home

Did Obama Go After Fox? Uh, No

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:49:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Paul Rosenberg, who like me has been a critic of Barack Obama's political style, speculates that Obama will go after Fox tomorrow in his appearance on Fox News Sunday:

Obama could--potentially--go on Fox News, and counterattack the very essence of the Versaille narratives deployed against him, and yet gain a fair amount of Versailles support, because his supporters could act as if he's only attacking Fox News, and not their own identical behavior.

NOTE: It turns out the interview already took place and it was a lovefest. Stoller does not believe Fox. I do. I think it would have been quite shrewd of Obama to do so and I agree with Rosenberg that Obama could have pick up Media Elite support for doing so. But I think Obama is clearly too cautious a politician to even try it. More . . .

The Obama camp probably was thinking 'do we need another Media camp to join Lou Dobbs in an all out attack on Barack Obama?' and they apparently convinced Obama to play it safe. After all, he is still in the driver's seat for the nomination. Besides, if it is not clear by now, it should be, Obama is NOT a fighter. Period. It is time to stop expecting him to be one.

I wanted him to become one. He never did. And he never will. If you want a fighter, then Obama is not your man.

< Hillary Challenges Obama to Non-Moderated Debate | The Electoral Map and the Battleground States >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Did Obama Go After Fox? Uh, No | 157 comments (157 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama Is Afraid Of His Own Shadow... (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:52:34 PM EST
    And I thought he said he would never go on Fox News.  But then, again, he told Tim Russert he was absolutely NOT going to run for president in 2008.

    Of course the Kossacks (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:55:55 PM EST
    will praise him for going on Fox, although HRC's meeting with Mellon Scaife was tantamount to treason.

    Parent
    He also said (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by nemo52 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:59:11 PM EST
    he would complete his first term in the Senate before running for higher office.

    Parent
    He ran the risk of having (4.00 / 2) (#52)
    by pie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    too much baggage.

    Instead, he doesn't have enough.

    Parent

    He has plenty (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    but he took the vacation bags instead of the work ones.

    These suitcases are full of personal items...

    Parent

    I'd Bet That That Suitcase Has Not Been Fully (none / 0) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:08:42 PM EST
    unpacked yet. A couple of more layers yet to go.

    Parent
    A few layers? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:12:16 PM EST
    A few more bags!:-p


    Parent
    With baggage (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by pie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:16:24 PM EST
    comes experience.

    Hehas never taken a stand when it was a controversial one.  His "present votes were a cop-out, and everyone sould know that.

    She voted, she took her stands, in some cases for political reasons, and she's had to acquire the baggage and be subjected to the criticism.

    But she did it, agree with her or not. She's still standing and fighting.

    He. Did. Not.  

    Sorry, Obama has never been the one for me, because he hasn't been willing to take the risks.

    But, gosh darn, he gives pretty speeches.  Or used to anyway.

    Parent

    That is why (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:52:37 PM EST
    I like Hillary. Tougher than nails and smarter, even, than her husband IMHO. An amazing combination.

    He came off... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:53:40 PM EST
    angry and sullen at the last debate that he does risk being characterized poorly if he does the same again.

    Sure, he's got to push back at times and WJC showed how that is done over at Fox but he's not WJC.

    I wonder if part of the reason (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:56:27 PM EST
    he's such a media darling is that they know he's too timid to go after them.

    Parent
    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    Did you see the DC establishment and elites strolling into the White House Correspondents dinner tonight? Those are Obama supporters.
    After the video of David Gregory and Karl Rove dancing went viral and there was an outcry from the public against the coziness between government officials and reporters who are supposed to cover them, the NYT said they would no longer participate.
    The jokes start about 9:30. But I doubt anyone will top Cobert's performance.


    Parent
    the great thing about Colbert (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:16:09 PM EST
    at that thing was that he actually told them to their faces what he really thinks about them.  You NEVER see that.  I mean, contrast it with K "Special Moment" O not being able to stand up to Clinton.

    Obama doesn't stand up to anybody.  He gets his guys to do the dirty work while he smiles in their faces.

    Parent

    You may have something there. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Joelarama on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:38:23 AM EST
    I certainly don't hear media figures express the same man-lust for Obama that they express for McCain.

    Parent
    I think he is a fighter (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Coldblue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:56:37 PM EST
    but what I'm unsure about to this day is exactly what he is willing to fight for.

    Here is your answer.. (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    the Illinois senator was "friendly" and discussed several moderate-to-Republican viewpoints, making an apparent effort to broaden his appeal.
    He will apparently fight for Republican policies..oh, great..and then there is this..
    "He made it very clear he was not some left ... liberal and he had been mischaracterized as such,"
    Ok, so he isn't a liberal, he isn't at all "left". So he is a Republican masquerading as a Democrat?? Well, that just confirms my stance on who is fit to be President. And it's not someone who disowns the Democratic party platform, such as it is. It is not someone who won't commit to a point of view or policy. If I wanted to vote for a Republican, I would. I don't. This is not going to help him in the AA community either. At least not the one in my area. I hope the SDs are watching and taking notes. This shout-out is for them...HEY, GUYS, WE WANT A DEMOCRAT, NOT A REPUBLICAN-LITE CANDIDATE!!!

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:46:42 PM EST
    I have absolutely no reason on earth, not one single solitary even tiniest reason to vote for him.

    Thank you Obama for taking away any possible guilt I may have had.

    Parent

    Nice of him, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:07:54 PM EST
    Can't wait to see if he even tries to get Clinton's voters if he gets the nom . . .

    Parent
    And theObama supporters (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by pie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:03:52 PM EST
    called Hillary "republican-lite"?

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    Some progressives will never take him at his word (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:11:41 PM EST
    He is not a liberal

    Parent
    And he wanted Republicans to know it (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:28:05 PM EST
    He made it very clear he was not some left ... liberal and he had been mischaracterized as such,"
    He is aware of how O'Reily demonized DailyKos for language and being a Democratic site filled with hatred and left wing ideas. He is telling the Republican Fox viewers that he is not associated with that group and wants nothing to do with them either. Wonder if the Kossacks will even notice that.

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:52:21 AM EST
    That is sooooo, soooo funny. Kossacks love Obama and he can't stand them but BTW Kossacks keep the money coming and be sure to vote for me.

    I wonder if any of them will take a minute to think that if he won't stand up for them now, he probably won't stand up for the issues they care about when he is in the WH. Nah, they will never do that.


    Parent

    Obama's hardest recorded fight was for that waffle (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:23:51 PM EST
    He's pretty dedicated to lashing out at people and Partei's that meaningfully support him, once they're safely under a pile-on, of course.

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:27:06 PM EST
    about the waffle. Wish I could give you more than one 5. I need all the laughs I can get when thinking about Obama as the Dem nominee.

    Parent
    I'm saving the previous TL topic for laugh-therapy (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:29 PM EST
    I know what you mean.

    And I posted a (somewhat OT but worth the possibility of a BTD boot to the @ss) suggestion upstream.

    I really hope Obama supporters -- and potentially supportive superdeez -- begin to see him for what he really is. I still have scorch-marks from arguing that "Dems" like Whiny Joe LieberDem was no asset to party unity or stability.

    Then again, I'm a proud Liberal who's worn out by getting slammed more viciously by those I've supported for years than ridiculously by those who can't stand me overtly.

    Parent

    What he's fighting for is 2 more red states (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:51:27 PM EST
    called North Carolina and Indiana, to get more "Dem for a Day" votes again, to get the nomination -- and to lose in November.  But to heck with Dems winning the White House.

    Parent
    How can he be a fighter (none / 0) (#22)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:33:28 PM EST
    if he gives up on core Democratic proposals before he even gets a chance?

    I just don't see him as a fighter nor frankly competent. Sorry.

    Parent

    He has fought (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Coldblue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:37:47 PM EST
    for himself, that was my underlying point.

    Parent
    bipartisan "unity" schtick again (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:59:40 PM EST
    Wallace said that if Obama had won Pennsylvania he may not have accepted the FOX News Sunday invitation. But he said that once Obama met him for the interview, the Illinois senator was "friendly" and discussed several moderate-to-Republican viewpoints, making an apparent effort to broaden his appeal.

    And head right. Right over to the Rs. Not too big of a surprise, after his admiration of Bush First and Reagan for their FP style.

    He wants to be all things to all people, or to whoever's in front of him at the moment. Save us. He gets elected and he'll roll over in front of the Rs in Congress.

    You've (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:04:45 PM EST
    got it. He can't stand up to anyone. He'll get rolled so bad in a general election that it won't even be funny. Sigh.

    Parent
    Wonder What Other Dem Core Value He Put (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:43:51 PM EST
    on the table and how many times he said positive things about Reagan.

    The only thing I will find amusing if Obama wins the nomination, will be McCain and Obama trying to out Reagan each other during the debates. Wonder if the Dem blogs will do a Reagan count like they did during the Republican debates.

    Parent

    He won't get elected (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Davidson on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:06:47 PM EST
    Everyone knows that if people have to decide between Republican and Republican-lite, they'll go with the former every time.

    Sometimes, I honestly don't know why he didn't just run as a Republican (Obviously, he has no core political principles so adapting to their agenda would not have been all too difficult for him).  I think he would've been a sure thing.

    Parent

    Yet he slammed Bill Clinton's (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by abfabdem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:34:35 PM EST
    administration for legislation that reached across the aisle to the Republicans and was so was less than perfectly liberal.  I'm so confused because Obama claims to want to do the same thing.  Does he think he will get different results?  How exactly?

    Parent
    He's no fighter at all. . . (none / 0) (#27)
    by NotThatStupid on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:39:27 PM EST
    ... and comes up short in the courage department, too. How else do you explain his remaining in his church, hearing the divisive, racist, idiotic sermons that Pastor Wright gave from time to time  without either walking out or confronting him? (and don't tell me he didn't hear them; if his statements about "not being present" were presented as testimony at a trial, no honest jury in the country would believe them). What other explanation is there, other than lack of moral courage?

    Oh, wait.

    I forgot.

    There is another explanation.

    But that one's even worse for him.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:07:25 PM EST
    "He made it very clear he was not some left ... liberal and he had been mischaracterized as such," Wallace said. "I think this was an effort to sort of restore or regain the brand that he had some months ago, when he was saying there wasn't a Republican solution, or a Democratic solution. It was a new politics and it needed to be a coalition."

    I think I'd like to see this.

    So...is this an attempt to win white blue collar voters or whomever we presume watches Fox?

    I think the brand of a few months ago is broken.  A few months ago, all we could read in the papers were JFK and RFK.  He is never going to get that back again.

    Seems Obama went too far right (none / 0) (#42)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    during a Democratic primary.
    And I'll bet all those Raygun Dems voting for Hillary decided they didn't want any part of Obama and his promised Raygun-esque administration.

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:00:45 PM EST
    Perhaps we should call them Clinton Dems instead. :-)

    Parent
    Well, if he hadn't won PA (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:11:02 PM EST
    he wouldn't have gone on Fox.  That suggests to me he feels he needs to speak to a certain portion of the population.  I wonder what they have to gain by seeing Obama come on Fox News and sort of flatter Republicans but again not come out as a fighter.  I'm guessing nothing, but who knows.

    At this point, wouldn't an Edwards endorsement be golden for Obama?  If he is the nominee maybe Edwards will come out and campaign hardcore for him.  That might help.  But at the moment it's just him and his staff (which has been making some strange comments re: the white working class lately).  Based on accounts of Obama and Edwards meeting though, their philosophies did not seem to mesh.  So maybe it's Obama who is keeping Edwards from helping Obama.

    If Obama is the nominee, having the array of Dem personalities out there campaigning for him may be helpful with all demo pops.  But endorsements haven't really done jack lately.  Casey endorsed, and Clinton won 70% of the Catholic vote.  Springsteen endorsed (hahaha...before PA people thought this might actually matter) and I fail to see the Springsteen bump.  I don't know what it will take to turn Obama into just the "Dem guy," an identity which might actually help him at this point.  

    I hold out hope that Clinton just scores big on the pop vote over the next primaries, but we'll see.

    Parent

    OOPS (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:11:46 PM EST
    if he HAD WON PA, he wouldn't have gone on Fox.  Sorry!!!

    Parent
    Edwards will NOT endorse Obama, IMO, (none / 0) (#157)
    by allimom99 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:48:43 PM EST
    unless and until he has the nom - Obama has shown nothing but contempt for the people Edwards is trying to give a voice to. Doing so would ruin his own credibility, PLUS if Baby O is nominated and loses, it gives edwards another crack in 2012 if he wants it. His supporters (including me) are still out there!

    Parent
    I think it's pretty clear that (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:15:10 PM EST
    he could not care less about Clinton's voters. His electoral strategy does not include them.

    It does, however, include Republicans and Independents going to him rather than McCain.

    I think he would go anywhere he thinks would appeal to those "Obamacans."

    Parent

    Too bad his Rep/Ind #'s are dropping. Oops... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:56:23 PM EST


    Parent
    BINGO!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:18:52 PM EST
    Reagan dems were just Dems that voted for Reagan because Carter actually made things worse, and moderates interested in, well, competence, went to the Republican party, even though they certainly don't agree with Republicans on all the social issues.

    Anyway, they're Clinton dems now.  

