Senior Obama Adviser: Obama Will "Take Fox On" In Appearance This Sunday
A senior Obama adviser vows that he will "take Fox on" when he appears on the network this Sunday, though it's unclear yet just how.
Obama's decision to go on Fox News has prompted a lot of discussion about the Illinois Senator's relationship with Rupert Murdoch and whether Obama is trying to "court" the media mogul in advance of the general election.
It's also been met with some dismay in the blogosphere, where folks had worked hard to push Dems to boycott Fox as a way of snuffing out whatever is left of the network's credibility.
But how do Obama and his advisers view this? What do they have to say about it?
The senior Obama adviser insists that Obama is under no illusions about Fox and what it represents, and that this isn't about courtship at all, and vows a confrontational approach on Sunday.
Here is what the adviser IM-ed me about this today:
We are clear-eyed about Fox's role in the dissemination and amplification of Republican talking points this election. They have been the tip of the spear when it comes to repeatedly broadcasting some of the most specious of rumors about Obama. He is going on their Sunday show to take Fox on, not because we have any illusion about their motives or politics in this election.
The Obama adviser declined to detail how he'd be taking on Fox. But if Obama does this, it could end up playing to his advantage. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Comments (185)
The MSM will run the clips of Obama "lashing out" or "attacking FOX", just as they did when Clinton was on with Chris Wallace.
I fail to see any up side to this approach.
April 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a talented politician. If he's going on Fox, he must be fairly confident he can hold his own. After the last debate, perhaps he's looking for something akin to a do-over.
I've got faith in him. I'm a little scared, but looking forward to it.
April 25, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember when Clinton took on Wallace before the elections in 2006? The Dem base rallied to his defense. I see Obama attempting something similar.
April 25, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? Bill Clinton's "lashing out" was lauded by Dems at the time. Although, him doing the same thing towards the Obama campaign has been has been pretty Obnoxious.
That said, I don't know if we'll really see him "Lash out". He's not someone who enjoys verbal confrontation at all.
April 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, I was saying the Dems rallied around Bill.
This is a smart move by Obama. Smack a Republican in the face and let your base see you do it.
April 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, I was saying the Dems rallied around Bill.
This is a smart move by Obama. Smack a Republican in the face and let your base see you do it.
April 25, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Results Now Posted Instantly! Barack Obama In the Lead!
Like It? Don't Like It? Vote.
April 25, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Illinois Senator's relationship with Rupert Murdoch and whether Obama is trying to "court" the media mogul in advance of the general election." EXCUSE ME?? Now he has a "relationship" with Murdoch because he is doing an interview?? I love that Obama always has a "relationship" with everyone he ever meets, or to anyone who is known by someone he talks to. Seriously? His relationship with Murdoch?? "Courting" Murdoch because he is doing an interview with one of his media outlets??? What kind of bullshit journalism is this TPM??
Hey, maybe you should take a look at the fact Murdoch has personally contributed more money to Hillary Clinton than ANY OTHER POLITICIAN, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. If you want to try to stretch "relationships" and "courting" start there. I'm sick of people trying to tie everyone on the planet to Obama for every single thing he does. Next Obama will be asked to apologize for everything Bill O'Reilly says because of his "relationship" with Murdoch.
I'm disgusted..
April 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, where is the Clinton response to his upcoming appearance? You have their response for everything else.
I'll save you the time:
"For a man who wants change, Barack is appearing on the very network that is synonymous with George Bush and his party. This calls into question his judgment and ability to be a leader, as I have NEVER appeared on the Fox News network. Barack should be ashamed. We don't think he's a closet muslim republican, as far as we know."
April 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still not convinced this is a good idea.
Chris Wallace did give the Fox Morning Renfros a good smacking the other day...
The ABC debate was as bad as anything Fox could do, maybe it doesn't really matter if he goes on fox.
I wouldn't be surprised if video came out showing Hillary Clinton and Sean Hannity making out, so maybe Obama has to reach out tot the bottom feeders at fox, maybe he can't hand them to Hillary uncontested.
April 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you heard nisleib? Hillary is into girls. She has a lover named Huma Albedin. The LA Times is sitting on a story detailing the love match. DC is abuzz with this.
April 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please - I don't like Hillary but a female lover. It is more smut from the media.
April 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure does explain a lot about HRC. Gennifer Flowers writes in her book that Bill Clinton admitted as much about HRC getting more "love" from the girls than he did. Check out the Huff Post article "Hillary has a gay problem".
April 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not real big on his decision to go on Fox, but I'm willing to accept, begrudgingly, that Obama and some of the people working for his campaign MAY be smarter than me, and thus have thought this through and made the right move.
April 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Title of this post should be: "An Uncommited TPM Poster With Not So Bad Things to Say about Obama".
April 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the saying about insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting something different?
Obama will go on Fox News. No matter how reasonable, sensible, and compelling he is, Fox (and CNN, MSNBC) will pick the most unflattering snippet, and play that over and over and over again.
April 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC????? MSNBC is more pro-Obama than Fox News ever was pro-Bush. And that's saying an awful lot.
And to be realistic, every candidate has strengths and weaknesses, and in general one has to rely on the OPPOSITION to most fully explore a candidate's weaknesses.
That's why it's good whenever someone like Bush ventures over to Meet the Press instead of hiding on Fox News shows, and vice versa if someone like Obama ventures over to Fox.
I oppose Obama, but commend him for going over there. He isn't facing Bill-o or Hannity, but Wallace definitely won't be passionately moaning and sighing over Obama like Obama-mann or Matthews would at MSNBC.
April 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
maybe this is easy, folks.
he goes on fox, makes a stand against the bullshit foxnews, looks like a democratic fighter, and doesn't have to attack hillary to do so.
he just has to stay out of the mud as much as possible.
April 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
He'll be fine.
Fox will do their usual crap, but coming on the heels of the ABC debate, it should have a diminished effect. The story isn't as compelling the second time around.
April 25, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the schoolyard bully calls you out, you don't run away. Standing up is the only way to show them for who they are.
April 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, not long ago it was the Clintons who betrayed Dems by going on Fox. And just yesterday Fat Slob Uberman and his tedious gal thursday Madow were cluck cluck clucking over the very idea of any Dem going on Fox! Oh, the humanity!
Ooops! Guess they didn't get the memo...
For the rest of us it is just more proof, as if more were needed, of what a fraud Obama is.
A fraud and a liar, the ghetto hustler writ large.
And now that Wright is back in the news with a vengeance, this time blaming the media for his hate speech and blithely informing us that his boy Barack is just a politician saying what politicians have to say, well I guess Wright's a racist too!
Obama is going down. Thank god there are not enough AA and KosKids to give him the White House.
And if the Dems are suicidal enough to nominate him then the GE will be his grave and there will be dancing upon it.
Because best of all, the snot nosed progressives will be forced back into their loser closet for another eight years where they can get to work reorganizing their circular firing squad.
This is just beginning to get good!
April 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's ahead by every metric, so it must be more than KosKids and AA's.
Also, is "ghetto hustler" really necessary? You're post is vile and very immature.
April 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get used to it. This is standard JTHB fare. JTHB hasn't been around recently.
April 25, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
bitter much?
April 25, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with America and people like you is stupidity. I don't necessarily believe in executing idiots, but I think if we just took the warning labels off everything, people like you would be weeded out by natural selection.
April 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
O what a beautiful comment. I really wish I'd said it.
;)
April 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh five stars! Thank Dog I'd set my coffee down before reading that, else you'd owe me a keyboard!
April 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
HA! Cheers on that comment. The more I think about that, the more it makes sense.
April 25, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "proof" is flimsy, at best.
Because Obama is going on Fox, and yesterday Olbermann said that was a bad idea, Therefore Obama is a liar and a fraud.
Rev. Wright says assinine things to Bill Moyers, Therefore Obama is a liar and a fraud.
I'm convinced. Do I get my white hood now? Or maybe a rifle to shoot me some "snot nosed progressives"?
April 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Misogyny is back from self-imposed banishment.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/girl_in_hillary_red_phone_ad_d.php#comment-2669966
April 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"A fraud and a liar, the ghetto hustler writ large."
You know, as an African American, I've never considered ones fierce opposition to Obama's candidacy to be considered racism. Some honest and good people feel that he shouldn't come within the same zipcode of Pennsylvania Avenue. Of course that's fine. But more and more, like the comment that I'm responding to - some people are letting their anger with Obama expose their racism. Sad but true.
April 25, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing you just wrote makes any sense.
April 25, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a charmingly racist goon you are.
You might want to wipe the spittle off your chin before it drips on your white sheets.
April 25, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the ghetto hustler writ large"?
I hadn't really known what Princeton Law Review meant. Thanks for clearing that up.
P.S. Do you type one-handed or do you put the drink down and use both?
April 26, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well he SURE as heck is smarter than ME, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows exactly what he is doing . . .
April 25, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last sentence of Joe Klein's most recent Time article has been ringing around my brain since I read it this morning:
"But the presidency will not be won if he doesn't learn that the only way to reach the high-minded conversation he wants, and the country badly needs, is to figure out how to maneuver his way through the gutter."
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1734643,00.html
Maybe that's what our guy is doing with the upcoming Fox appearance. Like Mr. Loggins above, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt here that he knows what he is doing. I know writers like Maureen Dowd and Klein are not always tops with TPM readers, but I think they are spot on when they recognize from years of covering her that Clinton is a dirty fighter and that Obama has to find an effective way to counter this.
April 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between going on Fox and PRAISING Fox for their "fair and balanced" reporting.
I don't think he should do it, but to try and say that it is equivalent of what the Clinton campaign did is foolish.
April 25, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lets not forget that the reason to go on Fox is to have a chance to talk to the audience that Fox attracts. I don't believe a lot of them will suddenly flip to being Obamanoids, but don't see much of a downside to this.
After all, this will be just a couple of days after Rev. Wright's appearance on Moyer's show will have the cable Big Talking Heads all in a lather again, hunting for ratings. And Obama goes on Fox. That show's he's got guts, that he's anxious to talk to the Fox audience for a bit and is not above talking to them, and it shows that he's confident.
I encourage it.
April 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering when someone would make this point. The stereotypical FOX News viewer probably knows no more about Obama than what they see on FOX New. This will give him an opportunity to address that audience directly and in depth. I'm sure he's fully aware that he'll face the same tired, inane questioning that he faced in the last debate...and he'll be well prepared. And he may even win over some of the audience. My grandmother - a life long Republican, a Bush supporter and an avid FOX News viewer - told me early in the primary season (when there were still several Republican candidates in the race) that she would be voting for either McCain or Obama. She is exactly the kind of viewer he could benefit from reaching out to.
April 26, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope by, "take Fox on," they mean, "beat Chris Wallace around the head and neck with a sock full of ball bearings," but that's probably too much to hope for.
April 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the laugh.
April 25, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!
that gets my vote.
April 25, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya, that's very peaceful. Hit Chris Wallace with ball-bearings. What it is with some of you and violence?
April 27, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, good, I guess - maybe he'll actually get through to some of the idiots who watch Fox.
April 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep talking - I suppose bigotry & ignorance are easier to deal with when they're out in the open.
April 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless the interview is being broadcast live, Fox has complete control over what viewers will see, and they'll edit it to make it into hit job on Obama regardless of what he says. Standing up to a bully is one thing, but meeting the bully on his turf and giving yourself completely into his control is quite another. It makes no sense to expect that a Republican propaganda outlet will somehow produce something that helps Obama.
April 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point -- its the very reason that some public figures would not appear on camera for 60 Minutes.
April 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think this is some conspiracy by the Clinton folks and Fox News to smear Obama?
Anyone who is so utterly against Fox without watching it is utterly insane.
Fox News Sunday is one of the few shows I would consider to be fair, but it is. Better than Russert. So blinded are you by your hatred that you instantly hate someone because of an affiliation. You are no better than Rush Limbaugh.
April 27, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is being terribly naive. The "questions" will be long narrative "opening statements" such as:
"Sen. Obama, you have courted domestic terrorists like William Ayers for their political support. Ayers, of course, bombed American government builings, never repented, and on 9/11 said that the bombings did not go far enough. When questioned about Ayers in the last debate, you were very defensive and did not, in the eyes of many, renounce Ayers. In fact, you appeared to defend him by suggesting he was just a benign "English professor." Senator, do you regret your association with this domestic terrorist?"
By asking this kind of loaded question, the answer is almost irrelevant. How will he "take on" that kind of question -- if he answers it like he did in the deabte, the FOX headline is "Obama defends Ayers." If he attacks Wallace for having the temerity to ask the question, the FOX headline will be "Obama evades questions about ties to Ayers."
Get the point?
April 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or the question might simply be: "Mr. Obama, your political career began in 1995 in a meeting at the home of an unrepentant terrorist bomber whose only regret is not having done more damage. Many people view you as an unknown quantity, and are concerned about a pattern of such associations in your past. How would you respond to those people?"
April 25, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richmond, you are exactly right. Fox is interested in only one thing: taking down Obama, and they will literally stoop to anything to do it. Obama is nuts if he thinks he's going to get fair or impartial questions. All Fox needs is one line, one questionable syllable, and they will be talking about it and looping it for weeks. I don't care how smart Obama is, this appearance is a TERRIBLE idea.
April 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quit acting like a puss.
I thought your hero Shrillary said: "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
You are what people call a "Concern Troll."
And a piss-poor one at that.
Talk about naive.
April 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
B.N.
Thanks for yet another articulate and well-reasoned retort. Your posts invariably elevate the debate and, for that, we all owe you a debt of gratitude.
April 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Wallace is going to try to sandbag Obama with this stuff, and Obama and his people know it.
Wallace is the same guy that Bill Clinton completely and totally owned a couple years back. He's a loser. Obama can handle him.
April 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, sounds like the type of "loaded question" Terry Moran and David Gregory have been asking for the last decade.
April 28, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly think that inasmuch as Obama froze Fox out for quite some time for smearing him with the Madrassah lie, that Fox probably is willing to meet some of Obama's terms. The reason I think that is because I think Fox knows he's going to be president and they want access just like every other news org.
The campaign played Fox already - pretty thoroughly.
April 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point FOX needs Obama way more than Obama needs FOX. They are in a neck and neck battle for ratings with MSNBC and CNN.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/cnn%20and%20msnbc%20beat%20fox%20in%20ratings%20for%20pa%20primary_1066738
I really think this is a dangerous move though, I trust the Obama camp know what they are doing, but it seems like a risk.
April 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Giving a speech is a risk. Shaking hands in the crowd is a risk. Shooting hoops with the cameras rolling is a risk. Arguing with your wife is a risk. Getting icewater at a restaurant with a wedge of lemon is a risk. Mowing the grass is a risk. Reading these political blog comments is a risk.
Living is risky. But it's much better than the alternative.
I don't think going on Fox is any more of a risk than going through 22 so-called 'debates', or spending most of the past 15 months in an aluminum tube hurtling through the air at hundreds of miles an hour, and giving the same speech 500 times.
The Fox audience, last time I checked, also votes. In fact, they voted in large enough numbers the past two elections to put George Bush in the White House. I believe that a significant number of them now are deeply disturbed by what George Bush has done to us all, including out-of-control federal spending, the growth of federal bureaucracy, and the cynical imposition of a national security state under the excuse of some vague and scary-sounding threats. These are things we ALL ought to be thinking about, and it's more risky for Obama to ignore the opportunity any longer to have a chance to speak to this large audience.
Not going on would be more risky.
April 27, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this seems OK to me.
Obama has said that he will speak to people even when they disagree; tell them what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear. He can do this again with FOX.
Also, with the Indiana primary around the corner it might be a way to reach their voters. It is an open primary in a red state -- some of the Dem primary voters watch FOX.
I might even watch.
April 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is going down. Thank god there are not enough AA and KosKids to give him the White House."
Your robe is showing, scumbag.
April 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will do fine.
FOX will spin against him regardless of what he does.
The larger narrative for rational people will be:
Obama is not afraid to go into any neighborhood to speak for himself and promote his message.
April 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is afraid of debating HRC.
April 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's snark, right?
There have been 25 or so debates. Jeez.
April 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
21 debates already?
Even I'm bored with them.
More Clintonian spin.
Enjoy your last week and a half in the media sun.
It will all be over on May 6th win Obama wins both NC and IN.
April 25, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
April 25, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Relationship? Courting?
C'mon. We expect better from you guys.
April 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
IMHO, talking back to and "taking on" the media is not some capricious project -- it is indispensible for any Democrat who wants to win in November -- Obama can do it credibly.
Democrats have been complaining about Fox and their creepy cable cohorts for years -- be have to make a compelling argument to the American people that Fox (and CNN, etc.) shouldn't be controlling our political debates -- they are a central part of the corrupt, money-driven, gridlocked DC scene that Americans hate and want to change. They helped bring us Iraq, and there will be other disasters until we sweep them back to the margins where they belong.
April 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Guys and Gals,
Obama and DNC are close to creating joint fundraising entity:
http://thepage.time.com/obama-dnc-fundraising-deal/
Big news, bigger than a Clinton memo...ahem...
April 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
OOooooooo - that is big news. And it's real news, like you said.
April 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that Obama is trying to egg on Fox to ask character questions (lies, hate, racism, patriotism) in hopes to turn these around. I actually hope they do as they'll hand him his head on a platter. His free pass as a Black candidate who people hesitate to criticize for fear of being labeled racist has its limits. Obama has had his 15-minutes of the audacity to shove racism, hate, unAmerican views, and lies upon the public. While it continues to feed the left-wing Obama Cult, I think he seriously underestimates that the rest of America is increasingly seeing him for what he is. Fox is least likely to accept what he spews and has an audience, small though it may be, to answer to.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 25, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feel better?
April 25, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You defeat any possiblity of being taken seriously with this kind of crap.
So Obama supporters are racist, america haters...hmmmm, ok.
I am giving up asking you to stop posting your website in favor of just asking you to stop posting altogether.
Please, allow me to take back the three minutes I spend responding to you each day, so I do something productive like write some anti-American poetry or burn some flags.
April 25, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You an America-hater?! Guess so as you suggest you'll instead go out and burn the flag. Nice going.
And don't make the assumption that I'd support banning flag burning. I don't. I figure you've got to let everyone have the opportunity to express their idiocy, lack of patrioticsm, and hate. I wonder if the Obama Cult and your Dear Leader will support and enjoy the association with your flag burning?
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I figure you've got to let everyone have the opportunity to express their idiocy, lack of patrioticsm, and hate."
As you so clearly illustrate for us every day.
Also, why do you capitalize "White" and "Black" when describing people. Well, I guess it's not a question so much as an observation that illustrates a fact.
Do you realize almost every black person on this site has called you and your disgusting site racist at some point or another. Does this bother you? It should. I know you think that as a "White" man you have some way of measuring racism, but I'm prone to thinking that black folk here have a bit of moral high ground on this one.
*what's wrong with me??? why do i let him bait me. i'm a weak person, i know. help me someone. i need kool-aid, stat!*
April 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Matthew--I've got a legal question for you: a few years ago, I had an American flag tattooed on my ass. Is it illegal for me to be cremated after I die?
Because I wouldn't want to disrespect the Stars and Stripes in any way. Old Glory is what I live and die for.
April 25, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, Just has to be done properly!
I've burned several American Flags...wait for it.
In Boy Scouts. The only proper way to dispose of a tattered or desecrated flag is to burn it. Short ceremony in addition to whatever type of funeral ceremony you might have and you are in like Flynt.
April 25, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Section 8K of the Flag Code details precisely how to burn the flag. Here's a link to the recommended ceremony for those itchin' to burn them a flag on their own: http://www.ushistory.org/BETSY/more/flagburning.htm
April 25, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fear for those babies!
April 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"His free pass as a Black candidate who people hesitate to criticize for fear of being labeled racist has its limits."
I'm always suspect of people who claim that there is some sort of invisible barrier that stops them from criticizing a black man for fear of being a "racist" - we're all adults who know what is offensive and what is not. I personally believe that you are in the habit of setting up cowardly strawmen arguments to make up for your utterly lame candidate.
"Obama has had his 15-minutes of the audacity to shove racism, hate, unAmerican views, and lies upon the public."
Man, just become a republican and speed the process up already.
April 25, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a brief against Blacks and I'm not a Republican. It is sad that nearly every criticism against Obama is responded to as racist. I just find Obama's character to be flawed and have more respect for Clinton and McCain, even if they offer different approaches to moderates. Obama's liberal views are not necessarily a problem, I actually hold a number as well. But seriously, Obama has associated with a racist and America-hating church for 20+ years, his own pastor now outs him for lying about it as a politician. He's got corrupt ties with Rezko, his experience is trumped up, and he so much more. These are not racial issues and, seriously, any non-Black candidate with the same character would not be taken seriously, even if they talked as well in speeches. Do you suggest otherwise?
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
By "black candidate" you mean "half -white"? right?
April 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's simply not true. YOUR remarks are often responded to as racist, but not MOST remarks. It's up to you to figure out why, but I think it's pretty obvious. Most racist don't believe they're racist.
April 25, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I just find Obama's character to be flawed and have more respect for Clinton and McCain, even if they offer different approaches to moderates."
But your opinions become laughable when one considers the person you are endorsing. I mean, "character"? Who supported Nafta? Who was on the Walmart board? Who has a lengthy list of unseemly contributors as long as Manute Bol's arm? Who lied about Sniper fire? Who said that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count, but now presses that they be counted now that she's losing? Those are real character issues, not of the manufactured "guilt-by-association" variety.
"But seriously, Obama has associated with a racist and America-hating church for 20+ years, his own pastor now outs him for lying about it as a politician."
Hillary Clinton, and her Husband - until his death, associated themselves with Harry Lee. A known racist who held fundraiser for them, and is also the same guy who had armed guards stand on that bridge in New Orleans so black folks couldn't pass. Come on Matt, this is entirely too easy.
"He's got corrupt ties with Rezko"
Again with Rezko - Four words: "Peter Paul" and "Norman Hsu".
April 25, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew, have some more kool-aid.
April 25, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do us a favor and don't guess.
April 25, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope those poor, defenseless babies you're holding aren't yours, because they're going to be a couple of massively screwed up kids if they are. If they're yours, I have some advice: most parents save for college. You should start saving up bail money.
April 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would have been smarter if Obama's camp hadn't tipped Wallace off as to what to expect.
I suspect he is going on in preparation for the GE. He must reach independents and a few moderate conservatives, and many of them probably include FOX News among their information sources.
April 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am encouraged to read that Obama is lending his marginally respectable name to the support of the ratings challenged entertainment network that provides no programming of social redeemable value.
Perhaps he can defend his indefensible abandonment of supporting our constitutional rights during the Mukasey confirmation . . .
Defending fascist plutocracy from flesh and blood Americans worldwide.April 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Obama is an evil Republican just like Hillary giving time to rabid right wingers hostile to Democrats.
:(
April 25, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am heavily leaning toward Obama as the Dem nominee, but this whole going-on-Fox thing makes me very uneasy. I appreciate his desire to take on a network bully, and I'm sure he will go in prepared....but the fact is he'll be going in to a scenario where he is at a distinct disadvantage. That's the problem that any liberal or any reasonable-minded person of any political stripe faces going on that network.
Maybe he has some ace up his sleeve - I sure hope so. If he's just going on to show that he's willing to go on, then I question his judgment. It's not that I think it would necessarily be a disaster, even if it doesn't go well, but it could be yet another ridiculous distraction.
April 25, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
He went into this primary with a distinct disadvantage, remember?
Nobody took him seriously for almost a year.
He's been playing on non-friendly turf for a long time. He can handle it.
April 25, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best way to engage cynical uncommitted voters is to attack the media with humor, style and grace. No Fox regulars will be impressed but the resulting YouTubes will energize lots of independant high-info folks to register and vote.
The Republican/Media strategy has always been to energize low-info independants and to discourage high-info independants. Obama doesn't take their bait to talk down to skeptics, he always addresses the context of their idiotic questions and goes right over the talking heads to speak directly to folks who have been driven out of the process before.
There is one route to the White House; attack the media with humor, everyone but journalists will respect and admire him for that. When they attack him back he gains the respect of high-info independants.
April 25, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This strikes me as a very bad idea. A fair number of moderates and independents buy into the Fox tag line of being fair and balanced and not being part of the liberal media. While most of us are smart enough to see through that BS, Fox's status as a uniquely defiant conservative media voice allows people to view that as "moderate" when compared to the mainstream "liberal" media.
If Obama gets really confrontational he's likely to convince moderates and independents that he's some wacky left wing communist.
April 25, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it's not this, it'll be something else.
If it's not his words, it'll be somebody else's words attributed to him.
Have some faith, dude.
April 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to engage trolls, but I can't help but at least comment on this in passing:
"Free pass for being black."
god weaver you are a sick puppy. i can't help but wonder what someone did to you to make you so hateful.
but don't tell me - I don't want to talk to you.
April 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply |