The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review
Obama, Hillary, and Dean, oh my
By Mark Kilmer Posted in and Dean | Hillary | Obama | oh my | Special Features — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, May 4, 2008

Preface:
On FOX News Sunday Howard Dean compared the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Willie Horton, and accused the Republicans of race-baiting, hatred, and divisiveness for mentioning him. Host Chris Wallace countered that Obama had said that Wright was a legitimate issue, and Dean distanced himself from his future-nominee: "He can say what he wants; I'm going to say what I want."
Next on FNS, former DNC bosses Joe Andrew and Terence McAuliffe argued on the margins but agreed that they would have a great candidate this fall. Andrew predicted Obama victories in both North Carolina and Indiana, while Terence refused to forecast.
On TW, Hillary again made her case to her former employee, George Stephanopoulos.
Obama went on NBC's Meet the Press, where host Tim Russert spent 14-minutes gently questioning him about Jeremiah Wright. He said that Wright is retiring and just likes the spotlight.
On FTN, House Dem Whip James Clyburn told host Bob Schieffer that there will not be the riots in Denver which Doug Wilder had predicted; Clyburn, who has backed no one, said that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the voters.
Next on FTN, Doug Wilder said that he had not predicted a riot in Denver if the nomination were stolen from Obama; rather, he said he had predicted a "riotous convention." Evan Bayh asserted that Hillary and Obama would work together this fall.
On LE, host Wolf Blitzer talked to Governors Bill Richardson of New Mexico (Obama surrogate) and Mike Easley of North Carolina (Hillary surrogate). Easley thinks the Dem race could run through the convention in Denver, while Richardson thinks such an outcome would be bad for the Democratic Party.
In a very short interview, Ron Paul told Blitzer that he's still in the GOP race because he is still generating enthusiasm and money, and he wants to get out of Iraq now.
The show-by-show review is beneath the fold. …
HOWARD DEAN ON FNS. First up on FOX News Sunday for host Chris Wallace was DNC boss Howard Dean. Wallace asked Dean why he was distorting what John McCain had said about the 100 more years in Iraq. He played a clip of McCain making the statement, including the caveat "as long as Americans are not being killed." Dean responded that, nu-huh, he's not distorting what McCain is saying; McCain is distorting what McCain is saying, Dean asserted. The American people, Dean said, do not want to be in Iraq for 100 more years, and "John McCain's plan for Iraq is to stay there 100 years."
Dean would "like a nominee soon," but he says he is thrilled by the Dem nominating process. More people are voting Dem, he proclaimed, and they are "running vigorous primaries in all 50 States."
Wallace asked Dean if he thought Jeremiah Wright was "radioactive" to Dems down-ticket. Dean countered that "this is about the war, the economy, and healthcare." He snapped that Republicans "race-bait, use hate and divisiveness." He compared Reverend Wright to rapist-murder Willie Horton by proclaiming that Republicans mentioning Wright was race-baiting, "just like Willie Horton." Wallace countered that Obama had said that Wright was a legitimate issue, and Dean distanced himself from his future-nominee: "He can say what he wants; I'm going to say what I want."
Dean conceded that, what with all the Dems flocking to FOX after their childish boycott, the FNC audience, though downscale, is important to the Dems. He should not punish the working class viewers for the sins of the network.
MCAULIFFE AND ANDREW ON FNS. Next up for Wallace were two surrogates: for Hillary, former DNC boss Terence McAuliffe (2001-2005); and for Obama, former DNC boss Joe Andrew (1999-2001). Andrew said that Barry's "been tested" and has "done well." Terence said that Obama was "absolutely not" a drag on the Dems down-ticket.
Wallace showed them polls showing Clinton edging McCain and McCain leading Obama. Andrews said that polls have been "up-and-down" and that the Republicans have been concentrating on beating-up Obama. McAuliffe countered that the superdelegates must determine which of the candidates can beat John McCain.
Andrew asserted that Barack Obama voted "no" on the Iraq War. (Obama was not in the Senate at the time, but Wallace let it go.) However, he predicted that whichever candidate wins, the Dem rank-and-file will rally behind him (or her). McAuliffe agreed: two great candidates, etc.
Andrew predicted Obama victories in both North Carolina and Indiana, while Terence refused to forecast.
HILLARY ON TW. On ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos handled a sort of forum for his former boss, Hillary. There were people sitting formally in an audience where they were in Indianapolis, and there was another generic audience on by satellite from North Carolina. Rows and rows of calm, non-violent Dems.
The host and Hillary started seated, but they both stood up as the forum progressed.
Hillary talked of her "comprehensive energy policy," which she says involves taxing the "excess profits" of the big oil companies. She sneered that "elite opinion" is always on the side of harming Americans, which makes sense, given that he rival for the Dem nomination has been called an "elitist."`
She said that we may not be able to bring back the exact jobs we've lost to foreign countries, but we cannot afford to keep losing them. (This is similar to a dustup between John McCain and Mitt Romney and Michigan, with Romney promising to bring back the same jobs which had moved overseas.)
She said that she and Stephanopoulos "had meetings together" on NAFTA, which she said made sense when we were stronger at the end of the 20th century. Now, she's going to renegotiate and fix NAFTA, the failure of which she blamed on the Republican Congress for not giving us universal health care like they have overseas.
Hillary said that no matter how this race turns out, "we'll have a great candidate for the fall."
OBAMA ON MTP. On Meet the Press, host Tim Russert interviewed presumptive Dem nominee Barack Obama, leading off with Jeremiah Wright. Obama called the controversy, "distracting." He added that it "wasn't welcome." He added that the American people understand that when he joined Trinity United, he was committing not to Wright but to the church (black liberation theology, etc.) and to Christ. He defended the church for working on poverty and social issues. He said that when Wright made the statements which Barry says he found "objectionable," his first thought was that they did not define Wright. When Wright "worsened" his comments before the National Press Club, Obama felt it was important that we understand that this is not what he believes, and it does not represent the African American church. Obama told Russert that he is still a member of Wright's church.
Obama thinks that, what with Wright retiring, "having the spotlight was attractive to him." (Obama here accused Wright of being just a showman, perhaps in retaliation for Wright having accused him at the National Press Club of being just a politician. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the man's ego.
Obama added that he thinks Wright "failed to understand" that they only way they can solve the problems the church has sought to address is "by the country coming together," i.e. – electing Barry.
Russert asked why it took so long for Obama to lose the Wright albatross. He played a clip of Obama's famous "race speech" where he said that he could no more disown Wright than he could disown his white grandmother. (Russert ended the clip before the part where Obama referred to his grandmother as a racist.) Then Russert played a clip, five weeks later, of Obama trying to reject and repudiate Wright last Tuesday, and he pointed out that Obama had known about Wright's beliefs at least since March. What changed in the past five weeks? Obama said that Wrights views could no longer be explained away as spliced bits from sermons. He said that further that this showed that Wright "didn't have much regard for the moment we're in right now right here in the United States," where we have to elect Obama and bring the country together.
It was "disappointing" that he did not know Wright as well as he thought he did.
He said that he didn't want Wright's words to distract from his candidacy.
Obama proclaimed that because he is half black and half white, it is in his DNA to believe that we can come together regardless of race.
Russert asked Obama if it is fair to judge his judgment based on his misjudgment of Reverend Wright. Obama said sure, if you include all the other things he's done in the last twenty years.
Obama said that he will never seek Wright's counsel if elected President; in fact, he's never sought Wright's counsel as far as politics. (Not even at 3am?) He said that Wright was never his "spiritual advisor or mentor. He was my pastor."
The first fifteen minutes went by with soft questions and lengthy answers regarding Barry and the Rev. Then Russert moved on to the possible "swiftboating" or Obama this fall, questioning his patriotism. Barry said that he will "not stand by and allow somebody to challenge" his patriotism.
Twenty-three minutes into this, they started talking about Obama's new found opposition to a temporary reduction in the gas tax. He talked about Hillary saying that she would "obliterate" Iran if it were to attack Israel, saying this was "not the language we need right now"; rather, the use of the verb "obliterate" is "reflective of George Bush." (On TW, Steph asked Hillary about Obama's statement. She said that we had to be clear to the mullahs that they would face "massive retaliation." I miss these cold war terms!)
They talked about corn for food or for ethanol. (Barry says that "we have a serious food problem" caused by global climate change.) Barry says we have to look at nuclear power. And he talked about forcing the Iraqis to fend for themselves because we are fanning the flames of hatred.
CLYBURN ON FTN. Host Bob Schieffer of CBS's Face the Nation spoke first to House Dem whip James Clyburn (D-South Carolina), the guy who says that Hillary is in this race to tear down Barry for racial reasons. He feels that the Wright controversy "has been a distraction" from the "message of change" offered by Hillary and Obama.
He claimed that he never said that the Clintons were trying to weaken Obama so she could run again; rather, "young people" were telling him that this is what they believed.
Clyburn feels that Barry has to tell blue collar workers what it's like to be raised by a single parent and handed off to your grandparents, as blue collar workers can identify with this.
On Wright, Clyburn argued that the church was the Body of Christ, not the pastor, and Barry was explaining this well. Schieffer asked him if whites were using Wright as an excuse not to vote for Obama, and Clyburn said that it was not just whites. He thinks "people look for cover" in such issues.
Schieffer asked Clyburn what would happen if Obama came in to Denver with the most elected delegates yet the nomination was given to Hillary. (Since Doug Wilder told him several months ago that there would be riots if this happened, Schieffer's been thinking of this.) Clyburn said that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the voters without a good reason. He believes that the person who finishes second in this race will be more important than the winner. He thinks the Dems will be united no matter what.
WILDER AND BAYH ON FTN. Host Schieffer next spoke to Obama supporter Doug Wilder and Hillary backer Evan Bayh, who was on his cell phone when the interview began. Schieffer asked Wilder about his riot comment several months ago, and he said that if there is the perception that the "nomination was stolen, there would be a riotous convention, not in-the-streets." It would take an "unprecedented landslide," he said, for Hillary to catch up with Barry.
It turned out that the interview was being conducted over Bayh's cell phone, as the satellite sound from Indianapolis was not functioning. He pointed out that Hillary wants to be the champion of the middle class, those worried about health care costs and gas prices. He called Hillary a "fighter" with "fortitude." She's "in this for the American people" and to "stand strong for them." He said that Hillary "has a little more experience and can deliver."
Schieffer asked Wilder if Hillary should stay in if she wins Indiana and North Carolina. Wilder said that she should stay in for as long as she wants. Wilder claimed that "right wing commentators" were "literally begging people" to vote for Hillary because "many of them think Hillary would be the weakest." (Some of them enjoy this Dem primary.)
Bayh said that Hoosiers (Indiana voters) will not listen to splitter Joe Andrews, a Hoosier himself.
Wilder explained that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
They argued about who voted for a gas tax holiday, and Wilder argued that Obama had learned from his mistakes.
Schieffer described the Dem Party as being split by a thousand fissures and asked if there would be a "Dream Ticket." Wilder dodged the question, and Bayh thinks only that they'll "work together in the fall."
RICHARDSON AND EASLEY ON LE. On CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer led off by talking to Dem Governors Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Mike Easley of North Carolina, pro-Obama and pro-Hillary respectively. Richardson said Barry was right about Hillary's "obliterate Iran" language, because Barry's foreign policy is going to be one of negotiation with the grand mullahs in Iran. Now is not the time to saber-rattle; we need diplomacy and negotiation, and "getting U.N. support." Easley agrees that diplomacy is the way to start. He said that Hillary agrees, but we have to be very clear to Iran that they cannot touch Israel.
