Meanwhile, Back At The White House . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:07:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Atrios, Robert Gibbs thinks he is still working for Dick Gephardt's 2004 campaign:

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough. [. . .] The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Talk about adopting Right Wing memes. So the President is going to be out there "politicking," trying to energize the base, and his Press Secretary is going to be taking right wing potshots at the base? Does anyone know how to play this game? Gibbs was a great campaign spokesman for the Obama campaign, but he's been a pretty lousy Press Secretary. No discipline. FTR, my reference to Gibbs and the 2004 Gephardt campaign is about this:

In its third ad in the past two weeks, the secretive 527 group Americans for Jobs, Healthcare & Progressive Values (AJHPV) brings out its harshest attacks to date against Howard Dean.

The ad's sole visual is a slowly moving shot of a Time Magazine cover featuring Osama bin Laden. As the picture zooms in on a close-up of bin Laden’s eyes, the announcer intones, "Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy." The ad concludes by asking Democrats – presumably those who currently support Dean - to "think about that … and think about it now."

[. . .] AJHPV's new spokesman is former John Kerry press secretary Robert Gibbs, who left the Massachusetts senator's campaign when his boss, Jim Jordan, was fired. The Kerry camp also denies any connection with the 527 group. Both the Gephardt and Kerry campaigns have gone on the air with positive ads this week, leaving the Dean bashing to AJHPV.

Speaking for me only

< Can Obama "Politick" For Dems? | Don't Make Me Do It >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Meanwhile, Back At The White House . . . | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I've never liked Gibbs (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:39:12 AM EST

I've said it before (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:55:36 AM EST

Gibbs, with his snide comments, just can't pull the press secretary thing off. He's Ari Fleischer without the panache.

Ari Fleischer was the best PRess Secretary (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:20:43 AM EST

ever.

He lied so smoothly even when everyone knew he was lying.

Still in awe of him.


I agree about the (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:25:48 AM EST

lying. not sure I agree that makes him the best sec ever.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:27:11 AM EST

he worked for his President,and Fleischer was easily the best at serving his President, given the press corps we have.


: ok (none / 0) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:28:59 AM EST

with that appraisal

He was smarmy (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:28:10 AM EST

Gibbs is smarmy too.


: Smarmy is the word (none / 0) (#36)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:16:10 AM EST

I think Gibbs is more smarmy than Fleischer

So true (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:52:46 AM EST

Gibbs is partically correct (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:57:11 AM EST

I will be satisfied when we have Canadian style health care in place of never ending war.

It is not reality because the politicians want the money generated by the corporations who reap the benefits of our current system.

I was thinking mostly the same thing (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:24:08 AM EST

I give them much leeway for needing to address terrorism concerns, but exactly why is it so outrageous to see a Canadian style healthcare system in my future?

I count myself as having been talked down to...AGAIN.


You may want to hurry: (none / 0) (#59)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:40:20 AM EST

Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model


: because (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:57:04 AM EST

costs are so low here that everyone can afford good healthcare.
Soaring costs force "reassess" vs soaring costs force millions of people to go without healthcare.
I think I'll take the reassessment.

Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:58:07 AM EST

"They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality."

That's.... unbelievable.

you almost have to sympathize (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:02:39 AM EST

with them. after all they really did not do anything during the campaign, other than the end the war stuff, to cause the professional left of project so much "hope" onto them.

Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by lambert on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:47:16 AM EST

The career "progressives" split the Ds for The Big O's sake, and then spent a year debating whether He was, in his heart, really a liberal. And Obama's got problems with that? Why, the ingratitude! The nerve!


I tipped this for suspected snark :) (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:25:20 AM EST

it was only (none / 0) (#10)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:26:58 AM EST

half snark. they seem really confused with the expectations piled on them.

and really, they didnt promise us much.


They promised quite a bit (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:35:04 AM EST

I remember well a public option brought the Obama campaign crowd to its feet, and remember well when Wall Street had stolen our dream. That has all changed though now.


if you'll recall tracy, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by cpinva on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:16:46 AM EST

obama only came up with this, after he was forced into it by the clinton campaign. left to his own devices (this is supported by his subsequent kow-towing to the minority republicans, and blue dog dems, during negotiations on the eventual bill), his version of health care "reform" would have meant it took only slightly longer for you to be bankrupted.

i've been less than whelmed by mr. gibbs from the start. of course, i've been less than whelmed by his boss since the primaries, so perhaps my reaction to mr. gibbs is merely a natural continuation of those initial feelings.

and i should vote for pres. obama, in 2012, because?


because? (3.50 / 2) (#39)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:22:40 AM EST

president Palin. president Gingrich. president Barbour.

any questions?


