home

One Reporter Finally Notices Obama Is A Pol, Not a Saint

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

It always amazed me how well Barack Obama was able to sell his "new politics" schtick. It is not like it is actually a new schtick. Heck some pol or other uses it every cycle. Well, via Taylor Marsh, we've found a reporter that noticed that the Obama campaign has used negative tactics:

It was my turn to interview Barack Obama today, and ask something that’s been on my mind: He talks about changing the culture in Washington, and running a positive campaign, and while his public statements and ads have taken the high road, his campaign staff has consistently urged reporters to write negative stories about Clinton and sent releases about things like her “legacy of misleading voters.” I asked if that’s consistent with his principles.Obama began nodding his head halfway through my question. His response:

“This is a tension that we have at this stage in the campaign. Once Senator Clinton employed what her own staff called her kitchen sink strategy, they were having a morning call, every morning, in which they were driving the media to negative stories, and at a certain point I think my staff felt concerned that if that’s all everybody was hearing every morning, we weren’t going to be able to get our message out. As you said, what I’ve tried to do is be consistent in terms of my statements and television commercials, and I don’t think that we have crossed the line, but I think that there’s no doubt that I prefer to have a debate about policy.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course Obama is not exactly being truthful about when his campaign started to go negative or when they started urging the Media to look into Bill Clinton's romantic life, for instance, but heck, he is a pol - they are not very good with the truth. None of them.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< New PA Poll: Hillary Ahead by 11 Points | Popular Vote Touted At Clinton Fundraiser >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    His explanation, as given (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:29:48 PM EST
    doesn't even make any sense, unless you assume that negative attacks can only be met with negative attacks. If that's the case, then the entire premise of his campaign is FUBAR, frankly. (So is that of his potential presidency, but we already knew that, and just pray that he'll change his mind.)

    look at it through orange colored glasses (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:32:14 PM EST
    and what he meant will be interpreted as: hillary made me do it.

    Parent
    It's A Subliminal Statement (none / 0) (#108)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:32:45 PM EST
    From the 70's: The devil made me do it.

    From the 00's: Hillary made me do it.

    Therefore:

    Hillary=The Devil!

    Ok, I'm just fooling around casue I have nother better to say.  Go ahead and suspend me; I don't comment on the weekend anyway :)

    Parent

    Exactly right..... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:35:51 PM EST
    ...I guess I'm naive but earlier in this campaign I actually did expect Obama to take the high road because I thought it would be so inconsistent with his "message" to go negative, but hypocrisy must be the hardest of all vices to resist.

    Parent
    How about that? (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    Still did not answer about the pushing negative stories, more of the "Mommy, she hit me back first".  

    That was my exact reaction... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:47:45 PM EST
    and if he wants to discuss the issues instead of pushing all these negative narratives and blaming Hillary for everything under the sun, I personally would be very relieved if he'd just freaking DO IT.

    Parent
    What's more disturbing than (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Obama blaming Hillary for everything is that it works. Some people genuinely believe Hillary is nothing short of the devil.

    Parent
    So, Hillary is in charge? (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM EST
    and Obama is only playing follow the leader?

    That has always disturbed me. If you want to pick a leader, why would you pick someone who isn't leading?

    Always bugged me about the old Bush cadre of followers too. 6 years into the Bush presidency, it was always Bill Clinton's fault when Bush effed up.


    Parent

    Don't worry... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    he'll "surround himself with smart people."

    Remind you of anyone?

    Parent

    And by smart people, you mean (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    former Clinton aides, right? ;)

    Parent
    All of them remind me of someone (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    that "smart people" line was used to justify Reagan, too.

    Don't worry, people told me. He'll pick smart people who won't let him DO anything.

    One year into his admin, he cut college funds, my tuition was raised, and I had to work 2 jobs, and beg people for help (a lawyer I worked for suggested I start selling dope).

    LOL, absolutely the wrong line to pick to calm me down.

    Parent

    Reminds me of the old Ron Ziegler gem (none / 0) (#127)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    "That statement is no longer operative."

    That's what Ziegler said about prior statements about Watergate, and I guess that's what Obama is saying about the New Politics.

    Parent

    Obama's Website Promoted the Randi Rhodes Event (none / 0) (#161)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:14:40 PM EST
    On the subject of Obama's 'new style' of politics, Larry Johnson (No Quarter) has posted a story about Obama's pre-event promotion of the Randi Rhodes SF live show where she called both Hillary and Ferraro "big f***ing whores".

    Larry Johnson says: "It was an event apparently fully SANCTIONED by the Obama campaign as a fundraiser. It is on his official site. Barack Obama condemned Don Imus, and demanded his firing...Will he condemn Randi Rhodes, and demand her firing?".

    *See for yourself at the OFFICIAL OBAMA WEBSITE: : Sold Out An Evening with Obama Supporter Randi Rhodes (Meeting). Excerpt: "Let's show her some Bay Area love and have a chance to get together socially as well. Spend your afternoon phonebanking and then join us (in Obamawear of course) for a great evening".

    [.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/barackrhodes.jpg]

    Parent

    Even that (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    whole "kitchen sink" business was an anonymous source to politico that was never verified yet teh Obama camp has run with it and the media has taken it as truth.

    Kitchen sink (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    Yeah, but they went for the toilet bowl.  

    Parent
    Are you sure? (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM EST
    I read it in the NYT.

    I'll admit it doesn't really matter, but I'm a details person.

    Parent

    The NYT endorses who? (none / 0) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    After Iowa, (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Hillary said she would go on the attack against Obama, and that would be the "fun" part of the campaign....

    Parent
    And last Fall (none / 0) (#85)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:17:02 PM EST
    Obama announced that he would start getting tough and going on the attack against Clinton. So what? It's a campaign.

    Parent
    rooge04, do you have a link (none / 0) (#168)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    for tying the "kitchen sink" business to Politico.com. Would be much appreciated. Thanks.


    Parent
    "I only beat you (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    'cause you make me!"

    What a preposterous answer on Obama's part.  How many times is he going to be allowed to get away with this kind of inane explanation?  He is basically stating that Clinton made him go bad.  If only she would use her power to really take him out!

    "The Devil made me do it." (none / 0) (#131)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    It was funny when Flip Wilson used to say it. A presidential candidate, not so much.

    Parent
    I loved my Geraldine doll when I was a tot (none / 0) (#155)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    i haven't felt so much hope for change (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    since gary hart's campaign of "new ideas" failed to offer any.

    as i've said before: not even obama's schtick is a change. someone uses it every four years. i don't blame him- it's smart, and he's played it well. but i continue to be baffled that so many seemingly intelligent people have fallen for it. it wouldn't bother me so much, but their aggressive proselytizing at airports sometimes almost makes me miss my flights. glad they don't have to shave their heads anymore, though.

    They always get it wrong (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    We don't want "change"  as an idea, we want to change the people in power.  They just don't get it.  

    Parent
    the change i see (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    is that people used to see through this kind of schtick.

    Parent
    It's one of those situations (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:37:08 PM EST
    where people who pay attention to politics are smarter than the general public. Except for the media of course, which is always stupid.

    Parent
    you mean the "creative class" (none / 0) (#20)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    understands things mere mortals don't?

    Parent
    No fair weather friends here (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    because the "creative class" is by and large pretty stupid.

    The Obama cult in many ways resembles the Mac cult. (I'm a proud and long-time Mac user myself, but you should see how some of them behave on the internet. . .)

    Parent

    Stupid Autocomplete! (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:40:06 PM EST
    The subject should just be "no."

    Parent
    i've been active in politics (none / 0) (#31)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    since i was a child. i've never seen anything like this- at least from democrats.

    Parent
    Even some people I know well (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:47:49 PM EST
    It's like Elvis is running for President.

    Parent
    And they really believe (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:51:01 PM EST
    that Hillary is a fire-breathing monster and Obama is a saint.

    It's absolutely bizarre to me.

    Parent

    In a country where the Pet Rock (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    can become all the rage, I just don't think it is as strange as it is a reflection of our political system as it is now.

    I think Ronald Reagan's election marked the end of our political system as we thought we knew it.  Interestingly, he came along only a few years after the Pet Rock.

    Parent

    my mood ring (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    says i'm fired up and ready to go!

    Parent
    Those were the days! (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    Back then it was all about silly rocks making us happy and telling us when we were sad.

    Parent
    My Magic 8 Ball says... (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:10:33 PM EST
    "Ask again later."

    Parent
    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    You broke the margins.

    Parent
    oops (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    Mixed my formats...plain text and HTML.

    I broke margins, now lets work on ceilings.  

    Parent

    Stupid sells (none / 0) (#146)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    That's why the media is stupid. It is simply mirroring the stupidity of the "mass." The mass media serves the interests of the "mass" and the "mass" is a dumb creature.

    Parent
    And we want to "change" (none / 0) (#137)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    bthe people in power because we don't like their policies.

    I still don't know how the changed policies that Obama is offering are better than those being offered by Clinton. Maybe they are, but he hasn't made the case, as far as I can tell.

    He's just saying, I am the change you've been waiating for.

    Parent

    "I chose me" n/t (none / 0) (#164)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:21:08 PM EST
    Gary Hart is right on target (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    so is Bill Bradley. Indeed, Obama appeals to Bill Bradley's audience, plus African Americans. That's the only real difference.

    Parent
    and even though i'm a pescetarian (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:36:58 PM EST
    i'm still looking for the beef.

    Parent
    Policy discussion (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    Look, it was always Axelrod's intent to not discuss policy.  They don't want to be pinned on anything.  Axelrod even said that it's all about personalities and stories, and how he cannot do a regular policy campaign cause Obama does not have the creds.  It's that simple.  

    It's funny (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM EST
    because if the process wasn't so drawn out this time, the strategy would have worked.  I refer you to Ben Franklin and his theory on politicians and fish...

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#86)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:17:07 PM EST
    It's what I call the tabula rasa campaign--read into him what you want, and don't ask too many pointed questions about specifics.

    Parent
    And yet when others have said what (none / 0) (#140)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    Axelrod himself has said, they are "going negative."

    Funny, that.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, the very nature of a political race (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    demands such compromises. Perhaps it speaks more to the electorate, the level of our discourse.

    Indeed it does (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    That is what makes the Obama supporters' sanctimony so absurd and idiotic.

    Parent
    I tend to agree, except for the one caveat that (none / 0) (#23)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM EST
    those qualities really characterize segments on both sides. Each side has a diverse array of supporters, and they run the gamut

    Parent
    On this issue (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:42:43 PM EST
    I believe you are wrong. Clinton supporters actually extol her ability to fight a tough fight.

    No, your argument is quite unconvincing to me.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, not quite certain what distinction you (none / 0) (#50)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM EST
    are making, please clarify.

    Parent
    I wasy saying that the supporters of both are not (none / 0) (#53)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    monolithic.


    Parent
    I don't think Clinton's supporters (none / 0) (#147)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:55:44 PM EST
    tend to be sanctimonious. They are largely pragmatic in their assessment of Clinton, and they like her because they think she will be effective, not because they think she's without flaw or beyond criticism.

    So Clinton's supporters may run the gamut from sanctimonous to pragmatic, but I think the concentration in sanctimony on the Obama side.  For too many Obama supporters (not all, I know), any criticism of Obama is proof that the critic is still mired in the Old Politics. It's very convenient when your adversary's criticisms are definitionally Old, while your own are inherently New.

    Parent

    But will anyone notice? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    I think more people who are called 'low-information' notice than many expect.

    He's a pol. A good pol, but a politician. HRC is also a politician, but there's a paper trail. Ipso facto, I support HRC.

    Apropos of nothing, BTD, I find my HRC support growing... I think her recent appearances are encouraging, and her fighting stance is also. What are your thoughts? I know we both are somewhat tepid supporters of our candidates, but I feel my support warming.

    Clue, please? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by QuakerInABasement on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    when they started urging the Media to look into Bill Clinton's romantic life

    I don't know what this refers to. Clue, please?

    Google is your friend (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#48)
    by QuakerInABasement on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:51:58 PM EST
    Thanks ever so much.

    Parent
    Did you try it? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    Or do you believe I have a bookmark for the reference?

    Parent
    here (none / 0) (#157)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:07:25 PM EST
    Heck (none / 0) (#167)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:23:44 PM EST
    It goes back much farther than that.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    Lynn sweet reported on this from the summer of 2007.

    Parent
    That was just what I found first (none / 0) (#192)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:52:22 PM EST
    while I was on a boring conference call....

    Parent
    surrogate who was fired (none / 0) (#202)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    The e-mail was disjointed rambling.

    Parent
    Depends (none / 0) (#87)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:17:47 PM EST
    only if you're a progressive. Knowledge, truth, and facts are a republican's worst nightmare.

    Parent
    An Obama campaign member asked a (none / 0) (#83)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    reporter ( I think it was either Ambinder or Yglesias) to look into Bill Clinton's sex life.

    Parent
    Thank you. (none / 0) (#116)
    by QuakerInABasement on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    I found this... (none / 0) (#166)
    by outsider on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:22:55 PM EST
    Try it, and the links on that page... Not familiar with the site, I'm afraid - it's just from a v quick search.  I didn't know about this either...

    http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011810.php

    Parent

    Oh, dear! (none / 0) (#143)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:52:17 PM EST
    What next - campaigns releasing unrated re-enactments of the candidate's marital relations with their respective spouses?

    Parent
    I remember, I was paying attention (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by gish720 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    Clinton had not done anything negative concerning Obama, he then had an interview with Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker in which he called her "disengenous" and next came the MSNBC debate. Before the debate Matthews, Brian Williams and Tim Russert were clamoring for him to go negative.  It was during that astounding debate, in which the moderators joined in the fray, that Obama called into question her honesty and pretty much, with the help of Russert and Williams, her character.  This is when I became a Clinton supporter.  It was even during that debate that Richardson came to her defense--much to Matthews chagrin, later he said Richarson was aiming for VP.  Anyhow it was not a becoming sight. Russert and Williams were a travesty.  It's been going on ever since with MSNBC stacking the deck against her.

    Oh Please... (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    "...but I think that there's no doubt that I prefer to have a debate about policy."