    Parent

    But-but-but (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:31:53 PM EST
    Democrats NEVER get those voters! They always vote Republican!

    Can you believe Axelrod said that? I'm still in awe at his, um, audacity.

    Parent

    See The Thing Is That Those Uneducated, Low (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:49:24 PM EST
    information voters saw right through Obama almost right away and that is why they are Clinton Dems to begin with.

    Don't think that an appearance on Fox is going to "enlighten" most of these people. Not to mention the fact that Fox has been showing hours and hours of Wright and discussing Ayers for quite some time.

    Parent

    It's more than just seeing through him - (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:16 PM EST
    it's that his above-it-all, lofty-rhetoric, big-ideas brand doesn't reach people who don't have time to think big, or wax philosophical; these people are just putting one foot in front of the other every day, trying to keep their heads above water, worrying about retirement, and college costs, and health care and whether their jobs are secure.  They are worried about the safety of their kids' toys and the drugs they take - when they can afford them.  They say prayers at night for the kids they know who are fighting a war that shows no signs of ending.

    These are the so-called low information voters that Obama seems not to want to speak to; I get that he wants to inspire people to dream, but it's hard to dream when you have bills to pay, and those bills just keep getting bigger and bigger.

    They understand hard work.  They get that change doesn't just "happen," good things don't just drop out of the sky.  

    This is why Clinton connects to the "common" folk - and why Obama does not.  Clinton's people understand the thrill of having stars in their eyes, but know that it takes more.

    Obama is missing out on an essential truth: that hope does not just come from words and speeches; it comes from showing people that it can be done.

    I hope the Fox interview goes viral, and the mask continues to fall away from this imposter.

    Parent

    Also, They Are Not Going To Spend A Lot Of Time (3.00 / 2) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:36:48 PM EST
    parsing Obama's statements to find the hidden meaning. If Obama says the Republican Party was the party of ideas for the last 10 - 15 years, they are going to take his words literally. If you are a strong Democrat, you are going to be insulted by that statement. Otherwise, it is Hey, if the Republicans have all the ideas, why should I vote for you. You are a Democrat.

    If Obama depicts Clinton's economy as just as bad as BushII, it's going to be "You don't know what you're talking about. I had things a lot better when Clinton was president.  

    You get the drift.

    Parent

    What does Stoller think it means (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:08:37 PM EST
    that Obama has not posted at DK since 2005?
    Maybe he's afraid of the Orangistans. I think that is a reasonable viewpoint.

    Obama Would Receive Nothing But Kudos (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:25:03 PM EST
    there now. The 1,000+ comments would consist of  just how simply awesome he truly is, Thank you. Thank you for fighting for us. and Thank you. Thank you. I am just thrilled that you would visit us here. The majority of those would also have something very negative to say about Hillary.

    The only fear that Obama would have is that his name would be associated with the blog.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    He will never post there again. Nor should he.

    Parent
    He could at least have (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:12:13 PM EST
    someone assigned to the blog.

    Clinton did that at least with Peter Daou.

    Parent

    Are you sure... (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:13:23 PM EST
    he didn't?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:41:58 PM EST
    No one who was honest about what they were doing.

    Parent
    I'm convinced one front pager is fishing for (none / 0) (#152)
    by Joelarama on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:43:10 AM EST
    a job in the Obama administration.  The hilarious irony is that being a front pager would likely be a disqualification for an appointment.

    Parent
    I still think (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Lora on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:33:30 PM EST
    The MSM (or MPM = Mouth Piece Media as I prefer to call them) wants Obama for the nomination so McCain can win in November.  They'd rather not have McCain go up against Clinton, as she IS a fighter.

    They especially do not want McCain (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:03:52 PM EST
    to face Hillary in the presidential debates. For republicans, they are of course pursuing the right strategy for their party.  And it takes the Democratic party soooooo long to see through that, if ever.

    Parent
    Playing, devil's advocate. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Prabhata on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    If the Republicans want BO as the nominee, and HRC, why is the RNC using Wright in the ad in NC? It's a contradiction. I think that the RNC is convinced or has a certain certainty that BO is going to be the nominee and want to make sure that his image is tarnished ASAP.

    Parent
    its simple, really (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:57:29 AM EST
    its called a pre-emptive strike.

    Going after Obama in NC doesn't stop him from winning the nomination, it just hurts Obama's chances in NC in November.

    Also, keep in mind that its not the RNC doing this, but the NC GOP (and some wingnut group).  McCain and the RNC played this brilliantly -- by repudiating the ads, they made sure that the ads got maximum media exposure ('Here's the ad, in its entirety, that McCain says should not be shown') repeat the benefit from the ads while distancing themselves from them.  

    Parent

    Or they are doing it because (none / 0) (#141)
    by abfabdem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:37:51 PM EST
    those candidates publicly endorsed Obama?

    Parent
    I read a theory that this prolongs (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:43:26 PM EST
    the Dem primary season, as Clinton continues to close it up and keep Obama from closing it all, which is seen by some Repubs as working in their favor.  I don't see it, for many reasons -- but then, I don't see a lot of the world the way that a lot of Republicans do. :-)

    Parent
    Obama Has Never Shown That He Was Willing To (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:35:31 PM EST
    fight for any issue. Throughout his career he has taken great pains not to be on record on controversial issues. Not sure why anyone would think that he would become a fighter. I guess it was a hope for change.

    If you think he will stand firm and fight for Dem issues once in the WH, I think you are engaging in false hope.

    Fox's plumpin' the turkey they plan 2 serve in Nov (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:40:59 PM EST
    No doubt Obama thinks the nutters are buttering him up cause of his famous Charisma(TM). I'll bet they gave him lots of sweet, yummy kweschins to chew on.

    Better than the hard stuff Bad Monster Lady would ask in turbo-hot candidate-on-candidate action.

    Thank you. Finally putting into words (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by g8grl on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:48:25 PM EST
    that Obama is not a fighter.  I don't know how people (this includes you BTD) can say that there's not much of a difference between BO and HRC.  There's a huge difference.  Hillary won't let the Republicans get away with all the crap they've been shovelling onto Democrats without calling them out on it.  Obama won't do a thing except try and figure out a way to adjust his positions so that the Republicans won't feel so bad.  He'll end up giving in on everything that is important to Democrats and begging for opportunities to work with them again.

    Agree (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    Obama will start out from a very weak position on any issue in the hopes of avoiding controversy. By the time he has compromised with the Republicans to prove his bipartisan creds, it will be 100% the Republican position just like all those compromises since the Dems took over the majority.

    One of my many concerns about Obama and particurly on SCOTUS justices.
     

    Parent

    Gosh, who could have imagined that (5.00 / 9) (#40)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:50:23 PM EST
    Obama would go on Fox and wax poetic about the glories of not being a liberal?  I suppose now I am going to have to watch to see just how many of the things I care about he sells out for Fox-love.

    Look, I have waited almost 8 years to get someone in the WH who understands that Democrats are not looking for Republican-lite, and I am not interested in a candidate-who-would-be-president who would rather kow-tow to the right wing than work his butt off selling the country on Democratic ideas and policies.  Obama seems to prefer the easy route of just creating a mish-mash of kinda-sorta okay plans, rather than fighting for what is really right.

    Is there anything that really matters to him that he would be willing to fight his heart out for - other than goals of strictly personal ambition?  

    I don't think so.  I think he's in love with the idea and the glory of being the president, but not particularly interested in the work that is supposed to go along with it.  If he had even a clue who he really is, I could feel a little better, but he is a creation, something designed and packaged, to be sold in one long infomercial, all sales final.

    Democrats want a Democrat in the Oval Office, and that's why they are voting for Hillary.  So, sure, let Obama go on Fox and suck up to the neo-cons, let him make them think he's really one of them, and they have nothing to fear from him.

    What next?  Wooing Joe Lieberman away from McCain?

    Ugh - the whole thing makes me feel like I need to shower.

    I agree, I think he's in love with (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by g8grl on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:54:45 PM EST
    the idea of being the "First" and setting a historical precedent.  I think that's much more important to him than actually rolling up his sleeves to do the hard work of running the government.

    Parent
    I don't think that's true at all. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:00:56 PM EST
    However, I don't understand why he doesn't latch onto the Bush administration and the wrongs we have to right that were produced by it more strongly.  That would be a winner in my book.  Instead, he seems to view Republicans who have a murky feeling that Bush has done some terrible things as part of his possible voting bloc.  He has a lot of headstrong activists on his side though he didn't exactly ask for their vote.  The Unity Shtick wants to sweep Bush under the rug.  It wants healing, not retribution.  I on the other hand...

    Parent
    The Unity Schtick... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:34:37 PM EST
    wants to do as little work as possible.

    I've come to believe that our Dem "leaders" (with some notable exceptions, like Robert Wexler, Barbara Boxer and The Mustache of Doom, Henry Waxman) are simply lazy and entitled. Obama's mushy Kumbaya approach would guarantee that they would have to do as little work as possible to keep their cushy jobs.

    Hillary's work ethic scares them to death.

    Parent

    I Don't Think Being The First Is All That (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:06:55 PM EST
    important to him.  I think that all that is important is that he is president. Not because he wants to do the work but because he wants the honor and prestige.

    Parent
    This has been his MO throughout (none / 0) (#158)
    by allimom99 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    his political career. He barely unpacks his boxes in one office before running for the next, but hasn't been very fond of really WORKING in any of them. It frightens me to think of another specimen of this type given a 4-year term to let the country go to seed while he enjoys the prestige and Michelle gets more stuff.

    Parent
    In love with the idea, but not the work. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:54:46 PM EST
    Now, who does that sound like?

    Parent
    I'm sorry to say that I've been getting (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:03:31 PM EST
    a GWB vibe from him from the very beginning. :-(

    Parent
    I am now. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:05:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#111)
    by Prabhata on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:18:54 PM EST
    I've said it before.  BO = GWB.  GWB for the Republicans and BO for the Democrats.  We now know that the neocons put GWB in power.  Who is doing that support for BO?  Can anyone answer that?  Who's agenda is he going to carry?

    Parent
    My children! (none / 0) (#57)
    by leis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:05:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Dream Team? (none / 0) (#94)
    by feet on earth on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:59:19 PM EST
    OMG, what is he aiming at? Being seleected by McCain as his VP if he does not get the Dem nomination?  Is this the "Unity", "Changing Washington ways", that he has been talking about?  
    Scary ....

    Parent
    if he has a choice (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by kimsaw on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:24:01 AM EST
    he's going for the camera shot, he'll pick and independent- Bloomberg (guys got billions to spare) or a Chuck Hagel... its the photo opp not the issues for Obama. The Dems have been forewarned by Obama's actions with Bloomberg. Leadership doesn't care about their own core values. Obama has pretty much dismissed universal health care. The dems are afraid that Clinton will make them work and so are the repubs. When you lead in fear you lose. Clinton is a winner, fear in not in her vocabulary!

    Parent
    It does not surprise me. Democrats have been (none / 0) (#153)
    by Joelarama on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:48:28 AM EST
    playing the "I'm not a liberal" game since I was a child in the 70s.'

    The shocker for me came when I saw that Obama is the exception to the left blogosphere's consensus that Democrats who play Republican get derision.

    The thought of reading posts at the great Orange Tang wasteland, Americablog, and TPM gives me the urge to shower.  

    Parent

    I just look forward to the Dailykos diaries (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    praising Fox News for it's fair and balanced reporting.

    Amazing Turn of Events (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:57:52 PM EST
    I remember the glow that came over the people at Huffington and Kos and the progressive community when Bill Clinton took on Chris Wallace and Fox. They all trumpeted what a hero he was and how the Dem's needed to learn from him how to fight. I'm not reading that anymore at their sites! I just can't deal with double standards or blind adoration. And these people liken themselves to journalists or analysts? Or to compare themselves to Edward R Morrow.

    Olbermann thinks he is Morrow. nt (none / 0) (#154)
    by Joelarama on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:50:25 AM EST


    Parent
    For the record (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by cawaltz on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:52:14 PM EST
    I agree with you. Although to be fair I think many of the problems with the Edwards campaign were due more to media's fascination with trivia and are willingness to buy into and indulge their perceptions. Let's face it everyone loves looking at those poll numbers and money and that was about all we heard(and yet will t eally matter how much money and how a candidate polled in 2009) . At the end of the day all of his preparation and policy ideas were less important than how he polled and how much dough he had. At the end of the day until the American people start to pay more attention to ideas and less attention to the glitz and glitter of poll numbers and nickels or dimes we get the GE candidate we deserve. I'd also go so far as to say until Democrats start fighting back collectively (and  don't mean only when it is your own candidates skin on the line)we will end up with an outcome that benefits them but not us.

    Agree 100 percent (none / 0) (#139)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:34:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Sad, but I agree (4.20 / 5) (#1)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:52:09 PM EST
    He won't attack. He's pretty much Clinton without the 15 years of baggage. This is why i don't understand all the over the top rhectoric on either side of this. I don't see any difference between Clinton or Obama. I know- I know- Clinton is a fighter. But she's not one in the way we need her to be. Obama's not a fighter either. Not sure, what else to do other than hope for a more progressive Congress that will force them to be more progressive than all their caution will allow.

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:55:49 PM EST
    I agree with your comment.

    Edwards was prepared to be that candidate, no question.

