home

Sunday Open Thread With Obama On Fox

Watching MTP and ABC's This Week, the pundits roundtable demonstrates that Barack Obama's most important constituency, the Beltway Media, remains firmly in his corner.

It should not matter, but it matters a lot. It is why I believe Barack Obama is more electable than Clinton.

This is an Open Thread. Below is my live blog of Obama on Fox. Jerome Armstrong has a nice post on it. Open Thread bonus - Indiana demographics and North Carolina demographics.

On "Face The Nation," when asked about Jim Clyburn's outrageous comments about the Clinton camp, David Axelrod went out of his way to categorically reject Clyburn's conspiracy theory. It seems clear to me that Clyburn was off the reservation there and the Obama camp wants no part of Clyburn's delusions. More . . .

Obama on Fox transcript. Below, my live watch highlights. I will skip all the silly Obama Watch setup nonsense.

Chris Wallace asks the questions.

Q. PA, what does it mean? White voters?

OBAMA - Keep in mind Sen Clinton was well regarded. That she won should not come as a huge surprise we came back . . . On GE matchups Clinton just a bit better. In WI and VA and IA I won white voters. Confident that when we come to a GE, those are voters I will appeal to.

Q. Is Clinton tougher than you? What about losing white working class 70-30?

OBAMA - Monday morning quarterbacking after you lose is par for the course. I have won them in other states. She ran good campaigns in Ohio and good campaigns in PA, these voters are less familiar with me and I am less familiar with them.

We have always been the underdog in this race. Because I am relatively new.

Q. Isn't there still a racial divide in this country that makes it hard for you to win the Presidency?

OBAMA - I am running better against McCain than Clinton [I believe that is false right now]. I put states in play that Dems have not won in the past. I will bring people together.

Q - Clyburn says blacks are furious about the Clintons. Do you agree with Clyburn?

OBAMA I do not think Clyburn is right. I am confident the Dem Party will come together. Come August, whoever the nominee is, the Party will say we will come together to beat McCain.

Q. Jeremiah Wright a victim?

OBAMA - No. It is a legitimate political issue. But snippets to caricature him and the church, and this was done in a deliberate way. But I got to church not to worship a pastor but to worship God. Look at the whole church and the whole man in judging them.

[More on Wright. Nothing new.]

Q. What were the controversial remarks you said you heard Wright make? And about America?

OBAMA - Problems in the black community are discussed in sharp ways. As for America he has talked about slavery and Jim Crow. He has catalogued the bad in America and not enough about the good.

Q - Do voters have an interest in knowing who you are and what your values are?

OBAMA - Absolutely. But look at my 20 years of community service. Look at how I have raised my family. I do not say that he Wright issue was illegitimate, but that it was done improperly. Look at the flag pins. I have worn flag pins and I will in the future. The reporting was not reflective of me and my patriotism. Remember my 2004 DNC speech.

Q - William Ayers and Tom Coburn. The same?

Obama - No, of course not. I called Coburn afterwards. My point is just because I have an association with someone does not mean I agree with what they say.

[20 minutes in and I do not see Obama taking anybody on.]

Obama says Republicans have better ideas on government regulation.

Boy is he taking on Fox and the GOP today. NOT.

Q. Are you really post partisan? Gang of 14, you were not part of it. Partial birth abortion.

OBAMA - This is fair but I voted for tort reform measure. During the Roberts nomination, I defended my colleagues. On the Daily Kos. I was fiercely attacked for it.

[This is true. Here is the post in question. He did give on on the Roberts issue in the way he discussed it.]

On partial birth abortion or late term abortion, I grant that the state can restrict it, so long as it has exceptions for the health of the mother.

As President, I want to bring people together and listen to all sides of the debate. I want to get us out of the polarizing debate.

[This is all gibberish imo.]

Q - Will you vote to confirm Petraeus as Cent Com?

Obama - Yes, Petraeus has been a good tactical commander.

Q - If Petraeus disagrees with you, will you replace him?

Obama - I am C-i-C and I see the strategic mission. I will listen to him of course, but I am the President.

Debates? We have had 21. We want to talk to the voters.

Premature to discuss running mates. Open to it? I am going to punt on the question.

IF you are ahead in the PV and PD will people be angry? Obama, yes they will be angry. But here is my belief, Dem will be unified. I think I am the unifier.

Obama will run privately financed campaign, first since Watergate? [Is this correct? I thought bush and Kerry were privately financed?]

Obama looks for way out of his public finance commitment.

What have you learned? OBAMA - I have the right temperament to be President. I have an even keel. Mistakes? I made a few. Actually all the time. I talk too much. instead of listening. I learned I miss my family.

[Comments now closed.]

< Late Night: Johnny Can't Read | That Was Then, This Is Now >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's not just the Beltway Media. . . (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by bslev22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:51:39 AM EST
    This morning Josh Marshall has a blog up, titled "Dark, Very Dark".  This ominous sounding title is prompted by his review of the Wall Street Journal's article highlighting Bill Clinton's intensifying role in the campaign, and offering baffling insights such as, hold on to your hats, the fact that Bill Clinton doesn't like to lose elections.  Does it matter that much in the grand scheme of things?  Perhaps not. Are Josh and like-minded folks in the blogosphere facilitating a deep and lasting schism between various factions of the Democratic base?  You bet they are.