Look! Over there! Sarah Palin! (5.00 / 8) (#47)
by lambert on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:34:00 AM EST

Both parties are driving a car toward the cliff.

The Rs are doing it at 98mph.

The Ds are doing it at 89mph.

We're not in the driver's seat in either car. Not even riding shotgun.

What we need to do is get out of the car.


: Geeeeze, first I'm thrown under a bus (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:36:04 AM EST

and now lambert jerks me from the car :) A girl just can't get a ride around here :)

"You have nowhere else to go" (5.00 / 3) (#50)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:41:17 AM EST

Same thing an abuser says to his/her victim....


I never said that (3.50 / 2) (#53)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:02:22 AM EST

if you would like to vote for Palin, Barbour or Gingrich be my guest.


Since (none / 0) (#56)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:08:21 AM EST

None of them will be on a ticket, it's a moot point.


really! (none / 0) (#57)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:15:39 AM EST

who will be. and would you vote for them?


I've said it before (none / 0) (#64)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:57:28 AM EST

The R's want to win. None of those people you mentioned have any chance of winning. I think it will be Romney, and while I won't vote for him, I didn't vote for old Barry in 2008, so I don't see me pulling the lever for him in '12 either.


Priorities! (none / 0) (#73)
by lambert on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:15:11 PM EST

At the national and state levels:

Vote third party (Green; DFL). Do not vote for a D or an R.
Vote NOTA (None Of The Above) either with a write-in or a spoiled ballot if there is no third party available. Do not vote for a D or an R.

At the local level, vote for the best person regardless.

Don't give the Ds any money. Don't give the Rs any money. And be sure to send their own postage paid envelopes back to them with no money, and your comments.

And don't stay home. Vote, and vote affirmatively against the legacy parties.


Either the Republic is strong enough to endure (none / 0) (#52)
by rhbrandon on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:48:00 AM EST

such, and we begin to move on past the corporate era in American politics, which would be good.

Or the Republic breaks apart under the strain, and move past the corporate era in American politics, which would be good.

In the first instance, the Republic was strong enough to endure; in the second, theh Republic was now so fragile as not to endure. Either way, we move on, and, despite the results, the stress test was successful.


The public option was bogus from the start (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by lambert on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:30:06 AM EST

It was a bait and switch operation, conducted by career "progressives," that sucked all the oxygen away from single payer.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22how+the+public+option+was+sold%22&aq=f &aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CB2bpbXBhTPSwEIWWhgSPnOyUBgAAAKoEBU_QvVqB

The public option was a roach motel for grassroots and left energy, and there is no point whatever regretting its demise.

It was also, as policy, neoliberal, since it left the health insurance companies playing the central role.


: lambert has become rather (none / 0) (#48)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:34:19 AM EST

firm on all this :) In light of this economy and how Obamacare can do nothing now but fail, I guess you'll be coming out swinging for the fences when the time is ripe :) Go lambert Go

Gibbs and the strategy of using Republican (5.00 / 6) (#15)
by esmense on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:30:22 AM EST

attacks against Democrats was one reason I couldn't support Obama during the primaries. The more damage these fools do to the Democratic brand, the more confusion they sow, the more disaffected, angry and disengaged voters they create. In their own way, they are just as destructive to the political health of the nation as "mainstream" Republicans who pander to the stupidities of the Tea Party.

Why should we expect good policies when (5.00 / 6) (#19)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:35:16 AM EST

we can get this instead:

Obama reached out to the left -- including through a private lunch with Maddow and other liberal commentators -- earlier this summer.
In late July, Obama made a surprise video appearance, with an assist from Maddow, at the NetRoots Nation convention in Las Vegas, where the professional left had gathered to grouse about its disappointment in the president. link

Oh, my gawd regardless of what Rahm and Gibbs say, the president really, really loves liberals. I'm so very, very grateful and appreciative.

Who need affordable health care, Social Security, Medicare education or good jobs when you have a President that will actually pat you on the head a couple a times a year. :-)

Ah well. Liberalism to Obama (4.00 / 6) (#24)
by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:46:30 AM EST

is like his Chicago to me. Great to visit but wouldn't want to live there.


I think a closer comparison would be (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:54:46 AM EST

being forced to make an obligation visit to a relative who you look down on who lives in a place where you would never choose to visit.


: Perfect analogy (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by shoephone on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:40:27 AM EST

It's really good to have you back, MO Blue.

Every day is "kick the left" day! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by lambert on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:45:03 AM EST

Of course, "they have no place to go."

The opportunity cost of investing a dime or a second of time with the Ds is creating "a place to go."

