Obama on Fox transcript

The transcript of Obama on Fox is up.

As I mentioned, Obama is trying to separate himself from the most strident parts of his base, and he does this pretty effectively throughout the interview:

OBAMA:  Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

WALLACE:  Such as.

Obama mentions deregulation of industry, charter schools, a new variation of merit pay.
WALLACE:  But, Senator, if I may, I think one of the concerns that some people have is that you talk a good game about, let's be post-partisan, let's all come together -- just a couple of quick things, and I don't really want you to defend each one, I just want to speak to the larger issue...

OBAMA:  No, look, I think this is fair.  I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left.

During the Roberts -

WALLACE:  John Roberts, Supreme Court.

OBAMA:  John Roberts nomination, although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos, and was fiercely attacked as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights.

In fact, there are a lot of liberal commentators who think I'm too accommodating.  So here is my philosophy.  I want to do what works for the American people.  And both at the state legislative level and at the federal legislative level, I have always been able to work together with Republicans to find compromise and to find common ground.

Add tort reform to the above.

This above is where Obama gets to his real task (which I posted about expecting last night). A shorter Obama: The far left? That's over there, and I'm willing to take them on.

OBAMA: ...In terms of capital gains, I've suggested we might go back up to 20 because -

WALLACE:  You have suggested 28.

OBAMA:  Well, but what I've said is, I certainly would not raise it higher than it was under Ronald Reagan.

This is an Obama classic, he mentioned 28, then saw that Clinton wouldn't go that high, so now he's revisioning all of what he said to a part of what he said, and specifically a part of what he said that overrules all of what he said because... well, when he first said 28 he didn't know 28 was higher than what it was under Reagan, or something like that... Anyway, getting Reagan's name as the one he's following for guidance on the tax code is brownies on Fox.

On Clinton:

WALLACE:  No debates between now and Indiana?

OBAMA:  We're not going to have debates between now and Indiana.

WALLACE:  You say it's premature to discuss running mates.  Are you at least open to the possibility of running with Hillary Clinton with places on the ticket to be determined?

OBAMA:  I'm going to punt on that question until I'm the nominee.

Take notes Nancy Pelosi!
WALLACE:  The Wall Street Journal says that you are prepared to run the first privately-financed campaign - presidential campaign since Watergate.  True?

OBAMA:  Look, we've done a wonderful job raising money from the grassroots.  I'm very proud of the fact that in March, in February for example, 90 percent of our donations came over the Internet.  Our average donation is $96.  And we've done an amazing job, I think, of mobilizing people, to finance our campaigns in small increments.

I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about, can we preserve a public system, as long as we are taking into account third party, independent expenditures, because what I don't intend to -

WALLACE:  If you could get that agreement you would go for a publicly financed campaign?

OBAMA:  What I don't intend to do is to allow huge amounts of money to be spent by the RNC, the Republican National Committee or by organizations like the Swift Boat organization and just stand there without -

WALLACE:  If you get that agreement?

OBAMA:  I would be very interested in pursuing public financing because I think not every candidate is going to be able to do what I've done in this campaign and I think it's important to think about future campaigns.

Obama would be re-writing the rules with the above claims that the RNC and 527's be counted or ended. I'm sure he's not going to accept public financing, but his previous pledge to do so, and attempt to change the rules midway through the game, doesn't seem like as clear a way as him to wiggle out of it. And besides, McCain might just agree here with this proposal, and then what would Obama do?

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)



Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Senator Obama has no shortage of courage.   It took some real cojones to go on Fox News.

by baghdadjoe 2008-04-27 07:15AM | 0 recs
Is this sarcasm?

Clinton goes on Fox News and she's lambasted for consorting with the enemy.

Obama goes on Fox News and he's showing heroic courage?

Do you Obama supporters ever listen to yourselves?

by frankly0 2008-04-27 07:30AM | 0 recs
Maybe a different O supporter?

Obama supporters may be like the Clinton supporters - we can go in all directions at the same time!

by Southern Mouth 2008-04-27 07:39AM | 0 recs

You mean like spouting Republican talking points?  I don't hear many Clinton supporters doing that.


by adrienne4dean 2008-04-28 02:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this sarcasm?

On the other hand, Clinton accepts help from Rupert Murdock and richard Scaife and is praised for it, whereas the Democratic nominee Obama goes on a Sunday talk show and is attacked for it.

by Kobi 2008-04-27 08:22AM | 0 recs
yeah that has to hurt

by kindthoughts 2008-04-27 08:40AM | 0 recs
Don't count your chickens n/t

by adrienne4dean 2008-04-27 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't count your chickens n/t

The chickens have hatched and been counted. Obama IS the nominee. I suggest you click on the link I provided and disabuse yourself of any lingering fantasy that Hillary still has a shot.

by Kobi 2008-04-27 06:05PM | 0 recs
it's not going to work kiddo

sorry. SuperDs haven't spoken yet and they will chose.  Though I do applaud your dedication to this weeks talking points.  

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-27 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: it's not going to work kiddo

Sd's won't subvert Obama's insurmountable pledged delegate lead. Maybe, if they were mental ward patients....

by Kobi 2008-04-27 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this sarcasm?

do you actually read anything and actually find facts to support yourself or jus throw names randomly and accuse people?

Clinton accepts help -- what the hell does that mean? These folks are part of clinton campaign in any official or unofficial capacity? They represent clinton camp in some fashion?

If it is about these people contributing to clinton camp, shall we go thru the list of Obama contributors and see  if there are people, groups which progressives do not like in any fashoin? How about the likes of Rezko, Exelon execs,just to name a few prominent ones in the news. I can come up with much more than that if you want. Jeez, just learn some facts, anything at all.

If you are complaining about foxnews coverage being not in the tank for Obama like the other networks, I think that is a welcome development. ALthough its not like fox likes hillary, but rather they dislike Obama and Hillary just the same. WHich at least works out to neutral coverage between the two. Do you want to list the conservative news sources in this country which have endorsed obama and the ones where Obama would sit down and meet with and praise Reagan or other repubs over clinton and other successful dems?

For what its worth, the clintons have been trying to muffle the criticism coming from Fox and Scaife, for the fall campaign, so that they wont be bashed as badly as bots have been indicating they would be. But Im not sure it is actually a sound strategy, given they didnt even get a sound strategy to win the primary to begin with.

But get some facts on both sides and make sure your savior is free of all the things you are accusing Clinton of, before you throw any names out.

by pdxarch 2008-04-27 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this sarcasm?

If you don't consider money from Murdock, and an endorsement from Scaife, to be "help," you have a strange outlook.

by Kobi 2008-04-27 06:03PM | 0 recs
Be not confused on this. FAUX supports Hillary.

Whether it's Obama or Hillary that goes on FAUX, Obama is always the one who gets bashed.  Get it?

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-27 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Be not confused on this. FAUX supports Hillar

keep pushing for that dytopia... now is worse than before for barack, but still more positive than media coverage of Hillary

http://cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/elect ion%20news%203_3_08.htm

by hctb 2008-04-27 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this sarcasm?

I'm an Obama supporter, and I do think he's tarnished his principles, or at least those presented thus far, by appearing on Fox News--a network which regularly misleads its viewers.

We're not all mindless "Obamabots," as much as the MyDD community wants to believe.

by Covin 2008-04-27 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Scruples on the other hand...

by Caldonia 2008-04-27 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Jerome, why do you lie?

I'm sure he's not going to accept public financing, but his previous pledge to do so,

His pledge was NOT to accept public financing, but to negotiate a deal with the Republican nominee to have a fair election.  Or exactly what he said in the interview today.

And you KNOW that.

Stop lying about Obama.

by bawbie 2008-04-27 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

And since McCain has already broken the law with regards to public financing, I would trust his word on this issue as far as I could throw him.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-27 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I was just about to post the same thing. It was a pledge to negotiate a deal.

by map 2008-04-27 07:23AM | 0 recs

that the resentment runs so deep that they're willing to adopt McCain's spin completely uncritically. But I expect there will be three diaries about this by sundown.

I did like this part, just for the sheer comic value
Obama would be re-writing the rules [...] and attempt to change the rules midway through the game

So Clinton actually signs a pledge, breaks it, and that's not changing the rules, but Obama agrees to discuss an issue, doesn't agree to accept John McCain's attempt to issue the Democratic candidate a diktat, and Obama's the one trying to 'change the rules midway through the game.

I'm sure McCain, Charlie Black and the gang at Fox appreciate your help "Even prominent liberal blogger Jerome Armstrong recognizes that Obama....."

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-27 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Amazing

getting less prominent by the day

by jadegirl 2008-04-27 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Amazing

Fantastic post. The hypocrisy is so blatant its actually amusing.

by KevinT 2008-04-27 10:37AM | 0 recs
You've lost your mind.

Please, tell me what pledge Hillary broke?

She didn't have a press conference in Florida and she didn't blanket the state with tv commercials like Barack did.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-27 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: You've lost your mind.

It was a different story in October. Back then, Clinton was far and away the national front-runner--by some 20 points in a number of polls. With much less at stake in the matter, she told a New Hampshire public-radio audience, "It's clear, this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything."

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-27 12:18PM | 0 recs
Please site me

the pledge and part of the pledge she broke. If you're going to make accusations back them up.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-27 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Please site me

My apologies. She merely flip-flopped on several public declarations about Michigan and Florida not counting in the primary, and now she is hypocritically sowing dissension in the party, and lying about her position, in a desperate effort to keep her Schiavo-like bid for the nomination on life-support.

I concede that Hillary Clinton never took a pledge not to be a divisive, earth-scorching, party-destroying hypocrite.

You are right and I am wrong.

You have my warmest congratulations.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-27 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Please site me

Here you go - http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio ns/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf :

THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

She pledged not to participate in the Michigan primary. She broke the pledge.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-27 02:48PM | 0 recs
How or when did she campaign

in the Michigan primary?

If you're making the intellectually dishonest argument that not taking your name off the ballot was campaigning then please show me where she was admonished by the DNC or had action taken against her for violating the pledge or where they were even asked to remove their names from the ballot.

But if you want to bring up breaking the pledge then let me direct you to the fact that Obama surrogates were running ads asking voters to vote for "uncommitted" so Barack would have delegates at the convention.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-27 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: How or when did she campaign

The pledge was about campaigning OR PARTICIPATING.

You intentionally ignored that. I can't possibly believe you simply missed the multiple repetitions of the word PARTICIPATE in the above post.

That makes you a dishonest debater and a liar -- same as Clinton.

And as for Obama breaking the pledge, the good thing about Michigan and Florida primaries not counting is that it won't matter whether they broke it or not.

But ofcourse shameless liars like Clinton simply break first their own pledges and then act all huffy when their opponents try to counter

Did you ever consider that if Clinton had kept her pledge NOT TO PARTICIPATE, then the Uncommited vote wouldn't be a vote against Clinton?

Either way, bye-bye now, liar.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-27 07:03PM | 0 recs
You're obviously mentally

imbalanced or mainling the kool-aid. How did she participate in the primary and where was she asked by the DNC to take her name off the ballot.

Also, feel free to explain how if having  your name on the ballot is considered breaking the pledge why Barack had his name on the FL ballot.

The only liar here is you.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-28 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: You're obviously mentally

"How did she participate in the primary"

You know how, liar -- she intentionally left herself on the ballot and got votes there. By every sane and sincere definition of the word "participate", she participated.

"Also, feel free to explain how if having  your name on the ballot is considered breaking the pledge why Barack had his name on the FL ballot."

Because, you liar, it was the law of Florida that didn't allow the candidates to withdraw their names from their ballots -- both Obama and Edwards tried to withdraw their names from Florida as well BUT THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED. Not unless they wanted to withdraw from ALL the primaries nationwide as well.

Don't pretend you didn't know that, liar. It has been discussed a thousand times.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-29 04:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Here's Obama's full stand on public financing, what Jerome falsely calls a pledge to accept.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/p olitics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_De mocracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf

Question I-B:
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?


Comments (please limit to 250 words or less):

I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

You know, I expect false accusation against Obama from McCain and MSM, not from progressive bloggers.

by map 2008-04-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Sure, thats the second or third revision, lol.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-04-27 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

That was from Oct 2007.  Can you link to the earlier pledge that you are refering to?

by map 2008-04-27 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Nothing goes away forever on the internet. How about you link us the original wording?

by matchles 2008-04-27 08:09AM | 0 recs
the show us previous revisions please

by kindthoughts 2008-04-27 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I too am interested in what you're talking about when you mention second and third revisions. The questioneer was is the only thing I've ever seen cited.  You, apparently, know more. It would greatly strengthen your credibility if you could back up your claim.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Still waiting on the previous versions, Jerome. Your petulance astounds me.

by amiches 2008-04-27 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I made a diary that includes the earliest revision, from March 2007.  You can read it here.

by map 2008-04-27 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Thanks for doing the Lexis/Nexis search legwork. For those of you wanting the synopsis:  Jerome just made the sh$t up.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Hacktastic as always, nice answer though really, nice.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-27 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

The impression he left way back then was to accept public financing if the GOP opponent did so. He received no shortage of praise from the editorial pages for doing so. Everyone thought that's what he meant.

He's definitely breaking a pledge that we thought he made if McCain wants public financing and he doesn't take it. The argument about 527's and whatnot is specious. They aren't something new--he knew perfectly well they existed back when he made his pledge. To use them now as an excuse is inconsistent.

And let's be clear what public financing is: I supported the public financing system just a few weeks ago when I checked the box on my 1040 directing that $3 go to the public financing system.

It is not a system in which private donors fund a campaign out of their own pockets. Any system in which you have to cough up $1000 to get into a swanky San Francisco fundraiser is not public financing. That the average donation is $96 (a decent amount of money in any case) is misleading and obscures the fact that most of the money still comes from big donors.

Yes, I know that Hillary Clinton hasn't committed to taking public financing either, and I don't expect that she will. I wish she would. The one redeeming thing there is that at least she doesn't pretend that she is.

by OrangeFur 2008-04-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Well put.

What Obama said in his original pledge regarding public financing could not be more dishonest if he intended that he would NOT use public financing under precisely the sort of circumstances already existing in Presidential campaigns -- that is, where 527s are employed by each side as before.

How could he have failed to leave out the fact that he wouldn't use public financing if 527s operated exactly as before? Could he have been more misleading? On what ground might he be justified in not spelling out this absolutely key qualification, given that he could predict in advance that he'd have to make it?

It does neither his supporters no credit to their own honesty that they themselves can't own up to the clear deception in his statement.

by frankly0 2008-04-27 07:41AM | 0 recs
In other words,

Obama was either being completely dishonest at the time when originally made his pledge, by deceiving people in what he really meant (pretending to be making a far, far stronger commitment to public financing than he was), or he's being completely dishonest now in backing out of what he really did originally mean in his pledge.

And Obama supporters who try to defend him on this point are acting like shyster lawyers in finding tricky, absurd parsings that seem to excuse his behavior.

by frankly0 2008-04-27 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: In other words,

I think raising money from over 1.5 million people is rather public.  

by politicsmatters 2008-04-27 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: In other words,

Oh please,

Even Obama isn't pretending that that's what he meant by "public financing".

Get your talking points straight. Read the memo carefully.

by frankly0 2008-04-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
enlighten us please

what DID he mean?

by kindthoughts 2008-04-27 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: enlighten us please

Alert! Flash Alert!

W hat O bama R eally M eant Alert!

Damn, isn't everyone on all sides sick and tired of Senator 'SnakeOil' and the necessity of his followers supporters having to explain what he was trying to say?

If he's such a 'great communicator' how come it's just as hard as it is with McSame to understand...

What the fuck he's talking about.

I do know one thing: He does not sound like a Democrat.

by Pericles 2008-04-27 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: In other words,

I have a feeling if Bill Clinton had made Obama's pledge he'd be called a shrewd politician and tactician. Notice how careful his wording was...

Strawman? Yes, but it's also my best guess.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: In other words,

Kind of like parsing the meaning of "particpate" in order to stay on the ballot in a state you said "means nothing."

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Everyone thought that's what he meant.

Oh well. I guess that settles everything, then.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-27 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

He got a lot of praise in the news and in opinion columns for his pledge. If he didn't really mean what they thought, why didn't he say so?

by OrangeFur 2008-04-27 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

"We assumed John Kerry was Irish, and he never corrected that impression. Therefore, John Kerry is a liar."

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-27 07:53AM | 0 recs
Come on.

That's not even close to the same thing. Kerry never made a big deal about supposedly being Irish. People didn't write glowing editorials praising him for being Irish.

He made a pledge. At the time it was a politically savvy thing for him to do.

Now he realizes that he's raking in the big bucks from contributions and it'd be to his advantage to walk back on it. Fine. Just say that's what you're doing. Don't insult me by telling me it's the same thing.

by OrangeFur 2008-04-27 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Come on.

He made a pledge.

Okay. Find me the exact wording of that pledge. Not what David Broder or Joe Klein or The Picayune Tribune said about it, what Barack Obama pledged.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-27 09:11AM | 0 recs
Here you go.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/02/the_obama_pledge.html

Maybe it wasn't meant to be a pledge, but instead a craftily constructed response that gave the impression of being a pledge while subtly leaving an out for those who parsed it carefully.

If that's the official Obama campaign line, then sure, go for it. Either way, it doesn't sound like a new kind of politics.

by OrangeFur 2008-04-27 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Here you go.

This coming from the sort of people who have managed to parse Clinton's "sniper fire" and "not participating [in the Michigan primary]" in new and constructive ways that don't make them mere lies.

Obama pledged to pursue an agreement with McCain about public financing. You don't need to rewrite the dictionary for that -- unlike the sort of things that both Clintons tend to say.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-27 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

You seem conveniently not to notice that all Obama ever had to do was correct the misapprehensions about what he had really meant when all the editorials and pundits clearly assumed he meant something other than what he did. Indeed, if he really intended such an absolutely key caveat in his original statement, it defies understanding that he would not have seen fit to have stipulated it clearly right then and there on the spot, when he made the original pledge -- which is what any clear headed and honest person would have done.

In fact, Obama did none of this, happy to reap the praise of a pledge that meant something radically different from what he supposedly intended.

Real honest guy there.

by frankly0 2008-04-27 08:06AM | 0 recs

I meant,

In fact, Obama did none of this, happy to reap the praise of a pledge that, in his mind, meant something radically different from what every outside party took it to mean.

by frankly0 2008-04-27 08:08AM | 0 recs

Obama has to say everything the way you think he shoudl, otherwise it he is EVIIILLL.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-27 08:43AM | 0 recs
But, but, but...WORDS MATTER

Well, only to the Obamanation when they like the words they hear.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-27 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I keep trying to warn you guys: You scrape the bottom of the barrel like this, you're gonna get splinters under your fingernails, and it's mighty painful.

I've done all I can.

My conscience is clear.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-27 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I would be willing to bet he will come out and define EXACTLY what he meant in a week or so...He generally lets things build and then decides to clarify his statement...Is he ever going to learn?  He should have stated emphatically right away...he causing his own problems in this campaign.

"If someone tells you that you can't win, it because they know you can" William Clinton

by NHLight 2008-04-27 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

"If someone tells you that you can't win, it because they know you can" William Clinton

So when Hillary Clinton and her idolators on these boards tell me Obama can't beat McCain, it's because they know he can?

I would be willing to bet he will come out and define EXACTLY what he meant in a week or so...He generally lets things build and then decides to clarify his statement...

You mean like with Tuzla and sniper fire? Bob Johnson and his "what Barack was doing in the 'hood statement"? Obliterating Iran? For the war before she was against it? Whether or not she's gone hunting? The last time she went to church? Whether or not that "ten million dollars" was from new donors, or donors who had maxed out for the primary who were now donating for the General? (what will happen to that money when she's not in the General?)

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-27 09:14AM | 0 recs
WORM What Obama Really Meant.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-27 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

It's bad enough to lie about the Democratic nominee Obama. But using GOP attack points is beyond the pale for anyone who has claimed to support the Democratic Party.

by Kobi 2008-04-27 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

As I'm sure you know, Obama is emphatically NOT the Democratic nominee.

by Montague 2008-04-27 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Do the math -- or click on the link I provided.

by Kobi 2008-04-27 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Sure, Chuck Todd is the voice of the Democratic party. I knew that all along.

There won't be a Democratic candidate until one is selected at the convention. You, Chuck Todd and KO can't change that.

by NJ Liberal 2008-04-27 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

When you can't refute the message, you attack the messanger. The math is simple -- Hillary can't win and Obama can't lose.

And superdelegates aren't going to overturn the pledged delegate count.

by Kobi 2008-04-27 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

How do YOU know what super delegates are or are not going to do?

by NJ Liberal 2008-04-28 04:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

If they were political morons who would overturn the pledged delegate count and wreck their party, they wouldn't be superdelegates. Instead, they'd be bloggers.

(Notice that almost all of Hillary's SD's declared for her early when she was the "inevitable nominee." Since that facade crumbled she's suffered a net loss of them as many have switched to Obama.)

by Kobi 2008-04-28 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

And they could switch back.For my money, all this declaring by the supers is ridiculous. They should cast their votes at the convention and keep their mouths shut until then.

But that's just me, a political moron.

by NJ Liberal 2008-04-28 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

That invites intrigue and a convention fight that would hand McCain the presidency.

There shouldn't be any superdelegates at all, but since the party is stuck with them for now they should simply back up the clearly expressed will of the voters.

And since Hillary can't possibly catch up with Obama, they should declare now and put a stop to the waste of money and personal destruction of their nominee at the hands of Hillary who is now just setting up shop for her 2012 redo.

by Kobi 2008-04-28 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

That is certainly one way to look at it. But I prefer to think of it this way:

The supers are supposed to help choose a candidate who can win in November. Period.

If Obama doesn't turn things around soon, his chances in November will be pretty bleak. The 527s will run ads that will crush him. Those people don't embarrass easily, and they won't be afraid of being called racists.

The Wright thing may not be a big deal to you or to me, but it will be a very big deal to Middle America. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

by NJ Liberal 2008-04-28 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

It never ceases to amaze me how Obama is expected to "turn it around" or "close the deal" in the remaining primaries when Hillary certainly couldn't and can't. He has "closed the deal" -- it's over.

Obama WILL have more pledged delegates than she at the end.. If you don't believe me just ckick on my tag and Chuck Todd will lay it out in simple terms.

How can the candidate who LOST be the stronger one? That's what the primary process is there to determine. Otherwise we could have saved everyone a lot of time, trouble, and money and just let the party insiders choose.

The SD's will go with the candidate who has the most PD's -- Obama -- or hand the presidency to the GOP as they did in 1984 when they chose Mondale over Hart who was the primary winner.

Is that what you want -- another certain defeat from a fractured party whose establishment overturned the people? I can only hope not.

by Kobi 2008-04-28 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

OK. Once again...
It is not about winning the nomination. It is about winning the presidency.

How a candidate does in the primaries is only remotely related to how s/he will do in a general election.

Stop looking at delegate counts and start looing at electoral vote counts. That is the ONLY thing that matters.

by NJ Liberal 2008-04-29 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

So why should SD's expect Hillary, who couldn't even win the nomination on her own, to win the presidency?

Why couldn't she "close the deal," and why would a loser not even wanted by the voters in her own primaries become a winner in November?

Think harder, Homer.

by Kobi 2008-04-29 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Excuse me, but my name is not Homer.

Now to address your concerns:

Last time I checked, neither Obama nor Clinton had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination without the help of supers.

So why should SD's expect Obama, who couldn't even win the nomination on his own, to win the presidency?

Why couldn't he "close the deal," and why would a loser not even wanted by the voters in his own primaries become a winner in November?

Think harder.

Barack Obama may be the nominee of the Kobi party, but the Democratic part has not yet chosen a nominee. And you saying so doesn't make it true.

by NJ Liberal 2008-04-29 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

So why should SD's expect Obama, who couldn't even win the nomination on his own, to win the presidency?

So why should SD's expect Clinton, who couldn't even beat Obama, to win the presidency?

"Barack Obama may be the nominee of the Kobi party, but the Democratic part has not yet chosen a nominee. And you saying so doesn't make it true."

It isn't me saying it. It's everyone who knows how to use a calculator. Click on my tagline to find out the inescapable truth.

by Kobi 2008-04-29 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Not everyone who knows how to use a calculator agrees with you, Kobi. I know how to use a calculator. Heck - I know how to design and build a calculator. I don't agree with you.

Once again: The nominee will be chosen at the convention. In Denver. In August. End of discussion.

by NJ Liberal 2008-04-29 06:42PM | 0 recs
The nominee will be chosen at the convention.

That's when the formality of it will happen. The reality of it already has. End of discussion.

by Kobi 2008-04-29 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

OBAMA:  Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

Reality to Obama supporters: that's what you call triangulation.  So either stop pretending that your candidate is post-partisan or bi-partisan or even cares about unity, or, stop bashing President Clinton for moving towards Center to get things done.

by bobbank 2008-04-27 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

There's a difference between finding common ground and triangulation.  The former is a strategy for policy-making, the latter is a political strategy.

Bill Clinton used the Democratic Congress as a foil for his own political benefit. He didn't like the welfare reform law he signed, but only did so for his re-election.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-27 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I can't take that parsing of words seriously, sorry.  Do you have a straight face when you type things like that?

As for Congress, I'm sorry but I just don't listen when Congressional Dems try to blame their own political shortcomings on Bill Clinton's success.  He gave them a White House, one of the strongest economies of the century, and an economy in which everyone, from the poor to the middle class to wall street, was able to participate.  He give them peace and a standing ovation from the U.N.

It's just like today - Dems are saying the only reason they aren't more effective is because those big, bad, nasty Republicans in the minority won't let them get anything done.

How much of an advantage do Congressional Democrats need before they can stop making excuses and actually get stuff done?  We have some great Democrats in the Congress but they are few and far between.

by bobbank 2008-04-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Now that is really rewriting the history of the Clinton administration. Clinton forced Dems to vote on a BTU tax and then backed away from it. When 1994 came around, the ads showed congressional Dems faces morphing into Bill Clinton's as a way to undermine them.  

by politicsmatters 2008-04-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
You can't know Clinton's thoughts

No one can know another's thoughts.

This thinking has led to all the political crappola we have been dealing with for some years.  I will disagree with anyone on any side who claims to KNOW what another is thinking.  You can listen to their words, and should.  You can judge their actions, and should.  You can make a calculated, educated guess as to their motivations and thoughts, but if someone makes a statement that this person did X because they think Y, then I will disagree.

Also, IMHO, it's a complete diversion and a point to argue - instead of getting closer to a resolution of differences - to make statements as to another's thoughts.  

by Southern Mouth 2008-04-27 07:47AM | 0 recs
I agree with your completely.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-27 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I love when Obama's supporters churn out stuff like this - it helps to clarify what Obama means by 'change'. Same crap, now known by new terms.

by msharp 2008-04-27 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

No, triangulation/strangulation means that your SOLE GOAL is to survive by slicing and dicing the electorate into separate interest groups (i.e. penn's tribes) with a top down PR management stule.

Obama's whole focus is on areas of unity rather than division, hence a 50 state strategy, hence mobilising the grass roots, and of course bypassing the lobbyists chorus of special interests.

If you don't get the difference now, don't worry, you soon will

by brit 2008-04-27 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Obama took more money from special interest last month than any other candidate, and special interests fund over 60% of his campaign to-date.

He hoodwinked you on that one.

He takes money from: former lobbyists, state lobbyists, bundlers, spouses of currently registered federal lobbyists, and directly from top executives.

So who does this little advertising trick on you, and says he doesn't take money from currently federally registered lobbyists, or PACS (which account for less than 1% of Clinton's fundraising to-date, by the way), and you bought it.

There is a difference between "come together" and "come to me".  I don't think a lot of you folks understand that, unless you are living under a dictatorship, "unity" requires a whole lot of compromise.

by bobbank 2008-04-27 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Thanks for disabusing me. I didn't realise he was in the special interests pockets. Oh my god, he's as bad as Hillary...


If he doesn't take money from registered lobbyists, he doesn't take money from registered lobbyists. Individuals of whatever persuasion can donate to his campaign, but he's not in their pockets

As for compromise... Hold on, I thought the complaint was that he compromises too much. That's a new one to add to the list. Thanks

by brit 2008-04-27 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

If he doesn't take money from registered lobbyists, he doesn't take money from registered lobbyists.

That's very naive.

What is the practical difference between taking $5000 from a PAC that represents Big Oil, and taking the same amount directly from its executives?  What is the practical difference between being in the pocket of state lobbyists, or in the pocket of the spouse of a federal lobbyist, or being in the pocket of a former lobbyist, but not being in the pocket of a currently registered lobbyist?  Please explain why one of these things indicates any more or less influence than the other.  Please explain how raising over 60% of your $$$ from special interests means you are somehow free from their influence.

by bobbank 2008-04-27 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript


Are you suggesting that private individuals shouldn't be allowed to donate to campaigns? It's also a fact that Clinton has taken a much higher percentage of her total fundraising from these "special interests" as you falsely call them.  What do you say about that?

by map 2008-04-27 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript


by obamaforprez 2008-04-27 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Why don't you just post the ORLY owl, to make it more clear that you have no interest in meaningful discourse?

by bobbank 2008-04-27 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I enjoy it, myself. It's like the old ladies clapping in Monty Python.

by vcalzone 2008-04-27 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript


No I did not suggest that.  But your candidate has.  As you know, he specifically stated that only be accepting public financing could we ever sever the tie between special interest money and politicians.  Of course, that was before he got a taste of those dollars.  Now, he's changed his tune.

I am not one so naive as to pretend that the problem of special interest dollars goes away overnight.  That money is there and it's going to be used.

What I take issue with is the way in which the Obama campaign has used this false advertising, the notion that he does not take special interest dollars, in order to trick people into supporting him.  I know because I was one of those people.

I remember having a conversation with my friend, saying, "You know, even if Barack doesn't win, just the fact that he could send this signal, that he could get this far without caving to special interests, is a worthy achievement."  I felt very angry when I learned that it was only an advertising gimmick, akin to something a used car salesman might say.  By contrast, I seem to recall Hillary taking a lot of heat because she wouldn't lie about this.  She even tried to explain to a group of netroots activists why taking this money is not always wrong or bad.

It is not "false" for me to claim that when the executives of the biggest oil companies bankroll your campaign directly, that is no different from having a bundler package it all up for you, and that is no different from having a former lobbyist do it for you, and that is no different from having a currently registered lobbyist do it.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

by bobbank 2008-04-27 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript
It is not "false" for me to claim that when the executives of the biggest oil companies bankroll your campaign directly, that is no different from having a bundler package it all up for you, and that is no different from having a former lobbyist do it for you, and that is no different from having a currently registered lobbyist do it.

What percentage of the money was from executies?  You throw the 60% from "special interests" number and then say that executies = "special interest", and I think that's a dishonest framing without the other data point.
by map 2008-04-27 09:15AM | 0 recs
well thank you for

you fact supported opinion.

Now please include links to some facts.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-27 08:46AM | 0 recs
60 percent is IMPOSSIBLE.

Sorry, but you really need to back this up with some evidence before I believe a number like 60%.  I've made something of a project out of digging into the candidate's finances (and voting records), and I see no way it is possible that anything close to that amount could come from 'special interests' given the dollar amounts distribution across the donor base.  It would require an army of hundreds of thousands of people working with bundlers giving very small donations... and that is just not how bundlers do it... too inefficient.  Bundlers tend to bundle at the maxed out donor level.  If a candidate is skirting campaign finance law using bundlers... it shows up in their reports as a high level of maxed out donors, which Obama just does not have relative to the other candidates.

Sorry, but your assertion just doesn't pass the smell test, and until you can back it up with some evidence I will have to assume you are just generating smoke to try and obscure one of Obama's strengths.

by protothad 2008-04-27 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

The GOP--still the Party of Ideas!

Realistically, I don't expect every Democrat to agree with the majority of the party on everything issue, though I wish he wouldn't go and say that "there are a whole host of areas" where the GOP is right and we're wrong.

Maybe this should give some pause to folks who want to claim that Hillary is no longer a Democrat, however.

by OrangeFur 2008-04-27 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I don't criticize anyone for moving to the center, or right, or left, to "get things done". I criticize them for what they get done, or don't.

If Obama works with Dick Lugar to track and control loose nukes, I think that's a good thing. If Hillary Clinton votes with George Bush to start and illegal war that weakens national security, that's a bad thing. If Hillary Clinton works with Joe Lieberman to get everyone all worked up about naughty video games, that's a stupid thing. If she does that while the aforementioned illegal war that weakens national security is still going on, that's a stupid thing, and a bad thing.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-27 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

This should once and for all put an end to Obama supporters claims that Obama never stated that Republicans had better ideas than Democrats, as they continually do when faced with that fact.

As to the things he stated were 'better ideas', aren't most of those things that Democrats have fought as ill for the future of the Nation for at least a couple of decades, since. .. um... let's see .... Reagan?

Obama really does want to be Reagan.

by emsprater 2008-04-27 07:56AM | 0 recs
The world

is not black in white.

I have republican friends who are good and kind people

by kindthoughts 2008-04-27 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: The world

I agree.  The problem here is that Obama often praises GOP politicians past and present and now GOP ideologies and ideas while denigrating Democratic long held stands on some of those issues with a history of also discounting the economic prosperity of the Clinton years.  Add to that Obama supporters who grasp at straws to paint Hillary or Bill as 'not real Democrats', and well, there you have it.

Hypocrisy, unwrapped, served on a platinum platter for the GE.

by emsprater 2008-04-27 09:16AM | 0 recs
I see

so let me see what you did.

you agreed with me that world is nto black and white, that there decent republicans and then you went on the attack about Obama claiming he loves GOP and hates Democrats.

This is coming from a supporter of a candidate who said that McCain is more qualified then Obama?

by kindthoughts 2008-04-27 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

"Obama threw DailyKos under the bus!!"  Boy howdy, did he ever.  But they'll be all snuggly under there with  Rev. Wright and grandma.  Who's next?

by Caldonia 2008-04-27 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Who's next?

Oh, I don't know... maybe about half of the Democratic party voters?

Gotta get them independent votes, ya know.  See, those democrats will just vote for him anyway, no matter what he does or says about them.  And those netroots far lefties?  Heck, they'll never defect.

by joanneleon 2008-04-27 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Under the buuusssss

Out of the sun

Under the buuussss

We'll be havin' some fun...

by joanneleon 2008-04-27 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

And besides, McCain might just agree here with this proposal, and then what would Obama do?

What would Obama do? Sit pretty. With Swiftboaters out of the equation in the general, Obama will have no problem coasting by to the presidency. Grassroots and netroots will then play the biggest part, and deliver.

by lizardbox 2008-04-27 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

With Swiftboaters out of the equation in the general...

Hah! Now that's funny! 'Cause if there's one thing McCain can do it's stop independent expenditures from going on. Just look at how well he stopped the North Carolina Republican Party from running an ad against Obama. </snark>

Get a clue, no 'deal' between candidates will stop the outside groups. They have no legal recourse against them. The only thing the candidates can do is ask them not to run the ad. What we get horrible ads and John McCain disavowing them (and perhaps garnering some brownie points for doing so).

by joc 2008-04-27 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Riggghhhht. The candidates have absolutely no control over those wacky 527s. If they actually wished them to stop, they would. If they condemned them and made it clear there would be consequences under their administration if they kept it up, they'd stop. It's just a matter of formalizing that agreement.

by vcalzone 2008-04-27 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

It's just a matter of formalizing that agreement.

Just like it's only a matter of signing a peace treaty in the Middle East. Once that's done it's all downhill. The fact that no one knows how such a thing can be done is only a minor stumbling block.

by joc 2008-04-27 11:10AM | 0 recs
Hit from the right and left...

I never know where the next attack on Obama is coming from here...

No need to list the contradictions that begin with too black/not black enough.

One of the most persistent forms of this bad faith criticism is that 'he won't stand up to the republican attack machine', and yet here is, defending his corner eloquently on Fox News. Of course, the response to this is 'he's just another politician' (?) yet I won't ever go there with Scaife.

It's not perfect (whatever is) and there have been slips and mishaps along the road, but I must say Obama has withstood a dual onslaught from a tag team comprising the most powerful dynasty in current democratic politics, and the republican skewed media. He's still standing. He's still winning.

I'm beginning to think there is an ugly subtext in every excuse you get for these attacks from democrats. They say - he'll get worse in the fall. We're just seeing if he's tough enough to withstand the process.

I wonder how I would feel if there was a pack of angry bigoted people waiting outside, and someone who is supposed to be on my side against them started punching me in the face, and then their excuse was...

Oh. I'm just toughening you up for the republican attack machine.

Well, he's fighting them back on their channel. Talk about fighter. He's one.

by brit 2008-04-27 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hit from the right and left...

What gets me is just the clearly different perspective that I have from you. Because the reasons you listed for why you don't respect Obama are the reasons I don't respect Hillary.

by vcalzone 2008-04-27 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hit from the right and left...

No Obama is not a fighter, and he shouldn't try to be one. This is Hillary framing. Hillary is Negative. Fighting and dividing and microtrends and the rest of it are what she does.

Obama has slightly strayed from his Positive message the past month or so. He needs to stop with the diner visits and small voter sessions. Obama should stick to massive rallies, and talk about HOPE (not change which implies a negative). Obama is an inspirational figure, not a sit down and have a shot and beer with guy. Reagan wouldn't pass the silly "have a beer with" test. The thing is being positive and likable. Obama shouldn't even mention Hillary. He should avoid even talking about her. He doesn't even need to talk about McCain...let ads do that.

Obama will win or lose in November based on whether he stays positive. People like him. People want a President they can aspire to be.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hit from the right and left...

I agree with everything you say, but check out his recent Q&A in Indiana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEJ2ZLkjq QI

He's a fighter, not for himself, not for merely survival or political opportunism (unlike some we could mention) but he will fight for those left behind, and he will fight for what is right. He's proved that he's not just hope without dynamism, or rhetoric without a purpose - and on that level, he's a much better fighter for the common man or woman than any candidate on offer.

by brit 2008-04-27 02:23PM | 0 recs
you are slightly dishonest in this post.
Obama never said he would take public financing without preconditions.  Please make an attempt at accuracy.
by Student Guy 2008-04-27 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome

I don't know where to start with this sort of revisionist stuff on Obama's pledge (he called it that) to accept public financing. Yes, he revised it, and continues to revise it along the way. I guess we'll take it up in another post with all the quotes.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-04-27 08:00AM | 0 recs
Speaking of revisionist

What did Clinton say about Michigan?

Let's not pretend that your favorite candidate is beyond revisionism.

by missliberties 2008-04-27 08:04AM | 0 recs
Thank you as that would be far more

honest that what you just did.

by Student Guy 2008-04-27 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome

I linked to his statement from October 2007.  You said that was the second or third revision.  

Can you provide evidence of that?

by map 2008-04-27 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome

So you don't have anything accept a pledge to try to work something out with the GOP nominee.  "I guess we'll take it up in another post with all the quotes." WTF is that?  You've been asked to back up your claim that he pledged to accept public financing. He didn't and hasn't and you know it. Sure he's continue to "revise" it if you mean he's continued to say he won't promise anything.

"I guess we'll take it ups in another post with all the quotes."  Classic. And you're insinuating someone else is dishonest?  Priceless hypocrisy chief.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome

I'm going to give you a 2-mojo rating for this one. I mean you're making Sean Hannity look reliable, but you are entertaining with your gall. Jeez.

Have you ever considered committing seppuku when Obama's the nominee? Your devotion to Hillary is clinically insane. *And note, I'm not saying devotion to her in general is insane. One could be just as absurd about Obama.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome
"Have you ever considered committing seppuku when Obama's the nominee? " Please don't make statements of this type. I would hope no one hurts themselves or anyone else due to their support of any candidate, nor due to clinical insanity. Thanks.
by Jeter 2008-04-27 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome

Jerome apparently can't be bothered to provide any evidence backing up his claim. Please point out some more dishonesty Jerome, I totally trust you.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome

so you're willing to accept the fact that Hillary and some of her advisors acknowledged that MI and FL would NOT count?

fair. I agree with that.

by alex100 2008-04-27 05:30PM | 0 recs
Obama and Daily Kos

deregulation of industry, charter schools, merit pay, and confirming Roberts, some of the things the Orange Frat House got right.

this is not encouraging.

by Alice Marshall 2008-04-27 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Daily Kos
Jerome's BS about "deregulation":

OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation, I think that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We’re going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And I think that the Republican party and people who thought about the margins (ph) came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they’re going to for example reduce pollution. And a cap and trade system, for example, is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

Telling business how they are going to do things isn't "deregulation".
by edmandspath 2008-04-27 07:43AM | 0 recs
&quot;Orange Frat House&quot;

I see this term dropped a lot of late. Just for clarification - this is a semi-oblique way of labeling Markos and the folks who participate at DailyKos as sexist, right? And that would be because they are generally Obama supporters, yes?

I'm asking because I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I'm not sure what else your message could be, here. If that's not your message, you might want to consider expressing your point in a manner less prone to misunderstanding.

by odum 2008-04-27 08:57AM | 0 recs
charter schools

Charter schools are just about busting teacher unions, it doesn't have anything to do with providing better education.

by Alice Marshall 2008-04-27 07:31AM | 0 recs
I would respectfully disagree

I have a friend who works at a Charter School and she actually prefers it to dealing with the bureaucracy of school districts. Also, she said that the graduation rates for those at Charter schools is far higher than those that attend your average public school in urban areas.

BTW,I am pro-union but there are definitely some benefits to charter schools.

by cranberry 2008-04-27 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I would respectfully disagree

too bad his voucher plan undercuts funding for charter/alternative schools.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-27 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: charter schools

there are both positives and negatives to charter schools. If done right, I wouldn't be opposed to them as they've sometimes had a positive effect in Illinois. But Illinois's funding of schools is backwards to begin with and sometimes having the state kick in funds for these schools helps to some degree (in high poverty areas where school funding is determined by property taxes).

Your concern about union busting is a concern and there needs to be a clear separation of church and state (as is the case in Illinois).

by alex100 2008-04-27 05:35PM | 0 recs
Read the whole thing. It's all reasonable.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 07:31AM | 0 recs
Here's how DailyKos will respond

A couple of folks will write "Did you read what JA said on MyDD????"  And the general response will be "Yawn."  Guess what, most folks at DKos don't look here for affirmation.  Why?  Because the same three diarists write three diaries a day and are always on the rec list.  And the substance of those diaries are all cut and paste from the Clinton website.  

Take a moment and compare the diversity of diaries at DKos to here.  I've yet to see a series here dedicated to our fallen soldiers, gardening, food, birds, home-repair, etc.

Sorry, but most folks at DKos really aren't that interested in MyDD kerfuffles.

by gchaucer2 2008-04-27 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Read the whole thing. It's all reasonable.

I saw the post and the commenters getting on him. He didn't throw the whole site under the bus.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 05:59PM | 0 recs
Is it me or does anyone else long for

one of our candidates to say "the conservative philosophy of governance that the Republicans have adopted DOES. NOT. WORK."

Frankly, I'm tired of worrying about the sensibilities of Republicans who always seem to need the "stroking" that too many of our candidates give them like Obama just gave them in that interview.

If I had one wish it would be that Obama would give equal time to a discussion with Naomi Klein who wrote "The Shock Doctrine" ...just have a conversation with her, it doesn't have to be filmed and see if she can get him to stop making these statements.

Change to me means complete change from the economic policies which have gotten us to this point....evidently it doesn't mean that to Obama.( Or Clinton either to be fair)

by merbex 2008-04-27 07:33AM | 0 recs
Obama obviously evil

so sayeth the Clintonistas.

by missliberties 2008-04-27 07:35AM | 0 recs
Jerome, when was your last diary on McCain?

I'll tell you when. It was on Tuesday, April 4th and titled "The Real McCain & Great American Hypocrites" where you basically told us that McCain's book was about his POW years and then it jumps to him running for president in 08.

Shouldn't you help in setting the direction to craft a winning strategy against the presumptive nominee from the Republican party?

by lizardbox 2008-04-27 07:42AM | 0 recs
typo: April 8th.

by lizardbox 2008-04-27 07:42AM | 0 recs
I agree

I have been lurking here for awhile before I decided to join and the one difference I will say about Dkos and Mydd is that at the end of the day it appears that Dkos is far more concerned about party building and taking on John McCain than Mydd.  Many of the front page posts at Mydd have to deal with Congress and John McCain. Heck, Glenn Greenwald had a live blog last week which was quite interesting.

I think that Jerome does a disservice when he uses his power to spew of false information and rather than bringing the party together he seems hellbent on tearing Obama down.  I don't mind constructive criticism but when you are spewing lies it's just counterproductive.

by cranberry 2008-04-27 07:45AM | 0 recs
On the other hand...

The flame wars do keep this place hot and challenging, when DKos can sometimes be a bit too much of a lovefest. And then these provocative front page posts keep the site traffic up. I only hope the extra ad revenue is spent updating the servers and the software!

by brit 2008-04-27 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: On the other hand...

So, in order for the site to stay up, it abandons one of its primary functions. That's sad if it is in fact the case.

I will redo the damn site for them for free if they get back on advocating our Democratic message over that of the republicans.

by lizardbox 2008-04-27 07:57AM | 0 recs
Our Democrat message?

Is tort reform, charter schools and what, taking another look at de-regulation like we want to take another look at Soc Sec our new "Democratic Message?"

by JohnS 2008-04-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Our Democrat message?

It's what middle America wants to hear. With Obama's progressive legislative background (dating back to IL) he NEEDS to talk to the center to avoid being pinned as too liberal.

Notice this election strategy is similar to the Clinton strategy of the 90s. The only difference is that, unlike the Clintons, Obama really is a liberal. (Remember NAFTA? Welfare reform? Doubling the war on drugs. Repeated bombing of Iraq.)

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 09:41AM | 0 recs
Tailor your message to what

Middle America wants to hear? That's called pandering. And the last time I checked, this is  a Dem Primary  -- Dems do not want to hear about tort reform, school vouchers, more industry deregulation, and Soc Sec reform.

Unlike the Clintons, Obama really is a liberal.

That's just very poor salesmanship.

by JohnS 2008-04-27 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Tailor your message to what

Yes pandering is probably a pejorative way to characterize it. And who knows, maybe he's really for tort reform, capping punitive damages in medical malpractice cases. I think you're right saying most liberals don't agree with that stance.

I'd just point out that, once again, you don't have to characterize it quite so negatively. I still believe if Bill Clinton were doing this he'd be praised for triangulation. My problem with the Clintons has never been their campaigning to the center, it has been their governing to the center.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I've just scanned the entire transcript. Overall it's reasonable, even if it suffers from every politician's tendency to please every questioner, even when that questioner works for Fox News.

One comment that needles me:

OBAMA: After Iowa, everybody said Obama is transforming folks because he's bringing in all these voters we never expected would vote for a black guy.

Fortunately, he's not saying that he himself thinks that white voters look askance at black candidates (which got him in trouble in those fundraising comments a few weeks ago). But he is saying that a lot of other people thought that. This is a theme that really needs to go away, and fast.

by OrangeFur 2008-04-27 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

is there something untrue about his comment

by amiches 2008-04-27 11:18AM | 0 recs
Deregulation is a good idea?


Once again, Obama showed he is no President Clinton. Not even in the same league.

If you spew you will take them on, take them on like President Clinton did.

by gotalife 2008-04-27 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Deregulation is a good idea?

"I have today signed into law H.R. 2539, the "ICC Termination Act of 1995." In my State of the Union address this year, I called upon the Congress to terminate the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). I also called for further reductions in unnecessary regulations. This legislation is consistent with those goals, but it does not go far enough." - President Bill Clinton, 1995

by jaiwithani 2008-04-27 08:01AM | 0 recs
Just a personal take

Praising of Republican Ronald Reagan makes me nauseated.  This man got to the presidency by taking the south - the Reagan Democrats - he will never be someone I can respect.  

Iran-Contra - lies and coverup.
S&L - lies and coverup.

Reagan may have been a "nice man" to his wife and kids.  He probably had a lot of good traits, but IMHO, there was a group of Republicans who did the running of the country while Reagan was in office.  THAT'S the Republican way!!!! !

And - the vaunted "Reagan Democrats" - also IMHO are those in the South who hated integration, who harbor ill feelings toward people of color.  There are code words used to express what they used to say for YEARS.  I hear them when I go back to the South and racism is sickeningly alive and well.  

At the same time, there are many Southern people who genuinely seek better relationships and completely equitable treatment in all areas.  These people are more likely to be progressive-thinking or plain ole liberal Democrats!

by Southern Mouth 2008-04-27 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Anyone interested in an over-bet on cashed raised/on hand, for the candidates in April?

Obama's campaign has transformed fund raising pure and simple. (hat tip to Howard Dean)

Politics is about money (if it was ideas and principle John Edwards would be our candidate)

Obama differs from Clinton and light years from McBush, by the sheer numbers of people contributing under $100.

For anyone who believes this is a bad thing..contact your local uncommitted SD and let them know More donors, more money is NOT what our Party needs..

by nogo war 2008-04-27 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

How soon we forget the lessons of the Pennsylvania loss.

  1. Break all historic spending records including $11 million dollars on TV ads.
  2. Throwing money at the problem when you don't have the "appeal" is futile.

Barack should spend $44 million on the May 6 primaries.  Better yet, let's go for a spending record that will last for generations to come.

Obama will lose IN and win NC by low single digits despite his continued gargantuan historic spend.

Hillary's coffers are filling but she doesn't need as much as BO because she has electability, experience, the detailed plan, the empathy and yes the dogged fight in her to become our next president.

Obama's gonna need that "campaign transforming fundraising" because as he breaks all spending records and his coffers dwindle . . .  he will go to you, his supporter and say I need even more money to throw at the election, so get ready to pony up.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-04-27 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on deregulation

This one jumped out for me.  When asked where Republican have better ideas than Democrats, Obama game deregulation as a good example.

Headsup to Sen. Obama:  Republican deregulation has been a disaster.  Because of the Republicanss great ideas on deregulation, we have toxic levels of lead in most of our toys.  

from NotInMyCart.org:

Our product safety system is a shambles--a victim of budget cuts and a shift towards corporate self-policing.

Watch our newest video and share it with your friends and family.

Although our video is funny, toy safety this year is no laughing matter. Millions of toys with toxic lead-laden paint have been recalled. Last week, retailers scrambled to pull 4.2 million "Aqua Dots" off the shelves after the toy caused seizures and comas in children who ingested the dots. Unfortunately, the handful of well meaning inspectors--like the ones portrayed in our video--have neither the staff nor the tools they need to stop unsafe products before they reach store shelves.
Click here to watch the video.

https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/A dvocacy?JServSessionIdr007=ex3zprvf31.ap p43a&cmd=display&page=UserAction &id=1732

Consumers Union <action@consumer.org>

by moevaughn 2008-04-27 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on deregulation

The gop took President Clinton's idea on unnecessary deregulation to no deregulation.

Yes, it is a disaster and people have died from Chinese goods and lost their life savings like Enron.

by gotalife 2008-04-27 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on deregulation

Oops, regulation.

by gotalife 2008-04-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on deregulation

Hey genius.... he didn't say all deregulation.  It's just like many issues, you have to examine things on a case by case basis.  As a general rule, we want new businesses to startup and not be in constant fear of being sued or breaking some obscure "do-gooder" regulation.  If product safety deregulation has caused problems, then you address it on its merits and put in place reasonable laws.

