Axelrod: Obama’s Closing Message NOT Going Negative: Uh, Uh, Watch While I Go Negative

Its takes a special kind of person to play the civility card while trading in vitriol and hateful rhetoric; to talk about fiscal responsibility while proposing pork-filled legislation; to be critical of a campaign for not giving specifics while being intentionally vague across the board; or to talk about positive campaigning and momentum while hammering his opponent with negativity.

David Axelrod is that kind of person, he’s that kind of surrogate, and this is that kind of campaign.  Like it, love it, or hate it.  That is the current state of your presidential election, folks.

Say everything.  Say nothing.  Say that you’ve said everything about nothing and your opponent’s said nothing about everything.

For what its worth, I particularly enjoy watching David Axelrod in interviews like this.  When I say “like” I don’t mean “like” as in I’d like to have a beer with the dude or even agree with an ounce of the truckload of crap he’s sharing.  What I mean is I like listening to him in the same way I’d like to play poker with him sitting to my left.

Notice when Axelrod is given the chance to dictate the terms of the conversation.  He’s free flowing and confident.  His words come off like they’re being read from a script.  He’s on point.  He’s on message.  He’s articulate and he’s effective.  Then watch what happens when he’s asked to actually think for himself.

Its as if someone hit the “UH” button.  Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh…

The guy’s going All-In with unsuited non-face-cards and he knows he’s not playing for a straight.   He’s got the poker face of Elmo.  Just picture him giggling instead of dropping UH’s.

Think of it this way.  If you take at face value everything he says without the telltale transitions and pauses, you have the president’s talking points – love’em or hate’em – and the general position of the Obama campaign.  If you look only for the responses following the uh’s, you have the president’s weaknesses and the greatest points of vulnerability open for attack by Governor Romney.  If there’s a poker player in Romney’s camp, they have to be ripping these Axelrod interviews to shreds for strategy moving forward.  And if there’s not, there should be.

Since this interview is more or less what I’d categorize as “fluff” or a total waste of time, its probably not the best example to demonstrate how the Axelrod tell works on specifics issues or subjects.  But watch as he moves through these rather simple questions.  He’s asked about unfavorable polls and he responds with UH’s.  When he talks about favorable polls, no UH’s.  When he’s hammering Governor Romney, no UH’s.  When he’s defending the president’s record and plan for a second term, more UH’s.

Its a 6-minute interview, yet still there are many.  Here’s one.

CROWLEY:  Why after all this time does Governor Romney beat President Obama on the question of who can better handle the economy?

 AXELROD:  I – UH – actually prefer the CNN polls like the one you put out on Friday where – UH- we were ahead in Ohio. – UH AND UH –  In states like Ohio and elsewhere, people know the reality.  The president took tough steps to save our economy from free fall to save the auto industry – UH –  which Governor Romney would not have done.  And he has a vision of how to move this economy forward that will rebuild the middle class – UH - and Governor Romney who runs around this country saying ‘I represent change’ doesn’t represent change.  He represents a return to failed policies of the past.

Watch the interview.  You’ll never watch an Axelrod interview the same, ever again.

Watch for yourself.  Pay close attention to how this one concludes.  When he’s asked about the president’s “closing message”, pay close attention to how much trouble he has making a “positive” Obama argument.  And then watch how seamlessly he makes the “negative” argument against Governor Romney.

Closing Message?

Negativity.

Attack Governor Romney so no one notices the President has absolutely no plan of his own for a second term; or at least not one he’s willing to share with the electorate before next Tuesday.

I think Crowley got her answer.  This poker player certainly did.