Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
After Obama’s speech at AIPAC this morning, ABC News noted
what appeared to be new language on the subject of meetings with Iran:
“But as President of the United
States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled
diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my
choosing – if, and only if – it can
advance the interests of the United
States.” [E.A.]
ABC describes Obama’s position as “evolving” ever since his original
statement in the YouTube debate that he’d be willing to meet with the leaders
of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela “without preconditions. “But
now,” ABC writes, “Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet
with Iran: he will meet only
if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.”
Isn’t this sort of circular? Would a U.S. president ever meet with another leader if
he didn’t think it advances the interest of the United States? You could argue he’s
wrong, but it’s not like Obama has any other
reason to sit down with Ahmadinejad.
This is all part of a larger debate about whether or not
Obama is walking back his original stance. ABC has argued that Obama’s stance
has grown “nuanced” and pointed to surrogates parsing words like
“preconditions” ("I would not say that we would meet unconditionally,”
said Tom Daschle) and “leader” (not necessarily Ahmadinejad, said adviser Susan
Rice).
But the Obama campaign insists
that his stance has been consistent all along. According to them, it turns on
one word: “willing.” The campaign points out that the YouTube questioner asked Obama
whether or not he would be “willing” to meet with those leaders—a distinction
from saying he would meet with them. He
said, “I would.” Of course, that could mean either “I would meet with them” or
“I would be willing to meet with them.” The Obama camp says it’s the latter. Back
in November, the senator told
Tim Russert, “I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said
I'd be willing to.”
This is pretty high-level (or maybe it’s low-level) parsing.
But picking apart words seems to be the main method of campaign warfare right
now. See the McCain camp bickering
over tenses when it comes to “pre-surge levels,” or Obama stressing the
difference between “preconditions” and “preparation.” But when nitpicking is
the norm, the campaigns are forced to nitpick back. Who knew the job of communications
director also included etymologist, lexicographer, and semanticist?
-
sponsorship
Barack Obama is speaking right now before a roomful of Jewish leaders at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference, and Hillary Clinton’s up next.
Clinton isn’t expected to concede today, but imagine the favor she’d be doing Obama by stepping aside and pledging her full confidence in him in front of a group whose support Obama has struggled to win over. Remember how Mitt Romney dropped out at the Conservative Political Action Conference, two days after a slew of losses on Super Tuesday? He praised John McCain's policies in his withdrawal speech, knowing it would help McCain to be lauded in front of conservative skeptics.
Clinton will eventually be forced to unify, and unify hard. That means rounding up voters with whom she performed better than Obama. Some have proposed that Clinton hold a big rally and call it “Women Voters for Obama.” She might also massage relations between Obama and her Hispanic supporters. A productive first step would be backing him in front of the Jewish community.
Update 11:32 a.m.: And praise him she does:
"Let me be clear: I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake
here. It has been an honor to contest these primaries with him," she
said. "I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."
"I know that Senator Obama shares my view," she said, that America
must remain a staunch Israeli ally, "our stance non-negotiable" and
that "the United States stands with Israel now and forever.
(via Ben Smith)
-
sponsorship
The presidential campaign—well, one in particular—has introduced a new greeting to the political world: the fist pound (also known as dap). Last night, we saw perhaps the most high-profile pound of all time, as Michelle and Barack Obama bumped fists on national television before he took the stage. (Video here.)
What’s hilarious is watching the formal, AP Stylebook-loving media trying to figure out what to call it. In an article about Obama’s body man Reggie Love, the New York Times called Love’s preferred greeting a “closed-fisted high-five.” Last night produced other assorted references:
“Taking a fist-pound from wife Michelle, Obama stepped to the podium Tuesday”—MTV.com
“Michelle Obama (L) gives her husband, Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Senator Barack Obama, a knuckle-bump as a sign of support before he speaks to supporters.”—Monsters and Critics
“At 09:09:27 Central Time, Michelle Obama gave Barack Obama a pound in St. Paul, Minnesota.”—Lola New York
“I never realized how romantic and respectful and mutually appreciative and loving a frat-tastic fist bump could be. Could it be the new peck-on-the-cheek?”—The Frisky
“... Obama, who was joined on stage by his wife Michelle, with whom he shared a celebratory fist-bump.”—Reuters
“Obama, began with a loving fist to fist thumbs up with Michelle.”—Capitol Hill Blue
“Michelle is not as ‘refined’ as Obama at hiding her TRUE feelings about America—etc. Her ‘Hezbollah’ style fist-jabbing ...”— Commenter, Human Events*
“I loved that moment, when they touched their hands together like that.” --Commenter, bjkeefe
*Correction, June 10 2:40 p.m.: This article originally linked to Human Events without specifying that it was a commenter who made the " 'Hezbollah' style fist-jabbing" remark, not the columnist Cal Thomas, whose article was linked.
-
sponsorship
With Montana and South Dakota reporting, Clinton netted 3,000 votes tonight, according
to Real
Clear Politics. That hardly changes her argument that she’s winning the
popular vote. You still have to count Michigan
to make that case.
But you might have noticed that her overall number went from
“17 million” a couple of
days ago to “18 million” today. That bounce came from Puerto Rico, which bumped
her up from 17.4 million (counting Michigan)
to 17.7 million. Round that bad boy up!
Update 12:59 a.m.: A reader points out that the numbers aren't all in just yet. I'll update the item when they are.
Update 8:51 a.m.: As expected, new numbers. Obama nets about 9,000 votes from the two states' totals. And now Clinton actually breaks 18 million, if you count Michigan and the caucus states that didn't officially report popular votes.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?