gour·mand

It goes without saying that I eat these kinds of stories up. Heh. 

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

“We believe that a candidate’s taste in food is a more reliable indicator of character than the carefully strained statements issued in this atmosphere of gotcha and gotcha back. So we have worked our sources and come up with the names of the candidates’ favorite restaurants in their home states. We have tried them out and assessed what an appetite for their offerings might mean about two men with a 50-50 chance at spending the next four years ordering meals from the White House chef.”

(read the rest of the article here - warning: It will make you hungry) 

First off, McCain needs to cut this kind of stuff out:

Is the criticism legitimate? Sure it is.

Does it help calm the nerves of a jittery GOP base? Yes, of course.

Does it help win over the independent voters he needs to win 270 electoral votes? No. To them, attacks like this come off as extremely whiny. & those voters also remember when the media was heavily favoring McCain. McCain is only hurting himself. Yes, he’s been dealt a bad hand this week.. but there are still quite a few between now & November. He should stop trying to win this news cycle & take the time out of the spotlight to think about the big picture.

I’ve found two essential pieces for you to read that makes this point.

The 1st is from Mark Halperin of Time Magazine, who’s “The Page” is one of the essential sites for political junkies this year. Today he’s out with a piece called “It’s Now or Never: What John McCain Needs to Win:”

Stuff he can’t control:

–For Obama to make a substantive mistake on his overseas trip that changes the vector direction of the coverage — especially while he is in Israel.

–For Obama to suffer a Dukakis-in-the-tank, Kerry-windsurfing, Obama-bitter-in-San-Francisco moment that has huge symbolic value in underscoring the doubts about his being commander in chief and his relatability to average Americans.

–For Obama to pick a running mate who doesn’t vet, who gets caught up in scandal, and/or who says stupid things.

–For gas prices to fall consistently starting Labor Day (or sooner).

–For Osama bin Laden to be captured in a way that helps the White House and the Republican brand.

–For the media to start treating him with respect (again).

–For the media to start treating him with affection (again).

Stuff he can control (sort of):

–To have some of his own, big presidential moments before the conventions.

–To give a grand, soulful, expectations-defying acceptance speech in St. Paul (a la George H.W. Bush in 1988).

–To learn to drive the same message for more than a day.

–To remember that Americans want an upbeat president.

–To start sounding sharp, crisp and confident about his agenda and his qualifications, to stop sounding so wishy-washy about his platform, and to stop appearing so shook up by Obamamania.

–To stop letting personal animus for Obama and the shape of the media coverage consume him and his campaign.

–To not bow to the temptation to talk about national security when he is supposed to talk about domestic issues.

–To recognize, accept and cater to the reality (as Rudy Giuliani would say) that most Americans care more about the price at the pump, their mortgages, and their food and health care costs then about McCain’s life story, prescience on the surge, or total number of trips made to Iraq.

–To pick a running mate who shakes things up and gets him a second look from voters — but not so out there that the campaign seems desperate or radical.

–To pick a running mate who can serve as a Day-One-ready peer as well as a surrogate.

–To stop making silly errors (like the convoluted and petty reaction to Obama’s ostensibly overdue trip Iraq).

–To stop saying things that make him seem old (unless he is absolutely sure everyone will get the joke).

Note: This is analysis, not advice.

2nd good read of the day is from the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, who says McCain’s correct support of the surge through thick & thin has the potential for turning from a blessing into a curse. Some key quotes:

“Forget about our narrative on this war — how we “liberated Iraq.” Think about the Iraqi narrative. No one likes to be liberated or occupied by someone else. It is humiliating. France still hasn’t gotten over the fact that it had to be liberated by the Allies. What is important is how, with the help of the surge, Iraqis have finally started to liberate themselves — the Sunnis from their extremists and the Shiites from their extremists. The question in Iraq is: Can these parallel liberation movements actually merge into a single national liberation/unity movement? I don’t know.

But I do know this: While we would like an Iraqi national movement — binding Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis — to coalesce, we don’t want it coalescing in opposition to us. Running against the continued U.S. presence in Iraq will be a very tempting campaign theme for Iraqi politicians — in both the upcoming Iraqi provincial and parliamentary elections — if Iraq continues to stabilize.

