Ruh-roh: Obama Going On Fox

Remember this?

Now whatsay the Netroots?

Barack Obama is going where his campaign has never gone before: Fox News, where he'll be interviewed by Chris Wallace this weekend on Fox News Sunday.

For the record, I support the boycott of Fox News. I think Hillary Clinton was placed in a terrible position because of the extreme bias of NBC and the unwillingness of the Left blogs to criticize the anti-Hillary bias in the Media.

I also understand why Obama is dissing the Netroots now. They will never criticize him anyway. Why should he pander to them then?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me

< A Media Critique | The Argument Obama Supporters Should Avoid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    Well clearly it's Hillary's fault for forcing Obama to do this.  Shame on her.

    sounds odd but his base... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    ...in places like Utah and Alaska and Idaho and Nebraska and Montana etc are probably glad to see it!

    Off topic a little but still related:

    Is is possible that these Rocky Mtn states that return GOP electoral college points are full of a small band of extremely out of touch lefties? Do Idaho GOP and Dems know what a winning Dem even looks like?  Also are these caucus goers THE caracatures that conservatives think represent liberals from NY or Democrats in general?

    Is is possible that their current binary identity as GOP stalwart states for the General Election and Obama supporters in the primary mean that a gimpily leftist Democratic Party has grown up in the GOP basement?  

    In California and NY the GOP adapted to the culture there and became very formidable at teh state level, but I think (based on the Caucuses) that something as gone wrong with the remnant of Dems that have stuck it out in the deeply Red Rocky Mountain states.

    Are the local GOP voters and swing voters reacting to their home grown Dems and projecting what they see of their sorry state onto the Democratic party that exists in Penn or Cal or NY?


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:35:04 PM EST
    Colorado has a Dem Governor.  Wyoming has a Dem Governor.  Montana has a Dem Governor.  Oklahoma, Kansas, and so forth...

    So clearly someone knows something about getting Democrats elected!  It's just that their brand of Democratic politics tends to look a little different from the national brand.


    Not only is our Gov. a Democrat... (none / 0) (#40)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:39:28 PM EST
    ...but the the D's control both houses of the legislature.  Come November, we will have 2 US Senators that are Democrats (well Salazar is pretty much a DINO at times).  

    So yeah, I guess us Coloradians are just a bunch of out-of-touch lefties.


    You missed the point. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    of course.

    It's not been like that until VERY recently.  

    The main thrust is that what was the local Dem party like during the 1990s and early 2000s?

    I wonder if the chatter about San Fan and Greenwich village is really about enclaves of Dems in the local Party and not actually about the San Franciscans or Manhattanites.

    A projection if you will.


    Did I? (none / 0) (#57)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM EST
    ...I got your point all too well.  I also got your implication and I must say I find it to be ill-informed and naive.  We really don't care what they are going on the coasts.  Coloradians are funny that way.  We're pretty independent and don't project the "big city" happenings on to ourselves.  

    And to say that a Democrat can't carry this state in the GE is downright silly.


    well... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:56:04 PM EST
    ...if that's the game, all those hardcore racist Dems in Penn got Obama's point I suppose.

    I thinking about (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    the last 20 years.  Recently the Dems have made breakthroughs at the state level as the GOP fortunes have sunk--that's certainly true.

    But The Senate and House tend to be all locked up excluding a couple of interesting anomolies like Talent.

    I doubt well be winning these states for the presidency though.

    So It links into Fox to some extent, not too far off topic.


    Not here... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:23 PM EST
    ...there's (last 20 years) always been a pretty good mix of R's/D's in Colorado, despite the R's having better registration numbers.  

    Gary Hart
    Tim Worth
    Ben Nighthorse Campbell (elected as a D)
    Roy Romer
    Diane DeGette
    Mark Udall (Our next US Senator)

    The list goes on and on...


    Montana (none / 0) (#79)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    has a Dem gov, Brian Schweitzer and Max Baucus has been our Dem senator since 1978; both will be easily re-elected next fall. Our brand new Dem Senator Jon Tester beat Senator Conrad Burns in 2004. Rehberg, our Republican congressman since 2001, will unfortunately also be easily relected. Our state legislature is almost always evenly split--right now Dems have a one-seat majority in the Senate and Repubs have a one-seat majority in the House. Only one Republican holds a major state office, all the rest are Dems. We actually have been more Democratic than not throughout history--just went through a bad patch from 1988-2004.

    Montana used to be a swing state, voted for Clinton in 1992, but swung Repub for 96, 00, and 04. Second Amendment rights, conservation, and respect for state's rights are big issues for most here, but I really think Montanans just like their governments split, both state and federal, with the idea that balance is best.