    Is he serious?


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    He thinks he's being serious.


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    No doubt? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:23:18 PM EST
    Based on how little policy he actually discusses - and no one is preventing him from doing so, despite his attempts to whine about why it's everyone else's fault that he can't - and how ham-handed he is when he does (except that he doesn't bat an eye about taking credit for the work of others, and he can wax poetic for minutes on end as long as he is talking about his own good judgment), I think there's quite a lot of doubt.

    Questions I would like some reporter to ask Senator Obama:  "Given that you apparently are always functioning at the mercy of people and events beyond your control, whom you blame for your inability to do a variety of things, how can you explain to the American people your plans for getting the country back on track and moving in a more positive direction?  I mean, clearly the people want a change from the Bush approach, so how long do you think they will tolerate the 'it's not my fault, someone else got in the way, made me do it, or wouldn't let me' excuses you seem a little too fond of?"

    A girl can dream... :-)

    Parent

    Prefer to have a debate (none / 0) (#200)
    by FlatusTheElder on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    I'll play the walmart card but if you play the slumlord card you're a racist.

    Parent
    Who cares about "new politics" (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:50:42 PM EST
    It always amazed me how well Barack Obama was able to sell his "new politics" schtick.

    what's gotten me is why anyone would think that "new politics" would matter? No one is really complaining about the "old politics". Sure they mouth stuff and tut-tut, but for a generation the electorate's been lapping up republican bile thrown at Democrats...buying easily refuted republican lies and disingenuous smears for anyone caring even slightly. And yet republicans kept on getting elected and no one cared about their nasty politics or that their policies eviscerated the average American's life style and opportunity.

    My money is on the same "old politics" of character assassination winning the day in 2008. If Obama can hack it in that environment he has no business as the Dem nominee.

    He claims to wanting to talk about issues ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by scorbs on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:01:07 PM EST
    But he doesn't talk issues -- he's a faux-wonk.  He really doesn't seem to have stances except on very broad topics, like `not be in iraq.'  The rest is less than subtle attack on Clinton, and trying to absorb her policies, with slight variations, so he can claim he's Clinton, without baggage.  

    Obama's blame shifting (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by OxyCon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    After reading the article, what Obama did, instead of taking responsibility for his own actions is, he blamed the Clinton campaign for his own attacks.
    This is truly mendacious and irresponsible behavior on his part.
    The truth of the matter is, that when Hillary was ahead in all the polls, the Obama campaign started attacking her using all of the right wing, 1990s smears. This all happened last year.
    For Obama to try to claim some sort of innocence in this matter is a freaking bad joke.

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Marco21 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:25:00 PM EST
    We racist, Archie Bunker types who are afraid of the change and hope offered by the Chosen One often lash out at his supporters because, like Hillary, we're monsters and racists. oops, did I say we're racists already. I've been called one so many times for not supporting Obama, I can't keep track.

    Interesting choice of words (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:31:45 PM EST
    One side is always "trashed" the other side is "criticized."

    Negativity (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Donna Darko on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    his campaign staff has consistently urged reporters to write negative stories about Clinton and sent releases about things like her "legacy of misleading voters."

    This is a tension that we have at this stage in the campaign. Once Senator Clinton employed what her own staff called her kitchen sink strategy

    Except the "kitchen sink" strategy started within the last month. His negative campaigning started last June. Overall, his campaign has been more negative and hateful.

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by STLDeb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    This is my 1st time posting here.  I like this website & how Jeralyn & BTD run it, it doesn't get mean & nasty like some other websites do (both on the left & right).  FYI: I'm a conservative voter.

    Okay back on topic.  I just despise how the media has fawned all over Obama (he can do no wrong) and Hillary (who can do nothing right).  She has truly got the raw end of the deal.  They accuse Hillary of doing things that the Obama campaign has done to her.  I'm very sad to see her being treated this way.

    I've always been lukewarm about the Clinton's but did feel that Pres. Clinton was a good president and was wrong to be impeached.

    That being said, I just don't understand the vile hatred of her in the media.

    I myself am rooting for Hillary to stay in the race and not for ulterior motives either.  I guess it's just the woman in me coming out.  Personally my choice for president is McCain but if he can't be president I can live with another Clinton presidency.  I feel Hillary would make a very good president.

    I hope I wasn't getting off topic too much.  My apologies if so.

     

    welcome (none / 0) (#196)
    by tree on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    Our politics differ, but I too appreciate the lack of nastiness here. And I enjoy reading other perpectives,  whether I agree with them or not.

    Parent
    Welcome (none / 0) (#213)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:18:43 PM EST
    It's good to have you here.  TL is a very well run and moderated blog.  Before this race, I actually thought I was a liberal Independent but, as it turns out, it's become obvious that I'm more conservative than the average democrat leaner.  My own first choice is Hillary, but if not, I can easily live with McCain.  I think both would be competent and that's my first requirement going forward.


    Parent
    He goes on to say (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:34:54 PM EST
    that even the media thought he was being too nice (which they did - they were begging him to rip Clinton apart) and spins it that they were doing this because Clinton was being too negative on him. As BTD said earlier, irony is dead.

    "When your staff saw the need to do that, did you personally say, go ahead?" I asked.
    Obama shook his head and waved his hand. "Look, I think that national politics, as a I was aware of, and discovered even more, can be a contact sport. We've definitely been absorbing a lot more blows than we've been giving. We've shown great restraint during the course of this campaign. So much so that as you will recall, there were constant cries from columnists and pundits all across the country suggesting that, you know, I might be too nice to be able to win this. So we try to strike that balance. My criteria is making sure that whatever it is that say is truthful and honest and is related to policy."



    "Mommy, my staff made me do it" (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    but, um, I didn't do it, my staff did it. . . .

    I remember well a president who blamed it all on his staff -- and that gave us Watergate.  And then we found the smoking gun, despite all the expletives deleted.  

    I really do not want to go there again with this guy.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    This really blows my mind:

    So much so that as you will recall, there were constant cries from columnists and pundits all across the country suggesting that, you know, I might be too nice to be able to win this.

    I like to think I have a pretty accurate memory of what has happened in this campaign, but that's not how this went down at ALL.  Pundits and columnists (and reporters for that matter) were urging him to go negative - last fall.  And he did (actually had been all along, but more overtly).  And the pundits weren't say that because he was "too nice," it was because they were bored with the race and wanted someone to take on the frontrunner.  Even Dana Milbank admitted that the media urged Obama to attack Clinton last year.

    Clinton hadn't been attacking him with no counter response when he went negative.  She was the front runner and had little reason to elevate just one of her many challengers by provoking a fight.

    God, this makes me so mad.  Just own up!  Say you thought she was getting a free ride to the nom so you decided to take her down a notch!  I would respect that argument more because it has the benefit of being true.

    Parent

    Leadership and judgement (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    Hmm, you would think a leader sets the tone and does not allow his opponents, staff or the "columnists and pundits" to tell him to do it.  

    Parent
    But... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    You would also think that a leader takes responsibility for their own bad decisions rather than blame staff.  I'm thinking of starting a list of how many times Obama has thrown staff under the bus.  1)  that voter information form from state senate, 2) d-punjab, 3) "forced to go negative", 4) South Carolina memo ... I know I'm missing some.

