Obama Conference Call, 3/21/08

Love these calls.
Thanks Ms. Cox

AMC:

Sorry to butt in off topic but I wanted to make sure you saw this:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/morning_mashup_from_the_intrig.html#comment-462252

Thanks.

Seems like the campaign has got its groove back and is driving the agenda once more. I'll look forward to the audio.

Honestly, I'm still chuckling about the fact that it took the release of a bazillion pages of Clinton's First Lady calendars, and hundreds of dedicated journalists sifting through them, for the media to conclude definitively that being First Lady doesn't really prepare you to be C-in-C. There's one for Great Moments in Journalism.

Did anyone ask how they think his comment that his grandmother's fear of black men on the street made her just "a typical white person?"
(It was part of an interview with sports talk radio this week.)

It's not doing well in Philadelphia.

Of course it can't be attributed to the evil Clintons, so guess no one cares.

Thank you so much, AMC.

Speaking of credibility...

...pressed as to whether O is a muslim, rather than saying, "no," she said, "not as far as i know."

This is false. That paragon of virtue and ethics David Plouffe is lying.
Hillary Clinton did, in fact say "no". Three times.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

I'm not the only observer who managed to notice this lie (although it obviously escaped the attention of the paid professionals at this call):

From Eric Boehlert's column at Media Matters:

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

[pundits and reporters]... said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying. Even more peculiar was Kroft's obsession with the Muslim question amid a 60 Minutes report that was about Ohio's shrinking working class and what Clinton and Obama were going to do to try stop of the overseas flow of U.S. manufacturing jobs...

After parsing Clinton's answer and then conveniently setting aside key sections of it, journalists at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Time, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, among others, declared her response had been wholly deficient. Worse, Clinton's answer simply confirmed that she was running a "slimy," "nasty" contest. It was a "galling" comment; "the sleaziest moment of the campaign."

The fact is, if you look at Clinton's exchange with Kroft in its entirety, which lasted less than one minute, I count eight separate times in which she either plainly denied the false claim that Obama was Muslim, labeled that suggestion to be a smear, or expressed sympathy for Obama having to deal with the Muslim innuendo. Eight times:

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time. [Emphasis added]

Want to complain that Clinton's answers contained too many qualifiers, while at the same time acknowledging her initial response? That's fair game. And that's what New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof did on March 9, when he noted, "When Mrs. Clinton was asked in a television interview a week ago whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim, she denied it firmly -- but then added, most unfortunately, 'as far as I know.' "

But to set aside Clinton's denials and suggest that "as far as I know" captured her entire response is patently dishonest.

If I had been in on this call, I would have asked Mr. Plouffe why, if Hillary Clinton has run such a dishonest campaign, he feels it necessary to repeat such a thoroughly debunked claim in support of his arguments? Shouldn't he be able to rely on the facts alone to demonstrate Hillary Clinton's presidency-prohibitive character flaws, without needing to create them out of thin air?

superterrific,

That "typical white person" remark is so endemic of the gotcha politics of Clinton-Bush. Can't we give that kind of crap a rest? We've got a war to fight, an economy to right, a reputation to rebuild, and a nation that needs healing. Media obsession with this kind of nonsense only sets us back.

Please move on...

I got this from a blog.

"One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” (Sep 15, 2002) He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News."

WHY IS MEDIA NOT PUTTING THIS IN CONTEXT BY SHOWING ANOTHER 15 SECONDS OF THE VIDEO, WHY CAN'T THE PUNDITS JUST LISTEN TO THE WHOLE SERMONS BEFORE REPORTING?

As one person quoted in Huffington Post
"GOD DAMN AMERICAN MEDIA".

Umm...isn't “chickens coming home to roost.” a famous remark from legendary Black separatist and Nation of Islam leader Malcom X?

BHLnyc - "That "typical white person" remark is so endemic of the gotcha politics of Clinton-Bush."

Unfortunately it was Obama who said it in a radio interview. But, nevermind blame it on Clinton. The point is that since he said it, it is being used against him. Supporters should be aware of this. Particularly since they want to take every partial statement from Clinton and pillory her with it. See Stuart Zechman's post above.

Supporters of both sides need to give the cr*p a rest.

@BHLync

Ummm... are you talking to ivb? I didn't make any comment about that.

I'd like to reiterate my call for an LOL Condi about this.

Steve Clemons takes a shot at what James and others wre asking Ana for yesterday--a statement of McCain's foreign policy point of view:

Doug Bandow has a hard-hitting critique of John McCain over at AntiWar.com. McCain opponents will find it one of the best compilations of tightly wound reasons to agitate against John McCain getting the keys to the White House and the codes to the "football."

But in the piece, Bandow also notes that McCain used to be a "reluctant warrior." This is absolutely true. I have known John McCain for years -- ever since he served on the Advisory Board of the Nixon Center of which I was the founding executive director. John McCain was not timid when it came to appropriate applications of force, but he also demonstrated a facility for strategic calculation which meant that there were usually never yes-no, bomb-don't bomb, binary decisions but gray zone and nuanced realities to any decision.

McCain used to be the kind of leader I thought would be Nixonian in his core -- and frankly, I'd feel better about Obama or Hillary Clinton if either demonstrated more of the foreign policy skill sets that a Richard Nixon had. But McCain seems to have rejected Nixonian approaches to enlightened American self-interest in the world and has become a crusader for a new phase of neoconservative-inspired interventionism.

Or alternatively, perhaps McCain's acts of belligerency are all an act?

When he is thinking well of McCain, he thinks of him as what we now call a realist, which is the dominant ideology among the ISG-type republicans. Use force when necesary, but preferably work behind the scenes propping up friendly dictators, and use covert action when necessary to force out unfriendly leaders (regardless of how they acquired power).

The trouble is that he now sounds like a neo-con, travels around with neo-con Lieberman. And, while he is having trouble keeping the presentation (blogwhore alert) straight, he really is trying to be a neo-con on attacking Iran, which requires him to advance the position that all them Muslims are all the same.

Note that Clemons too has this tone of disbelief when he writes about McCain losing his thoughtful muscularity and replacing it with the neo-con point of view.

It's my opinion that McCain is simply an opportunistic politician. For example, some people have noted that his position on immigration doesn't have the same incoherence and fealty to the right wing that many of his other positions lately do.

But, of course, the Tancredo position on immigration is a very unpopular position. The opportunistic thing to do is dodge around the issue until you get the nomination, and then revert back to finding a compromise that Kennedy and the Democrats can live with.

I noticed that you forgot to mention this little item:

"A side note: Plouffe wrapped up his opening remarks with what appeared to be a slip of the tongue, saying that despite Clinton's claim of superior electability she would be "an equally flawed nominee." The conference call was cut short before I could ask Plouffe what he meant by that characterization."

Quote from Tom Bevan, Real Clear Politics

New Obama Motto: "Words Matter! but check with my press secretary so he can explain what I really meant to say"

From: "Typical White Person"

stuart--

Yes, I think Clinton is being treated unfairly in the Kroft interview. I mean, what is she supposed to do when he keeps asking a yes-no question, after she has answered it very clearly. The only thing she could have done (and I wish these people would do it more often) is pull out the frame and say "Steve? I answered the question. It's a yes or no question. Why are you asking it again?"

On Malcolm X--

I was kinda weirded out by the McCain operative getting fired for a mash-up that included evil blacks John Carlos and Malcolm X. I admired John Carlos, and still do, for that taking that stand in front of the world. I was 9 or 10 at the time, but I remember it very clearly.

As for Malcom X, he got over the separatism part of his position. But he was also a very strong advocate of self-reliance. Obama alluded to the conservative message that both he and Wright believe--that you have to pull yourself up, regardless of barriers you have in front of you.

Moreover, some of those barriers, perhaps the majority of them, are legacies of slavery, Jim Crow laws, redlining and the denial of access to capital for entrepreneurship. Malcolm X said to stay away from drugs, because they'll destroy you. And he said don't be fooled by welfare programs. They're not in place to help you get ahead. They're there to keep you down.

This is no different from what economists were saying about the AFDC and other welfare programs of the period that had marginal tax rates on the order of 75 or even 100 percent.

Super,

My apologies. You're right. It was IVB who made the lame comment.

IVB,

I'll concede that both sides have jumped on stupid remarks that are irrelevant to the larger debate. But you don't help your case by repeating them. I left the "as far as I know" alone; please do the same with "typical white person." These are both minor "gaffes" that don't truly reflect the candidates' qualities.

The only people who want to debate this garbage are the pundits who need to fill air time.

jayackroyd:

...(and I wish these people would do it more often)...

They can't, because they don't get together before the campaign with the DNC, and craft a party endorsed and enforced media strategy, which would eliminate the advantages given to those with better press relations. Fox News sponsored debates should have been prohibited beforehand. We should be talking about this sort of "media nullification strategy" more, IMO.

As for Malcom X, he got over the separatism part of his position. But he was also a very strong advocate of self-reliance. Obama alluded to the conservative message that both he and Wright believe--that you have to pull yourself up, regardless of barriers you have in front of you.

Malcolm X said to stay away from drugs, because they'll destroy you. And he said don't be fooled by welfare programs. They're not in place to help you get ahead. They're there to keep you down.

Do you happen to have links and quotes for these statements? I recall the anti-drug message from "The Biography", but I don't remember the anti-welfare bit...

BHLnyc - I just heard it as part of an interview with John Harwood on NPR's Here and Now. They also, to my horror, played a clip from the McCain staffer video. You may dismiss this as pundits who need to fill air time, but I think it is important to be aware of what is being said. Can't defend what you don't know.