    Parent

    Ultimately I was supporting an idea about (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:07:35 PM EST
    leadership, and Edwards just happened to be closes to the the archtype that we will need in Jan 2009.  I was looking for something this time larger than any issue or candidate. In some ways, I disagreed with some of what Edwards said on some of the issues, but overall, I thought he got where we are and what needed to be done. Clinton and Obama- they will go onto the wingnut shows or adopt wingnut frames etc, and ignore how this stuff impacts all Democrats, and not just the oponent in front of them. It's why I can't fully get behind Clinton or Obama. They just to me- don't get it- what the job requires of them.

    The American people don't fully understand it either. Or at least the Democratic base- which seems more focused on feeling good or safe than dealing with the messy reality of where our country is in its history. We are aging world power. Revitalization requires a certain type of leadership willing to fight for change or else we will remain in slow decline. I believe Soros wrote a book on this idea. I don't think either fully represents that leadership. I will support either over McCain every day of the week. But, I am not blind to their weaknesses.

    Parent

    I'm still disappointed (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by abfabdem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:42:04 PM EST
    Gore didn't run, but I was so impressed with Hillary's performance on issues in the PA debate that I have really come around to realize she knows what has to be done and will do it.  Also because her health care failed the first time around she has more to prove to succeed this time.  I don't believe Obama will push for it if he gets push-back from the Repubs.  

    Parent
    The problem is (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:40:24 PM EST
    Our system of government itself.

    You're looking for a dictator who does things the way you would do them.

    I mean it has to be considered, our revolutionary forefathers ironically designed a system by which change could be administered in small doses, which would in effect lead to change, but never revolutionary change.

    And it appears to me what you're saying is that the trajectory America is on right now, that the only way to change that trajectory is to implement a whole new language and policies that would be most accurately described as a revolution.

    The system, however you want to describe it, would be burnt down, and something would take it's place.

    Checks and balances make that impossible.

    Parent

    Pardon my French but that's a cope out (none / 0) (#87)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:52:42 PM EST
    that ignores history. Seriously,  don't take this the wrong way, but think about what you are saying before posting it. FDR, Teddy Roosovelt, etc enacted brought and far reaching reforms, and they weren't dictators. All that is required is leadership and a population that's not a bunch of sheep. Who needs dictatorship anymore when you can use pyschological techniques to convince people of things that are factually not even true on a historic level, much less political or structural.

    Parent
    Not close to the bottom (none / 0) (#88)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:55:05 PM EST
    while America went off the rails on its childish destructive obsession with military might, squandering incredible wealth and energy on pure unadulterated crap, i.e., the military industrial complex, Europe and other civilized nations were absorbing the lessons of history to build community-based nations collectively pursuing the notion of taking care of all of its members.

    America never got over its infatuation with its own greatness after WWII, becoming slave to its self-absorbed, self-destructive fantasies of infallibility. Unfortunately America has a long way to fall yet before it can begin to recover.

    Obama and HRC are for the most part both idea-less players in the same old losers game.

    Parent

    I don't want this country to fail (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:24:57 PM EST
    But I do fear it will so long as the response is to ignore the reasons why we are where we are. Its incredibly easy to reduce it to the GOP. It would be right to say theya re a large part of it. But that's too easy and not true as far as the big picture goes. You right, therefore, in part. But this is all OT, and i will stop before I am banned.

    Parent
    speaking of squandering our wealth on military... (none / 0) (#119)
    by otherlisa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:27:23 PM EST
    Apologies for the OT, but Chalmers Johnson has a great piece on this...

    Parent
    heck with HTML (none / 0) (#120)
    by otherlisa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:27:54 PM EST
    I don't know why it didn't stick:

    http://www.alternet.org/story/83555/


    Parent

    Edwards couldn't convince me (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:18:03 PM EST
    that he could be effective as President. I liked his platform though. I've said this before, but nothing about this campaign makes me more bitter than seeing the trivialities that Obama campaigns on, when we could have had a real contest of ideas between Hillary and Edwards.
    Yes, Obama has some meat in his platform, but his campaign is almost entirely about stupid buzz words, IMO.

    Parent
    You were looking for someone (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    who fit into the prior paradigm. What was unconvincing was your own limitations of how you view leadership. You grew up or spent probably most of your adult life being told to think of leadership from Democrats in one term, and one term only. And again,pardon my French, but to sit here and read Clinton supporters whine about Obama being trivial when Clinton is equally guilty of this sin makes me want to laugh if it weren't so sad. There is a reason Edwards had to scold both at the SC debate. it's because Clinton and Obama (as the supporters are proving) are two sides of the same coin.

    Parent
    Pardon my French. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:01:35 PM EST
    But your comment is full of merde.
    Cut the crap. Don't try to fit me into your silly little fairy tale.
    Edwards was just as guilty of focusing on trivia as the other candidates, btw---and less honest than Obama, too, in his attacks on Hillary.
    He also wasn't nearly as good thinking on his feet as Hillary. Hillary was able to dominate the debates, even when Edwards and Obama were ganging up on her.
    Please, Edwards' line "We're the change guys" was one of the comic highlights of the campaign.

    Parent
    Your own words do that for you. (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:11:15 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't have any particular desire to delve (none / 0) (#95)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:00:09 PM EST
    into criticism of Edwards at this point, but I'll just say one thing. Edwards decided to be deep and progressive in 2006 because being shallow and moderate didn't work in 2004.

    Parent
    Except Edwards ran a very similar campaign in (none / 0) (#97)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:02:37 PM EST
    1998. He wasn't very imaginative, as a campaigner.

    Parent
    Not imaginative? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by cawaltz on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:03:56 PM EST
    The guy introduced health care(the plan that Hillary is pretty much using sans the enforcement mechanism), he was the first to tackle the economy(he felt we should invest in infrastructure), he was the first to tackle the environment. Mind you I understand Hillary and Obama were a bit busy dealin with Bush but to say that Edwards was unimaginative is flat out wrong unless you are pointing out that he wasn't out to outglitz the two "historic firsts. If that is your point then shame on you. Voting for the highest office shouldn't be reduced to a kabuki version of American Idol. It should  consist of evaluating the problems our nation faces, coming up with solutions, and then explaining those solutions. Edwards did all those things. It's just too bad it wasn't nearly as important as how much money he amassed.

    Parent
    yet for many it is like American Idol (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:38:41 PM EST
    Part of the problem is that many of the issues we face are long term and unlike say a depression they aren't going to be reconize for a generation or so. Therefore, many Americans despite their pains right now, are still able to focus on the trivial. I can't imagine people who are really suffering evaluation candidates as they are prone to do right now.

    Parent
    You've captured (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:23:33 PM EST
    my feelings on Edwards perfectly. I loved his platform but wasn't convinced about him. I didn't like the way he handled it when his female bloggers came under attack by that right-wing Catholic Donohoe, and he folded like an origami swan.

    Parent
    I didn't like his plan to attack the perqs of (none / 0) (#20)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:24:37 PM EST
    Congress. How was that supposed to get cooperation?!
    At least it was an interesting idea though.

    Parent
    I thought it was just the opposite (none / 0) (#28)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:39:40 PM EST
    Edwards stuck by the female bloggers. Later, they received threatening emails from Repubs and they decided to quit to spare Edwards negative publicity.
    Anybody else have info?


    Parent
    Sadly, (none / 0) (#32)
    by pie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    Edwards was pretty mealy-mouthed, and no one wanted that kind of publicity, so they resigned with his full blessing.

    Donahue is such a big-mouthed moron though.  At the time everyone thought the bloggers should have been better vetted for that kind of thing.  It just goes to show you that the best-laid plans...

    especially in politics.

    Parent

    That's Donohue. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by pie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:48:05 PM EST
    Willam Donohue.

    Divorced and bitter.

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#38)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:49:57 PM EST
    Edwards didn't fight very hard at all for them. I was spectacularly unimpressed.

    Parent
    I too (none / 0) (#50)
    by nemo52 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:01:09 PM EST
    was disappointed.  I understand the political realities, but I had hoped for more from Edwards.

    Parent
    trivial. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:52:22 PM EST
    Presidents cut people loose all the time.

    This is why Clitnon is losing right now.

    penn stayed 7 month past his sell by date.

    Parent

    Hillary cut lose people that are (none / 0) (#116)
    by Prabhata on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:23:48 PM EST
    controversial.  I think it's the right thing to do. Edwards did not need to fight for women bloggers.

    Parent
    they insulted (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:55:25 PM EST
    christian dogma.

    buh bye.

    they were not helping.

    Parent

    and now the identity politics (none / 0) (#115)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:21:55 PM EST
    this from the same crew that complains that Obama is guilty of this with regard to Wright?

    Parent
    You will note (none / 0) (#110)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:18:08 PM EST
    as per my point how quickly they redefine my points to be about Edwards or for that matter Clinton or Obama rather than the type of leadership needed at this time in history. They prove my point for me. I am pessimistic about how Democrats will govern based on how the supporters display their support.

    Parent
    See my NOTE (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:52:54 PM EST
    He obviously did not.

    Parent
    Please specify (none / 0) (#68)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:13:06 PM EST
    what exactly you mean by:
    He's pretty much Clinton without the 15 years of baggage.

    what exactly are the pieces of bagage you are talking about and
    what do you mean by,

    I don't see any difference between Clinton or Obama. I know- I know- Clinton is a fighter. But she's not one in the way we need her to be.

    I think it is disingenuous how you sneak in anti-Clinton phrases and expressions that is typical of the Obama camp.

    Parent

    You are kidding right? (none / 0) (#101)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:37 PM EST
    You want me to specific in a diary a comment that really covers a huge amount of anlaysis? It would take a great deal for me to go through how their Iraqi policies aren't all that different, how theya re teh same on social issues, how leadership wise they are mirrors of each other (compromise versus triangulation), how they are both personality driven politics, how they are both driven by identity politics, how they are both capable of exceptional hubris, how they are both more than willing to use right wing frames when it suits them (and yes if you want me to I can certainly given you examples, bu twhat would be the point?), how on the economic issues there isn't much daylight between them. and on and on.

    And before you say it, I am actually if you were to get them in a room off the record probably more of a moderate than either of them. I am talking about how they describe how they want to govern. It's also my feeling that they both see this as the next step for them rather than something they are doing to give back to the American public. I can accept that. I just can't accept their supporters who buy into the idea that they are anything more than politicians. I don't even mind their spin and pandering except that so many buy into it without requiring more of them. I see this sort of behavior on both sides.

    I don't sneak. I say things plainly. There is no difference between Obama and Clinton except for the cults of personality driven by them.

    I keep being equally accused by Obama supporters of being a Clinton supporter. I got this after I said they should be on the same ticket because they each would bring diferent strengths to help us win against McCain. I got this when I said I disagreed with him over other issues. At this point, honest disagreement met with "you are just a supporter for the other candidate" is par for the course. You have no other tools to explain why your thinking maybe problematic in terms that aren't partisan to the primary.

    You know the real difference between me and the supporters of the two camps? I see both candidates for exactly what they are.  Politiicans. It's okay that they are. However, we as voters can't hold their feet to the fire ignoring that they are. Policians area bout what forces that brung them. McCain has no reason to protect us because he's McBush.

    Parent

    It is your OPINION there is no difference (none / 0) (#102)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:09:55 PM EST
    between them. Obama' lack of experience, his inadequate grasp of the details of policy, his extreme personal rudeness towards Hillary, are all obvious to objective observers.

    Parent
    I am not going to get into old argument (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:15:31 PM EST
    but again- wrong audience- to try to use the experience argument with me. I can certainly destroy that with one decision- the Iraqi war. For all her experience, it didn't do crap for her making the right decision. I am not defending Obama here. He's equally full of crap in his own ways. but please, don't confuse me with a political neophyte who doesn't understand the weaknesses of these candidates. Please also don't pull the experience game just because clinton was the first wife. By that logic, Laura bush is also experienced. I just don't buy such arguments however much many of you have convinced yourself its true.

    The substantive question before me is whether leadership wise there will be much difference betrween Obama and Clinton- the answer is no. They will both run centrist administrations that want to get elected in 2012. That's the reality. The only force that changes that dynamic is probably the American people with the help of a more pgoressive congress. Are Clinton and Obama quantums better than Mr 100 years war? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend. First, it's not good for either candidate . Second it's not good for the party. Third it's not good for the country to tell them they are somethin gother than what they are. If they aren't told these things, they don't improve.

    Parent

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Prabhata on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:29:51 PM EST
    The vote for the Iraq War is a big issue with the BO people because they can hang their hat.  It was not an issue for those Democrats that voted for Kerry.  Hillary, the senator from NY, the state that was attacked on 9/11, was supposed to stop all belief that GWB did not have an ounce of credibility, and vote against the war.  Give me a break!  Unless you did not vote for Kerry, you have no leg to stand on.

    Parent
    Not mutually exclusive (none / 0) (#124)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:41:57 PM EST
    You will note that I don't excuse Obama's subsequent votes when he came into office in 2005 as the Obama supporters want.  He's accountable for his mistakes- of which there have been many. BUT, I also don't do what the Clinton supporters want either-  say the word experience and go "wow" without first thinking about the quality and kind of experience she's had and what her judgment has meant. These aren't mutually exclusive ideas to hold- that her experience isn't all that impressive or that Obama hasn't had much experience and hasn't done what he said he would do in office. Well, unless of course, one is a supporter of either candidate versus a supporter of the democratic ideas and values. In which case, any variance from supporter CW is met with what I'm getting here. Ironically, I am experiencing the reverse- you must hate Obama criticism over at OpenLeft and occasionally at Ezra Klein. Just reinforces my view that many of you don't listen beyond the frame and narrative you've set up to explain everything during the primaries.

