More Obama and Fox News

by: Daniel De Groot

Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 00:20


(Note: I am the poster formerly known as "Scientician")

The thread below is kind of long so maybe let's start another.  Since I've been working on media reform issues, this kind of thing dovetails into my interests (usually I don't feel any unique insight into Primary matters to write posts on them).

Aside from legitimizing Fox News (already much discussed and I don't have anything to add), what bothers me about the Obama Fox appearance is the ritual humiliation.  

Wallace taunted and cajoled Obama to come on, and he did.  Right wingers love that.

Daniel De Groot :: More Obama and Fox News
Actually, they view all progressives appearing on Fox news as caving to their pressure, and an acknowledgement and affirmation of their power. look at how RedState describes it:


FOX News Sunday (FNS): Host Chris Wallace sits down, after dares and double-dares, with 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee-to-be Barack Obama.

Digby and Greenwald have written about something they call the "ritual humiliation" the right likes to do to the left.  Digby on the MoveOn congressional condemnation:


The Democrats in the House docilely laid down for another round of GOPukkake today and voted to condemn MoveOn. I hope they all enjoyed the ritual humiliation.

...

McCarthy would have been thrilled to have a vote like this today. Over the moon. There was nothing he liked more than forcing the Democrats to repudiate their allies and bow down like supplicants to someone they knew was completely full of shit. It set the stage for everything that has come since.

Another Red-State post on Obama's Fox appearance (note they link to Bowers):


It is already driving the nutroots crazy. I think that Saunders might tell them that "they don't understand".

See, the right enjoys seeing our Presidential nominee repudiate us and legitimize their media organs (I'm sure they loved his Kos comments).  They don't view Obama as being brave for appearing there, they see this as their due, and their rightful place, to have Democrats answer their summonses.  Obama and the other Dems had upset the proper ways of doing things by boycotting Fox and now Obama is "fixing" this problem by relenting.

So that's my problem with it.  Democrats had taken a stand on Fox News and now Obama has (in the eyes of the right) relented and restored Fox to its rightful place among the respectable news outlets.  

Granted, that something makes the right happy is not itself a good reason not to do it, as we have seen them misapply that "logic" to claim America must vote for the opposite of whomever Al Qaeda is said to favour in an election (always Democrats apparently).  

Bush and Cheney (especially) tend not to even deign to appear outside of very friendly outlets.  I'm not eager for Democrats to emulate that, but I think avoiding overtly hostile (and dishonest) outlets is fair.  Nobody needs to willingly walk into "when did you stop beating your wife" style journalism as some kind of masochistic initiation rite.  

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
More Obama and Fox News | 64 comments
I have defended Obama's decision to appear on Fox.. (0.00 / 0)
as a good move tactically for his campaign. That being said, I sure wish he would have called them out on what they are. They are not really news they are right-wing propaganda and Obama should have said so. I think this would have served a strategic purpose and kept the net roots from exploding on him.

That being said I'm not ready to dump him for it.

I sure hope he doesn't appear on Fox News again for a long long time (I already predicted this over here.) Not that that would totally redeem him for this.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

No one would be criticizing him if he called them on their bullshit (4.00 / 4)
That's precisely the point that people have been making all day.
[ Parent ]
false, a LOT of people were making the argument he shouldn't have gone on at all. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
False (4.00 / 1)
they made that argument based on the fact that he went on without criticizing them.  Go back and re-read what people have said.
[ Parent ]
To satify me all he would have had to say was something of that nature but obviously he didn't want to make this a story (0.00 / 0)
After Hillary's surrogates are on Fox literally doing promos, calling them "fair and balanced," it doesn't shock me that some within the Obama campaign felt it might not be wise to completely lose favor in their medium vs. Hillary.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
Can't blame this one on Hillary (4.00 / 1)
Obama is going to have to take responsibility for this problem all on his own.  It's pretty hard to blame Hillary or either of the Clintons for this.  (Not that people won't try).
[ Parent ]
But Hillary is the devil! (0.00 / 0)
Everything bad that happens is because of her. Haven't you been paying attention these last few months?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
What Obama did was bad, but he didn't go nearly as far as to legitimize Fox as HRC's campaign. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
And this is why you ensure Obama lacks accountability (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I also have been defending him, (0.00 / 0)
and I, too, wish he had been forthright with his comments.  He could have nipped all this nonsense about diversionary politics and refocused the attention on policies, foreign and domestic, and addressed the needs of Americans.  He didn't.  I think he did make some headway, but the show's audience I'm not sure it matters.

He could have made his case to conservative voters while also demonstrating that he is firm in his convictions; that he will stand up and proclaim his policies; that he will fight for the rights of workers; to invest in education; to modify our foreign policies including our international police-role and issues of commerce (lopsided trade agreements); that he wants to revisit our responsibilities to the environment; social security viability, etc.  

I'm not sure that appearance will make any difference.

[ Parent ]
Another SD for Obama (0.00 / 0)
Bad link (0.00 / 0)
Nothing about any SD's
[ Parent ]
I also wish he had called them out on it... (4.00 / 2)
but I'm not really up in arms about Obama going on Fox. I hate the network and all they stand for, and I think the world would be a better place without them, but I think in the context in which Obama is currently operating, and in the climate in which he is operating, Fox is, for the time being a necessary evil.

Fact is, there aren't enough Dems in the country to ignore Republicans and Indies, and though I hate it, a lot of people watch Fox news (masochism is some people's idea of a good time). So yeah, the Fox anchors are douchebags. Yeah, they'll run clips of it and take it out of context on Fox & Friends and orgasm over gaffes or whatever, but at the end of the day, the several million people watching this morning (I don't know their viewership, but I know they're the highest rated cable network, god help us) got to see Barack Obama speaking intelligently, not being the big scary black man Sean Hannity and Bill O'Rielly make him out to be. It is entirely possible that some of Fox's viewers first heard Barack Obama speak (outside a soundbite) this morning. And maybe they liked what they heard.

And now that they see that maybe he isnt a scary elitist who hates god and wants to steal their guns. And maybe they'll vote for him. And maybe he'll win, and then we can send Fox into the desert for 8 years, and make sure the FCC under the Obama administration clamps down on media consolidation so Murdoch doesn't get anymore real estate on which to spew his bullshit.

And maybe four years, and then eight years from now, Fox will be so neutered that they won't matter at all.

Its a lot to hope for, but a lot of people only watch Fox...and Barack could use those votes. Lets get a Dem in the White House, get me some health insurance, fix the economy, and then laugh and laugh as Fox tries to convince people with more money in their pockets how evil the Democrats who gave it to them are.

Eh (4.00 / 2)
I think that's some wishful thinking. Really, something upwards of 80% of Fox Viewers voted for Bush, and while some Republicans have since repudiated Bush (as seen in the numerous Popularity polls), I honestly think any who were going to switch to Obama would have done so by now.

Honestly, this whole thing has confused me. I wish he had attacked Fox when he was on the show, but I'm not really sure what good it would have done. While Matt thinks it would have essentially "delegitimized" the MSM and its current bullshit reporting, I honestly don't think that would have happened. Seriously, think about it, who would have reported on the event? The Media. Yeah, I'm sure they would have had a field day... with themselves? More than anything, I think it would have just pissed off O'Reilly and Hannity, and while that is always something of which to be proud, I really don't think it would have changed much structurally, or even most people's perception of the news (if you don't realize Fox is Right-Wing Propaganda at this point, a Northern Black Liberal telling you isn't going to convince you).

Now, don't misunderstand, this is not to excuse Barack. Honestly, I'm more disappointed that he even went on at all. Never going on Wallace's show and letting him continue his "Obama Watch" bullshit, which would have become rather boring after a while (it would be like a local tabloid reporter having a "George Clooney Watch", after a while they don't do anything but whine about not getting attention from the star), and he would have dropped it. By going on, all Obama did was legitimize the act, and now this type of thing will probably be done again if anyone tries to boycott Fox.  In my mind, nothing he could have done would have really made this helpful; one method would have pissed off conservatives, the other liberals. He just shouldn't have gone on the show in the first place.

As a note, unlike Matt, I really don't think it was a mistake to endorse Obama. Yeah, he fucks up like this from time to time, and he can use Clintonian tactics at times (ironic, isn't it?), but the whole point to the endorsement was that he was the best of the two left, and it would be nice to end this damn primary already, and neither of these points are negated by this stupid act (Clinton and her surrogates go on Fox constantly, and Ed Rendell recently congratulated them on having " the least biased coverage of the Primary" a few days before Terry McAuliffe complemented their coverage of Pennsylvania). In the end, I think we just need to keep putting pressure on the Obama campaign, and while we won't have an ideal Progressive, we'll be a lot closer than we have been in a while.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
Meanwhile the Clintons ... (0.00 / 0)
are having a field day reaching out to the Fox audience, both via Fox News and with the husband working overtime wooing them in-situ.

Obama would be stupid not to take advantage of the megaphone that Fox News was offering him and, given that he cannot be in as many places as the Clintons, use that to persuade voters to help him get the nomination.

[ Parent ]
What megaphone is Faux offering Obama? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Yeah, what megaphone? (0.00 / 0)
There's nothing to be gained from a Fox appearance in which he justifies his existence.

Democrats need to go on Fox willing to fight. The Fox audience doesn't respect the humble approach. Some might give him props for coming on, but not a single one will vote for him. You can do Fox right, we've seen Wes Clark do it in the past. Obama doesn't have the personality to do it like that, but he can do his own version of what Bill Clinton did, and rise far above the occasion. Anything short of that, and he's doing damage to himself.

My newly-acquired Obama bumpersticker goes in the shredder today. He's eventually going to have to hire somebody who knows something about the psychology of the media if he expects to run a general election campaign. I don't think he will, though. US Senate brain damage contagion. Every time he answers a question about Wright on the merits, he loses, period. How the fuck hard is that to see? The GOP is expert at this: answer the question once and then refer people to your previous answer, every time. They will eventually stop asking. The rules are only different for Democrats because Democrats let them be different.

Remember Obama comments about Reagan? Apparently, he didn't actually bother to study Reagan. Too busy staring in awe at his fan base. Every time he has the opportunity to practice Reagan's extremely effective verbal deflection techniques, he fails to do so.

Might as well let McCain be the next Hoover.

[ Parent ]
When Was This Stand? (4.00 / 1)
I freely admit that I am sometimes out of the loop on this - but what was the big stand against Fox News that Democrats were making? I seem to recall Ed Rendell showing up on the channel recently and praising it for being more balanced than CNN or MSNBC. Refusing to do a single debate seems like a much easier thing to organize than a party-wide boycott, and I don't quite understand why the former is being viewed as the latter. I agree with the overall project to delegitimize Fox News, but I don't think we're far enough along to completely ignore its audience.

(I haven't watched the Obama interview, so I have no specific comments on whether his appearance was good or bad.)

Refusing to debate on Fox (0.00 / 0)
Is the stand I'm talking about.  There was some sign too that Obama had locked fox out after they pushed the madrassa story last year.

[ Parent ]
I think that's an important point (0.00 / 0)
Refusing to go on Fox damaged Fox's credibility.  So at the very worst for Obama, it's one in the plus column and one in the minus column.  This idea that there's some kind of binary "you're either completely boycotting Fox or you support them" is the main problem I have with these posts.  
[ Parent ]
Yes, I think I saw a twitch in the horse's leg, so lets keep beating it (4.00 / 3)
Right now, Obama has one job: Win the nomination. He is not running to shut down Fox. He is not running to avoid humiliation because the entire electoral process is an exercise in humiliation. He is running for President, a job made more difficult by his supposed supporters undercutting him for making a campaign stop, a distasteful one at that, but a campaign stop.

Why did he do that??" Because he was "taunted?"  Or maybe it was because he is now a Fox lover like Clinton surrogates Rendell and McAuliffe.  Or is it possible, just possible, that his campaign thought it would help him get the votes he needs to close the nomination out?

I know, I know, what about our needs? We are out there  every day working just as hard as Obama is, laying it all on the line, month after month and then he goes and stabs us in the back by making a campaign stop in derogation of our Fox boycott. Jeez.

I mean, really,

Democrats had taken a stand on Fox News and now Obama has (in the eyes of the right) relented and restored Fox to its rightful place among the respectable news outlets."

We were this [index finger and thumb 1/2 inch apart] close to shutting Fox out and now those who thought it was not a respectable news outlet are once again certain that it is.  All because Obama is running for President, saw a need at this time -- unlike any other time in the last 2 years -- to make this stop and, thereby, put his needs ahead of ours.

Oh well.

 

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


Excuse me? (0.00 / 0)
What Fox boycott would that be?  Are the Democrats boycotting Fox?  If so... how do you explain the cozying up Hillary's surrogates have done?  Or are we only holding Obama to this standard?
[ Parent ]
I was talking about (4.00 / 1)
Their refusal to debate on Fox.  I know there is no general boycott, but that did set a standard.

Surrogates going on is not the same as the candidates themselves.  

[ Parent ]
Ha Ha (4.00 / 1)
Surrogates going on is not the same as the candidates themselves.

Funny, since Matt spent an entire story accusing Obama of being untrustworthy because of what some campaign aide said.

As for "boycott" I was just using Daniel's term. Ironically, no one has stayed off of Fox longer than Obama, yet he is the one being pilloried.

It is comical.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
aoei (0.00 / 0)
First, I'm not Matt and I only speak for myself.

Second, surrogates lying is also not the same as what I was discussing.  I think it's not inconsistent to be mad at surrogates for lying to progressives and be ok with them appearing on Fox News.

I also think it's ok to hold Obama to a higher standard seeing as he will be the Democratic party nominee and "at least he's better than Clinton" is not really the standard we are shooting for.  OpenLeft endorsed Obama so it's valid for the site to be more concerned with his behaviour than hers (or any other democrat).

Critiquing Obama != saying Hillary is a better nominee

[ Parent ]
Dead horses (0.00 / 0)
Well, I know there were several posts on this subject but it happened less than 24 hours ago...maybe we can talk about dead horses in a few weeks or months.
[ Parent ]
Transcript needed to count how many genuflections to the right wing he made (4.00 / 7)
1. Regulation issues.  The Republicans were right to criticize regulation

2. Dkos under the bus

3. Roberts and Alito

4. Abortion answer so convoluted can't tell what he said

There was more.  too tired to note them all...but in one section he made obeisance to numerous reight wong appproahes on policy.  It is a glimpse of the future if he's the nominee.

Oh yeah I liked this "Democrats don't have a monoply on wisdom"  Geez I do.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Like you, (4.00 / 4)
I couldn't get past those comments.  He even used the term "partial birth abortion" which is a GOP frame that every Democrat should know better than to use.  
[ Parent ]
Smells like self-marginalization (4.00 / 2)
But that does not mean that the "media dupe people" theory should stand in for sustained left analysis of how the winning of popular consent actually works in civil society; for when it becomes axiomatic, it degenerates into an all-purpose excuse for the left's many strategies of self-marginalization. --Michael Bérubé



twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco

This blogger writes ... (0.00 / 0)
70 percent of conservatives watch Fox News daily, compared to 12 percent of liberals - More
How about the nearly 50% of Democrats? (0.00 / 0)
Is it too much to ask this candidate to place some priority on the 50% of the Democratic party who does not yet support him when he's out convincing people to vote for him?
[ Parent ]
Move on (0.00 / 0)
Many of us have stated that we didn't like this decision. People are frustrated with our inability to field a strong progressive candidate and our inability to have any influence on the horrible corporate press. People are taking out those frustrations on Obama.

It's time to move on from this episode.

I disagree... (4.00 / 2)
"Moving on" has gotten us into all kinds of trouble.  We need to deal with it so it doesn't happen again.  Move On won't get any money from me until they acknowledge their mistake.

And Obama shouldn't get the respect of the netroots until he stands up for progressive values in every venue.  

I've referred to a Digby post several times over the past few weeks.  Wish I had the link.  In it, Digby said that the netroots failed in this election cycle because we didn't use our leverage with the candidates to push them into more progressive positions.  Every time Obama (or Hillary) is given a pass, we will suffer for it in the future.  There will be no mandate for progressive change because we didn't do our job.

[ Parent ]
Digby, of course, (0.00 / 0)
who came out early with an endorsement of a candidate, in order to magnify her influence ...
[ Parent ]
What? (4.00 / 1)
I wasn't aware that Digby had endorsed.
[ Parent ]
Wha? (4.00 / 1)
Who did she endorse, and when? Because I totally missed it.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Digby (0.00 / 0)
Digby has not endorsed, but has consistently criticized
Obama and stayed silent on Clinton's many gaffs.
Talking point after talking point she sides with Clinton but claims that she is neutral. A very low mark in her work as a writer.  
[ Parent ]
Uh, no. (4.00 / 2)
Digby has not stayed silent about Clinton.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
She's right of course. (4.00 / 3)
The netroots put out on the first date and now we've got bupkus.

Here's to hoping we don't do the same thing again in 2012.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Don't like it but... (0.00 / 0)
I don't like this one bit, but maybe Obama has a better understanding of what he has to do than we do. Republicans have learned to use to use the carrot and the stick to bring the MSM to heel. Giving a little access may subtly improve Fox's behavior if they think they need Obama on their network to appear somewhat legitimate? Also, he avoids the meme of "being too scared" being used by Hillary as he declines the proposed Lincoln/Douglas debate. At this point what choice do I have other than convince myself of all this?  

By the way, I think Kos and other blogs should temporarily-and vocally-put a halt to any fundraising support anytime a candidate casually dismisses the progressive net roots. Let's make them our supplicants. There has to be enough money at stake to apply pressure? Of course Hillary wouldn't care because little of her money comes the net roots.  

[ Parent ]
Wise up (4.00 / 3)
Please, I hope you're all smart enough to know Obama should NOT court YOU at this point.  He must court the swing, undecided, fearful, misinformed voters to win in November.  Please chill out on this.

If he said all the truthful, knock-down, drag-out stuff we'd all like to get off our chests, he'd win over exactly ZERO new voters, and give Fox sound byte after sound byte of "can't trust this guy" video footage.

Right now there is one prize and only one prize on which to keep your eyes:  Obama must be elected.  McCain MUST NOT be elected.  At this point, WHATEVER IT TAKES to win over undecided voters must be done.  Clinton may be elected, but only if you think nuking Iran is a good plan.

McCain with all of Bush's executive secrets and powers would lead to the DEATHS of tens if not hundreds of thousands of draft-age men and women with virtually no accountability.  The cowards in Democratic clothing already give the war hawks everything they ask for and more.  If McCain is elected, it will be a mandate for more of the same.  The Democrats will claim the people have spoken and want more war.

Forever.

This must not happen.

Focus, please.  For the love of god, focus.

Obama will be elected. (4.00 / 5)
But I'm not sure you're prepared for what that's going to be like.

You seem to think he is some sort of messiah that if we only put him in office all our problems are solved. He's not and they won't be. He has shown us time and time again that he will be a cautious centrist, a "caretaker president" who won't rock the boat and will continue to take his orders from the Versailles media.

And this will come as a shock and a surprise to so many of you but it shouldn't, there is no excuse for it, the cards are all lying on the table right in front of you.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
No Fair! (4.00 / 2)
Sure the cards are on the table, Sadie.

But they're all face up!

No wonder no one's looking at them.

They've gotta be face down to sustain the audacity of hope.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
So he should court them (4.00 / 1)
By giving in to right wing pressure and arm twisting to appear on Fox News?

That just reinforces how they see Democrats as weak and caving in all the time.

Besides, court small c conservatives and rank and file republicans some other way than by legitimizing their propaganda news network.  

[ Parent ]
Dems did it to themselves (0.00 / 0)
You talk about "caving in" to FOX - but the entire scenario that sets up the Democrat - Obama - to "cave in" was created by the Democrats.  They decided to "boycott" FOX, did they not?  Now, Obama is slammed for "caving in" by appearing on FOX.  He got "caught" in a trap set by his own party.  Good work.  

Do you think Wallace would have started the "Obama Watch" if there had been no "boycott"?

I bring it up because the whole idea of "boycotting" FOX was ridiculous from the outset.  It was simply not a tenable position - not to mention weaker than dilute green tea.  Do you really think that not hosting a Democratic debate hurt FOX?  Have they lost any advertisers because of it?  Did they lose ratings?  You want to boycott FOX - stop watching the Simpsons.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
yeah (4.00 / 2)
And if I hadn't stood up to that bully I wouldn't have gotten beat up, so it must be my fault for showing some spine?

I'm not sure what your point is.  Taking a stand on the debate may not have hurt fox in ratings terms but it helped the Democrats in avoiding a spectacle even worse than that ABC travesty debate.  It was a great move and Obama hamstringing it was completely unnecessary.

he never ever had to go on fox, nor does any democrat.  Bush and Cheney never go anywhere but fox and they seem to be plenty electable why can't Dems eschew the one worst network that uniformly treats them like shit and is quite literally out to get them?

[ Parent ]
We disagree (0.00 / 0)
I don't think that not debating on FOX was "standing up to a bully".  I think it was a silly excercise that had no point whatsoever - other than setting up Democrats to "cave in".

Even your stated goal: "it helped the Democrats in avoiding a spectacle even worse than that ABC travesty debate." was not realized.

Obama and Clinton went on ABC news and got the treatment you figure they would have gotten on FOX, yet when Obama goes on FOX, he doesn't get treated that way.

The results have undone your argument.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Dumbest. Issue. Ever. (4.00 / 2)
so board with this, guess I'll check OL later in the day and see if the site has moved on to real substance.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Gosh (0.00 / 0)
After defending your man through the entire last thread, it sure is brave of you to fight the good fight for substance. Thanks!

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Who's using whom? (4.00 / 2)
Here's where the race stands: Obama is winning. Clinton has successfully planted doubts that Obama can connect with working class voters, perhaps giving superdelegates pause. (see the iconography on Newsweek's cover--arugula vs. beer).

Seems to me that Obama chose to appear on FoxNews at this time for his own purposes. He wasn't caving to their stunt countdown clock. Nor was he deterred by it.

He's reaching out to voters who are not currently with him. Some of them watch Fox News. (Okay, most of the Fox audience will NEVER vote Obama. But don't assume that all of them are unreachable.)

More than that, he's being seen by superdelegates as reaching out to a wider audience.

At this stage of the campaign (0.00 / 0)
it is necessary for him to reach out to the non-core voters who may or may not support him.  It is entirely reasonable for Obama to look for votes in areas that he does not now have much support--in fact, that is precisely the strategy of a winning campaign.  He has presented a message of unity, of bridges our divides and of working across borders in order to build the support for both his campaign and presumably for future legislation.  This recent tactic is consistent with his message, and is an inclusive strategy.

On the other hand, the Clinton campaign is focusing almost entirely on the blue-collar workers in NC and IN, just like they did in OH and PA.  Their campaign is exclusive.

[ Parent ]
You are right. (0.00 / 0)
First, he is reaching out to working class whites when the media narrative is that he cannot win them. After not appearing on FOX for such a long time, his going on itself is news, giving him major play. He is just yanking their chain.

Second, I cannot shake the feeling that the timing of the interview was to preempt the renewed media attention on Rev. Wright and provide a calm, reasonable and likable counterpoint to the "angry black man" narrative.

Third, I don't think this has anything to do with the netroots or its expectations. He shouldn't be courting us at this point of the campaign. We should have his back. He needs to focus on the general election, reaching out to independents and undecideds.  

[ Parent ]
He should have had his own terms (4.00 / 4)
I've said this elsewhere, yesterday:
I agree with everything you're saying except the part about caving to their pressure.

If this were my decision to make, I think I would have handled it a bit differently.  I would have contacted Fox and told them to knock it off with the Obama clock and such.  I'd agree to appear on Fox with Wallace only after some period of time without the Obama clock and the pressure.  

At this point, it does kind of look like he went on Fox because they were whining and pressuring him everyday.

Obama appeared to be somewhat subservient yesterday on Fox, and it made no sense to me because he was clearly the one in the position of power.  At Fox News, they were beside themselves about this appearance.  I was watching, curious to see how this would play out.  They ran a marquee at the bottom of the screen for hours, on and off, saying, "Barack Obama sits down with Fox's Chris Wallace."   Yesterday, I thought it was pretty pathetic that their breaking news was that Obama had appeared on their network.  Now I realize it was all part of the "ritual humiliation."

These guys are bullies, plain and simple.  The Democratic party could really use some counseling on how to deal with bullies and abusive people.

I was upset about this appearance... (4.00 / 2)
...until I talked with my Republican friend last night. He had been a lukewarm McCain supporter up until then, not happy with how McCain "screwed the GOP" with campaign finance reform, amnesty, and other things, but not daring to actually go to The Dark Side and vote Democratic. But he saw Obama, and was duly impressed with him. His words to me were that "he has some cojones after all", and "he's glad that he shot down all that Wright and flag-pin crap." He said he wasn't ready to support Obama yet, but he would go to Obama's website and give him a fresh look.

So maybe Obama knows more about politics than the rest of us?? Perish the thought. :)

As lomg as your friend .. (0.00 / 0)
pulls the lever ... or marks the ballot .. or whatever they do where he votes .. I just happen to think he's going to be one out of like 5 people though .. it's not for nothing that studies have found Faux viewers to be the most misinformed
[ Parent ]
Yeah, That Sounds Like A Prime Pickup Opportunity! (0.00 / 0)
Too bad Obama's not a governor. All he'd have to do is fry some retarded black dude, like Clinton did in '92 with Ricky Rae Rector, and he'd have this guy's vote all tied up!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
You're right (0.00 / 0)
I guess treating voters like morons is a better way of getting their support.
[ Parent ]
This wasn't just Fox News (0.00 / 0)
The show has an audience outside the traditional context of Fox news, it is a Fox Network show. It plays on local affiliates just like Meet The Press and Face the nation.
Many viewers of this show do not watch Fox news, they see Chris Wallace as part of their local Fox affiliate feed.
Do you know how many people watch ... (0.00 / 0)
any of the local Faux affiliates on Sunday? .. I would bet most people only know the local Faux channel for AI and The Simpsons
[ Parent ]
More on Fox network (4.00 / 1)
Sorry, I'm at work and don't have time to do the research, but...
In the late 90's The Fox network took over most CBS affiliates. Anyone who does not have cable (many don't) think of this network just like they think of their local NBC affiliate. Not only that, but they are on VHF signals not shoddy UHF (where most CBS affiliates reside).
If you have cable or satellite the local Fox station is mixed with your other local stations, it is not in the mix with news channels.
Channel suffers will find The Chris Wallace show a click up or down from the other 3 major network Sunday shows. It is not just a Fox News cable program. People watched this show who never watch Fox news.
I watched on Channel 5 in Atlanta. Not Fox News.

[ Parent ]
Do you ever actually ... (0.00 / 0)
check the ratings? .. the Sunday morning gabfests are more for the DC crowd than anything
[ Parent ]
stop allowing redstate folks take up space (0.00 / 0)
in your head.  I am betting they don't even pay rent.  No one should care what they think.
I know (0.00 / 0)
I do feel bad for having linked to them.  Wasting my beautiful mind and all.

[ Parent ]
Obama Goes on Fox News (0.00 / 0)
So Obama supporters are either
1. Upset that he dissed KOS and them
or
2. So happy he is smart enough to pander to the right wing.

So to get those all important Republican votes Obama:
Throws women under the bus by saying he is willing to  reach across the aisle to limit abortion rights.
Throws everybody who is not a rich white man or a corporation under the bus by first flirting with the idea of voting to confirm Roberts as Chief Justice and defending his Democratic colleagues who do. AND
Throws the planet under the bus by telling us deregulation was a good thing and industries can police themselves.

What a liberal! What progressive stances!

Are we even sure this guy is a Democrat?

More Obama and Fox News | 64 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