Tag: Politics

Rejections and denunciations

Maybe I’m too caught up in the moment, but I thought Clinton really got the worst of it in trying to say Obama didn’t go far enough in “denouncing” Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement — she said he should have “rejected” it, as she had done with a sleazy supporter in New York. Obama laughed a bit, said he didn’t see the difference and added that if it made her feel better he would “reject and denounce.” Oof.

This is their third one-on-one, but the first time I’ve seen such a performance differential between the two of them.

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.

Rumors, and rumors of rumors

Michael Kinsley mocks the New York Times’ attempts to, uh, recontextualize its John McCain story:

What I wrote was that some people had expressed concern that the Times article might have created the appearance of charging that McCain had had an affair. My critics have charged that I was charging the Times with charging McCain with having had an affair. Such a charge would be unfair to the New York Times, since the Times article, if you read it carefully (very carefully), does not make any charge against McCain except that people in a meeting eight years ago had suggested that other people eight years ago might reach a conclusion — about which the Times expressed no view whatsoever — that McCain was having an affair.

Compare Kinsley to this actual excerpt from an online conversation with readers that Times executive editor Bill Keller and other editors and reporters conducted last Thursday:

The point of this “Long Run” installment was that, according to people who know him well, this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation. The story cites several examples, and quotes friends and admirers talking of this apparent contradiction in his character. That is why some members of his staff were so alarmed by the appearance of his relationship with Ms. Iseman. And that, it seemed (and still seems) to us, was something our readers would want to know about a man who aspires to be president.

The similarities are striking, no?

Hoyt doesn’t buy it, either

New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt joins with the rest of the world in criticizing Times editors for passing along the concerns of anonymous former aides that John McCain was having sex with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman during the 2000 presidential campaign.

Hoyt specifically disagrees with executive editor Bill Keller’s contention that sex wasn’t the point of the story, writing, “I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room.” And he closes with this:

I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.

Hoyt is absolutely right, of course. The question is why Times editors are being so obstinate. I wonder if the problem is that they know too much, and I don’t mean that in a good way. I imagine they have heard more about the sex allegations than they’ve been able to report, and thus feel more confident than they should about the story that appeared on Thursday. (I continue to think McCain’s sex life is no one’s business but his and his family’s, but that’s another matter.)

Still, we have to assume that if they had anything approaching proof, they’d let us know. And since they haven’t, the story remains an object lesson in how not to practice journalism.

McCain mishandles Times’ gift

This could have been predicted. The New York Times slimed John McCain with anonymously sourced gossip that he may have had an affair with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. McCain not only denied it, but went way too far, denying key elements of the legitimate part of the story regarding his efforts on behalf of Paxson Communications, a client of Iseman’s.

Now it turns out that McCain had said otherwise in a 2002 deposition. And Bud Paxson contradicts McCain’s sweeping denial as well.

Right out of the gate, McCain forgot every lesson about how to respond to a scandal — or, in this case, a non-scandal: Tell the truth. And if you’ve forgotten what actually happened, which is possible, hold your fire until you’ve refreshed your memory.

The Times handed McCain a gift on Thursday. It’s possible that McCain has handed it right back.

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?