Josh Marshall pushes McCain anger narrative

Last week, I wrote about how Josh Marshall and other liberal bloggers had revised their early interpretations of the first presidential debate to conform to the meme about John McCain being "small and angry." As I argued, it was the sort of pathological character-driven narrative that Republicans used so effectively against Al Gore, but no one seemed to recognize the parallel.

Since then, Marshall has repeatedly pushed the same talking points, using as evidence a contentious exchange between McCain and the editorial board of the Des Moines Register. First, he suggested McCain was mentally ill by making a joking reference to the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:

We though McCain was steamed when he wouldn't make eye contact with Barack Obama. But he almost blew a fuse when he got some real questions from the editorial board of the Des Moines Register. In today's episode of TPMtv, we analyze the tapes (with a little help from the DSM-IV):

Marshall then accused McCain of "a troubling lack of emotional control":

Campaigns are filled with hyperbole. But this, the no-eye-contact business at the debate and even the over-the-top affect at the Des Moines Register editorial meeting together suggest that McCain feels a sense of palpable disgust with Obama or visceral antipathy for him that is so great he's incapable of overcoming it in public settings.

That's a troubling lack of emotional control. But it seems in line with the character trait many mention about McCain -- that he is unable to engage in any contest without demonizing his opponent in his own head. There are a lot of other possibilities this seems to point to -- none of them pretty.

And he later invited readers to speculate further on McCain's mindset:

Not just a rhetorical question. What do you think has John McCain so angry? It's like anything could send him over the edge. Look at the video (the McCain vids start about 30 seconds in). Send me your thoughts ...

The debate and the editorial board meeting are pretty weak evidence for the sweeping claims that Marshall is making. McCain may loathe Obama and all he stands for (we'll never know for sure), but an alien who read all this hype about McCain's anger would be shocked at how restrained he was during the debate.

Comments

[Mike P]

Brendan,
I understand (and appreciate) your stance that we shouldn't read onto politicians things we think they might believe (you're often correct in calling out people like MoDo for their practice of projecting motives). But, behavior can count as much as action and it it's not definitive, it was strange to notice how McCain would not look at Obama, either during the pre-debate handshake or during the course of the debate itself. There seemed to be a lot of contempt conveyed there, and that seems to be borne out by the reports that McCain was short with Obama on the floor of the senate last week. I don't think we can say WHY McCain is acting like this towards Obama, but something DOES seem to be going on and it seems to be more one directional at this point.

[lowellfield]

Uh, Brendan? John McCain was unusually petulant and angry at both the debate and the DMR interview. That's not liberals forcing their narrative on things.

I'm surprised you could argue otherwise.

[Jim Allen]

Whether John McCain looked Barack Obama in the eyes or not is an entirely overblown issue. It means absolutely nothing and distracts from the substance of the debate.

[Howard Craft]

"Whether John McCain looked Barack Obama in the eyes or not is an entirely overblown issue. It means absolutely nothing and distracts from the substance of the debate."

That is so true.

[Jinchi]

Whether John McCain looked Barack Obama in the eyes or not is an entirely overblown issue.

I didn't watch the debate, so I don't know how overblown the issue is. But humans are wired to read faces and we absolutely make judgments about character and honesty simply by watching someone speak.

The question isn't so much whether Chris Matthews thought McCain looked angry, but whether people in the rest of the country thought it as well.

[Jim Allen]

Or would the question be is Chris Matthews putting a suggestion in people's minds that distracts them from making their own judgment about the substance of each candidate?

If I'm not mistaken I believe Gene Robinson of the Wash Post who was being interviewed by Matthews bring this up in post-debate commentary, but maybe you picked on something I did not.

[Ray]

"Whether John McCain looked Barack Obama in the eyes or not is an entirely overblown issue. It means absolutely nothing and distracts from the substance of the debate."

That statement is, of course, absolutely false. If you disagree I propose that the next time someone approaches you to talk that you turn first your back to respond and refuse to look at them. I promise that if you do so the tenor of the conversation will soon take a negative turn! Try interviewing or negotiating a contract without making eye contact with the individual opposite and see what happens. As was said later, eye contact, like body language, is an inherent and effective means of communication between humans who are, by design, a predator species. To consciously avoid it speaks volumes and loudly signifies either fear, submission or deceit. Neither choice should be displayed as Sen. McCain did in a presidential debate.

[Jim Allen]

They're not really talking to each other, though. They're talking to the country as a whole.

In a personal, one-on-one exchange, as you have described, you're absolutely right. But this is not that context.

This is less of a debate and more of a pair of infomercials airing at the exact same time. Both these candidates are pitchmen, selling their platform to the nation.

I don't think McCain looked at Obama for reasons of either fear, deceit, or submission. Maybe he just doesn't like the man personally.