The New York Times had a story about how the crowds coming out to see President Obama are big, but just not of the impressive size that he drew in 2008. When asked about it, Obama aides say that they are deliberately limiting the size of the crowds that can come out to see him.
“Our focus right now is on exciting our supporters and winning over undecided voters and the smaller and medium-size events are the best venue to accomplish that because the president can closely engage with the crowd.”Yeah, sure. That bit of spin reminded Mark Steyn of the scene from This is Spinal Tap when they notice that they're appearing in smaller venues. Here is Steyn's version.
Big rallies are expensive, especially given the logistical and security challenges for a president as opposed to a mere United States senator. And Obama campaign operatives, both at the Chicago headquarters and in swing states where Mr. Obama recently has stumped, say the campaign intentionally limits crowds by restricting tickets. The reason is to allow the president to better connect with supporters, aides say.
ROB REINER: The last time Spinal Tap toured America, they were, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they’re being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh…the popularity of the group is waning?Yeah, that's the ticket. Obama's appeal is just more selective. Sure. As if Obama is better connecting with his supporters in a group of 1,000. But what are they going to say when confronted with an uncomfortable question?
BAND MANAGER DAVID AXELROD: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no…no, no, not at all. We have plenty of time for big stadium gigs. But our focus right now is on intentionally limiting crowds by restricting tickets – to allow the band to better connect with fans.
ROB REINER [NODDING]: Yeah.
Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, went on CNN and was asked about Obama's media strategy of the past few months of not answering questions from the White House press corps for two months but giving interviews to People magazine, "Entertainment Tonight" and a New Mexico pop radio station. And this is the spin she put forth:
“I don’t think that they’re more important, but I think that they’re equally important,” Cutter said. “I think that’s where a lot of Americans get their news. And I think the president’s going to continue doing that.And then she immediately swiveled to asking for Romney's tax forms.
I guess it's to be expected that a man who got elected because he was a celebrity should try to campaign for reelection as just another celebrity. And why shouldn't we find out about Obama along with stories about Kim Kardashian or Katie Holmes?
Actually, the people most upset about this are the members of the White House press corps and who really cares about them. I just think it's funny that, despite the lack of challenge that the White House press corps has presented to President Obama in press conferences that he still wants to avoid them.
Of course, Stephanie Cutter is the same aide who denied knowing anything about Joe Soptic who appeared in that noxious Super PAC ad trying to connect Mitt Romney to the death of his wife. Then she was confronted with the fact that she had earlier been on a conference call during which Mr. Soptic narrated the same story. She is still denying that she knew anything even though there is a tape of her on that conference call that she was narrating. But why not lie? No one cares except for people who already are ticked off about the ad and they're probably not voting for Obama anyway.
Stephanie Cutter is the gift that keeps on giving. Yesterday she denied that Obama cut money from Medicare even though just a few days ago she was bragging about the $700 billion cut in Medicare that the President achieved through health care reform.
I guess lying is just the business that they're in, but they don't seem particularly good at it.