Whoops
Admittedly, I’m not a fan of the “poor me, they’re picking on me” mentality when applied to members of major-party Presidential tickets. And John McCain is not winning much sympathy from me when it comes to flogging his POW credentials. Yes, they matter, but they’re not a legitimate response to every single complaint about his policies.
On the other hand, they do present something of a nasty spiked pit for those who present foolish criticisms.
Case in point: the lastest Obama ad is an attack asserting that McCain hasn’t changed with the times, and citing as evidence the facts that “he can’t operate a computer, doesn’t know how to send email.” Sullivan in particular has been riding him on the matter.
Well, um…it turns out, from a review of McCain’s past profiles, that the reason John McCain is incapable of operating a computer is because his injuries render him unable to type.
Hat tip to reader EricRR.
Except I don’t think that’s actually true. McCain is certainly on the high, high end of disabled people, and people far, far more immobilized than him can use computers successfully with very, very simple modifications or even just a slightly different posture.
And you don’t need to sit at a computer desk, in any case. Heck, you don’t even have to sit at a computer at all. Most politicians, including McCain, use blackberries for this purpose, though McCain doesn’t apparently check email on his.
Really, “I can’t use a computer because I was a POW” is an on-the-face-of-it ridiculous excuse, and this from a person that thinks the Obama “he’s so out of touch he doesn’t use computers” line is pretty dumb in the first place. He doesn’t use computers because he chooses not to. Which is fine, but don’t get all POWey about it.
Comment by Brad — 9/13/2008 @ 8:39 pm
Regardless of whether or not the response from the McCain camp is true, I find the advertisement to be a little doltish. It is reminiscent of watching a Youtube video or SNL skit in which political advertisements themselves are being made fun of.
Along with that, I don’t believe it’s the best strategic move that could have been made. Let’s not forget that there are large portions of the populace who either choose not to — or simply lack the fundamental knowledge as to how to — operate a Gmail account.
While I am becoming tired of the POW line, a simple glance at the article proves that this was a statement he made in 2000, so I won’t have a hard time holding anything against McCain on this one. And even if this had come about as a direct result of the ad, I still would have to lean towards McCain on this one because the whole comment just screams twelve year old girl holding up an “L” sign to her forehead.
“Oh yeah? Well you can’t even send e-mail!”
McCain isn’t the “L” sign in this case.
Comment by K_Wright — 9/13/2008 @ 8:49 pm
Excuse me. A hard time NOT holding anything against McCain on this one. Lost myself in a blizzard of words there.
Comment by K_Wright — 9/13/2008 @ 8:51 pm
I mean, Stephen Hawking uses a computer, ffs, and has a personal email account that he regularly uses himself—not assistants. You think if John McCain wanted to, he would be physically incapable of computer literacy?
In fact, based on what we know of his range of movement, I have a low tech solution that will open up a whole world of technological wonder. Put the keyboard in your lap. You can send that physical therapy check to me courtesy of Carnegie Mellon.
It insults the intelligence. It’s just a dumb, factually untrue (indeed, ridiculous), and mildly offensive response (I am not, btw, holding it against the McCain campaign, the pushback is mostly coming from Drudge and Powerline and whatnot). And, if we still care about such things, Obama’s ad is pretty much exactly true. McCain doesn’t use a computer because he’s old and out of touch (in the sense that he just never cared to learn because he’s set in his ways). That, to me, is fine—I couldn’t care less how he, physically, works—and I’m sure he gets by fine without it, but let’s at least acknowledge it in discussing the relative veracity of the ad and the response we’re talking about.
I too think the ad is dumb, but it’s not wrong, and it does display, albeit in a very trivial way, that McCain is not exactly “cutting edge” or keyed into mainstream American life. And if this ad screams “twelve year old girl holding up an “L” sign on her forehead”, what was your reaction to the ‘arugala‘ line of attack (also mentioned at least six times at the RNC, including in the Vice President’s speech). Bat an eyelash at that one?
Comment by Brad — 9/13/2008 @ 9:12 pm
I believe the problem is with his fingers and their joints, Brad, not with his range of motion.
