McCain Campaign Returns To Solid Ground

Ha I'm sure your editor would be impressed with your gullibility.
Sent in error. That's pretty funny.

Michael Scherer:

That's it?

"Oops!"?
"Sorry, my bad!"?

What if this had come from the Clinton campaign?

Would "Oops!" be a credible response in your mind?

Why are you obliged to contact them before describing their press release?

"Why are you obliged to contact them before describing their press release?"

Because it's John McCain's campaign.
It's the same as the rule that the media on the bus don't report if McCain says something offensive. "He's too good of a guy, he didn't really mean it"
This really is funny. And so clearly how McCain's campaign is treated.
Thanks for this service Michael.

I am obliged to contact them because I was asking a question about the reason for putting out the article, and my job is (mostly) not to just ask questions but to find answers. (Why do I feel that that sentence is going to be thrown back at me in the future?)

Stuart, I am not sure what you mean. I did not make an error of fact. I could have waited another 10 minutes before hitting publish, but the point of the earlier post still stands. And I have promptly and prominently made clear that the question at the end of the first post has an answer. I would do the same for any campaign.

May I ask what the "error" was exactly?

The WSJ article should not have been included in the morning email to reporters. That was the error.

Is an aide sending something out for the campaign 1st or 2nd degree?
I'm not sure how much "news" is learned here but understanding how media sees itself is really worth the time.

MS ..my job is (mostly) not to just ask questions but to find answers. (Why do I feel that that sentence is going to be thrown back at me in the future?)

If you were Joe Klein writing that, it already would have been, Michael. Just put down the high school yearbook references, and you'll be okay.

There's frustration with Big Media types because a lot news has devolved into either 'he said/she said' reporting or selecting a narrative and arranging the Q&A and sources to fit that narrative...instead of objective presentation of facts and the objective analysis of said facts.

Okay thanks for the responses Michael.

amazing.
no matter how many times readers point it out, mr. scherer still performs in the same fashion.
your job is not, as far as i would imagine, to act as a buffer between the mccain campaign and the public.
the mccain campaign sent out a particular bit of information.
that is a fact.
why should you be at all concerned about having reported on that fact?
now, their explanation is also certainly a fact that should be reported on, but it is no more or less important the fact that they initially mailed the offensive material.
the fact that you would be chagrined about having published the fact of their mailing the material is simply another example that you appear to be publishing press releases for the mccain campaign.
you appear to believe that your job is to present information in a light most favorable to the mccain campaign.
did samantha powers receive the same consideration when she referred to clinton as a monster and then immediately attempted to retract the statement?
no.
and i don't recall you, specifically, bemoaning the fact that powers may have simply made a mistake by making that statement and that the press should have waited or not reported the statement.
why the double standard?
that is a rhetorical question, as everyone knows the answer.
my real question is why you have no shame in consistently compromising your principles for everyone to see.
now that is a fascinating issue that deserves a response.

MS: McCain's senior adviser Charlie Black told MSNBC's Morning Joe that he would give Obama a full pass on the Wright rhetoric, echoing McCain's view that candidates should not be held responsible for what their supporters and endorsers say.

Hmmm...I wonder why a McCain staffer would put something like that out?

Nice bit of insulation, that.

To which I would add: Another attempt to reign in the epidemic of second-degree scandals

To which I would reply: another attempt to create plausible deniability.

Seriously, like half of Republicans already think that Obama was educated at a Muslim madrassa by his communist parents. Is the GOP message machine all of a sudden going to get really scrupulous about fact and detail because McCain's spokesman says that McCain is nice?

McCain's talk is cheap. He knows we'll see Swift Boat 2.0.

And he knows that the media will be far more eager to cover Rev. Wright than McCain's poorly thought-out, unpopular policy proposals.

I don't want to beat a dead horse (which is said always before the beating) but how do you know this was an error?
They want the nastieness out there and send it to reporters and then, after being asked, they say it was an error.
And then you conclude that they are back on "firm ground".
Can you see how a reader, looking at these unchallenged facts, might smell something funny?

okay.
someone working for the campaign takes the time to print out an article, copy it and send it out to reporters.
the campaign is sufficiently embarrassed by the action to tell reporters that the mailing is an "error".
is it time's position, and mr. scherer's position that such an action, such an "error" is not news?
are you supposed to only report on facts that are not regarded as "errors".
as i keep saying...amazing! the fact that a professional reporter would even make that statement is mindboggling.
and can you cite an example where you extended that same courtesy to another campaign, where you did not publish an "error" just because the campaign said, oooppps, we made a mistake?

typo alert. It's "rein" not "reign"

It's funny. I was all ready to write what I'm about to write when I saw the last post. But, I was wrong. It didn't apply.

It does now.

This whole "second degree" thing we heard about yesterday is a way of justifying including or excluding such material.

The use of surrogates is going to be huge in this campaign, because it is going to be about race or gender. The candidate can't say the things the campaign wants said.

Any attacks on a candidate should be assumed to be coming from a surrogate.

Endorsements should be treated as welcome if they are sought or acknowledged.

Donations should not be treated as welcome endorsements. McCain should not be penalized if David Duke sends him money, and he should not have to return it if it was a legal contribution. It's not a reasonable standard that a candidate should have to vet his or her contributors.

binxweimer, I absolutely believe that it is news the McCain campaign made the error. I would have written the post even if I had the comment from McCain's campaign hours ago. My TIME colleagues just linked to the whole dust up over at The Page.

http://thepage.time.com/

http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/14/mccain-campaign-admits-error-in-forwarding-negative-article-on-obama/

yep. rein. just fixed. thanks.

BTW, the first cut on what the campaign against McCain will look like:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9000.html

He's a very vulnerable candidate. They will have to focus on race to have a chance.

you wrote:

I published the post before a McCain aide was able to get back to me to answer that question. (Such are the perils of the blog-cycle. My old newspaper editors would be horrified by my haste. My
apologies.)

apologies? for what? to whom?
for publishing the information?
the mccain took an action.
you reported on it.
they informed you that they had made an error.
you reported on that fact.
why would you need to apologize for anything?...
unless, of course, you think it is your job to only present information in a light most favorable to mccain.

McCain back on the "solid ground" of making "errors."

Heh, indeed...!

What Elvis said (our Elvis, not The King), Michael.

I'm willing to give the McCain camp the benefit of the doubt about the emailing of the article truly being a mistake (though I wonder if you and other media types would be so generous to HRC if her campaign made such an error)but I do believe they are setting up plausible deniability.

They know the rightwing radio shows are not going to shut up; Faux News isn't going to let this issue alone; the WSJ will continue to have editorials about it. So, they get credit for being good guys all the while nasty stuff is being said.

If Move On does some hardhitting ads that make some claims about McCain that end up being not exactly the truth and Obama disavows the ads will the press praise Obama?

Hey, Scherer, I've got a bridge that you might be interested in.

Seriously, dude, you really, really believe them when they said they sent this out in error? I mean, come on. If the McCain camp is being as careful as the claim they are to not get into personal attacks or swift boat lies, don't you think they would be extra, extra careful to not include that WSJ piece in their press packet? Don't you think they could have just read it online if they had no intent of distributing it to anybody?

It's just like when that wingnut introduced McCain at some event and went through the whole Hussein blah-blah-blah spiel. The guy is a conservative talk radio personality who makes his living off making ridiculous attacks on Dems/liberals and the McCain camp had no idea he would say something similar in his introduction? Yeah, McCain said he was sorry and was offended by what the guy said, but that was after the, "he's a Muslim", implication was yet again put out there by a McCain surrogate.

Wake up, dude - this is textbook GOP attack procedure. Put it out there, claim it was an accident, then say you're sorry. Like I suggested to AMC, spend some time off the bus. No way would McCain make these attacks/statements himself - that would tarnish the false image of a moderate, decent, maverick that you folks in the media have created for him. But you're naive if you think he has a problem with this stuff getting out there "by accident" or via surrogates.

No wonder our politics is as effed up as it is today. Just look at the people delivering the news to our citizens!

PS - And hey, Mike, did you know that McCain was a POW? I had no idea! Well, I'm sold. On my personal list of qualifications to be POTUS, POW is number 1. He's got my vote.

Here's one for you.

When a Hillary staffer was caight sending out copies of the "Obama is a Secret Muslim" e-mail, they were promptly dismissed from the campaign. While the WSJ article hardly descends to that level, is there any evidence that the person committing the "error" in question has been called on it or experienced any repurcussions?

The Republicans know that if Hillary doesn't become the next Democratic nominee, they don't have a chance.

It really doesn't matter what McCain says. The point is that the GOP attack dogs will keep barking. Does anyone think Hannity, O'Rielly, or Limbaugh will stop their outlandish BS?

And given McCains' handlers are the Swiftboat crew, it's fair to wonder just how much under-the-breath grumbling about not being let loose on Obama is taking place.

Michael Scherer:

I'm so sorry!

I didn't mean you were in error!

I meant that if the Clinton campaign had released this and then claimed that there was a simple clerical error, I think the presumption would have been one of deniability and bad faith.

I didn't see the same standard applied to McCain's people, e.g. "Did they really do this on purpose? Let's parse every syllable for intent!".

I certainly wasn't criticizing you for posting about this. Please accept my apologies.

...and thank you for responding to commentary.

Re the update.

It would appear that the campaign is attempting to "rein in the epidemic of second-degree scandals" by confining them to "second-degree" attackers.

