Centerfield

We all play favorites to some extent, especially after we commit to one candidate. But some folks are way worse than others.

I saw both of these clips as well, after reading the descriptions.

I thought McCain's was worse, because he was so evasive on a point where he had clearly been busted. He denied the Kerry story then, and admits it now. So I dunno why he didn't just say he denied it then because it was never going anywhere and felt it was his right to keep it private instead of starting a media circus about something which was never going to happen, McCain switching teams. If he had explained it that way, he could have turned the media into the bad guys. But instead, he looked defensive, evasive, and venal.

The substance of the Kerry ticket story doesn't bother me, nor does the fact he denied it then. But refusing to explain the discrepancy now wasn't just petty, it was embarassing.

This is for me the second instance during this campaign of McCain turning into a bulldog and just going "deny, deny, deny" when caught in a fib. The other one was when Romney called him on misleading folks about the meaning of Romney's Iraq turntable comment. McCain needs to do better. If he can't gracefully move back to a plausible default position when caught in a fib or misleading description, he'd do much better to just avoid them.

Which brings up a possibly big issue for McCain. He's likely to get creamed in debates, because when cornered, all he does is repeat the few tag lines he can remember. He doesn't have much game when the sands shift during a debate. Obama and Clinton are much more crafty and lawyerly.

Look for the McCain camp to spend a lot of pre-debate time lowering expectations for their guy. lauding the opponent's skills, and working to limit the number of debates as much as possible.

I posted about one, but it was the only one I had heard about at the time. I do think we get caught up in our favorites, and mine is McCain by a hair; however, I think both of these guys deserve a break. It is a non-stop schedule they are on, often with little sleep, and often without a break from the spotlight. I have seen candidates for statewide office snap, I can't imagine the pressure that Obama, Hillary, and McCain are under.

I saw the McCain video just now after reading your post. I do think there is a difference here. Part of McCain's entire image is that he is the warrior, the straight-talker, no bull shit. For him to get irritated about a question that has little to know relevance in regards to anything is only going to be an issue with those who deep down are never going to vote for him anyway. Furthermore, if anyone has a right to be annoyed by the New York Times, it is John McCain.

The guy has been doing this his entire career. I remember in 2000 a story about him telling Senator Slade Gorton of Washington to go eff himself after Gorton refused to endorse his candidacy. It wasn't widely reported, but I worked with some folks on Gorton's senate campaign at the time. Gorton, btw, was an early supporter of McCain's in 2008.

He has got a temper, there is no doubt about it, but where I part with Kritter is that his temper is anything but helpful in pushing the image that this is an honest man who says what he does and does he says. I think it helps him.

My fear is that the consultants and people around him will do what Kritter says and limit his public appearance and debate performances. If they do, John McCain will be the next Bob Dole. It would be a mistake... they need to let McCain be McCain. His debate performances have never done anything but help his political career, even when his temper has shown, and his personality is why many who disagree with him continue to support him.

Now, if McCain were to really lose his cool and brow beat a reporter, or god forbid the Democratic nominee, we are talking about something completely different. However, there is no evidence that he doesn't have it together enough to control his temper and as long as he stays in the median between polished politician and erratic hot head, he will be just fine.

Obama on the other hand has got a problem if he continues to give it to reporters the way he did the other day. And I think him smiling while he does it comes off as elitist and condescending.

Obama's whole persona is that he is cool hand luke. He can talk to anybody, even Raul Castro. He is the great uniter. The guy who soft soaped conservatives into electing him the President of the Harvard Law Review. The liberal who believes we should close the ideological gap through compromise and open dialogue. It is pretty tough to keep that up because you are annoyed with somebody asking you too many questions.

And let's put these things on the scale for just a second. McCain got pissed because the reporter asked him if he ever had a conversation with John Kerry about being Vice President... not exactly a qualifier for the Presidency. Obama was asked about his adviser winking to the Canadian government because his candidate had to go all Jimmy Hoffa on free trade. I think that is a big issue, and I for one, as someone who could be convinced to vote for Obama, want to know what Barack Obama is going to be President when a trade agreement comes to his desk. I think it is very relevant question.

When Obama loses his ability to articulate eloquently he loses who he is. If you want evidence, just look back at the beginning of the Democratic nomination process when he looked like he was running around the stage like a chicken with his head cut off, while Hillary and John Edwards were on message.

McCain is better at being angry than Obama is... That is why it matters more when one candidate does it over the other.

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear, The only part of McCain's behavior that I found off-putting was his stubborn insistence on sticking to a foolish position.

It wasn't his "temper"that bothered me. It was that he had been caught in a fib, and the only way he could figure how to get out of it was by blustering. Fully granted that no one gives two craps (or ought to) about whatever conversation Kerry and McCain had.

And like I said, that's the second time I've seen it. He was caught red-handed in that debate trying to misconstrue Romney's Iraq statement into something it wasn't. It was clear as day what Romney meant. And McCain just stood there and said no, no, no, I'm right. He looked like a complete idiot.

I don;t think McCain ought to limit his appearances. But he'a a moron if he agrees to a heavy debate schedule.

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear, The only part of McCain's behavior that I found off-putting was his stubborn insistence on sticking to a foolish position.

It wasn't his "temper"that bothered me. It was that he had been caught in a fib, and the only way he could figure how to get out of it was by blustering. Fully granted that no one gives two craps (or ought to) about whatever conversation Kerry and McCain had.

And like I said, that's the second time I've seen it. He was caught red-handed in that debate trying to misconstrue Romney's Iraq statement into something it wasn't. It was clear as day what Romney meant. And McCain just stood there and said no, no, no, I'm right. He looked like a complete idiot.

I don;t think McCain ought to limit his appearances. But he'a a moron if he agrees to a heavy debate schedule.

An interesting question. I do think I do play favorites.

But I still don't care about Whitewater, even though I'm supporting somebody else now. I am inclined to be unhappy with the Clintons' efforts to discredit voting systems, like their legal threats in TX.

I do believe that I'll swap candidates if Obama's found to be sleeping with small children, say. And if Clinton wins the primary, that's whom I'm voting for in Nov.

Maybe for me the difference is that I'm less likely to be paranoid about actions Obama takes than things McCain and Clinton do.