CNN's Schneider suggested Obama took a "cheap shot" because "McCain almost certainly misspoke when he said he wouldn't speak with Spain" - but McCain's adviser said he didn't
SUMMARY: Suggesting that Sen. Barack Obama had taken a "cheap shot" at Sen. John McCain during the presidential debate, CNN's Bill Schneider wrote: "McCain almost certainly misspoke when he said he wouldn't speak with Spain. ... I am not sure that's a fair thing for Obama to call him on." In fact, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann reportedly wrote that "there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred" and that McCain in fact "refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero."
In a September 26 post on the CNN.com blog Political Ticker -- headlined "Schneider: Another cheap shot?" -- CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider wrote of a statement Sen. Barack Obama made during that evening's presidential debate: "[Sen. John] McCain almost certainly misspoke when he said he wouldn't speak with Spain. ... I am not sure that's a fair thing for Obama to call him on." Schneider was referring to Obama's assertion that McCain "said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us," a reference to McCain's repeated refusal -- during an interview with Radio Caracol WSUA 1260 AM in Miami -- to say that as president, he would meet with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. In fact, contrary to Schneider's assertion that Obama's statement was a "cheap shot" because "McCain almost certainly misspoke when he said he wouldn't speak with Spain," in an email to The Washington Post, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann reportedly wrote that "there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred" and that McCain in fact "refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview." Indeed, during the debate, McCain did not assert that he "misspoke" during the Radio Caracol interview, but rather responded to Obama by saying, "I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States."
From a September 18 post on the washingtonpost.com blog The Trail:
In comments that have caused a kerfuffle in Spain, McCain seemed to lump Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero in the same category as the anti-American leaders of Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba. McCain's remarks came during in an English-language interview with Radio Caracol WSUA 1260AM in Miami, part of the Spanish-language radio group Union Radio, conducted Tuesday.
[...]
The reporter for the Miami radio station seemed surprised that McCain, after discussing anti-American antagonists in Latin South America, acted so coolly to the idea of meeting with Zapatero.
"I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion," McCain said, throwing in words of praise for the Mexican government.
The reporter asked a second time: "Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government?"
McCain repeated his talking point: "I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America."
The reporter pressed again, and McCain replied: "I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not."
At this point, the reporter sought to clarify that McCain was not mixing up South America with Europe.
"I'm talking about the president of Spain," she noted.
Given this fourth opportunity to extend an olive branch, McCain stuck to his guns: "I'm willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those who are not."
[...]
So, was McCain purposely trying to diss the Spanish leader? Questions about whether McCain forgot which country Zapatero leads, got confused about Spain's geographic relationship to Latin America, or confused Zapatero with the Zapatista rebels from Mexico have exploded on blogs since reports of the interview first surfaced.
McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Sheunemann [sic] said McCain's answer was intentional.
"The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero (and id'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred). Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview," he said in an e-mail.
From the CNN transcript of the September 26 debate:
OBAMA: And -- and I just -- so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain's own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.
He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.
McCAIN: Of course.
OBAMA: If we can't meet with our friends, I don't know how we're going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism.
McCAIN: I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet.
The common bromide is 'You can't have it both ways'.
Here it's 'You can't have it neither way.'
I'll take it either way:
1) Schneider is right, and McCain isn't aware enough to know he was saying he wouldn't meet with Spain, or
2) Schneider is wrong, and McCain really wouldn't meet with Spain.
I couldn't vote for that candidate either way.
McCain's whole career is based on having it both ways. Talk like a maverick and vote a straight party line.
Are you saying that the the rein of McCain falls mainly on the insane?
I was only able to catch about a total of 20 minutes of the debate tonight..... and I heard at least 3 seperate 'cheap shots' by McCain on Obama in that short time...... and the only thing that made me mad was not that McSame did it, it was that Obama didn't push back harder against it!!
The fastest way for Obama to prove that Grampy is not ready for the big house is to bring up the Keating 5 or Phil Gramm..... and watch Gramps head (his left cheek anyways) explode (i.e. his rather famous distemperment)
I heard some pundit or other on television after the debate say that perhaps what Obama wanted to do in this first debate before an expected huge audience was to introduce himself as Presidential in not just what he said but what he didn't and how he carried himself.
Given the Black-White dynamic, and I would add the young-old dynamic, my hunch is he did well to restrain himself (if he in fact this was intentional).
I think so too, Eddy. McCain's base sees a whiny old geezer as "tough" , but the middle sees Obama as "uppity" or "angry" if he reciprocates. I think Obama had enough advantage in substance that he could just wait for Grampy to pop his cork.
To his credit, Grampy controlled himself pretty well tonight.He didn't really say anything, but he didn't crap his pants, and I think that deserves a little salute.
Due to the improvement in 'depends' technology we'll never really know, though.
I agree, Eddie. At first, like captfoster, I was mad that Obama wasn't bringing the thunder enough, but this is just the first debate of three and he had to start out by showing how composed, mature, and presidential he is. He certainly did that in the face of McCain's adolescent awkwardness. If he doesn't get progressively tough in the next two, I will agree with the capt.
Jawill11, Round one of the championship fight. McCain used his big guns..experience and experience while using naivety to describe Obama. Where does he go from here..Great military leader, using all of your main weapons at the beginning of the war and having nothing left for the end game. Sort of like SHOCK and AWE...I guess the signs in the McCain offices are reading MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. But there are more debates.
Obama weathered the assualt concerning experience and now he can come out firing. Once again, the Reepers use a strategy that has no common sense attached to it. Sen. Obama, the floor is yours. It is time that America sees the real John McCain for what he has become....the Republicans' Dukakis.
Obama missed some opportunities, but he made some substantive hits. I think it was smart that he made his points at appropriate times, so that it didn't appear he was stretching to make a jab.
I can't believe McCain even dared to talk about how Obama shouldn't say we'd bomb Pakistan. Of course Obama smacked him with the "Bomb Bomb Iran" song incident. The Spain debacle was brought up at an appropriate time as well. And naturally Obama had a perfect opportunity to hit McCain on Iraq, and he did so very well.
Unrelated to those, but significant in my opinion, McCain talked about a spending freeze except for defense, veterans and entitlements. Obama pointed out that education needs funding, which I thought was an embarrassing moment for McCain.
I agree that Obama made some good hits at the right times in the right way, but there were two times when Obama should have embarrassed McCain. One was the spending freeze. Obama should have hit back by saying that McCain is either being incredibly ignorant or incredibly disingenuous. The Federal gov't employs hundreds of thousands of people in the various agencies. People who do real work. Will they have an extended leave without pay during this freeze? What about all the work they do? Will industrial plants, food processors, slaughterhouses, etc. go uninspected during this period? Will all the Nat'l parks be closed? Will no money go to states for roadwork? etc.
The second thing was the "legue of democracies" idea. Obama did hit him back on that, but the idea is so mind-numbingly stupid that he could have hit him harder on it, in my opinion. A good line of attack for that one would have been to bring up how Bush and the republicans have made us so universally hated in the world, that it is unlikely that the other democracies would hop to it if McCain told them they were now part of the "League of Democracies."
Overall, I think Obama needed to do more of what he hasn't done enough of yet. He needed to brand McCain as a Republican and tie him to all of their failures more often.
Those are good points, and I wouldn't be surprised if those things come up in ads or future debates. I did a double-take myself when McCain brought up the spending freeze, it seemed like something you'd see in a high-school debate. "Dude, why don't they just stop spending money? Problem solved!"
Also there was this:
"We've got to get the support of the people of -- of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan...Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government"
And then:
"So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please."
Obama didn't have a lot of time to deal with that second one, but I wish he had smacked that down by pointing out that enforcement becomes the focus at that time. That's exactly the distinction Obama already made about Pakistan, that he would attack if necessary, while McCain was saying we had to work with their government.
He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan...Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud.
Right, you show strength by merely thinking these things. Peace through secret thoughts and telepathy !
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:script; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:647 0 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.EmailStyle15 {mso-style-type:personal; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ascii-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; color:windowtext; font-weight:normal; font-style:normal; text-decoration:none; text-underline:none; text-decoration:none; text-line-through:none;} span.blogpostwords {mso-style-name:blogpostwords;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
Yes, McCain's cheap shots in the debate really bothered me, as well as his inability to talk about the topic, or reply to Obama...unfortunately, a lot of the MSM gives the debate to McCain, because he was "a fighter". Does "a fighter" get points in the ring for running around the mat, or not returning punches, except to make illegal ones? Newsweek seems to think so.
There are problems with (Andrew Romano) Newsweek’s “two reasons’ why McCain won the debate....and we should remember that for those who did not watch the debate, every MSM vote cast for McCain is all they will know about the outcome of the debate.
1.) (Newsweek, Romano) ......”The first is that he constantly--obsessively, really--spiked his responses with small but pointed jabs at Obama that unfailingly related to subjects he (McCain) wanted to talk about, whatever the original topic of discussion. This tactic had a dual effect. First, Obama couldn't help but take the bait; he must've said "that's not true," "let me correct the record" or "I just have to respond" a dozen times over the course of the evening”…….
MY THOUGHT : Should McCain “win” by telling so many lies ("small pointed jabs") that Obama repeatedly needs to state “that is not true”? Using this ame reasoning, for Obama to “win” he would have to throw lies at McCain, to get the same series of responses from McCain. When you challenge someone about their past record and they change the subject to "the future" , instead of "that is not true", doesn't it mean Obama won that point? McCain won points from the media by "changing subjects" when Obama challenged him. When is avoiding topics, questions, and the eyes of your opponent, a plus in a debate?
2. (Newsweek, Romano) ….” Obama wanted--understandably so--to tie McCain to the catastrophes of the last eight years; McCain wanted to pretend they'd never happened. Ironically enough, this turned out to be a rhetorical advantage for the Republican. Time and again, Obama would move to lay blame for a past failure--and McCain would pivot to a better future.”………
MY THOUGHT: If he had been speaking of Obama instead of McCain, Obama would have been accused of being slippery, avoiding topics that he was uncomfortable with, or redirecting the subject so not to answer. Again, why is it seen as a plus for McCain to talk about off topic subjects, and avoid Obama’s questions? Since when is running from questions a plus in a debate? We are all aware of what happens to teams who go out of bounds, or resort to illegal plays. Why is McCain praised for this?
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:script; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:647 0 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} h4 {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:4; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:#9C7429; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#06A874; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} span.EmailStyle16 {mso-style-type:personal; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ascii-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; color:windowtext; font-weight:normal; font-style:normal; text-decoration:none; text-underline:none; text-decoration:none; text-line-through:none;} span.blogpostwords {mso-style-name:blogpostwords;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
FROM NEWSWEEK, ANDREW ROMANO 9-26.08 ” McCain Won. But Will It Matter? “
“Tonight, John McCain was the more effective performer.
There are two reasons why. The first is that he constantly--obsessively, really--spiked his responses with small but pointed jabs at Obama that unfailingly related to subjects he (McCain) wanted to talk about, whatever the original topic of discussion. This tactic had a dual effect. First, Obama couldn't help but take the bait; he must've said "that's not true," "let me correct the record" or "I just have to respond" a dozen times over the course of the evening.
Second, Obama's defensiveness immediately shifted the conversation to McCain's home turf--where it remained, often for minutes at a time………..” http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/26/mccain-won-but-will-it-matter.aspx
Sorry about that folks....I'm have no idea where the "font definition" text sections came from.
I had copied some of this from an email draft I was writing, and perhaps that is the reason, although I have done this before and not had this result.
At first I was mad Obama didn't push back, too, but after reading about numerous polls and focus groups that concluded Obama won the debate, I must agree with FiveThirtyEight.com's Nate Silver, who suggested that McCain's "what Senator Obama doesn't understand" jabs were countered by Obama coolly demonstrating his superior understanding of the very subject in his response.
"CHEAP SHOT"? CHEAP SHOT? What have been McCain's ads if not "cheap shots"? The Republicans have built their entire campaign on cheap shots. Lies and double-speak are the means of swaying voters. The fact that the two candidates are so close proves the point. To even present a complete fool like John McCain as their guy for the office is unmitigated PROOF that they have no respect for the voting public. "Doesn't matter WHO we put out there, we can get these morons to vote Republican. If EIGHT YEARS is not enough for them, we got it MADE!"
My local paper did a review of the 527 ad that basically says Obama is pro baby killing. It rates the ads' truthfulness from 0 to 10. This ad got a 0. Nuff said.
"I'm talking about the president of Spain," she noted...Given this fourth opportunity to extend an olive branch, McCain stuck to his guns: "I'm willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom and I will stand up to those who are not."
OBAMA: And -- and I just -- so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain's own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant...He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.
To say that McCain wasn't sure whether Spain was aligned with us is a perfectly valid statement. If McCain was familiar with Spain's policies, he could have just said "yes I'll meet with Zapatero". No conditions need to be stated if you know the conditions are already met.
Schneider is either woefully ignorant or utterly dishonest here. McCain is asked four times about this, and he repeats this boilerplate about human rights and democracy. That can't possibly be "misspoke". Either McCain questioned Spain's democracy and human rights record, or he was completely confused. There is no argument that it's out of bounds either way. If McCain had caught himself during the interview and said he misunderstood, then it wouldn't be fair to call him on it. The fact that he didn't do that is exactly what makes the episode so troubling.
As a patriotic American, McSame should refuse to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada too. Also Czechoslovakia ;-)
bill schneider opinion is clouded by his bias , instead of "almost certainly misspoke" how about he had a senior moment sense he's such the foreign policy expert.schneider fails to realise that he also put spain in central America,for schneider to accept this nonsensical explanation from randy/lobbyist spin master scheunemann calls into question his own creditability.
By the three eyes of Putin!
There were a couple outrageous slimes not mentioned, but I thought McDuck did a reasonable tour of most of the recent talking points.
It'd have been nice if O had held his feet to the fire on supporting veterans, and a few other lies. On the whole I'm gruntled about it. I'm not running for ilpresidentae either.
As far as the WK/CS administration goes I'd like to be the director of the Dept of Redundancy Dept, if its not redundant. Or fattening, a no borking zone, and I have my cats permission.
Sorry, but that position has been filled. But you're in luck since the position requires redundancy. Welcome to the team.
Hahcha!
Do I get a lapel pin and everything?
Of course you'll get a flag pin, also a back up pin, for redundancies sake
May I ask why everyone seems to think that McCain won the debate?
To me, neither one won, both of them attacked each other using party talking points...
It's called being the benefit of low expectation. Gramps is really, really, old - remember?
>>May I ask why everyone seems to think that McCain won the debate?
I'm not sure who you mean by everyone. Polls show that watchers thought Obama won. Of course, these polls, taken right after the debate, might not provide the best picture. I agree with you, that I though the debate a tie. However, some of the analysis seems to point to Obama seeming more likable and presidential, qualities that influence swing voters.
Kind of off topic but I'm curious.They were talking about how so many households now no longer have land line phone service,and the rate that they were qouting was respectable.So I'm wondering about these polls that they keep saying are so close.I know the networks know if people had a suspicion that this thing was a blowout,they would have no audience.
like I said I'm just asking.
From the desk/workstation/hollow log of: The Second Redundent Assistent to the Hulla Master of the Department of Redundancy Department, esq, pdq.
Your two points have been mentioned a few times. I don't recall any clarification of them. Mind you the audience thing would be hard to quantify.
But thats what we're here for.
Thanks for watching.
And stay on camera.
Why hasn't this u tube video been discussed?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU turn up your volume. Can not find any of the mass media showing McInsane while Obama discussing McCain insane about Spain
Even if this was merely a "mispeak" it matters!
McCain is supposed to be an experienced foreign policy expert. That is what he is running on.
Why then does he continue to make such foreign policy gaffs? Besides, a mispeak does not stand through an entire interview. The speaker (in this case McCain) usually admits his error and continues. McCain did not even suggest he had made an error or mispeak.
This is merely CNN spin (and, as always, spoken by Bill Schneider) to as usual benefit McCain. CNN does not fool anyone.
CNN lacks transparency when it comes to reporting on McCain. CNN remains complicit in trying to bamboozle the public into electing McCain. I guess CNN really needs to continue to get all that corporate tax break money McCain is promising them.