    Even if the staff is to blame (doubtful), doesn't "the buck stop here"?

    Parent

    Rezko troubles (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    He never knew Rezko troubles cause he had a small staff.  (walking in the community he represented and seeing boarded up buildings was not an option).  

    The questionaire that he filled out it was his staffs fault.

    Parent

    I just realized (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    how could we all forget
    my-adviser-was-misrepresented-nafta-gate

    Parent
    Well, I can join in too (none / 0) (#126)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:43:15 PM EST
    you forgot:

    smoking-gate
    don't-have-state-Senate-staff-to-keep-lots-of records-gate
    granny-under-the-bus-gate
    all-(typical)-white-people-under-the-bus-gate

    My time here and on myDD have made me an expert of BO "gates."  Of course, I also know a bit about HRC's "issues" too.

    Parent

    OT "gates" (none / 0) (#187)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    I just wanted to take a moment to say how much i personally detest calling everything "gate".  It never made any freaking sense outside of Watergate which was an actual building.  "Gate" is no special signifier except as a tangential relationship to scandal and after being attached for 14 million non-scandals in the '90s, it makes even less sense.  Can't we just stop?  (For that reason alone, I will always love "The Plame Affair".  It just seemed so much classier.)

    Onto your list, the only thing that would fit my criteria is "state senate staff didn't keep records", but I thank you for the reminders on the others.  :)

    Parent

    I think the (none / 0) (#194)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:55:12 PM EST
    smoking could fit.  It was an adviser who claimed to have checked with BO that gave the final denial.

    Parent
    Didn't know that one (none / 0) (#201)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:25:36 PM EST
    Interesting.  Also - nafta advisor.  Forgot you mentioned that.

    Parent
    Randy Rhode's comment (none / 0) (#103)
    by Suma on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    came in an Obama fundraiser! I found this this information in No Quarter.

    Parent
    The spin is admirable though (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:30:49 PM EST
    How he blames the media for making him do it, and at the same time acribes an honorable motive to them - they wanted him to do it to defend himself against her, not because they hate her themselves.

    This is the story the media will tell. They'll ove it - 'Yes, we urged him to defend himself from the relentless Clinton attack machine'.

    Parent

    Yes - he would be right (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    if this were an interview last November!!!

    I wish that reporter had pressed him on the timeline part of it.  Now, if the MSM picks it up at all, the story will be 'Obama explains why he recently went negative.

    Parent

    You just wrote their headline for them: (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:58:17 PM EST
    "Obama explains why he recently had to go negative."

    Parent
    Do stupid things! (none / 0) (#99)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    God, this makes me so mad.  Just own up!  Say you thought she was getting a free ride to the nom so you decided to take her down a notch!  I would respect that argument more because it has the benefit of being true.

    But that wouldn't have worked as well. It wouldn't have worked at ALL. Obama isn't going to do stupid, self-destructive things just so people "respect his argument." That'd be crazy.

    I think the main people who can't accept that Obama is a politician (and not a saint) are actually Clinton supporters, considering the way they keep expecting him to either be a saint (impossible) or say how ordinary he is (stupid). I mean, why would someone who really didn't believe in Obama's "new politics" demand the impossible or the stupid out of him? Clinton voters, Obama's truest believers?

    Parent

    Hypocrisy (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    I deplore hypocrisy if its coming from Republicans or Democrats.  I don't care if someone is a pol, I don't expect them to be saints.  But don't pretend and lie.

    Furthermore, I don't think it is smart strategically, because sooner or later, the average voter (too much to assume the average reporter) is going to figure it out.  And then what happens?  

    Parent

    What happens? A second term for the hypocrite... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    ...if history is any guide.

    Parent
    So you like Obama (none / 0) (#122)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    because he is getting away with his hypocrisy. Well, at least you're honest. And kudos for admitting that you're pushing Hillary Hatred.

    It's not softening us up, however. Quite the opposite. Didja notice?

    And as for Obama himself, do you have any concerns whatsoever about his ability to do the job?

    Parent

    Kudos to me! (none / 0) (#134)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:47:12 PM EST
    I like Obama because he's winning and because he's not a Clinton ("not a Clinton" largely because of 1994, but also anti-DLC reasons).

    I would never expect to win over the other side's cheerleaders. That's ridiculous! We're trying to win over the other side's fans, not their players. Or at least trying to get the other side's fans to stay at home. That's going ok, so far.

    I have no concern about his ability to do the job.

    Parent

    funny because most of Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    supporters in the Senate are the DLC.  And BTW 1994 was the Democratic Congress fault not Bill Clinton's so don't spread that line of bull please....

    Parent
    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:22:18 PM EST
    'Or at least trying to get the other side's fans to stay at home.'

    Good strategy!  Ha! Ha!

    You've succeeded.  One poll shows 28% refuse to vote for Obama and another what 13% are going to actually stay home.  What ever the mix is, 41% won't vote for Obama.  You should pat yourself on the back for being one of the best of the chosen One's foot soldiers! woohoo!  Way to represent!Ha! Ha! Ha!

    Parent

    I don't worry about that poll result at all. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    About the same number show that they're not going to vote for Clinton (or stay home), right? It's just a consequences of the race's longevity. It doesn't worry me, no matter which candidate ends up winning. What's important is that Hillary voters stay home in the primary, I don't think that Democrats of any persuasion will stay home in November, not after months of Democrat vs. McCain action.

    Parent
    The fact that we are starting to hate Obama (none / 0) (#154)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    is something to crow about?

    Do you not want our votes in November?

    Do you believe that Obama was right when he said, "Oh, I'll get her votes all right?"

    Because a lot of us will never vote for him. And that doesn't necessarily mean we'll stay home. Many folks are seriously considering McCain. They are watching Fox News for balance. Is that okay with you?

    I appreciate the honest answers.

    And yes, I have massive doubts about Obama's ability to be President. He should have waited another term in the Senate at least, perhaps two, to distance himself from figures like Wright and Reszko.

    As for 1994, are you blaming the Gingrich Revolution on Bill Clinton? That was many years in the making.

    Parent

    voting for Mccain? how is that justifiable? are (none / 0) (#169)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    you in support of our continued military intervention in Iraq, an errant effort that has cost thousands of American lives and perhaps HUNDREDS of thousands of Iraqi lives? Never mind domestic policy that is indifferent to the plight of so many. I can appreciate your distaste for Obama, but I think there is far too much at stake to make such a choice

    Parent
    everyone has to consider the impact of this (none / 0) (#170)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    election

    Parent
    You are the ones not considering (none / 0) (#173)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:32:11 PM EST
    the impact of your tactics.

    Parent
    Don't worry, I am not voting for McCain. (none / 0) (#172)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:30:32 PM EST
    I never would.

    But I am not the problem. My state will go blue (I hope).

    However, Obama is simply not going to get the support of many of Hillary's voters now. There's been too much damage done. And good luck with MI and FL now. Great job there guys.

    Why Hillary Haters don't get this is totally mystifying to me.

    Parent

    You mean, well into the next decade? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:37:29 PM EST
    support of our continued military intervention in Iraq

    Have you listened to some of Obama's advisors lately--you know, the smart people who know about policy who will tell him what to decide on the important issues?

    But, now that you've brought up Iraq, feel free to warn us gals that the SCOTUS will take away our reproductive rights and we'll all be left to die in alleyways.


    Parent

    Oh.. (none / 0) (#180)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    the ones who have such a great grasp of history that they compare Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy?

    Forgive me if I'm less than impressed...

    Parent

    Hate Obama or not, he's a Democrat... (none / 0) (#205)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:37:58 PM EST
    ...and McCain is not.

    Because a lot of us will never vote for him. And that doesn't necessarily mean we'll stay home. Many folks are seriously considering McCain. They are watching Fox News for balance. Is that okay with you?

    I don't know. When I hear that sort of thing, it's less about whether it's "okay" with me and more about how little I respect any Democrat or leftist who considers such thing. That disrespect sort of overwhelms all other considerations. I suppose that's a shortcoming on my part.

    Parent

    Who's we? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    I see no one trying to win over Hillary's supporters in the Obama camp.

    Parent
    forget it, do what you will. I do urge the same (none / 0) (#181)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    thing to irrational obama supporters (for instance, the commenters on Ben Smith of Politico are rabid in support of obama). We can vote for Mccain and reap what we sow

    Parent
    He's doing it (none / 0) (#182)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    by promoting Hillary Hatred, apparently.

    ?????

    Parent

    who's doing what? (none / 0) (#184)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:46:17 PM EST
    as far as I can tell, both campaigns are guitly (none / 0) (#185)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    of dirty tactics, and both have thrown out some nonsense. Is it really believed here that the divide between the two is so immense?

    Parent
    as far as I can tell, both campaigns are guitly (none / 0) (#186)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    of dirty tactics, and both have thrown out some nonsense. Is it really believed here that the divide between the two is so immense?

    Parent
    Addison claims to be winning over (none / 0) (#197)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    Hillary fans by promoting Hillary Hatred.

    I don't understand the logic myself.

    Parent

    Proven by it's consequences (none / 0) (#203)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    I'm not sure if I understand your comment about Obama supporters not trying to win over Clinton ones. It happens all the time. I mean, if the blogs were all there was, it might be true that there's a lack of good faith effort to get the other side's voters. The blogs don't work well (at this stage in the game) for winning people over. Everyone  on blogs is way too high-information to be swayed by much of anything. It's in the real world that we (the Obama campaign, volunteers, regular people) are convincing people to vote for our candidate. And that's working, provably, it's shown to work every time a race gears up and Obama closes the gap or pulls ahead. So I think there's ample evidence, outside the blogs, of persuading Hillary's soft support to go for Obama.

    Parent
    honesty, but.... (none / 0) (#188)
    by tree on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    your answers haven't shown you to have any interest at all in issues. You like him because "he's winning". You sound just like a sports fan. The problem with viewing an election as a sporting event  is that, in contrast to sporting events, the outcome has real and important consequences in people's lives and welfare, both here and abroad. Will you stop liking him if he loses, either the primary or the general? If he becomes President will you dislike him when the Republicans make gains in the 2010 Congressional elections?

     And even your sports analogy is backward. A successful politician really DOESN'T want the "other side's fans" in the primary to stay home in the general, else he will surely lose.

    And as for you liking Obama for "anti-DLC" reasons", that one always amuses me when some Obama supporters  cite it. Obama is in essence just as much a product of the DLC as Hillary Clinton is. But because many of his supporters have blinders on in regards to this, none of them will press him to be more progressive.

    I like this take on the issue from the Black Agenda Report:

    If Barack Obama, or for that matter Hillary Clinton is to be the Democratic presidential nominee, it's time they felt the heat to line up with Democratic voters, rather than with the DLC and the party's biggest donors.

    Ironically, Hillary Clinton, also a corporate DLC candidate to the core, may have been more responsive to some heat from the party's grassroots on a few questions than Barack Obama.  Clinton has at least promised to repeal No Child Left Behind, the legislation that has forced an unproven and unworkable "teach to the test" regime upon public schools nationwide, and carved tens of billions nationwide from the budgets of  schools to foster a privatized, for-profit education industry.  By contrast, Obama is still mumbling about "adequately funding" this failed and malevolent educational experiment.  Similarly, in a California debate which showed the tiny differences between the Democratic front runners, it was Hillary Clinton who broke the corporate taboo by at least mentioning single payer, the workable universal health care system implemented by every other advanced industrial country on earth and favored by most American voters.  Clinton didn't do this because she loves us, or because she is innately more progressive than Obama.  She did it because she [is] hard pressed and because activists are less confused and less likely to he silenced by the pernicious notion that her campaign is "the movement" itself.  



    Parent
    when did I ever say I like him because he is (none / 0) (#190)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    winning? are you responding to someone else's comment?

    Parent
    I was responding to Addison (none / 0) (#195)
    by tree on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    who said he(she?) liked him "because he's winning". If you are ever unsure who someone is responding to, click on "Parent" under the post in question and that will tell you who the post is referring to.

    Parent
    when did I ever say I like him because he is (none / 0) (#191)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    winning? are you responding to someone else's comment?

    Parent
    Metaphor (none / 0) (#208)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    The sports thing is a metaphor. So yes, it's imperfect, as are all metaphors. Take it as seriously as one should take all metaphors and don't confuse an analysis of it as an analysis of the underlying point of softening support when you can't outright take it.

    I should've been more clear. I don't like the Clintons because of Congress. I think they'll lose it (if Hillary's elected) through a combo of their own personality conflicts with the American people and the bad (DLC) strategy that seeks a too-clever-by-half "strategic" win of 51% only to come up short again and again.

    So it's not about being left or right or progressive or whatever when I say I don't like the DLC. It's a tactical thing.

    And just to assuage you here, I do care about the issues. But we're not talking about the issues in this thread, and (in fact) going off on tangents about issues considering the discussion we're having would be off topic. We're discussing Obama's use of negative campaigning and its wider consequences among the gullible, the knowing, the press, and the Hillary supporters.

    Parent

    uhm, are not both guilty of lying and hypocrisy? (none / 0) (#125)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:42:03 PM EST
    Raison d'etre (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    A "new kind of politics" is one of the central themes of Obama's campaign.  And it's apparent he doesn't practice it, nor did he ever have any intention of practicing it (else, why go negative last summer?)

    I actually don't have a problem with negative campaigning - it's important to develop contrasts and it gets information out that might show what type of leader a person will or will not be.  (I don't however, care for ad hominen attacks or lies which is why I've long been disgusted with the attack that certain big dems are "elitist" or "phony" or "disengenuous".)

    However, if you are going to run on not being negative - on being transformative - then don't freaking do it.  (And I particularly dislike when Axelrod is quoted saying how "difficult" it is to respond to Clinton's "negative" attacks when Obama is a different kind of politician - all the while attacking her character).

    And if you get called out, then you should own up or at least justify it in a way that doesn't insult the intellect of people who actually remember what was happening six months ago.  

    Parent

    The Virtues of Duplicity (none / 0) (#209)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    However, if you are going to run on not being negative - on being transformative - then don't freaking do it.

    Why not be duplicitous and run on not being negative (while being negative) if you can get away with it? I don't understand why one wouldn't do this. I do understand why it's frustrating for Clinton supporters, and that's where this is coming from.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#211)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    Actually, nevermind.  I shouldn't have to explain why it's wrong for anyone to do this - pretend to have core beliefs, but not so much really.

    And for that matter, if - by your own admission (and the facts) - Obama is not truly the honest, transformative politician he is running as, then how can you believe his promises on anything else?  How can you believe he'll be progressive or have good judgement?  Perhaps those reasons for his campaign have just as much underpinning as his transformational nature.  


    Parent

    I think you miss the point IMO (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    It's not that we did not know he was a politician, we are political junkies, what we don't like is him saying he is bringing a new politics and then doing the old politics.  We expected him to do the old politics as we expected it from Clinton but he and his followers kept and keep insisting he is different.

    Now, having said that, that is not my problem with him.  My problem with him is that he has not shown anything that I can see would make him my choice for president (other that he is not McCain).  There is also the fact that unlike a lot of people I don't think he is as progressive as he says he is.  He, like all other politicians suffers of what the original inhabitants of this continent use to call "Forked Tongue".   The more I research his past and the more I hear or read him the more I come to the conclusion that snake oil would have been a good product for him to sell.  

    Another problem I have is with the idea that he is bringing new people into the party.  As a newcomer to the Democratic Party myselg (liflong Republican) I switched because I find what the Republican Party is now repugnant something that took me some 6 years to do.  Actually seeing the kind of things coming from his followers in other blogs and how the DNC has acted I am beginning to doubt if I made the right choice.  The youth vote, hope it has changed, but historically it is unreliable.  And independents can vote for McCain as well as for Obama.  

    Usually don't write this much but.....

    Parent

    A cynic is a disappointed idealist (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    There is some truth to that old saw.

    Parent
    Is there (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    no end.  'Other folks urged me to strike back'

    and on policy only?

    When will someone ask him to square that with JJ Jr's no tears for Katrina victims remark the day after New Hampshire.  

    Parent

    Absorbing more blows than giving? (none / 0) (#21)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:38:34 PM EST
    I guess surrogates don't count, then.

    Well that changes everything.

    Keep comments on topic please (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:44:12 PM EST


    Sorry about getting ot, please delete (none / 0) (#38)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:49:06 PM EST
    my comments that distract. No harm was intended.

    Parent
    Oh no! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    What's this!? The media thinks Obama is a saint despite his own negative attacks? He can smile as he delivers death blows? They're giving him a free ride? That's almost as bad as Obama raising millions and millions and millions of dollars. And spending it! On political ads and GOTV! What black marks against him!

    But of course this isn't, in fact, about Obama at all, is it? If it was about Obama he'd be applauded (by the rational and fair Democrats among us) for manipulating the media as well as he has. This is instead about his supporters being portrayed as gullible and sanctimonious. Which I think you ("BTD") recognize, to your credit.

    However. Since that's the case I'm not sure I see the point to this post or this general line of attack, since Clinton isn't going to win by beating Obama's supporters, or being better and smarter than his supporters. She's going to win by beating Obama. And if Obama can get away with negative attacks -- whether you want to perjoratively call it "schtick" or admire it as good strategy, whether it reminds you of Teflon Reagan or Slick Willy -- she's not going to beat him.

    Unless this is just meta-media commentary -- which I don't think it is -- in which case: Zzzzz...

    You recognize of course (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    that the main reason BTD supports Obama is because he (Obama) can get away with this stuff, right?

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:50:37 PM EST
    That truth has escaped the "thinkers" at the Great Orange Satan.

    Addison is a good guy though.

    Parent

    To be honest... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    ...no, I don't follow TalkLeft enough to know who "BTD" supports. I'm not all the convinced it makes a difference, because IIRC he criticizes who he wants for what he wants regardless of who he supports. So who he supports is basically irrelevant, it was the choice of targets that I thought was strange (and I explained why) and sort of missing the point.

    Parent
    Thanks for the compliment (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    "IIRC he criticizes who he wants for what he wants regardless of who he supports."

    that is the nicest thing said about me in a long while. I believe it is true.

    Parent

    Let's try this again (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:55:54 PM EST
    Just who is the target of this post?

    Parent
    Well.. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    ...I think "BTD" was writing a media commentary, after all. However, I felt the real target of the post was gullible followers of Saint Obama, which I didn't see the point of on this particular issue. I think that misunderstanding of difference of opinion on the target (or topic) of the post is the cause of an increasingly tedious discussion.

    Parent
    The point, as always, is (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    media criticism. I think this post tends to support BTD's decision to support Obama.

    Of course, if you're just expecting an echo chamber, you'll read it differently.

    Parent

    Trend (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:54:22 PM EST
    If you look at each of the negative stories, Bosnia thing etc, it started with a whisper campaign on the blogs.  We would get these shills here that beat on the topic for days.  The subject reaches a crescendo, then the lazy MSM, picks it up.  Obviously, its then very hard to trace back the sources.  It's a vicious and cowardly cycle.  

    It all started with the racist stuff.  I tell you one thing, the Axelrod machine has figured out how to manipulate the internet and the web when they don't even know it's happening.  Best part is the so called stallwart protectors of truth, the Boyz, fell in line like the best propaganda tools in history.  

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:58:18 PM EST
    ...if "the Boyz" are Obama supporters (?) then yeah, we fell in line. Of course we did! Because propaganda and media pushes are what win elections. Though I'm not sure if we're quite the unwilling zombified stooges we play on the blogs. I imagine most Obama supporters are quite aware of the generally fictional nature of the "new tone" in politics and just find it works out for GOTV and use it the same way Hillary uses the frame of experience or "toughness." If they aren't, as a rule, aware of that, it doesn't matter to me. I am, and it's a  useful situation.

    Parent
    Cheerleaders (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Cheerleaders when you should have been pushing for Progressive agenda.  Now you will get the scraps.  You could have been contenders.  

    Parent
    See... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    ...BTD just posted about sanctimonious Obama supporters, because they (allegedly) didn't see that politics was nasty and didn't want to accept the real nature of their candidate or, more broadly, of politics. And here you are decrying "cheerleaders" as if Clinton doesn't have (and need!) "cheerleaders" just as committed.

    Parent
    QED: the big bloggers don't care primarily (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    about issues.

    Parent
    Cheerleading (none / 0) (#100)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    Well, the cheerleaders are fine.  It's the destroying Clinton with the right wing talking points that is not.  

    Parent
    This is a very honest comment (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    more honest than most of the reference "boyz" have been.

    Parent
    There is no reason (none / 0) (#97)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    to promote Hillary Hatred if you are all about pushing Obama's line of unity and "new politics." In fact, quite the opposite.

    Yet Kos, HuffPo, Aravosis and so many others are a non-stop scream of HILLARY IS THE DEVIL! That's why I can't go there anymore. It's like they're on some kind of drug.

    I'm not saying that you're one of the ones who is pushing Hillary Hatred, but this explanation seems incomplete to me.

    Parent

    Depends on what kind of Unity they're speaking of (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    After all, once we're cremated, you can't tell the difference between men, women, Masai Warriors or Norwegian Albinos.

    Unification through Obliteration!

    Parent

    You need to soften the opponent's support... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:31:35 PM EST
    ...before you can take it. Both sides, and supporters of both sides, know that.

    And oh man, am I ever pushing Hillary hate! Although I sadly had to delete an anti-Clinton diary this morning about Penn/Colombia because it turned out to be completely misleading. Sigh. It broke my heart.

    Parent

    I've had a feeling for a while... (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    ...that a lot of the internet stories were not "grassroots" but instead were "astroturf".  There are certain people who seem to be sitting at their computers all day every day doing nothing but pushing anti-Clinton and pro-Obama memes. Most of them are quite literate and seem to always be ready with facts that support their positions. They "work the ref" on news blogs, trying to convince editors and writers that their positions are anti-Obama or pro-Clinton. This has contributed to media coverage that is more pro-Obama and anti-Clinton that you would otherwise expect from progressive news sources.

    The right has been doing this for a while, so it doesn't surprise me that a progressive candidate has taken on the technique. I say "candidate", but I suspect that Obama has nothing to do with it. I suspect that his campaign managers are actually providing support to a cadre of trustworthy people who can be depended on to pay attention and keep their mouths shut, just like political operatives of days past.

    Part of me is pleased to see a progressive candidate using techniques developed by the right wing. They are effective techniques. But a larger part feels that if we have to become the Republican Party in order to win, then we lose anyway. Obama has run the most ruthless campaign in recent Democratic history. If he wins, it will send a signal that Democrats are ready to go back to the days of machine politics, when the voter was considerd a commodity to be manipulated, not wooed.

    Parent

    Hmmmmm (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by tree on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:23:20 PM EST
    But a larger part feels that if we have to become the Republican Party in order to win, then we lose anyway. Obama has run the most ruthless campaign in recent Democratic history. If he wins, it will send a signal that Democrats are ready to go back to the days of machine politics, when the voter was considerd a commodity to be manipulated, not wooed.

    Everything old is new again.

    I, for one, do not want to be a part of a Democratic party that fashions itself after the present-day Republican party. And I don't consider a political strategy to  be effective simply because it elects Candidate "X", especially if it turns out that "Candidate X" doesn't live up to my expectations on the issues that are important to me. The Democratic party has been a continual disappointment, especially since 2006 when big wins have failed to result in any significant push-back against the horrors and excesses of the Bush Administration.

    Parent

    Sadly (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    I think it's all that Lakoffian framing contortion, mimicry of the Republican techniques.  I think the country was ready for issues and not being manipulated, and the elites of our party, are so proud that they figured out manipulation Rove style.  I know this may be insulting, but they have such collective envy of Rove that they developed Stockholm syndrome, they use the methods.  What will it result in?  Nothing.  An uneducated electorate and diminished government and democracy.  

    Parent
    Astroturf (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM EST
    Guess who made his bones running astroturf operations?

    Give up?  David Axelrod.

    I think your theory is an excellent one.


    Parent

    Zzzz indeed (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:52:12 PM EST
    It is a wonder you deigned to read it.

    Parent
    I "deigned" to read it... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:54:43 PM EST
    ...because I assumed it wasn't meta-media commentary.

    Parent
    Why would you assume that? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    The title of the post was quite descriptive I thought.

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:09:19 PM EST
    ...you're right. By the time I wrote a comment I had read a bunch of comments and conflated them with your post. Your post really is about either the media or Obama's dishonesty (framed within the idea that politics is dishonest on the PR level).

    Parent
    Obama supporters aren't stupid (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    But many of them have abandonned things that they have stood for in the past.

    Or at least they claimed to stand for those things in the past.

    For instance, electability in 2004 was an argument that could have only been made by a democratic brand sell-out.

    Now electability is a fine argument to make.


    Parent

    the key word is "seemingly". (none / 0) (#33)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:47:09 PM EST
    but i continue to be baffled that so many seemingly intelligent people have fallen for it.

    you make that assumption at your own risk. i've concluded they aren't very intelligent at all, or they would have seen through this transparently thin facade. or, they're willfully stupid. you make the call.

    the longer this goes on, the more layers of the already thin veneer of sen. obama wear off, and he's exposed as the least qualified of the two. that's why they want so desperately for sen. clinton to concede and quit now.

    Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#63)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:01:01 PM EST
    is too over the top for me.

    Obama is not a saint and I suppose that is frustrating for Hillary's supporters that he has gotten away with something

    Taylor Marsh is the only "Left" blog that carries videos of Pastor Wright's speeches on the front page.

    The comments on her blog are desperate and often quite vile.

    It's more or less (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    A mirror image of dailykos.

    I can rationalize taylormarsh.com as providing balance.

    Parent

    1 + 1 = 2 (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    garbage doesn't "balance" garbage, it just makes the pile of crap twice as big.

    Parent
    Point of order (none / 0) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    I wasn't the one who just called dailykos "garbage."

    Parent
    I know Big Tent (none / 0) (#68)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    referred to Taylor Marsh because she referred to the interview in the Philadelphia paper.

    However, I would like to know how a rational person could think Big Tent favors Obama.

    Because BTD said so, publicly here (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:10:42 PM EST
    is not sufficient for you?  You want him to swear fealty to the Order of Obama or something?

    You may doubt BTD simply because his reasons are not yours.  But that does not negate his public statement here.

    BTD's reasoning comes down to electability, based on media fealty to Obama, not to principles.  I happen to disagree on both, because I do not think Obama is electable and because I support Democratic Party principles -- and do not see Obama doing so on some of my highest-priority party principles.

    But that does not mean that I doubt BTD's sincerity in his statement or in espousing his argument.  Why do you?  

    Parent

    good question (none / 0) (#107)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    CreamCity:

    Answer: Big Tent's posts are consistently anti-Obama and especially anti anyone who favors Obama.

    I would not say I doubt Big Tent's sincerity. Rather I would say I doubt his awareness of how others read him.

    Talk Left is a dependable anti-Obama site. If I was on the fence and agreed with Jeralyn and Big Tent, I would think I should oppose Obama and support Hillary.

    At this point, the whole election has turned into a quarrelsome thing. I don't know what a 'bot' is, I can barely make out the Kool Aid slur, and I guess the "pony" reference is High Hillary-Hillarity and a sign of why our Hillary is such a national treasure.


    Parent

    I think BTD's stance is (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    Obama is teflon; he has all the benefits of a fawning press, the DC establishment, and an enormous financial foundation. If any Dem has a chance to win this, in BTD's opinion, it's Obama. And win we must.

    That said, BTD doesn't have the patience for the BS being thrown around concerning Obama's 'higher ground', or his hypocrisy.

    BTD is that rarity: A Thinking Obama Supporter.

    Parent

    If I worried about (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    "how others read me," I would not write at all.

    Are you worried about how others are reading your comment? Are you worried that you appear to be an kool-aid drinking Obama Cult member to some?

    I do not doubt your sincerity in what you write. But what you write will have no effect on what I write. I write what I think, not what you think. you certainly do not care what I think about your comments when you write them.

    Parent

    citizen big tent democrat, i take your (none / 0) (#144)
    by cy street on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    takes as a true classic conservative, "question everything."  supporting a candidate by fire, holding them accountable, is not only smart; it is healthy for the party.

    i get it.

    heroes are properly worshiped on/off the battlefield.  politicians are men/women just like the rest of us.

    Parent

    I agree that it is important to maintain (none / 0) (#153)
    by demps on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    a critical stance. Yet, statements like "kool-aid
    drinking Obama Cult" do not help, just as the invective hurled at clinton supporters is poisonous. This whole thing has devolved so much, and both sides have to recognize their complicity. We both have flawed candidates, but what has been most shocking to me is how poorly the democratic electorate has responded to the contest

    Parent
    You can always use my old test. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    Ask an X supporter to name three things they like about their candidate and dislike about the opponent.

    Then ask them to name three things they dislike about their candidate and like about the opponent.

    An objective person should be able to answer all the questions easily.  The Emo Crowd doesn't spend a lot of time thinking and they'll probably flub the second part badly.  

    I don't know if "Emo Crowd" is better than "cult" or "cool-aid", but I think it's probably more accurate.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:32:29 PM EST
    It is not helpful. Nor are comments that attack me because I express my views.

    As usual, your selective criticism is most telling. Why do you bother?

    Parent

    Question: (none / 0) (#148)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:56:01 PM EST
    why does this keep coming up again and again???

    Big Tent's posts are consistently anti-Obama

    Can't thinking people find fault with their candidates?  This line of questioning is tantamount to certain religions who say you cannot question theology or you're an atheist.  

    (and I could easily point out that BTD is negative about both candidates, but Obama gives him more to criticize than Clinton)


    Parent

    Because for many (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by eric on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:14:30 PM EST
    Obama supporters, this is spectator sports.  You don't cheer against your own team.  Furthermore, there is always the hope that if you cheer loud and often, you might make that little bit of difference that will help your team/candidate win.

    Why would you go to a Yankees game and criticize A-rod?  If you did, people would call you a Boston fan.

    Same logic.

    Parent

    But will the media fealty to Obama (none / 0) (#159)
    by abfabdem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    continue in the GE or will they want a new theme and decide they need to beat him up once they no longer have Hillary to villify?

    Parent
    I think Clinton will win the nom (none / 0) (#163)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    but should she by chance not, then of course the media will start to celebrate her in every way, and by the time the ge rolls around, McCain will be media darling, the spotlight will be on Clinton and Obama will be floundering like my favorite guppy that time he jumped out of the tank and spent a harrowing thirty seconds on the kitchen counter as my cat tried to figure out how to jump up.

    Parent
    As I said in the email to which you reply (none / 0) (#207)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    No, I don't think he's electable -- but I ought to add that's because of the reason you specify, that he would not continue to have media so much on his side, for two reasons.

    One, McCain will be in the mix, and the media love them their McCain.

    Two, McCain and the Repubs, and thus the media, will go after Obama on the Rev, on Rezko, and on more that has not gotten much attention as yet, i.e., Dohrn and Ayers.  And I fear there is more out there, based on past experience with the Repubs -- they always hold their best cards for last.

    And that means, watch out for the Labor Day (or just post-Labor Day) bomb, because that's when the majority of the public starts paying attention to the prez race.  (Although admittedly, with so many more involved in primaries this year, that usual calendar may be moved up, with the bomb dropped sooner.  Still, I think there will be least one bomb held back for the last -- too late to be adequately answered -- as has happened too often before.  It was an ol' Joe McCarthy tactic, announcing something on deadline, too late to be answered, with the answer thus relegated to inside pages as a next-day story, etc.)

    Parent

    BTD favors Obama (none / 0) (#91)
    by wasabi on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:22:02 PM EST
    I guess you have to read his posts more often.

    He's not drunk the cool-aid, so his posts aren't rah-rah for Obama.  He acknowledges that Obama is merely a politician with the best chance of beating McCain.

    There are lots of people out there that agree with BTD.  My husband is one of them (argh!).  He generally likes both of the candidates, but doesn't think either one is progressive enough.  The fact that he thinks Obama has the best chance in the general election against McCain is the only reason he supports him.

    Parent

    good one wasabi (none / 0) (#113)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    I mean about the "cool aid"

    I am now thinking of supporting Hillary

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#162)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    BTD is too shifty.  He is all over the place referencing pro-Clinton blogs, pro-Obama blogs, the media and occasionally his own posts?  I don't even know why I bother to read anything he writes.  

    <snark>

    Parent

    So BTD thinks (none / 0) (#111)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:34:51 PM EST
    that the media love affair with Obama will continue once he's the nominee?

    Because Obama is so great at manipulating them?

    BTD, doesn't your own post suggest that the glow is beginning to dim from Obama's halo?

    I hope I am wrong about this, but in every election cycle I can remember, the media has been absolutely horrible to the Democrat, while doing nothing but giving tongue baths to the Republican.

    I see no reason to believe it will change now. They're just playing cat and mouse with us. Remember, the media is John McCain's base - Chris Matthews admitted it!

    Without Hillary To Hate (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:40:11 PM EST
    The media has less reason to back Obama.  He'll have to come up with something more substantial.  Do you think he can do it?

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#128)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    The media has no built in animus towards McCain.


    Parent
    Dueling dramas (none / 0) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM EST
     Obama and McCain are about compelling life stories.  When you have two compelling life stories, one story will strike more people as more compelling.  So, what is this, movie of the week election: The war hero vs. the super achieving son of an immigrant single mother.  Go at it America.  Meanwhile, we have some issues here.    

    Parent
    Kansas is a country now? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:46:08 PM EST
    No. (none / 0) (#136)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:48:16 PM EST
    On the issues, they are virtually identical, with HRC being the more progressive of the two.

    That's why he campaigns on everything BUT the issues.

    Against McCain, it would be a different story, of course, so perhaps he would become a more substantial candidate if he were the nominee.

    I'm not holding my breath, but he could surprise me.

    Parent

    Is that the strategy? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    Forgive me if I choose the qualified person over the "strategy" and story.  

    Parent
    The only way for O (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    to get where he is now was to completely trash HRC and the Clinton legacy.  Elsewise, why would anyone give him the time of day?  The narrative that was created was not Obama as good guy--it was Clinton as the monster.

    Parent
    I think a more interesting (none / 0) (#174)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    story for the media is that Clinton was taken down and then the democrats lost in a year when it should have been a slam dunk.  I thought it was the one that would get pushed.  It's not much fun to have Clinton knocked out and then watch Obama walk to the White House.

    Parent
    Moopsy (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    You are suspended and your comments today will be deleted.

    See you tomorrow, same time same place, presumably same result.

    Cheers.

    I am detecting (none / 0) (#130)
    by eric on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    a disturbing pattern of Obama finding all of these distrubing patterns in Clinton's behavior.

    Credit to Obama here - he calls it a "legacy", not a pattern.

    oops (none / 0) (#216)
    by RedDragon62 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:53:07 PM EST
    Please excuse my errors in typing. forgot my spell check.