I don’t imagine that John McCain is physically incapable of using a computer. I imagine, instead, that up until a couple of years ago, the process of becoming computer literate was physically arduous enough that he never got in the habit. Put it in the same category as your cage fighting career, if you wish.
Comment by Rojas — 9/13/2008 @ 9:18 pm
Rojas, I’ve worked pretty extensively with assistive technology. I spent a lot of my Kansas years volunteering at the Capper Foundation where my mom worked, as you know. I did a lot of stuff there for the seven years or so, on and off, that I worked and volunteered there, including, among other things, getting 8 year old children with cerebral palsy using computers. So let me be blunt: you’re just plain wrong on this.
If John McCain can barbeque, use a cell phone, sign his name, use any sort of touch tone pad (phone, ATM, whatever), he was fully capable of being computer literate since the very early 90s, and the process was neither arduous nor expensive. I would imagine that the work-arounds to keep him informed and in touch with people in this day and age without a computer are more of an inconvenience and a time-drainer than using a computer would be. You can be checking your newest incoming message on a standard windows PC in 5 keystrokes, and have been able to since I believe 1996. Even if that takes you a minute a stroke, it’s still going to be quicker and more convenient (including responding, presuming you don’t need to say a lot, in which case you can indeed use the phone or an assistant).
He is computer illiterate by choice, not physical incapacity.
Comment by Brad — 9/13/2008 @ 9:27 pm
Reiterating again that I don’t care whether John McCain uses a computer or not, I’m just saying. Maybe I’m getting a bit knee-jerk offended because there are plenty of people who are very handicapped who find very easy and ingenious ways of getting connected. It’s a choice. McCain is not a fragile china doll—he can get by just fine, and if he felt like it, at any point since, say 1992, he could have very easily gotten computer literate. He just never wanted to. Again, that’s fine, but that’s the fact of it.
Comment by Brad — 9/13/2008 @ 9:31 pm
On the Corner when the ad came out, there was speculation about it being due to injuries.
Steven Hawking uses email via an extremely expensive setup. Whilst voice recognition is much better now, and also cheap, if you have a staff, effective voice recognition is basically telling them what to do. Any “well, he should be doing it anyhow” attack is just silly. I’m a computer programmer a lot of the time (which is mostly how I earn my living), but if I couldn’t type and had a bunch of staff, I’d get them to do the stuff, no doubt about it.
Comment by Adam — 9/13/2008 @ 10:03 pm
Brad, your assertion that his computer illiteracy is a result of whether his arms can lift high enough is factually untrue. It has more to do with the fact that, as Rojas said, there is limited dexterity because of the fact that his fingers were fractured. In any case, I preemptively answered this question by saying that regardless of whether or not the McCain response is untrue, the advertisement is still stupid.
If you want to bring up Stephen Hawking, however, it’s relevant to note that his entire existence necessitates the use of a computer for communication purposes. For McCain, that isn’t so, and the fact that he has chosen not to learn how to “use e-mail” seems…irrelevant to campaigning in general…Especially coming from a campaign that promised an attack on real issues. For the Obama campaign, the claim that McCain is basically unfit for the presidency because he doesn’t use computers opens a rather unfortunate can of worms for them. It’s a large and unfounded leap of logic, and it makes things much easier for McCain to claim that Obama’s lack of military experience makes him unfit to be Commander in Chief. And that logic? Not such a huge leap.
Additionally, it seems odd for you to be defending Obama on this issue…did you not just three days ago make a post endorsing Obama for president because of a “shady” ad released by McCain? It seems to me that McCain, for his part, at least tackled a real issue when he unveiled the advertisement. You brought up the fact that McCain’s people have been trying to make “Obama=Paris Hilton” in terms of celebrity status, yet a jab made to make McCain look stupid to the young population by insulting his “computer skills” is somehow okay? Even if you want to argue that it makes McCain not “cutting edge” a simple Google search will reveal that he reads the Internet with help from other people. Reading the internet with help from other people is just that. Reading the internet. He is, therefore, still “keyed into” mainstream American life.
As far as the arugula line of attack that you mentioned? I’d say both parties made the occasional jab at each other in the conventions. They’re intended to get parties fired up — that’s just how it works. The difference between that and the ads is that the advertisements will be seen frequently on television and you won’t have to purposely tune in to catch them. It looks immature for Obama, like it or not. This is a complete and utter non-issue…you should know this. And if the Presidency comes down to who has the highest WPM, then that’s a sad prospect.
Comment by K_Wright — 9/13/2008 @ 10:04 pm
Is anybody bothering to ask the question of why we even have to ask this question? Stated differently, shouldn’t McCain’s physical condition and impairments be part of the public record by now?
Comment by KipEsquire — 9/13/2008 @ 11:21 pm
McCain is computer illiterate not because he is physically incapable of using a computer, but because he chooses to steer clear of them. I’m sure too that his injuries play a role in that, but to suggest that he is incapable of checking email because he was a POW is just idiotic and just plain untrue. The Stephen Hawking analogy wasn’t to suggest McCain needs to patch himself into a very expensive setup, because clearly, he’s not so disabled that he needs to. It’s to suggest that people with severe disabilities, should they choose to, are fully capable of being computer literate. It’s certainly, I’m sure, more difficult due to his disabilities, as, I’m sure, most things are. But if he chose to, he could certainly do it, as he has been able to do most everything other thing he has chosen to do despite the fact that his disabilities handicap him.
Exactly how many things can we pawn off to his POW status? His temper, his congressional career, his first marriage, his finances, his computer illiteracy, etc. etc. etc. McCain, I am sure, has always asked people to not treat him as a delicate invalid. Why start now?
For the record, the ad:
Is it silly? Sure, we all agree on that. But that’s about the worst that can be said about it.
So it only counts if it plays in national TV ads?
You sure you want to play to that standard here, because as far as I’m aware McCain’s TV ads (including, btw, one that replays the arugala bit) run about 10-to-1 negative. His last one mentions Obama wants to teach sex to children, perhaps you’ve seen it. But please, let’s keep bending over backwards to equivocate. There is no value difference between claiming that you want to teach sex with children and claiming you don’t know how to use a computer. Every campaign that has ever tried to draw distinctions or bring up silly negative attacks have done so exactly equally, and it is unfair to hold anybody to any standard, or to make relative comparisons. If you seek to run a positive campaign, you’re held to a 100% standard. If you don’t care, you’re not held to any standard at all.
Man, you guys.
Comment by Brad — 9/14/2008 @ 12:27 am
See, Brad, here’s the thing.
You’re intent on weaving this into a meta-narrative about who’s more guilty than whom else in terms of negative campaigning, and parsing the particular mechanics of disabled people’s adaptation to technology.
The rest of us, I’m guessing, are more interested in the fact that Obama would willingly place his head on the batting tee of public perception in this manner.
Setting the rest aside, can you recognize that this is a clumsy attack ad with the potential to backfire on its maker?
Comment by Rojas — 9/14/2008 @ 1:22 am
Sure. I said it was stupid from the get-go, and seem to have to reiterate it in every post. I don’t personally care a whit for how a person gets their work done. And I’m not trying to make this into a meta-narrative (though admittedly I keep bringing it up)—as I said, this really has nothing to do with the McCain campaign (one way or the other).
But we keep muddling two things. One, the equivocation, which I’ll leave aside for now (but pretty clearly, I remain boggled by—see my “100% or 0%” standard line above). The second is we need to perhaps cleave between public perception and our perception.
On public perception, since I guess I haven’t been talking about it much: I think the “he can’t type because he’s a POW” thing makes Obama marginally look bad, mitigated by the fact that A. as has been noted, I don’t think the whole argument is going to get much play one way or the other (in that I don’t think Obama’s going to get anywhere with the “he doesn’t know how to use a computer” line, and thus I don’t think the “I don’t know how to use a computer because of my injuries” will get very far either), and B. the POW card has already been played for everything else that I think there’s a certain amount of saturation. Do I think it’s a clumsy ad? I think it’s a trivial ad (or at least a trivial point), clumsy perhaps in retrospect. Do I think it has the potential to backfire on its maker? I suppose its possible, and on balance I think the response is indeed an effective response. But no, not really. The response itself requires getting lost in about three degrees of trivialities, and I don’t think it’s going to get much beyond useless blog-warring between already-decided voters, though again, I suppose it’s possible.
But if we intend to confine all conversations here to a removed discussion of how we assume everybody else is perceiving things, let me know.
Where most of my conversation is centered is how we—me, Adam, you, that guy, etc—are viewing these things. As in, not “how will it play” but “what’s the merit of the answer”? Here, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s injuries have dissuaded him from using a computer (i.e. influenced his choice), but not fair, or in any way truthful, to say that they have prevented him from doing so (i.e. he couldn’t do it even if he wanted to), which is what your first post with its “can’t operate a computer” and “incapable of operating a computer” and “unable to type” is pretty clearly saying. He could operate a computer, he is capable of operating a computer, and yes, he can even type (if he can dial a cell phone or even a touch-tone landline, he can use a touch pad keyboard—guys with hooks for hands can type).
But again, by now, we’re pretty far down the rabbit hole of triviality already, so maybe it’s not even worth mentioning. Just wanted to point out that what you were saying is, you know, not true.
Comment by Brad — 9/14/2008 @ 2:05 am
But you’re right, the main point there has nothing really to do with McCain, or the campaign. Mostly just a physical therapy sore spot with me.
The meta-narrative stuff I’m getting drawn into in responding to K-Wright.
Comment by Brad — 9/14/2008 @ 2:19 am
That’s a fair enough response, Brad, and it’s understandable for you to go into the “meta-narrative” given the third paragraph of my last comment. I definitely take the blame for that.
If you look to the second paragraph, however, I believe it still stands to reason that this ad sets himself up for an easy jab from the McCain campaign in the future. Not to mention the fact that it does send a certain message to the older set who might not be as computer literate as Obama claims is necessary to be considered relevant. It’s definitely a trivial ad, and we are all agreed on that topic. The idea that it probably won’t backfire on Obama is one I probably wouldn’t agree with, though. Still, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it remains to be seen what effect this will have (if any). I think it will have at least some effect, but I, of course, could be wrong.
In any case, it is ultimately a non-issue that shouldn’t have been brought up. The fact that we are even having a debate about whether or not McCain’s POW experience may or may not affect his ability as a typist is strange, and hardly something that seems to be important when there are far greater issues at hand. I suppose that was the main point I intended to make with my last post. The third paragraph was getting into an even more unnecessary argument than this one has already become, so that was an error in my judgment. Fighting about which political candidate is more negative is an argument that can’t be won for either side, especially in forums where both people have clearly come to their decisions beforehand. In other words? My bad.
Comment by K_Wright — 9/14/2008 @ 2:48 am
‘Silly’ is all I’ve said. I guess that there might be some damage to Obama for “mocking the cripple” but I don’t think people are going to think it was deliberate.
Comment by Adam — 9/14/2008 @ 9:50 am
Well, it turns out that this was, which is how Goldberg found it. As for the more general issue of the release of medical records, I’m not personally interested in calling for them from candidates in general, although candidates can release them if they wish. The information is of course not bad in principle, but as nearly all of us are not medical experts, the whole thing could just turn into a Law and Order-style ‘duelling doctors’ medical testimony nonsense via mass emails of the ’sekrit muslim’ sort. Of course, this doesn’t particularly benefit the McCain camp, because voters should consider the possibility of the Vice President becoming president (although, as I said before, I wouldn’t weight it that highly because of the chances).
Comment by Adam — 9/14/2008 @ 10:00 am
Ugh.
A) Anything that starts with “Based on the historical evidence unearthed by Jonah Goldberg…” should go into the dumpster while afire. The guy who’s “scholarly” work is adorned with a smiley faced Hitler and uses an oxymoron for its title… isn’t the best authority.
B) When Obama starts attacking McCain as the hot shot pilot who’s possible misconduct was likely involved in the USS Liberty fire
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=119707
and that chances were he conspired with the enemy:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/15/independent_group_attacks_mcca.html
as POW groups assert, then maybe Obama will have gone too far.
Though he wouldn’t have gone very far by republican standards, considering the precedents set by the their “Swift Boat purple heart band aid” and recent “teaching sex to babies bill” history.
Comment by thimbles — 9/14/2008 @ 1:18 pm
Thimbles, unless you’re saying that Goldberg’s wrong, Obama has released an ad that unwittingly looks rather like ‘mock the cripple’ and not just any cripple, a cripple that got crippled as a POW (you may have heard that McCain is a POW; this time, it turns out to actually be relevant). It’s unfortunate for Obama but there’s not much to be gained from trying to spin the ad so it doesn’t look bad. The information appears to have been public and I guess it may be disputable to some extent, but it looks pretty mealy-mouthed to dispute it. It’s just bad luck, it appears, for the Obama camp.
As for B), that stuff is bilge. That similar nonsense was used against Kerry means nothing in terms of whether anyone should try to use it against McCain.
If it’s true that McCain’s injuries mean that he can’t type, or more precisely if Obama can’t easily disprove it, he just has to take his lumps and accept that he may well come out of this looking bad (through no fault of his own; yes, maybe they could have found out about it and as they knew he’d been injured they might have guessed at it, but to be honest, it really does seem to me just to be bad luck for Obama).
Comment by Adam — 9/14/2008 @ 2:59 pm
It should be pointed out that, as least as far as I know, the President of the United States doesn’t have a whole lot of time to surf the web and doesn’t send emails as they all get archived and that could get dodgy. Perhaps I am mistaken on this, but if I am not, then the whole issue is rather moot I think.
Comment by James — 9/14/2008 @ 3:42 pm
Surely the ability to gain information from those internets could have saved Bush from some blunders and maybe even from some of that ill advice he was fed. The ability to send an electronic mail to relevant parties relating e.g. to cooperation with people under the age of 60 could also turn out to be advantageous for the coming presidency.
And you CAN play golf online.
Comment by fred — 9/14/2008 @ 3:58 pm
The President using the internet to do research is hardly a good use of resources.
Comment by Adam — 9/14/2008 @ 4:25 pm
Back when McCain was the liberal cause du jour, he was a net-savvy e-mail user (http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html). So, unless McCain has unlearned how to communicate via the Internet over the past 8 years, I think this is a non-issue. So what if he gets help from Cindy and uber-hot blogger-daughter Meghan?
I know Forbes isn’t a liberal mag, but seriously, McCain was cool and used the internet constantly in 2000, so said the press. McCain said he’s computer illiterate once recently, and that’s the basis for the Obama ad. I think this might be a case of McCaing being a little too modest. The Forbes link comes thanks to Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot.
Comment by ericrrr — 9/14/2008 @ 4:59 pm
It was just a sloppy ad, it looks like to me (at least, unlike the McCain sex-ed ad, which was also sloppy, the stakes aren’t so high).
Comment by Adam — 9/14/2008 @ 5:08 pm
To Adam:
A) Goldberg is a idiot to the core and most of the things he says, by design or not, is untrue and mindless spam.
B) Yeah, the other stuff is bilge, and I’m sure if democrats started pushing bilge the press would be all “how dare you spread such lies! Have you no honor?” on their butts. Democrats, as General Wesley Clark proved, can’t even say “crashing a plane and being a POW isn’t relevant experience for becoming president.” Obama can’t even say “the guy can’t even use the internet” or use the word lipstick without people having a hissy fit.
But McCain can employ the swift boat people, repeat lies ad nauseum, and act like a total douche and not suffer any liar liar narratives like Gore did. Republicans can attack an actual cripples with ads depicting Hussein and Osama
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tKFYpd0q9nE
But democrats better watch it when it comes to attacking a man based on his technical proficiency who his also claiming to be healthy enough to run the country.
Like I said, Obama would be going too far if he pushed that McCain bilge, but he’s not allowed to even get close to “too far”, which is a luxury allowed to McCain.
Like most of McCain’s complaints and claims so far, that’s bogus.
Comment by thimbles — 9/14/2008 @ 9:37 pm
thimbles, Goldberg didn’t really say anything, just recovered some stories he didn’t write from other media outlets (such as the Boston Globe) from back in 2000.
When and if either candidate gets close to the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” unpleasantness, we’ll know how the reaction goes, I guess. Neither is there yet.
Comment by Adam — 9/15/2008 @ 8:03 am