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?



Display:


Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

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


by baghdadjoe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:15:10 AM EST

Is this sarcasm? (2.00 / 15)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe a different O supporter? (2.00 / 1)

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


by Southern Mouth on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:39:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ObamaDINO (none / 0)

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

***A


by adrienne4dean on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:42:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this sarcasm? (2.00 / 2)

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.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:22:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah that has to hurt (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't count your chickens n/t (none / 0)


by adrienne4dean on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't count your chickens n/t (none / 0)

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.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:05:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's not going to work kiddo (none / 0)

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


NC, a victory for the politics of division.
by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's not going to work kiddo (none / 0)

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


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:20:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this sarcasm? (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this sarcasm? (none / 0)

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


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Be not confused on this. FAUX supports Hillary. (none / 0)

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


by dystopianfuturetoday on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be not confused on this. FAUX supports Hillar (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this sarcasm? (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 2)

Scruples on the other hand...


Who needs FL when you have IDAHO? Fast forward to November: I told you so.
by Caldonia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:44:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (1.80 / 5)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:15:44 AM EST

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:20:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

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


by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:23:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Amazing (2.00 / 6)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amazing (2.00 / 0)

getting less prominent by the day


by jadegirl on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amazing (none / 0)

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


by KevinT on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've lost your mind. (none / 0)

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.


"Yo soy un Clintonista"
by LatinoVoter on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've lost your mind. (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please site me (none / 0)

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


"Yo soy un Clintonista"
by LatinoVoter on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:35:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please site me (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please site me (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:48:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How or when did she campaign (none / 0)

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.


"Yo soy un Clintonista"
by LatinoVoter on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How or when did she campaign (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're obviously mentally (none / 0)

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.


"Yo soy un Clintonista"
by LatinoVoter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're obviously mentally (none / 0)

"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 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:07:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 3)

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?

Yes

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 8)

Sure, thats the second or third revision, lol.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:56:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

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


by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:08:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 0)

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


by matchles on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the show us previous revisions please (2.00 / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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


by amiches on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:10:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 0)

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


by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:00:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

Hacktastic as always, nice answer though really, nice.


by Socraticsilence on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 6)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 4)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In other words, (2.00 / 6)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:59:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In other words, (2.00 / 1)

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


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In other words, (2.00 / 3)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

enlighten us please (none / 0)

what DID he mean?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: enlighten us please (1.00 / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In other words, (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In other words, (none / 0)

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


by Socraticsilence on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 2)

Everyone thought that's what he meant.

Oh well. I guess that settles everything, then.


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:48:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 3)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

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


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on. (2.00 / 5)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:59:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on. (2.00 / 1)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here you go. (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here you go. (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 3)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oops, (2.00 / 1)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

right... (2.00 / 1)

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


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But, but, but...WORDS MATTER (none / 0)

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


by CoyoteCreek on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

"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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WORM What Obama Really Meant. (none / 0)


by CoyoteCreek on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 2)

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


by Montague on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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


by NJ Liberal on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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.)


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:56:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:10:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:55:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:09:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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.


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:42:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The nominee will be chosen at the convention. (none / 0)

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


Hillary Who?
by Kobi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:45:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (1.81 / 11)

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.


Eyes on the Prize: Hillary 08
by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:22:01 AM EST

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 4)


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.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 7)

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.


Eyes on the Prize: Hillary 08
by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

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.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can't know Clinton's thoughts (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with your completely. (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:43:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 8)

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.


Eyes on the Prize: Hillary 08
by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (none / 0)

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

/snark

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 4)

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.


Eyes on the Prize: Hillary 08
by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:56:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

Bob,

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:11:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

Photobucket


by obamaforprez on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 2)

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


Eyes on the Prize: Hillary 08
by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

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


by vcalzone on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 3)

map,

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.


Eyes on the Prize: Hillary 08
by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 1)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well thank you for (2.00 / 1)

you fact supported opinion.

Now please include links to some facts.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:46:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

60 percent is IMPOSSIBLE. (2.00 / 1)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 9)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:34:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 3)

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 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 6)

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.


survived and escaped from the orange sewer.
by emsprater on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:56:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The world (2.00 / 1)

is not black in white.

I have republican friends who are good and kind people


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The world (2.00 / 4)

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.


survived and escaped from the orange sewer.
by emsprater on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I see (2.00 / 1)

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?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 4)

Yes - not all Centrists are members of the DLC.

And oh my - Obama threw DailyKos under the bus!!
but most likely, it won't be noticed at DK.


by JoseyJ on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Fox transcript (2.00 / 3)

"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?


Who needs FL when you have IDAHO? Fast forward to November: I told you so.
by Caldonia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]