Obama Stammers His Way Through Defense of Axelrod’s Comments on Clinton

The Obama campaign has been on the defensive in the wake of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, thanks to some tacky (to say the least) comments from Obama spokesman David Axelrod. Last night Barack Obama attempted to “vigorously” defend Axelrod during a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.:

As Lynn Sweet reports, the interview didn’t play out to well for Obama:

In standing up for Axelrod, Obama fell back on one of his campaign standbys and blamed the off-message situation on “Washington,” as in “Washington is putting a spin on it.”

Obama got a little impatient with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when Blitzer started to read him the Axelrod quote. One of the most accomplished speakers in the nation was reduced to stuttering as Obama tried to head off Blitzer from reading the quote on national television.

Blitzer asked, “Your chief political strategist, David Axelrod, causing some commotion out there today with his comments about Hillary Clinton, and blaming her—at least some are interpreting it this way—blaming her in part for a series of events that resulted in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination today. Let me read to you what he said.”

Obama replied—and I think I nailed the quote here—“No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don’t need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever.”

Ouch. Okay… so we can all lose our cool under pressure, but the heat is now on for Obama to rise up and give us a view of how he handles things and he really botched it here. Lynn Sweet goes on to wonder about what Obama meant by “overheard it” and continues with the blow by blow from Blitzer:

(Might you wonder what “I overheard it” means? One should not read this literally. Obama was not standing near Axelrod when he was talking to reporters after the speech. A bunch of reporters were interviewingAxelrod near the press risers at the back of the hall.)

Blitzer continued, “Tell us what he meant. Tell us what he meant.”

Obama said, “He was—he was—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa.

(At this point it was the reporter making the argument–asking if the assassination would bring the campaigns more to foreign policy and “that’s been more Hillary Clinton’s sort of strength, is that is that…that’s what the Clinton campaign will say, that this plays right into her strength.”)

Obama: “Now, first of all, that shouldn’t have been the question.”

(Disputing a question is a technique Obama has used in the presidential debates when confronted with being asked something he did not want to specifically have to respond to. )

Obama then said, “The question should be, “how is this going to impact the safety and security of the United States,” not “how is it going to affect a political campaign in Iowa.”

“But his response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, “who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan.”

Obama went on to defend Axelrod, one of his closest advisors.

“He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there. That is the kind of, I think, you know, gloss that sometimes emerges out of the heat of campaigns that doesn’t make much sense, and I think you’re probably aware of that, Wolf.”

Since a viewer by this point would have little idea what Obama was reacting to, Blitzer pressed ahead and read the quote.

That’s live television. Obama was trapped and Blitzer knew it.

Blitzer said, “ Well, I know that sometimes comments can be taken out of context and you’re trying to give us the context. I’ll just read to you what he said, and then I’m going to let you just respond. “She was,” referring to Hillary Clinton, he said…

“Wolf!” said Obama.

Blitzer really had Obama on the hot seat. Obama was clearly shaken and Blitzer didn’t let up…

Blitzer continued, reading the Axelrod quote: “She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which, we would submit is one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaeda, who may still have been players in this event today. So, that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend. “

Here’s another version; I asked Axelrod, “Looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?

Axelrod replied, “Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that’s a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda’s resurgent, they’re a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved — we’ve been here, so I don’t know whether the news has been updated, but there’s a suspicion they may have been involved in this. I think his judgment was good. Sen. Clinton made a different judgment, so let’s have that discussion.”

I can only echo what Big Tent Democrat says here: “Terrible job by Obama.” We’re down to the wire with the primaries starting in just a few days. This mess could do some damage to Obama in my opinion. Time will tell.

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Obama Stammers His Way Through Defense of Axelrod’s Comments on Clinton

  1. Michael says:

    Your bias is pathetically blatant.

  2. Darrell Prows says:

    I was on the Obama campaign site and saw that he supports adding troops to both the Army and Marines. I could find nowhere that he says why we need more fighters to do less fighting. I sincerely believe that this same basic position is supported by Clinton, Dodd, Biden, and Edwards, at a minimum.

    I could not disagree more. And I mean I don’t support either the policy or the judgment.

  3. Michael

    There is no bias here. In my opinion the Obama campaign came off badly on this one from Axelrod’s statement to Obama’s statement on Bhutto’s assassination to the way Obama responded to Blitzer. Quite frankly, if any other candidate handled this in the same manner, I would have felt the same way.