…

So McCain, who called the surge right, may get little credit, because the story now is about post-surge Iraq. McCain’s post-surge view — which also may be right — is that Iraqis still do not have the military force capable of protecting their homeland and need more U.S. help in nation-building. Meanwhile, Obama, who was not a surge supporter and simply stuck to his 16-month withdrawal timetable, finds himself — by luck or smarts — in perfect harmony with the post-surge mood in Iraq. His timetable may be too short, but Obama can worry about that later.

All of which suggests that the right position on Iraq today is probably “McBama” — stick to a clear withdrawal timetable because post-surge Iraqi and American politics will tolerate nothing else — but leave yourself some wiggle room if things keep getting better, but not exactly on schedule. Always remember: the more Iraq is seen as succeeding on its own, without U.S. scaffolding, the more positive impact it will have on the neighborhood.”

Time for you to weigh in! What should McCain do — or not do — to help assure him victory this November?

Thanks to all who weighed in on my question I posed to you: is the media giving Obama coverage that’s a little too favorable?

Here’s what some of you had to say:

“Of course it is unbalanced! It has been since Obama announced his campaign for the presidency. No one in the news media has questioned him why, if he is interested in the Iraq situation, he has not visited in the last 900 days.” - Louis Priddy

“I think Obama gets more coverage and positive feedback from the media no matter what he does.” - Lisa

I’m sure that it wasn’t meant to be biased, but the on-going coverage of Mr. Obama makes many believe that “the news media” is looking for another champion. I truly wish that all news media would just report the news and not try to make or sway it. That tends to not only take away credibility from the news agencies, but it also leads many to just “down-right” distrust them. That’s not at all good; not for the media and certainly not for the country. At least try to show the better side of both candidates and not just point out their mistakes. Thank you for at least asking. - C. Waller

Thanks again, & I hope you all comment a lot more in the future.

A thought. I think some of the concerns people have is not that they themselves are swayed by the media, but that there are countless others who will be. I would recommend to those of you who feel this way to sit back & take a deep breath. You yourselves have figured out how to tell facts from bias - it’s a different world with the internet, & that’s forced us all to be more skeptical, but at the same time, do more homework. You should have faith that the rest of the American electorate is learning this as they go, too. It goes back to the advice that we should vary our media diet & decide for ourselves what is “fact” & what is “bias.”

& most importantly: Do not make your choice for president this November based on who gets favorable or unfavorable media coverage! It’s your patriotic duty to make your decision based on YOUR feelings about a candidate, not the media’s!

Rasmussen conducted the poll in Georgia on July 17th, & it shows little movement from the one we highlighted here, on June 30th.

McCain: 48%

Obama: 39%

Include “leaners” (people who might be persuaded one way or the tother), McCain’s lead widens to 53-42.

& the Bob Barr factor? Apparently not as big as previously estimated:

“Libertarian candidate Bob Barr who served in Congress as part of Georgia’s Congressional delegation picks up 5% of the vote initially, but only 1% when “leaners” are included. This means that up to 5% of voters now say they would vote for Barr but when asked a follow-up question only 1% remain committed to the man some view as a potential spoiler for McCain’s hopes.“

EARLIER: See our take on the results of the latest presidential poll in Tennessee (June 27th) here.

What do you think?

The above two photos proportionally represent the amount of media coverage each candidate is getting this week.

Obama has been criticized by members of the right wing for making the trip. Yet these same folks were running a countdown on the days it’s been since Obama visited Iraq or Afghanistan.. in fact, that countdown still remains on the main page of GOP.com. To those who criticize Obama for making this trip, I ask you: what’s your proposed alternative? That he not go? Isn’t that what you criticized him for in the first place?

Many have criticized the media for adding to the Obama-overseas-mania for having all three network news anchors visit him while he’s abroad. Dee Dee Myers, former Bill Clinton press secretary & Hillary Clinton 2008 supporter asks in Vanity Fair “Is the Media Trying to Elect Obama?” One could make that case, but please tell me the last time you thought the three network news anchors were relevant in any way. Far fewer people consider “the big 3″ when getting their news these days than ever before. Those who would inflate this trip as a pure example of media bias would do well to remember this.

It is news. You can’t not cover it.

Plus look at this poll from ABC News that shows Obama lags far behind McCain in terms of who’d make a better commander-in-chief. This trip is necessary for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who faces those numbers.

& besides, McCain should consider himself lucky that he’s out of the spotlight a little more this week:

p.s., Senator McCain: Czechoslovakia doesn’t exist anymore. He had better be careful with these gaffes, because there is a good chance that the media will start paying closer attention to them as November draws near.

What do you think? Is the coverage of Obama’s overseas trip unbalanced? Should he have just stayed at home? Time for you to weigh in!

..the 1st President Bush, that is.

Glad to see that the GOP is not afraid to trot out the oldest living Republican president. For a while, he seemed to be radioactive, & that was a shame. I’ve long felt that our current president overcompensated for his father’s mistakes - leaving us in the mess we’re in now.

[update: okay, this has been called “amateur psychoanalysis” elsewhere, & while I admit I’m a total amateur, let me elaborate: it is no secret that the 1st President Bush has essentially been shut out of providing proper advice to his son in the last 8 years. He (through surrogates such as James Baker & Brent Scowcroft) advised that the Iraq misadventure be applied with far more caution &, to use an unfortunate word, prudence than was actually used. There’s also the quote from W when he was interviewed by Bob Woodward for his book “Plan of Attack:”

“I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, ‘Well, no,’ and then he got defensive about it,” says Woodward. “Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, ‘He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.’ And then he said, ‘There’s a higher Father that I appeal to.’”

Call it amateur if you want, but for the current president to actually consciously say that on the record says a lot about what he thinks of his father & his presidency. 

Far more on the psychology of the father-son relationship in the Bush household here.] 

One of the ways “HW” & I are alike is that we’re both voracious digesters of the political media. As I’m doing the cheap Comcast option of 11 channels ($8.70 a month), my diet is a bit more substantial than Bush’s likely cable-tv appetite.

This appearance with the 1st Bush is a plus for McCain in what’s generally been a bad week for him.

from the Washington Post’s Pat Oliphant.

That was Friday. Over the weekend, he took in a ballgame with Rudy Giuliani, of course prompting speculation about his veep choice:

Zogby Poll: Obama/Powell Ticket Could Bode Well for Democrats

Survey finds Clinton VP pick favored by nearly half of Dems; Huckabee, Romney viewed as best running mates for McCain

UTICA, New York - As the Presidential candidates ponder potential running mates, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows many voters would be more inclined to vote for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama if he were to select retired four-star general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell as his running-mate.

If Obama were to choose Powell, 42% of likely voters nationwide said it would make them more likely to support the Democratic candidate - as did 42% of Democrats and 43% of political independents. The Zogby International telephone poll of 1,039 likely voters nationwide was conducted July 9-13, 2008, and asked respondents how the selection of certain vice presidential candidates would affect their likelihood to vote for the two leading presidential candidates. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Why I’m not surprised: Go back & read this Vote08 post from June 11th.

ALSO:

“Powell Hints at an Obama Endorsement” (June 13th)

“Computer Says Ideal VP for Both Dems & GOP is the Same Guy” (July 1st)

“Colin Powell on Barack Obama” (April 10th)

Yes, it’s a long shot, but I’m going to go ahead on the record right here & now & say that Powell is my official prediction for Obama’s Veep. The major hurdle, I think, is Mrs. Powell, who was instrumental in keeping Powell out of the running in 1995. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile.. I’ve long thought Romney is the money-favorite as of right now, & that’s reinforced even with Huckabee’s numbers as outlined below. For McCain to have a comparable “WOW” pick to Powell, I’m picking his longshot Veep pick as Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Former Republican rivals Huckabee and Romney could give McCain a boost

