The Politico raises the spector of - egad! - "senior moments" from the 72 year old Senator John McCain after he misspoke a couple of times in recent weeks.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “Iraq” on Monday when he apparently meant “Afghanistan”, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition.
Just in the past three weeks, McCain has also mistaken "Somalia" for "Sudan," and even football’s Green Bay Packers for the Pittsburgh Steelers...
McCain will turn 72 the day after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) accepts his party’s nomination for president at the age of 47, calling new attention to the sensitive issue of McCain’s advanced age three days before the start of his own convention...
But McCain's mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?
Voters, thinking about their own relatives, can be expected to scrutinize McCain’s debate performances for signs of slippage.
If having the wrong team/word/nation pop out of your mouth occasionally is a sign of aging at 72, what does it say about you when you're only 46? How about when logic escapes you, leaving you unable to explain your answer to the most important current national security question?
Heck, the media doesn't need to worry about Mr. Obama. They'll just keep swooning to the smooth baritone, feeling that thrill up their legs and ignoring the content completely.
I think there is something genuinely frightening to me when I realise how much of who people vote for is based on a created impression rather than actual data. It feels as if the ground shifts, and I am at the mercy of irrationality.
Of course, we have always been at the mercy of irrationality, in every country and century. We just don't like it when it peeks out its head.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | Jul 24, 2008 at 08:36 PM
It seems that for some candidates a mistake is just a mistake, whereas for others it's a sign of mental instability/irrationality/stupidity/venality/senility. It's pretty clear when you watch the press operate just what type of candidate gets which treatment.
The press has discovered that presidential contests for much of the population - enough to make a difference in any kind of really close election - comes down to a popularity contest. If they can make one candidate look ridiculous, as much a loser as possible, and therefore can create for the other an aura of inevitability and excitement, they can get, oh, 5-10% of the population to vote for that candidate. That's true even if the voter has little actual knowledge of the candidate's positions and how those positions will influence events going forward.
That the media is unafraid to be caught doing this is the scary thing.
Posted by: Giacomo | Jul 24, 2008 at 09:20 PM