Opinion

Getting to Know You

»

by: Bob Herbert, The New York Times

photo
Bob Herbert asks how much we really know about John McCain.
(Photo: Carolyn Kaster / AP)

    The conventional wisdom in this radically unconventional presidential race is that the voters have to get to know Barack Obama better. That's what this week's overseas trip was about: to showcase the senator as a potential commander in chief and leader of U.S. foreign policy.

    According to this way of thinking, as voters see more of Mr. Obama and become more comfortable with him (assuming no major foul-ups along the way), his chances of getting elected will be enhanced.

    Maybe so. But what about the other guy? How much do voters really know about John McCain?

    Senator McCain crossed a line that he shouldn't have this week when he said that Mr. Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." It was a lousy comment, tantamount to calling Mr. Obama a traitor, and Senator McCain should apologize for it.

    But what we've learned over the years is that Mr. McCain is one of those guys who never has to pay much of a price for his missteps and foul-ups and bad behavior. Can you imagine the firestorm of outrage and criticism that would have descended on Senator Obama if he had made the kind of factual mistakes that John McCain has repeatedly made in this campaign?

    (Or if Senator Obama had had the temerity to even remotely suggest that John McCain would consider being disloyal to his country for political reasons?)

    We have a monumental double standard here. Mr. McCain has had trouble in his public comments distinguishing Sunnis from Shiites and had to be corrected in one stunningly embarrassing moment by his good friend Joe Lieberman. He has referred to a Iraq-Pakistan border when the two countries do not share a border.

    He declared on CBS that Iraq was the first major conflict after 9/11, apparently forgetting - at least for the moment - about the war in Afghanistan. In that same interview, he credited the so-called surge of U.S. forces in Iraq with bringing about the Anbar Awakening, a movement in which thousands of Sunnis turned on insurgents. He was wrong. The awakening preceded the surge.

    More important than these endless gaffes are matters that give us glimpses of the fundamental makeup of the man. A celebrated warrior as a young man, he has always believed that the war in Iraq can (and must) be won. As the author Elizabeth Drew has written: "He didn't seem to seriously consider the huge costs of the war: financial, personal, diplomatic and to the reputation of the United States around the world."

    He also felt we could have, and should have, won the war in Vietnam. "We lost in Vietnam," said Mr. McCain in 2003, "because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting and because we limited the tools at our disposal."

    The spirit of the warrior was on display in the famous incident in which Mr. McCain, with the insouciance of a veteran bomber pilot, sang "Bomb-bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys.

    No big deal. Just John being John.

    But then, we are already bogged down in two wars. And John is running for president. It's hardly crazy to wonder.

    Part of the makeup of the man - apparently a significant part, according to many close observers - is his outsized temper. Mr. McCain's temperament has long been a subject of fascination in Washington, and for some a matter of concern. He can be a nasty piece of work. (Truly nasty. He once told an extremely cruel joke about Chelsea Clinton - too cruel to repeat here.)

    If the McCain gaffes seem endless, so do the tales about his angry, profanity-laced eruptions. Senator Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican, said of Mr. McCain: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine."

    Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, told Newsweek in 2000: "I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger."

    Both senators have since endorsed Senator McCain's presidential bid, but their initial complaints were part of a much larger constellation of concerns about the way Mr. McCain tends to treat people with whom he disagrees, and his frequently belligerent my-way-or-the-highway attitude.

    Senator McCain has acknowledged on various occasions that he has a short fuse and has at times made jokes about it. He told Larry King in 2006: "My anger did not help my campaign ... People don't like angry candidates very much."

    My guess is that most voters don't see John McCain as an angry candidate, despite several very public lapses. The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy.

    Barack Obama is not the only candidate the voters need to know more about.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

"How many people know what

"How many people know what Nader has to say?".....Who cares what Nader has to say? He's on the republican payroll. He's only the illusion of a 3rd party. Quit daydreaming. Nader is the creature of George W. Bush. He took his money while pretending to be an alternative leftist. THAT is hypocrisy. He enabled the traitor in the White House. I read somewhere that Nader had done more for this country than either political candidate. What...seat-belts? Hmmm. I'd rather go without seat-belts, and instead not have had a COUP in FLORIDA in 2000. Thanks. Selling our country to the likes of George Bush is a favor I'd rather Nader had just not done for me.

