From an Obama Fundraising Event

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 00:42


I hear these kinds of anecdotes sometimes, I figured I'd pass one along.

So I'm at this Obama fundraiser with 350 rich donors. He's horrible. He just babbles. Then, every so often, he comes up with jewels like this:

"There is a nasty aspect to politics on the internet that has to be dealt with."

Does that mean his online donors should get their money back?

I do not like Hillary, but who is this guy?  Do we know?

This is very annoying, and yet, the context of his remark seems significant.  Obama might have it in for internet politics, per se.  Or he might feel that certain parts of the internet are spaces that incentivize the expression of a hateful type of politics that needs to be dealt with as a society by more dialogue.  Or he might just be thin-skinned, or he may temperamentally dislike passionate disagreement.

The internet is a reflection of the public's sprawling and diverse views, which are brilliant, disgusting, mediocre, and everything in between.  It's a big country, with lots of different people who talk about stuff in different ways.  Some of them are mean.  This isn't a problem, it's just humanity.  What are you going to do, cleanse the meanness and disagreement out of the public so the Village can go on starting wars and stealing and whatnot?

As I said, annoying. 

UPDATE:  This is from a source I know very well, it's not a rumor.  Obama said this.  Someone in the comments did point out Obama could be referring to the nasty emails going around about him being a Muslim.  That's quite possible, though it doesn't really change the general issues I have with his remark. 

I'll also note that this is one blog post among thousands I have written, and part of trying to figure out what kind of President Obama could be.  These kinds of remarks, what he says to wealthy donors behind closed doors and how he thinks about internet politics, are part of figuring this out.

Matt Stoller :: From an Obama Fundraising Event

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
From an Obama Fundraising Event | 35 comments
He might just be talking about e-mail rumors (4.00 / 3)
about his religion

John McCain won't insure children
Precisely. (4.00 / 1)
Matt, what is this?  Seriously.
[ Parent ]
flavor (4.00 / 1)
I think it's significant that this is what he's saying at a fundraiser to wealthy donors.  Maybe I shouldn't have commented on it.
[ Parent ]
All I can say is: you can do better. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
What W said behind closed doors (0.00 / 0)
What W said to high-dollar contributors behind closed doors turned out to be exactly how he acted in office.  This is significant information.  "Dealt with"?  What the heck does that mean?  Not a good phrase given that I expect the next Democratic President to reverse the Cheney Doctrine.

sPh

[ Parent ]
Wow Matt....... (4.00 / 2)
You are starting to act like bigdog! Desperate and over-the-top.
You are too good for this. I don't care who this "SOURCE" is, if someone begins an email that at an Obama fundraiser he was "horrible, he just babbles" I would be suspect, NO MATTER WHO IT IS. You sure it is not Trippi forwarding you this. You can say many negative things about Obama, but Horrible and babbling...un...NO SALE!
[ Parent ]
i dont mind, i want to hear it all. (0.00 / 0)
like he said, he wants to know more about the guy.

i just wish he had come back with more quotes besides this one.

[ Parent ]
Context is king (0.00 / 0)
To twist a marketing phrase from the late 1990's, still applicable today.

I have no objection to the above phrasing.

Can you say, Free Republic?  Can you say Drudge?

Or Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller?

Come on - it's an obviously true statement, right?

Of course, it would be better if he pointed out that Fox and Tweety can be just as nasty - but he's trying to win and election here.

And that would be.... (4.00 / 2)
..........why exactly?

Why does Senator Dope 'Hope' 'Change' want to be President.

So he can be the second coming of St. Ronnie?

So he can cut your taxes?

So he can appoint Joe Lieberman Sec of State?

Why?

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Christ ... (4.00 / 4)
Now you're passing along unattributed anecdotes and commenting on them?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but I really  like most of the writing on Openleft. It's thoughful and smart. Your writing sticks out in a bad way.

I'll bite! (4.00 / 1)
Since as we often hear on this site, and others, how 'everybody does it' somebody please post a comment by Edwards that is this dismissive of the citizens, last I looked we DFHs in the 'sphere were still nominally citizens though perhaps not 'good' ones, this arrogant about the political process.

Any takers out there?

Be warned I will dig up every cheap shot the 'Great One' has taken at any reasonably progressive org or individual since his Wellstone crack.

As is clear from my comments I'm no fan of nor believer in identity politics for many and varied reasons...but come on!

Let's talk about Obama's identity. The real thing not the fabricated Kabuki mask he's assembled so carefully...well, not all that carefully....

Come on!

Who is Barrack Obama?

Anybody out there think they know?

If ya do spit it out!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Lemme get this straight... (4.00 / 2)
Obama's at an event entertaining "rich donors" and somebody mentions that there's a rumor spreading that he's the Muslim Manchurian Candidate.  So he says: yeah, it's nasty - the campaign is going to have to deal with it.

So I should vote for Edwards?

Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Why this is supposed to make us reevaluate Obama as a candidate and a possible President, I don't know.
[ Parent ]
Net Neutrality (4.00 / 1)
What is Obama's position on Net Neutrality?

What is Hillary's?