: But they do have a place to go (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:48:03 AM EST

on election day:
Home.
As you know, it's all about turnout, turnout, turnout.

Another thing that matters (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:44:48 AM EST

is whether a pol is so constrained and blinded by ideology that the question of learning on the job becomes moot.

In that respect, Obama, at least potentially, has it all over Bush, whose "gut" was in constant contact with 2,000 year old sources of information, while the shifting realities of the real world did what they do.

Honestly, (5.00 / 5) (#62)
by shoephone on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:52:28 AM EST

the citizens don't care about a pol's motivations much. We care about the results of their policies and political maneuvering. And if the political maneuvering shows the pols to be inept and openly hostile to their constituents, the voters are going to stay home the next time. Furthermore, if every Democratic politician from here on out is going to be compared to GWB, then the Democratic Party is going to disappear in record time, because that is a ridiculous yardstick by which to measure anyone.


I think it's already disappeared (none / 0) (#66)
by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:19:45 PM EST

too much money has to be raised, the war games have to continue and Wall St has to have some Summers and Geithners on the inside at the Whitehouse at all times.

And the Dems have been progressively f*cking their "working class constituency" since the fifties. There's not enough pressure from the bottom now, the way there was during the tenure of FDR, when organized labor was still a force to be reckoned with. This trend wont change, imo, till the middle class has been so screwed over that it starts awakening en masse from it's slumber and organizes itself into something more viable than the kind of right wing populist movements we have now.


: I keep wondering what it will take (none / 0) (#71)
by shoephone on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:29:52 PM EST

to get the left out into the streets again -- and I'm not talking about polite rallies with clever signs, sanctioned by advance permits. What issue is going to make We The People angry enough to lodge a seriously scary threat against our Democratic pols? Somehow, I get the feeling that the spark lighting the fire is going to be about net neutrality, and the prospect of losing free access to our favorite websites. The information revolution.
Of course, that revolution won't be televised either. It will be conducted remotely...

Bush had his "gut" (none / 0) (#65)
by sj on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:10:47 PM EST

Obama has PPUS. He seems to be pretty committed to and constrained by that.


Gibbs was just parroting his boss (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by BTAL on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:20:14 PM EST

"I'll be honest with you; sometimes Democrats, we're our own worst enemies, because we can do great stuff and somehow still feel depressed," he said at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee event. "Sometimes we do a little too much handwringing. Say, well, you know, I don't know, I wish we had gotten that public option. Well, that's great, but we got 31 million people health insurance and we're reducing costs for people."

Yesterday at the Dallas fundraiser.

: Those 31 million are still waiting for health care (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:48:01 PM EST

No one knows how much actual health care they will get in 2014 even if they are provided with government subsidized insurance. The plan does nothing to reduce the actual cost of health care or insurance. The costs will continue to rise and be 2 to 3 times higher in the U.S. than in other countries. The insurance act takes funds and benefits from portions of the population and redistributes it others to pay for overpriced services and products.

and of course (none / 0) (#13)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:28:22 AM EST

while hearing this from us he is hearing this from others:

Yes, I'm a Democrat. I'm a Democrat who can remember when we got killed on principle and when we won by compromise. Winning by compromise is definitely better. I'm a Democrat who remembers candidates who didn't give a darn about perception and those who studied it endlessly. Give me a choice, and I know which one I'll pick. If that makes me less of a Democrat, the opposite will certainly make the party less of a force.

What a stoopid ad (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:31:35 AM EST

Howard Dean isn't President, and if you want to talk war fighter and making a measured analysis amid all the dead (never pleasant and not something the left entertains doing at all), I'll take Obama over George Dubya Bush any day and twice on Sundays.

I'd much rather bury my husband while preforming an Obama mission than bury him as George Dubya Bush, oil for bullets, cannon fodder.

That was in 2004 (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:33:26 AM EST

when Dean was the frontrunner.


back when (none / 0) (#20)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:37:01 AM EST

I was sending him money


Ahh, thanks for the clarification (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:37:13 AM EST

Reminds me of, who do you want to answer (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by oculus on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:27:08 AM EST

the phone at 3 a.m.?


So they did a Dean smear job (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:42:02 AM EST

via terror over terror and tried to hide? I think Howard Dean would have made different choices, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would have been the wrong choices. Different does not automatically equal wrong or without equal benefit though different benefits.


: they didnt even need to (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:51:44 AM EST

they took him down with a stupid made up scream.
that is how shallow and vapid we are.

Way OT (none / 0) (#30)
by CoralGables on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:02:01 AM EST

But it look like Ted Stevens was aboard a plane that has crashed in Alaska.

: yeah (none / 0) (#32)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:05:06 AM EST

just saw this on another blog.