Blitzer asked Easley if she could "upset" Obama in North Carolina, and Easley said that this depends on the definition of "upset"; Hillary has shrunk the margin. He added that people trust Hillary on the economy and can turn the economy around "quickly."
Richardson pointed out that Obama had won Guam. He believes that Obama will "prevail" in North Carolina and will do well in Indiana. He leads in delegates, he said. Blitzer argued that Hillary has a "stronger electoral college advantage" because of the States she's won. Richardson argued that Obama has a shot at both Ohio and Pennsylvania. Easley countered that "we're not going to win the White House by winning Guam, I can tell you that. He added that Hillary wins the "Reagan Democrats." Questions like who can bring out the young voters, Easley said, are not as important to him as who can be the best President.
The conversation turned to Jeremiah Wright. Governor Easley said that "it won't be an issue in this primary." He added that Obama had done "what he had to do," i.e. – attempt to jettison his pastor. He added that African Americans in North Carolina do not worship the way Wright does.
Richardson said that Obama gave a "critically important speech on race" when he first learned of Reverend Wright's comments, and he accused Wright of seeking "financial gain and notoriety" because of the controversy.
Easley thinks this contest could go all the way to Denver, and he thinks that would be "good for the country," having more people stand up and "be a part of America." Richardson said that it is important that they have a nominee after the remaining nine contests. If it goes to Denver, he said, it will be "bad for the party." Sob, sob, sob, sob, and sob.
RON PAUL ON LE. Ron Paul told Blitzer that he's still in the race because he's still generating enthusiasm and money, and because he wants to get out of Iraq. He said that he's not ready to endorse McCain. He implied that he's read the Constitution, though the veracity of this is not clear.
The interview seemed to last all of 45 seconds.
= = = = =
Wow. Have at it, folks.
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It's not a matter of "popularity." A person's character is the most important issue of any when selecting a President. We're not voting upon a laundry list of policies, we're voting upon a person. And who that person is at their core is often times a much better gauge of what they'll attempt as a public official than any policy pronouncements.
To put it simply: actions speak louder than words. What one did in the past is a better way to tell what they'll do in the future, than what they simply claim they'll do.
Character is absolutely an issue, yes. How we come to judge that character, however, is subjective. Guilt by association is one way to do it, yes, but if we're going to try to get into Senator Obama's head and read his motivation, we would do well to remember that armchair psychology is imperfect at best.
There are several reasons why he could have stayed in that church without hating white people, being a black separatist, or hating America. The fact that such interpretations aren't in vogue here does nothing to mitigate the possibility that they are possible or plausible.
I don't mind questions on why he remained at Trinity. I do mind spending an obscene amount of time on it, and Russert didn't. If you think that fourteen out of sixty minutes devoted to this topic was inadequate (and I'm not saying that you feel that way, just laying it out there), then I would disagree. The War in Iraq, gas pricing, alternative sources of energy, and a host of other issues *matter*.
To a degree, we ARE voting on a laundry list of policies. If we weren't passionate about policies, we'd simply be voting for the best person, however we choose to define it, without much need for political parties.
The parties exist because there are ideological strains in the US that have deep commonalities at times (and superficial or tactical ones too). Hearing what a candidate intends to do if elected is vitally important. Even if events prevent one from enacting it (as the current President has demonstrated, vis a vis "nation-building"), it certainly tells us where they want to take us over the next four years.
Character matters, but the degree to which it does will depend on the particular voter. This particular voter is a pragmatist. I want my country to excel and I want my liberties defended more than I conclude they have been.
Policy matters a lot.
it should bother you that Obama is a member of a church that espouses a racist theology. You say character matters, but also complain that we have to listen to Obama talk about it, as if it doesn't.
But now Obama has said/implied he never knew that Wright was the anti-American racist he is, and we're expected to believe him? I don't. No one should. He's blatantly lying for expedient political reasons. But even if he's telling the truth, then how ignorant must this man be? He spent all those years going to this church and being mentored by this hate-monger and he didn't notice Wright's horrid views? Either way, that doesn't speak well of his character, judgment or competence.
But you seem to put his policy positions ahead of questions about character, judgment and competence and focus on what he's going to do once elected. Fine. My question is, how can you trust him to do what he says he's going to do (policy-wise) if he's a liar with poor judgment and insufficient competence to implement said policies, as evidenced by this Wright scandal?
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
Both seem to be getting what they deserve.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Blitzer said that he talked to Dean "in the Situation Room," so that could mean he talked to him on his weekday afternoon political show.
but it looks like Russert finished off Obama today, if Obama's answer to why he "disowned" Wright was an elogant way of saying he couldnt stop lying about Wright's hatred anymore.
McCain '08
Rev Jeremiah-in the basesment out of the view of the press-Wright when he announced his candidacy, or was it when he advocated leftist McGoverite-Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry losing policies.
Russert was irrelevant today.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Can we please... PLEASE! have Howard Dean on EVERY WEEK!?!
We (the GOP) can only look better after that. PLEASE!
and on a lighter note:
Should Hillary 'go all the way' just what job do you think George Stephanopoulos will ask for? After all the water he's carried, press sec just doesn't seem like enough
rick554
This morning the collective IQ of ALL involved was about 35. Does anyone, except of course themselves , actually believe these twits??? WOW my grandfather must be spinning in his grave.
give RonPaul™ any time to speak at the convention? Personally, I hope they tell him that if he wants to speak at a convention, he can go to Denver.
____

CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The summary above focuses on all the Wright business, but there was more to it. On every sort of "issue" question, Obama tried to have it both ways if he even made any sense at all.
On nuclear energy, he said something like this: "Yes we need to look at nuclear energy, but we need to worry about storage and security and the plants have been very expensive to build because they use a different design each time they build one." What a load of crap. Is there some cookie-cutter approach to building nuclear power plants that can be repeated everywhere? Do local/state/federal regulations and Obama's core supporters' absolute opposition to any nuclear power plant regardless of anything have just a BIT to do with making it impossible to build more plants? I bet he's against disposal no where it's planned and I bet he has voted against anything to do with nuclear plants any time he's had the chance.
He also talked about how we need to do things like drive up auto efficiency standards, saying that "China has higher auto efficiency standards than we do." What the heck does THAT have to do with anything? Maybe he'd like to see lots of China's policies introduced here.
He's just a total disaster. The more people see of him the less they will like him.
say that Rev. Wright has "already done enough damage to our country?"
I thought I heard that during his appearance on FNS, but I can't believe that it has not evoked a response . . .
BRASSBAND77
... and Wallace:
WALLACE: But, Governor, I've got to tell you, when I interviewed Barack Obama last week, he said he thought that the Reverend Wright issue was a legitimate political issue — his words.
DEAN: Well, he can say whatever he wants. I'm going to say whatever I want. I'm not getting into Reverend Wright. He's caused enough trouble for our country over the last several weeks.
I was more interested in Dean dissing his party's nominee than anything. ("He can say whatever he wants; I'm going to say whatever I want. Nyah-Nyah-Nyah.") But he said that Wright has caused trouble for our country, which is basically what Obama and everyone else is saying.
Dean's meaning of "trouble for our country" he of course means "trouble for my party."
that Wright failed to understand this important time at which our country needed to come together. He was talking about himself and his election as President, and how Wright does not know that the country needs Obama, so Wright is willing to hinder Obama's triumphal march down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Actually, he said "trouble," not "damage." Here's an excerpt from the Fox News website:
WALLACE: But, Governor, I've got to tell you, when I interviewed Barack Obama last week, he said he thought that the Reverend Wright issue was a legitimate political issue — his words.
DEAN: Well, he can say whatever he wants. I'm going to say whatever I want. I'm not getting into Reverend Wright. He's caused enough trouble for our country over the last several weeks.
BRASSBAND77
I just can't watch these shows anymore, they make my head explode.
Volunteer
ALL
"Dean distanced himself from his future-nominee: "He can say what he wants; I'm going to say what I want.".....
Finally, the frustration comes to the front. Dr. Dean slipped as Chris cornered him. Dean has shown his ineptness as leader of the Dems, we all know this, and so does he.
But the slip is in the words, "He can say.... etc.
The Dems leaders wanted Mr. O to close this Primary quickly. Not happening.
The Dems Super Delegates did not want to have to make a Political Choice that will endanger their individual positions. Not happening.
The Dems defintely do not want chaos in August. Not Likely, as the Left is Logistically organizing as we speak.
So, who is to blame. Can't be Dr. Dean, he is the Leader. Can't be the Super Delegates, they haven't been involved. Can't be the Staffers, as most of them have been fired.
SO, who is left? Mr. Obama of course. Hillary is just trying to win, as she so often said she will.
As the frustration grows, as Hillary contends to the end, with no clear avenue of escape for the Super Delegates, look for more blame to be heaped on poor little Mr. "o".
end
but isn't it time for Dean to throw -Dean- under the bus?

Volunteer
On nuclear energy, he said something like this: "Yes we need to look at nuclear energy, but we need to worry about storage and security and the plants have been very expensive to build because they use a different design each time they build one." What a load of crap. Is there some cookie-cutter approach to building nuclear power plants that can be repeated everywhere? Do local/state/federal regulations and Obama's core supporters' absolute opposition to any nuclear power plant regardless of anything have just a BIT to do with making it impossible to build more plants? I bet he's against disposal no(matter) where it's planned and I bet he has voted against anything to do with nuclear plants any time he's had the chance.
He also talked about how we need to do things like drive up auto efficiency standards, saying that "China has higher auto efficiency standards than we do." What the heck does THAT have to do with anything? Maybe he'd like to see lots of China's policies introduced here.
These quotes from Mr. O and the Poster are right on the money.
I looked at Mr O's issue statements re Nuclear Plants, energy and storage. He is against the whole idea of having a new build program for the Nuc industry.
Storage issues are being solved, Technical issues are either solved, or have solutions in the pipeline.
We can expect a Left driven energy solution that will have the USA living in mud huts if this candidate gets the Oval Office.
If one reviews the Academic Left re: the Energy solution, it goes like this.
1. Reduce the Auto population driving cars. period.
2. Reduce the energy usage at the home by living in the dark.
3. Reduce the living standards of the home by plowing the back yard patio into a herb garden.
4. Reduce, reduce, reduce, and send what investment dollars you have to Al Gore.
My plate runneth over with platitudes. Enough already.
end
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
OMG. I'm sorry. I about
by Han PritcherHeard this on the local news
by rbastidDisregarding your hypotheticals...
by iamcool388Obama's camp gamed the
by Han PritcherWell, campaign debt hasn't been his story yet.
by jonlesterAccording to PUMA
by ilitigantNo, *McCain* is the presumptive nominee.
by Moe LaneCome to think of it, the
by Han PritcherA quarter billion to lose the pop vote
by JoliphantExcuse me: assumed nominee.
by Moe LaneSupply-siders keep your beer affordable <nt>
by jonlesterIn the interest of accuracy,
by nilramHe's the presumptive nominee
by Han PritcherCurious to see those June fundraising numbers ...
by rbdwigginsBy whose standards?
by Moe LaneI had gathered that. Again,
by Han PritcherI agree. However, if I
by Han PritcherThis is the post I alluded to earlier <nt>
by jonlesterShe publically stated that
by Han Pritcher
blog advertising is good for you

get your job site
at simplyhired.com



I was pleased to see Russert spend a reasonable amount of time on the Wright issue, and then move on to largely policy. I want to learn what these folks would actually *do* as president, not necessarily about the trivia some folks dwell on so damned much. To the extent that politics is a popularity contest, these things matter, yes. But they shouldn't be dispositive unless they are incredible outliers.
I expect I'm in the minority hereabouts on this issue, but I prefer interviews to be substantive in the main. Russert did that today.