« Access to 2008 Candidates for Prez: What It Might Mean for Bloggers
Now Here’s A Democratic Unity Ticket Fer Ya »



Obama Response To Bush McCain “Appeasement” Charge Shows Big Changes (UPDATED)

May 16th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Print Print

{3D5F1564-5963-4E3D-A173-22697CF6FF21}_1.gif

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.



This entry was posted on Friday, May 16th, 2008 at 7:55 pm and is filed under MSM, Hamas, Bush Administration, Democratic Party, News, TV News, Terrorism, Newspapers, Journalism, Demonization, West Virginia, Negative Campaigning, Primaries, Republican Party, Newsweek Blogitics, Elections, John McCain, Iran, War On Terror, Talk Radio, Polls, 2008 Elections, Middle East, Media Criticism, Democrats, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Israel, Cartoon Commentary, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 11 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    "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.
    • ^
    • v
    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...
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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?
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.

    * * *