    I think the blogs are now irrelevant (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:53:21 AM EST
    All of them.

    This one too.

    [ Parent ]

    Irrelevant? You think? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by bslev22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:01:25 AM EST
    Don't want to overuse my commenting privileges BTD, but if not now I would be interested at some point in reading about why you think the political blogs have become irrelevant.  I for one get more from reading analyses by you and Jeralyn than I get from the NYTs, and I'm not blowing smoke.

    [ Parent ]
    I think they could have ben relevant (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:03:40 AM EST
    IF they had been issue centric and pressed the candidates on issues. Instead they became candidate centric and thus irrelevant.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree on the candidate centrism. (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:10:47 AM EST
    It's be one thing if they actually had objective candidate support - constructive criticism, listed policy deficiencies as well as engaging in team building and organizational support.

    But when The Candidate is held blameless and The Media and The Opponent and even The Public are the ones criticized in their stead, blogs aren't a useful, not even as a focus group.  Maybe as a real time sociology experiment in psy ops, but little else.

    I still think that TL is great.  Here there's no reluctance to examine the issues. (as opposed to a obsession with spinning them.)

    [ Parent ]

    What do you call it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Burned on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:20:52 AM EST
    When you laugh and sigh at the same time?

    "Maybe as a real time sociology experiment in psy ops, but little else."

    Very funny line, very true and very sad.
    It's been a huge letdown.

    [ Parent ]

    saughing? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    Good natured self-depreciating resignation?

    [ Parent ]
    top o' the rec list (none / 0) (#161)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    A diary I had no problem with (propaganda, but fairly benign stuff) until the tip jar stated "It's not like he is consistently using the media to espouse openly right-wing framing, the way his Democratic opponent is.".

    Then he lost me.  They just can't resist it!

    [ Parent ]

    TL (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:26:08 AM EST
    is quite a bit more objective than say, Huffington Post.  The story is the story, and then opinion is added but clearly indicated.

    The other key is that the comment policy allows for differing opinions but watches the flaming.  

    That will be the go-forward model for blogs that would like to succeed, in my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    Relative Objectivity... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by DanR3 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:32:31 AM EST
    I started visiting this blog more frequently after super tuesday simply because it was one of the few blogs remaining that allowed HRC supporters to actually voice an opinion without getting immediately pounced on by Obama supporters or banned by the site owners.

    I wouldn't go so far as to describe TL as being "objective" though, other than by adding some balance to the rest of the noise.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with you about (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:48:22 AM EST
    the fact that they became candidate centric, although a few tried to remain neutral.  It just got harder as the vitriol increased and the supporters became more defensive/offensive.  Issues couldn't even be discussed without the thread devolving into name-calling and accusations.  People began bashing people who represent their own values and support many of the same democratic ideals that they do.  How can you do that and not see the damage you're doing to the party as a whole?  I know many are totally frustrated after the events of the last seven to eight years, and some wanted radical change NOW.  Not going to happen.  I'm really angry at some of the bloggers and MoveOn for feeding the frenzy.  They've managed to diminish their good work by taking the positions they did, at least AFAIC.  And after worrying about government intervention and republican tricks, they did it to themselves!!!!

    The blogs are shaped to a large degree by its participants.  You guys have attempted to keep trolling to a minimum and posts on topic.  For that I thank you.  Others should have followed your lead and tried to remain more objective, despite their personal feelings.  Blogs are supposed to represent all of us, not just the ones who support one candidate or the other.

    There'll have to be a lot of introspection, accountability and healing after this.
    I hope we're mature enough to do all of that, but I'm not very optimistic.


    [ Parent ]

    My normie (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    friends are far more interested in other stuff in life than this election.  They aren't going to need to "heal."

    As for blogger-world, myself included, the obsession with the race is our responsibility.  Obsession is obsession.  Unhealthy stuff....but rather fun.  :)

    I'm convinced that this business of being so divided is a lot simpler than it appears.  The older Dems are now becoming the swing voters in the Fall.

    That's so not surprising.  Obama's tax proposal?  Deadly.  They don't like his relationship problem.  They don't like his attitude.  They just don't like the guy.  

    The new flood of progressives into the party used to be the swing voters.  

    All that has happened is that the demographics have flip-flopped.

    What's new about this?  Nothing, I think.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously, the demographics have switched (none / 0) (#138)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    because we don't have a white man running in the dem primary.  :-)

    I think you're probably right about the amount of attention being paid, although the people I know here do not blog, but all are all following the race very closely.  Maybe that's influencing the way I feel about division.  One actually said about two months ago that she was leaning toward either Obama or McCain.  Pretty stunning, isn't it?  I haven't talked to her lately though.

    It's still a while until November.


    [ Parent ]

    My real life friends (none / 0) (#195)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    are an eclectic bunch.  They are cute.  Even those who voted for Obama called me after PA to congratulate me. :)

    They'll be happy to vote for Clinton in the Fall.  

