Worst Presidential Candidate Of My Lifetime. Worse Than Mondale.

I think I'm going to join the chorus from conservatives lamenting that John McCain isn't getting enough attention from the press. Because if he was, he'd be down in the polls by 116 points.

Today's "This Week" appearance is an example, containing enough gaffes, misstatements and flat-out lies to consume a week and a half in the news cycle. McCain completely contradicted himself on the question of timelines.

July 25, 2008:

BLITZER: So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?

McCAIN: He said it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it’s a pretty good timetable.

July 27, 2008:

MCCAIN: I didn’t use the word timetable.

I mean, that's just breathtakingly dishonest (Obama's campaign welcoming him into the timetable fold must have gotten under his skin). So is this notion that a timetable is OK when the Prime Minister of Iraq offers it up because it's conditions-based but when Obama offers the same timetable it's likely to cause the end of Western civilization.

The Maliki endorsement of a timetable simply has McCain in knots. He's gone from endorsing an open-ended, indefinite presence in Iraq to endorsing whatever timeline comes down the pike. The man has no grounding in principle and is frantically trying to pander to every element of American society by taking 13 positions on the same issue. In addition to timetables, McCain flip-flopped on affirmative action today, endorsing a ballot initiative in Arizona he once called "divisive"; he claimed that American troops were actually greeted as liberators, at odds with five years' worth of reality; and he muddled the issue on gay adoption, again.

At another point in the interview, McCain was asked to specify his position on gay adoption, an issue where the Senator's political leanings remain somewhat opaque. He did little to clear the air. McCain stumbled in his response and wouldn't answer the question definitively one way or the other. Also, after saying initially that the gay adoption issue was "not the reason I am running for President of the United States," he made an about-face, claiming,

"I'm running for president of the United States because I want to help with family values. I think family values are important when we have two parent families that are parents of the traditional family."

There was actually more than that, all packed into one interview: claiming that America has ignored the energy crisis for 30 years after tying high gas prices strictly to Obama; flip-flopping on "no new taxes"; and more. The worst is that Sen. McCain is out with a truly dishonest ad that zeroes in on Obama "going to the gym instead of visiting troops" when Obama was restricted access to Landstuhl AFB because he was on a campaign trip, and the footage they use for "going to the gym" is Obama meeting TROOPS in Kuwait. It's simply unbelievable.

UPDATE: Jake Tapper notes the ad also claims that Obama cancelled the trip because he was told he couldn't bring the media. There is absolutely no evidence for that one. The campaign insists that the plan had been to leave us at the airport, and the military has confirmed that arrangements were being made to hold media and staff there at a passenger terminal.

As I have heard the campaign's explanations for this decision over the past few days, as well as the attacks, I am convinced that it comes down to something that campaign strategist Robert Gibbs told reporters on the plane: When the campaign learned of the Pentagon's concerns (Wednesday night), they realized that, however they structured the hospital visit, they were going to come in for criticism.

I mean, this is getting ridiculous. Obama has a successful trip, a trip that mirrored where McCain visited after securing the nomination, and he's criticized for it. McCain spends a week flapping his arms trying to get attention, then lays an egg on national television, contradicting himself about eight different times. He criticizes Obama for events he concocts out of thin air. The guy is a liar and an opportunist and has left whatever honor he has claimed long before this general election campaign started. And you know, I think Americans are going to figure this out, and he's going to get stomped. Just putting that out there.

(just to note, Obama was pretty solid on MTP and CNN today)

Old Rough And Ready Revisited

Today the Obama campaign decided to set their sights on this McCain campaign tactic of saying different things to different audiences. It came to a head on multiple fronts. Here's the first paragraph of Obama communications director Robert Gibbs' message to reporters:

The self-professed candidate of "straight talk" and "experience" spent today changing his position on gay adoption, adopting Senator Obama's position that we need more troops in Afghanistan after having resisted taking that position, flip flopping on whether he'd send U.S. or NATO troops (he actually offered three different explanations on where those additional troops would come from), and referring to a country that hasn't existed since 1992 for the second time in two days.

McCain started the day opposed to gay adoptions, then his campaign responded to criticism by flip-flopping back on the issue with utmost speed.

On Tuesday, as criticism of McCain's comments spread, his campaign elaborated on the candidate's views. 'John McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue. ... He was not endorsing any federal legislation,' a campaign statement said. 'Sen. McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible,' the statement added. 'However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. John McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.'

He then made a big speech on foreign policy, essentially adopting Sen. Obama's call for more troops in Afghanistan despite rejecting it as recently as a week ago. As Gibbs puts it:

TODAY (MORNING): McCain Called for Sending Three Additional Brigades to Afghanistan and Suggests They Would Come From Iraq. According to a press release issued by the McCain campaign on Tuesday morning, McCain would announce in a speech that he now supports sending at least three additional brigades to Afghanistan: "The status quo in Afghanistan is unacceptable, and from the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan. … John McCain Supports Sending At Least Three Additional Brigades To Afghanistan. Our commanders on the ground say they need these troops, and thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them." [McCain press release, 7/15/08]

TODAY (AFTERNOON): McCain Clarifies His Proposal On Increasing the Number of Troops, Saying They Could Come From NATO. "Speaking to reporters on his bus after today's speech, McCain indicated that he'd be open to those additional troops coming from NATO." [MSNBC, 7/15/08]

TODAY (EVEN LATER IN THE AFTERNOON): McCain Campaign Further Clarifies Proposal, Saying The Troop Increase Would Be Comprised Of Both NATO And US Forces. "McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace said later that U.S. troops will compose some of the additional brigades McCain would send to Afghanistan, but not all of them. 'Will we contribute? Of course we will,' she said." [Washington Post, 7/15/08]

Somehow, this is the man still seen as the more credible commander in chief? Despite Obama's 8-point lead in that Washington Post poll, McCain is seen by a wide margin as the candidate with "a better knowledge of world affairs." This is despite having referred to Czechosolvakia, a country that NO LONGER EXISTS, twice in the last two days.

And the slip-ups are common on the campaign trail - what is not common is this tactic, which I now have to believe is deliberate, of saying diametrically opposite things to different audiences. The BBQ-stained media is running a lot of interference for him on this now, but one of these days a conservative is going to read the wrong newspaper article. Or an independent is going to run across the wrong issue of National Review. This isn't going to last.