|
|
In a speech he's about to give shortly at the Greater Columbus Convention Center in Ohio, Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will for the first time talk about a specific date for when he envisions direct American military involvement to be over in Iraq.
It's January, 2013. By then, he says, American combat involvement will be over and most U.S. troops back home.
A staunch defender of the war in Iraq and an ardent advocate for last year's military surge, even before the Bush administration decided on it, McCain's surprising remarks this morning are an early indicator of a significant shift in the former fighter pilot and POW's stance on the controversial and unpopular war.
And it's a theme he's likely to hit hard, and perhaps even modify further, as the general election campaign unfolds, contrasting it with the Democrat's sharper withdrawal.
Maybe you remember during their most heated debate exchange of the Republican primary season, McCain going right after former Gov. Mitt Romney for even hinting at a vague timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals because the Arizona senator alleged it would be taken by the enemy as a sign of surrender and a date they need only await.
How times change, now that McCain has the GOP nomination sewed up and confronts an unpopular war, an unpopular president of his own unpopular party, a string of Democratic successes in....
Read more Breaking News: McCain sees Iraq combat over, U.S. troops home before 2013 »
A small but very surprising gaffe by the leading Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, Wednesday during a visit to an automotive plant in Michigan. These photo ops are staged by every presidential campaign for the precise purpose of having TV cameras film their candidate walking, looking and learning something somewhere.
But although the media are absolutely essential to the staged event's success, the campaigns really don't want them messing up their political plans with interruptions or questions. If the cameras only have pictures, that's all the stations can broadcast.
Answering reporters' questions distract from the pleasant photos and could change the subject away from the day's political message. What if they ask him/her about West Virginia or doing poorly among blue-collar Democratic workers like those waiting to shake his hand up the line?
Peggy Agar of Channel 7 TV news in Detroit was with her cameraman at the Sterling Heights, Mich. plant jockeying for position as Obama walked around the facility, trying like all the others in the invited press mob to lob a question in and get the candidate actually talking on-camera instead of merely looking.
Suddenly Obama was walking right toward her. "Senator," Agar addressed him, "how are you going to help the American auto worker?"
"Hold on one second, sweetie," the presidential candidate said, sticking out his right arm as if to ward her off. "We're gonna do a press avail."
Sweetie?
"This 'sweetie,'" Agar noted acidly in her broadcast report, "never did get an answer to that question." Later, the station said Obama had left an apology on the reporter's phone, admitting he had a problem calling women "sweetie" and saying he intended no disrespect.
If there's no disrespect intended, why wouldn't he have used it during, say, one of his debates against Sen. Hillary Clinton? "Now, Sweetie, you're not describing my health care plan accurately." How would that go over?
Alas for Obama, his comment was already captured on tape. Here it is.
--Andrew Malcolm
Of everything that's been debated and discussed in this 16-month-and-rolling presidential marathon, perhaps there's nothing smaller than a flag lapel pin that has generated such a large number of words.
About Barack Obama. When he wears one, why? When he doesn't wear one, why? And what's the big deal anyway, since neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor John McCain consistently wear o ne. One reason it hasn't come up with them is that neither one made a comment last fall about the wearing of the little patriotic doodad making a statement about the war.
Tonight, Obama walked to the back of his chartered airplane on the return flight from Grand Rapids, Mich., to Chicago. He talked with reporters, including The Times' Michael Finnegan, about a number of topics.
Among them was today's endorsement by John Edwards. (Obama is pleased, called Edwards a senior voice in the party, hopes the endorsement causes Edwards supporters to take a look at him, could see the ex-senator in a cabinet and hopes Edwards will campaign soon with him, though no details have been discussed.)
But Obama also addressed the issue of the flag lapel pin, which has caused some emotional and satirical debate. After not wearing one for months, Obama has recently taken to wearing one more often.
Here from the campaign's own transcript is the Illinois senator's complete explanation:
"You know, I started wearing it again at that veterans event, because once again I had been handed the flag by a veteran who said it was important.
"This is an issue that is a phony issue, because I have never been opposed to a flag pin. I have worn flag pins in the past. When I was asked about it, I had worn flag pins after 9/11, and I have chosen not to wear one because I didn’t want to be perceived as wearing my patriotism on my chest but not promoting or advocating on behalf of veterans in a patriotic way.
"Some people took that as a slight against people who wore flag pins, but it couldn’t be further from the truth. It was a commentary on politicians and folks in Washington who sometimes are pretty good about saluting our soldiers when they come home but then don’t follow up with budgets that make sure they're getting treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.
"So it’s a commentary about our politics, not about individuals who wear the flag with pride."
-- Andrew Malcolm
The media blitz that Cindy McCain recently conducted -- co-hosting "The View," appearing on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," sitting down for a "Today" show interview -- did nothing to lessen the lambasting she took Wednesday from a source that might surprise some: an editorial in the  Washington Times.
The missive in the conservative-oriented newspaper sternly took her to task for steadfastly refusing, in the face of increasing requests, to release her income tax returns (she files separately from her husband, John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee).
The editorial notes that "Mrs. McCain is an heiress whose income and assets will directly benefit from the tax policies espoused by her husband. ... Taxpayers and voters are entitled to know how much these benefits will be."
Also criticized is her spouse. Noting that McCain "rightly fancies himself the king of transparency on Capitol Hill," the piece terms it "unimaginable" that he and his staff "can permit this open sore to fester."
The entire editorial -- headlined "Cindy McCain's 'privacy' charade" and complete with an accompanying, and caustic, cartoon -- can be read here.
With the McCains giving no sign of yielding on this point, it no doubt will continue to provide fodder for editorialists. What will be worth watching is whether this noise grows into the type of public clamor that causes political headaches.
-- Don Frederick
Photo credit: Bloomberg News
Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, issued a terse statement in the wake of John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama today.
"We respect John Edwards, but as the voters of West Virginia showed last night, this thing is far from over."
We suspect there might have been stronger views expressed within the Clinton camp when it learned of Edwards' decision which, of course, took the edge off her crushing win in the Mountain State.
-- Frank James
Frank James writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.
So, it was a revealing slip the other day when, as reported in the Ticket, former Sen. John Edwards said he was going to endorse the Democratic presidential candidate he had just voted for in the North Carolina primary and then referred to that person as "him."
Tonight, according to sources in the Obama campaign, Edwards will endorse Sen. Barack Obama at a rally in Michigan, a crucial state for Democratic plans to recapture the White House Nov. 4.
It's perfect, and not accidental timing, for the freshman senator as it will shift the political conversation away from Sen. Hillary Clinton's lopsided victory in West Virginia Tuesday.
In public and in private conversations today in Washington with potential campaign donors, she was trying to use the win to show momentum and raise questions about Obama's. It's a bitter pill for Clinton, who had adopted several of Edwards' campaign themes, including fighting poverty, in an effort to win his endorsement.
But now the prime-time focus will be back on the Democratic front-runner, who will let other Democrats and the media ask the recurring question, "Why doesn't she just give up in the face of the unconquerable delegate math?"
In her victory speech last night in West Virginia, the New York senator indicated she would stay in the race until "everyone" is heard, possibly including settling of the Michigan-Florida vote-counting morass.
In a campaign appearance today, Clinton's spouse, ex-president Bill Clinton, remarked he never thought it would be the Democrats who would not be counting votes from Florida.
Now, that leaves only one big kahuna out there ...
Read more Confirmed: John Edwards to endorse Barack Obama tonight »
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who describes himself as the "last of the Mohicans" sticking by Hillary Clinton to the bitter end of the Democratic presidential primary, today endorsed the idea of a ticket that combines her with rival Barack Obama.
Pundits have speculated that a high-profile Clinton supporter -- such as Rendell -- would make a good running mate for Obama, should the Illinois senator finally lock down that party's nomination.
But Rendell says Obama shouldn't settle for a Clinton substitute.
"If Sen. Obama becomes our nominee and he wants . . . someone to carry the Clinton banner," Rendell told CNN, "there's no question in my mind they should ask Hillary Clinton to be that candidate."
Would she accept? Rendell, one of the Clinton family's closest advisors, conceded he's not sure.
"I don't know whether she would accept," he said. "I don't know whether he would do it. But don't settle for . . . a Clinton supporter. You've got the real thing, someone who has energized voters."
-- Christi Parsons
Christi Parsons writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.
Amid minor movement today among Democratic superdelegates -- so far, Barack Obama has picked up 2 1/2 votes [UPDATE: make that 3 1/2] and Hillary Clinton, one -- Obama scored a coup with an endorsement from the nation's foremost abortion rights advocacy group.
In a news release, the political action committee for NARAL Pro-Choice America had kind words for Clinton but annoounded its backing for Obama, citing its reading of the status of the Democratic presidential race.
"Today, we are proud to put our organization's grass-roots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election," NARAL's president said in the release. "That candidate is Sen. Obama.
Read more Barack Obama wins the nod from NARAL »
The Rapid City Journal in South Dakota today carries a reminder of the advantages that Bill Clinton -- for all the debate over whether he has lost his political touch at times -- still brings with him as the chief surrogate for his wife's White House campaign.
The ex-president campaigns this afternoon in South Dakota (site of one of the final two primaries on June 3), appearing at Pine Ridge High School. He's been there before -- in July 1999, while he was still in office. And, the Journal reports: "Many members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe who greeted Clinton nine years ago will be in the crowd today.
"They will include Leatrice “Chick” Big Crow, the director of a boys and girls club dedicated to the memory of her daughter, SuAnne, a star athlete and honor student who died in an automobile accident in 1992.
"The new SuAnne Big Crow Boys and Girls Club at Pine Ridge was built because of Clinton’s 1999 visit and the subsequent federal grants that he directed to the project. The center opened in June of 2001.
Not surprisingly, Big Crow ...
Read more Bill Clinton's legacy aids his wife in South Dakota »
From the no-question-gets-unasked department:
While he was blowing off West Virginia (and paying the price for that on Tuesday), Barack Obama spent several recent days campaigning in Oregon (where the May 20 primary now looms as his latest must-win). As part of his foray into the state, he made time for a brief chat with Portland's alternative newspaper, the Willamette Week.
The session wrapped up with this query: Question: "If you had a tattoo, what would it be and where would you put it?"
Obama: "Uh, I cannot imagine any circumstances in which I would get a tattoo."
The candidate then allowed that if placed under gunpoint, "then I suppose I’d have to have [my wife] Michelle’s name tattooed somewhere very discreet."
The rest of the interview, which covered more conventional ground, can be read here.
-- Don Frederick
Not a good day for Rep. Ron Paul.
Everybody was watching the overwhelming of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton on the ongoing Democratic side of the partisan primary struggles in West Virginia yesterday. But over on the Republican primary battlefield with 98% of the votes counted, the 72-year-old Paul was overwhelmed by the presumptive GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Paul gathered in only 5% of the vote, a lousy 5,812 ballots.
That's about 1/17th as many votes as those received by the dread enemy, the 71-year-old Arizonan, McCain, who got 87,786 ballots.
Paul even got thumped by ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee, who isn't running anymore and hasn't been for weeks and was actually acting as a commentator on MSNBC. Huckabee got more than twice as many votes as the Texas congressman, 11,896, or 10%. And he'd already won most of West Virginia's GOP delegates back in that winter state convention deal with the Paul people to head off the Massachusetts Mormon.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, another GOP also-ran, also came close to nipping Paul, who's having more luck selling his bestselling new book than his way-behind-the-crowd candidacy. Romney got 5,062 votes, or 4%. Rudy Giuliani -- remember him, the former New York mayor? -- received 2%, or 2,777 votes. So Paul did beat him again.
Paul also beat Alan Keyes, who in 2004 did such an impressive job as the Republican candidate of terminating the political career of that up-and-comer named Obama in the Illinois U.S. Senate race. Keyes got 1,389 West Virginia votes, 1%.
Out in Nebraska, Paul did somewhat better, copping 13% of the vote (17,587) to McCain's 87% (117,529). Which, according to The Ticket's calculations, means McCain won.
But as Paul's vocal supporters are fond of pointing out, it's not about winning the Republican nomination. It's about something else, which they'll be happy to explain in the comments section below where they are always welcome.
--Andrew Malcolm
« Previous Posts
|
|
|
Del.icio.us:
Don Frederick has served as an editor helping guide coverage of every presidential election since 1984. He is a third-generation Washingtonian, so watching the political world comes naturally to him.
Andrew Malcolm's immigrant parents repeatedly stressed the importance of active participation in a democracy. Early lessons included learning the alphabetical list of states by watching televised roll calls of national political conventions. That childhood exposure led to a lifelong fascination with politics, including 40-plus years of covering them and a brief stint practicing them as press secretary to Laura Bush in 1999-2000.
Subscribe to this Blog
