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 >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate 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 / 1) (#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


    [ Parent ]
    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 ]
    Wouldn't be the first time (none / 0) (#198)
    by Just another person on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    the Obama campaign relied on unverified information from the internet to sully the Clinton campaign. Matt Drudge and the infamous photo comes to mind.

    [ 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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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 ]

    Do you have a link (none / 0) (#210)
    by Just another person on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:05:08 PM EST
    to the Axelrod statement - I'd really like to have some back up from the O-camp itself that Obama doesn't have the creds.

    [ 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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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 ]