    I expect half of them (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    to walk back their criticism of Fox. Obama is just spreading the hope to a new audience, you see.

    I Think You Underestimate The Boyz In The Blogz (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    and Obama supporters. No way will even half of them would ever question any of Obama's actions.  At least 99.9% will be for this IMO.

    Yep, All Of A Sudden This Will Be A Good Idea... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    wish I could rub their noses in the stupidity of it.

    I think I just heard... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    Arianna pop her Xanax bottle open.

    Where's the outrage? (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    What's next?  Interviews with Richard Mellon Scaife?

    Next Barack... (5.00 / 14) (#6)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    will be praising Reagan and demeaning the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration.

    Oh, wait...


    The netroots (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    likes being treated like dirt by their candidates.  It makes them feel special.

    Holy crap (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM EST
    Do you think they'll ask him real questions?  Surely, the only reason Obama agreed to do this was for softballs.  My prediction: opens with Obama talking about kittens, ends with him kissing a puppy.

    okay, works for me (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:03:16 PM EST
    as long as there's an adorable baby who cutely burps as he bounces him on his shoulder and a sweet, slightly daft elderly woman he helps cross the street to the pharmacy while carrying her groceries.



    Here's hoping he handles them better (none / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    than a bowling ball.

    In a fit of pique (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    Obama tries to bowl the puppy and throws a softball at the baby (he misses).

    DKos subsequently has 10 FPgers announcing the new and innovative way to raise both puppies and children. AND IT WORKS!!!!  [snarkity snark]


    To be fair. . . (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:12:20 PM EST
    I also understand why Obama is dissing the Netroots now.

    Obama's been fairly consistent in dissing the "netroots".  One of his finer qualities is that he shares my disdain.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:13:42 PM EST
    True dat.

    I'd distain the netroots too. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    He's welcome to the sentiment.

    Didn't Obama also Appear on Hannity's Show (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    on Fox News after the Wright controversy?  I don't understand why TPM would say Obama is going where he "has never gone before" then.

    Also, TNR now says "it's abundantly clear that Fox News is just the latest beneficiary of the Clinton's campaign's ongoing outreach to the vast right-wing conspiracy."  I guess Obama hasn't gotten the memo yet.

    Yes, here's the link for Hannity & Colmes (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    Never on FOX before? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    What about this?

    Just one more lie from Obama (none / 0) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:28:05 PM EST
    Question: will Obama be on Fox before (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    or after Wright is on with Bill Moyers?  They are  all over the Wright thing today.  Chris Wallace is a more of a softy so it will be less with him than anyone else on Fox.  

    MSNBC is allowing less than positive discussion of Obama now.  Tweety and Todd discussing that people are questioning his 'fight' and calling Clinton the 'populist', a firebrand, fighter, (Tweety: if he can't fight her, he loses to her.)  Ouch.

    Axelrod wearing a

    Obama   T-shirt.

    Leave Obama aloooooone.

    Drama?! (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:08:50 PM EST
    Gee, has he looked in a mirror lately?

    Tweety (none / 0) (#37)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    may be running for Senate in PA - where Hillary just won.  Maybe he realizes he needs to tone down his man-crush of Obama since the voters in all but 7 counties clearly rejected him.

    So if we let him have the nomination (none / 0) (#62)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    Then Obama will stop being a major drama queen?? I swear, I see more mature behavior from my 3 year old colts!!! And they are horses!!

    The blogs have always had a strange (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:23:25 PM EST
    relationship with Obama. It started out with him smacking them around for not "surprising" him. He's never stood up for them as far as I know, whereas sent Wolfson out there to defend Dailykos against O'Reiley. And yet they shun the one who backs them and back the one who shuns them.

    It's pretty odd. I can't believe there are that many masochists out there.

    Obama's candidacy... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:40:10 PM EST
    ...can be interpreted as party political masochism.

    Let's make this hard on ourselves, in a gimme year--for America has sinned.


    I think that Presidential candidates (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:31:59 PM EST
    should appear on FOX. Doing so shows they are looking to represent all Americans. There must be a lot of people who only watch FOX. The President needs to speak to them, IMO.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    Obama is the candidate who is supposed to unite us - blue, red, black, white, whatever.  Appearing on Fox and making nice with his enemies - as Hillary has done countless times, most recently on KO's show - would show that he can walk the talk.  

    Anyway, judging by what I've seen of the coverage of this election, Fox no longer holds the title as the most biased news network.  MSNBC and CNN are generally just as bad if not worse.


    Unite all of us ... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:32 PM EST
    except Clinton supporters aren't considered "us", of course.

    We're too busy (none / 0) (#69)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM EST
    being bitter, clinging to God and guns.

    An MSM version of the 50 state strategy (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:34:25 PM EST
    Sounds about right to me.

    The ONLY one who boycotted Fox... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by citizen53 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    was John Edwards.

    Obama appeared in an exlusive FOX interview days after Edwards exploded the proposed FOX debate in April, 2007.

    As I recall (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:49:05 PM EST
    Obama gave Fox the cold shoulder for quite a while after they ran the madrassa smear against him.  John Gibson and others couldn't stop whining about it.

    You recall wrong... (none / 0) (#86)
    by citizen53 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    because he appeared in April and again in September as I recall.

    An interview with Senator Barack Obama taped this afternoon aired on FNC's "Special Report with Brit Hume" tonight. Obama discussed McCain's newly announced position on the war:

        I don't doubt John McCain's sincerity on this issue, but I doubt his wisdom on it. The fact is I'm somebody who opposed the war when it was unpopular to do so.

    UPDATE: The Obama interview occurred with a group of reporters asking questions, one of whom was from FNC.

    UPDATE2: The above update is incorrect and I got duped. Greg Sargent has the full details. So I again reiterate the question; why did Obama back out of FNC's debate and make a statement about FNC's coverage and then less than a week later do an interview on FNC?



    Has that Markos guy (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:06:22 PM EST
    written anything yet about Obama's decision here?

    I posted this on dKos (none / 0) (#82)
    by gaf on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:16 PM EST
    Hillary's people praised FOX (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilybart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    so let's see how fair and balanced they are.

    They actually only said (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:13:07 PM EST
    that Faux is fairer to Hillary than MSNBC and CNN....a case that happens to be true.

    Do you know the reason for this? (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilybart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:24:39 PM EST
    The right wants Hillary to be the nominee, NOT because they prefer her policies, LOL, but because they know how to take her down and they want the chance.

    could we please get someone (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:27:18 PM EST
    else from Obama trolls, Inc?  No offense, but we're just not that into you.

    lmfao (none / 0) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    So (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    Why does the GOP already have commercials linking gubernatorial candidates to Barack Obama (in a not-so positive way), plus 527 groups have said they are lined up with material on Obama?

    They aredrooling at the thought of running against Obama...


    Taylor Marsh/ot (none / 0) (#33)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    says that commercial was pulled, but I heard on CNN that the NC repubs were going to run it through the week.  Which is it?

    x (none / 0) (#39)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:39:00 PM EST
    2 stations in NC are already saying they won't play it. But it's already out there - can probably find it on YouTube.  

    But this is only a strike across the bow.


    they won't play it? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:47:31 PM EST
    I wonder why.  Is it: Wright's words are so inflammatory that the stations are refusing to air them (haha, yet folks think that the rest of America will have no problem with Obama's association with this "spiritual leader.")  Or is because the stations think it's "wrong" somehow?  

    I'd be really curious to know the reasoning behind refusing to air the ads--is it content or is it political?  Or is there a difference at this point?  This sort of censorship makes me very uncomfortable, because it can go both ways.  It might help Obama now, but who will it hurt later?


    Here's the link (none / 0) (#52)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:03:13 PM EST
    (sorry - it takes you to MSNBC)



    Are you joking? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:38:17 PM EST
    The GOP FEARS running against Obama. When he makes his VP choice, they're going to meltdown.

    I mean, how is McCain going to beat Obama/Sunshine Care Bear?

    Unbeatable ticket!


    x (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:39:36 PM EST
    The Barney supporters are going to be mad as H**l!

    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    And those Teletubbies can hold a grudge, too.

    Especially the gay one!! (none / 0) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    that's it! (none / 0) (#56)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:07:20 PM EST
    I refuse to vote for Obama unless he runs with either SpongeBob or Patrick.  Even Sandy Cheeks would do.  But NOT Plankton!

    Okay, how sad is it that I know these cartoon characters so well?  (sigh)  I blame my nephews.  And the tee-vee.

    That evil tee-vee.  Grrrrrrrr ...


    REALLY? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    Llort a eb ot ecin!

    riiiight (none / 0) (#64)
    by miguelito on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:19:40 PM EST
    so the reason Fox is not unfairly bashing Hillary and kissing up to Obama is because they want to influence the Dem primary at this stage.. good call!

    That (none / 0) (#16)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:16:34 PM EST
    as I recall, was Ed Rendell speaking with partial tongue in cheek. A reference to the inexcusable treatment from the NBC mafia.

    Any takers? (none / 0) (#15)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:15:46 PM EST
    Is Chris Wallace going to fold like a cheap suit over the wonderfulness of Obama? Is FOX going to end up being like, (shudder) MSNBC?

    Of course Wallace will (none / 0) (#32)
    by Andy08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:32:04 PM EST
    that guy is worse than Olberman, Russert and Matthews together....

    He has no spine and he is a terrible journalist; really very poor.  


    It must be reassuring (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lahdee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM EST
    to know that because your supporters have boxed themselves in with their unwavering, wild-eyed, adoring behavior you can do pretty much whatever you like regardless of what they think. Wonder if it leaves an empty feeling?
    Is denial a river in Egypt?

    But (none / 0) (#22)
    by Andy08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    it is not like BO is getting an interview from Hannity. It's with wimpy Chris Wallace...

    Didn't (none / 0) (#26)
    by nell on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    he give an interview to Major Garrett when the Wright story broke for FOX?

    The Netroots Should Get Used To It (none / 0) (#43)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:20 PM EST
    If he's elected, they're going to be getting dissed by him for the next four or eight years.  If you ask for nothing in return for your support, you'll get nothing.   And many of them have asked for nothing.

    Okay, that's not quite right, they've asked that he not be Hillary Clinton.  Done.  He owes them nothing more.

    BTW, This Is Why I Think Clinton Will Be Better (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    on issues like healthcare, etc.   Because she's had to fight for every vote, she'll owe her supporters big time.  Who are those folks?  The working class and women.  People who often benefit most from progressive policies.  

    He'll disavow them (none / 0) (#80)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:54:11 PM EST
    and their pet issues so fast that they will wonder if Hillary brainwashed him.  :)

    DKos already has a diary about it. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Bees on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    It's probably no surprise that they are generally favorable to the idea, although there are a few who oppose it.


    Markos can't find flaws in Obama because (none / 0) (#85)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:39:11 AM EST
    it would mean that Markos and DailyKos is flawed in supporting him.  When Hillary went on FoxNew, they beat her up and called her a sell-out and a Republican.

    The hypocrisy keeps on going...


    I Am Sure The Netroots Will Find An Excuse For Him (none / 0) (#54)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    Obama consistently does what he says he would never do; why is anyone surprised.  It was just a matter of time til he went on Fox.

    Damage control? (none / 0) (#55)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:05:51 PM EST
    No doubt they'll be asking him about the Bill Moyers interview of Rev. Wright, scheduled for Friday night.  MSNBC is showing a snippet right now.

    Oh really? do you have any (none / 0) (#61)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:13:19 PM EST

    Not really (none / 0) (#66)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    they just showed a few seconds.  Knowing Moyers (whom I admire immensely) it'll be a sympathetic interview, but it'll be like preaching to the choir. Moyers' viewers are the ultimate latte-drinkers (I guess I'd be included in that category, even though I'm a Clinton supporter).

    My guess is that there will be at least a few unfortunate soundbytes from the interview that will keep the Wright story going, which is not a good thing for Obama.

    No Quarter has a post up about the interview.


    Moyers and latte drinkers (none / 0) (#72)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:38:15 PM EST
    I don't drink latte. I don't drink wine. I'm not a rich Californian or New Yorker. I too like Moyers. I think your stereotype is a bit off base here.

    Chillax! (none / 0) (#75)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:42:46 PM EST
    I was being facetious.  I actually don't drink latte or wine either, although I am guilty of being a New Yorker.

    But it certainly is a stereotype of the typical PBS viewer.


    Now, this is rich. (none / 0) (#68)
    by fafnir on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    Even after Obama threw Grandma, Rev Wright, and the people who live in small towns under the campaign bus, he left plenty of room under there for his netroots faithful. Its going to be a bumpy ride to Denver!

    Obama FOX - great (none / 0) (#73)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:39:35 PM EST
    I think this is great news.
    If you want to be President you have to be for ALL Americans - even conservative Fox viewers.

    SPIN ROSHOMAN, SPIN (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    chris wallace (none / 0) (#74)
    by english teacher on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:40:49 PM EST
    wasn't he the guy that sandbagged the big dog on abc's phony "path to 9/11" garbage?  obama had better not be complacent.  i'm sure wallace the baby faced would-be assassin has a nasty question or two lined up for the senator.

    I remember (none / 0) (#84)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:36:24 AM EST
    reading that post.

    There was still a trace of sanity in that post although even by that time I felt he was really full of himself.