Matt, you probably know the answers better than I, but my understanding is that Obama (and Edwards) have the most progressive political positions on the issue, while Hillary is in bed with the telecom lobbyists. Not that she would sell out the Net, but the Clintons' track record of "leave no hedge fund manager behind" does not inspire confidence.

I do share your concern with these little "tells." Edwards inspires confidence but not voters, while Hillary is polarizing -- which leaves us with Obama.

I just hope our nominee wins, and delivers in the White House. God help us if they don't.

edwards inspires confidence? (0.00 / 0)
Why? Because he uses the word "fight" a lot? His legislative record is totally uninspiring. His record as a candidate in 2004 does not provide any credibility (and don't blame it on Kerry). He has spent 20million dollars and has not inspired a groundswell of support for these reasons.

[ Parent ]
Obama's tech policy and Lessig endorsement (4.00 / 3)
ck...here's a link to Obama's tech policy, which includes net neutrality, among other things:
http://www.barackoba...

You might also check out Larry Lessig's endorsement of Obama here:
http://www.lessig.or...
as well as other pro-Obama posts by Lessig on his blog (lessig.org).  As you may know, Lessig is one of the nation's most passionate and brilliant advocates of open networks and progressive First Amendment policies.  And he recently shifted his focus to anti-corruption, with a focus on government.  His enthusiastic endorsement of Obama means a lot to me.  He's also had a lot of good things to say about Edwards, which also makes a lot of sense to me.

Here's a link to a video of Lessig's first major lecture on the corruption issue.  I watched part of it and thought is was great:
http://www.lessig.or...

And on the question of "tells"...while I also have some concerns about Obama, reading "tells" is not something that can be done very effectively by reading a short excerpt of somebody else's characterization of what someone said and what it meant.  It comes from sitting in a room watching someone closely and observing how they react over an extended period of time in a range of situations, including stressful ones.  I think we need to be careful about remembering the difference when we try to "read" candidates.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but that we should be careful about jumping to conclusions.

[ Parent ]
which edwards? (0.00 / 0)
edwards campaigned all through 2004 railing against tax dodging american companies who ship job overseas. so what does he do when his bid for the white house failed? he got a job with a tax dodging offshore hedge fund who specializes in buying up companies to ship jobs overseas. he not only worked there, in heavily invested in the venture.

this is so blatantly hypocritical that it's surreal. i don't know how anybody could trust this guy.

[ Parent ]
The meaning of "has to be dealt with" (4.00 / 3)
"There is a nasty aspect to politics on the internet that has to be dealt with."

Clearly the first part of the sentence is true, with the "Obama as stealth Muslim terrorist sleeper" rumors as a clear example that applies directly to him.  While the Internet has many virtues that TV doesn't, it also provides more freedom to indulge in destructive nastiness than even Fox can usually get away with on TV.

The "has to be dealt with" part can mean very different things.  At one extreme is the Mafia version:  "dealt with" as in "destroyed, whatever it takes."  Or it can simply mean, "yeah, its something we candidates have to deal with, though none of us like it." 

I don't see any way from this anecdote of knowing which one is the case, but based on what Obama has said and proposed, I'm inclined to believe he meant the latter, which is quite harmless and as obviously true as the first part of the sentence.

At least with the earlier video clip we all got to watch it and make our own judgment of Obama's meaning and the context (though we only got to see that short snippet).  In this case all we have is some guy Matt knows who seems to have little respect for Obama telling us he's "horrible" and "babbles," followed by a quote that can be interpreted as a simple, true and not very meaningful statement, or one that would have the candidate with probably the most progressive tech/Internet/open government proposals--and the enthusiastic support of Larry Lessig, of one of the smartest and most passionate First Amendment and anti-government corruption advocates in this country--planning to crush First Amendment rights because some people on the Internet are nasty.  Does that really seem to anyone like a reasonable interpretation of this comment?

If we want to figure out what kind of President Obama would be, wouldn't it be more productive to spend more time taking a careful and unbiased look at what he did as a state and federal legislator, and how this relates to his current proposals, rather than finding and speculating on comments he's made that can be interpreted a dozen different ways, especially when quoted without full context (which is usually the case)?

Totally unconvincing (0.00 / 0)
So Dave Axelrod, Jesse Jackson Jr., George Miller, and many other people who know Obama and have impeccable progressive credentials are fools who have not picked up on these subtle clues that Matt Stoller sees?

Is that the claim?

You've got funny ideas about who's.... (0.00 / 0)
...got them 'impeccable' progressive creds.

Jackson the only one of the three that risked his life to advance the cause of civil rights in this country has said of Senator 'Hope',

He acts like he's white....

and referencing Obama's role in the sub-prime crisis asserted:

He concluded by saying America needed a president who was committed to "structural change.

How about getting your facts straight. I know it's not an Obama forte but, really, this is about picking the next President.

Not building a MySpace page.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
you do know that Jesse Jr. is not the same as Rev. Jackson (0.00 / 0)
Jesse Jackson Jr. is the congressman from Chicago and co-chair of Obama's campaign. What you and Stoller want to argue is that Congressman Jackson is either a stooge or a winger. Either proposition is absurd.

And although Reverend Jackson has differed with Obama, he endorses him.

So your fact challenged screed needs some work.

[ Parent ]
junior vs senior (0.00 / 0)
rootless referenced jackson Junior.

jackson the elder is a long time clinton ally.  his potshots against obama despite having "endorsed" him are suspect considering his long history with the clintons.

and referencing Obama's role in the sub-prime crisis asserted:

do you have a link for this?

[ Parent ]
I'd be interested (4.00 / 1)
to know what you think about what MyDD has become.  Perhaps you don't think that is an aspect of politics on the internet which should be dealt with.  Perhaps it is something you're proud of. I don't know, who are you?  Do we really know?
Seriously? (0.00 / 0)
Have you guys taken a look at MyDD or Daily Kos lately? The freaking candidate wars in every single diary? It's sickening.

You don't think that fits the definition of "nasty?"

Further Reading

So do you want to stifle it? (0.00 / 0)
Why isn't he railing against rightwing talk radio if he is so concerned with tone?

I have had it with the sister Soljah moments Obama latches onto. I am a progressive liberal democrat and I am tired of Obama's statements and actions( McClurkin) throwing progressives under the bus.

He is sounding like Joe Lieberman about the internet for God's sake - it's ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
the US liberals love symbols (4.00 / 1)
We have a disfunctional leftie culture that values symbolic gestures and doesn't care about power.
 
[ Parent ]
DOMA (0.00 / 0)
obama supports a total repeal of clinton's Defense of Marriage Act. at the time, only he and kucinich held this view. even now, hillary only supports a partial repeal. the idea that obama was throwing gays under the bus is ridiculous.
[ Parent ]
It's Not Just Politics (4.00 / 1)
It might not be what Obama is talking about, but the internet has certainly allowed people to show a nasty level of discourse that they wouldn't use if they were talking to people who could punch them in the face rather than hiding behind anonymous screen names.  It's a contentiousness that isn't found only in political discussion.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
and i sincerely hope (0.00 / 0)
some of you are old/young black/hip enough to enjoy my repsonse, truly the very first thing that came into my head as i read this. flowers, they die.
Every so often I hear from people... (4.00 / 1)
... that Mat Stoller is a disturbed young man who looks at clouds and finds hidden political meanings in them. I learn this from posts on blogs ... and places like that, from people who normally say intelligent things. Thought I'd pass it along.

.. for what it's worth, I've also heard people who've met Joe Lieberman and Chris Shays say what warm, wonderful people they are. That, and a few misplaced votes, gets you a war in Iraq. 

Obama's Plan for Open-Source Democracy (4.00 / 2)
from american prospect:

"I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality," Obama told the Google staffers. "The Internet is perhaps the most open network in history. We have to keep it that way."

In addition to committing to neutrality on the web, the candidate also laid out his pledges to support policies that encourage greater diversity in media ownership, expand access to broadband, and use technological innovation to address concerns about the economy, health care, climate change, energy, and immigration. But in many ways, his plan is less about tech than it is about technology's political implications, and how the candidate envisions using technology as a vehicle for his greater promises of a new political era in Washington. It aims to use technology as a means of creating a government where these issues are discussed -- and addressed -- with the same kind of open-source, efficient, and user-centric principles that have powered Google.

[...]

Some of the other Democratic candidates might want to borrow heavily from these principles if they're looking to distance themselves from the past seven years of secrecy, and shortsightedness. The Obama plan calls for programs that use those technologies to make more government documents available to the public via government websites and databases. With access to information -- on everything from environmental data to records of lobbyist contacts with politicians -- citizens and interest groups will be able to use that information to push for change and better government. It also outlines plans to broadcast meetings in government agencies live online, and create tools that allow citizens to track federal grants, contracts, lobbyist information, and earmarks. On the legislative end, it would create a five-day public comment period on the White House site before the president signs legislation into law, giving citizens the capacity to more directly interact with the executive. The plan calls for the creation of a "chief technology officer" post that would oversee the introduction of new technology in government agencies, coordinate efforts between offices, and enforce the policies of disclosure the plan outlines.

http://www.prospect....

this isn't just talk, he's already done some of this when his "transparency in goverment spending" legislation got passed.

http://obama.senate....

You're chasing ghosts Matt (0.00 / 0)
If a Right Winger took a qoute as short, out of context, and vague as this we would be livid. And for the moment, I feel livid towards your entire post. You're so much better than this.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
No surprise for me, Krugman, or anyone else listening (4.00 / 1)
Why is anybody surprised by this?  Any cursory review of Obama's record, policies, and talking points reveals that Obama is without a progressive or even liberal ideology.

Just ask Krugman.

you're so wrong (4.00 / 1)

do you not know his record or are you just being willfully blind?

most of his work in the state senate involved issues of healthcare and poverty.

http://graphics8.nyt...

that's on top of his community organizer work and his work as a civil rights attorney.

[ Parent ]
Leahy to endorse Obama (0.00 / 0)
I guess all those progressives endorsing Obama must be wrong about him..???

http://tpmelectionce...

From an Obama Fundraising Event | 35 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox