Ever since catching the national spotlight, I've thought that Karl Rove was a political genius. After reading his latest WSJ column, I'm more convinced that he's a genius. Here's Mr. Rove's take on Obama's performance last night:
Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.
Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.As I said here, I thought that the dynamics of this race to change. Here's how I worded it:
I might get proven wrong but I’ve got to believe at some point, people will start thinking that this isn’t a campaign for prom king, that it’s a campaign to be the leader of the free world in a most troubling time.Mr. Rove isn't wrong too often, which likely means that he's right this time, too. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Kirk Watson's national TV meltdown has gotten people questioning Obama's qualifications. I'm betting that people are digging into his record as I type. I'd bet that the Clinton campaign is getting ready to launch an attack pointing out Obama's empty accomplishments file cabinet.The biggest question this campaign will answer is whether voters want the charismatic, though unqualified empty suit or if they’d prefer the substantive fighter. I think I know but it’ll be interesting to see this play out.
Until now, Obama had run a brilliant, though vapid, campaign. Last night, he stopped looking inspirational. Instead, he started looking like a gifted speaker with an empty resume. I still think that that'll catch up with him right about Convention time.
LUCILLE: Mr. Clean Needs to Get Out of the Kitchen
Let's talk about "effectively criticizing" the GOP presumed candidate.
John McCain likes to pose as the anti-lobbyist, outside the Beltway reformer; Mr. Clean with hair. When The New York Times and Washington Post came out with stories about his questionable relationship with Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist for Paxson, he immediately began defending his honor, claiming to never have had a romantic relationship with "that woman."
Okay; he didn't say "that woman". But his intent was clear: take the focus away from the question of his relationships with lobbyists - who, by the way, make up virtually his entire campaign team - and throw it against the straw dog of marital infidelity. And it almost worked. Attacking the Times for impugning his honor, McCain was able to rally the right wing-nuts to his defense. But that was bound to happen eventually anyway. Do you really believe Rush and his partners in prattle would stand back and forgo attacking the Democratic candidate for the months leading up to the election?
But, here's the problem facing McClean; not only did he show incredibly bad judgment in hanging out with Ms Iseman (and taking multiple corporate jet rides with her), he apparently wrote a few letters to the FCC on behalf of her employer, Paxson.
But that's not all. McCain, in a news conference on Friday, February 22 said he had never done any favors for any lobbyist and his campaign insisted that McCain had never spoken to Ms. Iseman or anyone from Paxson prior to writing to the FCC.
Except he did. In a deposition in 2002, McCain acknowledged he sent those letters after meeting Mr. Paxson.
So, how can a guy who claims to be unassailable on the subject of quid pro quo pretend this isn't a story?
My take on this is on www.politicaldoodle.com I invite you to prove me wrong.
Posted by: Lucille at February 24, 2008 10:21 AM