    Parent
    PS (none / 0) (#125)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:44:12 PM EST
    if we wanted to elected the most experience that would have been Biden or Richards, whom I didn't support but certainly trump both Clinton and Obama. Its just a weak argument to make unless one is predisposed to support Clinton.

    Parent
    It is your OPINION (none / 0) (#131)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:24:07 PM EST
    that the statement you just made is correct.

    Parent
    Am I the only one (1.25 / 4) (#92)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:57:29 PM EST
    who laughs hysterically at all this talk about who's a fighter?

    Does nobody understand the characteristics of great leaders in government and the private sector?  There's so much to this that I don't think I can efficiently explain it in this post, especially if the concept of leadership is a foriegn language to the audience.  And, I want to clarify that it's my failure that I can't succinctly describe leadership.  Perhaps, it helps to note that HRC's personality has prevented her from finding her voice, and she hasn't been a principle on any major passed legislation (unlike BO on ethics/arms cont/gov accountability not to mention the IL record), and her management style has resulted in a messy campaign.  Or, the phrase about "burning bridges" is a concept that starts to get at great leadership.  Great leaders know that being against things is very effective as a short term rallying strategy, but it won't hold up in the long run, and implosion can be expected.

    No offense lawyers, but management (when most successful) doesn't involve "fighting."

    Even success at war is a battle of psychology more than confrontation; ask Sun Tzu if you don't believe me (or look at Iraq for a less esoteric example.)

    Not applicable (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:21:24 PM EST
    When you main opposition is a party who gained a lot by FIGHTING every proposal by democrats, good or bad, right or wrong. The republican approach has been stonewalling and fighting.

    So how is management technique going to matter? Don't take a knife to a gun fight.

    Parent

    The R power is their (none / 0) (#123)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:37:18 PM EST
    ability to frame issues so that they rally support from the public.  And, then Ds run around like wimps worrying that the mean Rs are going to tar them as tax and spend, or surrendering to the terrorists, or whatever...

    Ds just don't get it.  So many Ds freak out when BO notes that the Rs have set the agenda for decades (with a short two year span of D control.)  And, there's all this fretting about what the big bad Rs will do to the D candidates.  Navel gazing wimps never win, and they aren't fighters, even if HRC starts making every other word "fight," she and her supporters still won't get it.  You can't possibly start to fix a problem, if you can't even see that it exists.  Put away the fight bluster, and buck up for real!!!!!  

    Parent

    Agree with the assesment (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:59:36 PM EST
    But as one of the "Hillary supporters" you lump together I think the fight is a HUGE part of it. The Rs have set the agenda because the democrats DON'T FIGHT BACK. They just cower and run and try to not get clobbered.

    So I disagree with the solution. Fight! Fight! Fight!

    Parent

    We may not be that far apart. (none / 0) (#133)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST
    But, as soon as I hear politicians talking about how tough they are I run for the hills (The truly unaccomplished-politician Edwards had this same HRC style--sorry Edwards supporters, the truth hurts.)  It's much better to have results , than talk about toughness (aside: it's better to have results than just talk about RESULTS as a slogan too, (and CHANGEMAKER) sorry my BO support is hard to suppress).

    I'll tell you that I was worried today when I saw that BO was talking about how he is a fighter.  Thankfully, he prefaced his comments by noting that the tough do, they don't talk about doing.

    Anyway, it may seem counterintuitive, but political (and management) success involves persuasion, not fighting.  And this is not some new fangled business self help gibberish: long ago Eisenhower spoke of leaders being persuasive, patient, conciliatory, and a teacher.  This is the best simple explanation of leadership that I've ever heard, and it's importance is reinforced because it's accuracy has held up over time.  Our culture advances the myth that it's the "ball buster" who is the best leader, this is absolutely not true, as shown by comparative research.

    If HRC was a better leader we could have had health care, and it's arguable that the Ds wouldn't have been devastated; she (and WJC) certainly didn't help to prevent R victories.  Nuance and style matter a lot.  Most people don't get the implication of BO's warning about boiling out his hope.  He is an amazingly introspective person (which is a huge asset of leaders, according to post-Ike thought, and this really rings true to me--very few managers (and people) are actually capable of meaningful self reflection as they make decisions, it sounds easy but it isn't at all.)

    Parent

    compare that squirt to (none / 0) (#148)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:02:43 AM EST
    Eisenhower?

    OMFG

    Parent

    Please do mention the Ill. record..please!! (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:50:09 PM EST
    Then we can mention Emil Jones and his putting Obama's name on bills he never worked on. And claiming credit for legislation that never passed. And sitting on his ass in his condo, nice and warm, while his constituents were freezing in the unheated slums that his good friend Tony Rezko put up, with Obama's recommendation. Oh, and Obama was so busy working FOUR WHOLE MONTHS A YEAR as a legislator, that he could not walk or drive a MILE FROM HIS HOME to see how his constituents were faring in Mr. Rezko's buildings. He didn't do that. He went to parties at Mr. Rezko's house, but he didn't go to Mr. Rezko's housing to see how the people who voted him into office were living. I am amazed that any Obama supporter would bring up his Illinois record. It reeks of laziness and corruption.

    Parent
    And his grandma in Kenya (none / 0) (#146)
    by abfabdem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:46:43 PM EST
    still lives in a hut.

    Parent
    Yeah, we've done so well under (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:10:28 PM EST
    that MBA president who was supposed to know all about "management," huh?

    And contrary to your assertion that management doesn't involve "fighting," you might want to talk to some CEO's whose companies have been takeover targets; there's a reason they are called "hostile" takeovers.

    I could be wrong, but I think when there are people on the other side of the political aisle who want nothing more than to chew you up, spit you out and take control, there is, in fact, a great deal of "fighting" involved in holding one's ground.  But maybe your delicate sensibilities would prefer "working hard" instead of "fighting;" that is so declasse, I agree.  But, if we're going to call it "working hard," I think your guy is out of luck - he doesn't have a great track record on that score.

    And, for what it's worth, you aren't the only one laughing hysterically, but I'm sorry to say that we probably aren't laughing at the same things you are.

    Parent

    Real world (4.66 / 3) (#128)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:56:48 PM EST
    does not work that way. Obama knows that too, he's a Chicago politician. It seems that only his supporters believe politics and change should be oh so polite and cuddly.

