It was just a momentary "stumble" that can't possibly call into question something as certain and beyond reproach as McCain's expertise and honor.

Even harder for the press to deal with is that it was not at all a stumble, but a statement of McCain policy, and that this new “deceit” (about the connection between Iran and Al Qaeda) is coming directly from the “Straight Talk Express.”

That’s why the press doesn’t want to go there. It undermines McCain’s candidacy completely – that he is engaging in the same sort of deceptions that got us into Iraq under false pretenses to get us into a war with Iran.

Leading these deceptions, as usual, is the Weekly Standard, where Thomas Joscelyn lays out the new policy more explicitly:

But McCain was right the first time. He shouldn’t have taken his statement back. And it’s the bloggers who are ignorant--not John McCain.

By taking it back, McCain is having it both ways. The press will leave him alone on this issue, while his allies at the Weekly Standard start pushing the new lies.

If we had a real press, they’d ask him if he agrees with Joscelyn’s formulation about the “connection” between Iran and Al Qaeda and whether he still believes the Weekly Standard version of Saddam’s connection to Al Qaeda. A position they still hold despite all the evidence to the contrary.

http://tinyurl.com/2qpvsv

Sounding once again like he’s campaigning for John McCain, Bill Clinton yesterday channeled his inner David Brooks:

But McCain, who Mr. Clinton said is a "moderate", "has given about all you can give for this country without dyin' for it."

He said McCain was on the right side of issues like being against torture of enemy combatants and global warming, which "just about crosses the bridge for them (Republicans)."

Is there anyone better than Bill Clinton to help McCain distance himself from Bush’s foreign policy?

Good work, Bill. The Republican Party and Team McCain appreciate your efforts in helping him “rebrand” his unpopular neo-con views.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-praises.html

Newsweek:

McCain knows that his candidacy will rise or fall on how the public sees Iraq and the larger War on Terror….

Last week, as violence scorched Baghdad and Basra, there were renewed questions about whether McCain even now "gets" Iraq and the delicate counterinsurgency campaign being run by Gen. David Petraeus.

Not only is it crucial to McCain’s campaign to be labeled a “centrist” the other requirement is that the “surge” be successful. That’s why no matter what happens (more violence) in Iraq it must be spun as “good news” – McCain’s candidacy depends on it.

Another aspect to this part of the propaganda is to push the notion that the public has changed its mind on the war because of the success of the “surge” – which as Glenn has repeatedly pointed out, isn’t true.

Here’s Powerine pushing this bogus talking point again on Friday:

It seems to me that the Democrats are also unnereved by another phenomenon -- the success to date of the surge in Iraq.

After the 2006 election, many Democrats probably expected to coast to victory in 2008 on the unpopularity of the Iraq war. But the success of the surge, coupled with the nomination of the man who kept pushing for it, has upset this expectation. The debate over whether we should continue fighting in Iraq in 2009 is no longer one the Democrats are sure they can win.

Nice try, but there are no “facts” to back up that assertion. The majority of the public still wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, and all the pro-surge propaganda didn’t change that in the least.

The “centrist” label and the “public now supports the war” nonsense will have to be repeatedly knocked down – it will be a full-time job.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020164.php

those weak, subversive, conniving, appeasing, gender-confused, elitist freaks, whose men are as effeminate and cowardly as their women are angry, threatening and emasculating.

Glenn says that liberals have been “squeamish” about combating these tactics, but it’s even worse than that – they’re adopting them.

These tactics have been so successful that, rather than challenging them, the Democrats are attempting to emulate them. Obama supporters, for example, were referred to by Clinton supporter Tom Buffenbarger as, “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.”

And yesterday, when Joe Scarborough outdid himself with the “real man” theme in reference to Obama’s “prissy” bowling, Clinton supporters rejoiced. He’s become their new hero.

I’m not sure if Team Obama has done any “emasculating” references to Hillary (Matthews and Carlson have that base coverered), but if it has, these tactics are just as self-defeating as when Team Hillary does it.

Liberals cannot begin combating these tactics unless they refrain from using them themselves. That’s how far we have to go.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803310007

What Glenn has been doing here for a long time is taking right-wing themes and subjecting them to ridicule. I’m not arguing against attacking the right-wing establishment forcefully and fiercely. I’m arguing against adopting their themes when doing so.

Scarborough needs to be mocked for his comments and so does Matthews. Do they really think that a bowling contest is how we should choose a president?

Bush made Matthews swoon when he put on his fly-boy outfit – did that make Bush a great president with great judgment? The whole idea of “looking macho” needs to be exposed for its vacuity. It is one of the right-wing myths that need to be toppled.

My point is that you can’t topple that myth if you are, in another context, reinforcing that very myth. By doing so, you subject yourself to the very ridicule that will be necessary to help destroy that myth.