It should, of course, be noted that McCain has not been alone in trying to box Obama in on Iraq with this drummed up storyline.

Even someone as supposedly reasonable as Marc Ambinder is obsessed with Obama's "flip-flop" in "emphasis" on Iraq, despite the fact that there is little or no evidence to support this view.

Posted at July 9, 2008 10:36 AM in response to Obama: Iraqi Prime Minister Wants Withdrawal Timetable

As others have pointed out, he has "clarified" his position in exactly the same way since the day after the YouTube debate.

To suggest otherwise is simple laziness.

Posted at May 29, 2008 9:52 AM in response to Obama Clarifies Position On Meeting With Foreign Leaders

Oops... Wrong thread...

Posted at May 29, 2008 9:51 AM in response to Obama Makes Fundraising Pitch Geared Towards General Election

As others have pointed out, he has "clarified" his position in exactly the same way since the day after the YouTube debate.

To suggest otherwise is simple laziness.

Posted at May 29, 2008 9:51 AM in response to Obama Makes Fundraising Pitch Geared Towards General Election

Hillary actually just famously sipped a shot of whisky.

Sure, it's nitpicking about something that doesn't matter, but things like this are how "I invented the Internet" or "Who amongst us does not love Nascar" bogus stories get spread.

I'd hope that a media watch dog like Mr. Sargent would take care not to fall into these types of media shorthand references which actually bend -- or in some cases invent -- the truth.

Posted at May 6, 2008 2:24 PM in response to Terry McAuliffe: Hillary Can Drink John McCain Under The Table!

It's, of course, completely appropriate to post polling numbers, but I've noticed an unfortunate tendency -- particularly by Eric Kleefeld -- to place too much weight on the supposed meaning of each individual poll.

Saying that this poll "confirms that this has state's primary has turned into a very close contest" is the same kind of over-emphasis on individual polls that exists in the mainstream news.

Posted at May 1, 2008 10:44 AM in response to Mason-Dixon: Obama Seven Points Ahead In North Carolina

It was interesting seeing both David Gergen and Howard Fineman making this same case last night on the teevee... The desire for moving beyond gotcha politics is more powerful than many of the out-of-touch millionaire, elitist, punditocracy seem to realize.

Posted at April 18, 2008 10:22 AM in response to Hillary: Tough Questions At Debate "Nothing Like The Pressures You Face Inside White House"

Obama complained about the lack of substance in the debate, not that they were tough questions. They were, instead, offensive right-wing smear questions.

And Hillary's campaign has been playing the victim of the meanie press for 15 months.

Nobody's buying it. Or, at least they shouldn't. And no serious journalist should report this "whining" attack without also reporting the fallacy of the claim that Hillary's never "whined" about fairness.

Posted at April 18, 2008 10:19 AM in response to Hillary: Tough Questions At Debate "Nothing Like The Pressures You Face Inside White House"

And of course, Howard Dean's '04 campaign is really the vanguard here...

When his supporters (including me) voted overwhelmingly to bust the caps during the primary season, it was precisely because we felt that getting hundreds of thousands of people to donate an average of $100 was a far better and more fair system than the public financing system created by Congress.

Posted at April 9, 2008 1:20 PM in response to Report: Obama Has Run More Than 100,000 Political Ads

Obama did not make an "assertion that he would meet with the leaders themselves in his first year without precondition."

He said "I would" in response to this question:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

So, he would be "willing" which simply meant that it was a possibility, not that it was his specific plan to do so.

The Clinton campaign's intentional misrepresentation of this episode was the first clear indication that were A: scared of Obama's potential and B: they were willing to go negative on him to help stop his momentum.

The Clinton campaign was indeed successful in their attempts to attach the words "naive" and "irresponsible" to Obama. And it worked pretty damn well until Obama's surge in December of '07.

But, it also laid the foundation for the Clinton backlash which we're seeing on a daily basis.

Posted at April 2, 2008 12:58 PM in response to In Fundraising Letter, Obama Attacks Hillary For "Standing Behind Bush's Policy Of Non-Engagement"