Nice article Bob, but why

Nice article Bob, but why not tell us about the real John McCain while your at it. If they'll post it. Personally I would rather have a guy who served in the Peace Core in the Oval office but I have no problem with a military man serving as well. After all Eisenhower was one of our greatest Presidents. YouTube - Eisenhower Warns us of the Military Industrial Complex. So if you’re going to run on your military record and service to your country as a major qualification for the Presidency, then I guess we ought to really take a look at that service. The media won’t tell us even if they were willing to do the investigative journalism to find the facts we could use to see if his claims are actually justified. The fact is the major media is fully invested in John McCain war hero. It would be like admitting they were major time cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq. Not going to happen. So, I had never really cared much about McCain’s military service before, but now he’s making it a major issue, and I know the media won’t tell me squat, and so I do a 30 second Goggle and come up with a few facts for myself to consider. I quickly discovered he graduated like 5th off the bottom of his graduating class at the Naval Academy, not encouraging when I really want someone smart this time. Then I find he was a real ramble rouser, not a real team player and wound up crashing 5 planes before getting his wish of working off a carrier. They wouldn’t let him fly the fighter jets and was left to flying the A-4s. The low end of the carrier totem pole. The Real McCain Then I check U Tube and find some really disturbing clips from what gotta be Republicans who think McCain was a traitor??? YouTube - Is John McCain a traitor? I mean this stuff looks fairly legitimate. I mean they seem credible, informed, and certainly passionate, I mean Vietnam Vets against McCain YouTube - POW's Say John McCain Is A Lying Skunk , YouTube - POWs & MIAs UNITED AGAINST John McCain. I mean this isn’t the left talking and posting this stuff YouTube - John McCain Exposed Some More. These guys say John McCain was no hero. So I don’t know what to make of this stuff, but it’s not encouraging. I guess I’m bothered more by the fact that the media played this stuff day after day for what seemed like forever and destroyed the Kerry campaign. But this stuff they won’t touch it or discuss it. Then I run acorss the fact that he was married before. I mean I always had it for Cindy. She’s a fox. But then I read this sad story The Wife John McCain Left Behind and I think I want to go puke. So if I’m going to include McCain’s military service and moral character in my decision process he won’t get any points on my ledger for either. Not Impressed. But then I still really don’t care because what I really want this time is someone who is SMART. Right now Obama is looking like the brighter bulb to put in our lamp.

McCain's campaign is about

McCain's campaign is about spewing garbage from his mouth. When will his very high number of supporters see this? Perhaps his supporters want the war to go on forever, want the economy to continue being run into the ground, and want gas to be $10 a gallon because the only thing he wants to do to solve the energy crisis is to drill needlesssly in our most pristine areas. They obviously want a man who has no idea of what he is talking about. McCain is talking trash.

The "other" candidate is Ron

The "other" candidate is Ron Paul. I agree with Ron Paul about nothing that I'm aware of, except that the liberty of individuals is what this country's founders were attempting to foster, and that that goal is still worth fostering. Most regrettably, no other candidate's words or actions reflect such insight or commitment. (This is the beginning of a new paragraph, right here. Truthout deletes paragraph demarcations. Sigh.) The emblem of the Hillaryzation of Obama's behavior is his vote for civil immunity for the telcos who cooperated with the Bush administration's illegal and improper demands for access to all telephone conversations and data transmissions -- access which continues unabated today. Obama has now identified himself very clearly with the notion of limitless, lawless executive power that overrides any concerns for the liberty of individuals. He has just helped to remove any possibility of civil redress of individual grievances due to the unprecedented anti-liberty activities of the Bush administration. As an Obama contributor, I find this bitterly disappointing, and I grieve for the loss of what once stood as the world's most freedom-loving republic. (Here's another paragraph.) I think there should be a death penalty for corporations, and particularly for corporations who deliberately break the law or cooperate in the breaking of the law. This is the only way to begin untying the "money knot" that is strangling our republic: give the stockholders (and particularly the institutional investors) ample reason to see to it that corporations don't break the law: absolute forfeiture of all assets when the law is broken. Their stock automatically becomes irredeemably worthless. When this change is made, we'll promptly see the emergence of a different breed of CEOs. And good riddance to some of the existing breeds. (My final paragraph begins here.) In other words, I'd like to see the doctrine of RICO applied to corporate assets: the assets themselves are considered to have committed the crime, and they are thus automatically siezed and auctioned when it's clear that crime involving them has been committed.

Mr Rosenblum, you are quite

Mr Rosenblum, you are quite correct, the Vietnamese who defended their country were the real heroes, and I accept your apology for the sarcasm -- I live in the same world as you do, thank you.

Since McCain is one of the

Since McCain is one of the guys that helped "swift boat" John Kerry, I see no reason to treat him with kid gloves. How much did he tell the North Vietnamese? Did any of it help get more of our troops killed? How many propaganda broadcasts did he make for them? 20 or 30? -And with 7 years to mess with his head, why isn't anyone wondering out loud what might have been poured in there by communists? -Or whether or not he's suffering from PTSD? (-might explain some of the rabid outbursts of anger!) There are a ton of questions that need to be addressed about that guy. The sexism. The ties to the "Religious Right". The Keating Five Scandal. The nearly constant flip-flopping on the issues, or could it be senility creeping in? This is proof positive to me that the major media in this country, far from being "liberal", are a bunch of right-wing lickspittle toadies. Somebody ask this guy a hard question!

I'm awfully confused about

I'm awfully confused about this supposed war hero. On the one hand, we have the official version: McCain was shot down on a reconnaissance mission (no people killing bombs for this soldier), was captured by the NVA, and suffered four years of torture before being released with honor intact at the end of the war. On the other hand, the underground version: McCain's hot dog antics put him in harm's way, he was was injured when he was shot down, was refused medical attention for four days by an army hard pressed to provide medical care for its own soldiers, later magically transformed four days without medical care into four days of beatings, traded information for the care, and spent the next four years living up to the nickname Songbird. The former story is attested repeatedly by McCain's PR flaks; the latter by American POWs in the same camp as McCain. If the normal rules of evidence applied to Republicans, FR TOTHUS is on the money to ask what makes McCain a war hero and to find nothing but his survival as a reason. In fact, if the underground version is even close to correct, there are a lot of folks presently in or released from Guatanamo, Abu Gharib, Bagram and other unnumbered and unnamed places who have undergone and withstood far more strenuous "enhanced interrogation techniques" for far longer than McCain. If withstanding "torture"for four days makes McCain a hero, then these "unlawful combatants", especially the ones who never had anything to do with combat, are much greater heroes by far than McCain. Or is that only American Republicans (remember John Kerry and Max Cleland) are eligible for the title "War Hero"? Well, given the large number of chicken hawks misleading the country now, I guess a Songbird will just have to do.

Fr. Tothus, the real heroes

Fr. Tothus, the real heroes of the Vietnam war are the Vietnamese who fought to protect their country from imperialist domination, not the U.S. soldiers who fought (and died) to conquer their land. What world are you living in? As for this article by Bob Herbert, I thought this article was going to be about Ralph Nader when you wrote that we need to know more about the "other" candidate. Is there really anyone who doesn't know how crazy McCain is? But how many people know what Nader has to say? And also, while Obama may hold himself to a higher standard of "factual accuracy" he talks nothing but hypocracy non-stop and the media never covers that angle. I mean the Berlin wall thing I keep bringing up still has not even been addressed by anything I've seen on Truthout or anywhere else. He was talking about tearing down walls that divide ethnicities yet he's all for the two big ethnic division walls in the world - the U.S. Mexico wall and the Israel/Palestine wall. What do you have to say about that Mr. Herbert?

The Surge worked? Tell that

The Surge worked? Tell that to the dead people who have died since the surge began. This country is disgusting and anyone who votes for McCain is living in a fool's dump.

And what is it exactly that

And what is it exactly that makes this poor excuse for a human being a war hero? That he survived the war? It seems to me that the real heroes are the ones who never made it back, duped though they were into fighting yet another war for profits for the industrialists and their financial backers. That he can generally get a pass in the press for his ignorance and abominable remarks, on Obama, on Iraq, on Iran, just to name a few, and that he can also get away with perpetuating the myth of a US loss in Vietnam tells us a great deal about the prevailing US culture. (For those of you who, like McCain, maintain that the US 'lost' in Vietnam, I would ask you to consider first why the US really invaded that country. What threat did Vietnam pose to the US? Military? No. Economic? No. Political? Yes. Vietnam's threat was the same threat that Cuba and Venezuela poses to the ruling elite today: The threat of a good example for other countries that want to get out from under the US boot. Also consider, if the US 'lost' that war, who was it that won? Certainly not Vietnam itself, subjected as it was to such monumental acts of atrocity at the hands of the US. The poisons we dumped on them, the mines whose locations we refuse to reveal, the sanctions imposed, the wanton destruction, the intentional targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the collective punishment... Though the US deserved to lose that war, it did not. Not only did it accomplish most of its goals, it also succeeded in showing the costs that other nations who might be tempted to chart a different course would most likely face were they to defy the world's leading terrorist state.)