    I had one die-hard activist friend.  Frankly, she got on my nerves.  I'm an emotional moderate.  *haha

    [ Parent ]

    The canddiates... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:21:40 AM EST
    ...spent 250 million to avoid any issue based debates.  I don't think the blogs did that to themselves.

    At least their public participants  didn't consciously do it.  I can't speak for the  semiprofessional Troll raters cadres that came to dominate or politically clense them.

    [ Parent ]

    How hard can you squeeze the difference? (none / 0) (#82)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM EST
    You yourself said there's not a dime's worth of difference between them

    [ Parent ]
    The small blogs (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:36:06 AM EST
    like TalkLeft weren't all that relevant to the electoral process to begin with.

    The large blogs WERE relevant and burned through their relevancy starting with a smolder quite awhile ago that became a raging fire in the last 4 months.

    I think Talkleft has GROWN in relevancy to the electoral process because of the self-torching of the others.  Although Talkleft is clearly partisan, it isn't mindlessly so.  That simple fact makes the site so unique right now that its relevancy is greater.

    [ Parent ]

    they are as relevant (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:39:01 AM EST
    as they ever were.

    Blogs work on the premise that the moderator goes out into the googlesphere, finds something that interests him or her, then quotes it back, states an opinion, and lets folks talk about it.

    How has that changed?  If you say it's irrelevant now, then you have to admit that it was irrelevant then.  There is a reason you're not on a knitting blog or a fly-fishing republicans for Jesus blog.  We all pick the areas that interest us and post accordingly.  That's why many of us left Kos and HuffPo.  The opinions expressed there were just too radical from our own beliefs.

    Don't worry--something new will come along to outrage you and you'll feel relevant again.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:41:26 AM EST
    they bet the farm that Obama would catch on like some wildfire and they can go back to the binary of good bad between the two parties.  They are not equipped to deal with anything that is not either good or bad.  They cannot deal with analysis or criticism.  They are cheerleaders when they should have been pushing the progressive Agenda.  Finally, what is amazing to me, is how they were manipulated by the Axelrod viral campaigns.  I think it will become very clear that the viral tactics of the campaign manipulated the big boyz.  This is where I think they are now truly irrelevant, they are not immune to being manipulated and being locked in "correct" thinking.  

    [ Parent ]
    So...what you're saying is... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:44:29 AM EST
    they really are tools.

    [ Parent ]
    they have become tools (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    and therefore are irrelevant.  Reminds of Soviet:  The official organ of the great revolution kind of stuff.  

    [ Parent ]
    the staff at the Obama campaign HQ (4.00 / 0) (#200)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    are on average 20something YOs and is why imo, they're influential in bringing Obama's views here. This medium belongs to them by and large, but, the temperament and lack maturity is very apparent. I have never read such vicious garbage aimed at Sen. Clinton, a repectable person who is undeserving of any of it.

    however, even with the exception of even Huffpo or TPM, the mature blogs have had limited effectiveness for the candidates, or Obama would have won the nomination by now.

    They have had successes like the US attorneys scandals at the DOJ. Josh's site while being too partisan for me at times  has been invaluable in bringing attention to the Congress mobilizing, emailing, faxing, calling them as have a few others.

    [ Parent ]

    i think blogs have a place (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by moll on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    I used to live in a place that had a historic town hall - sort of like a secular version of a church where everyone belongs to the same church.

    Blogs today are like that building. People do not vote in a vacuum - they swap information with others in their community. They get feedback about what other people think and feel. They want to stand with "their own kind" and they want reassurance that they're not making a mistake and they want to not miss any crucial information.

    Some of that has to happen on the local level. Only, local doesn't mean geographical anymore. It means people with shared interests.

    So I don't think blogs are irrelevant. I think there is a certain danger in the way we are gathering our news, whether it is blog or mainstream - it disturbs me how people tend to not read anything except their own echo chamber. It especially disturbs me when I find I am just as guilty, because I do not like reading "their" take on things (so I just avoid it). This is the real xenophobia these days. But perhaps the best blogs are the ones that have bloggers who read outside their own neighborhood, and the xenophobic blogs will not survive.

    [ Parent ]

    What About The State Specific Dem Blogs? (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    They, at least in the past, seemed to concentrate on local issues, monitoring how the politicians were performing and pushing them to perform better etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Blogs have other uses too (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST
    When the Iraq War was looming, I was one of those who loudly protested to friends, especially Republican ones, this was not a good idea. But who was I? One insignificant voice over the NYT and Judith Miller? I believe if the blogs were as big as they are now, maybe we could have made a dent by protesting. Maybe not, as lies were fed to the people by the administration. Maybe we would have been labeled UnAmerican, UnPatriotic, and been hated outcasts but we would have at least tried.

    When I stopped commenting at DK, I did not write a GBCW diary, I didn't even make a fuss, I just brought my voice over here, like it or not. Ha! I don't hate the Kossacks, I was one of them. I kept saying we are eating our own. I laugh at them now because I was never mean like they have become. I always thought Markos would step in and say, OK, we are going over the top here. But, he went over the top with them. Blogs are relevant. Jim Webb and Jon Tester would have lost without the on the ground effort and financial support the blogs encouraged. Having said that, I think the big blogs are not as relevant now as they were because the honesty has left the building. It is no longer issues, causes, and keeping the politician's feet to the fire. And the candidate they choose does not even want to be identified with them. He might be their hero but they are not his. We are the voices of the blogs and that makes us relevant.  

    [ Parent ]

    I left DK without a GBCW diary too (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    but that was intentional. When Hillary wins the nomination, I plan to go back and do a victory dance diary.. I even have the title..it's a bit childish, but I can't resist. It will be titled, "Neener, neener, neener!!!" And then I will chortle a bit in the first sentence and then challenge them to get back to what DK said it was there for in the first place, the discussion of, and work to implement, progressive and Democratic agendas. I expect to be either banned or totally swamped with insults. But, I am a big girl and I can handle it. Just like my candidate can. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    ha (none / 0) (#238)
    by Cal on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:11:20 PM EST
    I'll recommend that one!

    [ Parent ]
    The why continue to attack (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by buhdydharma on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    or more accurately in your case)participate i a site now dedicated to attacking Democrats, instead of putting your effort into defeating Republicans?

    The blogosphere is only effective when it is a somewhat united front. Right now it is destructive to the one cause that really matters, defeating the Republicans.

    Remember torture

    Remember Iraq

    Remember NOLA

    Remember it is Republicans that are the problem. not fellow Dems.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the blogs are now irrelevant (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cal on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:22:36 AM EST
    They were ever relevant?

    [ Parent ]
    The opportunity was there. (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by cawaltz on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    Instead of pushing an individual they should have been pushing an agenda. Instead of saying all of the candidates are basically the same they should hve been discussing philosophical differences as well as policy differences and even record and how that fit into the progressive agenda. Instead they bought into identity politicsrace and gender) and living and dying by poll numbers and money raised. There should have been pushback when the media pared the race down the race or focused on BS.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes And The Monitors Needed To Crack Down (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    when a person went into person attack mode on an unbiased basis.

    I would love to really debate issues on a civil basis but I'm not going to debate commentary that consists of nothing but talking points and insults. Even a winning point can be lost when you add a personal insult to the mix. Have to admit that I have not been real good the last two days on omitting the put downs myself. Have to work on dealing with the issues and ignoring the B.S. again.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Cal on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:04:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Uh? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:25 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, I get it (none / 0) (#215)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    I misread a previous comment.

    [ Parent ]
    The race (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    divide is a big topic, with a lot of editorials this morning.  What I noticed is that more are pointing out that this is a fairly odd argument.  90% AA vote is pride.  But when he loses the excuse is that the people are racist?

    That means Iowa is less racist than Ohio.  There's an argument guaranteed to lose the election in the Fall.  Bye-Bye PA, for sure!

    Another editorial pointed out that Axelrod has tried this same divisive strategy when he ran Edwards campaign and another time....both failing.

    [ Parent ]

    You'll find that ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:30:30 AM EST
    ...many Edwards supproters washed up with the drfitwood here.  Edwards clearly never had any truck with polarizing voters on charater issues. He clearly saw how he was going to be smeared as a racist or sexist and knew it was time to bug out. He anticipated this disaster quite nicely.

     

    [ Parent ]

    With a wife like Elizabeth it would have been (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    ...hard to smear him as sexist, IMHO. The other thing, yeah probably.

    [ Parent ]
    Maria (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    would you have thought a year ago that Bill and Hillary Clinton would be fighting charges of racism?  

    They could have easily made John out as sexist.  Rumor has it that the leak about John's haircut came from Camp Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I thought the original post.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    ..was was suggesting that the Obama camp would have pointed Edwards as a racist and the Clinton camp would have tried to brand him sexist. I'm sure that Team Axelrod would have thrown anything at Edwards that they thought would stick.

    [ Parent ]
    and yet (none / 0) (#169)
    by cawaltz on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    There WAS a prominent female blogger that implied he was(she used it as an excuse to defect to Obama). I lose respect when I see folks tossing around the words racist and sexist like they have no understanding of what the word means. It is a grievous wrong in my opinion to call someone a sexist or racist to score political points or attempt to score points when you disagree with someone.  

    [ Parent ]
    when did Axelrod run Edwards campaign? (none / 0) (#61)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:52:16 AM EST
    interesting: have a link?

    [ Parent ]
    Media consultant (none / 0) (#102)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    down the page on this link.  In 2003.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edworg.html


    [ Parent ]

    Aw geez... (none / 0) (#166)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:02:47 AM EST
    Did you have to make me read something about Marshall on a nice Sunday morning?

    [ Parent ]
    The media doesn't vote Democratic (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by koshembos on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:59:56 AM EST
    Once it's McCain vs Obama, the media will be all McCain. Furthermore, Obama as nominee will lose at least 10% of the Democrats whom you antagonized and doesn't care for.

    Obama will further depress or even eliminate the Democratic success in the Congressional elections.

    The Democratic party will pay for many years to come for Obama's racist, arrogant and mindless campaign.

    Brazile said today - (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:22:59 AM EST
    Obama has not played the Race Card!
    Well - I guess not for those who live on the Obama Planet.

    [ Parent ]
    It was Brazille who started it (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Serene1 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:29:05 AM EST
    by accusing Bill Clinton loudly of racisim because he made the fairy tale comment regarding Obama's Iraq war opposition.
    Obama followed up on it dutifully with the memo and subsequently seeing racist overtones/undertones in each and any of Bill's comment.

    [ Parent ]
    The Obama (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    campaign tried to squelch Bill Clinton, because people do like him, and he is an asset to her campaign. I think he did step back for a while as they tried to reassess his role and decide if voters believed the hype.  (Bill Clinton a racist?  Please.) It's interesting to hear that he's now getting much more involved again, so I guess they've decided.

    Can't keep those Clintons down.  :-)

    [ Parent ]

    "Damaged" Obama (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    Watching This Week, what is wrong with these people?  "overturn the will of the people" Donna Brazille, is she serious?  She is damaging the party.  

    [ Parent ]
    Or inadvertently (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    Helping Sen Clinton, if the will of the people is the popular vote, not the delegate count...that would be delicious irony.

    [ Parent ]
    As usual (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:00:47 AM EST
    Brazille started the program trying to appear "neutral" but it didn't take long before she was in full defend Obama mode.  I am amazed so many of the networks continue to have her on as an "uncommitted delegate" instead of being honest that she favors Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    I noticed that DB (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    first mentioned "will of the people" and popular vote, then, suddenly realizing that HRC is now plausibly arguing she leads in the current PV, Donna said "and the will of the people in the pledged delegates".

    Laughable.

    She's a shill for Obama, and it's simply dishonest for ABC and CNN to put her on constantly without pointing out her clear pro-O bias.

    One reason why I am watching less of these cable/network political chat shows.  They almost always feature 1-2 pro-O pundits with no one for Hillary.  MSBHO being the worst of course.

    [ Parent ]

    "there might (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    be some racism there"  -- obama in response to clinton's lbj/mlk comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Does Obama seriously think that (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    Martin Luther King could have gotten the Civil Rights Act through Congress by himself??? LBJ did some serious and dirty politicking to get it through. I was living in McLean, VA at the time, and I remember the grownups, I was 14, talking about what LBJ had had to do to get it through Congress. He literally blackmailed some of the Reps. and Senators into voting for it. LBJ knew where ALL the skeletons were buried and he had no compunction about threatening to make them public if the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed. Obama should be grateful to the "old style politics", without it he sure as hell wouldn't be where he is today.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? I'd like to read about that some time. (none / 0) (#209)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    Any recommendations? I was 14 y.o. at the time too but was interested in politics. I've always known LBJ worked the back rooms pretty well.

    [ Parent ]
    There is an excellent bio of LBJ out. (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    It has several volumes and the author was given total access by Lady Bird to all his papers, including private ones, as well as interviews with her. I don't recall the author, though. McLean is right outside DC and all of our neighbors, and my Dad, worked for the government in some capacity. Many of them were in Congress, or worked for people in Congress. And the word got around just through discussions at barbecues and things. Back then there wasn't this huge secrecy crapola all over the place, and people did discuss what was going on openly. Of course, it was discussed after the fact, although not by much. There were victory parties for the Civil Rights Act, in the white suburbs, believe it or not. And how it was done was openly discussed and admired. LBJ may have been a lot of things, but he was first and foremost a master politician and one of the earliest proponents of civil rights legislation.

    [ Parent ]
    Your insider view is fascinating. (none / 0) (#239)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    I would have been so intrigued by those discussions back then, and still would for that matter. The plots that go on within the political sphere are more exciting than many books and almost all TV entertainment.

    I'll look for the LBJ bio. Thanks so much for the information.

    BTW, I briefly lived in Fairfax, so I know where McLean is. Lots of political action in those parts.

    [ Parent ]

    I will tell you one thing I heard (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    that may not have made it into the book. LBJ and the old pols were friends for years. And during those years, LBJ kept his ears open and his mind on "save" when in the steam room, the bar or where ever they let their hair down and their secrets out. Some of the stuff he used was really dirty and low down, like mistresses, illegitimate children,..remember this was before the pill and men were careless..and all sorts of things that in those days were never mentioned in decent society and certainly not in the press.

    But LBJ used them, and used them well. He didn't have to threaten to tell the press, he just had to say, "What if your wife finds out about this?" because in those days divorce was a political career killer.

    LBJ was good at what he did..he got the bill through, by hook and by crook. And we should all be grateful.

    [ Parent ]

    Bill Moyer Did A Great PBS Presentation On (none / 0) (#216)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    the subject. I don't have a link but I'm sure if you go to their site you will be able to find a clip.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks so much. I'll go and check it out! (none / 0) (#233)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:04:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Koshembos (none / 0) (#57)
    by bslev22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    Another TPM acquaintance.  Good to see you.
    Bruce

    [ Parent ]
    Is the media for Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:59:56 AM EST
    Or against Hillary?
    Important distinction when considering the GE.