Or you can just jump to the extreme example and disregard the fact that there is no evidence Obama wouldn't support tougher product safety regulations.

by KensUSA 2008-04-27 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans on deregulation

obscure "do-gooder" regulation?  What are those?  those regulations that are obscure and "do-gooder" were probably put in place because someone did bring it to court.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Ugh. I really don't like this and can certainly understand why this would make any Dem cringe.  

by Forward with Feingold 2008-04-27 08:14AM | 0 recs
This was a really good interview

I don't understand why Jerome just doesn't give credit to Obama on this interview.

I was impressed as Brit Hume was.

by puma 2008-04-27 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: This was a really good interview

Hate will do that.

by Kobi 2008-04-27 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: This was a really good interview


No, that is Obama supporters toward the Clintons.

Anyhoo, Jerome's posts do stir up the best debates.

by gotalife 2008-04-27 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?  Turns out he's got a real distaste for those DFH and he made sure the Fox viewers know it.

by Caldonia 2008-04-27 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I find it disgusting that Obama's jumping on the tort reform bandwagon. There's not a bigger corporate fraud of a political issue than 'tort reform.'

Also, saying that the GOP has the right ideas about deregulation? Ridiculous. GOP ideas about deregulation in the main have been way too extreme and the financial and economic history of the last 25 years has born that out. All of the responsible deregulation has occurred under Democratic stewardship.

by blueflorida 2008-04-27 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

YES!  Thanks for saying that about deregulation.  GOP/Reagan's deregulation destroyed fair competition, increased global warming, endangered wildlife, polluted our water and skies and land, and led to the situations where workers' pensions are lost while departing CEOs take millions with them.  The only way to make capitalism and democracy work together is through appropriate regulation.  Only Democrats do it right.  I was appalled to see Obama on Faux saying that the GOP has good ideas about deregulation.

by Montague 2008-04-27 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

damn straight!

I find it ironic that the touchstone of our party is FDR and for the republicans it is Reagan

FDR promoted unions.  Reagan was hell-bent on destroying them.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Deregulation is a nice word. People don't like regulation. I think it's fair a question you raise, but, once again, anyone who has doubts about Obama's liberal bona fides just needs to examine his legislative record in Illinois. It would really allay your fears to do some research. (It's also what he'll be attacked with in the General, so good to know in advance.)

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

people scream "regulation" when deregulation does crap like dumping toxic waste into a river.

why are you believing the republican lie that has been spread for over 20 years here?

oh, and I know how Obama "regulated" the nukes in IL.  By offering up "guidelines" - just as he is doing now.

I do believe the ghost of RR is being channeled by Obama.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I'll have to look up Obama's regulatory record about nukes in IL. The power company here was a major backer of his, but I can't tell what came first his position or their support.

There are greenies that don't think nuclear plants are bad...me being one of them. Provided their built reasonably, they're hydroelectric, meaning no CO2 problems. Waste is, of course the price you pay for it, but I'm a science person. The world nuclear doesn't scare me. ...We have to be smart about it, but I think many would agree pesticides and chemical pollutants are a far bigger problem at the moment.

So, you might have a point. Maybe he's really against nuclear power and money has made him campaign and legislate against his better judgment. On the other hand, maybe he just agrees with them.

Personally, I'll be much more upset if you find him working to deregulate coal-fired plants or the like. Nukes, I think are good and get bad press.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

nukes are way too expensive to build.  Perhaps if we were a smaller country, like France, we could have a few nuclear power plants running out country, but we are a huge country - and don't forget - no one wants them in their back yard

until we can find a way to safely remove the wastes and build them smaller and less expensive, no nukes for me.

as a teen, I was one of those "no nukes" girls.  And we haven't progressed that much in the 30 years since then.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

oh, to answer your question - from what I have read in the IL papers online, his constituents went to him to have Exelon regulated.  He promised to work on their behalf to get the regulation, was initially hard on them, and then backed down to offer guidelines.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

As has been pointed out multiple times, there's a difference between "tort reform" and tort reform, just like there's a difference between "deregulation" and deregulation. The former is a way to protect and limit damages in cases of corporate malfeasance, the latter is a way to move more cases to arbitration and settlement instead of clogging up the court system.

It's too bad we can't come up with a word for the concept that the GOP hasn't already co-opted, but if you really think Obama went on Fox to advocate Bush-esque "tort reform", you're out of your mind

by amiches 2008-04-27 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

It's painful to be discovered as a poser empty-suit  flip-flopper.

If there's any truth to the fact that the majority of his funds comes from small donations through the internet, I keep thinking what a pity it is that some sincere and well-meaning people are investing money in Arizona's beach front property.

Obama needs to drop out  now. Not only is he unelectable, but it's embarrassing to have to watch him deflate.


by aroundtheblock 2008-04-27 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript


Yesterday you said that Clinton would pick up 4 superdelegates. That didn't happen.  Could you share your thoughts about why that didn't happen?  

It turned out to be a wash. One AZ superdelegate endorsed Obama and one stayed neutral, the NH add-on endorsed Clinton and the NM is neutral.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-27 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Obama is a progressive liberal who runs to the center. This is what good politicians do. Like Reagan and Dumbya (as effective politicians) they run to the center and govern to their base.  

Obama's unity message of Hope is what is so slick. He's only slightly stumbled by going over to Change and engaging Clinton after she was essentially eliminated in mid-February. This is a change election, but people want to feel good about their country.

People don't want details, that's absurd. People want big rallies, smiling faces, good news, a country they can admire, reuniting soldiers with their families, making health care more affordable, and a great economy. Obama will be criticized by opponents for not have substance, but it didn't hurt Reagan or Bush Jr. Obama should campaign LESS, inspire more, and stop with the rolled up sleeves, politician. His message is POSITIVE whereas Clinton's is Negative. He needs to return to the positive message. Call it fluff, but if he gets back to it you'll be calling him President soon enough.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

What I find the most amusing is watching posters on Dailykos who were avowed Kucinich supporters - and for years have been lambasting anything centrist - suddenly advocating how bold and necessary Obama's appearance on FOX was and saying things like "at least he's not using right-wing talking points like the 'other' Democrat in the race."

Did they not watch the interview?????

Obama threw Dailykos and the liberal blogs under the bus today and his supporters just sit in awe at anything Obama and give him a pass.

What a joke.

If Hillary had said 1/10th of what Obama said, Kos would have five mangled posts with bold "IFs" and "DLC" peppered throughout.

Obama is is so going to flame out a la Dukakis with his path to the White House through Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado. And he'll be lucky if he keeps MA and NJ too...

I'm resigned to sitting back and watching because it's all just too bizarre and disturbing to invest in.

by GregNYC 2008-04-27 09:41AM | 0 recs
if the person's name is not Clinton,

then anything they say is OK. I mean, they're right now probably spinning how great it was he voted for tort "reform" as we speak

by DiamondJay 2008-04-27 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Well, I have been watching the Senate in action during w's terms on C-Span.

Here we have three of them running and if you watched like I have, you would see that nothing much is going to change. The Senate is corporate owned.

Blindly trusting any of these three Senators is ridiculous.

by gotalife 2008-04-27 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Not a Progressive, Never Was

Obama's not a progressive in the first place. So, "moving center" as much a myth as his progressive political policies are a myth. So it beats me why so many Kossacks idealize him. He's never been about anything but political opportunism.

Obama is a pro-privatization, DLC kind of guy. He always has been. He hired Austan Goolsbee. He hired Jim Cooper of Tennessee to run his primary campaign in that state. Cooper is notoriously right-wing. Really, when it gets right down to it (pun intended), Barack Obama actually IS a "post-partisan" candidate. He's all about Barack Obama, and that's as "post-partisan" as it gets in our political system. He doesn't think much of his own political party, apparently. And, neither do most of his advisors.

Barack Obama's Tennessee Campaign Chair, Jim Cooper (D-Nashville) is one of those who has contempt for his own party; he shows it by consistently voting with the GOP.

As many already know, from David Brooks' revealing hagiography months ago pointed out, Cooper is the Congressional Rep who helped bring down Hillary Clinton's health care initiative during the 90s. It was all about the "mandates" for Cooper. Mandates are bad for bidness. And, bidness is what Jim Cooper is really all about. 'Cause actually, Cooper is a Republican who calls himself a Democrat. That's why Cooper also voted AGAINST paying for SChip increases for children's health care by increasing taxes on Big Tobacco.

And, this is the man Barack Obama selected to lead his primary campaign in Tennessee:

Well, Jim Cooper actually abstained on the House measure to stop President Bush from cutting $73 million that now goes to the Tennessee Department of Children's Services for Case Management of some 30,000 children and youth. Without the bill, the state will lay off about 160 workers and will spend millions to maintain the case management system. Two-Thirds of the Republicans and most Democrats voted for this bill. The bill passed 349-62.

Abstained. Hmm....Isn't that a little like voting PRESENT? Why yes. It is.

Who knows why Cooper abstained, but clearly he has his own agenda and isn't concerned about poor children or families.

Tennessee Republicans voted against it. Perhaps Cooper was trying to push Barack Obama's "unity" agenda by not taking a position!

"I just think it's government at its worst, Gov. Bredesen (Democrat) said of the Bush administration move. "I was not pleased with our delgation's response," he said.

Tennessee Republican US Reps Zach Wam, David Davis, John Duncan and Marsha Blackburn all voted no.

US. Rep Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) abstained. The other four Democratic House members voted for the measure, which the US Senate has yet to act on.

There is no word on why Rep. Cooper abstained. A Cooper spokesman did not return a telephone call Friday afternoon.

Published: Thursday, April 24, 2008
House blocks Bush Medicaid cuts

The House voted Wednesday to block the Bush administration from cutting federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13 billion over the next five years. President Bush has threatened a veto, but supporters have more than enough votes in the House to override him, and maybe in the Senate, too.

Two thirds of the Republicans joined every voting Democrat in the 349-62 vote to impose a one-year moratorium, through next March, on seven rules changes that the administration argues are needed to rectify waste and abuse.

- Los Angeles Times

http://www.silobreaker.com/DocumentReade r.aspx?Item=5_849794048

Where Tennessee's Superdelegates Stand:

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ article?AID=/20080427/NEWS0206/804270398 /1009

by Tennessean 2008-04-27 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Not a Progressive, Never Was

So your point is that he's hired conservative Dems to help him win? Any reason why?  You seem to think it's because he agrees with them.  I'm from IL, I know his record. He's FAR LEFT. Not a little left. That's his liability. Check his 100 percent ratings on choice related issues by both NARAL and NOW. This is just one topic sure to come up in the general, but he's been against parental notification laws and late term restrictions.  

Seriously, do take a look at his record. He's moved to the center since being elected to the US Senate, but over his career, his vulnerability is being too liberal.

You're simply mistaken.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Green Obama

According to Obama on Fox Sunday, one of the Republicans' superior ideas is they way they approach regulation.  Here's a great quote from the green Obama.  Re:  regulation of corporate America:  "Let them figure out how they want to reduce pollution."

(Keep those foxes in the henhouse!)

by moevaughn 2008-04-27 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Green Obama

Obama wants businesses to decide based on caps enforced with a carbon tax. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/pol itics/09obama.html?ex=1349668800&en= e8ed2cf46750586b&ei=5124&partner =permalink&exprod=permalink

This is just Obama being a smart pol. He's wooing swing voters and comes off sounding like he's Ronald Reagan. His actual policy (which will eventually be used to call him a tax & spend liberal) needs to be blunted by putting the best spin on it. Notice he didn't lie at all. Under Obama's plan the companies can choose to PUT out MORE CO2 if they wish...however they'd have to pay for it. It's basically an excise tax on carbon emissions and a good look at how Obama views government.

Obama was a civil rights attorney. As a civil rights lawyers he tries to find solutions short of government prohibition in favor of tax-based incentives. Much like his health care philosophy.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: smart pol

I thought Sen. Obama was above politics as usual?  His vote on 2005 energy bill could be another example of his "smart politics", but environmentalists don't seem to agree with him.

by moevaughn 2008-04-27 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: smart pol

I wouldn't presume he's a fake because of the energy bill. Here's his press release:  http://obama.senate.gov/press/050729-_ob ama_says_energy_bill_helps_/index.php

Maybe he's full of it. I don't know the guy personally. As an Illinoisan, it looks to me more like a pork laden, bring home the bacon to Illinois vote than anything else. Arguably thats a bad deal. The midwest states love ethanol subsides and the FuterGen coal plant (I think it's on hold for now) is big for central IL, which has basically nothing going for it.

I'm not pleased with the vote, but it doesn't reek of being phony to me. Tort reform is the same way, I disagree with his vote on it, but there's a real case to be made to cap punitive damages in medical malpractice *while leaving pain and suffering, and consequential damages like loss of work and the like.  The failure of Dems to hold up the Bankruptcy reform act was a much bigger deal to me and I quickly looked for his name when I heard Dems caved. Thankfully it wasn't there, he voted against it. Hillary didn't vote at all, knowing it was radioactive, but she did help create the bill's 2001 version which passed the Senate.

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Green Obama

Cap and trade along with strong incentives for alternative energy is the best possible solution to the emissions problem, outside of very heavy-handed regulation that would hurt more Americans than help the environment. It's a tough question and it's not a perfect solution, but imagine this, sometimes the real free market (not the GOP's "free market") is the best way to arrive at an answer to a tough problem. A similar system was devised for emissions related to acid rain, and we don't seem to have that problem anymore.

by amiches 2008-04-27 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: best possible solution

Was Sen. Obama's vote on the 2005 energy bill another example of a best possible solution? Environmentalists don't seem to think so.

by moevaughn 2008-04-27 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: best possible solution

The important question is whether the Democrats were in a position to get a better bill in 2005. I think we know the answer to that question. I suspect Obama knew it was bad, got what he could out of it, and voted for it.

It's silly to use votes on big omnibus bills against legislators down the road, because they're really voting on about 31423415 different things. Now, authorizations of military force are another matter entirely...

by amiches 2008-04-27 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

Nice work Jerome.

They saw the real Obama today but those who did not "drink a silo of kool aid" saw him a long time ago.

Clinton is the obvious choice.

by gotalife 2008-04-27 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

If you think gross misrepresentation is "good work."

by spectator consumer 2008-04-27 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript
...attempt to change the rules midway through the game...

I don't know how a Clinton supporter can seriously type those words and not have their head explode.  It just boggles my mind.
by ChrisKaty 2008-04-27 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I agreed with almost everything Obama said including finding other solutions for our pathetic educational system and if that means including more charter schools(hey all you naysayers, read up on the ridiculous Clayton County School fiasco in GA if you think public schools are so perfect).

However, Obama should be embarassed by his capital gains views. He seems to waver on this with no definitive philosophy. I did like his answer on taxes. Now he should emphasize that lower taxes for the under 75K bracket on the campaign trail.

by Pravin 2008-04-27 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

and what about those between 75K and 200K?

I can tell you, in MA, 150K is middle class for a family of four.  Not upper, not lower.

There are many places like that in the US.  One of the problems I have with tax breaks and tax increases is that it doesn't look at the region one lives in.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-27 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

This guy passes for a "progressive"? Wow, if the general election is McCain v. Obama, it's not going to be a good  year for "progressives" then.

by zcflint05 2008-04-27 03:14PM | 0 recs
As an Obama supporter...

I don't think it was wrong for him to go on with Wallace, mostly because I think Wallace might be one of the only moderating voices at Fox News on Obama's behalf so I'd wanna be nice to him.

That being said I was VERY disapointed he didn't take Fox to task for basically lying their asses off about him for months and months. Other than not making this VERY KEY POINT, he did an okay job.

by wiretapp 2008-04-27 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript

I got no problem with Blog-Nation taking a run at Obama, intentionally or ignorantly spreading misinformation and lies about his positions.

When a guy like Jerome does it (and he certainly knows better!) it's beyond discouraging.  I'll ask again--are you on the payroll?  C'mon, spill!  Spill!

PS - I know Obama's not perfect, I'm not pretending he is.  He is going to be the nominee, however, and it's just plain stupid to continue denigrating his candidacy.  I've NEVER been derogatory about Clinton, no matter how many opportunities she's given.

by Ray in AK 2008-04-27 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Fox transcript
"there are a lot of liberal commentators who think I'm too accommodating" (to Republicans).
Haven't we seen enough of the Republican concept of regulation? "Republicans have been the party of ideas for the past 10 to 20 years"?
Obama keeps telling us how much of a typical centrist candidate he is, pandering to conservatives. He makes no secret of it, but his supporters won't hear it. They are in denial. Some admit that they are willing to vote for a President on faith; you'll see, he only said these things to get elected , but he'll turn out to be a real progressive. Not good enough. I do hope he would be more progressive in foreign affairs than we have seen since Carter, but that is speculation based on little, and, alas, he's already said we have a "sacred" commitment to Israel.
Both Obama and Clinton need to be grilled on civil liberties, surveillance, presidential powers, torture, pre-emptive war, etc., but the media are not going to do it.
by DeanOR 2008-04-27 08:56PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads