Rahm Has Ways of Making You Stick to the Talking Points

Rahm Emmannuel tells the HuffPost that he's sorting out whatever House Democrats may have had some trepidation about backing Obama. I like this part where he brainwashes David Boren best:

The famously acid-tongued Chicagoan may be right, Democrats like Ellsworth and Boren may not pose a problem. But the Republican National Committee is sure trying to make them one. GOP officials have blasted out press releases highlighting Boren's claim that Obama has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate. "You go ask Boren," Emanuel says, "he'll tell you his view is that that was taken out of context, that he is going to support the nominee."

(He was right: "My comments were taken out of context and as I have said from day one I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November," Boren told The Huffington Post.)

Out of context is rapidly becoming my least-favorite politician tick. It's possible, of course, to genuinely take something out of context in an abusive way. But increasingly "context" seems to mean "you took the statement I actually made at face value without adding in a lot of caveats and so forth that I did not, in fact, say."

Comments

"Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. I love him. He's great. Much better than CATS. I'm going to see him again & again."

Posted by El Cid | June 13, 2008 4:42 PM

I don't know. It can be used as an excuse too often, but at the same time journalists and rival politicians frequently do attack statements without regard to the appropriate context.

Posted by blah | June 13, 2008 4:43 PM

These are not the droids we're looking for.

Posted by Dave | June 13, 2008 5:16 PM

Well, if the AP took Boren out of context, Boren should supply us with the context. Here are direct quotes from the AP article:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress...

Boren will vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August and will vote Democratic on Nov. 4.

Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegation, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."...

"We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them."

So, what's the context? Looks to me like Boren is reciting phony Repub talking points (seehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/flawed-study-ranks-obama-_n_84375.html ) and trashing our candidate for no reason at all.

Posted by Bloix | June 13, 2008 5:16 PM

Bloix:
You damn know well Boren meant what he said originally. He backtracked only when Rahm probably threatened him with a real primary challenge or other bodily harm.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 13, 2008 5:22 PM

Rahm brainwashed DAN Boren. DAVID Boren came out for Obama back in April, at the same time as Sam Nunn.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 5:28 PM

If you go to Barack Obama's new website designed to debunk internet rumors. You will notice that several of the rumors are quotes of Barack Obama's clearly taken out of context.

Posted by bluesmoke | June 13, 2008 5:35 PM

Rahm's using an old Jedi mind trick. Boren's a weak-minded fool!

Posted by Glenn | June 13, 2008 5:46 PM

Those comments that Bloix quotes seem, in fact, entirely contextless, in that they are short quotes which have apparently been taken from a longer conversation, and we are being asked to trust the reporter that s/he is characterizing the general tenor of the remarks correctly.

Obviously, Boren was being cagey about endorsing Obama, or whatever, but it's not at all clear what the emphasis of his remarks was. Although certainly Rahm threatening him has probably led him to change that emphasis in a more pro-Obama direction.

Posted by John | June 13, 2008 5:48 PM

It seems pretty odd seeing Brad Ellsworth mentioned in the same context as Boren. Is this the same Brad Ellsworth who actually said outright that he voted for Obama in the Indiana primary?

Posted by jbryan | June 13, 2008 6:02 PM

Dan Boren is as phony as his father, former U.S. Senator David Boren, who mysteriously resigned from his Senate seat in 1994. Boren was one of the most right-wing Democrats in Congress. He is a good friend of the Bush family and a member of Skull and Bones. He supported the Reagan-Bush foreign policy. In 1991, as a favor to Bush, he pushed through the confirmation of Bob Gates as CIA director. Earlier Gates, in service of Reagan, had completely sabotaged the analytical wing of the CIA and turned them into a gang of Reagan yes-men. Boren also is the mentor and sponsor of the discredited George Tenet. After he left the Senate, Boren at different times has endorsed Ross Perot, Abe Lieberman, and Michael Bloomberg. This spring he endorsed Obama, for the Democratic nomination. This was probably a secret favor for McCain, since the polls were showing that Clinton would have an easy time beating McCain but it would be a close race with Obama. Dan Boren is acting in the family tradition by keeping Obama at arms length. This should surprise no one.

Posted by Michael Wright | June 13, 2008 6:04 PM

My favourite out of context story came from a Canadian politician who had said that to this day there were people burning crosses on lawns in Prince George (A northern Canadian city). When the Mayor demanded to know where and who had fed her this story she admitted that she didn't have any evidence and had even confused the city with another.

I brought this up with one of her aides on the street during election time and he said "it was taken out of context - she meant to say...." at which point I laughed and tuned out. Sorry Ms. Fry, but just because you said it wrong does not mean it was "out of context"

Posted by Chris B | June 13, 2008 6:09 PM

This was probably a secret favor for McCain, since the polls were showing that Clinton would have an easy time beating McCain but it would be a close race with Obama.

