Was Saddleback rigged, or did McCain initiative circumvent the “cone of silence”?

With Rick Warren’s revelation that McCain wasn’t even in the building as Warren began interviewing Barack Obama those of us who had dared to believe that it might have been a genuine forum are left to try to puzzle out the reality — and decide who we trust. Was the term “cone of silence” a joke all along?

Let’s dispense with one red herring directly, my friends: Don’t even try to sell that McCain’s delayed arrival was a genuine, unavoidable accident. That insults his staff. I know that campaign events early in the day can (and do) run long, but the notion that Senator McCain would arrive late for a widely advertised national broadcast? That dog don’t hunt, folks.

Where is the fault? Was Warren complicit, or did McCain’s staff insure he wouldn’t arrive on time as a means of sizing up both the questions and Obama’s answers? Who was it that didn’t have faith in Senator McCain’s ability to handle the questions? Surely by this point there’s ample evidence he can call up his talking points from memory reliably, isn’t there?

Warren squirmed uncomfortably in his admission (in the clip above) that it hadn’t gone the way he said it was proceeding as the show began. I’m inclined to take a man of religion at his word. So for the time being that lets Warren off the hook, though I concede there’s ample evidence of Christian leaders behaving in distinctly un-Christian ways. Still, when it comes down to a preacher and a politician (or the politician’s campaign staff) who is the more likely culprit?

Why did McCain feel compelled to cheat?

We all understand the desire to present the candidate we support in the best possible light. Can McCain’s staff be unsure of his ability to perform without some last minute edge? If so, they do the country a huge disservice in portraying him as more competent than they believe him to be. Granted McCain did seem “on his game” when he made the quip when Warren asked if he’d enjoyed his stint in the non-existent “cone of silence.” Trying to “listen through the wall,” indeed.

Just who was so unsure that McCain would prevail that his handlers needed to provide more advantage than just feeding him such obviously scripted “witty remarks” on top of his normal talking points? Is it McCain’s message that they doubted would carry the day, or his ability to handle a clearly amicable interviewer?

Whoever opted for this gamble was foolish to think it wouldn’t come to light. We know McCain’s been accused of doing or saying anything to win, and that supporters tend to find it “part of the game.” Ultimately, however, such flagrant cheating reflects poorly on the candidate, regardless of who advanced or championed the strategy. McCain has been relying on the most time-tested strategy in modern politics, the Rovian triumverate:

• name recognition
• attacks by surrogates
• talking points to stay on message at all times

He shouldn’t have needed anything more – history favors his approach.

Senator Obama, in contrast, is relying on the Wellstonian ideals of truth, transparency, and candor. Granted my personal preference for this approach, it has been the riskier strategy. Riskier, that is, right up until the time where Saddleback revealed that either McCain or his advisors lacked confidence in his ability to perform under pressure.

What does it say when a veteran politician, with decades of experience, is so insecure that he needs to cheat to win? Hell, the cone of silence probably wouldn’t have worked any better for Warren and McCain than it did for Maxwell Smart and The Chief if they’d just let it play out according to the script, instead we’re looking at a Nixonian fiasco. McCain had managed to largely shed the unsavory baggage of the Keating 5 stories, which the Obama campaign have not used. John’s been as teflon-coated as Reagan at his best. Today the research staffs of the TV talking heads may be hunting for audio tapes. By tonight? They’ll likely be examining conspiracy theories during the evening news, and calling it Saddleback-gate.

Obama went in composed and relaxed, relying not on memory but on being able to articulate his admittedly complex vision. While many pundits in the immediate wake of the event were quick to tell us that the veteran politician “won,” with the hindsight we now have it’s clear one man was being forthright while the other chose the underhanded approach – if this was the Tour de France, or the Olympics, we’d roll our eyes about another doping scandal, but this is much, much bigger.

This was a chance to judge the character and moral fiber of the only two people who realistically have a chance of becoming the leader of the U.S.A. Under the glare of national attention, one was confident and the other cheated.

We’ll probably never know who’s truly responsible for perpetrating – or attempting to – the hoax that this was a level playing field. We’ll have to settle for knowing it wasn’t, although reviewing the tapes with this information one sees McCain not quite so much “on, but rather more as keyed up and nervous.

But as to, “Who won?” If you really have to ask you may just misunderstand what “presidential” means.

digg this story!