All Hail Peter Daou! Clinton Rep Wolfson To Debate O'Reilly On YearlyKos

Markos writes:

Hillary Clinton Communications Direct Howard Wolfson will go on O'Reilly's program (8 p.m.) to debate him on YearlyKos. . . . Hillary appears invested in the netroots, which is a great thing for all of us.

Peter Daou is the Clinton campaign's internet communications director. One of the folks who get it. It seems clear that Peter has had a voice in the room on this issue. And clearly the Clinton camp listened.

This is simply, imo, a brilliant move by the Clinton campaign. To get into a fight with O'Reilly defending the Netroots? To defend partisan Dems, the progressive base, against the noxious O'Reilly? Whatever you think of the Clintons, NO ONE can doubt for a moment their superior ability at the art of politics. And that matters.

< Deja Vu: Joe Klein Style | Gonzales Loses Credibility Contest >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    et al (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    Sigh.... These people are entertainers. When they cease to entertain their market, they will be gone.

    O'Reilly has a huge audience for several reasons. Among them is that he is on FOX and he (supposedly) is a "conservative." If he was on CNN he would be much smaller. He has no competition in his market.

    KO and the others are on smaller networks, and have competition within their market, which is the left wing side. Why watch MSNBC when you have PBS and Charlie Rose?

    As to Bill O's actions I haven't watched him enough to really form an opinion, but I have never seen him do anything particullarly untoward to his guests.

    When I read the number of people who have seen him do bad things, I am reminded of a comment made by a friend regarding those who saw, in person, Bobby Thompson's historic home run...

    "I didn't know any stadium held 5,000,000 people."

    Of course, why didn't I think of that!? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 11:42:19 AM EST
    These people are entertainers.
    Calling for American cities to be bombed, calling for political opponents to be killed, sexually harassing co-workers ... it's just entertainment.

    What this commenter always ignores is that these folks say they report the news ... but I guess lying liars and retired salesmen have a lot in common. They do/did it for a living.


    I confess (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:09:48 PM EST
    I watched Bill O and he didn't act one bit ugly. I am so disapointed...

    Neither one laid a glove on the other.

    The Left will claim that Daou made a great point with his claim that 100,000 of thousands visit and that's just freedom of speech.

    The Right will claim that Bill O scored a direct hit  with his quotes of some very nasty vulgar personal attacks and that Daou looked weak by not being offended.


    I gave up and went outside to gather tomatoes, cucumbers, okra and bell peppers. Time for some canning and freezing.

    No doubt this will be used (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    by purity fanatics as an example of:

    1. The Democratic party's supposed ownership of Daily Kos;


    2. Just how easy it is to flatter/pander to the netroots.

    Because the two things really fit together logically. :rolleyes:

    Clintons Kick Butt w/ Elections, but (none / 0) (#2)
    by seabos84 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 01:53:19 PM EST
    when it comes to governing ... ugh. Their labor secretary robert reich (sp) had an op-ed in the NYT

    ... sometime in the last 5 yrs?

    where he talked about there not being any real party building / coattails to clinton (my phrasing)

    and I think he nailed it.

    IF the clintons had really really really made a long lasting dent in 1 of the country's big problems - and I do NOT think they did,

    and if they hadn't so many of the little policies which stink - and I think they had too many,

    I'd GLADLY and HAPPILY vote for them ... her.

    I do NOT like politicians who are supposed to fight fascists who won't fight to win, and the clintons fight to win, for themselves.

    however, given mcaulliffe in '02 and rahm '06

    they ain't gonna fight for me.

    I don't trust them, and I really hoped in '92 when I voted for bill that hope wasn't all I'd get.


    Why is Clinton's communications director (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    debating O'Reilly? I would think Kos would be the point man.

    More Neutral? (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:38:48 PM EST
    Less loaded?

    Wow (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    Peter Daou is really great. I hadn't realized that she took him on.

    Brilliant move. Cna't wait to see the sparks.

