http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Clinton_staffer_on_antiObama_email_chain.html

It's tough being right. :D

Michale.....

I truly believe that talking points, like technology, are completely neutral. Like you said, it's how they are used....

1. All right, now that I have the text of what Rove said, it's easier to understand. Yea, that's BS. Revisionist history.. It's all the rage of politics..
My point is basically that somewhere in all the quoted articles there SHOULD have been a link to the actual interview. It made it look like there was something to hide..

2. Actually, it IS micro-managing the war. If Congress wants final approval over the bases once the negotiations are completed, that's one thing. But it's up to Bush Administration to conduct the negotiations and make the deals. Then Congress can YAY or NAY them..

3. Illegal Immigration will be THE topic of the 2008 elections. Iraq will fade. And, to be perfectly frank, for all the major candidates on both sides of the aisles, this is their Achilles Heel.. None of the candidates have the cojones to stand up and do what is RIGHT for the country, with regards to the illegal immigrants problem.

None of them can stand up and say, "If you are in this country illegally, you will be arrested and deported. PERIOD." The candidate who would have the balls to stand and say that would probably get the support of ALL the major immigration groups because, as I said earlier, the LEGAL immigrants are more vocal against illegal immigrants than anyone else.

It will be interesting to see the candidates dance their way around this issue. See them trying to please everyone and end up pleasing no one..

4. Point taken.. I am only saying that the best talking point is the one that leaves your opponent slack-jawed on the floor with nothing in the cupboard to respond with. This particular one just cries out for the "ABBOT" defense.. :D

5. I disagree with your disagree and raise you a whiney riposte.. :D Seriously, though. What was the intent of Clinton's planted questions?? Was it to make sure that all questions were softball? Partially, I am sure. But more importantly, it was designed to allow Clinton to impart the information that she wanted to impart. The same can be said for the FEMA "press conference". Sure FEMA might not have wanted to get sucker punched. But I am also sure that FEMA wanted to impart certain information and they wrongly decided that this was the best way to do it..
Putting this FEMA bonehead move in the context of Katrina is as unfair as putting Clinton's bonehead move in the context of the Vince Foster & Mr Kathleen Wiley murders...

6. Basically, I agree with you here. :D

7. Touche...

Michale.....

Good to hear from you. Hope you had a good Thanksgiving and all of that.

I firmly believe that "talking points" is a neutral term, and that they can be used for good or evil, depending on whether they come from me, or from Karl Rove (or even worse, Frank Luntz). So there. A commenter on HuffPost suggested the phrase "humble suggestions of things Democrats should say" from this article, but I feel that's a bit wordy for a title... plus, I like the fact that I'm not "spinning" the title -- it is what it is, and if the concept of "talking points" revolts you, then don't read it! It may not be as snappy as I wanted, but at least the title's honest.

But to answer your points:

1. I thought everyone had heard what Rove had to say. OK (grumble) I'll do the research... here's the video, google "Charlie Rose" and "Karl Rove" if you need a transcript:

http://www.charlierose.com/guests/karl-rove

2. This isn't micromanaging combat, this is congressional approval for long-term strategic military commitments by the United States. I'm talking about a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraq. You can honestly argue that Bush should be able to negotiate this with Maliki -- without having to go through Congress -- but don't try to pass your argument off as "micromanaging." This is "macromanaging" our country's foreign policy, not trying to manage the war itself. I can accept your criticism in some instances, but here you're way off the mark.

3. I have more to say on this issue, and in particular the Democratic (non) position on it, so look for that in a coming column. And while I wasn't so shocked at Hillary's initial stumble, I was kind of surprised that at the next debate, Obama stumbled just as badly as Hillary had in the first place. But like I said, I'm saving this for fodder for a future column, so you'll just have to wait.

4. Yeah, but it's such good political hay to be made whenever Hagel opens his mouth on the issue, that I'm surprised Democrats don't jump on it more often. Just from a PR standpoint, you understand -- that whole "talking points" thing again...

5. I disagree on this one. Every time the term "FEMA" comes up in debate, it provokes a reaction from the public of the "gang who couldn't shoot straight." Hillary's campaign stumbles just don't rise to the same level as Katrina, in other words.

6. Although I disparage hippies in this comment, I must admit I'm a child of the 70s myself and use "man" way WAY too much in my actual verbally-spoken speech. Of course, I've learned not to type in the same manner... man. If you can dig that, and not freak out on some bummer trip, man. Like, you know what I mean? See my comments in today's column on Obama's freedom from bellbottom photos...

7. Nah, I think the Washington Post has been taken over by bug-eyed aliens... man. I heard it on the internet, see....

-CW

Talk about Orwellian, eh??? :D

Anyways, moving right along...

1. So, you are quoting from a quote that is quoting from HuffPo??? How ironic is it that the article you quote from ONLY quotes from the HuffPo article with absolutely NO link to what Rove really DID say.
Why is the Left so afraid of letting us read the actual interview, rather than just depend on THEIR interpretation???

2. Congressional approval of foreign military bases.
Here again, we have Congress trying to be armchair generals and micro-manage war and combat.. I miss the "good old days" (mid 2006) when the Dems cried and whined that Bush "wasn't listening to the military generals who KNOW what they are talking about." All of the sudden the Dems in Congress are (still) crying and whining that Bush IS listening to the military generals who (now) **DON'T** know what they are talking about... :^/

3. The issue is NOT "immigrants"... It's ***ILLEGAL*** immigrants. Regardless of how many times the Left wants to frame the debate as "GOP vs IMMIGRANTS", the American public know better. And the Democrats just make themselves look like idiots.. Because the actual IMMIGRANTS are even MORE against the ILLEGAL immigrants than the GOP is..
The Democrats will LOSE the Illegal Immigrants battle.. It's best for them if they don't even TRY to address it. Witness's Hillary's HUGE stumble in the debate when this issue came up...

4. My response would be, "Of course there are Republicans who disagree with Bush.. So what... There are Democrats who disagree with Pelosi and Reid.. Hell, even MURTHA says that the surge is working when Harry Reid still denies it..
Before the Democrats try to exploit alleged cracks in the ranks of the GOP, they should try to plaster over their OWN cracks.. Which are vastly more obvious....

5. Any talk of "phony" reporters in FEMA as a way of attacking Bush will undoubtedly bring up the "planted" questions of Senator Clinton's presidential campaign... It's a point that will come back and bite the Dems on the ass...

6. I can't find fault with this point. I myself, use the word "basically" WAAAY to much when I am talking to make a point... :D

7. As for this talking point, you had me at "Topless" and "Girls" :D Ironically enough, my wife is in full agreement...
However, having said that, I am sure that the Obama attacks originated, not from the GOP, but rather from the Clinton campaign..

Why can't you Dems just play nice and get along?? :D

Michale.....