Live Mics Capture Noonan and Murphy Mocking Palin Pick

[Cross-Posted on Why We Need Obama]

I have a certain voyeuristic love for these surreptitiously captured "live mic" moments, where a commentator doesn't know they're on the air but the audio gets captured anyway.

The video below has a gem of a "live mic" moment that captures NBC commentator Chuck Todd, conservative commentator Peggy Noonan and former McCain campaign manager Mike Murphy mocking McCain's pick of Sarah Palin.  Here are a couple of nice lines:

Todd: Is she really the most qualified woman?

Noonan: The most qualified?  No.   I think they went for this -- excuse me -- political bullshit about "narratives". Every time Republicans do that, they blow it.

Murphy: You know what's really the worst thing about it?  The greatness of McCain is "No Cynicism"...

Todd: ... And this is cynical; and, as you call it "gimmicky".


There's more...

So Who Is This Bill Ayers??

By Uppity at No Quarter:

So who is Bill Ayers, you ask? Nobody in particular if you are an Obama Fan. I mean Obama Rocks!!!! Yes We Can!! I mean all Ayers was is just the leader of the terrorist group the Weather Underground in the '70s. Ohhhhhhhhhh pooh pooh, Obama fans say! That's a longggggg time ago!!! Barack was 8 years old! Ayers is a nice guy now! He hasn't blown anything up lately or anything! Stop bothering our Messiah! All Ayers did was bomb a few buildings, right? Let's give him another chance! I mean so what if he helped Barack with his campaigns. Lay off the guy!

No.

I won't lay off the guy. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (now married to Ayers) were two of the most infamous domestic terrorists ever to be allowed to continue to walk the earth in America, thanks to a screw up in the surveillance. But that didn't stop Ayers from bragging on what he did.

"i don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough"
-Bill Ayers, September 11, 2001

Continue reading here...

There's more...

The Wright Experience

[This and other Obama-focused thoughts are available and archived on http://blog.HopeAgainstTheMachine.com]

Many people ask me what I think about the Reverend Wright clips, and how they affect Obama's candidacy.

I think that Obama -- like most of us -- takes the good with the bad with people who he associates with. And, like most of us, he develops relationships on the commonalities, and tends not to focus on the areas where there are disagreements or incompatibilities. And, thanks to his relationship with Reverend Wright, Obama has developed a set of invaluable skills that we could only wish our current President had, and uniquely equip Obama to be an effective President of the United States of America.

I think that Wright is a complex, charismatic speaker who says incendiary things to make a rhetorical, emotional impact... but someone who also preaches some very inspirational, positive concepts like "The Audacity of Hope" -- an idea that Obama embraced and turned into a book and a campaign platform. Of course, we don't get exposed to never-ending sound-bites of his sermons about the Audacity of Hope... despite the fact that these positive messages were probably just as powerfully evangelized and staged. So, of Reverend Wright's two sides, his positive, inspirational were fully adopted by Obama, whereas his more troubling, negative views are nowhere to be found in or around Obama's campaign.

Honestly, if it weren't for Wright, I don't think Obama would have had the power and the confidence to become a serious presidential nominee.

Regarding Obama's judgment associating himself with Reverend Wright for 20 years, I think Obama decided he'd take the good along with the unsavory and negative. Obama used the good, inspirational aspects of Reverend Wright and took them to the next level with his own personal, positive charisma. The angry and negative aspects of Reverend Wright are clearly linked to the victimization and mistrust locked inside the older black community -- a era that Obama clearly understands, but did not experience first-hand. Obama relegates any victimization and venomous words to "the politics of the divisiveness" -- a type of politics that he is specifically running against in his campaign.

Obama acts as a bridge, if you will, between two defining generations. And just because a bridge links old, leftover anger to a new optimism does not mean the bridge is suspect. It's the responsibility of the bridge to enable each side to see one another, and providing a path from the old to the new. And for every problematic issue with Wright (be it his friendship with Louis Farrakhan or other unsavory aspects of his personality, style and rhetoric), I think Barack Obama has proven to America that we can trust his character -- that we can trust him to act as that bridge without being infected by the negative, hurtful aspects of the people he associates with.

Importantly, I think this relationship with Reverend Wright helps explain why Obama is so uniquely comfortable and confident in "speaking with our enemies" (i.e., Presidents of Iran and Syria). Think about it: In a way, dealing with a complex, polarizing individual like Wright may have provided Obama with the tools and experience needed to be in the presence of shocking speakers without being thrown off course by the distasteful rhetoric that America's enemies so often toss at us. And, more importantly, Obama seems to have developed the skills to find the good pieces in complex characters (including Wright), and act as an amplifier for the goodness in people, while subjugating the nastier bits to background noise. This is what great leaders do naturally. And this is how I believe Obama handled his relationship with Reverend Wright.

For instance, Obama clearly has the intellectual capacity to see the meat behind the rhetorical bones of phrases like "G-d Damn America." In this example, Reverend Wright linked that very phrase to the Bible, where it says in no uncertain terms, Thou Shalt Not Kill. The "G-d Damn America" phrase was specifically about damning America for bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese with two atom bombs in WWII. If nothing else, this is an interesting biblically-focused view into America's final acts during WWII -- a view that is counter to the culture of war that exists in America, yet should align well with the religious culture in America.

