Tim Russert is questioning Obama about what assurances he can give to Jewish voters in light of Louis Farrakhan’s unsolicited endorsement of Obama and controversial remarks by Obama’s minister. No mention of Obama’s “Likud” comments in Cleveland.
Tag: Hillary Clinton
Obama’s left-right two-fer
Obama just pulled off the neat trick of going to Clinton’s left and right on national security simultaneously, and he was able to do it because Clinton handed him the opportunity. First, she criticized his opposition to the war in Iraq as nothing more than a speech, saying both of them had voted the same way on war-funding and related issues since that time. Then she questioned his judgment for saying last summer that he would bomb Pakistan.
Obama responded by saying that Clinton had enabled President Bush to “drive the bus into the ditch,” and that the reason their voting records are similar is that there are only so many ways to get out of the ditch. Then he said he didn’t favor bombing Pakistan, but did favor targeting specific Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan. And he praised the Bush administration for doing that last week in taking out Al-Qaeda’s third-ranking leader.
That said, Brian Williams and Tim Russert seem to be doing everything they can to drop live grenades in her lap while making it easy for Obama to cruise along.
Cringing over Clinton
I think Hillary Clinton may have just burst into flames. After a contentious, 16-minute exchange over health care, Brian Williams finally moved the discussion to trade. Before she answered, she started channeling her campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, by complaining about always being asked the first question and referring to a “Saturday Night Live” skit in which Obama was portrayed as being coddled by the media. This can’t be helpful to her.
A gaffe, strictly defined
Michael Kinsley once memorably defined a “gaffe” as what happens “when a politician tells the truth.”
Barack Obama has committed a gaffe, telling Jewish leaders in Cleveland:
This is where I get to be honest, and I hope I’m not out of school here. I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress. And frankly, some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is nonmilitary or non-belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition, that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward. And that, I think, is something we have to have an honest dialogue about.
Hillary Clinton definitely has an opening at tonight’s debate. And I’ve worked in my second Michael Kinsley reference in one day.
Another Obama breakthrough?
For the first time, Barack Obama has slipped ahead of Hillary Clinton in Texas, according to the Real Clear Politics poll average. Tonight’s MSNBC debate should be interesting — although it’s hard to see how Clinton can gain all that much from it, short of a hideous mistake by Obama.
And about that closing
John King of CNN said a little while ago that the Obama campaign had sent out an e-mail showing that Hillary Clinton’s closing closely paralleled a line John Edwards had used. Please note: It doesn’t matter. But the Clinton campaign never should have started down this road.
Who wrote Clinton’s attack line?
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both turned in strong performances tonight, and Clinton’s closing statement was moving. But she may have really blown it when she leaned too hard on Obama’s use of a few lines from Deval Patrick — who, as a prominent Obama supporter, basically qualifies as an unpaid speechwriter.
“That’s not change you can count on, it’s change you can Xerox,” she said. Question: Who wrote that line for her? And, assuming she didn’t write it herself, how does that make her any different from Obama — or any other politician?
Obama’s media moment
In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that the media, looking for a reason to make up for their brutal coverage of Hillary Clinton, are about to turn on Barack Obama. Although maybe not. Obama’s somewhat-better-than-expected margin in Wisconsin, combined with Clinton’s graceless “concession” speech, may forestall his inevitable turn in the interrogation room.
The woman from Hope
Is Hillary Clinton giving a bad speech because she’s losing? Or does losing make it seem like she’s giving a bad speech? There’s a certain point at which the refusal to acknowledge reality stops coming across as admirably tough-minded and starts being cringe-inducing.
A media primary challenge
It will be interesting to see whether Hillary Clinton can hang in there given the pressure that’s now going to come her way to get out in favor of Barack Obama. Not that she’s going to withdraw. But it’s possible that Obama now has such a head of steam that Clinton is going to run out of money and be relegated to also-ran status before Texas and Ohio, where she hopes to resuscitate her campaign.
Check out some of the morning commentary following Obama’s broad victories yesterday in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.:
- Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post. “Obama’s thrashing of Clinton in the two states yesterday raised the possibility that her coalition is beginning to crack, three weeks before she reaches what will probably be more friendly territory in Ohio and Texas.”
- Emily Bazelon, Slate. “Hillary has been an excellent first for us. No one else could have done what she’s done, with all her aplomb and professionalism and seriousness. But she doesn’t have to be the nominee, or the president, to have come through.”
- Adam Nagourney, New York Times. “The lopsided nature of Senator Barack Obama’s parade of victories on Tuesday gives him an opening to make the case that Democratic voters have broken in his favor and that the party should coalesce around his candidacy.”
- Jeanne Cummings, The Politico. “Hillary Rodham Clinton is now on a path to the Democratic nomination that is remarkably similar to the one that failed for Republican Rudy Giuliani.” (Indeed, there was something very Rudy-in-Florida-ish about Clinton’s popping up in Texas last night while she was losing badly on the East Coast.)
- Peter Canellos, Boston Globe. “Clinton’s supporters insist they will make up for the recent string of losses with wins in some very large states ahead, including Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Each of those states has more of the type of voters who have supported Clinton in the past — lower- and middle-income Democrats in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Hispanics in Texas. But most analysts — along with many in both the Clinton and Obama camps — can only wonder whether Obama’s momentum will change the outlook.”
- Andrew Sullivan, TheAtlantic.com. “She’s come undone.” (His head for a round-up of “Hillary’s finished” commentary from across the Web.)
I’m sure I could dig up more, but you get the idea.
Now — a challenge to the media, much of which deeply loathes Clinton and would love to see her campaign topple over for good. Pointing out that the game is just about over is perfectly legitimate. Analysts analyze, pundits pontificate and yes, it is becoming increasingly difficult to picture Clinton’s winning the nomination.
But just cover the damn race, OK? The fact remains that Clinton and Obama are practically tied in delegates, and that if Democratic voters in Texas and Ohio decide they really prefer Clinton after all, then she’s back in it. I’m a political junkie, and I enjoy polls and predictions as much as anyone. It’s just that they need to be kept in their proper perspective.