How interesting. In a call-in this a.m. on Fox & Friends touting the interview, I distinctly heard O'Reilly rather emphatically decry the "gotcha" interviews, repeatedly state that "of course" Obama doesn't agree with Wright, that Obama was a linear, logical thinker and so he couldn't possibly believe Wright's nonsense, and that he thought it was inappropriate to try to tag Obama with Wright's beliefs, or to conduct an interview filled with such questions. He also said that his interview with Hillary would be strictly issues-based, that he had 15 real issue questions, and that they would be the questions he'd ask, with appropriate follow-ups.

Given all that, I'm just stunned that he would just throw that out there for Hillary. Stunned.

Mitch

Posted at April 30, 2008 5:55 PM in response to Hillary Tells Bill O'Reilly That Wright's Statements Were "Offensive And Outrageous"

Actually, this one was interesting too - Wallace reiterating and defending his criticisms on Brian Kilmeade's radio show (who agrees with him). Worth listening to, if only to see how Obama may have the ability to change the conversation. Maybe. If Chris Wallace is the one doing the conversing. At the end, Wallace asks how angry Steve Doocey is at him and Kilmeade says "very." Based on the reactions during the initial exchange, I do not find that difficult to believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4umwSaPJRQo&feature=related

Posted at April 28, 2008 2:50 PM in response to Obama vs Wallace: Comments That Show True Essence of the Man

Ugh. Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ4ytqDbK1w

Posted at April 28, 2008 2:37 PM in response to Obama vs Wallace: Comments That Show True Essence of the Man

Wallace, whatever his faults, has previously demonstrated his respect for Obama. A few weeks ago, he berated the Fox & Friends folks for the way they were reporting on Obama, and it seemed to be sincere and unexpected by the FF people, who appeared very uncomfortable.

My point being only that it is not surprising if Wallace was respectful with Obama during the interview.

Here's the clip:

Posted at April 28, 2008 2:37 PM in response to Obama vs Wallace: Comments That Show True Essence of the Man

Bill Clinton has insulted younger voters! He has called younger voters stupid! How can he be so out of touch with younger voters? Younger voters want a President who respects their intelligence, not one that considers them to be stupid. Younger voters should be bitter about this comment and should vote for Obama!
:-)

Mitch

Posted at April 16, 2008 1:58 AM in response to Bill Clinton: Older Voters Not Falling For Obama

More precisely, he was thinking like a law professor. As a lawyer, he is trained in finding the nuances that are invisible to non-lawyers, and as a law professor, his strength lies in exploring the nuances through indirect questioning and subtlety and guiding the person he is questioning to cut through the crap to the essence of the problem. And as a law professor who only recently went into politics, he hasn't lost that ability in the fog of politics. True legal thinking is anathema to politicians because the assumption is that the public is too stupid to understand anything but black and white in large type.

To a political pundit, it is incomprehensible. To a lawyer, it is art. I wish I were nearly as good as he is.

Posted at April 11, 2008 12:36 AM in response to Kondracke: Obama Wins ‘Petraeus Primary’

Of course, Hillary doesn't need the supers to end it. She does have it in her power to end it all by herself. Problem is, she refuses to exercise it and instead continues harming the party's chances. A golden opportunity for the Dems, served by a butler on a silver platter with fresh garnishes, and the Dems are going to blow it. Or more specifically, Hillary is going to blow it.

Posted at March 26, 2008 12:08 PM in response to Hillary: Obama Campaign Wants To "Shut This Race Down"

This is a curious reason to stick with Hillary:

>1. Many Clinton voters, myself included, feel strongly that the Obama campaign strategy has been to amplify the "Clinton negatives". >

Hasn't a major theme of the Clinton campaign and of her supporters been that she is vetted and tested and that the Repubs will go after Obama with everything they can find, and therefore the questions they are raising now (like the CiC "threshold," Rezko, Wright) are actually good for the Dems because they get the stuff out now and show whether and how Obama can handle it?

If that's true about Obama, why isn't it equally as true about Clinton? Why isn't it a great thing that Obama is "focusing on her negatives"?

In fact, your points 1-3 really come down to the same point. I think it is a gross misreading of reality, but that's neither here nor there. I just don't get the cognitive dissonance aspect of claiming Hillary's attacks on Obama are necessary to test him, but Obama's "attacks" on Hillary are dirty politics.

Explain?

Posted at March 17, 2008 11:14 AM in response to Why Clinton voters are not joining Obama

John McCain has more honor than she does. I will write in Barack Obama, if I have to. But nothing -- and I mean nothing -- could entice me to support the Clintons ever again.>

Absolutely right. I also was going to vote for her for the sake of the SCT, but I will not do it now. I like McCain but can't vote for him because of the SCT, so writing in Obama is the only option.

Posted at March 13, 2008 9:16 AM in response to Tattooed White Trash For Obama - Rejecting Ferraro

Unlike garbage, though, your posts are just as useless after being recycled three times as they are the first time.

Posted at March 9, 2008 1:05 AM in response to Report: Girl "Safe And Asleep" In Hillary's 3 A.M. Ad Is Supporting...Obama!