Centerfield

I find Lieberman's attempt at bulldogging his way into the race pretty embarassing. I used to think he was a statesman. Now I just think he's desperate. For someone as pro-occupation as he has been, his criticism of the administration without detailed suggestions regarding alternatives is a disgrace. He's poring over minutiae like hand gestures? Desperate pandering is a sign that he's in the death throes of his campaign.

What Bush did over the sign sounds like what the media calls a "flip-flop" Even if the crew suggested it, clearly the White House signed on.

bk

It's just the facts of life right now that any Democrat who wants the nomination needs to emphasize his disagreements with George Bush, and keep quiet about where he does agree. Not much room for statesmanship during primary season.

Once again you liberals have to make things up and you are the ones lying. Please give me a sound, truthful, example of the President telling a lie at the press conference. Remember, facts only. Facts seem to be something you cannot stand or debate.

I've been pretty critical of what you refer to as "bulldoging", here -- the way Lieberman has gone negative during the debates and used some overwrought rhetoric to criticize his opponents.

For example, the time he made the quip about a "Bush recession" being replaced by a "Dean depression" due to Dean's stance on trade issues.

There's a different way to contrast your record and your views that doesn't come accross as so personal ... and doesn't end up alienating the supporters of the other candidate quite as much.

Lieberman took that second approach -- the better one -- when he was criticized for the first time by name by Al Sharpton in the last debate. He began by expressing (pretty effectively) his affection for Sharpton. And then he explained, specifically, and reasonably, where his views are the same and where they differ from Sharpton's. It was respectful, but substantive. It illustrated good, decisive leadership.

Andrew,

I'm not sure what you're referring to, as no one before you used the word "lie" or "lying" in this post. One doesn't have to be a liberal to see that Bush was spinning in backing off from the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

I don't consider spinning to be lying; it's what politicians naturally do. But the fact that he was distancing himself from that sign at this particular moment suggests some self-doubt on his part. Not a good moment for him.

Ok, Andrew.

The president and his team clearly arranged for a photo-op on board the USS Lincoln.

His advance men were proud enough of their efforts to discuss it in detail with a reporter who subsequently wrote about it in the New York Times:

White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

"If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his left cheek and slight shadowing on his right," Mr. King said. "It looked great."

So, on the one hand, they carefully choreographed everything, making sure they captured Bush with the banner "Mission Accomplished" behind him.

But now that it's inconvenient for them, the president disavows responsibility for it.

Does that seem honest to you?

that 2nd post didn't come from me.

Andrew, welcome to centerfield. So far, the site seems to get more northpaws than southpaws. The northpaws all think we are southpaws, so we must be doing something correct.

While no one here called Bush a liar, I find the "little flap" over the Bush sign to be a very silly poring over of minutiae. The event in question was very staged, and so what? It's executive privilege, and a great photo op, and was an exclamation mark to the end of the invasion phase of the Iraq occupation. This whole business of dredging up whose idea the sign in the background was is pretty moronic and pointless. Southpaw wingnuts are trying to develop a "Bush is trying to distance himself from his remarks" storyline. Who cares? The occupation is what it is, right now, and the sides are trying to keep everyone's eyes on the parts that make them look good. But for the centerfielders, it's an effort that we need to stay committed to because we started it. And we need to stay honest and recognize that we have made some progress on infrastructure and normalization, but opposition forces have all of the common home field advantages on their side: time, motivation, committment, invisibility, and so on.

bk,

My apologies if it looked like I was signing your initials to the first part of the comment. Actually, I was using them to address the second part of the comment to you (the lack of a comma may have made it ambiguous)

Personally, I had no problem with the aircraft carrier and the flight jacket, but it's certainly become a lightning rod for criticism.

bk -- You're right that the real issue should be our main focus.

And I strongly a gree that independents, moderates, centrists, and all of us generally in the middle should be a force pushing for us to maintain our committment and ultimately prevail in Iraq.

We blogged a couple months ago about a poll back then that showed independents were (a) more likely (than the general public) to believe that Bush was intentionally misleading in his pre-war WMD rhetoric, but also (b) more committed than the general public to seeing our efforts through in rebuilding Iraq.

At that time, 72% of the general public thought we "have a responsibility to remain in Iraq as long as necessary", while 82% of independents felt that way.

great post, thanks.