In the same interview, Harwood brushed off a question about McCain misspeaking on Iran since everyon agrees that he has excellent foreign policy credentials.

Can you see the problem? That's what will get McCain elected in November if we don't speak up. I have written to Here and Now to complain about all of the above.

Many good points about Clinton's "as far as I know" qualifier in regard to Obama's faith. Here's what has me tweaked: McCain fired an intern for distributing the video mash-up, Mike Huckabee made one of the most reasonable and thoughtful statements regarding the Wright controversy of anyone to date, but Clinton Surrogate Joe Wilson is still publishing crap about Wright and Clinton staffers are still engaging in their whisper campaign to super delegates re Obama's electability. Clinton is handling herself far worse than McCain and Huckabee.

Stuart

I'll poke around. This is from memory from the Haley "autobiography."

The idiotic remark about AIDS is preventing the discussion of just how true the rest of Wright's statements are.

I'm an active and enthusiastic Obama supporter. I've not only contributed to his campaign, my daughter and I took a train from NYC to Philadelphia to help the campaign do voter registration. He is an extraordinary, gifted leader, a breath of fresh air for politics in this country.

But I'm very disheartened by this conference call. It's the last thing we need at this point in the campaign.

The CNN website (which is no longer accepting comments on this story) has this account of the conference call:

Plouffe specifically took issue with newly-released Clinton White House schedules that indicate the then-first lady may have been present in several meetings with congressional leaders to promote NAFTA — the trade legislation she now sharply criticizes on the campaign trail. She emphasized her consistency on that position in the days leading up to the March 4 primary contest in Ohio, a state whose Democratic electorate is dominated by union-workers generally opposed to the trade deal."

Sen. Clinton essentially misled the voters of Ohio, strongly suggesting she was always opposed to NAFTA privately," Plouffe said. "But now we see that she had meetings, where the sole purpose was to cheerlead for NAFTA and press for its support."

I find this so dispiriting, for several reasons. First, how does Plouffe know what the sole purpose of those meetings was, or what Hillary said about NAFTA? It would upset me if a Clinton spokesperson characterized something Obama said or did without knowing what he actually did, and this upsets me because the Obama campaign just shouldn't be doing this kind of thing.

Second, it's not even in Obama's self-interest to make these kinds of charges. If he gets nominated, he will need the votes of Hillary's supporters in November. Why alienate them with gratuitous and ungrounded attacks? If the campaign wants to criticize her position on Iraq or any issue, fine. If they want to say she's not as experienced as she presents herself to be, fine. If they want to say she's a polarizing figure and that's not what this country needs right now, fine.

But to say she was a cheerleader for NAFTA without providing any evidence other than entries in her schedule saying she attended some meetings is dishonest -- and the opposite of what Senator Obama stands for.

And while I'm talking about NAFTA, I was disappointed in how Senator Obama handled the conversation that his chief economic advisor Goolsbee had with a Canadian government official. Was Goolsbee authorized to say what he said? If not, he should have been fired immediately. If so, that does raise questions about Senator Obama's position on NAFTA that he really needs to address.

I will continue to support Senator Obama, but I will re-evaluate my support if his campaign keeps doing this kind of stuff.

ivb,

I accept your sincerity in trying to sort through this. I'm just disheartened that the more people talk about it, the more it will reverberate around the blogosphere, the more pundits will rehash it and the more outlets like MSNBC, FOX and CNN will justify raising it as "an issue." There is what Jeff Greenfield once characterized as a Hall of Mirrors Effect.

My response to Harwood and Scarborough and the folks who are stuck on this is simple: "If you think that Obama's comment reveals a hidden racism, then stand up and say so. And if you don't, then shut the f--k up about it."

Obama is not a racist.
Wright is not a racist.

The people who are making this non issue an issue are the racists.

A minority by the very definition of being a minority cannot be by its very nature a racist and it is racist to assume that they can be racist.

The only racists are the republicans and our so called democratic brothers and sisters who support Hillary.

Calling foul!

From the Fox link:

think Obama shares Wright’s controversial and unpatriotic views

I'm sick of being told that criticizing our country is "unpatriotic". We're supposed to be a Democratic Republic led by an informed citizenry and free unbridled debate.

If free expression is to be called "unpatriotic" then I can only admire how "patriotic" the citizenry of the old Soviet Union were as they waited in breadlines and discussed the latest offerings from Pravda.

sorry....wrong thread!

No matter who you like or dislike, who ever it may be Hillary or Obama... WE must Stand Together!!! and Vote Democratic

I am a Obama supporter, but if Hillary is the pick I will do what's right for the nation and vote for her.

I have a daughter and I do not want her to grow up with another Bush.

We need to start thinking and stop letting the Media divide us. If I have to post this in every blog, every comment box to get my message out there-- then I will ....

STOP HATING ON EACH OTHER--- AND THINK!!! Vote Democratic NO MATTER WHAT!!!!