The Audacity Of Competence

So how did this overseas trip play? That seems like an odd question, until you start listening to some of the revisionist pundits who have decided the Democratic candidate is arrogant and presumptuous, dares to act Presidential, and should have come home after Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel.

According to this narrative, he should have skipped Germany, France (and the UK, I guess) despite his warm welcome. Why? Because of a vague suspicion that some guy in Wilkes-Barre, PA would resent that Obama said something nice about Paris and was articulate in Berlin. This is the residual of the media's constant harping of whether white voters (what Chris Matthews calls 'regular Amuricans') would actually vote for an articulate black man. But it's not entirely that (although there is an element of that.) Like with Gore, the press has decided on a narrative, and with Obama, they think the campaign is arrogant. Susan Estrich:

"They think they can't lose," one of the smartest people I know said to me this week, describing the attitude he sees on display in the Obama campaign. He isn't the first one to say it.

There was a crop of stories, as the trip was ending, suggesting that the Obama campaign, which used to pride itself on its openess and transparency as compared to the Clinton machine, has now abandoned openess and transparency in favor of tight controls, attacks on reporters who write less-than flattering pieces, and a particularly unattractive form of hardball that people who think they are on the way to the White House, or already there, often adopt. It will not serve him well.

Bruised egos aside, how did it really go? MSNBC's genial in-house GOP hack Joe Scarborough was reduced to making the highly unconvincing case that the Sausage Haus visit was infinitely superior to the Obama images from Berlin. But how did the GOP really see this trip?

GOP analysts concede that Obama showed considerable expertise in manipulating the media to his advantage, dispensing interviews to the network TV anchors and giving a compelling speech in Berlin Thursday that drew positive coverage. McCain insiders aren't sure how they can minimize all that except for trying to shame the media into giving more balanced coverage.

In addition, McCain advisers concede that Obama's team of handlers and policy advisers seem first-rate, deftly blending pageantry with policy pronouncements and making Obama look like a potential commander in chief. "The pictures were great," says an admiring GOP insider. McCain advisers are already working to improve his own visuals and believe they can match Obama in stagecraft eventually.

Finally, Obama and his inner circle showed a deftness in forcing McCain to respond to various Obama statements rather than come up with his own proactive message day after day. "McCain was an hour behind Obama all week," says a GOP strategist.

Hmmmm, sounds like Team Obama did okay on image. How about on substance?

But now the administration’s agreement to consider a "time horizon" for troop withdrawals from Iraq has moved it, at least in the public perception, in the direction of the policies of Senator Barack Obama. That has thrown Mr. McCain on the political defensive in his opposition to a timed withdrawal, Republicans in the party’s foreign party establishment say.

On Friday Mr. McCain went so far as to say that the idea of a 16-month withdrawal, which Mr. Obama supports, was "a pretty good timetable," although he included the caveat that it had to be based on conditions on the ground.

Republicans also say the administration’s decision to authorize high-level talks with Iran and North Korea has undercut Mr. McCain’s skepticism about engagement with those countries, leaving the perception that he is more conservative than Mr. Bush on the issue.

Essentially, as the administration has taken a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, the decision of Mr. McCain to adhere to his more hawkish positions illustrates the continuing influence of neoconservatives on his thinking even as they are losing clout within the administration.

Did he use the word "timetable"?

McCain Offers Praise for Obama’s Troop Withdrawal Timetable

Why, yes, he did. On Fox, no less. That makes it unanimous, and a major point scored for Obama.

When Obama gets back to the U.S., we'll get to have a nice discussion about Bush's McOnomy, Phil Gramm, the price of gas and McCain's likelihood of continuing Bush policy on deregulation and screwing the consumer.

Until then, this really has been a good week for Obama, as the tracking polls show. That's because where Obama goes, McCain, kicking and screaming, follows. One might call it leadership, but that would be arrogant and presumptuous. And as Bob Cesca at HuffPost points out, the media heathers have been given their talking points, and reserve that description for Obama.

"Presumptuous" must really be a popular word. Odd that it's being used so often by people who want Senator Obama to win.

AP: "In a speech that risked being seen as presumptuous..."

TIME Magazine: "capable to become the Commander in Chief of a superpower -- without seeming presumptuous..."

The National Journal: "He is well aware voters here at home might see that as presumptuous..."

Washington Post: "Whether by the end of this week he will be seen as presumptuous or overly cocky..."

Chicago Tribune: "That means walking the fine line between looking presidential and appearing arrogant and presumptuous..."

Boston Globe: "plus the growing sense in some quarters that the presumptive Democratic nominee is getting a little presumptuous..."

Remarkable that they can't think of other words to use. Competent comes to mind, for example, along with able, adept, effective, efficient, smart and qualified. But if they're pissed off at the Obama campaign for slights real and imagined, they're likely to leave their thesaurus in the suitcase a while longer.

Not that Obama is unaware.

"How do I avoid looking presumptuous?" Mr. Obama said in the interview. "I’m very much looking forward over the next three months to going back to Iowa, literally and figuratively, and spending a lot of time in town hall meetings, talking to voters and listening to voters."

And for those who worry about the coverage, there's this:

[Leslie] Stahl used an expose she conducted about then-President Ronald Reagan during the 1984 election as an example. She said the four-minute piece ran hard-hitting commentary over images of Reagan on the campaign trail.

Reagan advisers later thanked her for the publicity, saying, "Nobody heard what you said in that piece."

She later aired the piece for a focus group, and less than one-fourth of them heard what she said. Most believed the piece was a campaign ad for Reagan or a positive news story about him.

In any case, the reporting is what it is, and most of it has been positive. But as in the famous example of Leslie Stahl, it's the images that count. And for images, you don't need a thesaurus.

^{REUTERS/Tobias Schwarz}