    WillThe Day Ever Come When Olbermann Will (none / 0) (#5)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    interview/ debate....mix it up with someone he disagrees with...from the "other side"?
    Say what u will about O'relly/ his ego/ his mouth/ his message/ his ratings-
    He does produce a superior cable talk show product

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    He does produce a superior cable talk show product

    If you are a moron.


    Why the Insult?....was just commenting on Cable (none / 0) (#7)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    shows, and O'reilly in particular...and how his show is VERY successful; perhaps due to the FACT that he invites guests on his show with whom he disagrees (unlike Olbermann who for some reason basically refuses to ask any one on his show except those who always say "yea...uh-huh...i agree Keith"

    Maybe As (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    Some kind of sadistic entertainment show.... but he strikes me as an idiot.

    Sorry for the insult, I just do not understand why anyone would watch him.


    Shut up! Shut up! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:32:08 PM EST
    sound familiar? That's what O'reilly says just before turning off the mic of his opponents.

    You call that a debate? You call that brave?


    Shut Up! Shut Up! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:12:59 PM EST
    Seems to be a running theme.

    A few months ago, [Condi Rice] decided to write an opinion piece about Lebanon.


     No one would publish it.  Think about that. Every one of the major newspapers approached refused to publish an essay by the secretary of state.


    Price Floyd, who was the State Department's director of media affairs until recently


    Floyd left the State Department on April 1, after 17 years. He said he was fed up with the relentless partisanship and the unwillingness to consider other points of view. His supervisor, a political appointee, kept "telling me to shut up," he said. Nothing like that had occurred under Presidents Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush. "They just wanted us to be Bush automatons."

    Ah, Wingnuttia what a place.


    squeaky (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:02:58 PM EST
    Nothing like that had occurred under Presidents Bill Clinton  or George H.W. Bush

    Of course not. His comments were acceptable because of who they were, and who he is. I'm surprised anyone would find that mysterious.


    Hahahahahhaha (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:08:15 PM EST
    It is obvious to all that Shut up, Shut up has less to do with Floyd and everything to do with the Dubya phenomena which O'Liely is part of.

    Guess you misunderstood my point. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    His politically appointed boss during Cinton and Bush 1 was in agreement with him, and he with them. Thus no conflict.

    This boss is not and he's not. Sounds like he is doing what people do all the time all over the world. And that is quit and find another place to work.

    None of this makes him, or any of his bosses evil or wrong or wonderful and right.


    Utter BS (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:29:30 PM EST
    You are a tried and true shill for the Chimp.

    Over and over it has been noted that THe Chimperor and his Trainers have no interest in listening to anyone, period, even though they appear to seek advice.

    The Straussian/ Machiavellian principals at work preclude the possibility of taking into account any external information that would call into question their plans.  

    Advisors are only decorative in function in the current admin. Not a good thing, obviously.


    squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 12:13:20 AM EST
    Glad to see that you are feeling well, and no surprise that you make personal attacks on someone who is the messenger.

    Let's try this again.

    It doesn't matter if Floyd is right, or if he is wrong. He loved his job when he agreed with his boss, and now he hates his job when he disagrees with his boss. That's perfectly normal and natural.

    In all cases his boss was there because of a man that the country elected. There will be an election in about 15 months and we'll start over.

    Floyd probably thought his job would be the same forever, and that all would always be well.

    It doesn't work that way. Ask the people who have been shafted by NAFTA, the factory workers who have been outsourced to SE Asia...etc. and etc...


    Wow (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    You are spinning but good. No surprise as the shill turns aka the ppj show.

    Yep ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 11:34:49 AM EST
    ... and welcome to yet another (psychotic) episode.

    It was especially endearing when he accused others of personal attacks. Just like a wrongwinger to accuse others of their tactics.


    Really? (none / 0) (#8)
    by manys on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    Is O'Reilly's show "VERY successful?" Really?

    O'Reilly show is Extremely Successful (none / 0) (#9)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 03:46:26 PM EST
    based on just about any criteria one could use to measure CABLE Show success.
    His show dominates in the ratings, and a big part of that is his willingness to take on people who disagree with him...like tonight for instance.
    It this ratings context, I've always wondered why Keith Olbermann refuses to mix it up and engage in debate...one would think it would certailny help him attract more viewers

    Extremely successful (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    at dumbing down the concept of debate to include entertainment and showmanship instead of rhetorical arguments meant to persuade one to come to an informed opinion.

    Olberman does commentary aimed also at entertainment. I don't watch either (don't got a TV-Killed it). The consequences of showman's like O'Reilly, Rush and can be seen here at TL where simply shouting liar, Idiot, Moron or some other derogatory term at an opponent constitutes debate. It's successful and has proven to attract an audience, but I'd prefer Dick Cavett, Tom Snyder, Charlie Rose, Phil Donahue, or Bill Moyers if I wanted to actually learn something from an entertainment show.

    But, You're right. We're talking about success.


    at least as long as TV/ Radio/ Cable shows/ cable networks etc are in it to make money.

    I suppose if some get there way, the government can step in and make things "fair" so that even shows that don't attract a lot of viewers, can continue to air (paid for by tax payers) despite their lack of success-


    If some get their way (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:19:20 PM EST
    This is an oblique reference to the fairness Doctrine I take it? I am not fan of it at all actually.

    But you are factually incorrect in your assumption that it would ever apply to cable. Cable is not regulated by the FCC.


    I was agreeing (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:21:25 PM EST
    with this definition of success and ratings.

    TearDown... (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:56:13 PM EST
    Actually we already have NPR and PBS.

    BTW - Don't be shocked about the attacks.


    Garbage and a right wing talking point.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by dkmich on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 02:26:16 AM EST
    Nobody is asking for the fairness doctrine; and if you don't know that, you don't know dick. Tonight trying to listen to talk radio, I had a choice between Savage, Hannity and one other idiot - ALL AT THE SAME TIME.  AAR?  Couldn't get it to come in.  Lets try a little competition you conservatives are so hot to trot over.

    I think (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    TL is more Olbermann than Dick Cavett, thank gawd.

    You see, Olbermann calls dissemblers dissemblers too.

    You need to watch Olbermann to bette runderstand it. It really is not your cup of tea either.


    I'm not much of a TV person, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    I get my news elsewhere.

    I think that is obvious (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:22:03 PM EST
    though I do think Charlie Rose provides what you like.

    But certainly not Olbermann or Moyers.


    I don't know much of Olberman's (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:26:05 PM EST
    show. Its all about entertainment and some entertainment is more informative than others. O'reilly is not of the informative type. Moyers is. I withhold judgemnt on Olberman, but I would guess he is more informative than O'reilly.

    You also have not watched Moyers much (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:21:24 PM EST
    lately either.

    Indeed, Moyers is instructive. You really should read more on Moyers and his take on contemporary political discourse. You really seem to have missed the boat on what he thinks now.


    I wasn't criticizing Moyers. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:22:56 PM EST
    I admire him a lot and do set aside time to watch his shows when I can.

    I know you weren't (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:24:02 PM EST
    That's my point. Based on your views, you should criticize him.

    He does what you abhor.


    No he don't (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:28:04 PM EST
    He does what I admire. He is very persuasive without being insulting, derogatory or demeaning.

    My views are not so easily categorized and I am surprised you seem to more about them than I usually do. ;)


    I repeat (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:35:50 PM EST
    You have not watched him much recently.

    He has insulted the Media, the Bush Administration, Congress and a lot more.

    And meritoriously I might add.


    As well he should (none / 0) (#56)
    by Peaches on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 09:13:20 AM EST
    Yes I have watched him recently and he is absolutely right.

    I don't abhor you're ideas BTD, I abhor you're tactics and the way you debate with those who have alternative plans for achieving the same objectives. Moyer has respect for his opponents in debate. THis does not mean he won't criticize ideas or identify those who he sees as dangerous. You agree, as I do, with many of Moyer's criticisms of those who are dangerous to our democracy. However, if you identify with Moyer as a debater or journalist, I think I  should inform you - I've seen Bill Moyer's (recently as well as in the past) and  you're no Bill Moyers.


    Heh (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:16:20 PM EST
    Let me get this straight. You LIKE O'Reilly?



    people on his show....KO is really missing the boat, imho...he should be mixing it up and engaging those with whom he disagrees...as it is now, KO show is about as enterytainng that Limbaugh (not very)

    billo does not debate (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:23:18 PM EST
    He does not enough to debate.

    He is a very ignorant person.


    does not know enough (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:24:36 PM EST

    For someone who suggests they Don't watch (none / 0) (#29)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    Billo....u seem to have strong opinions on what is/ isn't on his show.
    Maybe i missed something....but Billo regularly has opposing view givers on his show.
    From Wesley Clarke, anti war protesters, to ACLU defenders, Barry Lynne... to this guy tonight-
    Mr. Olbermann NEVER (almost) has right wingers/ conservatives on his show.
    My real curiosity is WHY?
    Why wouldn't KO have guests on his show who diagree with him??

    Yeah, I just get (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:30:04 PM EST
    what is posted on the internet. Transcriptions of him yelling SHut Up! and Idiot.

    That's enough for me to know I don't want to make time for him.


    I Prefer Debating....even un-civil Debating (none / 0) (#34)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:34:15 PM EST
    (to a degree) compared to listening one side of an issue (whether i agree or disagree with presenter/ issues/ message)-

    Like the election debate last night?
    what a waste...i want to hear ideas....and people who are passionate defend their ideas


    o'lielly does not debate ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    ... he shouts, lies and then shuts off the mic when his guests start to speak the truth.

    He advocates bombing American cities, killing his detractors and sexually harasses his co-workers.

    Nice role model.


    When did I say I did not watch him? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:34:26 PM EST
    Oh...My Bad....So u Do Watch him? (none / 0) (#38)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:39:01 PM EST
    interesting....now why would u watch a show you dis like so much?
    Would u advise others to also watch him ...for the same reason u watch him?

    I watch everything (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:04:31 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:59:47 PM EST
    Busy dude, eh??



    I've wondered that too. Finally figured out its (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:48:04 PM EST
    for source material. Have to watch it to critique it.

    and when we are still in Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by Miss Devore on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:21:05 PM EST
    under CIC Clinton's first term, we can still keep whistling about their smart politics. Could "peace with honor" be next?

    that MissD (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    is a different point.

    I do not support Sen. Clinton for precisely the reason you state.


    why is it not (none / 0) (#33)
    by taylormattd on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:33:16 PM EST
    possible to state that HRC's campaign has made a smart political move while at the same time opposing her lack of judgment about Iraq?

    It is perfectly possible (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:36:48 PM EST
    In fact, I just did.

    depends on if people (none / 0) (#39)
    by Miss Devore on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:02:32 PM EST
    are going to fall for "smart political moves" v. judgement.

    don't see anything on the empirical plate.

    but I do observe, say at places like dk, who seem to have shifted their positive endorsements of edwards over to hillary, seem to have swooned over her change of mind to attend yk2. she's not being "cheap" like those candidates who directly engaged long ago.

    it so much reminds me of a story i thought about constructing long ago-- inspired by a co-worker who was a magnificently successful game player.

    it would involve a young man, waiting for his date at her place. he picks up a magazine of hers that outlines seduction techniques. she pulls exactly those techniques on him, and completely falls for them.

    it was perfect for Hill to call Obama "naive & irresponsible" over the issue of who we can approach diplomatically--because one of the hallmarks of bushco is avoiding diplomacy until it makes no difference whatsoever.  Not only is she feeding the youth/inexperience issue, but she's discreetly throwing the Jesse Jackson cloak over him, when, that is far from what he is.

    Those Methodists....they have their methods.


    I like this comment (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by taylormattd on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:42:35 PM EST
    I will note, however, that while many have lauded recent political moves on the part of HRC's campaign, she has actually not gained much traction at DK.

    In fact, kos posted the results of the latest straw poll today, and for all of HRC's effort, she moved from 6% to 9% in the poll, whereas Edwards still leads and Obama moved from 22% to 27%.