They Don’t Call It Spin for Nothing

After the debate the Spin Room was in full tilt. It’s continuing today, as the cleverly cut video above illustrates. More about that in a minute.

But last night, David Axelrod offered some amazing comments that are hard
to fathom. I overhead an interview in which he said Obama was one of three who
had the same answer as two weeks ago on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
That hardly matters when you give a bad answer and can’t even give that answer clearly, then your main opponent
shows you out when she does. Axelrod also believed Obama answered the immigration
question just fine. Earth to Axelrod. But even Mr. Obama clearly sensed in the middle of
it that he’d gone well off course. Axelrod was asked if Obama is comfortable debating, and he said “He
looked comfortable to me.” But Obama’s answer on human rights and U.S.
national security was nothing short of stunning. It’s the type of question
that requires a yes or no answer, before elaborating, because it deals with the president’s number one job. It’s the simplest question
to answer: Is human rights more important than American national security?

OBAMA: The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf. BLITZER: Because occasionally, they could clash. OBAMA: They are complementary. And I think Pakistan is a great example. Look, we paid $10 billion over the last seven years and we had two goals: deal with terrorism and restore democracy And we’ve gotten neither. And Joe and Bill are exactly right on this. Pakistan’s democracy would strengthen our battle against extremists. The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we’re going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there’s going to be in the Middle East. We keep on making this mistake.

They aren’t contradictory, but then what’s the solution? “Pakistan’s democracy”? The concepts of human rights and
national security are tied together, but Obama’s rambling statement reveals another strap on democracy option pushed by the U.S. in the face of huge challenges that come long before the democracy option. See Iraq. Biden takes Mr. Obama to school.

BIDEN: First of all, I do not think we should maintain the same aid we’re giving. I have made it clear to Musharraf personally when he called me, and I’ve spoken personally to Bhutto, before — I might add, the president spoke to either one of them — I spoke to them and I indicated very clearly two things. (APPLAUSE) One, if he did not — if he did not take off his uniform, if he did not hold fair and free elections by the middle of January, I would on the floor of the Senate move to take away the aid we’re giving with regard to F-16s and P-3s, because that’s the biggest leverage you have on him within his military. He is not a sole player. He has to keep his military happy, as well. I would use that leverage. Secondly, I’ve indicated that what we should do is move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy. Unlike anyone else, within five days of this happening, I laid out a detailed plan. The president hasn’t, no one on this stage has — no else has — a detailed plan, as president, how I will proceed with Iraq. And you have to move from military aid to giving to the middle class there. The middle class is overwhelmingly the majority. They get no connection with the United States. We have to significantly increase our economic aid relative to education, relative to NGOs, relative to all those things that make a difference in the lives of ordinary people over there, and not be doing it through the military side. I know there’s more to say, Campbell. I appreciate you asking me the question, and I’m sorry I answered it.

But it was Joe Trippi who got the Mighty Spin award of the evening. Listening
to him give an interview in the Spin Room he said that Clinton attacking Edwards
“is a good sign. Two weeks ago she ignored us.” They don’t
call it spin for nothing. He continued on saying Clinton didn’t wake up this
morning and decide to attack John Edwards. She doesn’t do anything that isn’t
calculated.

Well, whatever her calculation was it worked.

Today’s spin continues, with David Sirota having the oddest posting on Clinton’s
NAFTA exchange with Wolf Blitzer: VIDEO: Clinton Thinks NAFTA Is Hilarious. I remember that debate very well. What Clinton and the audience were laughing
at last night was not NAFTA. It was Ross Perot and the indelible picture of
him with all those charts. Sirota makes a nice effort at claiming Clinton is
laughing at the costs of NAFTA. Clinton and I disagree on NAFTA expansion, and
her position on what she’d do as president isn’t nearly clear enough, but it’s
a reach of enormous proportions to manufacture the dramatic storyline that Clinton
“thinks NAFTA is hilarious.”

CLINTON: All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts. (LAUGHTER) That, sort of, is a vague memory. Look, NAFTA did not do what many had hoped. And so we do need to take a look at it and we do need to figure out how we’re going to have trade relations that are smart, that give the American worker and the American consumer rights around the world. And I want to go back to Campbell’s question for a minute, because it’s really related to this. It is something that every parent should be worried about. It’s not only the toys. It’s the pet food. It’s the medical components in prescription drugs. If we don’t impose a third-party, independent investigative arm on our corporations that do business in China, as well as the Chinese government, we should not permit any items to be imported into our country until we’re sure they’re safe. (APPLAUSE) I mean, that, to me, is rule number one. BLITZER: All right. So let me rephrase the question. I’ll rephrase the question. Was NAFTA a mistake? Was NAFTA a mistake? CLINTON: NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that’s why I call for trade timeout. When I am president, I’m going to evaluate every trade agreement. We do need to get back to enforcing the ones we have, which the Bush administration has not done. They have totally abdicated that.But I think we have to get broader than that. We’ve got to have enforceable labor and environmental standards. We’ve got the WTO that enforces financial and corporate rights. We need the International Labor Organization and other mechanisms that will be there to enforce labor rights and environmental rights.

Axelrod, Trippi, even David Sirota, among others are spinning like mad today.
There’s only one reason and it isn’t because the candidate(s) they favor came
out on top.