    Not mutually exclusively (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    of course, we don't know whether they love McCain or Obama more. My guess is the former.

    [ Parent ]
    Um, that's Exclusive. . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    We shall see. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Faust on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    I think McCain is going to be a lot less robust than people think personally. I could easily be wrong. I hope to God I'm right.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama gets the nomination, he will (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    lose the election the first time he looks down his nose at McCain. No matter what you think of the man's politics, there is no argument that he is a war hero, has served his country in war and in peace, and has a much longer record of public service than Obama does. If Obama gets snotty with McCain, it will cost him the election. Even without his own baggage. I don't like McCain, but I do respect him and his service. So do a lot of Americans. And if this green kid comes in with his sense of entitlement and looks down his elite nose at McCain, that will be the end of him. Even people who would have voted for him just because he is a Dem will draw the line at that. Hillary has been in public service as long as McCain has, albeit without the military record. She will attack his policies and plans, not him personally. Obama doesn't have anything to counter policies and plans with, so he will probably stoop to the same methods he has used against Hillary, and they will backfire on him.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes - the CORPORATE media is for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:39:12 AM EST
    because they're always seeking a "New American Idol."
    If not, Edwards haircut videos would have been less important than Wright videos - concealed from the public until most of the primaries were over.
    What's interesting is Obama supporters slamming the MSM that's coddled and stroked Obama from the gitgo and still conceals damaging info about him.
    If Hillary had lied about her own father in order to obtain a key endorsement, it would be headlined in MSM and Obama blogs!

    Obama began his "operation chaos" long before Limbaugh with his "Dem for a day" - but that's ignored by the MSM because Hillary is the target of Operation Chaos.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD (4.75 / 4) (#19)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    fails to say if he's more electable for the general or the primary.

    I assume he meant both.

    However Daschle on ABC is illustrating why he could not break the GOP in the Senate over al lthose years and why he was unseated by his constituency.  He's borderline delusional about Obama's appeal post Wright or disengenuous to the nth degree.   His intellectual performance and that of his wingman is tremendously underwhelming.
    They are not dealing with the fall out from Ayers and Wright in an honest manner.

    [ Parent ]

    Daschle is a weasel (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by wasabi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    A few years ago he was on Meet The Press and he threw someone under the bus for absolutely no reason.  I can't even remember who it was (I'm old, and I've slept since then), but I lost all respect for that man on that day.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he (none / 0) (#219)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    means in the GE.  But I don't understand his rationale tied to the fact Obama is -so far- the darling of most of the main stram media.
    We've seen how much OH and PA voters care about that... The GE voters would care even less.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it is CDS with the Beltway Boyz! (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by alexei on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:03:35 AM EST
    And that means that Obama will face the same CDS against McCain and he can't handle it.  Remember, Gore and Kerry also faced the CDS and did not do well. Obama will be worse than either as evident in how he couldn't deal with the mild criticism and questions in the Primary.

    Whereas, Clinton with all the terrible CDS is essentially in a tied race with much less money and a non-existent strategy for the caucuses.  She is now actually getting grudging respect for her toughness, her political skills and her resilience.  from many of the Media. Therefore, it is Clinton who is much more electable on this issue than Obama.  McCain is the real "Media Darling" in this race and Obama will wilt under the relentless CDS, while Clinton will see it as business as usual and tread on.

    Also, its the supporters who are tougher and (3.00 / 1) (#75)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:02:19 AM EST
    more resilient.

    Old biddies don't switch allegiances just because some young thing says "gasp!!! X will do anything to win!!!! OMG!!!!

    and etc, etc...

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure what your (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    point is but this "Old Biddie" resents people that call us Old Biddies. Unless of course you are another Old Biddie and then you have some right to talk for yourself as an Old Biddie but not for this Old Biddie.

    [ Parent ]
    i also find the obama (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:06:22 AM EST
    "media darling" theory propounded by big tent to be laughably naive. if he maintains his status as "media darling" throughout the general election then he is not what he claims/appears to be, i.e. a democratic politician.

    He isn't.. Did you see him on Fox, or (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:14:33 AM EST
    read the transcript? He is Republican-lite.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama plays to the audience. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    Which is to say that he bends with the passing breeze.

    He did learn one thing from Kerry - never be specific, never be clearly defined.  That way he can shift from one vague position to another without every being accused of flip flopping.

    Or as one of my sig lines said:
    The Audacity of Ambiguity!
    The Climate of Change!
    The Search for Substance!


    [ Parent ]

    Isn't your current one over there... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    member of the Cult of Issues and Substance

    love it.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes,Audacity...was the one previous to it. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    I used the "Audacity of Ambiguity!" when the whole Unity! Hope! Change! meme was being touted as if it was more than feel good political rhetoric.

    Soon enough, even that became too outrageous and went with the Cult of Issues and Substance.  

