Hotline After Dark -- Making A Statement

A majority of last night's TV focused on the conflict between Russia and Georgia, and how Barack Obama and John McCain are responding to it.

FNC's Barnes: "I haven't learned a whole lot from these statements, but every time one of them mentions the U.N. is a place to go, I think that is a waste of time. ... To be honest, I haven't been real impressed with what either of these candidates have said, but they're just the candidates. There's not much they can do. Here is what I was struck by that McCain said, though, in a statement. ... 'World history is often made in remote, obscure countries.' ... This is McCain's advantage here. ... He used his statement today, McCain did, to show he understands the sweep of history, something Obama has not yet done" ("Special Report," 8/11).

Ex-PA Gov. Tom Ridge (R), asked if McCain's attitude towards Russia is getting too militant: "One of the real challenges we have in the 21st century is holding a country like Russia, that's now invaded an emerging democracy that had free elections -- how do you hold them accountable? ... Until they are more accountable to the rules that civilized countries play by, be they military, diplomatic, or economic, I don't think it's necessarily being combative to suggest that, unless their conduct complies with a certain norm, that there has to be consequences" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 8/11).

CNN contributor Roland Martin, on whether Obama should return from vacation to formally address the situation in Georgia: "No, because the reality is this is President Bush's job. He is the president. The candidates, all they could simply do is make statements. They aren't involved in any kind of negotiations" ("Election Center," 8/11).

Ex-NSC sr. dir. Flynt Leverett, on Obama calling for Georgia to disavow force: "This is a problem that Senator Obama faces on a number of issues, not just this one to the extent that he wants to try and take a more nuanced approach, appreciate all of the complexities of a difficult issue because he doesn't reflexively want to resort to force or to draw lines that the U.S. wouldn't be able to defend anyway. He's always open to the charge of being weak. Certainly, Senator McCain would try to make that point" ("Countdown," MSNBC, 8/11).

After the jump, Wolfson's comments are examined.

(KATHERINE LEHR)

BACK TO THE FUTURE?

There was also a lot of chatter about ex-Clinton comm. dir. Howard Wolfson saying Hillary Clinton would have won the Dem nod if the John Edwards story had come out earlier.

Wolfson, asked if he stands by his statement: "Well, my gut tells me that had this come out before the Iowa caucus, Senator Clinton would have done better in the Iowa caucus. And the result would have been different. You know, I think there are a lot of different ways you can play the what-if game. I think, for instance, that if Senator Clinton hadn't teared up in New Hampshire, Barack Obama would have won New Hampshire and he would have been the nominee in January. So, you can play this 50 different ways" ("O'Reilly Factor," FNC, 8/11).

Ex-Clinton adviser Maria Cardona: "I don't think it's true. I think it's a lot of lamenting that's going on. ... It's not helpful and it's a little bit irrelevant. It's like saying, if Senator Obama hadn't run, she would be the nominee or if we had run under the Republican Party rules, she would be the nominee. Maybe. But you know what? None of that stuff happened. ... There's not even the point to really talking about it" ("Verdict," MSNBC, 8/11).

CNN's Crowley: "This is one of those coulda, shoulda, wouldas, that Hillary Clinton said that the Clinton campaign should not do, having lost. And, you know, you come less three weeks before the convention, when unity is the big deal. It's just not helpful" ("Situation Room," 8/11).

Karl Rove, on IA: "I went and looked at some of the returns by county, and I do think there's an argument to be made that Obama tended to do better in the college counties and Edwards tended to do better in the sort of blue-collar, urban counties. ... I'm not certain I buy that if Edwards were not in the race Clinton would have won ... because that would require two out of every three Edwards supporters to have supported her, but I do think you could make the argument and make it a credible one that the race would have been much closer" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 8/11).

Newsweek's Alter: "Nowadays, there's so much information in politics. We can actually go back and look at exit polls, who was your second choice. The second choice of Edwards voters was Obama. Those voters would have gone to Obama. They would not have gone to Hillary Clinton. So what Howard Wolfson said is untrue" ("Countdown," MSNBC, 8/11).

Weekly Standard's Hayes: "There's something to what Howard Wolfson is saying. You know, you look at the kinds of voters that were supporting Hillary in that primary or in the caucus and then the ones that were supporting her down the road. And, you know, John Edwards had a lot of those voters. ... Politically, what we're talking about is today and how it affects things today. And certainly this is not helpful for Obama" ("Situation Room," CNN, 8/11).