Election Coverage
 

I just saw Richard Clarke on Hardball. Matthews drilled into him but Clarke did not rattle at all. He was clear and concise, stuck to facts, and refused to be drawn into any misstatements. He also mixed in praise at the same time he was bringing up negative facts about the White House performance.

The White House is in political trouble.

And yet on Scarborough Country, Scarborough runs a 'Kerry in Free Fall' segment where he is corrected by both of his guests, one of them an analyst Scarborough himself declares a neutral party. The analyst correctly stated that while Kerry's 10 point increase in negatives should be of some concern, the fact that Kerry is running anywhere from 3 points behind to 1 point ahead in polls with a %3 margin of error after the White House has dumped on $20 million dollars of campaign ads even before the Democratic primary is over is NOT what anyone would define as freefall.

Unless Ms. Rice can pull a Perry Mason moment, (or better yet a Scooby Doo moment) and expose Richard Clark as some evil gremlin from outer space, the White House is going to have to dump some more tens of millions of dollars in the next month to keep from hemorrhaging.

Of course, considering their donor base, this basically amounts to cab fare.

Rice is going to have enough trouble holding her ground, let alone going on the offensive in some big way.

Re: Election Coverage
 

I think the oil company donors will probably be able to deal with that with little problem.

This is an interesting time to listen to NPR news, apparently they do a style change during election years so you start hearing more Mister and less President Bush. I'm all for disrespecting the President, but I wonder if Clinton got the Mister treatment.

Maybe not from NPR, but unless I'm badly mistaken, he got it from all - or close to all - the conservatives on talk radio.

Yeah I noticed him dodging that question twice too, why are they appearing togethor anyway, and why is it a big deal?

They are appearing together because Bush would be unable to answer the questions alone ( as evidenced by the press conference ).

They are appearing behind closed doors because they don't want a camera to see Cheney prompting Bush or breaking in to answer Bush's questions. If a commissioner tells the press that that's what happened, they can shrug it off as opinion, but they can't do that with a videotape.

They are not appearing under oath because they don't plan to be entirely honest.

with out any judgements as to who is the better president - why is it such a big deal that bush is a poor public, seat of the pants speaker? does that alone make him a poor president? should we trust a president more just because he can always eloquently come up with the "right" thing to say? if that is true we should back clinton in seeking to repeal the two-term limit legislation.

1) Remember that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Bush is learning from that, by refusing to be under oath at all.

2) I wasn't saying anything about his public speaking abilities. I was saying he would not be able to answer the questions. His problem at the press converence wasn't misspeaking, it was refusing to answer the questions.

3) Even so, public speaking is a huge part of the job of the president. If he can't do it, that doesn't alone make him a bad president, but it is certainly a big black mark.

4) "always eloquently come up with the "right" thing to say?" I'd settle for correct, factual, and relevant. I'm assuming that's different from what you mean by "right".

RE 2) i know that you weren't speaking about his oration abilites - it was a general question because it is so prevalent. but, you are absolutely right - bush will appear with cheney, because he is not a person who is able to hear a question and come up with a smooth, eloquent answer -everytime. this is a political land mine and i think it is a wise choice not to allow the cameras in. all that would result in is SPIN from both sides.

let's face it. this commission is not there to find out what happened about 9/11. it is a political exercise just like the BS ken starr - "did you get a BJ" inquisition was.

the american public has got to stand up and tell the pols (on both sides of the aisle) that we aren't going to stand for this grandstanding anymore.

RE 4) by "right" i meant an eloquent answer that most people will hear, agree with (at least on the surface), and forget. that is what Clinton was spectacular at - and i certainly don't believe that attribute made him any better of a president.

Quote:

Q Mr. President, why are you and the Vice President insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And, Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th? THE PRESIDENT: We will find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing; he's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And, secondly, because the 9/11 Commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions. Q I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request. THE PRESIDENT: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.

Heh. There are a couple of "gems" like that in the transcript:
President Addresses the Nation

Actually, the reason Bush will appear with Cheney is that he can't come up with a correct answer every time. His problem with eloquence is the reason for the camera ban.

The cameras would actually diminish the spin. As it is, when the commisioners come out of the closed session, each side will report their spin on what happened. If there was footage, then at least C-SPAN would have spin-free information.

to a point - i agree with you. we all know bush is the king of the misspeak. his ability to fumble for words is unmatched. if he goes in and just starts blasting out answers to the same old questions we've be hearing - HE WILL FUMBLE AND MISSPEAK. and they will pounce on it. the commissioners would go after that one point until is just disgustingly adversarial. the media would play the sound bytes. and everyone will jump on their computers to quote the latest bushism. bush is in a no-win situation with this issue. he looks stupid if he allows cameras and/or speaks alone. he is accused of the exact same thing if he allows it. and let's face it - most of the people already have their minds made up anyway. if they don't like bush then everything he says will be a lie. (and yes, there are bush sycophants out there as well, who would believe him if he stated that he crapped golden eggs)

i'm sick of it. this commission is purely political showmanship. we will learn nothing new by it.

We'll I've learned a bit. I'm glad to have heard Clarke.