Shields and Brooks on Obama's Trip, McCain's Strategy

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks. Mark, cudgels aside, was this trip that Barack Obama took overseas politically successful for him?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Yes, first of all -- in several respects. First of all, the Berlin speech, the most covered, the dimension, the warmth of the response to him and to the speech he gave was proof-positive that the values and the American people, the United States values, are still held in high esteem overseas, that the problems that we've had over the past seven-and-a-half years are attributable to the specific policies and the specific personas of our elected leaders.

And I think that was an enormously important message for Americans to see, to see a foreign audience, not a totally friendly American -- to American policy, with flags, American flags being waved. And I thought the rest of it worked for him. I thought he had some good luck; there's no question about it.

But I think you have to say that the policies are catching up with him, whether it's Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates recognizing, acknowledging the need for more troops in Afghanistan, along the Pakistan border problems, the administration sending a high envoy to meet with Tehran after six years of saying they wouldn't do it, you know, obviously, Prime Minister Maliki's statement essentially embracing Obama's position on troop withdrawal...

JIM LEHRER: So that's part of the luck you were talking about?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, no, those were -- I mean, that was -- the luck, I'd say, were essentially he had good weather. He drained, he swished his first three-point shot in the basketball court.

JIM LEHRER: The three-point shot on the -- yes.

MARK SHIELDS: No, but, no, Jim, when King Abdullah drives him to the airport himself, won't let him off the tarmac, I mean, it was obvious he wanted to continue it. When German leader Merkel's own spokesman said this was a clear-minded, incisive man, in his mind, I mean, those were words that we haven't heard often heaped upon American leadership in the last seven years.

JIM LEHRER: David, your overview?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: It was a good trip. I mean, the crucial issue in this election is whether people can see plausibly Obama as president. And so we had the photo-ops.

We had a series of slideshows, him with Sarkozy today, him doing the Middle Eastern thing, giving a press conference which he said all the right things, nothing interesting, nothing new, but nothing wrong, so he seemed as a plausible president. And the political effect of this, the slideshow was perfectly fine. It was a good week for him.

High Pressure on Obama

DAVID BROOKS: And that's not -- I mean, he made the one mistake where he claimed to be chairman of the Senate Banking Committee when he's not even on the committee. That was a little bizarre. But you walk through the issues like the divided status or non-divided status of Jerusalem, that's actually a tough thing to do. Presidents have to do it every day when they go to the Middle East. He did that fine.

And so to the extent that people get used to the idea this guy could plausibly be president, just from the images, the images were great for him. I have problems with the Berlin speech and other things, but as far as a political effect, it was a good week for him.

JIM LEHRER: What was your problem with the Berlin speech? You heard what Mark said.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I just disagreed. I mean, I thought it was -- you know, if you remember the Miss America pageant, the contestants would always say how they dreamed of world peace, if we could all come together.

I thought it was like that with a little less intellectual heft. And the problem is that we have a fantasy -- some people have a fantasy in this country that we could get rid of politics and power if we all just came together, and that is a sign of political immaturity. And Barack Obama doesn't believe that. But that speech was pandered in a demagogic way toward that belief.

There was nothing anybody could disagree with in that speech. It was all just, "Let's all come together." If you compare that speech to John Kennedy's speech in Berlin, to Ronald Reagan's speech in Berlin, where they actually gave policies, they made arguments for positions with which it was possible to disagree, Obama did none of that. He punted on all the tough policies, with one exception, which was Afghanistan, where he had a very good paragraph. Other than that, it was just -- it was like a Disneyfied version of foreign policy.

Obama's performance on foreign policy

MARK SHIELDS: No. I think, Jim, just consider the other side of the equation. If Barack Obama had gone in there and made a specific set of policy prescriptions, a laundry list, if you would, he would have been attacked, if not by David, then certainly by many on the other side for being too specific, presumptuous.

This is a man who's a candidate. He made a general statement. He made a statement that -- the kind of statement that has been about Barack Obama's candidacy. It did, for someone who's been criticized, I think legitimately, Obama has, for not telling groups what they don't want to hear, he did tell this German audience what they didn't want to hear, namely, that German troops ought to pick up the burden and the slack in the battle for Afghanistan.

But I would say that if he had gone and done that and been specific, 14-point program, he would have been faulted for politics end at the water's edge. And I thought it was -- I thought it was a fine statement, and I thought it worked. I mean, it was -- he was faithful to what he has been saying throughout this campaign. And I think it was an honest statement of what he is about.

JIM LEHRER: David?

DAVID BROOKS: He said, "This is our moment." He said Jews and Christians and Muslims should all get along. He said, you know, we can change the world or we're going to change the world. These were all fine statements; we all agree with them. But the crucial issue is, what is America's role?

And I thought it was a very American speech. I think it was supremely optimistic, almost in a Bushian way. And so that part was fine. But what is America's role in world leadership in the world? That's what foreign policy is about. He doesn't have to go through a laundry list. He has to do a series of principles that show, "Here's where I'm going to take America. Here's my general vision for America."

And that's what foreign policy is about. It's not us all coming together and being lovey-dovey with each other. It's a set of general principles of what America's role is going to be in the world and how he sees it, how it's different from other roles.

JIM LEHRER: Meanwhile, John McCain, how did he handle himself back home while Obama was off doing his thing?

DAVID BROOKS: I thought not so well. First, he complained too much about the press. I think he's absolutely right about the press. It diminishes him to talk about it in this way. Second, while I agree with him 100 percent on the surge -- I think he was absolutely right, Barack Obama was wrong -- stop talking about it.

McCain stumbles in the U.S.

DAVID BROOKS: I think he was absolutely right. I think people have absorbed that. He's got to talk about the future. He's got to have a theme. His campaign still suffers from two problems: One, the candidate is diminished by the campaign. He's a great man who doesn't seem that way from the way the campaign is being run, because there's too much focused on day-to-day message management. And, secondly, he's got to talk about a domestic policy vision, a narrative of where the country is in these economically troubled times, and where he's going to take it. He still hasn't done either of those.

JIM LEHRER: McCain?

MARK SHIELDS: John McCain did not have a good week. He wasn't going to have a good week, anyway. I mean, let's be very blunt: I mean, Obama was hounded into this trip by McCain and critics, Republicans.

JIM LEHRER: He said, "You've got to go overseas."

MARK SHIELDS: And, yes, and, "What's the matter with you? You haven't been overseas in 857 days." They had a watch-up on how long it'd been since he'd been to Iraq. And so, you know, he was going to dominate the coverage while he was gone. And I just thought -- I agree with David that John McCain looked captious, he looked waspish, he looked petulant. And that isn't the John McCain that's at his best; that isn't the John McCain that I've known and admired over these years.

And I thought, when he really -- it was below his dignity to suggest that Barack Obama, candidate for president of the United States, that his own selfish interest took precedence over the welfare of American troops, which was basically his position, that he'd rather lose a war -- he, McCain, would rather lose an election than lose a war, that Obama was the converse, and that was not John McCain at his best. That was John McCain -- that was a petty, small John McCain, which does total disservice to his candidacy.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, that was over the line?

DAVID BROOKS: I do agree with that. These questions on Iraq are tough questions. These calls are always tough calls. People can have different points of view. And that doesn't mean they're preferring their own political life over the fate of the country. I agree with Mark on that thing.

Though it should be said, for all the good week Obama has had, all the horrible weeks, and the press corps, we've been dumping all over McCain for a good month, he's close. And something is happening in the country where McCain is still 4 or 5, something like that, points behind, given that his party is 13, 15, 20 points behind. So I have a feeling that we in the national press corps have been dumping on McCain more than is merited, because he doesn't fit our image of what his campaign should be.

There's clearly in some way where his favorabilities are rising, where he's touching people on the issues they actually care about, oil drilling and things like that. So his campaign is actually, I think, doing a little better than we sometimes give him credit for, just judging by the polls.

JIM LEHRER: You said something earlier that you agree with those who think Obama is being treated too well by the press and McCain is being mistreated? Is that your...

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I do think that. I mean, listen, this last week was what it was. Every time Barack Obama stopped to take a sip of water, the anchors broke in and, "Hey, look, he's drinking water. It's Evian water. It's fantastic. He's the greatest." And then the second problem is...

Getting comfortable with a candidate

DAVID BROOKS: And the basic problem with the media is -- and I hate to bash it, because, God knows, I'm part of it -- is that we're highly educated people who live in New York, Washington, Los Angeles. We are -- 92 percent of us vote for the Democrat year after year. If you look at who gives money, people who work for media organizations, it's 100 and 1 to Obama versus McCain. That doesn't mean we're consciously biased. We are professional journalists who try our hardest to be fair.

But in unconscious ways, in the way we frame issues, and the way what issues get attention at what time, there are -- it would be different if it was 92 percent Republican. And so I think that shapes. That does not mean it changes elections. Ronald Reagan won. George Bush won. It does not mean it changes elections, but it does not mean the coverage is balanced.

JIM LEHRER: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim...

JIM LEHRER: It does mean...

MARK SHIELDS: ... a chapter one and chapter seven, if I might.

JIM LEHRER: All right. OK.

MARK SHIELDS: The question of John McCain and the race being close, I don't think there's any question about it. The race is close. This election is going to be decided -- the voters have already decided on the direction of the country. They don't want George W. Bush. They don't want his policies. They don't want anyone who's remotely identified with him in office. They want a different direction, all right?

If it was a straight up-or-down vote, D versus R, D's win 3 to 2, and Democrats beat the Republicans. But what they do is -- when they're picking a leader -- and I'd say a pretty good example -- this was 1988, about the same -- in 1988, voters wanted a change. They wanted to go in a new direction. But when it comes down, they do make the final decision on the presidential candidates themselves.

JIM LEHRER: Rather than the parties?

MARK SHIELDS: Rather -- and even on the direction of the country. Even though they felt then that it was time for a change, they wanted to go in a different direction after Reagan, even. And that's why it should have been a Democratic year. But they made a choice based upon the rejection of Michael Dukakis and their endorsement or their support of George Bush.

And I think what this election is going to be decided on is Barack Obama. Are voters comfortable with him, with his values, with his background, and with him as commander-in-chief? This trip was a long way toward resolving the problem of commander-in-chief and somebody to be comfortable on the international stage.

JIM LEHRER: I'd love to get your answer to the question about press coverage, but we're out of time, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: I'd be happy to answer it online, if you'd like.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you both very much.