By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 16, 2008; 8:57 AM

John McCain came clean yesterday about the superficiality and trivialization of campaign coverage and didn't let himself off the hook:

"The hectic but repetitive routine of presidential campaigns often seems to consist entirely of back-and-forth charges between candidates, punctuated by photo ops, debates and the occasional policy speech, followed by another barrage of accusations and counter-accusations, formulated into the soundbites preferred by cable news producers. It is a little hypocritical for candidates or reporters to criticize these deficiencies. They are our creation."

The headlines, obviously, are focusing on McCain's vow to end the Iraq war by 2013. What is equally noteworthy, in my view, is his disavowal of partisan warfare. It struck me as an explicit disavowal of the Bush/Rove 50-plus-1 approach to politics. McCain even offered to come before Congress, a la Question Time in the British Parliament:

"I'm not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless, paralyzing rancor must come to an end," he said.

Barack Obama, in promising a new kind of politics, has been saying much the same thing. Maybe this helps explain why each man has had a successful 2008. Average Americans looking at Washington see endless wrangling and maneuvering and few results. The Clintons pushed health-care reform. President Bush pushed Social Security reform. Nothing happened. Now McCain and Obama are promising to work across the aisle.

But can they maintain that lofty tone in the bump and grind of an intense campaign? Already we've had McCain trying to paint Obama as the candidate of Hamas and Obama trying to cast McCain as envisioning a 100-year war in Iraq (and that was before Obama slammed Bush for seeming to suggest that he and the Democrats are Nazi-like appeasers). High-minded exchanges are great, but what tends to happen in a campaign is that each side feels aggrieved by charges from the other side and uses them to justify its own rhetorical broadsides. McCain and Obama have talked about touring the country this summer for substantive debates. I doubt it will happen.

One thing's for sure: Many on the right hated Mac's speech. Michelle Malkin doesn't want no stinking bipartisanship:

"The fatal flaw lies in McCain's persistent belief, shared by the MSM and Beltway pundits, that partisanship in and of itself is at the root of all our ills.

"McCain's problem is that he has allied himself, for the unprincipled, empty cause of mindless "bipartisanship," with people and causes that move our country in the wrong direction.

"I don't want a Republican presidential nominee who makes common cause with La Raza/The Race.

"I don't want a Republican presidential nominee who sneers about profits like Ralph Nader.

"I don't want a Republican presidential nominee who talks and walks like Al Gore.

"And as I've said before in response to the annoying McCain platitudes about 'reaching across the aisle' and 'getting things done': When did it become the Republican Party's top priority to 'get things done?' 'Get things done' is mindless liberal code for passing legislation and expanding government. And as McCain's ample legislative record demonstrates, 'reaching across the political aisle' never entails pulling opponents to the right. It always entails selling out the right."

At American Spectator, Philip Klein:

"Some commentators have made the argument that given his age, McCain should pledge to only run for a single term, and set very specific goals for his time in office. To me, this seems like an effort to do so implicitly, while avoiding looking like a lame duck by doing so explicitly. I think what he runs the risk of, though, is making so many ambitious promises that he undercuts his image as a straight talker, and makes it harder to portray Barack Obama as a naive dreamer who resides in Fantasyland."

Former Bush staffer Pete Wehner calls the speech unrealistic:

"My initial reaction is it doesn't work, at least for me -- perhaps because the speech seemed to cut against one of McCain's more impressive qualities, which is that he is a grounded, clear-eyed, realistic man, not given to wishful thinking."

Rush Limbaugh ridiculed McCain's notion of working with (and even appointing) Dems:

"Well, then why you running? Why do we even have elections? Let's just have the League of Women Voters decide. Why do we even have elections then? . . . Some of the Drive-Bys are going to eat this up because he's campaigning as a Democrat."

Earlier, Rush went off on Mac for another speech:

"Senator McCain's embrace of a radical environmental agenda is a perfect example of all that I have been discussing with you about how the Republican Party is abandoning conservatism, abandoning those things and those people that made it victorious . . .

"McCain went out there in Oregon, and he delivered a bang bang environmental speech as far as the left is concerned. If I had been Nancy Pelosi, if I had been Obama, if I had been Hillary Clinton, if I were Algore, I would be doing back flips. If I were the Drive-By Media, I'd go, 'Oh, boy, this is Christmas in May.' But they're still not satisfied. The environmentalist wackos, the Democrats, Algore, still not satisfied with McCain's proposals. McCain's proposals are so far reaching, they are frightening."

Time's Joe Klein finds McCain's vision of a largely peaceful Iraq in 2013 "deeply hilarious":

"And the tooth fairy will spread giggle-juice throughout the land, and the Mets will win the World Series and I will lose 20 pounds while continuing to consume vast quantities of Chinese and Italian food.

"Let's leave aside the transparent political crassness of this--actually, let's not. Clearly, McCain is trying to walk away from his support for a permanent (100 year) military presence. Indeed, the senator's new dovery is undermined by the parameters for 'victory' that he sets . . .

"The ridiculous lack of detail that mark the speech make it hard to take the thing seriously."

McCain was promptly upstaged by the current president, whose blast from Israel is dominating the news cycle. Obama called the attack "sad" and a "politicization of foreign policy."

"President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to liken those who would negotiate with 'terrorists and radicals' to Nazi appeasers -- a remark widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, who has advocated greater engagement with countries like Iran and Syria," says the New York Times.

"Mr. Bush did not mention Mr. Obama by name, and White House officials said he was not taking aim at the Illinois senator, although they were aware the speech might be interpreted that way."

Liberal bloggers are denouncing Bush in the most full-throated terms. Taylor Marsh breaks out the adjectives:

"Will this ever end? George W. Bush, the most incompetent, bumbling, stubborn president talking about Democrats as if we are traitors? There isn't a political woman or man alive who could get through the political system who could either offer to 'negotiate with terrorists,' or sell Israel down the river. But bringing up the Hitler analogy is going some, even for Bush. Then he goes one worse. Implies that any notion that Iraq is making matters worse for our country is appeasement, and that any notion of insisting Iraqis take over their own country is tantamount to negotiating with Hitler . . .

"President Bush is not only wrong, but destructive using this type of language. Hey, but what's new."

Steve Benen at Carpetbagger professes sadness:

"It's cheap; it's ugly; and it's beneath of office of the president of the United States. I vaguely recall a time when American political figures felt honor-bound not to attack other U.S. leaders while on foreign soil. Regrettably, we've learned that the words 'honor' and 'Bush' don't belong in the same sentence, unless separated by the phrase 'doesn't have any.' "

Paul Begala: "George W. Bush is unworthy of the presidency. He is a disgrace to himself, our nation, and the high office he holds . . . It is especially appalling to supporters of Israel that Mr. Bush would stand on a hilltop in Jerusalem to invoke the Holocaust in order to make a cheap and deeply dishonest political point."

The New Republic's Christopher Orr says this isn't helping McCain:

"Making an attack this direct on a domestic political opponent while on foreign soil is generally considered out of bounds. But more than either of those responses, I'm struck by how politically foolish this assault appears to be. Bush attacking Obama, and Obama counter-attacking Bush, while John McCain sits on the sidelines, is a disastrous dynamic for the GOP. The more Obama can frame this race as him vs. the most unpopular president in modern history, the easier a time he'll have in the fall."

But Power Line's Paul Mirengoff faults Obama's reaction:

"It's not clear why the occasion of Israel's birthday is an inappropriate one on which to assure Israel that the American president does not favor negotiating with terrorists and radicals who are out to destroy Israel.

"What's telling here is Obama's defensiveness. Bush didn't say that Obama is among those who favor negotiating with terrorists. But it's understandable that this is a sore point for Obama, inasmuch as, to cite just one problem, his former adviser Robert Malley not only favors negotiating with Hamas but apparently was actually 'negotiating' with it."

The Illinois senator defends himself on terror issues with David Brooks.

McCain keeps having problems with multi-tasking staffers, as Politico reports:

"John McCain's campaign asked a prominent Republican consultant, Craig Shirley, to leave his official campaign role Thursday after a Politico inquiry about Shirley's dual role consulting for the campaign and for an independent '527' group opposing the Democratic presidential candidates. The campaign also released a new conflict of interest policy barring such arrangements.

"Shirley, a conservative public relations veteran, doubled as a consultant to McCain and to the group Stop Her Now, a 527 group barred from coordinating its activities with presidential campaigns. He is not currently on the McCain campaign's payroll, but would also step down from his role on McCain's Virginia Leadership Team, a McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said."

Maybe McCain is serious about not just wanting to talk to the right:

"Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign is trying to tap a new audience of potential voters by taking his campaign message straight to liberal and nonpolitical issues-based blogs, which reach millions of readers but don't often delve into conservative politics," says the Washington Times.

"The strategy was in full swing yesterday when Mr. McCain invited non-conservative bloggers to join his regular blogger conference call, just hours after he delivered a major speech previewing his war strategy and other priorities for a first presidential term.

"It already has started a war among liberal bloggers over how to react to Mr. McCain's overture."

An example: Eric Kotecki Vest of BlogHer.com "asked Mr. McCain whether the vision he laid out yesterday of U.S. troops succeeding in Iraq by 2013 didn't amount to the sort of timetable he has criticized when Democrats propose a specific date for withdrawal. Mr. McCain shot right back: 'Either you didn't read or didn't understand my speech. One of the two.'

"Ms. Vest said she 'read it and understood it just fine, and I don't understand how 2013 isn't a date.' "

Obama is learning to play the game, says Roger Simon, if the game is providing nice pictures for the cameras. He begins with Obama talking to Brian Williams about his awful bowling outing and how "the American people are smarter than that":

" 'Suddenly, this becomes some big sort of signifier of whether or not I'm in tune with blue-collar culture . . . Sometimes I wear a tie, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I wear a flag pin, sometimes I don't. You know, sometimes I like a burger and a beer. Sometimes a glass of wine and a steak is good. But this doesn't have much to do with how I'm gonna lead the country.'

"And you know what? Obama is absolutely, positively right. And you know what? It doesn't really matter that he is right. The process is the process, the game is the game. And you can spend your time exposing how flawed the game is, or you can spend your time winning it.

"In the past few weeks, it has become clear to me that Obama intends to win it. In West Virginia, he shot some pool at a billiards hall, and when he sank a ball on the break and then pocketed two more, he said, 'That's a sign of a misspent youth.' "

That was before he got into Harvard Law?

Dick Polman isn't wowed by the John Edwards endorsement, but "I would argue that the bigger symbolic blow to [Hillary] Clinton was delivered by NARAL Pro-Choice America. It too endorsed Obama, thereby sending the message that even a prominent feminist abortion-rights organization, with strong sisterhood ties to Clinton, believes that her quest is futile. This endorsement is stark evidence that part of her base is beginning to erode. This endorsement is also the first major signal to liberal women that defeating John McCain (and preserving Roe v. Wade) should take precedence."

A touching story meets the bureaucracy:

"At the conclusion of her victory speech in Charleston, W.Va., on Tuesday night," Slate reports, "Hillary Clinton told the story of a supporter named Florence Steen, who passed away last Sunday. The 88-year-old South Dakotan had just voted for Clinton by absentee ballot, ahead of the state's June 3 primary. It's a touching story, but will her vote still count?

"No. As dictated by a 2001 state law, the South Dakota Department of Health is responsible for furnishing the county auditors with a list of registered voters who have died each month. This information is used to update the state's electronic voter-registration file, which was created by a different 2001 law. Absentee ballots are collected by county auditors and remain sealed until the election, so if an absentee voter dies prior to the election, then her ballot is never opened."

I bet the votes count in Chicago.