Media-palooza
02 November 2007 1:47 pm by Taylor Marsh
Dodd plays nice, but negative, and maintains his statesmanship:
Obama about being black instead of a woman, which he chided
Clinton about today. It’s the 1860s all over again, but it’s a terrific
comeback:
Mr. Obama also got some help from a very vocal conservative today, Andrew Sullivan, who has a big piece in Atlantic Monthly all about Obama. It’s interesting to note what Larry Johnson said on my show yesterday. That he could accept Clinton, Edwards and Biden, but not Obama, because he’s got too many neocons on his foreign policy team, starting with Anthony Lake. Nobody has paid much attention to that either. I wonder if Mr. Sullivan knows? Perhaps next time Russert is in the moderator seat he might want to ask a question or two about it.
Edwards goes hard negative, playing an opposition party role instead of a fellow
Democrat, but it’s his right to do it. The set up and styling are great. The
juxtaposition is perfectly placed, the music is good, but if you take the substance
out of the video and line it up, is it “devastating” as Markos breathlessly
claims? The Edwards’ ad is calculated to play on appearance, relying on voters and others
not taking the text apart from the positioning of Clinton. When you do, however, the text just doesn’t
add up. Of course, I’ll get hammered for daring to dissect it. But they certainly gave it a good
try, because the visuals are powerful, even if the sound bites fall short. Oh, and make sure you notice the first voice in the ad: Tim Russert.
It is interesting that the Edwards campaign felt compelled to answer my charges
about Russert, which have been proven beyond a doubt. So let’s take this ad
apart, because there’s some things about it that don’t quite come off.
Clinton in first clip on Iraq: “I stand for ending the war in Iraq,
bringing our troops home.”Clinton in second clip on Iraq: “We’re going to have troops remaining
there, guarding our embassy, we may have a continuing training mission, and
we may have a mission against Al Qaeda in Iraq.
When you compare Edwards’ own statement to Clinton’s, things get even more complicated. Edwards on
Iraq at the Dartmouth debate, when he also said he couldn’t commit to 2013, as well as beyond:
Edwards in MSNBC paid
time: “It is time to end this war.”Edwards on “Meet
the Press”: “Unless we’re going to close the embassy
in Baghdad, and have the only American embassy in the world that we provide
no protection for, there have to some troops in Baghdad for protecting the
embassy. … We do need to maintain quick reaction forces just outside Iraq.
… .. That quick reaction force would be focused on the possibility of Al
Qaeda operations.”Edwards at
Dartmouth debate: “I think the problem is — and it’s what
you just heard discussed — is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That
embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in
Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.” – John
Edwards
Sound familiar?
Is that Edwards’ “double-talk” or the “politics of parsing,”
or did I miss something?
Now back to the Edwards’ ad attacking Clinton:
Clinton in first clip on Social Security: “But on specific issues
I’ve come up with very specific plans; with respect to Social Security I do
have a plan.”Clinton in second clip on Social Security: “But personally, I’m
not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching
fiscal responsibility.”
Translation: Clinton has a plan on Social Security, but she’s not going to
even begin fixing it at first, because fiscal responsibility is her first priority.
Where’s the “double-speak”? Seriously, I’d like to know. But you certainly can disagree with her statements, which is a whole different matter, especially on substance. If you don’t like balancing expenditures and entitlements you won’t like Clinton.
The worst segment and most harmful on the Edwards’ YouTube is the last on immigration. Clinton was caught
off guard, though she managed to stand up for Spitzer, which has Republicans going wild. This is general election fodder for the wingnuts on an issue that has the potential to harm all Democrats. This
is the gay issue of the ‘08 election. And guess what, Edwards
didn’t say hardly anything on it, with Obama agreeing with Clinton. But in the
end our nominee is going to have to figure out how to make this a national security
issue of great importance, like Richard Clarke states often as do others, or
we’ll be playing defense all next year on it. Democrats are underestimating
the importance of this issue and how the optics and the pile on from media types
like Lou Dobbs will hurt. That doesn’t mean we pander, but it means we have to get our act together on the issue. Note to team Edwards: Bubba will be on Lou Dobbs’ side. So the Edwards’ video scores one on the immigration
debate, but it wasn’t just a shot at Clinton. It actually hit us all.
Of all the ads, the Edwards ad is getting most of the play. It’s exactly what you’d
expect from a Republican. But this type of ad isn’t going to elevate Edwards. However, it’s a Hillary haters feast. Oh, and Edwards’
man from 2004 out of New Hampshire just endorsed Clinton (h/t reader
rakk12). But as Chase Martyn said earlier this week, all this hard negative could end up helping Obama.
It’s been a tough week for the frontrunner, with Obama and Edwards sliding
through easily because Russert couldn’t be interested to do his homework on them. It’s made my job harder, because very few are doing it. But in the end, Clinton
is dusting herself off and moving on, as she’s done for fifteen years, every time the attacks start up. No doubt there’s more to come.
“I don’t think they’re piling on because I’m a woman. I think they’re
piling on because I’m winning.” – Hillary
Clinton
