Wallace Plays Hardball With Obama, Netroots Angered by Barack's Civility

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

Well, sports fans, the highly-anticipated, years in the making interview of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama on "Fox News Sunday" is over, and it's certain that folks on both sides of the aisle -- as well as all three remaining campaigns -- will find positives and negatives to glom on to.

In fact, some well-known liberal bloggers have already expressed their displeasure with Obama, wondering why he didn't attack Fox News as had been advertised.

But, before we get to such entertaining feedback, here are the questions posed by host Chris Wallace, which, to this writer's eye, appear to be anything but the normal softballs Obama has been thrown since he first tossed his name into the ring (full transcript here, h/t our good friend Johnny Dollar, video containing many of these questions available at the Huffington Post with full interview video now available at Raw Story, liberal websites both):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
  • Your defeat in Pennsylvania raises new questions about your candidacy and especially about some of the pillars of the Democratic base. Let’s take a look at the numbers. Among white union households, Clinton beats you 72 percent to 28 percent. Among white Catholics, again, same margin, 72 percent to 28 percent.

    Senator, why are you having such trouble convincing white, working class voters that you’re their guy?

  • But some observers, and some liberal observers say is that part of your problem is you come off as a former law professor who talks about transforming politics when the lunch bucket crowd really wants to know what you’re going to do for them. Bob Herbert, columnist for the “New York Times”, happens to be a black man, says that Hillary Clinton seems tougher than you do.

  • But when you see yourself among these groups losing 70 percent to 30 percent, you aren’t troubled by that? Don’t you think to yourself maybe I need to have a different message or a new message? A different way of reaching out to them?

  • There’s something else that we saw in Pennsylvania. And take a look at this. Whites backed Clinton 63 percent to 37, while blacks voted for you 90 percent to 10. And if anyone has any doubts, 12 percent of those whites admitted that race was a factor, and they went for Clinton by more than 3-1.

    Senator, for all your efforts to run a post-racial campaign, isn’t there still a racial divide in this country that is going to make it very hard for you to get elected president?

  • Congressman James Clyburn, one of the top African-Americans politicians in this country, said this week that blacks are furious with Bill Clinton for playing the race card. Do you agree with him that there’s been a deliberate effort by the former president and some Clinton supporters to make race an issue in this Democratic race?

  • I wasn’t sure whether I was even going to ask you about your former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, but he made it easy for me because he’s now begun this...public campaign to redeem his reputation. The other night he said to Bill Moyers that he has been the target of a smear campaign. Question: Do you think that Reverend Wright is just the victim here?

  • Did you talk to Reverend Wright recently about his decision to make public — a series of public appearances at this particular point?

  • But you didn’t try to discourage him from going public? It obviously isn’t helpful to your campaign to have him on the scene right now.

  • By the way, in your speech on race, you said that while you haven’t heard these remarks that have been public, that you had heard controversial remarks from the pulpit...Can you tell us anything that you heard him say?
  • But did he ever say anything about America or about white racism that troubled you?
  • Senator, you say a lot of good stuff. Reverend Wright (INAUDIBLE) are distractions from the real issues. But especially for someone like you, who’s a newcomer to the national scene, people don’t know a lot about, don’t voters have a legitimate interest in who you are and what your values are?
  • Let me ask you one other (INAUDIBLE) which some will call the distraction, some will call values. In the last debate, you were asked about your relationship with William Ayers, the former ‘60s radical and you said that you were no more responsible for what he did back in the 1960s than for your friendship with Tom Coburn, senator from Oklahoma, pediatrician, who has made comments about possibly taking the death penalty for cases of abortion. Do you really feel moral equivalency between what Ayres did and what Tom Coburn said?
  • No, I’m just surprised that you brought Coburn in, because it seems to me it’s so apples and oranges.
  • Senator, one of the central themes of your campaign is that you are a uniter, who will reach across the aisle and create a new kind of politics. Some of your detractors say that you are a paint by the numbers liberal and I’d like to explore this with you.

    Over the years, John McCain has broken with his party and risked his career on a number of issues, campaign finance, immigration reform, banning torture. As a president, can you name a hot button issue where you would be willing to cross (ph) Democratic party line and say you know what, Republicans have a better idea here.

  • But, Senator, if I may, I think one of the concerns that some people have is that you talk a good game about, let’s be post-partisan, let’s all come together — just a couple of quick things, and I don’t really want you to defend each one, I just want to speak to the larger issue.

    The gang of 14, which was a group — a bipartisan coalition to try to resolve the nomination — the issue of judicial nominations. Fourteen senators came together, you weren’t part of it. On some issues where Democrats have moved to the center, partial-birth abortion, Defense of Marriage Act, you stay on the left and you are against both.

    And so people say, do you really want a partnership with Republicans or do you really want unconditional surrender from them?

  • I want to ask you about more area during this segment. Tax and spending, the Republicans are keeping a running total of all of your plans. They say it’s $662 billion over four years. They say for all your promises not to raise taxes on the middle class that in fact you want to raise the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, and you also want to — let me get this straight here, you also want to increase capital gains.

    Question, John McCain is going to go after you as another classic liberal tax and spender.

  • Senator, this week President Bush named David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, to be the head of Central Command, which controls overseas military operations across the Middle East and Central Asia. Will you vote to confirm his nomination?
  • I want to ask you about presidents and listening to generals. Petraeus, I don’t have to tell you, is the architect of the troop surge, a strong advocate of our continued engagement in Iraq. If you become commander-in-chief and he says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
  • So would you replace him or would you just say, I’m the commander-in-chief, here’s my order.
  • Let’s clear out this campaign business. Why are you ducking another debate with Hillary Clinton?
  • No debates between now and Indiana?
  • You say it’s premature to discuss running mates. Are you at least open to the possibility of running with Hillary Clinton with places on the ticket to be determined?
  • If the voting ends in June and you are still leading in superdelegates - I’ll ask again. If the voting ends in June and you’re still leading in the popular votes and delegates and the superdelegates hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton, do you think the young people, the African American people, the young first time voters you brought into this campaign, aren’t they going to be awful angry?
  • The Wall Street Journal says that you are prepared to run the first privately-financed campaign - presidential campaign since Watergate. True?
  • If you could get that agreement you would go for a publicly financed campaign?
  • If you get that agreement?
  • Finally, and we have about a minute left, what have you learned in this campaign? And I don’t mean, gee, what a great country this is answer.