The polls have never shown this.

Posted by John | June 13, 2008 6:12 PM

Re Michael Wright

"He is a good friend of the Bush family and a member of Skull and Bones."

So what? John Kerry is also a member of Skull and Bones.

Posted by SLC | June 13, 2008 6:13 PM

SLC doesn't understand the famous Jewish comedian Don Rickles line: "What, that's better?"

"These are not the droids we're looking for."

But these are the droids we've got.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 13, 2008 6:46 PM

Somewhere in Neil Steinberg's Complete and Utter Failure, a fantastic book, is a terrific explanation of why "taken out of context" is almost always a completely inadequate defense for an embarrassing statement. The point of "taken out of context" is intended to cover a situation as absurd as someone taking "I was with my dog when he killed a mouse after we left for the John Mayer concert before flying out of Kennedy Airport" and turning that into "I ... killed ... John ... Kennedy." Or, If you say "Hitler said, 'Kill all the Jews'" and someone quotes YOU as saying "Kill all the Jews." THAT's out of context.

That book also has a fantastic piece arguing, persuasively, that spelling bees universally blow.

Posted by Martin | June 13, 2008 7:20 PM

Somewhere in Neil Steinberg's Complete and Utter Failure, a fantastic book, is a terrific explanation of why "taken out of context" is almost always a completely inadequate defense for an embarrassing statement. The point of "taken out of context" is intended to cover a situation as absurd as someone taking "I was with my dog when he killed a mouse after we left for the John Mayer concert before flying out of Kennedy Airport" and turning that into "I ... killed ... John ... Kennedy." Or, If you say "Hitler said, 'Kill all the Jews'" and someone quotes YOU as saying "Kill all the Jews." THAT's out of context.

That book also has a fantastic piece arguing, persuasively, that spelling bees universally blow.

Posted by Martin | June 13, 2008 7:23 PM

Somewhere in Neil Steinberg's Complete and Utter Failure, a fantastic book, is a terrific explanation of why "taken out of context" is almost always a completely inadequate defense for an embarrassing statement. The point of "taken out of context" is intended to cover a situation as absurd as someone taking "I was with my dog when he killed a mouse after we left for the John Mayer concert before flying out of Kennedy Airport" and turning that into "I ... killed ... John ... Kennedy." Or, If you say "Hitler said, 'Kill all the Jews'" and someone quotes YOU as saying "Kill all the Jews." THAT's out of context.

That book also has a fantastic piece arguing, persuasively, that spelling bees universally blow.

Posted by Martin | June 13, 2008 7:41 PM

Rahm Emanuel has apparently busted the comment-posting mechanism here.

Posted by Martin | June 13, 2008 8:49 PM

This was funny. Thanks!

Posted by LL | June 13, 2008 9:16 PM

Time to throw "taken out of context" under the bus.

Posted by The Grand Panjandrum | June 14, 2008 12:32 AM

I so agree with you about bogus use of context. I would put it like this: they demand that their remarks be placed in the context they have deemed is correct for their remarks, regardless of whether that context makes any sense or not; I am thinking particularly of John McCain's '100 years' comments.

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 14, 2008 4:48 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

The point here is that what does the fact that Representative Boren was a member of Skull and Bones have to do with anything? Unless, of course, Mr. Hack is one of those conspiracy buffs who thinks that members of Skull and Bones, along with the Masons, Illuminati, and Bilderbergers run the world.

Posted by SLC | June 14, 2008 9:48 AM

I have argued that David Boren, a right-winger, close friend of Bush, and deceptive schemer from way back, endorsed Obama (for the Democratic nomination only) as a secret favor to McCain, since the polls were showing that Clinton was leading McCain while McCain and Obama were just about even.

John claims that I was wrong in my statement about the polls.

Here is a link to an ABC news poll of April 30. It has Obama and McCain running even at 45%. It has Clinton leading McCain by 48% - 43%.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obamas-negative.html

Here is a link to a May 2 poll showing McCain having a 6-point lead over Obama:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106966/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Point-Lead-Over-Obama.aspx

Posted by Michael Wright | June 14, 2008 1:13 PM

SLC left out the Zionists in his list of major conspiracies. At least the Zionists demonstrate daily that they're real, unlike the alleged Illuminati.

The point is that anybody who's a member of what is by definition an organization for and by elites is suspect of not being exactly on the same page as the rest of us. Which is why Kerry lost.

Not that SLC cares, because he approves of scum like that, as his support for the Israeli and US Zionists demonstrates.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 14, 2008 2:09 PM

tic, not tick -- i think

Posted by alexander | June 16, 2008 4:52 PM