Other than CNN and Fox News, it hasn't played in the media. I haven't seen MSNBC cover the story yet. It's not been the top issue like some of Hillary's recent gaffes. No, Obama will get away with it like he always gets away with everything.
Let's say the Clinton campaign did make it an issue. Then the media would turn it around and say that Hillary is just being negative and that experience really doesn't matter anyway b/c this is a change election. Cue all the MSNBC pundits, some CNN pundits etc. So you tell me exactly how this would benefit Hillary when the media won't cover it and in the slight chance that they did cover it or HRC made it an issue, they just give Obama a pass?
No, I think HRC should just ignore Obama and focus on her positives in the closing days. The national media probably would try to find some gaffe within her campaign and continue to talk it down (what's new?) and give glowing reports of the Obama rallies. Tim Russert will give Obama a softball interview while George S. tears into Hillary etc, etc, etc, but in the end, just maybe Iowa voters will ignore the national media's coverage of the cammpaign. Who knows?
I think the Obama camp are saying all of these things to get the Clinton camp to respond to all of their attacks. They know that the mainstream media will barely cover Obama's flubs. But if they can get Clinton to respond, the media will say that she's desperate; she's being nasty etc.
It's why he said something like this on the campaign trail today:
Obviously, Obama's campaign must think that this is a winning strategy for him. His supporters don't have a problem with it. I don't see the media giving him a hard time about it. So I guess it's all kosher? :shrugs:
I've decided over the past few months or so to broaden my horizons from the blogs here and even MSNBC. I feel it's important to get other perspectives. I feel it's important to know what your enemies as well as your friends say about you. I don't think it's wise to completely cut yourself off from things that are unpleasant--that are diametrically opposed to your viewpoints.
I don't watch Fox News often, but I do make it a point to watch Fox News Sunday, so that I get the conservative perspective at least once a week. You have to know how these people think to beat them.....
that I don't want him on the Supreme Court or quite frankly even in the Senate. I would prefer that he remain in Illinois. So I can certainly understand your sentiment about him not being a VP pick.
I don't know if you read my diary several months ago about a mini-speech that I attended with Patti Solis-Doyle, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. She clearly said that although she and Hillary had not discussed VP picks, she knew Hillary very well. Knowing Hillary, Patti said that she would pick someone that she felt could handle the job in the event that HRC was incapitated. Clearly by the remarks that Hillary has made over the last several months, I think it's safe to say that Hillary does not feel that Obama would meet those qualifications. From other things that Patti said then, my impression was that Obama would be probably the last person that HRC chose as her VP pick....
but I thought that she looked very presidential, very decisive, very commander-in-chief-like in her presentation. She appeared from Des Moines inside probably a hotel room, with an American flag flanking her right (the viewer's left), nice warm colors lighting the background. Good shot.
Unlike the cold, grayish background that CNN used for Obama's interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday....
I know it's controversial to recommend reading anything that might be negative about Hillary, but I'm the type of person that wants to read the good and the bad about my candidate no matter what it is. For instance, I read Dick Morris' book Condi vs Hillary several months ago and found it interesting. I just read the book "The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton" by Joyce Milton. It was basically a right-winger book with a lot of trash from the 1990s, but I still found in interesting to read from that perspective.
I've wanted to read the Bernstein book for a while now. A friend who happens to be a huge Hillary supporter recommended it to me and I said that I would read it. I'm not going to buy it and contribute to Bernstein's wealth. I'm waiting to get it at my local library. I'll do the same for the Sally Bedell Smith book...
I believe it was CNN that brought up the issue last evening. No, they didn't give his comments wall-to-wall coverage. But when they did discuss the candidates' reaction to the deaths, Axelrod's comments were brought up then.
I once was an avid Hardball viewer. It used to be on my tivo list. I'm boycotting that show now so I don't know what Chris Matthews talked about on his show. If I'm not mistaken the Axelrod remarks were made sometime in the 5 pm or 6 pm EST timeslot. Hardball is taped at 5 pm EST and the subjects are pretty much set even before the show starts taping. It wouldn't be surprising to me to hear that Chris Matthews didn't cover Axelrod's remarks at least during last night's show. They came too late for the Hardball broadcast.
That's one of the big problems with MSNBC that I've noticed now that I've branched out and begun to watch CNN and even Fox News more. MSNBC relies entirely too much on packages and the same news items. They aren't very good about reporting on breaking news. They have a set 4 or 5 different stories for the day and they pretty much stick with the same stories for the entire day. CNN does it too, but it's not as blatant as MSNBC.
I don't know if the Obama campaign intends to make this a big issue or not. It's really up to them. This certainly isn't a story that the Clinton campaign is playing up. The way that the Clinton campaign is acting, ie no press availabilities/media appearances, it feels like September again (where the campaign sat on their lead).....
Let's just think about this for a minute from strictly a campaign standpoint. Yesterday was supposed to be Obama's BIG day. He had planned this speech which Mark Halperin said was the BEST speech of the whole campaign right? I'm sure the Obama campaign thought that all 3 networks as well as CNN, MSNBC and Fox News channel would hype up the speech and take digs at Clinton all day long. Then what happens. Bhutto dies and Obama's speech which was supposed to give a big push to the campaign at the end is barely covered by the press. It's all Bhutto all the time. I think the Obama campaign decided that it needed to reassert itself into the dialogue by picking a fight with Clinton on the Iraq authorization vote. They knew the media loves conflict so they could easily get the media time by bringing up the Iraq authorization vote again. The authorization vote is a salient issue for Obama's supporters. If Obama doesn't bring up Iraq in some way and/or if Iraq isn't the most salient issue by January 3rd, then he loses, perhaps badly. I'm just looking at the way his campaign has been acting the past couple of weeks. At this point, he's just trying to hold on to the supporters that he has as far as I can tell.....
I think that Obama will continue to argue that Hillary was indirectly responsible for Bhutto's assassination for the next few days at least. According to the Politico's Ben Smith, Obama's foreign policy advisor Susan Rice said the following:
"Those who made the judgment that we ought to divert our attention from Afghanistan to invade Iraq and allow al-Qaeda to reconstitute and strengthen are now having to assess the wisdom of that judgment as we may be seeing yet another manifestation of al-Qaeda's potency," said Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy advisor who was an assistant secretary of State in the Clinton administration, in an interview with Politico.
She said Pakistan illustrates a difference between Obama and Clinton's approaches to foreign policy. Clinton, in Rice's view, is willing to tolerate authoritarian regimes - in this case the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf - who might be useful to short-term U.S. goals. Obama, on the other hand, seeks a diplomacy that sees values and human rights than traditional realpolitik.
"Senator Clinton's view has been closer to Bush's, which is to see Musharraf as the linchpin but democracy as something that is desirable, but not necessarily essential to our security interests," said Rice, "Whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security."
I guess that Obama feels like this could be a winning strategy for him and that this argument will galvanize his supporters. It pivots this whole tragedy back to the Iraq war vote, where he feels the most comfortable. This argument says more about his supporters' lack of understanding of the Pakistani region more than anything. If one wanted to go with this line of argument, I would blame Britain for leaving a power vaccuum in the aftermath of WWII colonial India. Pakistan is and has been a failed state ever since its formation. But average Americans don't know that much about their own history let alone Pakistani history. So, hey maybe this argument might work for him....
Obama is taking advantage of the fact that Americans only have a cursory knowledge of foreign affairs. Cynical, yes. But the Obama campaign does cynicism very well....
to appear on MTP? It's not like Timmy Russert or the rest of the MSNBC crew will ask Obama any hardball questions or criticize his facial/arm gestures/voice etc or compare them to people like Evita. Heck, Tim Russert will probably quote Chris Matthews' assertion that the third world is ready to see Obama as president. Let the fawning begin.
A Russert interview on MTP a few days before the caucus seems like a win-win for Barack who can do no wrong according to the NBC/MSNBC crowd.....
I hadn't seen a clip of her reaction. When I watched CNN earlier today, they had problems with their package on the Democratic candidates' reaction to the Bhutto news.
She sounded choked up when talking about Bhutto. Although not clearly expressed with these remarks, I got the impression from reading her book, Living History, that Hillary looked up to and admired Bhutto very much. I sensed from the video clips that these remarks were personal for Hillary, not just the typical spiel from a politician.
Again, thanks for the clip. I appreciated seeing it and viewing it once again reaffirmed my support for HRC....
to start this attack against Clinton on the same day as Bhutto was assassinated. Couldn't the Obama campaign have just kept their remarks to respecting Bhutto's life at least for today? You know Axelrod didn't have to respond to the news media horse race question whether Bhutto's death would benefit HRC. He could have called it tacky and said that the news media was engaging in the old style of politics and it would have been consistent with Obama's campaign theme.
But again, Obama can do no wrong, so no, I doubt that he will be called out on it. Given how this campaign has gone, I wouldn't be surprised if other Democratic candidates start blaming HRC for the same thing. Then the media will get in on the act and by next time next week, it will come around that it was Hillary and by extension Bill's fault that Bhutto was assassinated....
Other than CNN, will any of the media really cover this Obama vs Clinton spat? I doubt it. But if they did, they would blame HRC for the "nastiness" of the campaign somehow, someway.
Obama can do no wrong, Hillary can do no right, especially with the MSNBC crowd.
I do find it interesting how Obama has kept up with the attack rhetoric from this weekend. I do wonder what his internal polls are saying. For a while there, he was doing the above the fray stuff. Why the change in strategy all of a sudden?