Of course, I would like to see Obama spending as much time campaigning in the Dakotas as possible because the people in flyover country are less likely to stay on script and ask him only the screened questions.
In a former life, I was asked to prep our Japanese CEO for what later turned out to be a far less hostile media interview than we expected. Of course, we didn't know that at the time, so I gave him hostile questions and coached him on answers which we felt there was even a remote chance of being asked. The guy was OK, but did not have a great command of the English language (he was Japanese, after all), but came out looking really, really good on the 30 minute interview thanks, in some measure, with our two hours of preparation.
And I was (and am) no professional handler-- just a guy on staff with a journalism degree who happened to be available. So my question is that if I could do that for a man with limited command of English, why can't Obama's handlers allow a real interview for their guy who supposedly has superb command?
Two differences:
1. Cantor has much more experience than Obama. Attacking experience would be difficult for Obama.
2. Dan QualyE was a poor choice because he permitted himself to get labeled as “stupid” pretty boy. That’s just not going to happen with Cantor -— because -— and this is bigoted —— he’s Jewish and Jews are sterotyped by the MSM as eggheads. Turn that negative into a positive.
The MSM hates Cantor and calls him a “Bush Attack Dog” all the time. That’s good enough for me.