They May Be on to Him
- 04.19.2008 - 10:16 AMFirst we had the 100 days exchange, in which the mainstream media sided with John McCain, calling out Barack Obama for repeatedly misstating McCain’s words. Then, on Friday, Obama lifted a single line from a McCain interview to support his claim that McCain believes there has “been great progress economically over the last seven and a half years,” despite growing evidence that we are in economic trouble.
However, this time the McCain team was monitoring the cable news. They quickly put out a video showing the full McCain statement and Obama did not get away with his verbal sleight of hand. Within the same news cycle, mainstream media and non-partisan online news outlets picked up the video and reported the discrepancy between Obama’s take on McCain and McCain’s actual words.
What does this tell us? Obama’s staffers, perhaps lulled into an understandable sense of security, think they can slip misleading snippets of McCain statements into Obama speeches and interviews. But in a YouTube world, this is becoming increasingly hard.
The risk for Obama is that he may give the lie to the conceit that his is a new style of politics. As one report put it:
Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them.
And at least a few mainstream journalists are swimming against the pro-Obama tide.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
April 19th, 2008 at 10:21 AM
“The risk for Obama is that he may give the lie to the conceit that his is a new style of politics.”
Aren’t we well past that point? Even if a majority of Dems refuse to listen to the groundswell of criticism, the rest of the electorate has been on to him for at least two months now. Obama has repeatedly shown that his new politics is completely phony, and that he’s as old school as it gets when it comes to distorting his own record and past, let alone his opponents’ statements. I’m beginning to buy into Victor Davis Hanson’s ‘72 analogy: this could well be a blowout election.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:23 AM
The campaign may have become so tedious that 100 days seems like 100 years, but the McCain remark in question was “100 years”–the possible length of the deployment (not the war) there.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:37 AM
I’ll believe it’s a blowout when I see it. Maverick’s support is still luke warm: More of it is still anti-Messiah than pro-Straight Talker. And the cockier the talk, the more likely some conservatives will shrug and stay home or vote Libertarian. And suppose Bernanke falls down a well or something?
Ruffini via Hot Air reports that while we humans idle contentedly, Paulbots are mobbing GOP county caucuses hoping to dominate the convention delegate selection process: How’s it going to look when Mav gets heckled at his own coronation and has no grassroots operation to fall back on? Foolish earthlings.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:54 AM
he clearly misquoted mcain
April 19th, 2008 at 12:42 PM
If the speed and effectiveness of the McCain campaign deserve credit for this turnaround, they’re two reasons why anti-leftists should vote for the Arizona senator. Here’s a man who shares most beliefs with the right, and has an attentive staff that defends him. Placing the Bush administration, at its lowest point, in the same circumstance, I see the inaptly picked Scott McClellan — red-faced, triple-chinned — pleading with reporters five days after the untrue statement would have been made.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:31 PM
… and the economy HAS been incredible until last fall. I can understand why McCain doesn’t want to say that, since as a result of media distortion most people think the economy has been lousy since the tech bubble burst in 2000. (And they blame this on Bush who didn’t take office until the next January.) So if McCain said this everyone would roll their eyes. Also he has to respond with a soundbite and can’t say more than one idea at the time.
And it’s still not that bad, but you can’t say that either and have any credibility.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:34 PM
This post is Jennifer Rubin saying basically, “Obama has it wrong. McCain DOES believe the economy has been bad under Bush.” And Rubin approves of this “correction”? Do you also believe the economy has been bad under President Bush, Ms. Rubin?
Headline in the Washington Times on April 14: “McCain Blames ‘Greedy’ For Recession”. Do you agree with this assessment, Ms. Rubin, or does your commitment to accuracy only go one way?
April 19th, 2008 at 1:40 PM
“More of it is still anti-Messiah than pro-Straight Talker.”
And that may be enough! John McCain might be the guy who was in the right place at the right time. A very large percentage of the electorate simply do not like nor trust race hustler “Barry” Obama. It could also benefit McCain if the Ron Paul whack jobs are hostile toward him at the convention. This helps the Arizona senator appear more moderate.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Meanwhile wallets and purses remain firmly shut to McCain, hence the campaign’s decision to rely heavily on “free media.” This is not a good sign.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Yes, recessions are always caused by the greedy. Not greedy Republicans. Not greedy
Democrats.. Greedy people. That is what causes all booms. And the inevitable consequence is a bust to correct the excesses. As night follows day, every boom has been followed by a shake
out. And then we consolidate and move forward and then repeat the cycle.