Drawing this parallel has its fans and detractors alike, but this was Reverend Wright's perspective on how America would be seen through the eyes of G-d based on his interpretation of the Ten Commandments. As a minister, that's actually his job. And as a minister in a church that serves an urban black community, theatrical phrasing and stagecraft are also considered to be part of the job.

I think Obama sees the complexity in what was behind this phrase, and like many reasonable people I know, would not be offended by the superficial emotional rhetoric. Like most, I think he would clearly be able to see through the throw-away rhetoric and actually be intrigued by the biblical viewpoint lying beneath the inflammatory words. I know that ever since I heard this sound bite, I have given thought to this alternative, non-mainstream viewpoint. I don't fully buy into it, but it has served to broaden my perspective of history from what is traditionally taught in high school. I think we would all benefit if we were open to more than one perspective, even if one of these perspectives was wrapped in a venomous context simply to create an emotional impact.

Too often, we find our current leaders reacting to rhetoric (i.e., Saddam saying he has WMDs, Achmadinijad calling America the Great Satan, Putin saying America is not a democracy, etc.) instead of understanding that the rhetoric is designed to serve an emotional purpose. The real meaning behind much of this posturing needs to be mined from beneath the emotional words and phrases. To this point, I think this country needs a President who can see past the packaging of sometimes unseemly rhetoric, and yet still be open to the underlying messages within.

Imagine a President that does not overreact to angry rhetoric, but looks between the lines for opportunities for negotiation. Imagine a President that can understand that a foreign leader can have both really bad and really good sides, and actually has the patience and demeanor to find the good sides of otherwise troubling characters, and amplify those positive areas to push progress. Imagine a President who seeks out the good where, on the surface, there only looks like trouble. Imagine where we'd be today as Americans if our current President was so lucky to have learned how to deal with complex people and complex situations better. Imagine where we'd be today if our current President did not hastily over-react to charismatic leaders who spout unseemly things just to make a point or to stoke an emotional response.

If Obama can sniff out the good in Reverend Wright and leave the ugly behind as excess baggage, perhaps President Obama would make our nation's foes famous for the good things they mean, and relegate the bad things they say to the footnotes of history.

There's more...

Is this enough Policy for you?

Many Clinton supporters here at MYDD, and elsewhere, have parroted two talking points that Clinton loves using against Obama.

1.) He is all rhetoric and no policy
2.) He lacks the experience necessary to lead

Read this speech, delivered today, regarding our policies and the War in Iraq.

http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of-oba mas-iraq-speech/

If, after reading this speech you can honestly say that you still buy the anti-Obama talking points than good for you. I would venture to say that anyone who can say that either hasn't read it or doesn't really care though. And that just isn't intellectually honest.

There's more...

Judgment [UPDATE]

Much of Barak Obama's candidacy has so far been based on his perceived superior judgment, especially with regards to the Iraq war vote. While he is not shy about pointing out that he would not have voted for the war authorization act, it is important to note that he was never in any position to have to make a clear stand, backed up by a vote. This is Monday-morning quarterbacking, but it is a valid distinction. Point for Obama...but the general question of judgment is not so clear. This week's admissions by Obama's campaign still leave many questions still to be answered.

With regards to his involvement with Tony Rezko, on Friday the Obama campaign admitted that Rezko "might" have been responsible for bringing in as much a $250K to Obama's previous campaigns. While they obviously tried to bury this new revelation in the Friday news dump, it still raises the question about what they knew about Rezko's fundraising, and when they knew it. Obama himself cited this as a lapse in judgment as reported by AP:

"This is an area where I can see sort of a lapse in judgment, where I could have said 'No, I'm not sure that's a good idea."http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/O BAMA_REZKO?SITE=MALOW&SECTION=HOME&a

mp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

On top of that we have reports this week, however many years old they may be, of his Pastor's controversial comments on race and politics. But how many years ago these comments were made is a major point here. If Obama has been involved with this man for almost 20 years, how likely is it that he has no idea that comments like this were being made. On KO last night, he said that he had never heard those comments while he was "in the pews". Fine, no one should question the accuracy of that, but I have the feeling that many news organizations are now looking for tape of other statements that he made while Obama was "in the pews". Again, the question of judgment has to be brought up. I find it less than credible that Obama had no idea that someone who married him, baptized his children, and served as his spiritual guide and "brought him to Christ" had no idea about his other, more controversial views. If one assumes that he was aware, then where was his judgment? I applaud him for distancing himself from the latest set of controversial remarks that are at issue now, but why now, and why not longer ago? Obama knew over a year ago that these comments might come back to be an issue, but only now took a definitive stance on the Pastor's views, now that it is politically necessary to do so.  I think that Lynn Sweet had it right in pointing out that Obama has political conversions when it is convenient for him. http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/ sweet_column_obamas_politicall.html#more

Update after the jump.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------