McCain McCained on McCain. Make sense?

I'd like to know where the media has been on all of McCain's flip-flops:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/search/label/Flip-Flop

The main culprit behind of all of this misreporting was Mark Halperin of Time's The Page. He characterized the "refine" remarks as a "softening" of the Obama campaign policy towards Iraq. I've noticed how The Page has become the Drudge Report alternative to the rest of the media, and whatever Mark Halperin picks up is repeated by media blogs, and then the AP.

Rove and his crew are taking control: they believe that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it to be true. Ignore the corrections, just keep saying it even if you've been told a hundred times it's false.

Of course, the other possibility is that McCain's short term memory loss is accelerating.

Also, the media that initially did the misreporting won't "correct" themselves, just like they did in not covering the Pentagon propaganda story.

Having just watched the TPMTV edition of all the talking heads spouting off about Obama's "shift" on Iraq, I am once again flabbergasted by how the MSM now blatantly *make* the news with no pretense of accurate reporting or in-depth analysis. Suddenly, "refine" no longer means to fine-tune or subtly improve. Instead the MSM collectively create an all-new definition for "refine": to shift to a different position or change course. Huh? Once the MSM reach a consensus on what the news actually is, then they just repeat that self-created version endlessly. And McCain's camp latches onto it like a dog who's been tossed a meaty bone. The Rove-ian strategy of repeating a lie until it achieves truthiness seems now to be the accepted MO for commentators, too. How did we sink to this sad journalistic moment?

The McCain clowns are unusually vocal Today, press releases, memos, new surrogates, is it me or is the McCorpse campaign stepping up its attack efforts on Obama? But it'll never work.

I suppose he can buy time to refute the lie that the media are spreading for free.

I'd do it. This is a hit job. Whatever it costs, he should hit back.

This may get very expensive, though.

I'm not convinced this is a BAD thing.

Look, if anybody is voting for Obama PURELY on the War in Iraq, this will not change their mind. Obama is STILL the best choice to end the war in Iraq. That's clear.

However, anybody who had the mistaken opinion that Obama was going to immediately send every troop back home as soon as he became President, and was afraid of voting for Obama, now sees that Obama is not a radical leftist, but a pragmatist, who will do what he thinks is best.

It's always seemed ironic to me that the media is more concerned about Obama's "flip-flops" on issues he DOESN'T flip flop on, rather than ones he does (like FISA).

Look, the flip-flop charged worked on Kerry. I don't think it will work on Obama, because for one, people's desire for change will overshadow everything else, and two, people are not THAT stupid.

They know: McCain equals more war (War in Iran?). Obama does not.

And that's really the only message that gets through. No neo-conservative is going to be fooled thinking Obama is suddenly pro-war, and I doubt any TRUE independents will either.

This strikes me as one of those crucial issues where, if Obama doesn't come out strong, he'll have done immeasurable damage to his campaign.

There are many reason why he did so well against the Clintons but his foresight in opposing the Iraq war was certainly at the top. I hope he comes out clearly and continues to hit McCain for this tremendous error.

Heck, I especially hope he highlights the huge economic costs of the war and tries to put the number into perspective for the voters.

Why is calling somebody a liar considered an unpardonable sin in politics?

Most of these media people will put on an Obama supporter and a McCain supporter to show that they're balanced. Why can't the Obama supporters just hit back with an endless refrain of You're Lying. You know perfectly well that Obama has not changed his position on Iraq. He's still the candidate that wants to bring the troops home and McCain is still the candidate that wants to keep them their indefinitely. Nothing has changed about that and you know it.

Then just drown out every further attempt to restate the lie with: You're lying. You're still lying. You can keep spreading that lie, but it's still a lie. You're lying. Etc.

I know they don't want to be distracted from getting their own message out, but seriously, why let that stuff just slide?

Forget about this. I wonder how McCain is going to explain it when Maliki insists on putting a timetable for withdrawal into the U.S.-Iraq agreement.

So we have the McCain camp pushing a false story based on a false AP report.

Rightwing Gold!

....what is this nonsense in Iraq you speak of? Big Bertha is coming, Madonna has hypnotised Alex Rodriguez and CHRISTIE BRINKLEY'S HUBBY HAS A PORN ADDICTION. Iraq is complicated mannnnnnnnnnnn.

Well, in all fairness, Obama painted himself into a corner by getting too specific on withdrawal plans for Iraq. Of course, it was that very specificity that helped to boost him over Hillary Clinton in the primary, who was much criticized by the most strongly anti-war faction of the party for not being specific enough.

But the situation on the ground has changed since then, and although his initial mistake might be said to be the result of inexperience, it is to Obama's great credit that he recognizes that this requires some re-tooling of his original plan. It is one of the problems with our political culture that such flexibility is invariably seen as a negative, as George Packer points out in an excellent analysis in the July 7-14 issue of The New Yorker.

Packer's piece is recommended reading. He concludes it with some good strategic advice for the campaign:

Obama has shown, with his speech on race, that he has a talent for candor. One can imagine him speaking more honestly on Iraq. If pressed on his timetable for withdrawal, he could say, "That was always a goal, not a blueprint. When circumstances change, I don’t close my eyes—I adapt."

That would be a refreshing change, indeed, from what we have seen from the White House in the last 7 years.