At the time I am writing this, Hillary has made her comments and Obama just made his comments.
Will the Republicans (Romney) try to spin this as a failed foreign policy debacle?
Will voters see Obama as stronger or weaker in foreign policy?
Just wondering how this story is going to affect the upcoming election, if at all.
So far Romney is being villified for his comments.
What comments?
You are right. It didn’t take long for even other Republicans to distance themselves.
The guy is clueless.
He blamed the initial furor on Obama’s Middle East policy and bashed Obama over the initial statement from the Egyptian consulate, which took a very apologetic tone and mentioned people ‘abusing their rights’ by criticizing Islam. The administration apparently did not approve that statement and has rebuffed it, and Clinton made a more forceful critique. Even after it was reported that the Libyan embassy had been attacked (but before it was confirmed the ambassador was dead), Romney continued to hit the administration about the Cairo statement and the theme of “apologizing” for free expression. And it sounds like Romney is still making those criticisms despite the murder of the ambassador now even though he acknowledges the fact that the White House didn’t like the initial statement and agreed with Obama’s denunciation this morning. So Romney is being bashed for trying to turn the death of an ambassador and other Americans into a critique of the tone of Obama’s foreign policy. It looks like total fuckup for Romney at this point.
The “something bad happened, quick blame Obama!” reaction is pretty much ingrained by now, they have nothing else.
I’ve already screwed this up once, so I’ll just post these links here for further reading of Republican condemnation of Romney’s response:
I’d expect them to try and blame Obama. It is election season after all.
Say some vague bullshit about how the President isn’t respected enough by Egyptian football fans, and President Romney would intimidate them into being good or something.
But taking the “Obama is on the side of the rioters” line while a US Ambassador’s body is still above room-temperature is nuts. No one except the truly fanatic anti-Obama voters are going to buy the premise, and most sane people, even if they’re Romney voters, are going to find it pretty off-putting.
This take by Alexander Burns at Politico is spot on:
It’s worth adding at this point - as many stories on this topic are already doing, which is why I know about it 
- that Obama has a significant lead over Romney in terms of voter perception of their foreign policy views. This isn’t going to change that, and at the moment I don’t see much risk for Obama because the Libyan interim government has also condemned the attacks, so he doesn’t have to deal with a thorny issue like a foreign government standing up to him. Romney, on the other hand, arguably looks like a jerk and is standing by an awkward criticism that seems irrelevant now that people have died. If nothing else, Romney simply weighed in too soon on this one.
Poor Romney, even when he tries to get out ahead of the story, it just manages to smack him in the back of the head.
This guy is a complete dufus. It’s clear that all he brought to Bain was his dad’s connections and a willingness to do anything for money.
Not even Mark Halperin can find anything good to say about Mitt’s blunder:
The Alexander Burns quote is perceptive, and probably the only real way to make any statement on how this will go.
I’ve been saying that everything has to go right for Romney if he is to win. A big piece of that is not losing whole weeks of precious campaign time on losing causes. Everybody makes mistakes in a campaign and it’s probably true to say that in a tight race the one with the fewest mistakes wins. Every moment not getting the message of the day out is a lost opportunity. Taking advantage of opportunities as the real world throws them up could be an unexpected win. Little things like this play disproportionate roles. You have to be lucky and make your own luck. Obama got lucky with the hug and unlucky with the embassy’s botched response. He’s trying to turn that around and probably will succeed. Romney got lucky with a chance to discredit the president. He could have built on that, but so far that’s not happening. If the dialogue is between a forceful condemnation from a President and a “you’re weak” from a challenger, the President wins every time. Look at George W. Bush for proof of that.
He tried, but so crassly and hamhandedly that it is backfiring on him like one of Wile E. Coyote’s traps for the Roadrunner.
I think you guys are a perfect example of an “echo chamber”
This isn’t going to play out well for Romney. Obama will be in full commander-in-chief mode where he has a big advantage. Other Democrats will attack Romney relentlessly for his statement. Few Republicans will join him in attacking Obama on this issue. Romney is going to look desperate, politicizing a national tragedy just when he is falling behind in the polls.
I think this blunder is going to seal the narrative of Romney as running an incompetent campaign. There was already talk about his gaffes during the primary. Since winning the nomination, he has made three big mistakes: the Olympic comments, the Eastwood fiasco and now this. This is bad because it undermines Romney's biggest strength: his perceived competence. This perception is well-deserved because of his previous career. It has taken a lot of mistakes to undermine it but I think it's finally happened.I think this is more of a threadshit than a counterargument.
Free Republic is an echo chamber. Democratic Underground is an echo chamber. The Dope is not; we have LWs and RWs posting here.
The big fat smirk on his face as he dances in the blood of the dead cranks that impression up to eleven.
Recollections of his previous career only make the damage worse – people see him as inept now, and this will seal the impression that all he ever did before was coast on his wealth and connections.