« Comfort Capsules | Main | The Wave »

The 300

18 Jul 2008 10:47 am

Interesting Elisabeth Bumiller look at the sprawling group of 300 people who are in some sense "foreign policy advisers" to the Obama campaign. Marc Ambinder remarks:

The McCain response to all this -- John doesn't need daily talking points -- is a reflection on Obama's learning curve, although McCain is also very clearly learning as he is going, too.

I think that's a pretty revelatory passage. It's true that, in some sense, McCain doesn't need daily talking points. But the reason he doesn't need daily talking points isn't that he can talk about national security issues with fluency and skill without them. Lacking daily talking points, he's repeatedly confused Sunni and Shiite, repeatedly forgotten that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist, changed his position on Afghanistan twice in 24 hours, etc. In short, he's made a ton of gaffes just as you would expect from an underprepared candidate. But he's allowed to get away with a lack of adequate preparation because, in the mind of the press, his years in captivity decades ago are adequate demonstration that he understands national security issues even though there's no real basis for that view.

So far so bad, but what's doubly frustrating about this is that not only does McCain get kid gloves treatment about his national security gaffes, but his campaign then gets away with bragging about it as if it's proof that he's some kind of tough guy. "John doesn't need daily talking points," they say. And he doesn't -- because the press lets him get away with egregious errors.

Share This

Comments (30)

Hey, lay off, you elitist liberal technocrat! HE WAS TORTURED!

So far so bad, but what's doubly frustrating about this is that not only does McCain get kid gloves treatment about his national security gaffes...

It is frustrating. But the Obama campaign had better wake up and smell the coffee: the MSM isn't going to do their heavy lifting for them. They need to start attacking. Let's get some commercials made.

I think it's frustrating that his decent grasp of military tactics is taken as proof of his ability in every arena of foreign policy. "He supported the surge, so he knows how to stop Ahmadinejad from getting a nuke!" It doesn't matter that knowing that sending more troops to Iraq would lead to less violence doesn't have anything to do with negotiating with a hostile country, but it goes unquestioned.

And if McCain gets into real trouble, he can always depend upon "Jokin' Shmoe" Lieberman to put his hand up his ass and move his mouth.

I really didn't want to know Susan Rice was heading up his foreign policy team. I can't think of anyone I'd like better that wouldn't get slammed as "unserious" but I didn't want to know that.

Actually, the interesting thing here is that McCain seems to regard the purpose of having foreign policy advisors to be that they should give the candidate daily talking points.

McCain doesn't think that the purpose of having knowledgeable advisors and a staff is to provide information and advice. He thinks it so that they can feed him talking points.

What is Ambinder's deal? Can he really be that dim, or is he playing dumb?

Does the Atlantic really just have a troll on staff?

Obama has 300 people helping him to put together a set of reasonable and accurate foreign policy statements.

McCain also has 300 people helping him to put together a set of reasonable and accurate foreign policy statements.

The difference is that Obama's 300 are a formal part of his campaign, while McCain's 300 are all members of the press.

So give the latter credit for successful outsourcing.

Speaking of the MSM and Obama, did any of y'all catch NPR's report on media coverage of Obama? Evidently the media is covering Obama far more than they are covering McCain.

The way they reported it, most people listening would go away saying "even the liberal NPR thinks the liberal media is giving Obama too much publicity". There was no discussion about the nature of the coverage, what McCain has been allowed to get away with simply 'cause the media, wanting to keep getting good BBQ, turns the other way, etc. The report was all "the media unfairly doesn't pay any attention to poor John McCain".

It smelled like disinformation to me -- especially considering NPR then went on to play McCain spouting talking points (although NPR, being a bunch of liberal hippies who reek of patchouli and hate America did have an expert on who explicated how one of McCain's talking points on Iraq/Afghanistan was pretty much pure BS).

Can the CBO or some group like that do an audit on NPR and see why they are so good at making themselves sound "so liberal" yet they spew GOP talking points? Call me paranoid, but it's all a little too neat to be a coincidence.

Was McCain's plan to go to Iraq as president to go to Iraq and tell the Sunnis and Shi'ites to cut the shit out just a talking point? I hope so. He's ready on day one!

"What is Ambinder's deal? Can he really be that dim, or is he playing dumb?

Does the Atlantic really just have a troll on staff?

Posted by Chris | July 18, 2008 11:19 AM"

My favorite is how Romney passes some made up "Commander in Chief test." How does Romney pass that? Being one of the two most hated Republican governors of Massachusetts in the past two decades (Swift being the other)? Wearing expensive suits?

Does George Bush or any of the Republicans need daily talking points? At this point I hope not. They've repeated them so many times you think they'd know them by heart now. Then again, as has been mentioned here, McCain also makes shit up as he goes along and the TradMed doesn't call him on it.

It's my inclination that as we see that McCain and Obama support can be seen as shifting clearly on age lines, his veteran status does the same.

People our parents (I'm 27, as well) age who lived during WWII, Korea, Vietnam and experienced the negative impact of those wars gives him a lot more credit for his time as a POW. I think they identify with that as something which was a sign of a remarkable person from their era of being young and standing up against The Man.

We, on the other hand have his experience as a POW as another line item on his resume. Not something that has a dramatic impact on the quality of his character as Senator John McCain.

I'm interested in elections of the next decade where Iraq/Afghanistan veterans start to run and how they'll be treated by young voters vs older ones.

The reason to admire his survival as a POW is because it could change a man. It might make him less tolerant of bullshit, sober about the horrors of war, or just more humane in general. None of those seem to apply to McCain. McCain is as much of a straight up warmonger as you get. So you don't get points for a horrible learning experience when you haven't learned that much from it.

As for Ambinder, Romney, and the "Commander in Chief test," that means Romney's white. Thank Ambers!

Contrary to the McCain camp's claim, it doesn't necessarily follow that 300 advisers = more information in the sense the "more information" is making up for some deficiency of quantity on Obama's part. To be sure, 75 advisers -- which is what the Times piece says McCain uses -- could give you all the information you could possibly need in terms of quantity. What more advisers really gives you is more varied information, and it's a testament to Obama's analytical (and managerial, see below) ability that he'd welcome the potential for such diversity in his shop.

And that highlights the hidden story in all of this. Rather than not needing or even not wanting more advisers, it's entirely plausible that the real reason McCain doesn't have more advisers is that he could never manage a shop that big. As the NY Times found in a revealing article a couple of weeks ago (Nagourney, "Internal Politics Heat Up at McCain Campaign," 7/8/08): "All of this intrigue breeds discouragement among even those former McCain associates who do not dispute the notion that voters now might be getting an early glimpse of the messy, unstructured way in which a McCain White House might be managed. They are hard-pressed to explain why Mr. McCain tolerates this — or encourages this — or why he has trouble cutting ties with people who have not served him well over the years."

I get Matt's frustration, but here is the thing: all this is fine for Obama's chances of winning. Obama doesn't need to prove that McCain actually has no real clue what he is talking about most of the time. Obama just needs to reassure people that despite his own relatively short resume, he is going to be sufficiently well-prepared to be Commander in Chief.

In that sense, I don't think Obama ever actually has to beat McCain in terms of public perception of his personal foreign policy and national security expertise. He just needs to meet a certain threshhold, and then he can win the election on pretty much every other relevant issue.

Contrary to the McCain camp's claim, it doesn't necessarily follow that 300 advisers = more information in the sense the "more information" is making up for some deficiency of quantity on Obama's part. To be sure, 75 advisers -- which is what the Times piece says McCain uses -- could give you all the information you could possibly need in terms of quantity. What more advisers really gives you is more varied information, and it's a testament to Obama's analytical (and managerial, see below) ability that he'd welcome the potential for such diversity in his shop.

And that highlights the hidden story in all of this. Rather than not needing or even not wanting more advisers, it's entirely plausible that the real reason McCain doesn't have more advisers is that he could never manage a shop that big. As the NY Times found in a revealing article a couple of weeks ago (Nagourney, "Internal Politics Heat Up at McCain Campaign," 7/8/08): "All of this intrigue breeds discouragement among even those former McCain associates who do not dispute the notion that voters now might be getting an early glimpse of the messy, unstructured way in which a McCain White House might be managed. They are hard-pressed to explain why Mr. McCain tolerates this — or encourages this — or why he has trouble cutting ties with people who have not served him well over the years."

" . . . what's doubly frustrating about this is that not only does McCain get kid gloves treatment about his national security gaffes, but his campaign then gets away with bragging about it as if it's proof that he's some kind of tough guy."

McCain's not really any different from any other Repub in recent years -- yes, the POW thing probably helps him a bit. But this is the way Repubs have been winning for decades now -- faux manliness is a big selling point, from the MSM's pov.

Contrary to the McCain camp's claim, it doesn't necessarily follow that 300 advisers = more information in the sense the "more information" is making up for some deficiency of quantity on Obama's part. To be sure, 75 advisers -- which is what the Times piece says McCain uses -- could give you all the information you could possibly need in terms of quantity. What more advisers really gives you is more varied information, and it's a testament to Obama's analytical (and managerial, see below) ability that he'd welcome the potential for such diversity in his shop.

And that highlights the hidden story in all of this. Rather than not needing or even not wanting more advisers, it's entirely plausible that the real reason McCain doesn't have more advisers is that he could never manage a shop that big. As the NY Times found in a revealing article a couple of weeks ago (Nagourney, "Internal Politics Heat Up at McCain Campaign," 7/8/08): "All of this intrigue breeds discouragement among even those former McCain associates who do not dispute the notion that voters now might be getting an early glimpse of the messy, unstructured way in which a McCain White House might be managed. They are hard-pressed to explain why Mr. McCain tolerates this — or encourages this — or why he has trouble cutting ties with people who have not served him well over the years."

Advisers are unnecessary if you'll never change your mind about something.

Per Ambers: If you want to know what the Official Washington Press Corps thinks on a particular subject, then Ambers is your man. The graf Matt highlighted, that's probably the way the OWPC is thinking and talking about Obama. That's why Ambers is, for me, a daily read.

I'm not sure if Ambers himself is a "troll" or an "idiot", but since he is essentially the subconscious of the OFWC, whatever he posts is what the OWPC is thinking at the time. Obama's foreign policy learning curve? Hey, that's what they're talking about at parties (McCain has learning curve too, but always as a parenthetical). Romney passes the CIC test? The OWPC thinks so. On and on and on . . .

So if you think Ambers is a troll, then the entire Official Washington Press Corps are trolls. Ambers is an idiot. Then the OWPC are idiots.


Jasper: "But the Obama campaign had better wake up and smell the coffee: the MSM isn't going to do their heavy lifting for them. They need to start attacking.

yes. mcCain needs to be ground into the dust, and he can be. Obama has the money and the message. why is he MIA?

Jasper: "But the Obama campaign had better wake up and smell the coffee: the MSM isn't going to do their heavy lifting for them. They need to start attacking.

yes. mcCain needs to be ground into the dust, and he can be. Obama has the money and the message. why is he MIA?

In short, he's made a ton of gaffes just as you would expect from an underprepared candidate.

Well, unlike Obama, at least McCain hasn't stated that the the US has 57 states. Sure, McCain used the name of a country that was used for the first 50 of McCain's years, but you have to be a gigantic moron to think that there are 57 states in the union.

Wow, oxymoron critical mass alert! "Interesting Elizabeth Bumiller" and "the mind of the press" in one post!

"his decent grasp of military tactics"

Citations, please.

McCain has no grasp of anything, let alone military tactics. Bombing people from the air is the very antithesis of military tactics.

Al, let me fix that line for you: "you have to be a gigantic moron to think that Obama's statement that there are 57 states in the union was anything more than a verbal slip."

And, lo and behold, yes, you are a gigantic moron.

shouldn't ONE of those 300 foreign policy advisers have told senator obama that promising an 'undivided jerusalem' would be a problem? i think even most israeli politicians don't say that (at least not for public consumption)

the actual number of advisers is irrelevant (although that 300 indicates a tendency towards big government that i oppose), it's ultimately the policy / ideas / philosophy that the candidate advances.

It was a verbal slip.

He meant to say 57 contest:
51 primary/caucuses
5 territories
1 democrats abroad

= 57

Well, unlike Obama, at least McCain hasn't stated that the the US has 57 states. Sure, McCain used the name of a country that was used for the first 50 of McCain's years, but you have to be a gigantic moron to think that there are 57 states in the union.

He was talking about the number of contests. Anyway, You want to go gaffe for gaffe?

1. "We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies."

2. Social Security: "It's an absolute disgrace."

3. One way of Killing them.

There's more where that came from. But now you do three . . .

McCain's notion of foreign policy is simplistic, and really not all that sophisticated (at least not as he presents it to the public), but then again, neither is most Americans'. Which is why George Bush was elected president. McCain is relying on this same knee-jerk gungho xenophobic tough guy approach to foreign policy because he watched George Bush win with it. He's old and his learning curve may not be as steep as Obama's, but it's a lot less flexible.

I've been meaning to comment on this for a while; during the spring, Al seemed to be much more reasonable here, conservative, but not Hannity-hack conservative.

I've concluded he was in fact a secret HRC supporter (after poor RUDY! collapsed-btw, did he run actually, I can barely remember), and Al actually preferred HRC to both Obama AND McCain.

Perhaps there are fake Al's, but lately the current "Al" is the very definition of GOP hackdom.

NBA commentary still above average.


Comments closed August 01, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.