July 30, 2008

7/30: Out Of Context?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Barack Obama for reportedly telling House members, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Righty bloggers see Obama's statement as evidence that he is "an individual of staggering arrogance". A Dem who attended the meeting complains that Obama's remarks are being taken out of context:

"[Obama's] entire point of that riff was that the campaign IS NOT about him. The Post left out the important first half of the sentence, which was something along the lines of: 'It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol...'"

Some conservative bloggers claim that the additional context doesn't make Obama's words any less problematic. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are defending Obama's remarks. Matthew Yglesias complains: "For hours the press and the GOP have been in a frenzy about Obama's arrogance. Because he tried to say something humble about why he was greeted by hundreds of thousands of people when he gave a speech."

OBAMA: The Arrogance!

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after The Washington Post reported that the IL senator told House members, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Righty bloggers are also linking to Dana Milbank column, in which he portrays Obama's remark as evidence that Obama is becoming "presumptuous":

• NRO's Peter Wehner: "Any man who believes he is 'the moment that the world is waiting for' and views himself as the symbol of the possibility and best traditions of America is an individual of staggering arrogance. That is doubly so when, like Obama, you have achieved nothing so far in your life -- in terms of scholarship or literature, legislation, acts of valor, self-sacrifice, or anything else -- that qualifies you to view yourself in quasi-Messianic terms."
• RedState's Ben Domenech: "Exult! Make a joyful noise! Dance in the streets with garlands of the finest flowers! Sing glorious hymns of praise to the firmament above! Behold -- the Son of Man comes, riding upon a golden ass! The weight of His glory is a heavy burden, indeed -- but He will bear it, yes, for you and for me."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Like Dr. Frankenstein, the mainstream media is getting nervous about the monster they have created. [...] They tingled, they gaped, they pumped, they spun, they tore down his primary opponent and they debased themselves by leaving their objectivity home and muting their demands for decent access to the candidate and reasonable disclosure of information. So if the Creature is now out of control and the subject of ridicule and even mocking...then they might examine the coverage they have afforded him these many months. Once can hardly blame the Great One for believing his press clippings."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Looks like the media is catching on to Obama's arrogance complex, no?"

Dems who attended the meeting complained that The Washington Post had taken Obama's statement out of context. One Dem "who was in the room" told Time's Mark Halperin:

"His entire point of that riff was that the campaign IS NOT about him. The Post left out the important first half of the sentence, which was something along the lines of: 'It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol...'"

The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett doesn't think the additional context makes Obama's remarks any less problematic: "What Obama said, and what the staffer and congressman confirm, is that in Obama's view, the world has selected Obama as a repository for its hope and dreams. I'm not sure how this shows less ego than the unsupported straw man argument, but there it is anyway. [...] Being surrounded by adoring sycophants for months on end has apparently warped Obama's perspective. The candidate obviously believes everyone is as wrapped up in Barack Obama as He is."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Yglesias defends Obama's remarks: "One could dispute [Obama']s theory, but it's not a particularly remarkable thing to say. You have a candidate who was greeted enthusiastically in Europe saying that the enthusiasm was about something larger than him -- about the United States and about the values Barack Obama and millions of other Americans cherish and hope will once again govern the country. But Dana Millbank wanted to write an article about how 'Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee.' [...] And now for hours the press and the GOP have been in a frenzy about Obama's arrogance. Because he tried to say something humble about why he was greeting by hundreds of thousands of people when he gave a speech."

Atrios: "MSNBC just informed me that the highly misleading clipped quote might feed the idea that Obama is 'presumptuous' despite being, you know, a highly misleading clipped quote...Craig Crawford: 'Even if it's not true...' Please kill me."

OBAMA II: It's Too Late To Apologize

Conservative bloggers are slamming Obama for making the following remarks at a convention for minority journalists:

"'I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged,' [Obama] said.

'I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.'"

• NRO's Mark Krikorian: "Obama sayeth 'the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.' Deeds? Like, say, Gettysburg? Antietam? The Wilderness? Shiloh? Chancellorsville? Spotsylvania?"
• Right Wing News' McQ: "Our 'tragic history'? A tragic history, in my estimation, would be one that still exists now as it did then. Someone, anyone, tell me -- Would you consider the steps made to remedy those situations of our 'tragic past' an 'acknowledgment' of them that has been done through 'deeds'? Civil war, Constitutional amendments, laws, set-asides, preferences, enforcement, cultural change, etc. Yet here again, these are deemed insufficient. Instead, 'reparations' and 'deeds' are mentioned in the same breath by a supposedly 'post-racial' candidate for President of the United States. And what that simply means is another in a long line of redistributionist schemes based in historical wrongs and the premise they've not been addressed. This. Has. Got. To. Stop."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama's understanding of American history -- his need to deplore trumps any instinct to elevate and celebrate every time -- frames the choice between McCain and Obama. A McCain presidency would be grounded on the firm conviction of American greatness and exceptionalism, as well as the uniqueness of the American mission in the world. Obama's would be built on the 'mature' understanding of America's many past sins, its enormous greed and grasping, its unfair use of vast quantities of resources and its need to respect world opinion and world institutions even when those opinions and institutions are at cross-purposes with American national interests."
• RedState's Haystack: "It may not be November yet, but our boy Barry isn't wasting any time acting as if here were already our next President and he's out there doing the Lord's work of healing America. After all, as a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions it makes perfect sense for Obamident Barry to start off with apologies and promises of reparations to any and all that may have ever suffered at the hands of our sad and tragic past transgressions as a Nation."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: Kick The Kaine

