The tensions and their increasingly public airing provide a revealing coda to the ill-fated McCain-Palin ticket, hinting at the mounting turmoil of a campaign that was described even by many Republicans as incoherent, negative and badly run. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
One of the first of what are bound to be many stories on the internal struggles of the Republican ticket. Both up-to-date and retrospective, this was somewhat of an eye-opener. I wonder, though, what we'd be reading about the Obama campaign if McCain had won.
“Every book I’ve read about a campaign is that the one that won, it was a perfect and beautifully run campaign with geniuses running it and incredible messaging, ... More »
This report focuses more on the petty disputes within the McCain campaign than the root causes of its defeat in the last election. Though it appear factual, the sourcing is weak and I did not get as much information as from yesterday's Wall Street Journal piece on this topic (see Link).
A well written article reporting on what is becoming thread bare information, most of which have already appeared in several earlier stories.
Although articles analyzing the "whys" of losing make interesting reading, basically the reason McCain isn't headed for the White House is because he tied himself to a 20th century philosophy that is woefully out of date.
Many in the GOP blame McCain. Despite media attacks on Palin, some of them deserved and others mean-spirited or sexist, McCain should not have put her on the ticket. Had he chosen Giuliani or Romney, and the RNC scheduled Palin to deliver her rousing speech as part of the convention, as the Democrats did with Obama in 2004, setting her up for a future campaign, Tuesday's vote would have been closer, and the Republicans would have had an answer to the economic collapse. The Times doesn't provide this backdrop.
The article doesn't mention why Palin was chosen in the first place. That is the untold story that I have advocated on NewsTrust since her selection. My thesis is the Democratic convention came first, so McCain's camp waited until Biden was selected, and then acted on advice of a strategist to select the VP most able to blunt Obama's message. And it did, in the short term, but inevitably unraveled, as elections--like jury trials--expose motive. And the jury gave its verdict on Tuesday.
“Every book I’ve read about a campaign is that the one that won, it was a perfect and beautifully run campaign with geniuses running it and incredible messaging, ... More »
Fairly interesting gossip. Not too much new except confirmation of the finger-pointing at everybody else as responsible for a bad campaign with subprime candidates.
I found it fair and informative, and it gave me a greater depth of understanding of issues for which I had previously heard only brief commentary.
I think Ms. Palin ultimately proved a liability to the McCain campaign. She seemed too interested with her own agenda and unwilling to do the work most candidates will do to prepare for interviews and public appearances.
Quoting unnamed sources on such highly charged issues makes for great drama but has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Post political blood letting and settleling of scores done on the pages of the NYT... enjoyable for Obama supporters but more the purview of the Post, don't you think?
Retrieving Comments
