So, the McCain campaign has been going around stomping their feet and being hysterical all day about how the Times REJECTED the Republican candidate's op-ed about the war in Iraq even though they printed OBAMA'S and it's because they are LIBERALS and therefore totally BIASED. Meanwhile, in an e-mail picked up by Politico, op-ed editor David Shipley tried to explain gently to a McCain aide that actually, it's just that dude's op-ed wasn't really very good. "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece," wrote Shipley. Rub it in, why don't you!
To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.
WHAT! THAT IS AN OUTRAGE! McCain's people then ceased discussions with the Times. Apparently it was the word "timetable" that really ticked them off — they automatically in their minds turned it into "timetable for withdrawal" as opposed to just, you know, what are you going to do and when, or like a thesis followed by an argument. Semantics, we suppose. But understandable! Who can blame them? They were after all dealing with the LIBERAL MEDIA and you know how they try to trick you. And for that matter, what's the deal with Shipley using the word "cooperate"? What kind of LIBERAL PANSY NONSENSE is that?
Compel, however. That's a word the McCain campaign can get behind. Yeah. Now what were we talking about again?