When is a gaffe not a gaffe?
Answer: when it offends no one, is unquestionably true, and saying it actually makes you seem like a better, more honest person than your opponent.
The Clinton campaign and its (few remaining) allies in the blogosphere are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that Obama conceded in a speech today that McCain would be a better president than George W. Bush. The fact that Obama would say such a thing--even in a speech otherwise very critical of McCain-- is supposedly a sign of Obama's poor message discipline and weakness as a candidate. Wasting no time, the Clinton campaign pounced:
Contrast that with Obama, who was merely conceding a point that virtually everyone--including nearly every Democratic and Independent voter--already believes is true, i.e., that it would be very, very hard for McCain to be as bad a president as George W. Bush. Obama loses nothing by conceding this point. Indeed, conceding it makes him look more honest and trustworthy.
Any lawyer who has spent time in front of a jury understands this implicitly. Some points are not worth contesting and you can bring the jury to your side far more effectively if you concede them. That's especially true when even the people who are most likely to be sympathetic to your case are not going to be convinced.
The bottomline is that while Obama and Clinton can effectively make the case that John McCain would continue many of Bush's worst policies, just about every Democratic and Independent voter would readily admit that they'd rather have McCain in the White House than Bush. McCain is unquestionably preferable to Bush on a number of issues, including torture, immigration, campaign finance, and federal spending. He's also much smarter and more experienced than Bush and has shown a much greater willingness over the course of his career to buck party orthodoxy and embrace bipartisan solutions to issues.
Now I'll be the first to admit that McCain has received a lot more credit than he deserves on all of these issues, but I'd still much rather have had him at the helm over the last eight years than George W. Bush.
All Obama did was concede this blindingly obvious point in a speech that was otherwise very critical of McCain. In response, Clinton took what he said and totally mischaracterized it. I could be wrong (I certainly have been in the past), but I'd be shocked if this particular line of attack does anything but harm Clinton and help Obama. It just makes Obama look more honest and Clinton more disingenuous.
The Clinton campaign and its (few remaining) allies in the blogosphere are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that Obama conceded in a speech today that McCain would be a better president than George W. Bush. The fact that Obama would say such a thing--even in a speech otherwise very critical of McCain-- is supposedly a sign of Obama's poor message discipline and weakness as a candidate. Wasting no time, the Clinton campaign pounced:
"Sen. Obama said today that John McCain would be better for the country than George Bush. Now, Sen. McCain is a real American patriot who has served our country with distinction, but Sen. McCain would follow the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country the last seven years.This exchange beautifully illustrates the difference between Clinton and Obama. There is a not a single person in Hillary Clinton's campaign (including the candidate herself) who honestly believes that Obama was "cheering on John McCain." That's such a self-evidently disingenuous statement that literally everyone can see right through it. Yet the Clinton campaign still clearly thinks it's the strategically correct thing to say under the circumstances, and Hillary Clinton has no qualms about saying it publicly.
"Sen. McCain thinks it is okay to keep our troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. Is that better than George Bush?
"Sen. McCain will continue the failed economic policies of George Bush that have brought us deficit and increasing debt. Is that better than George Bush?
"Sen. McCain does not have a health care plan that will cover every American. In fact, we will have more and more uninsured Americans. Is that better than George Bush?
"Sen. McCain has no plans to end the housing foreclosure crisis or cut the cost of gas at the pump. Is that better than George Bush?
"We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee."
Contrast that with Obama, who was merely conceding a point that virtually everyone--including nearly every Democratic and Independent voter--already believes is true, i.e., that it would be very, very hard for McCain to be as bad a president as George W. Bush. Obama loses nothing by conceding this point. Indeed, conceding it makes him look more honest and trustworthy.
Any lawyer who has spent time in front of a jury understands this implicitly. Some points are not worth contesting and you can bring the jury to your side far more effectively if you concede them. That's especially true when even the people who are most likely to be sympathetic to your case are not going to be convinced.
The bottomline is that while Obama and Clinton can effectively make the case that John McCain would continue many of Bush's worst policies, just about every Democratic and Independent voter would readily admit that they'd rather have McCain in the White House than Bush. McCain is unquestionably preferable to Bush on a number of issues, including torture, immigration, campaign finance, and federal spending. He's also much smarter and more experienced than Bush and has shown a much greater willingness over the course of his career to buck party orthodoxy and embrace bipartisan solutions to issues.
Now I'll be the first to admit that McCain has received a lot more credit than he deserves on all of these issues, but I'd still much rather have had him at the helm over the last eight years than George W. Bush.
All Obama did was concede this blindingly obvious point in a speech that was otherwise very critical of McCain. In response, Clinton took what he said and totally mischaracterized it. I could be wrong (I certainly have been in the past), but I'd be shocked if this particular line of attack does anything but harm Clinton and help Obama. It just makes Obama look more honest and Clinton more disingenuous.
posted by A.L. at 9:27 PM
10 Comments:
Well, A.L., you are completely correct from a rational standpoint. However, from the viewpoint of the political infrastructure, especially the Democratic political infrastructure, I'm not so sure that this wasn't a pretty smart move on the part of her Hillaryness.
It should by now be blindingly obvious that the Democratic Party has settled on its Big Message For the Fall: "John McCain will continue the failed policies of the Bush Administration. A vote for John McCain is a vote for a third Bush term." A lot of time, money, and PR intellectual capital (now there's an oxymoron for you) has been spent crafting this message. It's a pretty good message.
What Obama said significantly detracts from that message. When you say that McCain would be better than Bush, you're implying that a vote for McCain would not be a vote for a third Bush term. Now, since it's almost certainly true that a McCain administration would be substantially different than the Bush administration, Obama is almost certainly telling the public the truth as he knows it. Bravo.
But that doesn't mean that it doesn't throw a certain amount of sand in some very expensive DNC gears. And who will be most annoyed that Obama has pulled some of the DNC's carefully sharpened teeth? Yup, that's right, it's those folks whose name begins with an "S" and ends with "uperdeleagates".
Hmmm, I seem to recall something about those people being a big part of Hillary's nomination strategy.
I have the flu, so I won't bother to take the 30 seconds or so to look up the Hillary quotes from earlier this campaign about how McCain was the "real" experienced candidate, back when she was running the "Obama is all words" theme. I'm sure they'll be all over the blogosphere within hours.
I find the Clinton campaign increasingly embarrassing to me as a Democrat.
I'm not sure what's more depressing--that Clinton's camp is making these kinds of comments, or that the electorate is stupid enough to believe them.
this is such hypocrisy. hillary clinton actually said McCain would be better than OBAMA, not just Bush, as someone who has passed the commander in chief threshold test (am paraphrasing here).
I agree with your point AL, but might quibble on specific issues, such as relative positions on immigration. The immigration is one issue where I believe Bush had an amazing (amazingly rare) moment of right-thinking, with comprehensive immigraiton reform. As far as I know, Bush and McCain were on the same page in this regard.
But this takes nothing from your main point. As an aside, I wonder how widely your opinion is shared among the netroots. After all, the candidate Bush was not nearly as bad as president Bush, and there may be many who could put up a good arguement that McCain, if actually placed in office, would indeed be little different from Bush in most/all substantive areas.
I would very much like to agree with you, but your analysis depends upon the assumption that the relevant voters (1) hear the original comments, not just the distortion pedaled by the other side; and (2) are actually paying attention and trying to figure out who is right. A jury has one job only: to listen intently to both sides and come to a conclusion about which side is right, or more believable. Most voters only get snippets of political information from often unreliable secondary sources, who almost always fail to present the full context. As someone who pays attention to the campaign (perhaps too much for my own good), I find Clinton's statements immensely frustrating and insulting to my intelligence. But she is basing her campaign on the assumption that enough voters do not have all the information and are therefore susceptible to spin, however silly. (The limitation on this is when the press reports the comment as one of ridiculous spin, but that happens only infrequently.)
Clinton said McCain was better than Obama. Did she forget that or does she think the voters have? Either one of those things is a problem.
As has been pointed by others, a while ago Hillary herself praised McCain over Obama. Hypocrite.
Jeezus H. Fuck, Bozo the Clown would be a better president than Chimpy, by far. If Hitlery won't concede that point, then let's all just agree that she's about as reflective as a dead frog that twitches when it gets hit with some small jolt of electricity. that's all this was, a blind reflex of criticism. Slut doesn't even remember that 20 minutes ago, she was saying that McCain would be ready on Day One, but not Obama. Fuck the bitch, I say.
WOW Gold - wow gold - wow gold online kaufen bei .wow gold..
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home