Yesterday we reported that Markos Moulitsas considers VA Gov. Tim Kaine (along with KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and MO Sen. Claire McCaskill) an "excellent choice" for VP. However, many liberal bloggers are critical of Kaine's record on social issues:

• Melissa McEwan: "I am as decidedly unthrilled as I am (unfortunately) totally unsurprised that the Obama campaign is even considering putting a gay-baiting DINO war hawk whose personal 'views on abortion are roughly in line with those of George W. Bush' on the ticket."
• TAPPED's Dylan Matthews: "Kaine's social views and his stance on Iraq are pretty problematic. Just as his Catholic views led him to oppose the death penalty, so too do they lead him to oppose abortion rights. [...] His record on gay rights isn't much better. He opposes civil unions, and while he claimed to oppose the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that passed last year, he declined to veto legislation placing it on the ballot. Perhaps worst of all, in the 2005 governor's race his campaign mocked [GOP nominee Jerry] Kilgore's effeminate voice. [...] It'd be one thing for Obama to choose an anti-choice running mate; picking an anti-choice gay-baiter is even worse."
• Kathy G.: "[Kaine] would be a piss-poor choice to be Barack Obama's running mate. [...] For one thing, I really, really don't want to see anyone on the ticket who is less than 100% committed to choice. [...] In addition, Kaine is on the record as strongly supporting a ban on so-called 'partial birth abortions' and strongly favoring government funding for that anti-scientific boondoggle known as 'abstinence-only' sex education. And how much of an anti-choice wingnut do you have to be to oppose state funding for stem cell research? [...] But wait -- there's even more bad news. Kaine ran a gay-baiting campaign for governor and is awful on GLBT issues. [...] And not only did he support the Iraq War, but he was super-hawkish about it as well."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Kaine is a very bad choice for VP. He's done nothing as Governor except turn a functional state government into a partisan cesspool of giveaways to the rich and anger everyone in the process. And on national positions, the only thing he brings to the table is that he can play the [Joe] Lieberman as VP role again. And sequels usually suck, especially if the original was bad."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[Choosing Kaine would] signal that Obama has no intention to govern as a progressive. As such, it would be difficult to muster up enthusiasm to work for the ticket. By contrast, Obama / Sebelius would be fine, and Obama / [Chris] Dodd would be exciting. If these are the final three choices, and I think there are good indications that they are the final three choices, I really hope that Obama doesn't go with Kaine."

Yglesias disputes Bowers' contention that choosing Kaine would "signal that Obama has no intention to govern as a progressive": "This seems to me to be reading way too much into the VP selection. Ronald Reagan's selection of George H.W. Bush much more presaged Bush becoming a conservative than Reagan becoming a moderate. The best guide to how Obama intends to govern isn't who he picks as VP, it's the stuff he's said about how he intends to govern and what he hopes to accomplish. That'd put him to the left of the [Bill] Clinton-[Al] Gore era of the Democratic Party but to the right of the Open Left vision of where the party ought to be, and that'll still be the case no matter who Obama picks."

Stoller responds to Yglesias: "Matthew Yglesias thinks we're overreaching by imputing intentions to Obama based on his VP pick. I don't think that's true for three reasons. One, Obama has consistently said he's picking a VP candidate based on how that candidate will help him govern. Two, we have no reason to trust that what Obama says in this campaign is what he intends to do as President. The FISA example...shows that Obama thinks nothing of breaking promises to liberals. Three, even if he follows through on the promises he hasn't broken, I don't see how his overall policy platform is substantially to the left of the Clinton/Gore administration. As a brief but significant example, in place of Clinton/Gore's 'peace dividend', or a cut in military spending, Obama has promised to grow the size of the military."

MCCAIN: He Doesn't Speak For Himself?

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after the presumptive GOP nominee contradicted his own earlier statements -- as well as a statement by his campaign spokesman -- when he said that he would consider raising payroll taxes to fix Social Security. Think Progress' Ali Frick writes:

"On Sunday, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about his plans to fix Social Security. McCain said repeatedly that 'everything has to be on the table' regarding possible reforms -- including a payroll tax increase. [...] The comments drew a 'sharp rebuke' from the Club for Growth, who wrote McCain a letter calling the comments 'shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances.' In fact, just last year McCain explicitly told the National Review that he refused to consider any sort of tax increase. He also told ABC's George Stephanopoulos, 'No new taxes.' Trying to stymie the conservative blow-back over his boss's recent comments, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds insisted to Fox News this morning that the senator hadn't really been speaking for the campaign."