    John Edwards rarely lost his cool with Obama but the one time he did, he said:

    Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn't work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change.

    There is a very healthy side to fighting for something.  It's called passion.

    Parent

    Edwards was a failure, see my other comment n/t (none / 0) (#134)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:48:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Sun Tze? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:10:09 AM EST
    There are lots f management styles.

    See the Oil Business:

    Mr Rockefeller or Marcus Samuel or Billy Knox D'Arcy.

    Totally different styles and fundamental strategies.

    Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, Napoleon or Wellington. Would you even know the difference?

    Parent

    ouch (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST


    Oh, and I love the comments at open left (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    one person suggests that he has to go on Fox. . .because he's black.

    OMG (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:48:17 PM EST
    but what is their reasoning for that?


    Parent
    They Seem To Use That As An Excuse For (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:54:13 PM EST
    any behavior that they need to rationalize. Any mention of the fact that he is black by anyone not a die hard supporter is proof positive that person is a racist.

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Burned on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:17:19 PM EST
    That's my standard reacton to most of what I read on the political side over there.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#75)
    by Burned on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:26:19 PM EST
    I read kos instead of open left.
    I haven't been to open left enough to know what sort of political commentary they have. I registered during the first few days but never struck up a presence.
    I virtually delete my comment!

    Parent
    Fox is the new (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by pie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:50:05 PM EST
    BET.

    Right.

    Parent

    LMFAO just when I thought I was totally laffed out (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:01:25 PM EST
    ... the Obama fans pull me back in again!

    I thought I'd exceeded a generous ration for a day's laughter with the TL Debate-Threat thread, which had me laughing all day.

    (OT but bear with me: I emailed it to HRC supporters and challenged them to donate a coupla'few bucks per LOL to her campaign.)

    Parent

    Heh heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:08:12 PM EST
    if the Democratic candidate goes on Fox News as much as the Republican candidate, do we win?

    My bad, BTD usually says that (none / 0) (#41)
    by g8grl on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:51:00 PM EST
    there isn't much difference between their positions/policies.  However I have high hopes that he will begin to realize that Hillary is more likely to get those positions/policies enacted and change his mind from Obama to Clinton.

    Reminds me of Dukakis (none / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    riding the tank to look tough, to be honest.

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#79)
    by DanR3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:36:08 PM EST
    I have no idea what you're trying to say here, BTD. You're faulting Obama for not "going after" Fox?

    Why would he? That'd be a damn dumb battle at this point wouldn't it?

    A lovefest is a win for Obama.

    it is never a win when you get love from one side (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by feet on earth on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:42:21 PM EST
    by alienating the other side: the one you need to win the presidency, i.e. the democratic base

    Parent
    Here (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:46:25 PM EST
    All the people who support Obama have spent a lot of time excoriating other Democrats for going on Fox and having lovefests.

    Parent
    Read the Rosenberg piece. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:19 PM EST
    Before commenting. Then at least you'll be able to comment on the post in an intelligent manner.

    Parent
    Not a fighter. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:46:25 PM EST
    We probably would be better off nominating Michelle...fighterwise...

    The problem with you is that you are (none / 0) (#108)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:15:07 PM EST
    extremely rude. You keep on making insinuations about people's backgrounds and reasons for having certain opinions, based on nothing at all.
    Try making a legitimate argument, for a change.

    This is my last comment to you, because I think you're not worth the time, and because Jeralyn discourages this kind of back and forth.

    That's because I am reading what many ofyou (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:20:30 PM EST
    say and do. If you want polite, you should try responding to someone else. I am not here to get along with you. That's your definition of "legitimate." because you can't say I haven't made logically and factually veriable arguments that can be tested. Try rebutting with someting more than "you're wrong."

    Parent
    I'm sure it was a lovefest. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:19:38 PM EST
    Rosenberg's dream is a wonderful little dream. But I very much doubt it's what Obama would do here. So it's very likely a lovefest or something in that direction.

    Even if he DID do what Rosenberg suggests I don't think it would get any traction whatsoever or have any chance of the positive outcome Rosenberg imagines.

    To be fair though it WOULD say something about Obama's character. And that would be instructive and is the main point here.

    My own view of the Media is extremely cynical however, so it's hard for me to get upset about any politician taking them head on.

    I would even go so far as to say that insofar as the media is concerned I am a borderline nihilist. I do not believe that the Mass Media are capable of producing anything other than a kind of mass deception.

    At best they are facsimile carriers in Plato's cave.

    At worst something like Baudrillard's analysis is correct.

    Either way the media is structurally incapable of producing truth.

    I suppose it WOULD be very nice if the "truth" that they supported was more in line with the left for a while though.

    correction (none / 0) (#118)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    politician NOT taking them head on. is how that sentence should read.

    Parent
    Sorry for the typos. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:04:09 PM EST
    Obama is prom king.

    He is not a worker, not a policy wonk.

    Bet you any amount of money he has no clue what his policy positions are on his web site.  They are written by others.  

    When he debates,  he spouts meaningless sentences, devoid of substance, many times lacking a simple verb and noun.  He has no clue what he is saying, just passing time and verbiage until the next question .

    He is smart, that's how he fools people into thinking he is saying something.  Plus he's got the codewords and the black preacher cadence down, so he can whip the crowd into a frenzy while saying absolutely nothing of substance.  Yes, we can!

    Parent

    Obama is prom king. (none / 0) (#136)
    by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    He is not a worker, not ma\a policy wonk.

    Bet you any amount of money he has no clue what his policy positions are on his web site.  They are written bo others.  

    When he debates,  he spouts meaningless sentances, devoid of substance, many times lacking a simple verb and noun.  He has no clue what he is saying, just passing time and verbiabe until the next question .

    He ius smart, that's how he fools people into thinking he is saying something.  Plus he's gpt the codewords and the black preacher cadence down, so he can whip the crowd into a frenzy while saying absolutely nothing of substance.  Yes we can!

    Didn't showing up on (none / 0) (#156)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    FOX used to be a no-no amongst the Obama crowd? I'm sure they'll find an excuse for his doing so as they manage to excuse anything he does or says so that's a no-brainer.

    The part about him not being a fighter does worry me. A lot.

    I disliked John Kerry but voted for him because I would have voted for a Hockey Puck over Bush. But when he didn't fight for every vote in Ohio, I came to loathe him. Still do.

    I think Hillary Clinton will fight for Health Care. Because she lost on this issue once I believe she will fight for it like no one else would. Him, I don't think he cares much. And if he does, he won't fight for it.

    And if the November election should come down to fighting for every last vote in every state I'd bet my next Social Security check that Hillary Clinton would fight for every vote. I'd bet the same check that Obama would do a Kerry.

    Did Obama Go After Fox? Uh, No | 157 comments (157 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment