Obama Response To Bush McCain “Appeasement” Charge Shows Big Changes (UPDATED)
When Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and several key changes — in the political, national and media landscapes.
For one thing, the incident revealed Obama’s quick-response style where he turned a defense into media-friendly offense — and is indicative of many Democrats’ determination to not be defined anymore by Republicans on national security issues.
TV talk shows, newscasts and many blogs have been having a field day with the White House’s shifting explanations of what Bush really meant. But there have been enough news reports now to solidify the fact that the remarks were indeed aimed at Obama. And it wasn’t just a Bush oversight that he swiped at the Democratic frontrunner while international news cameras whirred during his address in Israel.
Washinton Post blogger Chris Cillizza details some of the lessons:
First, it showed that despite the fact that Bush is winding up his second term and battling charges of lameduck-ism, he still an unmatched ability to drive the political dialogue in this country.
Make no mistake: This was a pre-planned strategy by the Bush campaign to re-inject foreign policy into the presidential campaign in a way that many Republicans believe will ultimately be beneficial to McCain. Deride Bush — and his strategic team — if you will, but remember that Team Bush managed to get their man elected president and then reelected in the face of growing concerns about the war in Iraq and declining popularity numbers. Bush’s political judgment since 2004 has proved somewhat suspect, but to dismiss his ability to understand and effectively analyze the political landscape could be a mistake on the part of Democrats.
That’s why it was so fascinating today to watch cable casts, listen to talk radio shows and read comments in blogs where the most lockstep Republican defenders of Mr. Bush insisted Obama and the Democrats were being paranoid. White House officials gave reporters various explanations of about to whom Bush was “really” referering, latest being that he was really referring to Jimmy Carter.
But you can now read Cillizza and any number of seasoned reporters covering this mini-firestorm and they’re not running the spin but calling it as it is. And bluntly.
The second lesson of the Knesset Kerfuffle is that the Democratic presidential nomination race is over. Amid all of the “he said, he said” between Obama and McCain/Bush, the one figure that has been almost entirely absent is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Can you imagine that happening even three months ago?
We’ve written about that since this story broke. It was instructive because (a) a day after former Senator John Edwards endorsed Obama and nearly wiped Clinton’s huge West Virginia win off the media’s stories-to-cover list, Bush made his comments aimed at Obama, (b)Clinton was out of this debate, (c)coverage of this news cycle shoved Clinton out of news coverage almost completely yesterday and today (except for her statement condemning Bush’s comments).
The third, and most important lesson, is that Obama is ready and willing to fight Republicans over foreign policy and national security concerns.
Bush’s remarks at the Knesset provided Obama with an interesting conundrum. Refuse to rise to the bait or engage full force in an attempt to begin to address concerns — voiced privately by some Democratic strategists — that the Illinois senator may not be able to win a general election that is framed as a referendum on which party can keep America safe.
Obama, to our mind, took the smarter course by not simply answering the inherent critique offered by the president but also pivoting to try and make McCain answerable for the foreign policy pursued by the United States over the last eight years.
Obama turned the proverbial lemon (being attacked by Bush and being put on the defensive and having to answer) into lemonade (going after Bush by rattling off specific criticisms, using humor and sarcasm and tethering McCain tightly to Bush one after McCain made a major speech in which the Arizona Senator tried to inch himself away from the most unpopular President in modern polling history).
But the biggest change is in the approach of Obama and the Democrats themselves.
As Cillizza notes, the Democrats usually would try not to aggressively challenge the Republicans on national security issues. They’d respond and quickly try to move onto domestic issues, such as health care, environment, the courts….figuring those were the party’s strength.
Rather than battle the GOP with the Republican’s choice of weapons, they tried to use other ones. But it turned out to be trying to counter a shotgun with a nail file.
Then there came the change, as Cillizza notes:
The 2004 election may well have signaled a sea change in that strategy, as Bush effectively turned the election into a referendum on the threat of terrorism and the importance of national security as Democrats were unable to mount an effective response.
In 2006, the Democrats began to engage the Republicans on what the GOP felt was its own national security turf even more…and saw results. Polls began to show that many Americans did not whoppingly trust the Republicans more than the Democrats.
One of the signs of political savvy is learning from mistakes and adapting. The Democrats seem to have started to adapt in recent years — and if Obama’s response in this controversy is any indication the rules and responses in the game have changed. Cillizza again:
It marks a remarkable change in tactics that speaks to just how much the political landscape has shifted since 2004. McCain and Republicans are certain to work to frame the national security/foreign policy debate in their favor, but Obama’s initial response is a sign that they may have to adjust their tactics in the runup to the November election.
What’s changed are several factors, which can’t be applied to the most lockstep Bush administration supporters, but to many Democrats, Republicans and independent voters.
Simple spin won’t do anymore. Spin is a lot more to be countered by a press singed by duly reporting official Bush administration statements over the years and in some cases being accused of doing more stenography than journalism. The Bush administration now has a massive — and profusely documented — credibility gap. McCain has enjoyed much credibility but if Bush keeps roping him in, McCain will begin to morph into Bush Lite among more voters than just progressive Democrats, who never liked him to begin with.
2008 ain’t 2006 which wasn’t 2004 which wasn’t 2000 in terms of the mega-quick response time of the Internet, the growth and popularity of cable news talk shows, talk radio, and a mainstream news media that is trying to respond quicker and more decisively to breaking news stories in order to compete with the new media. Many newspapers now have excellent political weblogs.
So the Democrats are responding faster, they have a presumptive candidate who turned a trap into media and political gain, and the Democrats will find more rapid coverage from the new media and also be dealing with a mainstream media that has been burned by Bush and the Republicans over the past few years.
Obama may be no John Kennedy, but in this instance he proved he was no Michael Dukakis or John Kerry.
And Democratic leaders’ super-quick responses falling in line behind him also suggested that the Democrats of 2008 are….so far at least (and the campaign is still young)…not the Democrats of 2004.
Cartoon by Huffaker, Cagle Cartoons
UPDATE: For other views on this issue be sure to read Jules Crittenden, Mahablog and Oliver Willis.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “Obama Response To Bush McCain “Appeasement” Charge Shows Big Changes (UPDATED)”
[...] SAN DIEGO, Part of the Red County Network wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama Response To Bush McCain “Appeasement” Charge Shows Big Changes May 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief When Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and several key changes — in the political, national and media landscapes. For one thing, the incident revealed Obama’s quick-response style where he [...]
[...] Who Is President wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama Response To Bush McCain “Appeasement” Charge Shows Big Changes May 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief When Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and several key changes — in the political, national and media landscapes. For one thing, the incident revealed Obama’s quick-response style where he [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Obama Response To Bush McCain â??Appeasementâ?? Charge Shows Big ChangesHere’s a quick excerptObama Response To Bush McCain “Appeasement” Charge Shows Big Changes May 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief When Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and several key changes — in the political, national and media landscapes. For one thing, the incident revealed Obama’s quick-response style where he [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Obama Response To Bush McCain â??Appeasementâ?? Charge Shows Big ChangesHere’s a quick excerptObama Response To Bush McCain “Appeasement” Charge Shows Big Changes May 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief When Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and several key changes — in the political, national and media landscapes. For one thing, the incident revealed Obama’s quick-response style where he [...]
“The Bush administration now has a massive — and profusely documented — credibility gap.”
All but that 28% of hardcore Bush supporters are aware of this fact, and although it has taken many of them a rather disappointingly long time to figure it out, it's still a case of better late than never. McCain will need to be very careful in order not to be fatally tainted by the Bush legacy, particularly since the D's are unlikely to be pulling their punches anymore.
[...] Continue Reading [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Obama Response To Bush McCain â??Appeasementâ?? Charge Shows Big ChangesHere’s a quick excerptObama Response To Bush McCain “Appeasement” Charge Shows Big Changes May 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief When Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and several key changes — in the political, national and media landscapes. For one thing, the incident revealed Obama’s quick-response style where he [...]
Throw a quarter in the juke box and play B4 – Before Bush.
Looks like even country music stations are upset with Bush attacking an American citizen running for public office with comparisons to a HIlter appeaser:
“Currently, 147 country music stations have instituted the [Bush] ban, a number which has been growing by the hour. Clear Channel, a major syndicator to all radio formats across America, is considering the ban, which would increase the numbers significantly and be a major blow to the White House. Several Clear Channel stations have independently instituted their own ban.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg…
Bush may find his Hitler remarks backfiring even further on him considering his own well documented family history of appeasement, support and money laundering for Hitler.
http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/familie…
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012303A.ma.dead…
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-01
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?sho…
[...] Gandelman has a good summary of the Bush attack and the swift and forceful response by the Democrats, led by Sen. Obama, to it. [...]
Looks like Gandelman has stopped the ventriloquist dodge and come out squarely as in-the-tank for Obama. Very clever to name a blog “Moderate” and then accept spin from a hack like Cilizza over the White House. James Rubin is the latest forgery widely accepted by the MSM as his edited hoax making McCain appear open to Hamas is widely accepted.
Before the “moderates” mention “swift-boating” four years later might be okay, the Swift Boat Captains served years in Vietnam and knew Kerry was a three-month wonder who faked Purple Hearts and then defected to the enemy.
James Rubin's little concocted video [his wife is Iran-loving CNN shill Amanpour] was done at Davos right after the Hamas victory and before the terrorist group maintained its terrorist credentials by shooting rockets and missiles into civilian areas in Israel. A total misrepresentation.
But I guess that's okay with the MSM because James' career move from Hillary to Obama is the kind of defection most “moderates” here would do in a heartbeat, I'd guess.
I cannot believe the depths to which so many people have descended in “response” to Bush's “appeasement” paragraph in his remarks to the Knesset. Is our nation and our electorate really of such guttural quality?
[...] Bush, McCain and appeasement is about Obama’s tough pushback on dirty Republican attacks. Moderate Voice admiringly rounds it up: So the Democrats are responding faster, they have a presumptive candidate who turned a trap [...]
daveinboca, being incapable of actually defending the statement, falls back on the tired old dodge of attacking the messenger.
And DLS just drivels as usual.
It's nice to watch them squirm after all the carnage they've cheered on.
[...] Gandleman at The Moderate Voice (I believe I missed where there was anything moderate about the website, which seems to be a [...]
Dave: In case you haven't looked at polls, centrists, independents and moderates are NOT monolithic. There are indeed centrists, independents, and moderates who may favor ALL of the candidates, and we can switch our preference if some things happen to change out minds.
It's clear from your comment here that clear that if you don't like someone they are hacks or political tools but if they agree with you they are brilliant. Why not write a comment that could possibly change someone's mind and stick to the issues and tell us why specifically you disagree with the view I gave in my post that makes no bones about being an analysis. Yes. You can state your conclusion in analyses.
Independent voters do reach conclusions, form opinions and vote in the end and aren't like CSPAN hosts with noncomittal faces who can't take sides.
There are bloggers on the Internet and writers in comments who've changed my perceptions because they gave their own takes on it. Quite often when people on the left or right don't like a post on TMV they start in with the stuff about being moderate. It has gotten very old and not on topic. Sorry if we don't live up to your definition of moderate, which apparently would mean I would have to write a post patently anti-Obama and consider the Washington Post's blogger a hack — which I do NOT, just as I don't consider the LA Times blogger, NY Times blogger USA Today bloggers hacks or many bloggers with whom I don't even agree and writers on both the Huffington Post and Pajamas Media, two of my favorite sites.
[...] Joe Gandelman writes that Senator Obama’s response to “appeasement” charges shows us it ain’t 2004 any more. Obama turned the proverbial lemon (being attacked by Bush and being put on the defensive and having to answer) into lemonade (going after Bush by rattling off specific criticisms, using humor and sarcasm and tethering McCain tightly to Bush one after McCain made a major speech in which the Arizona Senator tried to inch himself away from the most unpopular President in modern polling history). [...]
Or could join the choir over at the Dutch lad…
The spin from the Rightie comments the other day was W wasn't talking about Obama Husein – LOL.
[...] he doesn’t look like the one-sided clown he really is). And he throws his own little hissy fit in the comments when someone points out that his site is not moderate. That is going to happen [...]
Davebo, get real, and honest, and accurate for a change. Thanks in advance.
* * *
“if we don't live up to your definition of moderate”
You and most users on this site are well left of moderate, not moderate at all, Joe.
* * *
“The spin from the Rightie comments the other day was W wasn't talking about Obama Husein”
My 30-second (after-the-hourly-news) sniff test of Shawn Hannity on the road yesterday on my way to Detroit (test failed — I went back to listening to CDs) included his taking pains to emphasize, Emphasize, EMPHASIZE! that Bush never, Never, NEVER! mentioned Obama or anyone else by name. (He has a point, overly loud as it is; it's the lefties who are reading much more into the Bush remarks, as well as childishly and ridiculously overreacting to them, as if they were Shawn Hannity on steroids and stimulants.) Bush's remark was, of course, more general, and that's how it was calmly and intelligently interpreted no matter what the howing mob says or how clumsily the Bush handlers try to explain it themselves.
(Greetings from Sterling Heights, Rudi and T-Steel. I'm starting to get more familiar with this place now. Wish more of this immediate area were like Ann Arbor, which I drove through earlier this morning on my way here. Man, the home of Borders is a snazzy little community.)
I have to laugh.
How dare A politician call another politician an appeaser or hint that he might not be a good president. Or lord forbid that he might say something negative in a comment.
It is amazing the transformation that the progressive left has come to in the last 5 years. At one point they were the screamers. Those who shouted the loudest and the longest at what was transpiring in this country.
They called Bush Dubya, Heir, Nazi, American Taliban. They accused him of this and that that pales, no, that does not even come into the same universe as calling Barak Obama an appeaser with his statements on foreign policy.
So the new strategy now is to scream, browbeat, become outraged at the absolute hostile actions that are taken against their man. How dare those evil Republicans or that Evil Hillary dare to say anything even remotely negative. To call into question Barak Obama's ability to lead this nation as commander in chief and as president.
How dare they question. Speak to the hand.
The transformation from screaming lunatics with drool dripping from their jowls to indignant self righteous and morally unassailable is quite fascinating to watch.
Whenever anyone says anything even remotely negative about Barak Obama the plan is to lamblast any such rhetoric with righteous indignation and demand an apology.
This is absolutely amazing. I am glad that I have witnessed this in my life time. For I believe that it will be written about for decades to come as the most ingenious and deceptively insightful concept ever to hit politics in over two centuries.
I can only stand amazed at the absolute brillance that the progressives have pulled in the last two years. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Not only have they pulled it on the Republicans but they have done it to Hillary as well. Truly an amazing feat.
Neocon said: “I have to laugh…”
I have to laugh, too, Neocon. Your rant above shows us once again what a “pessimistic progressive” you really aren't.
Thanks for the refresher course in progressive thought. Some were wondering about your claim of being a misunderstood liberal… You've now set the record straight. ; )
STeveK
This is what I actually said:
Well your welcome SteveK cept I happen to be one of those pessimistic LIBERALS we all seem to talk about.
Im not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that the FAR LEFT loons that run the progressive movement in the democratic wing of our party are no different then the FAR RIGHT loons who have run and subsequently destroyed the Republican party.
I make no such claims to being a progressive. What I claimed was to be a Democrat. A Liberal and A supporter of Hillary Clinton.
Who is Her base? Obviously she has been abandoned by the far left progressives. Thank God for that. She represents the working class, everyday, rooted in reality democrats that have been the basis of the party for decades if not a century now.
She wants health care for all. Obama wants health care for some……
On and on the contrasts are subtle.
So I am pleased to inform you that I am not a left wing loon who has simply changed my mantle to progressive in an effort to hide the fact that I am no different then those far right wingers who sought and obtained the power in the GOP..
I want this country to unite. I DO NOT believe that a Candidate claiming moderation whose support comes from this far left wing crowd(and whose policies mirror this groups demands) will go very far without preaching, teaching and governing to his base.
Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama and John McCain all have bases in which they draw their fundamental support. Look to the base to see what it is you will get. If you like the base, you will like the candidate. Its as simple as that to me. It always has been.
ALSO and this is very important. Not everyone who supports Barak Obama is a far left wing loon. Or even a loon. I do not want you to leave here with the presumption that I believe all or even a majority of those pushing Barak Obama to power are loons or far left.
No. The christian coalition was not a majority in the GOP either but their influence since 1979 became more and more powerful culminating in the reelection of GWB in 2004. As things grew worse for GWB he more and more and progressively turned to his base and now he governs to his 28 percent base.
Progressives in the country probably make up about 28 percent of this countrys political base. Yet when you look at Barak Obama's website and listen to what he stands for he has become the mouthpiece for them. He mirrors and reflects this base and it is this base he will preach too when elected.
I reject their message as I rejected the Christian Coalition message as being unduly influencing and working the premise that the minority is ruling the majority.
[...] PECAD wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhen Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and … Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Josh Fruhlinger wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhen Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and … [...]