Safe and effective when used as recommended!

Michael Scherer - I cannot imagine how this error came about but if you are willing to accept that explanation then I will let it rest.

However, the point of my earlier post was that there are no 'take-backs' with this kind of thing. The subterranean conservative media has been slimecasting this and other nonsense for ages and it goes unaddressed because, it appears, that one ought not discuss such things in 'polite company'. It is not enough for McCain to agree to not criticize Obama on certain subjects because he has plenty of people doing it for him. What must happen is that McCain must be made to disavow, discredit and correct the smears and the smearmongers.

But we cannot even get you guys to ask him if he will disavow Hagee and he called the Catholic church the Great Whore!

Michael:

Please take a step back.

Can't you see why we'd question your role as "honest broker" in this dust-up?

You really have to look at your pieces with the skeptical eye we do. We simply think you're in the bag for McCain.

Before pushing: "publish," think on't.

"Do I look like a McCain flunky for carrying the campaign's water, accepting it's "mistake" at face value (without even asking how the "mistake" happened), and APOLOGING FOR REPORTING WHAT IT DID?"

If the answer is yes, you'd better duck, 'cause it'll be comin' at ya, for sure.

Anyone remember that negative ad Mike Huckabee was going to run against Mittens but was pulled because it was deemed too negative, only to play it to a room full of reporters? Here's what Scherer wrote then:

"Huckabee announced to a crowd of reporters that the anti-Romney commercial he'd cut the day before would not, in fact, ever be broadcast -- and then proceeded to show the ad to the reporters. Huckabee surprised even some of his own staffers with the ploy. The campaign had apparently been divided about whether to put the ad up in the first place, but the move wound up looking either brazenly cynical or shockingly stupid -- or both -- and the reaction from the political press was withering."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/02/romney/

Now to me, this is essentially what the McCain campaign did in this case. Scherer does use words like 'ploy' and 'cynical' in describing these events, but is quick to dismiss this McCain thing as an 'error'. Why is that?

Good for John McCain. I am impressed and pleased with his personal response to this situation. I wish that vitriolic article hadn't been sent, but it certainly does not sound like an article Senator McCain would approve in advance. I bet heads rolled over that one. If we could only like people who didn't know anybody who said things we disagreed with, we wouldn't like anybody. Also, good for Senator Obama that he has denounced, rejected, repudiated etc. etc. himself from these statements made by his ex pastor. These things are so obviously foreign to who he has shown himself to be over many years. And that McCain campaign release is also obviously foreign to who Senator McCain has shown himself to be too. I actually am experiencing a glimmer of good feeling about American politics!!!!

"McCain's senior adviser Charlie Black told MSNBC's Morning Joe that he would give Obama a full pass on the Wright rhetoric, echoing McCain's view that candidates should not be held responsible for what their supporters and endorsers say. (To which I would add: Another attempt to rein in the epidemic of second-degree scandals.)"

Then how come everyone has been so unforgiving of what Geraldine Ferrarro said? Holding Hillary responsible for what Bob Kerrey said, what Bob Johnson said, what Ferrarro said. Of course they must have all gone to Hillary ahead of time and asked her what to say and because Hillary is such a vile person she told them to say racist things. Context? Nevermind, we can find a sentence that proves our point.

You may consider them second degree, Michael, but I heard someone on the radio say, as people in these comment threads have said, If Obama is not the candidate, I won't vote for McCain, but I will not vote for Hillary, she has done such despicable racist things. The conversation was on our local NPR station specifically about the racist and sexist aspects of the campaign.

And, you all may be willing to give Obama a pass because of his pastor, but I just got a call from a friend who is vacationing in Florida, who said she had to call about the latest scandal about this pastor, which is all over the news and all anyone is talking about. She happens to be very liberal, staying with her sister who is living in a very conservative area.

Be more suspicious about how far McCain can stay above the attack machine. Remember Bush?

And, Michael, Bob Somerby's story of John McCain's 2004 birthday party is very instructive reading.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031108.shtml

p.s.
It's kind of sad that we have become so jaded that when a new breed of politician comes along and tries to do it differently, we can't even imagine that they might actually be trying to clean it up. Hence the comments by my fellow bloggers. Senator McCain has said from the beginning that he didn't want this kind of thing. If he has lots of OOPS situations, let go after him, but I for one think we might risk a little benefit of the doubt on the first one. I'm an Obama supporter and I'm willing to at least give it a chance.

Hiring a right-wign talk show nut to mock Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Oops!

Begging for endorsement of Hagee, the Catholic-hater, and posing for photo ops. Oops!

Sending out disparaging Obama material from McCain campaign HQ. Oops!

karela: Are you SURE you're an
Obama supporter? He and his folks sure seem to have problems with him. . . .

What evidence did they offer that it was a mistake?

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD, so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4