Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike KeliherWhat do you do when you don’t want to have a full debate on an issue where the voters oppose your position? Say, the Iraq War, which almost six out of ten Americans say was a mistake.
Edit.
That’s apparently the conclusion of Republican consultants who are producing pieces like this, that attempt to win the debate in the cutting room: a) cutting tape before a candidate says “but…” (implying no qualifier followed); b) showing pregnant pauses and then cuting tape (implying no answer was given); and c) splicing a series of partial statements to change officials’ positions.
Suffice it to say, this is not exactly how Lincoln and Douglas did it.
Whatever your position on the invasion, surge and near-term pull-out, Obama’s unedited position is pretty darn clear. He opposed the invasion. Period. He continues to oppose the surge and maintain it is not achieving its primary objectives. Period. He supports a near-term pull-out. Period.
It’s one thing when John Stewart edits like this for entertainment purposes. But it’s another thing to allow predator editors to drive historic policy debates about some of the most important issues of our times. For the sake of our democracy, both sides need to knock it off.
- Loveland
Filed under: Communications, Politics | Tagged: advertising, Barack Obama, editing, Iraq, Iraq War, John McCain, John Stewart, surge, videos
Joe: You suffer from a severe case of nuance-itis. Obama is all over the map on a handful of key issues, as are many high ranking Dems.
The digital media age has made it impossible for politicians of all stripes to deny flip-flops and lies.
Before the digital media age, Congress for decades used to conclude every floor speech with, “Request consent to advise and extend my remarks.” Which effectively game them cover to change the official record from whatever they really said.
No more.
These bums now have every utterance captured electronically, and that’s a great thing for the citzenry.
Obama is mushy on campaign finance, free trade and some other issues. On the war, he and McCain have both been consistent. Obama didn’t want in, he didn’t want an expansion and he wants out as soon as practical. McCain wanted in, he wanted an expansion, and he is willing to stay a very long time if need be. Seriously, there is no nuance in the differences in their positions.
The wide availability of video constitutes a great raw material for democracy. But mosaics of seconds-long clips of quarter-thoughts produced by dualing partisan propagandists pollutes democratic discourse. Good voter decisionmaking requires hearing candidates express themselves more fully, and good democracies require good voter decisionmaking.
Lively! But regarding Iraq, and I don’t mean to be flippant, if the reality dictated that the troops required as a “practical” course “staying a long time if need be”, isn’t this the course we would expect President Obama to follow?
Excerpts from a September 18, 2004 article by AP Writer Christopher Wills, titled “Obama Willing to Support More Troops in Iraq.”
“America cannot afford to withdraw immediately, said Obama, an early opponent of invading Iraq. That would create more chaos in Iraq and make it “an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,” he said at a meeting of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association. It would also damage America’s international prestige and amount to “a slap in the face” to the troops fighting there, he said.
Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.
“If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that’s something I would support,” he said.
——————————————-
Following is the complete transcript of Wills’ AP article from September 18, 2004, titled “Obama Willing to Support More Troops in Iraq.”
Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.
“If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that’s something I would support,” he said.
America cannot afford to withdraw immediately, said Obama, an early opponent of invading Iraq.
That would create more chaos in Iraq and make it “an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,” he said at a meeting of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association. It would also damage America’s international prestige and amount to “a slap in the face” to the troops fighting there, he said.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has accused President Bush of hiding a plan to mobilize more National Guard and Reserve troops after the election. Kerry says if elected, he would withdraw American troops from Iraq within four years – a timetable that Obama said he can accept.
“Given the situation on the ground, I think if we had our troops out in four years, that would be an extraordinary accomplishment,” Obama said.
Obama said Bush has bungled the war in Iraq, letting it distract from efforts to hunt down Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida terrorists.
His Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was scheduled to address the broadcasters group by telephone later in the day.
Keyes has grabbed headlines with a series of controversial statements – comparing terrorists and women who have abortions, for instance, or calling gay people, including the vice president’s daughter, “selfish hedonists.”
Obama labeled it “slash-and-burn politics” that gets attention but not support from the public.
“I don’t think it has worked in terms of actually persuading voters,” he said.
That’s great. Let’s put that in front of the American people, as well as John McCain’s entire statement around staying for as much as 100 years. That’s a good, constructive debate.
But the subject of this post is dishonest editing. It’s about taking that statement, and editing it down to “Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq. ‘…that’s something I’d support.’”
That kind of editing is what I strongly object to. When you cover-up things like ““If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground…” that’s not honest campaigning.