« Another GOP Rep. Pushing Tall Tale That China Is Drilling For Oil Off American Shores | Home | Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security »
Obama Spokesperson: Nader's Comment Is "Reprehensible And Delusional"
This is just brutal. Take a look at Obama communications director Robert Gibbs, who's a bit of a killer, stomping all over Ralph Nader's suggestion that Obama is sidestepping poverty issues such as predatory lending because he wants to "talk white"...
Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias points out another pesky flaw in Nader's argument: Obama actually does advocate cracking down on predatory lending and other measures to stop financial exploitation of poor people.
Details, details.
Advertisement















Robert Gibbs really is a killer. He took Rove to the mat yesterday, too:
June 25, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow.
June 25, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that "wow."
June 25, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third it.
Damn.
June 25, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fourth it!
June 25, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a full bucket of awesome.
June 25, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was watching that when he said it. All I could say was, "Right fucking on."
June 25, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gibbs has a bit of a baby face, and appears to be so mild-mannered.
I like how he linked the Nader comments with the Rove comments, as well.
I wonder what communication directors of campaigns talk about at home? They must be so on-message during the day, relentlessly, but what happens when they get home?
June 25, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here's my two cents. http://www.tagg-theangrygayguy.com
June 25, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And besides Ralph Nader, Liberman needs to be slapped. Here is the petition. All you need to do is sign.
http://liebermanmustgo.com
June 25, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that keeps impressing me is that Obama and his people address this shit in strong language, but they reel off a ton of reasoning and good PR in their answers and don't hem or haw around without getting coarse about any of it.
June 25, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I need an edit button.
The don't hem or haw around, and they do it without getting coarse about it.
Basically, I think it's a very elegant campaign in addition to being pretty damn brilliant.
June 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. "Elegant" is probably the perfect word to characterize the tone of the campaign -- just don't say it too loud, though, lest someone describe it as elitist.
What I liked most about Gibbs' response was not only the way he whacked Nader across the noggin but his calm, straightforward, thoughtful tone -- one that assumes his audience is capable of intelligent thought. There was none of the hysteria, smarminess or condescension that comes from some spokespeople for other campaigns (who shall, in the interest of unity, remain nameless).
At the same time, I have to agree with what someone else wrote, which was also the gist of Obama's response; what the idiot who gave us George W. Bush wants more than anything is attention. The best thing any of us can do is not give it to him.
June 25, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, that guy Lieberman gives me the willies.
Looks like a deadringer for Senator Palpateen!
Cheney has probably got his own helmet and harmonica in that "man-size safe" in his office.
What a pair!
But if you strip him of his chairmanship, then maybe he joins the Dark Side for real and what happens to our slim majority!?
So I'm not signing!
June 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The organizing resolution voted for the Senate is fixed for this term; kicking Lieberman out of the caucus wouldn't change it at this point even if he joins the GOP. However, the committee chairmanships are also written into the organizing resolution (which is somewhat unusual), so I'm not sure it's possible to remove his committee chairmanship without reorganizing the Senate.
June 25, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palpatine! That's who he reminds me of. It's been bugging the heck out of me.
June 25, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know it's too late when he starts picking up Senate seats and chucking them at Russ Feingold...
June 25, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
He reminds me of the lead guy from King of Queens. Friendly, unassuming, mild-mannered . . . until he opens his mouth and PWNS someone.
June 25, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gibbs, that is. Not Nader.
June 25, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Nader probably made the racially charged comment to get the corporate media--and liberal blogs--to cover him, and it worked.
It's always perilous and perhaps offensive to gauge the authenticity of someone's blackness, especially when you're white, but the basic point--that Obama is pushing generally corporate-friendly policies and trying to come across as non-threatening in order to reassure the white-dominated power structure--is indisputable.
Oh, and Nader said Obama didn't advocate a "strong" cracking down on predatory lending, so Ygelesias found no flaw in his statement; he just imagines that he did.
June 25, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Miz. In fact, progressives should make a point of calling Obama an Uncle Tom whenever they want to get attention. That kind of character assassination is just so noble.
Because back at Harvard, it was all Public Enemy and bling for Barack, right Miz? Have you ever actually met an African-American?
June 25, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they shouldn't; I don't like people calling any black person--including Clarence Thomas--an Uncle Tom. Poor choice on Nader's part. It's a mildly little less offensive and certainly less ridiculous coming from the many black leftists who've said the same thing about Obama.
But as I said, it's not secret that Obama goes out of his way--wisely, perhaps--to appear non-threatening in both his personality and his policies. Indeed, often when I criticize his policies, his hardcore supporters tell me that he moderate his policies precisely because more radical, anti-corporate policies would make him seem like an angry black man. John Edwards could, for example, say things that he couldn't.
But hey, go ahead and beat up on Nader--I know it makes progressives feel warm inside.
June 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, poor Ralph, he obviously did nothing to deserve this criticism...
June 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I'm not yelling at you, but the problem with your statement is that in order for Obama to "appear non-threatening in both his personality and his policies" you're already ascribing a presumed amount of "blackness" to Obama. Maybe that's just who he is and it has nothing to do with black or white?
June 25, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather, you're equating "threatening" to blackness, etc., which is pretty much the most basic racist tactic there is. The whole trap is allowing someone to define character traits that are non-racial as "black" or "white." Saying someone "looks black" because they have dark skin makes total sense. Saying someone "talks white" because they don't sound like Flavor Flav is nonsense.
June 25, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, of course "blackness" is threatening.
There's a difference between acknowledging racism and espousing it.
June 25, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who he is has nothing to do with black or white?
Not sure what world you're living in, but it's not the one I know.
June 25, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being black and "acting black" are two different things. Racists want them to be the same.
June 25, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Non-threatening? Tell that to Bill Clinton. He threatens to push Bill right out of the Alpha Male Democrat position.
I have been watching Obama the last couple of weeks. He seems pretty strong to me. He doesn't seem afraid to piss off opponents or supporters alike when it is necessary.
I think a lot of folks, including Ralph Nader, have mistakenly bought into some sort of "Obama is soft" narrative. The narrative doesn't match the facts.
Only in the minds of George W. Bush and the Neo-Cons and people who have been fooled by them does bluster equal strength. Real tough guys don't wear their toughness on their sleeve.
June 26, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooooo that one is going to leave a mark.
;)
June 25, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, it seems Obama agrees with me--it wouldn't be the first time (from downthread)
"Obama had a good response during the presser -- Nader is trying to get attention by making inflammatory statements because otherwise no one pays attention to him. "It is what it is. Next Question."
June 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
DIFFERENCE
Obama wasn't lending moral credibility to this tactic.
June 25, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't either, as any honest reading of my comment will show.
I was saying that his underlying point had merit, and you haven't even addressed his underlying point, so.
June 25, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
His underlying point was an ad hominem attack on Obama and his supporters. It was not a valid discussion of policy.
Now, maybe you think my support is driven by subconscious guilt.
Personally, as a first generation American born to a pair of Swedes, I don't feel much of a personal connection to this country's past atrocities, but maybe Ralph knows something I don't...
June 25, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't quite understand that part of Nader's comment. It seems to me that it's racism, rather than guilt, that would prevent whites from not accepting a candidate who was more stereotypically "black" than Obama. I guess he was saying that the guardians of the white power structure assuage their guilt by getting a black candidate without having to sacrifice any of its power. The best of both worlds. I disagree, though. I think it's mostly affirmative feelings that are drawing people to Obama, but then one should probably draw a distinction between his grassroots following and his corporate backers.
June 25, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and Nader just said Obama didn't talk about poverty enough, not that he didn't talk about it at all, so no matter how much he's talked about it, Nader can still claim he's right.
/snark
It's so easy to make arguments with "no flaw," all you have to do is make them essentially meaningless.
June 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hunh?
It's hardly a secret among people to the left of, say, Matt Yglesias that Obama's economic policies are moderate or, from Nader's perspective, weak.
June 25, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my best Bill Walton voice: "Throw it down Big Man!!"
June 25, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sean Bell, Jena 6 and the Philly cop beatdown are a few instances where Obama talked white. Talking white in these instances means saying very little and doing even less. These are issues that white folks could care less about, so Obama doesn't waste his precious Words on the subject.
June 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When nooses are being hung in high schools in the 21st century, it’s a tragedy. It shows that we still have a lot of work to do as a nation to heal our racial tensions. This isn’t just Jena’s problem; it’s America’s problem."
"There are a number of signs that the system is not working in this case. It’s a problem when criminal charges are brought against some students for fighting, but not others. It’s a problem when a public defender doesn’t call any witnesses. And it’s a problem when a prosecutor decides to try teenagers as adults for a school fight, a charge that could leave them in jail for the majority of their lives. That is why I join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus in calling on the judge to consider all the relevant factors and calling on the District Attorney to drop the excessive charges brought in this case. And I, along with other members of the CBC, will continue to monitor this case closely."
"Going forward, we have to fix our criminal justice system. Whether it’s Jena 6 or Genarlow Wilson, it’s long past time for us to admit that we have more work to do to ensure that our criminal justice system is fair. We must ensure that both victims and defendants can receive equal justice under the law, regardless of race, wealth, or other circumstances." - Barack Obama 9/12/2007
You dead-enders need to stop lying.
Don't spew your racist tripe here, jackass.
June 25, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Down goes BKinDaHouse!! Down goes BKinDaHouse!!!"
June 25, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, because Obama has to be all things to all people apparently; at least, according to you. He has to be a cross between Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and still try to appeal to non black-power voters.
Nothing to it - want to pick a day for him to walk on water for you?
June 25, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then did Uncle Ruckus entere the House of Pwned...
June 25, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
DAMN, you played yourself.
Might be time to retire the "Uncle Ruckus" act, dude. You suck at it.
June 25, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had a good response during the presser -- Nader is trying to get attention by making inflammatory statements because otherwise no one pays attention to him. "It is what it is. Next Question."
June 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reply system has put all my replies in the wrong places - dammit!
June 25, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reply to HusseinTenaX.
That is why I always put reply to ... at the top of my replies now. I feel for you Tena.
June 25, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT but good news - we finally have a functioning FEC again. Now maybe we can finally get McCain's wrinkly ass busted for gaming the system during the primaries.
June 25, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama has made a career out of addressing and helping to solve the very problems Nader accuses him of ignoring.
Ralph Nader has made a career out of humiliating himself by running for president every 4 years.
Game. Set. Match. Obama emerges victorious.
June 25, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
While making a fortune off a stock portfolio chock full of shares of all those mean nasty corporations Ralph has so valiently fought his whole life.
June 25, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and pitching a fit when his employees wanted to unionize.
June 25, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This wasn't hard to see coming.
Nothing is more horrifying to an ego like Nader's than to realize that you have become irrelevant. Anyone who saw the latest LAT poll saw that Nader's has absolutely no influence on this election other than to knock a few points off McCain. Imagine the horror for a megalomaniacal shitstain like Nader to look in the papers and see that he has become less relevant than Bob Barr.
Like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or any good shock merchant faced with the dreaded bullhorn shrinkage, Nader must now turn up the freak.
I'm just so glad to say that I never, ever, gave this fuck wit anything more than a thumb to my nose.
June 25, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It begs the question, at what level of diminishing support do advertising dollars dry up to the point of right-wing media collapse? Do we watch for the small pie-holes to shut first? Papers will be first to go.
Sen Gordon's love of Obama is HIGH-sterical! No one likes the losing team. This is just the beginning.
June 25, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader is a bitter little twerp to whom no one would be paying attention, were it not for the crowd that has to write 300 words or shoot 3 minutes of video before noon. There's no point in getting our drawers in a twist over this guy - I suggest that, when 200,000+ people lose their jobs in the first half of an election year, there will be a whole lot of talk about poverty and restoring the economy.
June 25, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of reprehensible comments -
Tweety -- FOR A SECOND DAY IN A ROW -- mixed up Obama and Osama. He said 'Obama put out a tape just before the '04 election'.
He also was seemed to think the thought that Bush put out Red terror alerts to help the election -- despite the fact that people have admitted as much. Does this guy do ANY research??
I am really beginning to hate Tweety. He wasn't fit to shine Tim Russert's shoes.
June 25, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edit. Function. Please?!?!
"He also was seemed to think the thought that Bush put out Red terror alerts to help the election"...was laughable.
grrr. must fix fingers.
June 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader is the liberal Alan Keyes, making outrageous statements so the media will cover his hopeless campaign/ vanity project.
June 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader is an attention whore.
June 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always has been, always will be.
June 26, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nader is both a fraud and a racist. What follows in an exact transcript taken from CNN's website from an interview done on June 21, 2007. Pay careful attention to what he criticizes Clinton for at the end. Nowhere does he accuse her of anything related to her race.
Transcript:
BLITZER: ... accurately conveys your attitude towards Senator Clinton. Senator Hillary Clinton. If Senator John F. Kennedy's best- selling book, "Profiles in Courage" was updated, nothing Hillary Clinton has done in the Congress would come close to being a footnote. You don't -- is that an accurate quote?
NADER: Yes. BLITZER: You don't like her?
NADER: It isn't a matter of liking her. It's a matter of -- she has great name recognition, she's got a terrific political machine. She's not using her political capital to shift power, to challenge abuses of power. Done nothing on the bloated wasteful Pentagon budget. She's on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Nothing on these huge subsidies going to corporations. She hasn't even done anything for the ghettos, in terms of, you know, the serious economic exploitation in the inner city. Not to mention, asbestos and lead in children's bodies. I mean, she knows all about this.
End of transcipt related to issue
The fact is Nader has used this schtick against every Democrat running since 1996. You can find almost the same quotes criticizing Bill Clinton (Living on Earth, May 24, 1996) And John Kerry (Tavis Smiley, PBS, March 5, 2004) and nowhere does he attribute their lack of attention to these "serious corporate crimes" as he likes to characterize them, as due to race except with Obama.
If you google "Nader" plus any of the key issues he says Obama neglects: payday loans, predatory lending, economic exploitation in the ghetto, asbestos, and lead, almost all you will find reference to are those words in conjunction with Nader attacking a Democrat in 1996, 2000, 2004, or 2008.
You won't find those under "Issues" on Nader's current campaign website.
Again, Nader is a fraud and a racist.
June 25, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gibbs is preaching to the choir.
Lead contamination legislation? That's it? That's the best he can cite to refute the notion that white guilt, a non-threatening demeanor, a Harvard accent and the racist black vote and masterful handlers are what has gotten neophyte Obama to this point.
Nader may be a crank, but even cranks can be right some of the time.
June 25, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not as prestigious as fronting for Wal-Mart, but it's still nice.
He has correct grammar and isn't violent? How Machiavellian of him!
And Hillary had the majority of the black vote in the beginning of the primary season. Obama had to win them over. Thanks for playing, though.
June 25, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, just for fun.... anyone know who is Nader's VP running mate?
San Francisco's very own ultra-progressive darling Matt Gonzalez. Wonder what he thinks of this?
June 25, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I"m no Greenwald, but I'm a lawyer: Here's why it's a big deal to me.
1. While most rational people agree, Bush's warrantless searches have NOT be found a 4th amendment violation.
2. In order to have a court find a violation, the party must have standing to show the violation.
3. In order to have standing, you've got to show you've been harmed (ie, searched without a warrant under this program).
4. In order to do THAT, you've got to show you were searched. The feds has no responsibility to show that (for reasons too complicated but definitely and ultimately worth debating here on another thread).
5. Thus, the telcos, given that their information was PUBLIC, at least to the extent that it was not gathered under national security provisions, are the ones to show that the government sought it, or in other words, obtained it without a warrant. This is ex post facto (as far as we know, information.)
6. Thus, in order to find the state guilty of a 4th A violation, you've got to show that the telcos handed over info to the govt without a warrant (and in violation of FISA). this particular fact is not really debated by anyone.
7. If Congress grants immunity, then all of the above is off the table. You can't even ask whether the telcos gave or not. (although we know they did.)
8. If they don't grant immunity, you can ask for what they gave, or at least part of it (pertaining to you). Both to show that you here harmed, ie, searched, AND that others indeed were searched without a warrant.
9. Immunity prevents #8 from occurring.
10. So, with immunity we'll never know exactly what they did.
11. And we'll have no way to know whether it even WAS a 4A violation. Which sucks.
this is an Obama cave. Gonna change my vote? No. Look at what McCain says.... (I'm all for it, going FORWARD), But damn...its lame.
Fido
June 25, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's more a neoLarouche. His message is the same as is his aim, generate enoug attnetion and new followers among the disgruntled to keep his movement stocked with obedient followers.
June 26, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink