28, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are on point.
McCain doesn't seem to get the difference between tactics and strategy, which has been so nicely illustrated by his enthusiasm about the success of the surge without any care about what strategy that success might or might not support.
September 28, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about McCain's humdinger that Pakistan was a "failed government" when Musharraf became president of Pakistan. Uh...anyone remember that he staged a coup in 1999 against an elected government?
September 28, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM continues to be McCain's "base", and they got that way by making allowances for McCain's every mistake, from the Keating 5 scandal, to the tactics vs stragegy mistake. Their love affair with McCain is not based on McCain being smart or showing good judgment, or even having a good presidential temperament. It is based entirely on how McCain treated so many of them as equals - my God, I'm equal to a genuine war hero! It won't change.
September 28, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment