First, trying to scapegoat the media, in the exact way that has spelled doom for other presidential candidates already watching from the sidelines.

Second, doing so with a petulant statement so full of holes that it virtually confirms that which was reported, and which set off this pointless temper tantrum in the first place.

Third, sending the candidate out to speak before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, even as the millstones of a series of disastrous, anti-veteran votes, still figuratively dangled from around his neck.

And fourth, encouraging Senator McCain, while there, to address his opponent in the language of unseemly contempt, undignified calumny, and holier-than-thou persiflage unsupported by reality... near-nonsensical bluster that -- at best -- makes the speaker look like a dyspeptic grouchy neighbor shouting "Hey you kids, get out of my yard."

"Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight," you told the V-F-W today, Senator McCain, "a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama."

"We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.

Senator -- you declared victory in Iraq, five years and nearly three months ago.

Today you say: "victory in Iraq is finally in sight"?

The victory you already proclaimed five years ago?

Are we going back in time Sir?

---

If that had not been enough, in June of 2003, with even Fox News noting "many argue the conflict (in Iraq) isn't over," you answered:

"Well, then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier? Look, the -- I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."

In 2003, your war was won, because somebody was putting up a... banner.

Even if this country were to forget, Senator, the victory lap you and President Bush took five years ago -- just on their face, your remarks today at the V-F-W, Senator, are nonsensical.

"Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory."

This construction, Senator, is extremely simple.

If your surge worked, the troops would be home from Iraq.

Or most of them, would be.

Or all of them who were surged, would be.

Or at least we'd have the same number of troops in Iraq now, as we did then.

Or... maybe one or two guys would be out of harm's way.

---

Please, Senator McCain, stop!

This is embarrassing.

Whether on his own impetus or an advisor's...

The Republican majority in Congress and the Senate -- the very viability of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld -- began to unravel at this convention two years ago -- that was the venue for the first of Rumsfeld's two references to Bush critics as Nazi Appeasers.

"I suppose from my opponent's vantage point, veterans concerns are just one more issue to be spun or worked to advantage. This would explain why he has also taken liberties with my position on the GI Bill.... As a political proposition, it would have much easier for me to have just signed on to what I considered flawed legislation. But the people of Arizona, and of all America, expect more from their representatives than that, and instead I sought a better bill. I'm proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country."

Senator McCain spoke out against that very bill last May -- on the asinine premise that the rewards to our heroes were so good that it didn't encourage them to stay in the service.

And yet, Sir, you have the audacity to stand in front of the very Veterans you repeatedly and consistently sell out, and claim it is your opponent who has put politics first, and country second.

"Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president," you said -- with a straight face -- today. "What's less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president -- as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia."

Senator, three points:

Going back to the beginning of this sad 48 hours of paranoia from the McCain Campaign...

"McCain may not have been in the cone of silence"... and that he

Rick Davis writes to NBC: "The fact is that during Senator Obama's segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed."

As Silver astutely notes, for roughly the first half of Obama's participation, his own campaign manager places McCain in a car -- where he could have been made aware of the questions to Senator Obama. "In a motor vehicle," Silver writes, "one may use the radio, a cell phone, a Blackberry, Bluetooth Wireless, a Sling box, and perhaps a satellite TV feed. Whether McCain actually used any of those devices, we have no idea. But he absolutely had the ability to use them, which is all that Mitchell had reported."Silver also tripped over Mr. Davis's strange observation that for roughly the second half of Obama's participation, his own campaign places McCain, quote, "in a green room with no broadcast feed."Not a green room without cell service or internet, nor without a closed-circuit feed, nor, for that matter, without a guy running back from the audience with notes, written in crayon.

It is an attempt to pick a fight with the media, over the journalistic equivalent of chewing gum in class.

What Davis is really saying here, of course, is that he wants no level of objectivity, that the only campaign he wants questioned is Obama, and that "partisan coverage" consists of questioning whether McCain or his campaign support the stage whispers branding Obama as somehow 'foreign,' or whether McCain is to be inoculated from all criticism by dint of his military service.

Senator McCain -- did you pay any attention to the Democratic primaries?