Posted by Jed Lewison on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 6:19 PM Pacific

McCain's Options

Maliki's statement -- even in light of Maliki's faux denial -- boxes John McCain into a pretty tight spot. Off the top of my head, I think McCain's options fall into three main categories. Noting that these are not all mutually exclusive, he could say:

"I don't care what the Iraqi government says"; or
"I accept what the Iraqi government says"; or
"The Iraqi government didn't say what they said"

It seems pretty clear that they are mostly following the third option with a dose of the first. Here's what I think the pros and cons are for each option.

OPTION 1: "I don't care what the Iraqi government says."

PRO: No doubt this is what McCain actually believes -- it is what he said on Meet the Press in May, 2007.
CON: On its own, such a statement would be political suicide at this point in the campaign. (Combined with the #3 it has some resonance.)

OPTION 2: "I accept what the Iraqi government says."

PRO: McCain could claim the surge has won the war, that we are declaring victory, and plan on leaving
CON #1: Nobody really believes that these are McCain's true feelings -- he's been saying for the entire campaign that we will be in Iraq for years if not longer. Such a sudden, politically motivated reversal would damage his brand.
CON #2: If McCain were to say that he disagrees with Maliki but plans on respecting his decision, that would mean that McCain is (in his own view) putting the safety of the United States in jeopardy, because he has repeatedly said we must stay in Iraq to protect the U.S. mainland.

OPTION 3: "The Iraqi government didn't say what they said."

PRO #1: McCain would rather debate the meaning of Maliki's words than their implication.
PRO #2: Most of his base will blindly accept the Bush-McCain spin.
PRO #3: Relatively few reporters are either intelligent or self-confident enough to understand what is really going on. (Notable exceptions: Chuck Todd, Ben Smith, Jonathan Chait, Josh Marshall.)
CON #1: It's an obvious lie, and if the media follows the lead of the smarter reports it could deal a serious blow to McCain's credibility.

::: :::

Given the history of the media in this country, option 3 with a touch of option 1 seems like the smartest decision from their perspective -- it also seems to be what they are doing. Aside from shifting the focus of the debate, it also allows them to shift back and forth between two arguments, further confusing the issues

Option 2 does seem to be their worst option -- if John McCain effectively endorses Barack Obama's plan on Iraq, he might as well head to Sedona for the rest of the campaign, because it will be over for him, no matter what David Gregory might try to say.