it is utterly undefensible. it's plain stupid. (4.00 / 6)

I support Obama and he's the best nominee we've had in decades. but that doesn't put him above criticism. this was utterly stupid and counter-productive.

---

by: danthrax @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 14:10:44 PM CDT

A perfect dose of sanity (4.00 / 2)

The Dear Leader syndrome over at Kos is ridiculous.  I am a committed Obama supporter who campaigned for him in New Hampshire and Illinois, donated money to him from my student loans, and will continue to support him in the primary and the general election.  That said, he sold out progressives on the Fox News issue.  For a look at the effect this is having, Hillary Clinton now feels it's safe enough to go on The O'Reilly Factor, of all places.  Obama bears a lot of the responsibility for that terrible decision.  Now all Democrats will feel its safe to jump right into the Fox cesspool.

There is progressivism and there is electoral politics.  Much of the time, they go hand in hand.  This was shown with the successful boycott of Fox News by Democratic candidates for over a year.  However, now, what may be good for Obama's campaign in the short term (pleasing The Village with a Fox News interview) in anathema to progressives' long term goal of de-legitimizing Fox News.

I get the sense Obama is taking progressives for granted. He's probably right on that one. We're in his camp through the general. However, the energy level will rise and fall according to his commitment to uphold progressive values. Additionally, if President Obama wants popular pressure to enact his proposals, the blogosphere is a medium that should be embraced and progressives should be emboldened.

---

by: BCdem @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 14:20:35 PM CDT

Dear Leader syndrome over at Kos (0.00 / 0)

Daily Kos has over 150,000 registered users. We clearly don't all sing from the same hymn book. I know I don't. I am an Obama supporter, and I have been arguing on Daily Kos comment threads against Obama's Fox appearance. In fact I called him "a scab" who was "crossing the picket line." And Open Left is by no means free of "Dear Leader syndrome" itself.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 21:47:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

regarding point 3... (4.00 / 2)

Forget the list of non-centrist/non-progressive venues Obama draws the line on. What about the progressives he doesn't seem interested in talking to? That seems to be one of the big complaints about the Fox interview: Obama goes on Fox, but he seems to actively avoid the blogosphere.

This might be called the Krugman problem, since Krugman seems to epitomize the staunch progressive who has ended up in vocal opposition to Obama's campaign. I think Krugman has crossed the line and let his ego get in the way of his analysis a bit lately, but I can't help but think that Obama could have diffused the whole problem by actually attempting to talk and listen to Krugman: some good staff communication, a phone call or two, maybe a meeting.

That seems to be the gist of the complaint about the Fox interview: why does Obama go on Fox, but he can't be bothered to talk to the blogosphere?

---

by: Cramer @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 14:31:08 PM CDT

who watches Family Guy and American Dad? (0.00 / 0)

because it was Fox broadcasting affiliates leading with interview snips on nightly news at 10pm.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 14:35:24 PM CDT

And here's why I'm so glad not to be a partisan (0.00 / 0)

It seems as though everyone's sanity flies out the window.

Here's some MORE context.  

1. If you're going to try to "heal the nation" you pretty much have to be where those who aren't otherwise going to hear you, WILL hear you.

2. We finally have a candidate who is both NOT divisive and NOT  a punching bag.  We finally have a candidate who recognized the importance of not leaving a narrative to fester ongoingly in pockets of ignorance. And what do we do?  Complain.  

3. We forget that the Fox News narrative stretches quite a bit beyond Fox News... it, like ANY media, follows into those swaths of Americana that isn't watching ANY news if they can avoid it.

How about that really nice, skeptical guy in Ohio who "heard Obama was a muslim" but was thinking about voting for him anyway?  Nice guy - appreciate his religious tolerance, but gee - ya think he got that news from CNN? How about MSNBC?

I didn't support the Fox News boycott in the first place.  I saw it as counterproductive, meaningless tripe.  And - I guess I'm not really an "Open Left" type (I'm not registered with any party, and am only here as an Obama supporter, not as a leftist), but I'm VERY glad that Obama took the time to go and be heard where it mattered.  Ya think that Fox News (or faux news, as the left likes to term them) won't have a field day with this latest Wright debacle?  Should it go unanswered, or should the candidate show up and clear his name?

Meanwhile, whilst comparing statistics - can we get a reasonable statistic on how many people read blogs? I'm fairly computer literate, and I can't find my way around DailyKos to save my life.  I hadn't heard of this site until someone provided me a link (and I was LOOKING for Pro-Obama sites!).  What's the actual reach? Is it enough to get the candidate elected, or - is it enough to do exactly the good that you all are doing - pooling the activist resources and getting some AIR time (including, I certainly hope, on FOX?)

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 14:38:07 PM CDT

You're not a partisan; you're for Obama (4.00 / 1)

partisan |?pärt?z?n|
noun
1 a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
2 a member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in enemy-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in World War II.

---

by: RapsodiaStellare @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 15:06:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks. :-) (0.00 / 0)

By partisan I meant, of course, aligned with a political party.  I am supporting a Barack Obama presidency, but won't join the democratic party to do it, nor am I one of those likely to help down ticket, as I'll judge each candidacy on it's own, without regard to party affiliation.

But yes - taking any side in a dispute is inherently partisan... Fair enough!

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 17:45:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's your deal? (4.00 / 1)

I am curious as to why you would be supporting Obama, but not supporting Democrats overall. Is it not about issues and policy for you? Are you mainly concerned with personality?

I have a suspicion that a lot of Republicans are not very aware of which party supports which policies. If they did, they would be Democrats. They mainly are Republicans because they have been swayed by personality and cultural identity arguments. They hate the Clintons. They get very worked up over Jesse jackson and Barbara Streisand. But they have misconceptions about which party supports policies that favor working people.

If you don't mind, can you summarize your reasoning for believing that Republicans and Democrats are roughly equivalent? What Republican policies do you support? What Democratic policies do you oppose?

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 22:06:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for asking (4.00 / 1)

My reasons for not being a registered partisan are 2:

1. As an African-American, I don't believe it is in the best interests of my people to be so slavishly loyal to any one party.  As a small minority that tends to vote in blocks (we voted largely Republican less than 100 years ago) - it would benefit us hugely if we were a swing vote.  We're not, but it would be good if we were.

2. As a Baha'i, registering in partisan politics is against my religion.  Baha'is vote their consciences - and I'm fudging a bit by being so "partisan" in my support of Obama (but I don't claim perfection!) - without regard for political affiliations, and it is expressly against the Faith to belong to political parties.

As to policies and such - I judge on a case by case basis.  But, I'm much more likely to vote for the personality of the politician than for the policies, unless a particular policy stands out for me as urgent.  My concern is the priorities of the politician, their ability to hear the needs of the people, their ability to articulate a vision that (may or may not) help, and most importantly, their ability to change course if something isn't working.  No ideology or political philosophy is one-size-fits-all... sometimes something will work, sometimes not.   What's important is to build an organization that can effectively respond to the situation on the ground.  In my short life, I've never seen a president fulfill his campaign promises, but I have seen presidents try to go in a particular direction.  I've seen presidents get bullheaded and stubborn in face of obvious facts, I've seen presidents hammer out compromises that move the country along a little further than where it was when they got in office.  I think you might guess which kind of president I prefer. ;)

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:16:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for replying. (0.00 / 0)

I will not attempt to argue against your faith-based reason #2. I am not religious, but I attempt to respect other peoples religious beliefs, or at least treat them respectfully.

I understand and appreciate reason #1, but I think that the logic of that argument is outweighed by the fact that the stoking of white resentment against African-Americans has been a consistent and central part of the Republican Party political playbook for almost half a century. Do you really want to send a message to politicians that this type of behavior is acceptable?

As to policy versus personality, I am not suggesting that you have blind faith in all campaign promises. I look at what a politician says, but also what his or her voting record, campaign funding, choice of advisors, political skills, overall ideology, etc. indicate in terms of helping to predict actual policy results.

We all know that Democratic politicians are not perfect. They are susceptible to corruption and indoctrination by beltway and media elites. But there is a broad and clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans on a number of issues, especially the economy; Democrats favor policies that benefit the poor and middle class (i.e. 99% of Americans) while Republicans favor policies that benefit the hyper-wealthy elite.

There is a broad consensus among the "netroots"/"progressive blogosphere" that the task at hand is not just electing more Democrats; the challenge is to elect more and better Democrats. If you stick around, you will notice much grassroots effort being put into campaigns to defeat corrupt Democrats through primary challenges by more progressive Democratic candidates. A huge recent victory was Donna Edwards' defeat of the corrupt Al Wynn in the Democratic primary for Maryland's 4th Congressional district.

The differences between the two parties are big enough to make enormous differences in the lives of our fellow human beings and the environment. You don't need to register as a Democrat to see that the last eight years of Republican domination have produced a whole lot of misery.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 15:57:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Partisanship itself is a problem... (0.00 / 0)

I think the republican party has pushed an anti-black agenda because it was in their interests to do so.  And, we've seen just how quickly democrats will do it, right here in this election.  And, I lived most of my life in the black community and watched all the black democratic leadership jockeying for power whilst conditions in the black community don't get any better.  No - I stand by my convictions.

But there's a better reason to be anti-partisan, than even these personal ones that I name, and it is the one that I have to bring up now, in response to your passionate defense of the progressive movement.  I admire your dedication to the cause, btw, so please don't take this amiss.

The problem with partisanship is that it's partisan. Dogmatic adherence to a party line forces partisans to offer inferior solutions, at least some of the time, because it fits the party line/philosophy, and opposes the other guy's philosophy.  There may indeed be very good reasons for corporate welfare.  I think the actual facts in many cases don't reflect at all the partisan rhetoric that we here.  I think that there are some things very UNgood about the liberal (progressive?) welfare proposition.  It was a liberal who created the family-harming WIC (women, infants, children. Sorry, dads - not included here!) philosophy that destabilizes the black community - making it preferrable to NOT marry since marriage means a loss of benefits.

We form parties to pool our strengths, but as it turns out, big parties are not better than big business.  They don't have the people's interests at heart - they, like any other business, are a going concern, and have at heart the furtherance of the party. What that means is creating a brand and selling it, no matter if the brand doesn't ALWAYS fit properly.

We could agree that in this day and age one party is better than another.  But I believe that one party is better than another at any given time because we have parties.  Parties must differentiate and compete - and sometimes those successful differentiators are our worser angesl, aren't they?  What if, instead of creating parties that let these negative aspects solidify into identity groups - we simply left them out and forced them to rise up to a higher standard in order to participate at all?  Can that be done if the way the game is played is by carving out chunks of the electorate in a game of salesmanship?

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 23:37:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NOT Post-Partisan! :) (0.00 / 0)

I meant to add - I'm not "post-partisan."  I see that that's a sore point on this site.

I'm anti-partisan.  I perceive a big difference. :)

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 23:38:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You make good arguments. (0.00 / 0)

I disagree, not on philosophical grounds, but on practical grounds. Republicans will be fighting fiercely in a partisan manner for harmful policies. We have a two-party system. Partisanship seems like the only pragmatic way to keep conservatives from taking us back to a feudal system.

As long as you are open-minded and pragmatic about solutions that help working-class people and the environment, I generally consider you a political ally.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 23:58:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A virtual handshake :-) (4.00 / 1)

||*(

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:21:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know -- (0.00 / 0)

I bet Dukakis's people told him he looked good riding in that tank, too.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 15:47:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"I was looking for Pro-Obama sites" (0.00 / 0)

That's very open minded of you. I think you should look somewhere else.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 18:28:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"look somewhere else" (0.00 / 0)

I would guess that most people here, including the site owners, support Obama. That's not to say that supporting Obama is the main goal of the site. But I think any visitor here can decide for themselves if it is "pro-Obama" by whatever criteria they choose to define the term.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 22:13:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My Apologies! (4.00 / 2)

I meant no aspersion on your community.  I was referred here by an Obama supporter who was complimenting a post on this site dealing with numbers (forget which now, delegates, or polls).  I may have overextended the meaning of the reference, but my limited scroll around suggested that this site was friendly to Obama's efforts.

As it stands, I don't frequent Obama only sites as much more open opined sites, because sometimes I think partisanship makes people a bit onesided in judgment.  Someone else asked if Obama supporters would be just as ok with Hillary going on Fox.  I've already stated finding the boycott counterproductive.  But I've also been a staunch critic of some of the misogyny hurled at Clinton - sometimes by Obama supporters.  SO, if after all, this isn't a "pro-Obama" site, I'd still like to hang around from time to time... if that's ok?

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 13:00:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

as the jakester in question (0.00 / 0)

I wish you'd pointed out my other point -- that Barack Obama was in fact on Fox News just last month, in an interview with Major Garrett, when the Wright flap first broke!  I'm not sure why you didn't castigate him then, or why you haven't spent every Monday castigating the various senators who go on Fox.

Because they all do it.

Do it make it right?  Let's say "no."  But you're being less than truthful when you indicate that Obama had frozen out the network.  And I'm not sure what kind of substantiation you have for Fox having been successfully de-legitimized by some phantom boycott.  More likely, Americans have started seeing through their crap as the Bush administration loses more and more credibility.

Finally, I wish you'd point out that Fox News Sunday is actually seen by a lot of people who don't even have cable, as it's picked up by Fox Affiliates, most of which have no relationship to Fox News national.

Obama's appearance was worth noting, but singling him out as if he's been setting some kind of example that he just broke on Sunday is wrong.

And as for him distancing himself from Rev. Wright, I would have done the same thing if my friend had acted in the manner that Wright did yesterday.  Watch the video, you'll know what I'm talking about.  Obama's response will not answer the questions (why is he angrier about a personal insult than "God Damn America" I'm sure will be the big one) but it seems completely on-the-level to me.

---

by: jakester @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 15:08:08 PM CDT

Are the BHO supporters (4.00 / 1)

today supporting HRC's decision to go on Fox with the same vigor they showed regarding his appearance on that same network? How about HRC supporters?  Are they denouncing her as strongly as they denounced BHO for doing the same thing?

I'd like to be on record as saying her decision was as stupid and as bad for the Democratic Party as his.

---

by: JohnS @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 15:20:26 PM CDT

He'd have a hard time appearing at the third socialist international. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: seabrook @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 15:23:36 PM CDT

Competing Data (0.00 / 0)

According to this article and recent survey, in 2006, 19% of Democrats regularly watched Fox. That is compared to 36% of Republicans.

http://www.physorg.com/news127...

---

by: spectatus @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 15:29:07 PM CDT

From that link (4.00 / 1)

"Republicans have dramatically dropped news sources that they perceive as being biased against their position," Hollander said. "They've completely fled into Fox and have left CNN, broadcast news and all the others - including CSPAN, which is raw content."

It's well known that facts do have a liberal bias.

---

by: BigTuna @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 18:44:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was foreseeable that suuport for the person of Obama (4.00 / 1)

would exceed support for the principles of the netroots.

At least I will toot my own horn...I foresaw it.  I wrote about it in this blog and others...Here I was disagreed with but not cursed.

Given that at Dkos was noted it has been over 900 days since Obama engaged with the netroots at Dkos, but he still has created amongst his supporters such avid, unquestioning support that it was clear that this would be the outcome.

He owed nothing to the netroots...indeed it sometimes seems like he controls the blogs instead of the actual proprietors of the blogs.  Good thing that Markos, Matt and to some extent Chris have thick hides because they are getting a lot of rotten tomatoes thrown at them.

If Hillary Clinton were the nominee the netroots could still stand as the important independent power centers and actors that they have grown into....that would be a better outcome in my opinion for the netroots.

It is always a danger in political world when voters support persons rather than principles...when allegiance to the person of Barack Obama is greater than allegiance to the principles of the Democratic party or the principles of the netroots.

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

---

by: debcoop @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 15:34:29 PM CDT

Agree with your central point here (0.00 / 0)

Although I seem to recall disagreeing with you in the past. :)

Rhetorical question: does the race for the Presidency ever value principles above person?  If so, when was the last time that happened?

---

by: TValley @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 15:43:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's the point of denouncing Obama? ... (4.00 / 1)

... and I don't mean that rhetorically.

There could be many valid reasons, but the one I can't stomach is "because it's the truth."  There's a lot of truth out there.

Are you trying to influence Obama?  To what extent is that possible?

Are you saying that our support for Obama this year not only WON'T be as great, but SHOULDN'T be as great?  Focus on congressional races?

Are we bracing ourselves against the pain of Hillary getting the nomination?

Are you trying to unite OpenLeft around a tactical approach to the media?  Not just Fox?  If so, I think you should develop that further.

In part, I don't think we've come to terms with the fact that Obama has a different perspective than OpenLeft. Recall the extent the congressional Democrats were able to block Bush, and could have stopped him dead except for a lack of will when they didn't.  I mean, circa 2004, not when we finally had nominal majorities.

Do you think the Republicans won't react even worse to a Democratic presidency?  Will we be able to nominate a single Supreme Court justice, for instance?  The only thing we can count on (cross my fingers) is drawing down the war, because continuing it requires action -- inaction will kill it.

What kind of governing coalition is possible?  What kind of popular coalition could defeat a hard-core Republican obstructionist bloc?  (The Republican base is not the same as Senate Democrats.)

I've long argued that our strategic focus should be 2010, that our influence over 2008 is questionable.  This just rubs our face in that fact.

As for Wright, he goes under the bus.  Obama proudly and eloquently defended Wright against past statements.  But this is now.  Obama is ripping him for current statements.  Look, if Obama says to Wright, "Hey, I'm running for president, caught in a crossfire between the media and Hillary, and if you're serious about helping me, then lay low and keep your trap shut," and Wright ignores that, flagrantly, then it is Wright betraying Obama in the here and now.  He goes under the bus.  You think Obama is some wimp who can't play hardball?

If you want to criticize Obama, that's fine.  But I would hope it has some purpose other than pouring out the pain of a jilted lover.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

---

by: jeffroby @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 16:02:47 PM CDT

Supporting Obama doesn't mean we can't criticize him (4.00 / 2)

Sigh.  Whether or not I completely agree with this post, I find the tendency towards hero worship disturbing.  Fox News is dangerous.  Appearing on Fox News legitimates them.  The validity or usefulness of this move is worthy of debate, and I believe there are good reasons on both sides.  But this, Obama can do no wrong attitude on the left is ridiculous.  Hero worship is what got us into this mess in the first place.  Many Americans still want a king, they just want a "good" one.

---

by: AronBlue @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 16:13:42 PM CDT

This is what...effort # 6 to justify the front pager's hyperbolic reaction? (0.00 / 0)

1. However, don't pretend that going on Fox is a place to reach many Democrats, moderates, or Independents. The audience is full of conservative Republicans.

Kos said it is an open primary -- Republicans can cross over.

2.Freeze out Fox News was BlogPac's most successful action ever.

Key word is "was." Look at your list of who has appeared in just the last few weeks. If it is wildly successful, one appearance after over two years won't doom it.

3.Obama doesn't "talk to everyone.". The basic defense of Obama over his Fox News appearance has been that it is demonstrative of his willingness to "talk to everyone," or something.

Agree, this was a weak defense. In fact, Obama talks to whomever he wants, or feels, he needs to talk to. He doesn't feel the need to say "mother may I." Again, he is trying to win the nomination.

4.Just Because Other Democrats Do It Doesn't Make It OK

No, it simply means a) there is no non-debate boycott and b) other Democrats thinks it is necessary at times.

Further, it is different with Obama for two key reasons. First, Obama is highly likely to be the Democratic presidential nominee, and thus the leading Democrat in the nation, giving him more influence than all other Democrats. Second, starting in late 2006, Obama had taken a lead role in freezing out Fox News.

In other words, Obama thanks for everything you have done, you have done more than others, but what have you done for us lately?

Perhaps most depressingly, in what seems like a clear cut case of Dear Leader syndrome, huge numbers of people online seem to back Obam'sa decision simply because Obama made it.

Or, maybe you are wrong and huge numbers of people online are correct.  Try to wrap your mind around that thought.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.

---

by: MC @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 16:58:15 PM CDT

Context (0.00 / 0)

Hmmm...  While I agree it was wrong for Obama to go on Fox, I don't think I agree with your context.  As I've stated in comments to other diaries, the problem isn't that Fox is right wing, the problem is they pretend otherwise.  You hint at that when discussing "de-legitimizing the network", but that doesn't seem to be the central point.

For example, there is nothing wrong with Obama or any other Democrat appearing on Scarborough who clearly presents himself as conservative.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 16:58:58 PM CDT

not just conservative (0.00 / 0)

There is a difference between editorializing and lying. Fox knowingly reports things that are false. They are propagandists and not a real news organization.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 22:23:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Best Place to Drown Fox News in the Bathtub (4.00 / 1)

Is from the White House.  So for me, the only question that matters, for now, anyway, is whether the appearance on Fox helped or hurt him with Indiana and North Carolina voters.  And I think it's a pretty safe bet that he gained more votes than he lost by appearing on the show.  It was a smart and practical move, just as it was smart to advocate (and achieve) the freeze-out of any Fox debates early in the primary season, which sent a clear signal to us, the base, that he was on to them.  Would I have done it?  Probably not, but then again, he's within spitting distance of becoming POTUS and I'm not, so I'm willing to entertain the notion that he's better with this stuff than I am.  When was the last time you felt that way about the Current Occupant?

---

by: ched @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 17:02:55 PM CDT

2 responses (4.00 / 1)

The Best Place to Drown Fox News in the Bathtub Is from the White House

You need a mandate to do things.  If you get elected as a cautious centrist you can't turn around do the things needed to neutralize Fox substantively.

And I think it's a pretty safe bet that he gained more votes than he lost by appearing on the show.

Even if this is true, it ignores the larger fight Obama is one part of.  We are not just concerned about getting a Democrat elected at all costs.  This is to build a progressive governing majority, and Fox is a major obstacle to that.  Obama has hurt others to help himself.  The price may be worth it, but I don't really see how.  In any case, it's not all about him.  Sometimes in Chess you sacrifice your Queen to win the game (or stay alive).  So if the tactical short term value costs us in the strategic long term, I will take exception.

Taken to the extreme, the best way to get elected President nowadays is to just be a Republican.  Since I think we both agree Obama shouldn't do that, then there is some line we believe it is unacceptable to cross.  I happen to think enabling Fox news is beyond that line absent some compelling logic or reason to go on.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 19:29:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Useful context; a few thoughts (0.00 / 0)

Great information as always, Chris, and thanks for taking the time to put it together.  #2 certainly helps me understand why the netroots feel so slapped in the face about this.

On your point #1, I tend to look at the Fox appearance as part of the second front in the two-front battle the Obama campaign  sees themselves as fighting.  Given the huge dislike for campaign in camps of the Republican party, and Obama's ability to attract some anti-abortion evangelicals, it seems to me a huge mistake to write off the Fox News audience in its entirety.  Changing the 88/7 ratio to 78/17 isn't impossible, and it would make a significant difference in November.  So, I'm not convinced that the lack of Democrats in the audience is a reason not to do it.

I'll have to think more about #3 and #4.

But this might be a dead horse at this point, so I'll try to move on to other topics.

To the contrary, I think it's premature to move on; there's still a lot of learning.  Why weren't the netroots able to build on this huge initial victory?  And how to do better moving forward?  

---

by: JonPincus @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 17:05:04 PM CDT

Matt had two great points (2.00 / 2)

One - An Obama adviser telling TPM that Obama took Fox on = teh Iraq Warz!

Two - Any objection to this conclusion as over the top comes pre-inoculated because Obama supporters are blind knee-jerk cultists who would of course object.

It's to the point that anyone who wants to criticize Obama gets to automatically dress themselves up in the clothes of intellectual heroism before the reaction itself - the reaction can be assumed and then you get to be a pre-martyr.  How convenient.  Automatically a noble truth-speaker before you even begin.

---

by: PocketNines @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 19:14:04 PM CDT