• Yglesias: "[McCain's] campaign just seems to be off the rails, and unable to decide what McCain's stance is on various topics. For example, McCain and McCain's spokesman can't agree on whether or not increasing the payroll tax cap should be 'on the table' in terms of changing Social Security. It's a point McCain has gone back-and-forth on many, many times over the course of the campaign. [...] Maybe with the Olympics coming up and the expected attendant lull in campaign coverage, Team McCain can slow down and huddle for a couple of weeks in Arizona to just go down the checklist and figure out where they stand on these issues. Hold some conference calls. Something."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "John McCain has repeatedly attacked Obama over taxes and said that he will not raise taxes under any circumstances -- except to fix Social Security apparently. That's what he said on ABC's This Week. [...] Now he's saying he won't raise taxes. It's hard to keep up."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "This is just getting embarrassing. Is McCain running for president of the United States or is he trying out for a part in some high-concept wacky political comedy? He needs to make up his mind."

MEDIA CRITICISM: In The Tank For McCain?

Two weeks ago we noted that liberal bloggers were accusing Ron Fournier, the Associated Press' Washington bureau chief, of pro-GOP bias. The criticism of Fournier escalated when TPM Muckraker revealed that Fournier sent Karl Rove an email in 2004 in which he told Rove to "keep up the fight." Now liberal bloggers are criticizing Fournier once again following a Politico article revealing that Fournier spoke with several of McCain's top aides about joining the AZ senator's presidential campaign in October 2006 (Fournier eventually declined the offer):

• Jed Lewison: "I guess he ultimately decided he could do more good from the AP than inside the campaign."
• dday: "Turns out Ron Fournier, now heading the Washington bureau of the AP right into ruin, had another job offer on the table prior to that. [...] Why would he take it? He gets the free Dunkin' Donuts for McCain anyway, which I assume would have been part of his job description. Fournier is clearly a partisan cheerleader ('Keep up the fight!') masquerading as a journalist."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Just read Fournier's stuff like he's in a senior advisory role to the McCain campaign. Then, it will makes sense."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Maybe he's on retainer?"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "[Fournier] would fit right in with the Rove proteges at the McCain campaign."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "It comes as no surprise that the AP's coverage of Obama has been full of slanted pontificating as Fournier pushes not just straight reporting, but comments and analysis -- so much of it amazingly unfair and non-analytical about Obama."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "That Fournier would consider a role with the McCain campaign is not especially surprising; his political leanings have been increasingly apparent of late. [...] But Fournier is the DC bureau chief of the Associated Press. He's chiefly responsible for directing the AP's coverage of the presidential campaign. And yet, Fournier's objectivity is hardly above reproach -- he considered an offer to work for one of the two candidates. [...] Did it not occur to the Associated Press that this might raise questions about the objectivity of the wire service's coverage?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Fournier's Accountability Journalism

The American Prospect's Adam Serwer offers some interesting thoughts on the news that the AP's Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier considered taking "a senior advisory role" in the McCain campaign in 2006:

"The point is -- none of this should have mattered. Having political beliefs or sympathies shouldn't affect the way a journalist does their job, and this article wouldn't even have been written if the AP didn't have reporters writing stuff like this. Some might see this as just another example of why 'objectivity' in journalism is a myth, but for some reason, that's an argument I find a great deal more compelling with a network or a newspaper. There's something disconcerting about bias in wire services, since many papers may rely on them entirely for their national affairs or international coverage. There's also something bizarre about Fournier's brand of 'accountability journalism', which aims to be opinionated but essentially relies on the credibility of the AP's past, non-opinionated work for any sense of authority, the reputation of wire reporters as 'straight-shooters'. In other words, the appeal of AP reporters giving their opinions is premised on the myth that wire reporters can't possibly have strong ideological opinions."

LEST WE FORGET: Another Title For The Gators

Radar's Neel Shah:

"Congratulations, University of Florida students! You guys have finally funneled enough beers and set enough pieces of dorm furniture on fire while celebrating NCAA championships to earn the title of No. 1 party school in America! The honor, courtesy of the Princeton Review's annual survey, comes after years of hard work -- the Gators had cracked the top 20 each of the past 15 years, but never finished first until this year. A spokesperson for the university defended the school, noting that the typical incoming freshman has a 4.1 weighted GPA and got a 1300 on the SATs, though high school academic diligence may not transfer at the university level: Florida also finished first in the category of 'students who studied the least.' Says one student: 'With a lot of people on campus, fun things happen.' The Gators are a perceptive batch!

For the 11th straight year, Brigham Young, the Mormon school where no one drinks, smokes, does drug, has sex, or partakes in any behavior otherwise associated with the college demographic, topped the Review's 'Stone-Cold Sober Schools' list."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at July 30, 2008 01:16 PM