    What mistakes have you made? What have you learned about running for president? What have you learned about yourself?

Were these softballs, or good, fair questions of the front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination?

That asked, don't miss Ed Morrissey's initial take on this interview:

The most hilarious point came when Obama tried to claim credit for bipartisanship on the John Roberts confirmation vote — not because he supported Roberts. He voted against Roberts. However, Obama wanted credit for defending the few Democrats who did support Roberts on Daily Kos, and taking the venom of Kos’ readership for his defense. That’s bipartisanship — standing up to the Kos Kiddies? If that amounts to an act of courage for Obama, it tells you how bipartisan he will be prepared to be as President.

Yes, that certainly was telling, Ed.

So was the reaction by Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent who reported Friday that a senior Obama adviser had "IMed" him claiming the Democrat presidential candidate was going on "FNS" to "take on Fox." As a result, Sargent is understandably displeased with what actually happened during the interview, and likely expresses what we should expect from the Netroots:

The Fox News Sunday interview is over. And Obama didn't take on Fox at all in any meaningful sense. [...]

Obama had a perfect opening to do this, too. Wallace pressed him repeatedly about Jeremiah Wright and the bogus "flag pin" nonsense -- a perfect set-up for Obama to point out that Fox had obsessed about both these issues to an obscene degree and that Fox had been at the forefront of spreading the Obama-is-a-Muslim lies.

To be clear, Obama wasn't obliged to go after Fox. But a senior adviser said Obama would, as a way of quieting criticism of him. And he didn't.

This will likely further dismay liberal bloggers who had worked very hard to get Dems to boycott Fox as a way of deligitimizing the network and who already criticized Obama for agreeing to appear in the first place.

Netrooter Matt Stoller was even harsher in his criticism of Obama:

Obama is sucking up to Fox News, and beyond that, the campaign operative who said he would just out and out gave false information.

You can't trust the Obama campaign, they will lie to you to promote right-wing institutions.

Wow. It's going to be highly entertaining watching the liberal blogosphere's reaction in the days to come.

*****Update: Johnny Dollar has links to the early reactions to this interview.

*****Update II: Charles at LGF comments on a recent Daily Kos post carping and whining about Obama going on FNS:

The irony here is completely off the scale. These are people who advocate speaking with our real mortal enemies, people who chant “Death to America” and kill American soldiers and civilians, but they’re unyielding when it comes to ... Fox News?

*****Update III: Johnny Dollar has more blogosphere roundup concerning the interview.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Some excellent and pointed

Some excellent and pointed questions. One of Obama's problems is that a fawning press over this past year has made him lazy and ill-prepared for tough, substantive questions. When he does face them, he's clearly thrown off his feed and his reactionary supporters get peeved.

His absurd response citing the Roberts nomination is particularly revealing. Would he, today, still oppose the Chief Justice's nomination? If so, that clearly places Obama outside of any reasonably mainstream view of judicial thought.

I've always found it curious that Obama, advocating a bi-partisan or trans partisan politics, is supported by some of the most partisan and ideological elements in American politics. Folks who think every Republican is a spawn of Satan, if not worse.

The netroots, the Olbermanns et cetera. What do they see in him that we don't?

 

A Big Get

Chris Wallace is very professional, he is also very inside-the-beltway, MSM, conventional. It was a solidly professional interview, but mostly it was a "big get", where the interviewer does not discomfort the interviewee by asking difficult follow-ups.

There were some terrific questions, but lack of follow-up left them hanging with general BS answers. I was particularly disappointed with the "McCain is going to go after you as another liberal tax and spender" formulation.

In the end, I came away believing that Wallace was more interested in having Obama come back again, than revealing Obama's core principles and governing philosophy.

Noel

I said this in the other thread, but I thought the questions were good, especially bringing up the gang of 14 and Obama's lack of bi-partisanship but the follow up was severely lacking.

He let him get away with the "Health of the Mother" thing with no follow up and he didn't follow up on taxes or his war positions either.I thought Obama's answers were extremely weak and people who pay attention to issues would think so. It's the people who don't normally pay attention who will be mislead by what he got away with.

Dee

Dee,

I actually haven't seen it yet. FNS, because of NASCAR, won't air here for another hour or so. As such, I've only read the transcript. But, from what I've read, this looks like a solid, fair, balanced interview which is what I expect from Wallace.

As for what he let Obama "get away with," I'll defer comment until after I actually see the interview. Fair enough? ns

Questions were good

I didn't see the interview; didn't read the transcript. But going down the list of questions, I thought they were fairly good. Wallace didn't attack, which I think is good. The best question (IMO) was: "And so people say, do you really want a partnership with Republicans or do you really want unconditional surrender from them?" That's the eye-opening issue of Dims vs. Republicans. All republicans need to repeat this question over and over again, because it's true -- the Dims want unconditional surrender; not "partnership".

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

do you really want a

do you really want a partnership with Republicans or do you really want unconditional surrender from them?"

How did he answer that?  DID he answer it? 

 

Don't know. I only read the

Don't know. I only read the questions; no anwers available.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

This is what we've been waiting for???

After all this time waiting for Obama to finally appear on FoxNews, and this is the big interview?? I thought that it began okay, with Wallace asking some tough questions right out of the box. But for some reason, as the interview continued, the questions became lighter and softer, and several times, Wallace allowed Obama to dodge questions outright, and didn't challenge him enough when he did. Obama was his usual self..He knows how to be charming like a fish knows how to be wet.

There were several areas where Wallace didn't even go that he should have. Overall, I was disappointed with the chat fest. At the end, Obama said that he "...enjoyed it" and that he wouldn't be a stranger. I'll bet...Now that he knows what type of questions he'll be facing, he has nothing to fear by returning. I had hoped that Obama's feet would finally be held to the fire, and he would asked the tough questions that virtually no one else has been willing to ask. Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were tougher in the last debate!! I really expected more from Fox, and certainly from Mr. Wallace. Next time, if there is one, I hope they bring their "A" game.

Prairie

perhaps after the primary more interviews will be done?

Had Wallace gone full bore do you think that likely?

  i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”   

botg...

I was hoping Wallace would be tougher on the follow ups when Obama dodged or just flat out evaded. But you're right...Perhaps more will be done and asked, after the primaries are over...assuming Obama does get the nomination, which seems like a foregone conclusion. We'll see...

b

b,

Exactly. I think given the Dems' refusal to attend FNC debates, Wallace was walking a tightrope: if he appeared too much on the attack, he would be validating the Dems' position while leading the left to say, "See -- we told you so!!!" If he came across too soft, the right would complain that he didn't go for the jugular.

In the end, there's more in this for FNC than politics. This is a business. They're after ratings. The more people that watch, the more money the network makes, and the more the various hosts are paid. As such, I guarantee there was a lot of pressure on Wallace to appear as fair and balanced as possible.

FNC executives DID NOT want to come into work on Monday to a chorus of negative reviews declaring that this interview proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that FNC is indeed in the tank for McCain, and as conservative as its critics have been declaring for years. This was an opportunity for FNC to present itself as indeed being the only fair and balanced news network on television and NOT what its detractors proclaim. ns

I agree, Noel. I said in

I agree, Noel. I said in another thread, the name of the game is "ACCESS" and Wallace knows that. If he was too tough, he/Fox would never get another.

 

Noel...

I see your point and understand it...but...Yes, this is a business and Fox is after ratings. But, Fox is a news organization, and it is their job to get the truth and to ask the tough questions, especially when no one else will. If the thinking was that if they were perceived, rightly or not, of being tough on Obama, and he didn't return for another appearance on Fox, to me, that says more about Obama, than it would about Fox. Let's face it...FoxNews is going to be crucified no matter what they do. Take a look at the leftist sites and blogs. Wallace could ask Obama what his favorite color is, and the nutcase lefties would find some way to spin that too.

The fact is that FoxNews is as fair and balanced a news organization as you will find in the MSM, and that is why they are now and always will be attacked...So I say, go for it. Ask the tough questions. Demand answers, because no one else will. Fox is going to be trashed no matter what they do.

I saw the interview,

I saw the interview, thought the questions from Wallace were very good, with the exception of the race card issue brought up twice, this drives me nuts, I thought the way Obama answered was smart...I get tired of the seeming intentional divide that is brought on mainly by the msm. 

Wallace was exactly right yesterday when he was on air saying there wasn't any of this Obama taking on Fox issue...too bad for the nutcases on the left who are angry, what fools, Obama knows he needs Fox and their viewer numbers now more than ever with the remaining states left to go...he is out to win, too bad the nutcases on the left don't have that view, what fools they are...

All in all it was a pretty good interview with the questioning, just boring with his answers/non anwers/spin.... 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

    I hopped over to

    I hopped over to view the comments by the loony left.  They were not concerned about obama, their obsession is FOX News.  These people have full blow FDS (FOX Derangement Syndrome).   The main thrust of the angst was over the fact obama gave legitimacy to FOX by appearing plus they were angry he didn't go on the attack against FOX for its lies and its broadcasting of Republican talking points.  In the extreme lefts world view only the extreme left's views should be heard.  Many see obama as a centrist who sucks up to Republicans.  However one poster did try to bring a little balance by pointing out dems have appeared on other Right Wing venues such as ABC News and Meet The Press. (extreme eye roll)

  OK...  now I have to go take a shower.

LOL MA.... I haven't had

LOL MA....

I haven't had the guts or the time to go there yet...but I plan on it soon...thanks for the warnings...as if I didn't know what to expect from these nutcases to begin with...they are a sad bunch...how do they ever even enjoy one single day of their lives?

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

   Well be careful when

   Well be careful when you go over there.  You'll find the entrance to the tunnel behind an overgrown thicket and there you'll descend some steep slippery steps.  Disregard the odor because it will distract your attention as you peer into the darkness to avoid stepping on the piles of entrails and matted fur.  You'll hear in the distance the clanging and screams so just head that direction.  Don't get to close to them as they are quite excitable.  When they get to chanting in unison it's time to leave because that's when they become most dangerous.   .....but anyway have a good time!

Charles at Little Green

Charles at Little Green Footballs has the money quote when it comes to the tantrum on the left:

The irony here is completely off the scale. These are people who advocate speaking with our real mortal enemies, enemies who chant “Death to America” and kill American soldiers and civilians, but they’re unyielding when it comes to ... Fox News?

 These people have full

 These people have full blown FDS (FOX Derangement Syndrome).

So that is what will replace BDS after Bush is gone!

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

more FDS

MA, I did the same thing. Amazing, isn't it? One example: a liberal blogger from Houston said that he is not voting for Obama because he appeared on FNS. (that convoluted thought process is way over my head)

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

  Yeah, I saw that one. 

  Yeah, I saw that one.  These people are (supposedly) supporting someone who claims to be a uniter, a post-racial person, a person who can reach out to all generations, even a trans-national person.  But if he were to do that he won't be able to include these miserable people.   They will not tolerate any dissent or compromise. 

The main thrust of the

The main thrust of the angst was over the fact obama gave legitimacy to FOX by appearing

They should keep in mind that Obama would give legitimacy to terrorists by sitting down and talking to them with "no preconditions."

come on motherbelt...

FoxNews is the terrorist.  George Bush is the terrorist.  Karl Rove is the terrorist.  Dick Cheney is the terrorist.  Donald Rumsfeld is the terrorist. 

You must be referring to the "freedom fighters" in the middle east.  You know that the only reason why those freedom loving, ingenuitive, courageous and accepting individuals overseas are just defending their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of jihad, right? 

Thanks for all of the posts guys...it's so nice to wake up everyday and read the thoughts of sane, intelligent, tolerant Americans.  We need to keep bustin' all those that need it.

God bless America. 

 

FDS

Well, I don't watch FOX News; I don't live in an area that gets it anymore, so I can't. I used to watch it, though, for the deep, sick feeling it gave me. It's really hard for me to explain, but the way people on FOX News talk is condescending and judgemental. I guess you could say it's the overbearing use of "weasel words."


Take O'Reilly for example. He actually tells people on his show to shut up. He calls people he dislikes pinheads and idiots. This is not news! Newscasters don't call people idiots or pinheads, and "shut up" just doesn't fit into an interview, ever.

 

I'm pleasantly surprised with Wallace's conduct, but in my experience, it's far, far outside of FOX News's normal behavior. He gave an excellent interview and Obama gave really good answers; I'm not sure which ones he evaded or didn't answer.

The left is right to be upset about it. I don't know if FOX is a propaganda machine or what, but it isn't right and most of what they give out isn't news. Or, in fairness, what I've seen isn't news. Maybe they broadcast real, legitimate news when I'm not watching - it's possible. But, in my experience, watching FOX News is like reading People magazine, you know?

 

CB..in answer to your oh so

CB..in answer to your oh so deep question here...

NO.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Chester, Bill O'Reilly isn't

Chester, Bill O'Reilly isn't a "newscaster" and he doesn't have a "news" show.

Chester

1.  Member for 1 week 6 days.  I smell a troll.

2.  If you don't watch FOX, how do you know that Wallace's behavior is " far, far outside of FOX News's normal behavior."?

3.  If you want to watch a news show on FOX, watch Britt Hume.

I'll warn you though, your head may explode.  Reality sucks.

Noli habere bovis, vir!

OldSailor88

Regarding Chester

The second part of his online name is Bogusa and I do believe you are on to something.

If he hangs in awhile he may learn something.

Check your local listings

CB: Well, I don't watch FOX News; I don't live in an area that gets it anymore, so I can't.

CB, Fox News Sunday is broadcast Sunday mornings on your local Fox affiliate (broadcast channel).

Also, note the difference between a news anchor and an analyst/commentator. Brit Hume is an anchor on Special Report, but he is a commentator as part of the panel on Fox News Sunday. O'Reilly is not an anchor.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

I suppose Obama wanted to

I suppose Obama wanted to contrast himself with Bill Clinton by not going ballistic on Wallace. But it ought to be apparent by now that even if Obama belonged to a quiet Methodist church, and did not associate with ex-Weatherman, he simply lacks the qualifications and experience to be President. He's old wine in new bottles, just another liberal Democrat, Ivy League, affluent and professorially arrogant, posturing and reciting the old liberal pieties, and his father might as well have been Adlai Stevenson or Gene McCarthy as some guy from Kenya.  Say what you want about McCain's judgment and temperment, and the negative things you say are true, but McCain survived torture and imprisonment in North Vietnam and Obama thinks courage is standing up to the lefty bloggers.  McCain wins in the cojones department, no contest. 

Hm.

Well,

Speaking of arrogance, I'll take any kind of arrogance, professorial or just plain gung-ho machismo, over that horrible, dismissive, condescending smirk our current President likes to wear.

And speaking of rich...

And speaking of qualifications...

/sigh It's been a long eight years.

→ Me too Chester

A Jay-Z song, which says, ""If you feelin' like a pimp . . . go and brush your shoulders off. . . . Get that dirt off your shoulder."

Yeah, that's right.  No arrogance at all in Obama's demeanor.  But lots of people understood perfectly what that little gesture meant.

So Obama feels like pimping.  He's already used his daughters as examples of girls who might be "punished with a baby".  And since unprotected sex is the only way to get pregnant, I guess he's also saying White people are going to inject them with AIDS.

Narcissistic to the max.

And you're concerned with a smirk? 

♣ a seal

What you didn't hear or see

Wow, a Chris Wallace interview with no cackle, "purple fits" or pointed fingers.

Questions were asked, then answered - no dodges. How often does one see that from an interview with a politician? (kudos to both Wallace and Obama for that.)

(minor peeve, I wish Sen. Obama would eliminate some of the 'uhs' in his responses. They can be distracting.)

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

Uh

(minor peeve, I wish Sen. Obama would eliminate some of the 'uhs' in his responses. They can be distracting.)

This goes to the point Limbaugh makes that Obama is lost without a teleprompter. Or as my grandpappy used to say: "He couldn't ad-lib a belch at a Hungarian dinner."

(minor peeve, I wish Sen.

(minor peeve, I wish Sen. Obama would eliminate some of the 'uhs' in his responses. They can be distracting.)

Yes, he could switch to "you know" like Her Royal Clintoness.

jpt... Now that is just

jpt...

Now that is just plain hilarious...your grandpappy was a wise man...

I'm ROFL!

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Uhs

A wise old teacher of mine told me a speaker using the Uhs to distraction either doesn't know what he's talking about or he has to pause to remember: What he is supposed to say, what he said previously, what he needs to or should say. In any event the habit should call attention to a speaker's honesty, not his thoughtfulness.

. . . . blacks voted for

. . . . blacks voted for you 90 percent to 10.

To me this is a very telling statistic in that it shows that black Americans cannot be colorblind. 90 percent go for Obama. They are the ones who have institutionalized race and always look at things through a lens of race, not the whites who get slammed with racism charges daily.  Racism is part and parcel of the black American experience because their 'leaders' have made it so. Aside from that I was hoping Wallace would ask why he has spent so much time associating with the likes of Wright, Ayers, Rezko and now thinks those associations are off-limits.

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

Fox wants a PRESIDENTIAL

Fox wants a PRESIDENTIAL debate...so if Wallace were to have chewed him up and spit him out...well we know The Obamanation wouldn't dare return and it would have only validated his claims of extremism by Fox.

Secondly, Wallace is a news journalist, not a politician. It isn't his job to attack but to investigate. It appears for a first Barack interview at this level, Wallace surpassed the best efforts of the MsM in professionalism, candor and appeal.

Next Please! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.

"And if anyone has any

"And if anyone has any doubts, 12 percent of those whites admitted that
race was a factor, and they went for Clinton by more than 3-1."

Just wondering, because I haven't seen it anywhere, what percentage of blacks admitted that race was a factor? Actually, even more interesting is were blacks even asked that question?

those poor dems, I mean, progressives

If those voters support Hillary, they're labeled as racists. If they support Obama they're labeled as misogynists (per Sir Elton). Just can't win!!

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

The real Democrat philosophy

At first I thought Obama would actually talk about real issues based on this comment:

"So I think - I am confident that when you come to a general election and we are having a debate about the future of this country, how are we going to lower gas prices? How are we going to deal with job losses? How are we going to focus on energy independence? Those are voters that I will be able to appeal to."

I was imagining a debate with a Lib and Conservative debate and the lib says 'let's tax gas companies more' and the Conservative says 'let's make more oil available through ANWR and Florida' - a real debate.

But then I saw what Obama and unfortunately most of the Libs I know, think:

"...because I’m absolutely confident that the American people, what they’re looking for is somebody who can solve their problems."

"What they’re looking for is somebody who can pull the country together and push back some of the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda, who will tell them the truth about how we’re going to bring down gas prices, how we’re going to bring back jobs"

"I made mistakes on the campaign trail, I wasn’t communicating effectively my plans in terms of helping them in their everyday lives"

Why is it the gov't's job do help everyone?  The gov't shouldn't be concerned about me as an individual unless someone is trampling on my rights.  I don't want the gov't helping me in my everyday life, I want them ensuring I have the freedom to make my own decisions.

To me that sums up most Libs in general and the Dems at the highest levels perfectly -- they want to solve everyone's problems (generally with more government intervention at the Federal level), not let people solve their own problems.  The gov't isn't the answer to every problem and I think history shows that the more gov't tries to get in there and regulate and control everything to 'solve' a problem, the more they actually create uninended problems and hardships.

J

 

SwJ... "...because I’m

SwJ...

"...because I’m absolutely confident that the American people, what they’re looking for is somebody who can solve their problems."

I jotted down some notes while this was going on and one of the first was what you posted above....that says everything about the left...everything...

I was furious in a way at first...then I thought what the heck, this is exactly as you wrote so well in your post above.

Thanks....you put it all in a nutshell...firmly.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

"I made mistakes on the

"I made mistakes on the campaign trail, I wasn’t communicating
effectively my plans in terms of helping them in their everyday lives"
-Obama

That's duct tape time for me!!

Since when is it the President's, (or the government's) job to "help people in their everyday lives?"

Might not be the exact wording, but from the Declaration of Independence.. to ensure these rights (the inalienable rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) governments are intstituted among men.

to ensure these rights....

NOT to help people in their everyday lives.

Ensure these rights!! Which part of that does Sen. Obama not understand???

 

Excellent mb... I love

Excellent mb...

I love the succinct point you made here...unfortunately we have tons of people here in this country who feel just like Obama and others running, have for years and years, will more down the line, that's been the plan Stan for decades and decades...and we have the msm leading the way...

Thank goodness for the internet...we have to keep fighting the good fight. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

NBer

NBers,

Having now had an opportunity to see this interview, I feel Wallace did a fine job. He was fair, balanced, and firm. This is what an interview should be. He wasn't contentious or looking for gotchas. He treated a serious presidential candidate with respect, but asked him tough, important questions.

Of course, the folks on the left will be displeased because they feel that only Republicans should be asked tough questions. What a surprise.

As for those hoping Wallace would have been more prosecutorial, that's not what journalists are supposed to do. If we as conservatives complain about how much harder our candidates and elected officials are grilled by members of the liberal media, shouldn't we advocate fair and balanced interviews by FNC rather than quid pro quo? ns

Tough questioning by Fox was never the issue with Dems

To the extent there was any "boycott" of Fox News [and there have been many Democrats who have submitted to interviews on Fox over the past year anyway], it was not the product of a reluctance to face tough questions.  Rather, it was the perception that Fox had been engaging in some particulary unprofessional journalism directed at Democratic candidates.  The bogus Obama "madrassa" story which was flogged continuously for two or three days is a prime example.  Anytime Dick Morris opens his mouth is another.

Jer

Regardless if one likes him

Regardless if one likes him or not, Dick Morris is a commentator not a journalist when he appears on Fox so please let him out of the closet.

Next Please! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.

A fair point, Guy...it's

A fair point, Guy...it's just that shortly after O'Reilly announced how neutral he intended his coverage to be, he informed us that (the Clinton-hating) Morris would be his "go to guy" for campaign analysis.  I couldn't resist the shot.

Jer

(the Clinton-hating)

(the Clinton-hating) Morris

Then why on earth would the Obama campaign complain about him?

Jer

Jer,

If running with the madrasah story was the litmus test for the Democrat candidates, why did they debate on CNN and MSNBC?

After all, according to LexisNexis, MSNBC did 24 stories about Obama attending a madrasah, and CNN did 50.

Yet, Fox did 23 and got boycotted. Hmmm.

As for Dick Morris, if having an employee or contributing analyst that used to work for the Clinton administration should disqualify a network from participating in debates, then why didn't the Dems boycott ABC due to Stephanopoulos? ns

The MSNBC and CNN stories

The MSNBC and CNN stories were probably aired to set the record straight, after Fox had gone into a veritable frenzy over the "blockbuster" charge of Obama's radical Muslim education.  Even Chris Wallace had to admonish the Fox and Friends crew, after they breathless reported it at each return from a commercial break.

As for Morris...Noel have you watched the guy on O'Reilly and H & C very much over the past few years?  His animosity toward the Clintons--particularly Hillary--has been obsessive and near-pathological.  A few months ago he announced plans to release a hit video about Hillary.  I'm not sure what its status is currently.

I don't care who worked in whose administration.  Anyone acting as irresponsibly as Morris has should be kicked off the air instead of being labeled the political "go to" guy.  And, as you know, or should know, I am not a fan of Hillary and will not vote for her if she is the nominee.

Jer

Jer

Jer,

Well, although you might find this hard to believe, FNC didn't deal with this madrassa issue during prime time when it first came out. It was exclusively John Gibson and the Fox & Friends folks, with the latter bringing Obama on three days after Insight magazine "broke" the stay so that he could tell his side. Gibson only did two stories on this.

During this time, according to LexisNexis, this matter wasn't addressed during prime time. Not once.

So, because a morning show and Gibson discussed this for a couple of days, and then brought Obama on himself to clear up the matter, you think this is a valid reason for Democrats to boycott the network? With all the crap that's on CNN and MSNBC 24/7?

As for Morris, according to LexisNexis, his name and the Clintons' show up about 300 times on Fox News in the past two years. Compare this to Keith Olbermann's name and "Bush" appearing over 600 times at MSNBC.

How many of those 600 times do you think Olbermann was saying something nice about the President? And, he has his OWN show. By contrast, Morris is just a guest admittedly expressing his own opinions.

So, assuming you believe Morris should be banned from FNC, do you also think Olbermann should be immediately fired by MSNBC? ns

Noel: A few

Noel:

A few points...

--As I've mentioned before...I don't currently have access to Lexis/Nexis.  Wish I did.  I may have to spring for it unless I can somehow get permission to tap into it through my brother's account.

--I did not see Gibson's reporting on the madrassa story.  Are you saying the remaining 21 stories were all on Fox & Friends?  Come to think of it, that figure may not be too far off.  They went wild with it.  I think I must have seen every reference to the "scandal" by the F&F crew, including Wallace's rebuke, after which they calmed down a little.

--I suggested the manner in which that particular story was handled was a prime example of unprofessional reporting--not the only one.  I raised the Morris issue, but it was rightly pointed out to me that he is merely a contributor and not a host.  So, I'll amend my statement about "kicking him off the air" to say that he should not be designated the "go to guy" for objective campaign analysis in light of his blatant anti-Hillary animus.  It would be equally outrageous if Olbermann hired Michael Moore as his "go to guy" for unbiased political reporting.

--Olbermann should not be fired from MSNBC...just as Hannity shouln't be fired, or O'Reilly, or Limbaugh, or Matthews, etc.  However, Olbermann should never represent himself as unbiased, nor should MSNBC make any similarly ludicrous claim.

Jer

Jer

Jer,

The other FNC reports came well after the brouhaha of that first few days, and weren't specifically about this issue. Remember how such searches work. They identify the presence of key words and names, but that doesn't mean the story was actually about the issue you're searching for.

The point being that when this matter was first reported by Insight, Fox did a few pieces about it -- NONE in prime time -- and then brought Obama on to explain his position...and that's that.

As for MSNBC claiming Olbermann is unbiased, they do it every night he's on and doesn't acknowledge his political leanings. By contrast, Hannity and Limbaugh make their conservatism clear five days a week. Do you contest this?

As for O'Reilly, do you think he's hiding his conservatism? Furthermore, doesn't he have liberal guests on his program on a regular basis, in fact, almost daily? By contrast, how many conservative guests do you think Olbermann has on each week?

I did this examination for you or someone else here some time ago. The reality is that BOR has more liberal guests on his program each week than Olbermann has conservatives on in three months. You think that's journalism?

The reality here is that MSNBC is far closer to flat out advocacy than Fox. In fact, it's not even close. For Fox to approach MSNBC, Colmes would have to be fired, and Hannity and O'Reilly instructed to only have conservative guests on that completely agreed with their views.

After all, that's EXACTLY what Olbermann and Abrams do. Not even the slightest appearance of balance. Do you contest this? Want me to share with you how many liberals were on H&C and O'Reilly this week, and we'll compare that to the number of conservatives on Countdown and Verdict?

OK. Last week, Countdown and Verdict had a total of three conservative guests. H&C and BOR had 19 liberal guests. Of course, that's not including Colmes! 

In the end, you might not like Hannity or BOR, but their programs are far closer to real journalism than what Olbermann and Abrams offer viewers. Far closer. ns

Noel: Partial

Noel:

Partial response:

Do I contest that Hannity and Limbaugh make their conservatism clear?  Of course not.

Do I object to any representation or insinuation that Olbermann is non-partisan?  Yes, and I have repeatedly said so.

Do I think O'Reilly is hiding his conservatism?  Difficult to answer. He claims he is politically neutral, and yet that claim is laughably disingenuous.  I commend him for having guests on with opposing viewpoints however.  Although, too often it is a means by which he can verbally abuse a liberal spokesperson he disagrees with.

Until recent months, MSNBC had two politically oriented shows in prime time or near-prime time which were hosted soley by conservatives.  That's two more than were hosted solely by liberals on Fox News.

Jer

→ Jer

Oreilly seems to do a pretty good job with assessing politics.  Most of the outrage seems to be held for moral outrage.

It's hard for human beings to reserve judgement against a judge who gives a molester of a 6yr old four months probation.  But it gets sticky when you realize it's just a liberal judge who believes such offenders can be rehabilitated.

♣ a seal

Dick Morris attacking?

Dick Morris seems to be on the Obama bandwagon the past few months...he's pretty much said Hillary is toast. As for hs attacking Democrat candidates in general ,I haven't seen that. Every time I see him or read him he seems to be talking aobut the presidential race.

Correcto Noel....ask Questions..Don't Frame 'em

Be a Journalist seeking to let the Candidate Express himself.  Ask a Question without pursuing an Agenda.

I still don't know who the Guys is (BHO), or where he stands....the large part of Americans would Flush Rev. GD Wright down the Toilet.....Obama won't even say the guy is a lousy preacher .

But...I did say that...BUT...lots of Buts From BHO

I still don't know any Details of Obama's "Bring us Together" approach...BUT...I'm willing to listen another 4.8 seconds before I make the Decision that Obama is a Politician without any substance, and if he would put his Friggin flag pin back on it would no longer be a "Bogus" subject, and I would be assured that he's NOT wearing it to please the Far Left....

But he won't .... so I'm forced to make a judgement, He's a Bogus American with no loyalty to what IS American.

He has no Plan, but to be a Politician ..... we need an American president, and this guy is more Political than Bill Clinton....at least McCain is politically incorrect Occaisionally...BHO hasn't missed a politically Correct moment in Years.

Haven't seen it yet but

when I do I'll say someting intellegent? after six this evening.

Arrogance

Obama showed his arrogance again in the Wallace interview. He said that if he was not elected it would be because of "mistakes on the campaign trail" or because "I wasn't communicating effectively my plans in terms of.. everyday lives." I suppose it never crossed his mind that some people think his plans are idiotic or one might decide Obama hasn't revealed his plans at all. We possibly might believe his associations are the best window to see the truth about Obama.

I also wish Wallace would have followed up the question about abortions with a direct challenge to explain why he believes it should not be illegal to kill an aborted baby that accidently survives a late term "procedure." He would equivicate, of course, but the question must be asked. He twists the truth when he says that those who "have a moral calling to oppose what they think is immoral ...polarize the debate." What bullshit.

I will watch later but

I have a question.

Wallace/aka FOX wants access? Access to what? Milktoast interviews?

Oh goody!

I can't wait to watch later.  Ugh

Hi Delsa... Don't know if

Hi Delsa...

Don't know if you saw my first comment above but it does get boring to me. I started tuning out about half way through...that is a bad sign for an anticipated interview...but that is just me.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Overall Grade: C Minus

Wallace didn't impress me and Obama didn't impress me.

Wallace attempted to be tough, the questions were getting there, but, just at the zenith of the omega, Wallace let it all roll back downhill.

Obama was an uninformative responder.

Ok I 'm a half hour in

So far um? Conversational and I did not want confrontataion. I wanted hard hitting questions.

And when speaking of Mr Wright.. Chris could have asked something like,

"Well, senator, how do you explain away a minister, standing up in front of his flock, asking God to Damn America?"

I'd like to hear the answer to that question. Out of context?

Nice brown wrapper interview so far. The next time he is on the show we will be thrilled to learn???

Same old STUPID questions regarding running mates. Waisted time. Could have asked another question.

Nice touch re: the wife and kids.

AND another thing, the question about the gang of 14?

Obama could have hit it out of the park if he had said he did not join because IT WAS EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

Another reason McCain makes me sick.

I hate this election

Stale

I found the Wallace interview of Obama stale. Wallace did ask a few tough questions, but Obama squirmed/wiggled his way through.

I understand about having access and all, however, at the same time, I want to see the liberal Democrats get the same tough questioning and treatment that Republicans get. FOX News cannot afford to lose it's conservative audience while trying to appease and suck up to the left. You know like McCain, you can't please everyone. It's up to Obama (who needs the votes) to get his message out to the conservative audience that FOX carries. It's not up to FOX News to get Obama's message out to conservatives. Like Hollyweird actors making the rounds on all the different networks trying to peddle and plug their lame movies.

O'Reilly or Hannity give fair, firm, and tough question interviews. They don't go for the throat, just keep pressing for the answer, sometimes they get and sometimes they don't. I know a bigger audience means more revenue, business is business, remember New Coke. FOX News has to be careful, as does McCain.

 

badger... Amen, Amen...

badger...

Amen, Amen... and.... Amen.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Well said, badger!

Well said, badger!

Saw Abrams having a cow on Friday about this

On Friday evening I was chanel surfing and saw Abrams on PMSNBC having a fit about Obama going to do an interview on Fox.  What a clown, I haven't seen him this upset since he found out his girlfriend didn't like boys after all but I digress.

I thought old Chris did the best he could with what he had to work with.  Bottom line-if he wins Gen. Petreaus should submit his retirement papers for 1/20/09 because Obama's not going to listen to anything he says.  All in all though, considering the tap dance Obama was doing, it was the best that could be expected.

What a clown, I haven't

What a clown, I haven't seen him this upset since he found out his girlfriend didn't like boys after all but I digress.

ROFL!!

That's such a liberal tactic, that I'm laughing at seeing it used against a liberal.

The other day, Rachel Maddow said about Rush Limbaugh:

I think that, with the exception of things involving his housekeeper,
and painkillers, and other people's Viagra at airports and stuff, 

And I thought...way to get all those little digs in.

So, it gave me a chuckle to see that against O'Donnel, I'm ashamed to say.

So sue me. LOL

I think many dems are getting really worried about Barry-O.

And with good reason, as they are stuck with two candidates who are essentially unelectable at the national level. The more we learn about Obama, the worse he looks. This guy is carrying way too much baggage, and many dems are now coming to that stark realization.

I still believe the dems are headed for a brokered convention, and I think it quite possible neither Barry nor Hillary will be at the top of the ticket.

Theme for Election '08: Who cares?

Hi RD... Didn' you tend

Hi RD...

Didn' you tend to think it would be algore...the inventor?

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Hi, bt. If you ask me, Al is the only hope the dems really have.

There is no way Obama is going to win this thing. His associations will eventually be his undoing. I mean, Jeremiah Wright and a terrorist? Not to mention his America-loathing spouse.

Ireally think this all had a lot to do with why Hillary won last Tuesday.

I think many dems are really beginning to waver on this guy. The reaction to the Wallace interview from the lefty bloggers proves this.

They are scared.

I would be, too, if I were one of them.

Theme for Election '08: Who cares?

Thanks bigtimer, motherbelt

Republicans can restrain McCain. Billy controls Hillary. George Soros pulling Obama's strings, Lord help us all.

I wish I could post comments in every thread, don't seem to have the time. Have to pick and choose you know. Retired military, but still have to work for my family driving a truck M-F. I look forward to the weekends, so I can read and catch up on the news then post my 2 cents. I enjoy this site a lot, addictive for sure.

Down to earth conservative, intelligent, common sense people (mostly) that think the same way I do. Biggest problem I have is not knowing when to shut up and stop typing. Nobody likes reading long-winded post, myself included. It's hard for me to come up with those short, sweet and to the point 3 sentences or less. I'll have to work on it.

Nah, you've got no posting

Nah, you've got no posting length problems to speak of. What I've seen is reasonably short, dense, and to the point, unlike most of mine (ie going on three different tangents before finally getting to the point). I think most of us are more than happy to have you here when you've the time. ;)

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

badger... First thanks so

badger...

First thanks so much for your service...and carry on all you want...I enjoy your great posts....immensely.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

There are more opinions than yours, libs

Lib blogger quoted above: This will likely further dismay liberal bloggers who had worked very hard to get Dems to boycott Fox as a way of deligitimizing the network and who already criticized Obama for agreeing to appear in the first place.

Trying to delegitimize Fox News by boycotting them only deligitimize liberals who show themselves intolerant of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Libs paint themselves as defenders of the Constitution. They are going to have to live in a world where more than one opinion is allowed.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Jer

Get a grip!

Morris knows just how dangerous the Clinton's are. Especially, Hillary.

His passion is NOT unfounded!

Delsa...my grip is plenty

Delsa...my grip is plenty firm.  And for many months I have been calling for the Clintons to get the hell off the political stage.  But Morris has over the years become unhinged by his excessive loathing of Hillary.  He is the one who needs to get a grip.

Jer

→ That's right Jer

That woman needs to step aside so the man can take over.

How dare that woman think she has the right to be President?

 HAHAHAHA

♣ a seal

Cool...Gender is

Cool...Gender is irrelevant.  If you were a Democrat, would you want the Clintons back in the White House for 4-8 more years?

Jer

→ I know Jer

But I'm having so d*mn much with the Dem standoff I can't stand it.

Heck no, I don't want the Clintons back in the WH, but I'd far rather have Hillary in there than Obama.

Only difference between them is Hillary doesn't totally hate White folk.

♣ a seal

Cool...

Its so confusing though.  After all, Obama's mom is white, and Hillary's husband was the first black President.

Jer

→ It gets worse Jer

Obama's first book "Dreams From My Father" gets its title from a deadbeat African who deserted him when he was two years old.

My title for such a dad wouldn't be so flattering.  How about "Momma Slept With a Loser?" (but she did right by me)

♣ a seal

Morris

I agree. At times he will ignore the present, ignore a question just to bring up some nefarious thing from the past. It has become an obsession with him to the determent of his larger message.

Jer

Ok, so you have a firm grip.

But you have to understand that a lot of people who have been known to hang out with the Clinton's have become "unhinged".

He has a visceral dislike for the Clintons and that is undenialble.

We could deduce his disdain is well founded through his long association with them?

just sayin

Delsa

Delsa,

Actually, that's why I really like Morris, for he seems one of the few former Clintonistas not worried about getting knocked off by his former boss if he speaks the truth. :-)

On the flipside, I highly doubt our friends on the left side of the aisle find former Bush administration officials turned detractors anywhere near as offensive as Morris. Why do you think that is?

In fact, any time any former member of the current White House wants to speak ill of the current president, or write a book about such, you can rest assured he or she will be prominently featured in a "60 Minutes" segment while being hailed as eminently credible by all manner of liberal pundit and Netrooter. Of course, whilst said person was actually IN the adminstration, he or she was pond scum that couldn't be trusted as far as he or she could be thrown.

Interesting how a Republican becomes instantly credible once saying something bad about a fellow Republican, isn't it? :-)

In the end, what's fascinating about Morris is how much he knows about how campaigns work, and how well he's willing to freely discuss it. In the end, it's really just a delicious ancillary benefit that he hates the Clintons. :-) ns

Well, Noel...you and I

Well, Noel...you and I apparently react differently to ideological conversions or criticisms from former administration insiders or supporters.  Consequently, I didn't relish in the "deliciousness" of the actions of Kevin Phillips or David Gergen or Paul O'Neill, nor did I agonize over the behavior of George Stephanopalous or Joe Klein or Joe Lieberman.

Of course, none of those individuals seem to have been motivated by the deep animosity which grips Morris--a hatred you not only acknowledge but in which you apparently delight.

Yet, it is an emotion which has completely obliterated any semblance of objectivity on the part of Morris toward the Clintons, and made a joke of his position on Fox as a neutral campaign analyst. 

Jer

Rev. Wright, the gift that

Rev. Wright, the gift that keeps on giving, lol. His speech at the NAACP tonight should make the headlines tomorrow. He just can't help himself, lol.

→ ckc

I especially liked the part where Jeremiah Wright said black kids can't be taught to read because they use the right brain.

♣ a seal

I dare any white public

I dare any white public figure in this country to attribute anything in the black community to the fact that their brains are different.

Do the words "out of town on a rail" ring a bell?

→ Nation of Islam

Rev Wright is getting protection from Nation of Islam.  Praise Jesus.

♣ a seal