Barack Obama, within 72 hours, has taken the words of CIA agent outer Robert Novak as gospel while echoing debunked stories about the Clintons.
What gives? Be smarter. Especially now.
Breaking News
Comcast Close To Buying NBC
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Topics
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
I wasn’t impressed by that either. Personally, I think he should have either laughed off the story, or went after Novak.
I haven’t followed this closely but what’s Obama been doing the past week or so? He’s made several seemingly obvious misstep.s
Atrios says that anyone that wants to be president is truly insane this go around and I thought he was referring to the Republicans. But I’m not so sure.
I have been the odd man out on this for the longest time, but I will say again:
Obama is DLC to the bone. Perhaps he was better as a state senator, but he’s a worse triangulator than either Clinton ever was and I do not trust that he will not sell us out.
Did you openly come out for HRC yet? You are so obviously carrying water for her. This is going to help Obama – just wait and see.
“Did you openly come out for HRC yet? You are so obviously carrying water for her. This is going to help Obama – just wait and see.”
Don’t say, “just wait and see.” Explain why it will help Obama, otherwise you are just carrying water for your guy.
The fact that Novak’s story was clearly not credible will now hurt Obama.
And toting Republican water in a Democratic primary won’t help either. I’m starting to wonder if Obama is even running for Vice Presidential nominee.
And no, I’m not in Clinton’s camp either (I’m a Kucinich supporter), but I’m being realistic.
Obama’s not necessarily my guy – there is much about Edwards I like – but this is what he needed – to show some fire. Listen, I’d be the last one to apologize for Novak as some sort of responsible journalist, but the guy does have sources and connections, and I think there is something to this. Obama needed to show undecided voters he’s ready to play hardball too and defend himself, and it has made me more open to voting for him. As to this “DLC to the bone” riff, how can you suggest he’s more Clintonian than a Clinton? That’s like Eugene McCarthy in 1968 saying he was more like JFK than RFK was – it won’t wash for any average voter. Hillary is taking everything from the 90s playbook and it is just tired.
Further, Clinton will try to make hay of Obama’s judgment on giving credence to the story, but he could just as easily point to her camp’s willingness to play footsie with Drudge, as has already been revealed.
Is it HRC I’m supposed to be a shill for this week? A couple weeks ago it was Obama, and a couple months ago, Sen. Edwards. Please get your story straight so I know who I’m supposed to be shilling for.
In the real world, Sen. Obama was stupid to accept on face value a poorly sourced Bob Novak story. Even for Novak’s b.s. the voices were murky. The retort that Clinton shouldn’t feed stuff to Drudge is ridiculous. Drudge is a right wing idiot but its also clear he’s a driver of news coverage. If a campaign can get something on Drudge, they’d be idiots not to do it.
My main issue with Sen. Obama is that I don’t know if he’s there with us up on that wall. I think he may be guilty of being too optimistic and thinking that his appeal to unity is 100% how the world is. Just as Sen. Clinton may have too hard of an edge on her, Sen. Obama may be too soft.
Thanks for your response. First off, I’ve never had a “story” on this blog before – you must be hearing other voices who’ve called you a shill. I just think you’d asked a bit back whether you should openly support a candidate, and since it seems obvious to me your sympathies are with HRC, that you should lay your cards on the table.
As to the “ridiculousness” of the Drudge comparison, how do you know that Obama isn’t using a right-wing mouthpiece the same way that the Clinton folks are. There is a lot of assumption about motives at work here. And I don’t see why you’re not troubled by the Drudge connection. To me he’s worse than Novak.
Maybe you’re right about the necessity of a bunker mentality. But I don’t see how that’s different from Obama defending himself, even if these are only “rumors of war.” This whole Clinton line of not accepting the Republican playbook is just B.S. That’s how Bill Clinton got elected and survived in a generally conservative era – use their ideas and tweak them – hence the third way.
And I just find HRC uninspiring. She may be most battle tested and vetted from the 90s, but she’s a lousy public speaker, and if appealing for unity is too idealistic, I don’t want to be part of the other brand of politics. It may gain small victories, but it breeds a cycle of recrimination. I’d rather focus on other ways to change the world.
And back to my earlier assertion that this will help Obama, I just think that people who read political blogs who are deeply concerned about the inside baseball of tactics and sword crossing with the Republican smear machine may already be predisposed to vote for Clinton. Is she really going to inspire new voters to give her a look? Obama has that capacity. Now this may or may not work in Iowa where the caucusing is apparently much more complex than stepping into a voting booth. But to use the pie chart analogy, he alone among the Dems has the capacity to expand the pie rather than just taking a larger slice. We’ll see – maybe it won’t matter in a caucus or a primary – maybe the same Democrats will vote as do most years. I’ve now thought and written about this too much and I’m going to shut up.
And to end a conciliatory note – in the name of unity – “carrying water” was probably an unfair characterization of your blog.
“And no, I’m not in Clinton’s camp either (I’m a Kucinich supporter), but I’m being realistic.”
Same here. Which means half of Kucinich’s supporters have posted in this thread.
“Thanks for your response. First off, I’ve never had a “story” on this blog before – you must be hearing other voices who’ve called you a shill.”
It’s not voices, it actually people. Different people think he’s a shill for different candidates.
You just accused me of shilling for Sen. Clinton while I’m undecided at this point. My top two are Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, but that doesn’t prevent me from praising them and critiquing them. I’m “sympathetic” to HRC because I think she’s a good leader with a tough as nails quality. I’m also sympathetic to Sen. Obama because I feel he has the ability to be a historic leader. I’m not supporting him this time, but I’m also “sympathetic” to Sen. Edwards. I think this idea that once you criticize someone you must be in favor of another candidate is bull. I also think its well within bounds to critique someone you are in favor of or one you aren’t. My belief is that the only net result that can come out of me pointing out what I see as a flaw in Sen. Obama’s campaign is if someone there sees what I wrote and corrects the problem = better Democrat.
I don’t think Dems should be trusting of what outlets like Novak, Drudge or Fox put out, period, and they shouldn’t use those reports to attack fellow Dems. But if a campaign needs to get their message out, I don’t see why they don’t use whatever they have. Should Sen. Obama find a way to get stuff on Drudge, he should totally do it. Of course Drudge is gonna savage any Dem who gets in the WH. So what? That’s why we’ve got a huge and thriving blogosphere and institutions like where I work and CAP to name a couple.
Choosing your candidate based on how you think others view them is a fool’s game Democrats keep playing. How about you pick the one you like the most and think will fight for you? That’s why I’m in favor of Clinton and Obama, I think they both fit that criteria in different ways. But I’m not excluding one based on their lack of appeal to some mythical voter. Go with your gut.