BREAKING HARD: Plane crash in Alaska with prominent former state politician on board.

um, huh?

: And former head of NASA (none / 0) (#44)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:31:39 AM EST

The similarities between this (none / 0) (#31)
by Slado on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:03:37 AM EST

White House and the last in terms of the disconnect to the very base that got them elected is amazing.

One can argue with their own base without talking down to them or outright insulting them.

That is the one difference between the two administrations. It took 6 years of Bush to completely piss of the republican base. It's only taken 18 months for Obama to do it.

Either way now Obama is in the same position Bush was in in 2006. He's lost the base through his actions and policies and he just expects them to show up in November because he asks them to. I have a feeling they won't.

The question is does he learn his lesson for 2012. Bush didn't have another election to win so he didn't bother. Obama does.

Interesting article (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by Slado on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:09:27 AM EST

On Obama team and their self pity

Does team Obama think so much of themselves that no presidential team has ever been challenged like them?

Really? FDR, LBJ, Lincoln, hell even Washington dealt with extreme pressures, JFK, Teddy R, Truman, on and on presidents have dealt with decisions with global and historical implications.

This White House doesn't like the news media. Booo hooo. As if they didn't have a 3 year campaign to get ready.

I hope this team isn't as pathetic as this article appears to portray them.


: Thank you for this link (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:29:52 AM EST

Wow...not good. It is one thing to experience a momentary period of self pity during a trying time, but to begin to gnaw on it in this fashion is arrogance. I was beginning to get the vibe that they pity themselves mucho. What a sad lot, and self pity is utterly disempowering. When one is absorbed in it, holding the self accountable for anything is not done.

: They liked the media (5.00 / 4) (#46)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:33:55 AM EST

When it was all tingly. Now that it isn't, the administration sometimes acts like a petulant child.

: They seem irritated by both the demands (5.00 / 3) (#54)
by esmense on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:03:21 AM EST

and difficulties of governing and by the desperate needs (for genuine economic reform, jobs, higher wages, more opportunity, etc) and ideals (transparency, justice, protecting our tradition of civil liberties, etc.) of the average people, not just the "activists," who helped put them into office. They seem determined to prove that every conservative cliche about "liberal elites" is correct.
What a smug, self-satisfied bunch.

: And here is the money quote: (3.67 / 3) (#51)
by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:42:19 AM EST

"We didn't want to make another decision, or choice, or judgment," Emanuel [said].
What, we just wanted to give away more free food in some other country to claim to fill a stadium? We just wanted to spew more accusations of racism to rile up the fanbase? We just have run out of Chicago Way tricks and now have to actually govern?

this actually supports what I said upthread (none / 0) (#33)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:07:31 AM EST

Bush and his minions were intentionally hosing those people. I am not convinced that Obama did most of it intentionally.

he simply allowed it to happen. he allowed himself to be the giant projection screen thinking, what the hell. now the chickens are coming home to roost.


If your hosed (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:12:42 AM EST

does intent matter???


yes (none / 0) (#38)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:21:06 AM EST

in this context it matters


Why? (5.00 / 4) (#45)
by lambert on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:31:48 AM EST

Why does it matter?

And surely what actually happens is the best test of what political parties intend?


because he was comparing (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:04:18 AM EST

Bushs disconnect to Obamas. they are not the same.

and it matters.

even if you dont think so.


Fair enough (none / 0) (#68)
by Slado on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:29:45 PM EST

However I don't think Bush intended to let his base down.

I don't think he intended to be a nation builder and an over spender when he took the oath in 2000.

The true test of a president is will they hold to their ideals when faced with difficult decisions.

FDR had it, JFK had it and Reagan had it. Like them or loathe them they where true to their ideals and made decisions based on them.

Bush turned into something different during his presidency and Obama is too willing to give up on his ideals to get something done and declare victory. Then he whines that nobody appreciates him for it.


I could find (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:43:31 PM EST

(if I wanted to) examples of him expressing his utter contempt and hatred of the right wing crazies.
his fleecing of them was entirely intentional.
he intentionally misled them with his Jesus being the greatest philosopher and on and on.
as far as nation building, who knows, but he damn sure intended to invade Iraq.

all Obama did was keep smiling.
passive aggressive perhaps but not in the same league with Bush.


: I am trying very hard to be (none / 0) (#72)
by Slado on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:00:31 PM EST

objective about Obama ( a president I can't stand) so you should try to do the same for Bush.
Take off your glasses and look at this objectively from the point of view of Bush's base not Obama's.
They are similar. Do you really think Bush intended to invade Iraq in 2000? Come on. No way.
Now on 9/12 is a whole other matter.