« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Intentional Misspeaking?
This is just a theory, and possibly not a very interesting one, so indulge me for a moment.
If you haven't heard, the right is all in a tizzy about Obama speaking about his great-uncle liberating Auschwitz, when in fact it was the Red Army that liberated Auschwitz.
The Obama campaign quickly (too quickly?) corrected the record that he meant Buchenwald. They further elaborated with a thrown together history lesson on the liberation of the camps at Buchenwald and what unit, etc. Obama's great-uncle was in.
The speed at which they did this made me think...maybe he botched the name on purpose, because now what is the story? Not "Obama lies about family's service" as the right would have it be, but now we're talking about a member of Obama's family serving in the military. Seems to me the best way to combat the "secret Muslim" excrement would be to highlight his family, and their story. So my money is on it being a plant. Anyone who remembers 12th grade History knows the Red Army liberated Auschwitz. So the demonstrably false claim (which is quickly corrected, because the story is the same, only the name of the camp is different) can be an effective tool.
Speaking of effective tools, then consider the demostrably false claim that Bill Clinton didn't wrap up the nomination until June. I remember Bill standing on stage at the Hyatt (Hilton? I can never remember) in Chicago with confetti falling around him. The Illinois primary (which, to my recollection happened on St. Patrick's Day, maybe the day after didn't actually put him over the top, but it gave him momentum that he never lost. Most sources put his clinching of the nomination in April or so.
Why mention that one? Because, ignoring for the moment the shameful reference to RFK's assassination, I think it was another intentional misspeak. On one level, the Clinton's still believe in the pre-internet, pre-YouTube world where a fact that skirts credulity is more likely to be believed than the one where we can easily see things like Hillary strolling down a tarmac in Tuzla. But also, wasn't it cool to go back, even if only briefly, to a time when you were rooting for Bill and Hillary Clinton to overcome the odds and get to the White House? To remember the time when "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow" was the coolest song around, because oh my god, the president is young enough to like rock music!
Referencing the 90s is tricky, because we're more likely to remember the blue dress and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the finger wagging "I did not have sexual relations..." blah blah blah, ugh. But by finding that sweet spot, the 1992 campaign, where we all believed in the Man From Hope, she almost pulled it off and let us remember a different time. Where she messed up was by includin the RFK reference and the word "assassinated."
Another lost opportunity for her, another gained one for him. Look for more of the intentional misspeak, coming soon to a campaign near you.
(hey, if you like the post, please feed my meager ego and recommend. I could use it.)
But t
Comments (6)
ugh, editing...
ignore the extraneous "But t" at the end.
May 29, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the first point, I could see it. It also makes the RNC look like cheap shot artists. In the future, Obama mistakes would result in RNC/FOX attacks which at some point would lose their luster.
"Oh, here goes the RNC again; railing on one thing or another!"
The second part? I don't know.
May 29, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Admittedly a stretch. But it answered the question for me "what the hell could she possibly be thinking?"
May 29, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that this was the day the Steamship Empress of Ireland sank and 1,024 people drowned.
I just automatically think of May 29 as Empress of Ireland Sinking Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
That's just how I remember it's May 29.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up.
May 29, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simplest explanation, is usually the correct one.
He misspoke out of a hazy recollection of something he overheard his family talking about, when he was a young boy.
Look at his age. look at how much he was moved about from one family situation to another. You know how you were when you were that young. You would over hear the grand parents and relatives talking about something that they had heard from some one else. They may not have had the story down correctly for starters, and actually said it was Auschwitz. Those types of family retelling always tend to get hazy on the facts, Now you factor in that it was a very young boy, just overhearing some of that conversation, and recalling it many years later.
I recall having been in similar circumstances, as a young boy, with the elders of my family talking about events that had happened decades before. The could not even agree on all the details between their selves, and I was only half interested then, because I was a young boy, just being a young boy. That is all there is to the story.
He had the essential details right. His grand uncle did go into a concentration camp.
He was not setting the too clever by half trap that you are surmising about. He just was mentioning something that he heard the old folks talking about, many years ago when he was too young to pay much attention to it.
May 29, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possible. Though the campaign has been too smart, too organized, and too on message that someone wouldn't have at least Googled it.
For the record, my family story is that my grandmother was the first woman postmaster in Ohio. Or maybe it was "one of the first" or maybe it was "Southern Ohio." So I get it.
May 30, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment