The Obama camp plays chopped quote "gotcha"
to solidify the powerful "McCain is confused
The Obama campaign and Democratic leaders accused Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) of being confused and heartless after he told NBC’s “Today” show Wednesday that it’s “not too important” when U.S. troops return from Iraq.
Susan Rice, an Obama foreign-policy adviser, accused McCain of “a real disturbing, even disconcerting, pattern of confusing the basic facts and reality that pertain to Iraq.”
“It is really becoming more crystal clear to a lot of Iraq that John McCain simply doesn’t understand it – that he confuses who Iran is training, he confuses what the makeup of al-Qaeda is, he confuses the history … of what has happened between Sunni and Shia and how deep that current runs,” Kerry said.
Rice criticized “real confusion and lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq and, indeed, the larger region, that John McCain evidenced yet again in his comments on the ‘Today’ show.”
Actually, as Josh Marshall notes
, McCain isn't really "confused". But the Obama campaign isn't going to pass up an opportunity to youtube
the maverick with a "chopped quote" that plays into the "confusion" meme. It's too powerful to pass up.Jeff Crouere expects
Obama to lose the election:
Despite the political disadvantages from his party, McCain now has the advantage going in to the fall election.
If he was facing Hillary Clinton in the fall election, McCain would be the underdog, Facing Barack Obama, McCain is the favorite.
The only way for Obama to win in the fall will be to invite Clinton to join the ticket. An Obama-Clinton ticket would be a powerful political force and would insure victory for the Democrats in the fall. Leading Democrats should encourage the two candidates to resolve their differences and unite for the betterment of their party. Despite the political advantages, due to the political fireworks between the two, a political marriage is unlikely. Thus, expect a McCain victory this fall.
Here's what I say: don't be fooled-- Obama's the favorite, and he knows how to win. He will pick a white male with military experience to be his veep. Obama's numbers among women, Hispanics, and white working class and jewish voters will improve during the summer. (Some pundits will act surprised by this.) The media will treat Obama more favorably than McCain, and he'll end up winning by like 49-47%. The projected electoral map will get bluer and bluer as November approaches (and the economy continues to sag). We'll do the electoral math later on, but I think Libertarian Bob Barr and a surprisingly high black Democratic turnout might yield some very interesting red state "surprises" on election night.
Labels: Elections and Campaigns, McCain, Obama
I agree; I severely doubt he is confused. That being said, he has had a heck of a lot of odd comments lately. The flubbed lines I get -- we all do that -- but I can't even FATHOM what he was getting at with the dehydrated babies bit.
By the way I made a little graphic if you're interested. It's quite lovely. Save the Dehydrated Babies!.
Like you, I am impressed with the strategic approach of the Obama campaign. They are going to campaign aggressively in the supposedly "Red" states. They don't back away from a fight on any issue. It's good to see a Democrat run something other than an apologetic conciliatory campaign for a change.
Crouere is either incredibly stupid or is purposefully offering bad analysis... or maybe he's just confused. But anyone can see that what makes Obama strong is his contrast with Clinton. Adding Hillary to the ticket would only dilute that strength... or (ahem) confuse things.
I, of course, have some different ideas about the eventual reaction of the electorate this year...but I'll get to that soon enough.
I would love to see Jeffery at Politics with a Punch sometime forcing Croure's mic down his throat.
Also: the white male military man.
What are your odds on the following:
And no giving Clarke favorable odds just because of that trip to New Orleans you organized.
I'm fond of Clark but he (an Arkansan) was in Hillary's camp, so I'd give him low odds.
I'd give Webb higher odds, but I don't think he'll be the choice.
Honestly, I don't have a clue as to who would fit in well with these parameters.
Here's an ultra-dark horse: Jack Reed (D-RI).
I think only an idiot would call McCain the favorite. I haven't seen a poll where he's over 45% and that's as high as I think he'll get. The big picture is so bad for the Repubs and Walnuts is such a bad candidate. His sell by date was 2000.
As for veep I'm hearing the Dodd rumblings and he'd make sense. Webb would be good on the ticket but he's a *genuine* maverick so he's hard to see as number 2 in guvmint.
"the Obama campaign isn't going to pass up an opportunity to youtube the maverick with a "chopped quote" that plays into the "confusion" meme. It's too powerful to pass up."
Another example of you lauding in your candidate/party exactly what you would say you despised if "the enemy" did it.
And you'd been so good lately with the silly political hypocracy thing.
Now you see why I go back and forth on whether Couere is a political operative who passes himself off as an commentator or an honest commentator who happens to be conservative. It's possible that the Metairie Machiavellis (the GNOR) that he's hangs with deliberately play him, but I didn't think he was such a tool. He's got to know that Clinton would seem like a good choice for a few days, then she'd just start adding her negatives to Obama's negatives. Anybody who voted for Clinton because Obama's black won't be reassured by her presence on the ticket. Most people who voted for Clinton for other reasons will come around, however reluctantly. Of course, Obama supporters did their best in the primaries to increase the numbers of the first type of anti-Obama voter.
About Clark, you're not suggesting that Obama would nurse a grudge, are you? I didn't hear Clark engaging in any anti-Obama rhetoric when he supported Clinton.
I almost hope that it's Biden for entirely perverse reasons.
El Stevo: "Another example of you lauding in your candidate/party exactly what you would say you despised if "the enemy" did it."
I was describing, not lauding, el stevo. Where did I "laud" him for that. (May I also suggest that since you're such a big seeker of hypocrisy , you learn to spell the word.)
BSJD: Don't give conservative pundits credit when they start talking about Hillary. Their fear/hatred of her occludes any decent analysis... plus any conservative pundit would want her in national office so they could rip on her every day.
That said, I do think Crouere's view of Obama has been strikingly negative for a long time now. (Even more than you'd expect.)
When he spews the crapola, it's easy to envisage him being a political operative. However, in all my dealings with him, and all my friends dealings with him (which are extensive) he has acted like a professional, rarely lost his cool, rarely put his thumb on the scale.
You and I have gone round and round about Crouere's exact role during the Nagin/Landrieu campaign. I didn't see the (subtle) Nagin advocacy that you did. Last year, Crouere's immediate call for Vitter's resignation was not the behavior of an operative at all.
I guess I would still say that Crouere is, on balance, and by radio pundit standards, an honest conservative host.
As for Clark, I'm not saying Obama would nurse a grudge. In fact Clark came out in hearty defense of Obama the other day, and I'm sure that was noticed and well-received. However, Clark is not going to get any special treatment, and I'm sure a Obama supporter like General McPeak would get preference over Clark (all things being equal, which they never are).
Hillary doesn't want to be Veep, but she could send a signal that Obama should consider Clark, and perhaps that could be part of an Obama/Clinton deal-- conceivably.
I like Clark. He has a good resume, but he does have some baggage, too. And he can underperform on the campaign trail, as I know all too well.
Awesome Mosely, you sound just like a nola.com commenter, going after grammar and spelling.
The tone of your writing in that part of the post sounded like you were happy as a . . . clam? about those tactics, you know, so long as Obama's using them. I look forward to your railing against the McCain camp for using similar tactics.
Instead of getting so defensive, why not just admit that due to your extreme partisan way of thinking, you, like most people like you (left and right), are prone to hypocrisy (sp!). I just don't see how it helps or illuminates anything when both sides of a disagreement are constantly hypocrtical (sp!). It's embarrassing.
Again, you can't point to the hypocrisy of the post, you infer a tone that didn't exist, and you call me an extreme partisan after a comment in which I go out of my way to praise a Republican!
Don't call me a hypocrite, cite NOTHING as evidence (great pun though), and then tell me not to get "defensive".