I realize that they promised Specter they’d campaign for him, but to be so committed to him as to try to buy Sestak off seems bizarre in hindsight. It could be, I suppose, that they feared that a contentious primary would hurt their chances in the general regardless of who won, but that would be a miscalculation too. What kind of shop is Axelrod running over there?Ok, well it's sometimes helpful to establish the facts.
- One, Sestak is from the Billary wing of the Dem party. That could explain why they tried to torpedo his chances through a buy out.
- Two, Specter is not someone the Dems could necessarily trust. And why should they? The GOP couldn't either. He seems too enamored with being the maverick whereas Sestak is a solid govt-provided health care loving predictable liberal.
- Three, Specter would be easy to target in the general against Toomey due to his party flip-flop. Sestak less so. But Sestak didn't have the name-recognition or track record in politics going in.
Ergo, there's really nothing for Obama to fess up to (except the phony offer), which is why Gibbs and crew must continue stalling until the cows come home or the friendly media loses their memory. They will eventually forget. Maybe that was it.
But everyone will not forget. And if the electorate feels in the mood to eject liberals this fall Obama that puts Toomey as the odds on favorite against the liberal. Meanwhile the story that won't go away can't be answered without resorting to more whoppers. Surely those 40 pound brains from Chicago would have considered such an angle. Again, unless they figured the pushback against Hussein would win a lot of middle votes, taking their chances in the general, etc. But we're back to blowback again.
Which means the narrative of 'Sestak blurted out something he wasn't supposed to and is now stuck with it' is plausible, leaving Joe's judgment in question. When 2012 comes Obama can say he never endorsed him!
Yet now Mr. Deniabilty is in the position of slapping Sestak's butt and cheering on his teammate even if the teammate tried to whistleblow on him, which is awkward as hell. Billary must be secretly smiling.
Hmm. Well, one has to wonder if we'll ever find out. Gibbs looks like a robot answering the questions and his boss remains under the cone of silence. Maybe Julian Assange has the real story in a can over at Wikileaks.
If the above seems confusing that's because the whole thing is confusing. Nobody knows anything or can say anything, but fear not--like the Blago affair the White House has looked into it and 'nothing inappropriate happened'. Hey, look over there--balloons!
"FLIGHT RISK" 5/24/10
That's what Sestak called Specter in this interview conducted March 20th, 2010. In other words, at least somebody was worried about Specter's loyalty as a Dem. In the interview Sestak kept comparing him to George W. Bush, over and over then pandered to the unions after it was mentioned that Specter was endorsed by one of the big ones.
You can play this recap and hear how the whole thing got started--a Philly interviewer--but the question is this, who got that first questioner to ask the question? Where did he get the leak?
John King asked the 'appropriate' question of David Axelrod last night on CNN,
Notice that Axe acknowledges it was a serious offense and there were conversations, only that nothing inappropriate occurred, or better yet, Sestak might have misunderstood. Is that the escape hatch? Maybe.
Also notice that King loses all credibility at the end by apologizing.