Among McCain’s potential vice presidential picks, former Republican nomination challengers Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney earned the strongest support from likely voters overall, as well as from Republicans and political independents. Among likely voters, 27% would be more likely to support McCain with Huckabee on the ticket, and 26% said the same if Romney were selected. A Huckabee pick would cause 13% of likely voters to be less likely to support McCain, while 11% would be less supportive of the presumptive Republican nominee if he were to choose Romney as his running mate. Among Republicans, 40% would be more likely to support a McCain/Huckabee ticket, while 11% would be less likely - a 29% net positive for the choice of Huckabee. If Romney were to be chosen, 41% of Republicans would be more inclined to vote for McCain, compared to 8% who would be less likely, for a net positive of 33%. Both fare well among political independents, with a 15% net positive for Huckabee and a 17% net positive for Romney if chosen as a running mate by McCain.

Watch the new 8-minute video attacking Obama’s Iraq stance above, then read the full memo here. 

Then read the Obama camp’s response here.

& ABC News discovered that McCain has a worse record than Obama on attending Senate foreign policy hearings, particularly on Afghanistan; read about it here. 

I confess - next to Lincoln & Truman, Teddy Roosevelt is tops in my book. He’s considered the man responsible for making the presidency what it is today.

& one of my favorite things about McCain is that he wants to use TR’s playbook in many ways.

But not everyone thinks that’s a good idea.

The National Review Online’s Michael Knox Berean has advice for McCain - that Roosevelt’s not the best candidate to emulate.

Obama spoke at the NAACP convention yesterday, McCain today.

McCain first. He said something interesting to start off with:

“Let me begin with a few words about my opponent. Don’t tell him I said this, but he is an impressive fellow in many ways. He has inspired a great many Americans, some of whom had wrongly believed that a political campaign could hold no purpose or meaning for them. His success should make Americans, all Americans, proud. Of course, I would prefer his success not continue quite as long as he hopes. But it makes me proud to know the country I’ve loved and served all my life is still a work in progress, and always improving. Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. And the way was prepared by this venerable organization and others like it. A few years before the NAACP was founded, President Theodore Roosevelt’s invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the nomination of an African-American to be the presidential nominee of his party. Whatever the outcome in November, Senator Obama has achieved a great thing – for himself and for his country – and I thank him for it.”

Yes, it’s shrewd, but it’s also classy. Nice move. (Full McCain speech transcript here)

Here’s Obama yesterday (McCain clip will be in this post as soon as it’s available):

UPDATE: Here’s the full speech, in 4 parts:

Aside: With polls showing a near-monolithic African-American voting block swinging Obama, McCain could easily have just blown a speech like this - one which talks about the problems facing the African-American community - off. Even though it would be political suicide to do otherwise, he does get credit for trying here.

Planned Parenthood has revived McCain’s 8-second stumble in an interview last week when asked whether he has any thoughts about insurance plans that cover Viagra & don’t cover birth control. (the issue was raised by his own economic adviser, former Hewlett-Packard exec Carly Fiorina, earlier in the day)

Frankly, we’re stumped as to why he took so long to say anything. I don’t get why saying “that’s not right, & should be changed,” & be done with it, should be so hard, unless he’s calculating what words could potentially damage his standing with the religious right. Not a good 8-seconds for McCain here. He does remember more women turn out to vote than men, right?

Above: McCain in Albuquerque, New Mexico yesterday, on winning in Afghanistan.

Below: Obama in Washington, D.C. yesterday, on winning in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Who’s right? Post a comment!

FURTHER READING:

–McCain could be the new Nixon in terms of foreign policy - the New Republic

–Obama’s Iraq speech “suffers from fundamental flaws of logic & fact that Obama refuses to confront.” - the New York Daily News

–How talk of a withdrawl - speedy or otherwise - is shifting the the dynamics of Iraqi politics - the Guardian

–Grading the candidates war speeches - Slate

It’s evident that the Chuck Todd quote we featured earlier this week — “that everything [the McCain campaign] do[es] from here on out will be an attempt to make this election a referendum on Obama.” — is the truth, either because of or in spite of McCain’s efforts.

Here’s a look at a series of gaffes & awkward moments that McCain & his supporters made this week - which were generally ignored in the mainstream media:

1.

“Americans have got to understand that. Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace and it’s got to be fixed.”

It seems odd that McCain is criticizing the system that’s been in place since the Great Depression - I think he was meaning that we haven’t addressed the looming problem of the baby boom generation retiring & bankrupting the system — but it’s hard to tell. More on that (& an attempt to get a clarification from the McCain campaign) here.

Had Barack Obama characterized the Social Security system this way, it would have been all we had heard about this week.

2.

Yesterday’s incident re: Phil Gramm’s boneheaded comments that we’re “a nation of whiners.” Probably much to the McCain campaign’s chagrin, Gramm said yesterday he sticks by his comments. Not good. & who’s supposed to be the elitist in this race?

Had Barack Obama called us “a nation of whiners” & the economic downturn we’re in a “mental recession,” he’d be tarred & feathered from nearly all sides.

3.

(above clip is audio only)

Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki & other Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawl this week. First, McCain said

“Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable,” he said. “And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we’ve had.”

Then he conceded that it was an accurate statement, but was probably just a political ploy to curry favor with his own people and would not influence his determination to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely.

& that’s a flip flop from what he said about the matter in 2004:

Question: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”

McCain’s Answer: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”

Had Barack Obama gone back & forth on the meaning of Maliki’s remarks, he’d be branded as a “typical political flip flopper” who “says anything to get elected.”

4. This statement the McCain campaign released this week touted the support of his economic plan from 300 blue-ribbon economists. But the Politico reported that most of those economists did not realize what they were signing off to - most of them thought they were checking “yes” on a list of basic economic principles with which they agree, not necessarily “I endorse McCain’s plan.”

If Barack Obama tried this, the ads criticizing him for this would already be out.

5. This “joke:”

McCain said, noting that cigarettes are the biggest U.S. export to Iran, “maybe we can kill them all with cigarettes.”

Iran’s a big place with 80 million individuals. It doesn’t seem very funny to joke about killing them all off, especially when right now there’s a good chance that a majority of the country’s people would be willing to be friends with us. Not a good move.

If Barack Obama made a joke about killing off an entire nation, many people would be saying it was a gaffe that could doom his campaign.

6. McCain denied this week that he ever said he wasn’t an expert in economics, apparently forgetting the durability of videotape:

As with #4, we’d already be seeing GOP ads pointing out this contrast right now if Obama had tried to get away with this.

& finally, this exchange about health care coverage (birth control vs Viagra):

7.

Once again, just imagine the ads playing this clip in full if it were Obama fudging on an issue like this.

8. Finally, the right wing media machine made a huge tactical mistake jumping all over themselves to report the so-called “Jackson Hot-Mike Gaffe” on Thursday. Had they thought about it for two seconds, they would have realized that a day in which Iran conducts missile tests is a day that should be spent calling Obama’s rather thin foreign policy credentials into question, rather than what they did, which was to let their hatred of Jesse Jackson dictate their coverage of a story which ultimately, strategically puts Obama in a better position.

An opposing view: Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin says McCain & the GOP actually “won the week.” 

Now. If you take this post as pure slam on McCain or his policies, you would be wrong - that’s certainly not my intent. The point I’m trying to make is that you should definitely expect a double-standard in this race when it comes to how much attention the media pays to whom. Obama’s gaffes or misstatements, however minimal or consequential they are, will be maximized in the media, while McCain’s gaffes or misstatements will be minimized in the media. It’s not so much that the GOP candidate is “John McCain,” it’s that he’s “Not-Barack-Obama.”

What do you think? Post a comment!

Our assignment manager Melydia is convinced that something’s afoot with the stars (”Jupiter is now opposite the Earth”) & causing some general crazies to come out; current evidence that makes this case:

1. We’ve had a gentleman call the newsroom repeatedly telling us about a premonition he’s had that aliens are about to arrive & achieve world peace & reduce our dependency on foreign oil,

2. Our newsroom has received approximately 136,372 e-mail messages from an apparent organized campaign to “bring the makers of Red Bull to justice” (please - don’t ask),

3. Jesse Jackson making some crazy remark that I won’t reprint here about Barack Obama that’s (unfortunately) dominating the current news cycle, &

4. The topic of this post, Phil Gramm, former advisor to John McCain, who has said that America is not in an actual recession but rather a “mental recession.” Quote:

“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. “We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.”

“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

“We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today,” he said. “We have benefited greatly” from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.

Mr. Gramm said the constant drubbing of the media on the economy’s problems is one reason people have lost confidence. Various surveys show that consumer confidence has fallen precipitously this year to the lowest levels in two to three decades, with most analysts attributing that to record high gasoline prices over $4 a gallon and big drops in the value of homes, which are consumers’ biggest assets.

“Misery sells newspapers,” Mr. Gramm said. “Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.”

Let’s forget completely for the moment whether or not Gramm has a point (for the record, I think he’s wrong) so we can make this one: Americans of all political stripes are not happy with how gas prices are eating into their pocketbooks these days, & none of them likes to be told by anyone that they’re “just a bunch of whiners.”

It’s only natural that the Obama campaign took advantage of this low-hanging fruit:

“One of Senator McCain’s top economic advisors may think that when people are struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages, and the rising costs of everything from gas to groceries, it’s merely a ‘mental recession’. And Senator McCain may think it’s sufficient to offer energy proposals that he admits will have mainly ‘psychological’ benefits. But the American people know that our economic problems aren’t just in their heads. They don’t need psychological relief – they need real relief – and that’s what Barack Obama will provide as President,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

& so, as you can imagine, just as Barack is doing so with Jesse, John McCain took pains to distance himself from Gramm’s remarks:

“Phil Gramm’s comments are not representative of John McCain’s views. John McCain travels the country every day talking to Americans who are hurting, feeling pain at the pump and worrying about how they’ll pay their mortgage. That’s why he has a realistic plan to deliver immediate relief at the gas pump, grow our economy and put Americans back to work.”

One last point on Gramm - it’s pretty amazing to me that the McCain camp kept Gramm on board with the campaign as long as he did. When he was a Senator in the late 90s, he was instrumental in deregulating the housing industry, which helped contribute to the housing crisis we’re in today.

What do you think? Are these tough economic times all in your head? Let us know by posting a comment!

     TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran’s president says there’s no chance of a war with the United States or Israel. But Iran appears to be turning up the heat a bit.
      State television reports the Revolutionary Guards have tested nine new long- and medium-range missiles during war games. One of them has a range of 1,250 miles, which is within striking distance of Israel.
      The report describing missile tests comes a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ah-muh-DEE’-neh-zhahd) played down the risk of war as he visited a summit of developing Muslim nations in Malaysia.
      It also comes about a month after Israel’s military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean. U.S. officials said at the time the military exercise could possibly be a rehearsal for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

McCain’s response:

“Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions. Iran’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.”

Obama’s response: 

On NBC’s “Today:”

Said the U.S. must respond with “aggressive diplomacy” to Iranian missile tests, called for possible U.S. divestment of Iranian holdings. Said he doesn’t understand complaints he has shifted to the center, saying he has consistently supported faith-based initiatives and the death penalty for acts such as child rape, and that he would “obviously” listen to military commanders in Iraq.

On ABC’s “Good Morning America”:

Called Iran “a grave threat,” expressed disapproval of higher U.S. exports to the country. Asked about potential Israeli strike against Iran, said “Israel always has the right to protect itself from serious threats, and Iran is a serious threat.” On Iraq, said his position has been “crystal clear” and has not changed. Mentioned economic agenda for women, criticized McCain for not supporting reversal of Supreme Court decision on gender pay discrimination.

On CBS’ “Early Show”:

Again endorsed direct diplomacy with Iran. On Iraq, said “I have been entirely consistent that we are going to end this war when I’m president.” Repeated assertion he has not changed position on gun control, the death penalty and other issues. On the recent trouble aboard his campaign plane, said “When you fly as much as I do, some of this stuff’s going to happen.”