Cockiness Watch

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Write
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:44 AM

Let's face it, Barack Obama's execution of his excellent adventure overseas was close to flawless, leaving the media little to criticize, except maybe themselves for overcovering the thing.

But conservatives came up with a way to ridicule the trip, offering differing versions of who does he think he is?

Yes, who does he think he is, gallivanting around the world, drawing 200,000 Germans for a speech, generating plenty of pretty pictures and handling a series of news conferences and anchor interviews? Now that's gall!

By the end of the trip, I think reporters were so tired of writing how well things were going that some felt compelled to question the whole shebang, just to change the story line.

"Along the way to appearing presidential," the NYT said, "did Senator Barack Obama cross a political line -- as he and his advisers quietly feared, and some Republicans hoped -- by coming across as too presumptuous?"

Candy Crowley asked the candidate in a CNN interview: "Did you cross the line? Were there times, were you really aware of that? You know, that sort of, 'Oh, wow, he looks like he already thinks he's got it?' "

If that's the worst criticism of the Obama trip, he didn't do badly. (I know there was the flap about canceling the visit to the wounded soldiers in Germany, but while Obama bumbled the issue, I doubt that has much traction.) Obama's opponents obviously don't want voters to think of this as a done deal, so their tack is to suggest that he thinks of it as a done deal.

Let's look at the conservative assault. David Brooks, who seemed sympathetic to Obama early on, has totally flipped:

"When I first heard this sort of radically optimistic speech in Iowa, I have to confess my American soul was stirred. It seemed like the overture for a new yet quintessentially American campaign.

"But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more . . .

"The great illusion of the 1990s was that we were entering an era of global convergence in which politics and power didn't matter. What Obama offered in Berlin flowed right out of this mind-set. This was the end of history on acid . . .

"He has grown accustomed to putting on this sort of saccharine show for the rock concert masses, and in Berlin his act jumped the shark."

Kathryn Jean Lopez is similarly dismissive in National Review:

"The junior Illinois senator has been telling us for months now: 'We are the hope of the future. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.' If I believed that about myself, I'd be pretty audacious. Not to mention messianic.

"And so the political savior went to Berlin to stand on the shoulders of giants, and didn't even have the courtesy to tip his hat to the president of the United States -- Ronald Reagan -- whose monumentally historic rhetoric he adapted ad nauseam, showing an audacious disregard for creativity and originality."

Rush Limbaugh is demanding more specifics:

"We must remake our world again. Yes, Obama, after 143 days in the United States Senate and a couple of years engaging in voter fraud registration for ACORN, tell us, sir, just where is your experience to remake the world? How are you going to remake China? How are you going to remake Iran? How are you going to remake Russia? How are you going to remake Cuba? How are you going to remake Venezuela? How are you going to remake Sudan? How are you going to remake Somalia? How are you going to remake Congo? How are you going to remake France? How are you going to remake Spain? How are you going to remake Pakistan? How are you going to remake Kazakhstan? How are you going to remake Mongolia? The arrogance of this is literally staggering."

There's the A-word again.

From the left, Josh Marshall says we shouldn't set an unrealistic bar:

"After it became clear that Obama's trip through the Middle East was not only error-free but wildly successful (because of Maliki's gambit), there's been a third wave of press chatter and fretting to the effect that Obama's trip may now be too successful, that voters on the home front would rather have him stateside addressing their concerns than being feted by adoring Europeans . . .

"I don't think watching Obama walk on water in Europe (or in whatever lakes or rivers they have available) will goose his poll numbers. It may even have a bit of the reverse effect. The key was banking a solid trip abroad, an audition for the head of state/commander-in-chief role, that he'll be able to refer back to (mostly implicitly, sometimes explicitly) during the tough weeks ahead in the fall."

At the Huffington Post, Drew Westen assails John McCain for pressuring the media:

"Although McCain has done himself little good this week by seeming like a whining, grumpy, impotent man who can only protest angrily as a young sprinter runs circles around him, he has done one thing successfully: 'work the refs.' Every journalist considering running a positively toned story about Barack Obama from now until November will now have that little bird chirping inside his or her head, asking, 'Am I being objective?' Hillary Clinton's campaign effectively used this strategy when Obama had begun to run away with the race. In her case, there was more to the charge: The media didn't much care for her, and it showed. Just as they are now asking if Obama is acting too cocky or is 'overstepping' when he hasn't yet been elected (a question they never asked when John McCain met with the same leaders and traveled a similar path), they attributed to Hillary Clinton the sentiment that there should be a 'coronation' last fall when she broke the 50 percent mark with Democratic voters in the Gallup polls . . .

"But charges of bias, particularly toward a charismatic candidate like Barack Obama, create confusion among journalists about whether they are acting as impartial observers or more like participant-observers. As a result, they often overshoot."

Although keep in mind, when you read HuffPost's McCain Watch, that the Web site is teaming up with MoveOn.org in this effort. There goes any claim to being fair and balanced.

But I do agree with Arianna on the silliness of the latest poll frenzy:

"Isn't it strange that Barack Obama didn't get a bounce from his wildly well-received overseas trip? Oh wait, maybe he did. But, hey, it was just a small bounce. Or was it more of a bump? Perhaps a bouncelet? A hop? A ricochet? A swelling? Or was it a rash? In which case, if it persists for more than two weeks, should he see an electoral professional, or just declare victory?

Of course, almost all of this analysis is based on polls taken before the end of Obama's trip -- a serious case of premature pontification. "After all, nothing is more fun for journalists -- and better for ratings -- during campaign season than constantly changing the narrative: 'Obama is up!' 'McCain is surging!' 'Obama is coming back!' "

That happened yesterday in the space of just a few hours. In the morning, the media buzz was about a Gallup tracking poll showing Obama up nine points. The elusive bump had arrived! But that gave way to this:

"Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among 'likely' voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. McCain still trails slightly among the broader universe of 'registered' voters. By both measures, the race is tight."

And both are Gallup polls! And it's only July!

Slate's John Dickerson uncovers another problem with Obama acting presidential--if 43 is the model:

"Barack Obama's trip to Iraq was so presidential that at moments, he sounded like our current White House resident . . .

"After seven and a half years of George Bush, we should pause when a man auditioning for president says that the facts confirmed his beliefs and that he's never in doubt. As Obama himself has warned us at other moments, these are signs that a fearless leader may be letting ideology or rigidity steer him in the wrong direction. We know, from his books, if nothing else, that Barack Obama, in fact, goes through life thinking in subtle, nuanced, and interesting ways. He's probably got lots of complex input from his visit to Iraq that he's dissecting and analyzing. But he's not sharing much. And what he has shared on the occasion of his big trip hasn't been very nourishing."

But Frank Rich has the opposite view, saying Obama has become acting president:

"This election remains about the present and the future, where Iraq's $10 billion a month drain on American pocketbooks and military readiness is just one moving part in a matrix of national crises stretching from the gas pump to Pakistan. That's the high-rolling political casino where Mr. Obama amassed the chips he cashed in last week. The 'change' that he can at times wield like a glib marketing gimmick is increasingly becoming a substantive reality -- sometimes through Mr. Obama's instigation, sometimes by luck. Obama-branded change is snowballing, whether it's change you happen to believe in or not . . .

"On July 15, Mr. McCain suddenly noticed that more Americans are dying in Afghanistan than Iraq and called for more American forces to be sent there. It was a long-overdue recognition of the obvious that he could no longer avoid: both Robert Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had already called for more American troops to battle the resurgent Taliban, echoing the policy proposed by Mr. Obama a year ago.

"On July 17 we learned that President Bush, who had labeled direct talks with Iran 'appeasement,' would send the No. 3 official in the State Department to multilateral nuclear talks with Iran. Lest anyone doubt that the White House had moved away from the rigid stand endorsed by Mr. McCain and toward Mr. Obama's, a former Rumsfeld apparatchik weighed in on The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page: "Now Bush Is Appeasing Iran."

"Within 24 hours, the White House did another U-turn, endorsing an Iraq withdrawal timetable as long as it was labeled a 'general time horizon.' "

Maybe Obama is driving all this, and maybe he's been lucky. But in this campaign environment, you don't want to be seen as the semi-incumbent. Just ask Hillary Clinton.

This Weekly Standard post by Dean Barnett sounds a bit churlish to me, but you open the door when you talk about your kids:

"Remember long ago when the Obama candidacy seemed like fun? Remember when Barack Obama brought a certain joy to the campaign trail that even conservatives couldn't deny? Those days are long past. We've long since discovered that Obama is about as much fun as a more dour Michael Dukakis. Today brings the most disturbing indication yet that an Obama presidency will be about as much fun as passing a kidney stone:

"Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tells People magazine in the issue out Friday that he and his wife, Michelle, do not give Christmas or birthday presents to their two young daughters.

"Obama tells the magazine's Sandra Sobieraj Westfall in a seven-page cover story that he and his wife follow the unusual practice because they 'want to teach some limits.' "

On a more serious note, I've got a report here on yesterday's sad news that Bob Novak has a brain tumor.

A reminder that the Bush administration perverted justice--and it's not from carping Democrats:

"Top aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales employed a political and ideological litmus test to weed out candidates for career and other positions at the Justice Department, an internal department report concluded Monday," says the L.A. Times. "The audit by the department's Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that former Gonzales aides Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson violated department policies and federal civil-service laws."

Gonzales was generally unaware of this, the report says. So he wasn't culpable, just clueless.

And this, from another story, is cute, isn't it? "Ms. Goodling blocked the hiring of an experienced prosecutor for a senior counter-terrorism position because his wife was active in Democratic politics."

The veepstakes talk is really heating up, as with this Politico report:

"As Senator Barack Obama turns to the choice of his running mate, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has emerged as one of the campaign's potential finalists, sources familiar with conversations in Richmond and in Chicago said. Kaine, an early Obama supporter whose biography nicely dovetails with the Illinois senator's, 'ranks very, very high on the short list,' said a source who has spoken recently to senior Obama aides about Kaine."

So much for filling a void in foreign policy experience.

The Washington Post is also reporting "serious conversations" with Kaine.

Maybe Kaine will be tapped and this will turn out to be the scoop of the year. Or maybe he won't, and it will just be another round of media chatter.

The media's Mitt-wagon may have just hit a bump:

"Prominent evangelical leaders are warning Sen. John McCain against picking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying their troops will abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens," says the Washington Times.

"They say Mr. Romney lacks trust on issues such as outlawing abortion and opposing same-sex marriage and because he is a Mormon."

And this Adam Nagourney piece will not shock you:

"There is mounting evidence that Mr. Obama's interest in Mrs. Clinton for the post has faded considerably, if, in fact, she ever really was a strong contender to be on the ticket with him.

"In conversations, Mr. Obama's advisers discuss Mrs. Clinton's role at the Democratic convention next month in a way that suggests they are not thinking of her arriving in Denver as Mr. Obama's running mate."

After all, even Terry McAuliffe had stopped talking up her chances.