What a lovefest!

He clearly needs FOX to get in the tank too.

Let's see now if the snakes retract their venom for Clinton after she went to Mellon-Scaife.

Obama's no dummy. He's kicked into general election mode in the last few days, and this is a good step in that direction. Reaching out to moderate Republicans, dispelling the fear that they have of him, and presenting himself as a sound and reasonable voice of pragmatism. I was actually hoping he wouldn't "go after" Fox, and was impressed by the tone he struck with Wallace. Interviews like this will help him in the general.

I'm not sure how this "helps" Fox. It's not like Obama is cutting commercials talking about how "fair and balanced" they are.

My guess is that Obama was prepared to strike back if the interview became confrontational, but it never did. Chris Wallace actually sounded sane and reasonable; in that context, if Obama were suddenly to launch into an anti-Fox rant, he would look churlish.

Besides, Obama's whole image is to air his disagreement forcefully but respectfully. It's the other candidate who believes in scorched-earth warfare.

"Obama turned in a perfectly solid performance. He probably succeeded in making a positive impression on many voters he might otherwise not have reached"

the man has repeatedly said he is running for President of the UNITED States of America

And proved that once again today

I hope (and suspect) that off camera Obama not-so-subtly implied that "you need me now, you'll need me once I'm in office, and I won't oblige unless you stop with the BS."

Fox's ratings have been slipping and by November the network won't be getting all the friendly exclusives from the executive branch. If the president and his/her subordinates completely ignore a news channel it's screwed. I'm sure they'll continue to be slanted right in a disgusting way, but even the wingnuts will tune out if it seems Fox is screaming at an empty sea.

If Obama offered such an ultimatum, I think he played it perfectly--secure more reasonable coverage in the future without alienating voters. That still doesn't explain the advisor's comment, though.

i would have very much enjoyed BO giving FOX a rhetorical whipping, but our side occassionally seems as if it doesn't know how to modulate tone and only knows the most aggressive posture imaginable.

BO had as much to gain by going into the lion's den of republican propaganda and coming out unscathed as FOX had to lose by being thoroughly whooped like BC did during the whole Path to 9/11 non-sense. lets remember that the "take 'em on" talk came out before the interview and likely shaped the tone of the interview - sort of a heidelberg effect.

the question is how this will shape their ongoing coverage>

This will likely further dismay liberal bloggers who had worked very hard to get Dems to boycott Fox as a way of deligitimizing...

So are you saying you are NOT a liberal blogger?

What a negative post. No, he didn't "take on Fox" but he didn't have to do that today. I actually thought Chris Wallace was relatively fair. And Obama handled the interview very well.

Obama has had problems with working class whites who may watch Fox News Sunday. For those that did, I think they left with a more favorable impression of Obama.

The prize is the White House and the subsequent programs that Obama will hopefully be able to pursue as President. Lets not lose too much focus here.

I really don't know what would have constituted "taking Fox on" or how it would in any way help him. It seems to me that all he would have achieved by yelling at Wallace, or any other such talk, would have allowed Fox to portray him as "angry black man," or "whining about the media," and on and on. I haven't seen the interview yet but I'm sure he did what he always does and came across as cool and collected. That's one of his greatest assets, something that would certainly not be underscored if he went off on an anti-Fox rant.

I as much as anyone here would like to see Hannity or O'Reilly totally owned, but Obama is not the one to do it right now.

Basically,

I don't care. I don't care I don't care I don't care.

I just want the nomination set and the clintons to go away.

Hey look over there - Bush was conducting the Marine Band last night!

Well, I knew he would not take them on and reach out to the other Dems he knows he needs to win.

I doubt this intended audience drank the kool aid but at least he tried.

Also, I give him credit for not playing the race card and putting that disgusting tactic to bed. KO is a piece of crap and the worst person in the world.

But playing the victim in Wrightgate is laughable.

Victim? OMG, how pathetic?

Can I ask an OT question?

I got a card from Bev Harris - Black Box Voting.

I gave her some money in '04. Then I heard that Bev isn't really credible and the org isn't credible.

Anyone know for sure?

By going on Fox Obama swatted an annoying bug buzzing in his ear and looked calm and reasonable doing so. In less than two weeks he has a very real chance of sweeping two delegate rich states. Hillary fans are biting there fingernails as we speak. She's as close to elimination as she's ever been.

Hillary Clinton was pilloried on this website for meeting with Richard Mellon-Scaife. Josh Marshall bemoaned the fact that he had defended the Clintons against the Mellon-Scaifes in the 90s and seemed to imply that somehow he was owed something from the Clintons for such defenses (dunno I thought we were defending the Democrats in the 90s, and that it wasn't just about the Clintons; guess we should have gone along with the impeachment).

So now Obama goes on FOX. I think he should go on FOX and other networks. This is America and we are in an election. But it does give this Clinton loyalist a bit of a chuckle to see Senator Obama breaking bread with Chris Wallace and, in classic Washingtonese, trying to show how he doesn't think the GOP folks are all that bad. The chuckle becomes almost a giggle when I juxtapose Obama's politically-correct appearance on FOX with what has turned out to be an innaccurate representation by the Obama campaign, namely that he would take Chris Wallace on. Fact is, Obama did no such thing, and the fact is, he did the right thing politically this morning, which is what a politician is supposed to do.

And now we have some Obama right or wrongers who turn my giggle into a downright LOL, to the extent that some are trying in this thread to suggest that "taking on" FOX doesn't mean what it means (like what the definition of is is :)).

And, finally we have folks like our own angry Texan, the incorrigible Tena, who is just sick of it all and just wants to be rid of the Clintons. That's all she wants, dispose of 'em. Well angry Tena, worry not, it's all over if Obama wins Indiana. That's all he has to do. . .win Indiana and it's all over. Stay tuned.

One problem with this interview is that polls are showing that the people least likely to vote for Obama are the people who most frequently attend religious services. And guess who was least likely to be watching Fox on Sunday morning.

Stoller's post was snark, is the way I took it.

From Frank Rich's column in teh NYT this morning:

"...But as the doomsday alarm grew shrill, few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn’t just tell pollsters they would defect from their party’s standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party’s nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama.

Those antiwar Paul voters are all potential defectors to the Democrats in November. Mr. Huckabee’s religious conservatives, who rejected Mr. McCain throughout the primary season, might also bolt or stay home. Given that the Democratic ticket beat Bush-Cheney in Pennsylvania by 205,000 votes in 2000 and 144,000 votes in 2004, these are 220,000 voters the G.O.P. can ill-afford to lose. Especially since there are now a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania. (These figures don’t even include independents, who couldn’t vote in either primary on Tuesday and have been migrating toward the Democrats since 2006.) ..."

These Ron Paul voters are leaning to Obama. I've talked to a number of their organizers here, and they respect him as an honest man, like their hero Ron. They know Paul doesn't have a chance, and they don't like the mainstream Republicans McCain now represents.

Wouldn't it be nice to bring them into the tent, into a new coalition that's large enough to start battering down the corporate welfare state that Bush has enabled?

HRC cannot win the Democratic nomination at this point, any more than GWB was elected president in 2000. I can understand that for her supporters that the fact that its possible with enough rules changes and selective vote counting she could be declared the winner of a tie, means we should go ahead and see what her powerful SD friends can pull off for her. I will not glorify what happened in 2000 by saying that its ok to "win" that way now.

HRC supporters who still claim she can "win" MUST BY DEFINITION agree with the SCOTUS deciding that 2000 election "for their guy". And no I DONT freaking agree with that. Over 4000 other Americans wish they still could disagree with that. Pathetic.

Forgot the link to Frank Rich's column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27rich.html?hp

Also, this observation is worth highlighting:

But the incessant praise for Mrs. Clinton’s resilience as a candidate by Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan and William Bennett reveals just how eager they are to take her on. The dealings of the Bill Clinton post-presidency, barely alluded to by Mr. Obama in his own halting bouts of negative campaigning, have simply been put on hold while the Democrats slug it out. Close observers of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and Fox News can already read Rupert Murdoch’s tea leaves, and not just those from China. “Clinton Foundation Secrets” was the title of The Journal’s lead editorial on Friday profiling a rogues’ gallery of shady donors.

Mrs. Clinton’s supporters would argue that she’s so battle-tested she could fend it all off. She’s unlikely to get the chance. For all the nail-biting suspense being ginned up, the probable denouement remains unchanged. When the primary juggernaut finally ends — following picturesque day trips to Puerto Rico and Guam — the superdelegates will likely succumb to the math of Mr. Obama’s virtually insurmountable pledged-delegate total.

Just a guess, because I didn't watch Obama on Fox, but based on how Obama operates, my guess is that he answered the questions in an intellectual way, deciding he would look better if he just looked noble and above it all.

My other guess is that since Fox is enemy territory and it has gone after Obama vigorously, Obama should have been stronger. The chances of him picking up votes from the Fox viewers are far lower than the chance of further erosion of Democratic and Independent respect. Consider what we learned from the ABC debate. What was thought to be Obama's invincible, laid-back intellectual approach turned out to be "vincible". If you want to change politics into something more high-minded, you have to first win the election, and that still requires someone who can be intellectual AND a street fighter.

Your hero thinks deregulation and other gop failures are a good idea :

Read this and get to know him better:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/transcript-obama-on-fns/

Could TPM/Election Central PLEASE do something about its login system?

I am constantly having to reset passwords because even when I am logged in your system does prompts for a password and then says it is invalid.

.

Greg,

Your weak and knee-jerk attempts to justify this post (by way of arguing with bloggers who disgaree with you and by your so called 'updates') is truly pathetic.

Thanks HussienTenaX

That used to work, but now it does not for me.

This is the silliest spin I have seen from you yet.

Senator Obama modeled reasoned, civil discourse this morning. He's bringing about change by leading by example. It doesn't fit with the pattern of politics as usual, and therefore comes as a jolt to those accustomed to the adrenalin of sensationalism. He's courageously maintaining his integrity, and by doing so effecting change already.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Obama talks tough and then plays the compliant, non-aggressive sock puppet. Perhaps he didn't want to appear uppity.

Smackdown!

Lots of self appointed know it all's on this site, and rude. What happened to civil discord?