Ground Game

Liberal bloggers are again going after John McCain for describing al Qaeda in Iraq as an organization comprised of Shiite Muslims. Their reaction illustrates two points: How a candidate's perceived strengths often become their greatest vulnerabilities, and the diminishing marginal returns of focusing on one area of criticism. Here's the actual exchange from today's testimony:

MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.

MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?

PETREAUS: No.

MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.

Democrats, and their liberal blogger allies, clearly see an opening to attack McCain on what they consider a lack of sophistication on national security knowledge; the very area he has based nearly his entire campaign on. However, in today's exchange between McCain and Gen. David Petraeus, McCain almost immediately corrected himself. If Democrats will look to these gaffes as evidence that McCain is unfit to be commander-in-chief they may be expending energy that could be better spent going after larger, and more politically vulnerable, aspects of McCain's platform. It's in some ways comparable to conservatives still focusing on Barack Obma's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. While the initial critique revealed the first measurable "dents" in Obama's public persona, the shelf left on that issue, at least in the Democratic primary, seems greatly diminished. Too much focus on this singular point makes it seem like Republicans are desperate for an attack line, and the media will eventually tire of covering it (if they aren't already), therefore limiting the narrative's ability to reach voters not already familiar with it. 

Blogger reactions after the jump...