Election Update: Debate Reaction--At least the president didn't lay down this time. He was more assertive. Whether that will help him is highly questionable. His whole presentation was an ad hominem that amounts to, "Romney and the Republicans hate poor people." Which, even if I were left of center, is not an affirmative argument in favor of anything.
Romney was Johnny Interrupter, but it was understandable. Candy Crowley of CNN was working for the Obama campaign. I don't say that lightly. Lehrer was fine, and Raddatz was fantastic in the VP debate, I thought. Crowley corrected Romney on Libya, drawing applause from the undoubtedly liberal audience, even though she was wrong. (And to her credit, said as much after the debate.) And Romney neither got equal time, nor replies to very contentious points. Easily the worst moderated debate, ever.
Watch this Libya thing; I still think at some point that it will get very ugly for the president. Reading and hearing his statement on the consulate attack in the most charitable way possible, you could make a case that the president called it a terror attack. If they knew it was a terror attack the next day--again, crediting the president with the most favorable reading possible--why did Clinton and Rice blame a protest and a video for many days after? Why did the president mention the YouTube video in his speech to the UN on September 25 6 times, if he knew that it was al-Queda, and there was no protest outside the embassy because of the video? If we read his statement in the Rose Garden in reference to 9/11--as conservative commentators, even at full-froth, are willing to do--then he doesn't need to mention this specific attack as a terror attack. Mentioning 9/11 in the context of commemorating Ambassador Stevens and the other heroes makes the point more than sufficiently. But that's exactly it: If we were all supposed to pick up that meaning on September 12, the president and his team don't have any good reason to tell us, "we don't know; we're still investigating" if it was known by the real-time intelligence that it was co-ordinated by al-Queda. The president knowing that, again, is predicated on the most pro-Obama reading of his Rose Garden statement.
It's fine for Hillary to take the blame for not answering Stevens' requests for more security; she is the Secretary of State. But it seems clear that a resurgent enemy contradicts the narrative of a "new and improved" Middle East policy, in contrast to the Bush administration. If they denied Stevens for that reason, they are playing politics with people's lives. Same with blaming the video. I'm not saying this because I prefer Mitt Romney's more bellicose approach; I don't. But don't undercut the "hearts and minds" aspect of the War on Terror. The West needs to show resolve in all ways, even if--no I would say especially--in choosing not to engage in more military intervention. They didn't do that here.
Romney was Johnny Interrupter, but it was understandable. Candy Crowley of CNN was working for the Obama campaign. I don't say that lightly. Lehrer was fine, and Raddatz was fantastic in the VP debate, I thought. Crowley corrected Romney on Libya, drawing applause from the undoubtedly liberal audience, even though she was wrong. (And to her credit, said as much after the debate.) And Romney neither got equal time, nor replies to very contentious points. Easily the worst moderated debate, ever.
Watch this Libya thing; I still think at some point that it will get very ugly for the president. Reading and hearing his statement on the consulate attack in the most charitable way possible, you could make a case that the president called it a terror attack. If they knew it was a terror attack the next day--again, crediting the president with the most favorable reading possible--why did Clinton and Rice blame a protest and a video for many days after? Why did the president mention the YouTube video in his speech to the UN on September 25 6 times, if he knew that it was al-Queda, and there was no protest outside the embassy because of the video? If we read his statement in the Rose Garden in reference to 9/11--as conservative commentators, even at full-froth, are willing to do--then he doesn't need to mention this specific attack as a terror attack. Mentioning 9/11 in the context of commemorating Ambassador Stevens and the other heroes makes the point more than sufficiently. But that's exactly it: If we were all supposed to pick up that meaning on September 12, the president and his team don't have any good reason to tell us, "we don't know; we're still investigating" if it was known by the real-time intelligence that it was co-ordinated by al-Queda. The president knowing that, again, is predicated on the most pro-Obama reading of his Rose Garden statement.
It's fine for Hillary to take the blame for not answering Stevens' requests for more security; she is the Secretary of State. But it seems clear that a resurgent enemy contradicts the narrative of a "new and improved" Middle East policy, in contrast to the Bush administration. If they denied Stevens for that reason, they are playing politics with people's lives. Same with blaming the video. I'm not saying this because I prefer Mitt Romney's more bellicose approach; I don't. But don't undercut the "hearts and minds" aspect of the War on Terror. The West needs to show resolve in all ways, even if--no I would say especially--in choosing not to engage in more military intervention. They didn't do that here.
Comments