    [ Parent ]

    And Obama is claiming (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    he doesn't hit back all the time. Apparently, he thinks he is running a nice campaign. Check out his claims. Some of them are just plain funny..more schoolyard wisdom to go with his foreign policy creds..
    One of the things that I learned in the school yard was: the folks that are talking tough all the time, they're not always that tough. If you're really tough, you're not always looking to try to start a fight. If you're really tough, sometimes you just walk away. If you're really tough, you just save it for when you really need it," Obama said.

    So he is ducking debates because he is tough?? Funny, I thought it was because he is unable to articulate his own policies.

    And this one really shows he has NO CLUE as what the job of President entails..

    "I'm not interested in fighting people just for the sake of scoring political points." "If I'm going to fight somebody it's going to be fighting over the American people and what they need."

    Well, how does that fool think he will have to fight for the American people if not by scoring political points? Of course, I can understand his point..if I had as little political credibility as Obama does, I sure wouldn't count on scoring political points, either as a candidate or a President. Of course, not being willing or able to score political points he will be totally ineffective as President. But I guess getting there is the whole plan, not actually doing anything once in office.

    Obama's campaign talk (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:16:52 AM EST
    now is still being dictated by Hillary.  :)  

    She's rattled him.  He is letting her set the agenda.

    Her call for a non-moderated debate made me laugh.  Clever woman, she is.  It's another very bold and intriguing idea.  I even looked to see if he'd go for it, although I knew already he wouldn't; but the very idea of that type of debate was just so interesting I was hoping.

    She's been highly creative, in my opinion, in coming up with challenges and ideas to keep us all interested in this long campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    And her plan spares a grateful country (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    the prospect of Katie Couric moderating a political debate.  She was next up for the opportunity to grab more air time than the candidates in what has happened to debates since they went to commercial airwaves.  Portentous moderators pontificating at the candidates and the public were bad enough.  A perky moderator was going to drive me mad -- but it was dumb for Obama to bail, as Couric hardly was going to be hard-hitting.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is more (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:14:18 AM EST
    electable in the primary because of the media.  He isn't more electable in the general.  The media will turn on the Democrat.  They always do.  It would be naive to think that this election will be any different.

    The media (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:19:59 AM EST
    reports the news of the day, and the Republicans aren't shy about making sure they have news of the day to report.

    There was a great article yesterday on the absurdity of this business that Hillary should get out of the race for the good of the party, going back over the primaries in the past.  We've never seen any such cry before like this.

    [ Parent ]

    where was this article? (none / 0) (#86)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:07:32 AM EST
    great article yesterday on the absurdity of this business that Hillary should get out of the race for the good of the party, going back over the primaries in the past.


    [ Parent ]
    I believe this is it (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:34:33 AM EST
    Why is Obama still the front-runner? at Reclusive Leftist

    [ Parent ]
    It's NOT me! (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    My identity has been stolen.

    Dammit.

    [ Parent ]

    Drat! (none / 0) (#186)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:19:08 AM EST
    Now, I can't retrace my surfing steps.  But I appreciate the request.  It reminds me I need to "clip" good ones.

    It basically gave a history of primaries and how candidates have handled this business of "dropping out."

    A lot don't right up to the convention.

    If you're soundly winning, obviously, demanding your opponent drops out is crazy talk and pretty rude.

    If I run across it again, I'll post.

    [ Parent ]

    Not only that but.... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:25:42 AM EST
    ...Republicans don't pay attention to the media that is currently smitten with Obama. They tend to listen to Fox and Rush and company. And if those particular outlets favor Obama and McCain in the GE, it will be miracle days. Obama's darling status with certain media outlets might help him the ridicule heaped on Gore or Kerry; it won't stop him from being swiftboated by Republicans.

    If Russert, Tweety et all haven't been able to convince half of the electorate that Clinton is the devil for all their efforts, they won't be able to sell Obama over McCain to enough people even if they try. That's my opinion. Obama if he is the nominee will have to win this on his own merits. He can't hope for a media assist to carry him to victory. Does he have what it takes? I honestly can't answer that question but right now I am inclined towards the "no" column.

    [ Parent ]

    The media (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:07:50 AM EST
    can only have one darling at a time.  Who will be the love interest in the GE?  

    Hmmmm?

    [ Parent ]

    more electable due to beltway media? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Chimster on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:19:25 AM EST
    There's an oxymoron floating around somewhere in that sentence. Was there ever a time when Obama wasn't a Beltway media darling? No. Our party is now evenly, bitterly divided.

    Obama is not more electable due to them, but I can guarantee that our current Democratic divisiveness is due to them.

    Bore-ack Obama (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by coolit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    I was watching Obama's policy speech in the gas station in Indiana the other day.  He wasn't talking about hope, or change, or inspiration....  He was talking about policy.  He was talking about what kind of president he would be.

    He looked incredibly bored; Annoyed that he had to waste his time with such a trivial policy conversation.  He was droning on and on.  With no affect. Speaking as fast as possible.  It looked like he just wanted it to be over.  

    Maybe he missed the screaming fans. I don't know.  However, if he is our nominee and in the general election, this could be his Achilles Heel.

    Clinton read laundry lists (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:22:46 AM EST
    and the public loved him, partly because Clinton loved his laundry lists.

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent point (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by rnibs on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    It's his failure to be enthusiastic about anything other than himself that will be his un-doing.  

    I believe that he will ultimately be un-electable, because though he is able to charm many, he can't charm enough voters to actually win the GE.  He's not winning anyone on policy.

    I think that this campaign hasn't had enough political discourse because Obama won't engage in it unless he's forced to.

    [ Parent ]

    did anyone else see (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    our current president at the press club dinner?  my goodness, i dare say he appeared inebriated.  clinton could not appear because she was "dodging sniper fire" while obama was "in church".  and the attendees just yuckity yucked right along.  then there was the laugh track played along while he "conducted" the marine band which, it was reported, was something "he always wanted to do".  i guess between that and getting the guy who "tried to kill [his] dad" we can rest easily.  bush has gotten to do what he always wanted.  

    what a disgrace is that guy and the media who plays along with him.  

    I couldn't watch (none / 0) (#112)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:31:26 AM EST
    thanks for taking one for the team.  =)

    It reminds me of the 2006 correspondents' dinner where he joked about missing WMD's.  

    [ Parent ]

    Wright Interview (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:32:19 AM EST
    I wanted to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and unlike many I came away having stronger feelings about his type of religiosity.

    First of all I think he has the right to say whatever he wants in his church and to his congregation.  I frankly don't care how he says it either.  

    Second, Obama made a big deal about his religion therefore I think Obama's church is an issue and I think a very important issue.  He maintains that he is post racial and transcended the culture wars of the past.  Yet, Wright's church is embedded in those wars and in the racial divide.  It is the church's core value.  In this regard I find Obama to be steeped in hypocrisy.  

    Third, Wright claimed that he tried in his church to bring the outside world into the church and visa versa.  Wright's theology is based on unifying the two worlds, unlike what he said other churches do. So, this notion that Obama gets a pass cause he is a politician and he Wright is  a preacher is really then another lie.  Wright does not believe that they should be separated.  He attributed that lesson to the Chicago theology teacher he had. So, the worlds are not separate and Obama should not get a pass neither should Wright.  

    Fourth as a Christian for him to degrade Bill and Hillary from the pulpit, considering that he was one of the ministers invited to the White House when Bill was asking for religious counsel, I find to be a complete violation of one of the basic ideas of Chrisitianity, forgiveness.  I am not really religious, but a religious man who violates one of those core values for political purposes to me has no credibility.  He sounds just like any other hate filled preacher.  

    Finally, he perpetuates some racial lies.  He said, black people don't commit suicide, they just sing the blues.  Well, that is just not true.  Since suicide is a taboo, often times it goes under reported particularly in lower income communities and in the black community.    

    He kept talking about context and being taken out of context and kept bringing up these convoluted "lessons from the Bible", well, where have we heard that before?  What is worse all the so called liberal/progressives/intelligentsia that are willing to let this guy get a pass cause he is black and they think he is a progressive.  Weill, I don't buy it.    Hateful preaching is hateful preaching, I don't care where it comes from and giving it excuses.  I think people have a right to do it, but I am not obligated to forgive it or accept it.  

    Hey, Stellaaa (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:41:24 AM EST
    did you see on No Quarter that Obama only spent three years as a community organizer?  Methinks this is akin to his being raised by a single mother, where you find out she was only single for a couple of years.

    Man, the guy sure knows how to exaggerate.  

    But, here's the thing--I've been investigoogling for almost an hour now and I cannot for the life of me find a true CV for Obama with dates and positions, etc.  Maybe I just don't have the right phrases, but...holy!

    [ Parent ]

    I knew that... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:43:21 AM EST
    there is nothing there.  I am astounded at the idiocy of the left and how they bought this stuff just like the nation bought the stuff leading up to Iraq.  It's scary.  

    [ Parent ]
    Community organizer and Rezko (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    Inherent contradiction.  I know it's a subtle one.  But if he had the Community Organizing credentials, there is no way he would have had the Rezko relationship.  For me that is the core Obama lie and there is no way to clean that baby up.  Then the post racial transcendant persona when he is winning by pushing the racial and the non transcended stuff.  I cannot believe people buying this stuff out of harmful pathetic liberal white guilt and past century PC politics that I find patronizing and harmful.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, he could have had it (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:56:54 AM EST
    with a cold, calculating eye toward the future.  It often gets left out of the mix, but you and I know that Rezko was in charge of campaign finances for one of Obama's races.  Was it his first race?  Was Obama told: be a community organizer, work some voter registration drives, be a lawyer at this firm that represents me, then we'll run you in a few years?

    I am with you on liberal, pathetic, white guilt.  Reminds me of when I volunteered at one of Atlanta's gay rags, and when we'd do a story on a corrupt gay councilman or a bad gay businessman, we'd get the nastiest letters for going after one of our own.  There were two standards: the straight one and the gay one.  It does no favors to give a certain minority or class of people special treatment.  We should all be held up to the same standards--that's what equality is all about.

    It's the same kind of kid-gloves treatment I see Obama getting and it m