If John Mccain could just get angry at the right people I may just be able to bring myself to vote for him.

He can't laugh off a harmless question? It makes him edgy and defensive? It becomes such a big deal in his mind that he can't drop it and move on? Isn't that pretty much already his reputation over fairly insignificant matters and people who bug him?

Every candidate for president talks about himself/herself endlessly, proclaiming their wonderful qualities and unique abilities and qualifications for the job. They spend tens of millions of dollars attacking the other side, because they're so different and so much better.

So he's asking for the job and working hard to convince us to give it to him, with all the stresses and personal inconveniences that go along with it. If he reacts to such a minor irritation from an insignificant source, we have to wonder how well he can handle the major challenges and massive frustrations a president has to deal with domestically and in foreign affairs.

As the campaign goes forward, McCain's emotional stability is one point that will and should be closely watched. Being aggressively and unecessarily argumentative is not a good sign.

SJ - good article and thanks for the link to the actual incident.

I did notice the nervous tic at his left eye. I have to agree with Lee Richards on this; McCain behaved oddly for being confronted by an 'insignificant source'.

I don't think McCain showed anger or lack of control in that conversation. I agree he could've handled it slightly better but I think the issue is being overblown in an effort to find something that would call McCain's judgement into question.

The reporter kept pushing the issue even though McCain was clear that he did not want to talk about it. She being from the NY Times doesn't make me feel like it was a coincidence that the question was being taped and she kept pushing for an answer.
He should have pulled an Obama and walked away!

I don't think it would be reasonable to say that he was really showing temper here. This incident was more in the range of being a little annoyed and not trying to hide it. Maybe he's thinking that he's going to gently intimidate reporters into backing off of this topic permanently.

But the reason he wants them to and that they won't is because he does have a little something to hide. I wouldn't exactly say that McCain lied, but he had been less than honest about this 2004 incident. That is, he previously wouldn't admit to having been in any such conversation. Not that there's anything wrong with the conversation at all, but he spent a couple of years fibbing about it before the story became widely enough known that he had to acknowledge it.

He's pissy because he was caught in a fib, and now the press wants to break it off up in him. With his extremely high minded touchiness about his honor, getting caught in even the mildest politician's little white lie is probably pretty humiliating.

I tend to agree with the writer and most of the commenters so far. It was a dumb question about an incident that's now ancient history and Brumiller kept pushing it. I'd have told her to piss off and stop wasting everyone's time.

The expression 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind here.

Arch: If John Mccain could just get angry at the right people I may just be able to bring myself to vote for him.

In other words, you'd vote for McCain if you agreed with his policies...

Well, duh.

You know what I like about America. Its been a couple hundred years, and ALREADY they are thinking about becoming a nation lead by WASPS to a nation lead by BASPS. Let freedom RING! We are so liberal its SCARY!