Barack Obama over the weekend said something that most Americans -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- would probably agree on: He said that John McCain, as well as himself and Hillary Clinton, would make a better president than George Bush.
War + recession = No brainer???
Nope. Instead, we live in a time where the question is not whether something is true -- the question is whether, true or not, it can be twisted and distorted into a meaningless political point with a half life of 72 hours. And in this case, the Clinton campaign saw an opportunity to argue that Obama was somehow undercutting Democratic plans to portray McCain as awful in every possible way this fall.
Hillary: “We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee.
It was just six or so weeks ago, of course, when Hillary's message du jour was that she could tear Obama down on national security, so she gave a speech saying that both McCain and, of course, herself were ready to be commander-in-chief -- but Obama would have to speak for himself.
So, how is that different than what Obama said?
"That does not speak to whether he would make a better president than George Bush," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson explained on the campaign conference call this afternoon.
Actually, that's a fairly specious point. Most people not paid to cast everything their boss does in the best possible light, regardless of reality, would conclude that it's contradictory to praise McCain's readiness when it suits your purpose, and then criticize Obama when he praises McCain as more prepared than Bush.
Particularly when, like Clinton, you've spent a fair amount of the campaign attacking Bush as just about the most awful president imaginable, and are quite widely known to respect McCain. But we passed beyond "contradictory" being a problem a long time ago, didn't we?