1) From Swampland, "McCain Meltdown" by Joe Klein

Huge news! Joe Klein is scandalized. The following John McCain quote has made the longtime and battle hardened campaign coverer hie to his proverbial fainting couch:

"This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

Writes Klein in response:

This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad… The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be "lost" at this point.

Odd. Until a mere week ago, the Obama website was declaring Iraq an unwinnable fiasco. Now, according to Joe Klein, it can't be lost. Now that's progress!

But back to the matter at hand. We all know, as the Allahpundit insightfully put it, "If the rest of the media is chest-deep in the tank for Obama, Klein's already fully submerged." So with all due respect to Joe Klein's phony outrage, the issue of Barack Obama's commitment to victory is a valid one. Obama only began speaking about winning in Iraq a couple of weeks ago, and even now he's more hinting about winning in Iraq than actually talking about it. Obama's hard left base will categorically reject the news that Iraq is anything other than a disaster.

What's more, Obama's evolving positions have always focused on one and only one goal - getting out of Iraq. Winning has never been a consideration. In 2007, Obama was willing to withdraw from Iraq even if doing so triggered a genocide. For Obama to say he now wants to withdraw only because it is the best means of achieving victory requires a heaping helping of that famous Obama audacity.

Once again, Obama really isn't talking about victory, even though it's now within reach. Obama has never mentioned what burdens he would have America bear in order to win in Iraq. Just yesterday, he told Katie Couric that he would feel free to ignore David Petraeus' advice regarding what was necessary for victory in Iraq if he felt the money for such a venture could be better spent elsewhere.

Of course, none of these Obama positions necessarily add up to the McCain conclusion that Obama would lose a war to win an election. In order to get to that point, you also need to assume a certain amount of bad faith on Obama's part. So we must ask, is such an assumption unreasonable? Most sensible people agree that winning in Iraq is critical. Most sensible people agree that Barack Obama is himself a sensible person. Yet yesterday, Obama said that he might decide as Commander-in-Chief to use the funds necessary for winning in Iraq to shore up the American economy (whatever that means). That kind of pathetic pander doesn't sound like a guy who cares more about the war's result than his own political fortunes.

Contra Joe Klein, the conclusion that Barack Obama is indifferent to victory in Iraq is not manifestly unreasonably. Indeed, it's the logical place you finish if you weigh all the Obama statements over the years. Of course, Obama is far from indifferent regarding his own electoral fortunes. So would Obama be willing to break some Iraq war eggs in order to serve up the beautiful omelet that an Obama administration would be?

Know narcissism.

2) From the Wall Street Journal, "McCain's Message Gets Makeover" by Laura Meckler and Elizabeth Holmes

This is an enormously entertaining and somewhat endearing profile of new McCain campaign jefe Steve Schmidt. Schmidt is renowned for his intensity as well as his relentless focus on day-to-day excellence. The following little nugget caught my eye: