Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton’s Bone-Headed Decision To Debate On Fox News

Posted by on February 5, 2008 at 4:06 pm. 10 Comments :

Fox News is reporting that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has accepted an invitation to participate in a debate on Fox News.

Oh Great! Hasn’t she read Starve The Beast yet?

It’s a little difficult to comprehend why Clinton would commit such a flagrant foul. Sure, she has had a relatively cozy relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Sure, she has accepted contributions from him and appeared at fundraisers that he sponsored on her behalf. Sure, her husband signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that opened the door for unprecedented corporate consolidation in the media business, which Fox exploited to its fullest.

Hmmm. Maybe it’s not that difficult to comprehend, after all. But on the other hand, Murdoch’s network is maligning her 24/7. His New York Post endorsed Obama and in the editorial said that she was “opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled, infinitely self-indulgent, self-centered, and [reeking] of cynicism and opportunism.” The same article slams Obama just as hard, even though he is the endorsee. And Clinton’s response to that is to reward Fox with her presence at their party?

Barack Obama could blow this wide open by declining to accept the Fox debate. This would demonstrate greater courage on his part by not buckling under to the media titan. It would honor the values of Democrats who don’t want Fox treated as if they were a neutral and viable news source. And it would hang Clinton out to dry with her pals at Fox because she couldn’t very well do the debate alone. However, at present there has been no conclusive statement from the Obama camp as to whether he will play along. His spokesman said:

“As of right now, there are no debates on our schedule at all. We’ll figure out our schedule, including any debates, soon.”

The embargo of Fox News must continue, and having supposed allies like Clinton betray us on this is disappointing, to say the least. The effort to sequester the pseudo-news network has been measurably effective. Their ratings are virtually stagnant, while their competitors are soaring. They are noticeably perturbed and are showing their frustrations on the air. And you know that you’ve had an impact when Fox has to report about itself that…

“Liberal activists in moveon.org and the blogosphere, as well as former candidate John Edwards, scuttled a Democratic debate on Fox earlier this year. Asked by one of those liberal bloggers, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, whether accepting the FNC invitation would ‘legitimize’ Fox News, Wolfson pointed out that both Sen Obama and Sen Clinton have appeared multiple times on Fox”

I must admit that I get a bit of a thrill seeing that Fox has to address its own legitimacy in their reporting. Notice how Wolfson uses previous appearances to justify those in the future, That is precisely why EVERY appearance should be refused. And as if to substantiate their spurious status, the previous debate was not scuttled earlier this year. It was scuttled early last year. But who really expects Fox News to get the facts straight?

It’s Super Tuesday and there will be a lot of news flowing in a couple of hours. But this is a bad day for the Clinton campaign regardless of what happens with the election results. She is hurting her party and her cause, and she should reconsider her participation, or should I say collaboration, with Fox News and revoke her acceptance.

New York Post Bashes/Endorses Obama

Posted by on January 30, 2008 at 4:22 pm. NO Comments :

NYPost Endorses Obama

The New York Post has given its endorsement for the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama. However, after reading the article you’d have to ask yourself, “With friends like that, who needs enemas?” Some examples of what the Post considers an endorsement:

  • “…an untried candidate, to be sure…”
  • “Obama is not without flaws.”
  • “For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning…”
  • “Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive…”
  • “His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence”
  • “…he is not Team Clinton…That counts for a very great deal.”
  • “…we don’t agree much with Obama on substantive issues.”

That’s what they say about the candidate they like! Here’s what they say about Hillary and Bill:

  • “…a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.”
  • “…self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories…”
  • “…wore thin a very long time ago.”
  • “A return to Sen. Clinton’s cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate – and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess.”
  • “…don’t forget the Clintons’ trademark political cynicism.”
  • “…reeks of cynicism and opportunism.”
  • “…Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband…”

Let’s face it, this endorsement from Rupert Murdoch’s NY mouthpiece was really just an excuse to bash both of the remaining Democrats in the race. It’s conclusion is that Clinton is so awful, that we have to go with her almost equally as bad opponent.

This might sting Clinton a bit because she has been cozying up to Murdoch – attending fundraisers, appearing on Fox News, refraining from criticism, etc. And this is how he repays her. Do you think she’ll learn her lesson?

In the end, the Post’s opinion will probably have negligible effect on this race. It may even have a contrary effect because New Yorkers know exactly where the Post stands. Consequently, an endorsement of Obama may send them running to Clinton. Still, it is pretty pathetic when one of the city’s major newspapers uses the occasion of an endorsement to brazenly insult both candidates. Let’s see how they handle the Republican endorsement.

Update 2/18/09: New York Post publishes racist and violent cartoon.

Who Will Fight The Media Now?

Posted by on January 30, 2008 at 12:35 pm. NO Comments :

With this morning’s announcement that John Edwards would be suspending his quest for the Democratic nomination for president, the media reform movement has also dropped out of the campaign.

Edwards was the only candidate to have directly addressed the problem of the media in this country. He recognized the danger of unregulated corporations controlling access to the media megaphone that all candidates and initiatives rely on if they harbor any hope of success. His own candidacy was a victim of the exclusionary predilections of Big Media.

Here are some memorable moments from Edwards’ campaign:

“I am not particularly interested in seeing Rupert Murdoch own every newspaper in America.”

“High levels of media consolidation threaten free speech, they tilt the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and they make it increasingly difficult for women and people of color to own meaningful stakes in our nation’s media.”

“It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp./Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation.”

“The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media – all qualities which are pretty hard to [ascribe] to Fox News and News Corp.”

Contrast that with this watered-down criticism by Hillary Clinton. It started off as a rejection of media consolidation, but ended up letting her contributer Rupert Murdoch off the hook:

“I’m not saying anything against any company in particular. I just want to see more competition, especially in the same markets.”

On a positive note, both Clinton and Barack Obama are co-sponsors of the Media Ownership Act of 2007. And they have made statements in support of reform. Last year Clinton told supporters at a campaign rally that…

“There have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling. The fact is, most people still get their news from television, from radio, even from newspapers. If they’re all owned by a very small group of people – and particularly if they all have a very similar point of view – it really stifles free speech.”

That was right before she handed Murdoch the reprieve above. Obama co-authored an editorial with John Kerry that said in part…

“…to engage in the debates that have always made America stronger, it takes a stage and a platform for discussion – and never before have these platforms been more endangered.”

“In recent years, we have witnessed unprecedented consolidation in our traditional media outlets. Large mergers and corporate deals have reduced the number of voices and viewpoints in the media marketplace.”

But neither Clinton nor Obama have been nearly as aggressive as Edwards in this battle. Both have appeared on Fox News despite the dreadful treatment to which they are subjected. [Note to Dems: NEVER appear on Fox News! Starve The Beast!] And neither has made a point of making the media, the FCC, Rupert Murdoch, etc., a significant part of their campaign. Clinton has an arguably greater moral obligation to address these issues given that it was her husband who saddled us with the abhorrent Communications Act of 1996 that opened the floodgates of consolidation.

The remaining candidates in the race had better wise up. The media that has purposefully marginalized and/or disparaged candidacies that are now defunct, is now free to shift its aim to you. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that you can weather their assault or bat your eyes demurely and hope that they will leave you alone. They will turn on you and, when they do, you will have little recourse but to whither and disappear or submit to their will. Both of those options will likely lead to a loss of the election, not to mention your soul.

As for the rest of us, we must take affirmative steps to see to it that our candidates understand how important this is – to them and to us. Be sure to write them and demand that they make media reform a plank in their platforms. Ask them about it at rallies and debates. It is up to us to remind them that the fate of EVERY issue we hold dear is dependent on the ability to educate and inform the public. For this we need a fair, diverse, and independent media. No matter what issue motivates you, if you don’t spend at least some of your time reforming the media you are allowing an obstacle to remain in your path that will lead to unnecessary hardship and, perhaps, failure.

Obama Capitulates To Fox News

Posted by on January 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm. NO Comments :

On the morning after his second place finish in the New Hampshire primary, Barack Obama apparently feels he needs the solace of a hostile new network to salve his wounds. By appearing on the infantile Fox & Friends morning show, Obama has gilded Fox’s credibility as a news provider and simultaneously damaged the cause of all Democrats and progressives.

What a bitterly disappointing turn of events from a candidate who had previously snubbed the hacks at Fox News for nearly a year. What could have prompted him to make such a foolish and pointless decision? Surely it couldn’t have anything to do with his aide’s recent altercation with Bill O’Reilly. The last thing that Fox should get for their top personality behaving like a thug is a reward!

Was Obama intimidated by Chris Wallace calling Democrats “fools“ for not appearing on Fox? Has he forgotten what Fox spokespeople said when he pulled out of a Fox-sponsored debate in Nevada last year?

“Obama and his staff are in for a rude awakening if they think they can write off Fox News. If a candidate is serious about running for president, he or she is going to need a network like Fox to reach out to all those voters in the red and purple states.”

And…

“If true, perhaps Mr. [Robert] Gibbs [an Obama campaign manager] should reconsider that ill-advised strategy given his candidate is trailing by 20 points in the polls.”

Obama has proven all of them wrong, and he did it without any help from them – despite their self-important threats that they are indispensable. Nothing has changed since then. There has been no apology or even an acknowledgment of slack reporting. Fox spent the rest of the year smearing Obama and his Democratic colleagues. Here’s a reminder, Senator…

Just stay the HELL off of Fox News! Is that so damn hard? And read Starve The Beast for more reasons why.

Update: Hillary Clinton was on the same episode of Fox & Friends as Obama. While it is just as bad that Clinton appeared on Fox as Obama, Clinton has appeared on Fox in the past, so it is not exactly news that she did so today. Additionally, she has never articulated an intention to not appear on Fox as Obama and Edwards have. To the contrary, she has been rather chummy with Murdoch who is a contributor and fundraiser for her campaigns.

The O’Reilly Meltdown Will Be Televised

Posted by on January 7, 2008 at 8:01 pm. 4 Comments :

Today on the Factor, Bill O’Reilly played his videotape of the Clash in Nashua. It was truly disgusting listening to that belligerently egotistical megalomaniac barking orders at Obama’s aide, who was just doing his job. I don’t understand how The Fester can show this video and think that it makes him look sympathetic. I’m a little surprised he showed it all (though he did censor the part where he called the aide a “son of a bitch” and he ends it before his talk with Obama). Perhaps he had no choice but to show it after saying publicly on Saturday that he would do so. (Here is CSPAN’s version that contains the exchange between O’Reilly and Obama)

The video does clear some things up. For instance, it was clear in the video that O’Reilly lied when he said that there was no physical engagement. O’Reilly can be seen pushing the aide several times. It was also clear that O’Reilly lied when he said there was no intervention by the Secret Service. The video plainly shows an agent getting in between O’Reilly and the aide, and making sure that O’Reilly stayed back.

Perhaps the funniest part of this sorry escapade is O’Reilly’s attempt to characterize this as a defense of the Constitution. On his radio program today he made that argument twice:

“…in the tradition of the freedom of the press, I had to remove the man from blocking our camera shot – which I did.” And… “This guy’s clear intent was to block The Factor. And he knew it was me – he knew I was standing there – from getting any shot of the Senator and that’s against the Constitution.”

Then on TV he cast himself as a reluctant champion of the First Amendment:

“Well that’s a total violation of press freedom so I had no choice, ladies and gentlemen, but to uphold the Constitution.”

That’s right…O’Reilly thinks he has a Constitutional right shove his way into a crowd and demand that everyone make room for him and his camera crew. Can you imagine what O’Reilly would have said if Keith Olbermann was caught shoving an aide to John McCain so he could get a better shot? And what journalistic principle was O’Reilly fighting for? Did he have an issue of critical interest to the public to raise with Obama? Well, not unless you think that sucking up to the Senator to try to get him to appear on his TV show is high on the list of the American people’s concerns, because that’s all O’Reilly did.

When O’Reilly finally caught Obama’s attention, it sounded like Obama agreed to appear on The Factor sometime after the New Hampshire primary. I will be very disappointed if that occurs. First, because I have long been advocating that Democrats stay off of Fox News as a matter of principle (see Starve the Beast). And second, because after learning what led up to O’Reilly’s invitation, Obama would be foolish to reward him with an interview.

This is a point also made by NBC’s David Shuster, who couldn’t hold his tongue any longer. Shuster breaks loose and calls O’Reilly a “jerk” and a “buffoon.” And he adds that…

“Fox News ought to be so embarrassed with this guy.”

That’s not likely to happen as O’Reilly epitomizes the Fox News ethic of blustery ignorance. But this video is a rare example of a newsman speaking candidly and honestly about a repulsively demagogic colleague.

I sincerely hope that a lot of people watch O’Reilly tonight, and I know many more will see this affair on YouTube. After catching this little slice of strife it may just start to sink in that this guy needs Dr. Phil’s help more than Britany. And we may have a sound bite that can supersede last year’s “Don’t tase me, bro.” That would be O’Reilly hollering…

“Don’t block the shot, got it? Don’t block the shot!“

By the way, O’Reilly has a poll at billoreilly.com asking if he “was right to remove the guy that was blocking the Factor’s shot?” Feel free to go and vote.

Why Is The Edwards Surge Not A Headline Story?

Posted by on January 6, 2008 at 2:32 pm. NO Comments :

A picture sometimes really is worth a thousand words…

Rassmussen conducts a daily national tracking poll of all presidential candidates. The latest shows John Edwards picking up significantly more support, since the beginning of the year, than any candidate of either party.

The percent change for Republicans is: Huckabee 18.8% / Giuliani 13.3% / McCain 11.8% / Thompson 8.3% / Romney -6.3%.

So why isn’t this news?

Because some networks are more interested in trivialities than substance:
[Chris]Wallace asked a total of five questions, three of which concerned Edwards’ non-appearance on the network.

Because some candidates are unafraid of taking on the media:
Edwards continues to solidify his position as the candidate most committed to media reform and supportive of efforts to rollback consolidation. He has spoken out on many occasions on the need for independence and diversity in the press and he has been a leading voice of opposition to the FCC’s policy of weakening regulations on ownership caps.

Because the media’s pack mentality kicks into high gear when it gets defensive:
They are ultimately afraid that the populist appeal of a movement that truly seeks to bring economic opportunity to every citizen, instead of just the elite, could catch on. That’s why it has to be strangled in the cradle of a candidate who is running third in national polls. The risk extends beyond Edwards himself. If voters responded positively to the issue, the other candidates would adopt it. So even if Edwards does not become a contender, the issue stays on the table.

Because media conglomerates make billions from their political connections:
There doesn’t seem to be an end in sight for the profligate spending on political ads and events. These expenditures are sponsored, for the most part, by mega-corporations with interests in the outcome of the elections.

And because sticking your neck out to curtail media abuse can attract some freshly sharpened axes:
Responding to the FCC’s proposed new rules for media ownership, John Edwards has written a letter addressed to Commission chairman Kevin Martin. Like his predecessor Michael Powell (Colin’s boy), Martin has drafted a set of rules aimed at advancing the interests of Big Media conglomerates and permitting them to get even bigger and more powerful.

And now the media fails to report the strongest surge of support of any candidate. What a surprise. However, it is important that we do not become sullen and defeatist. We cannot allow the media establishment to lead our nation around by its nose. Just because they have an immense quantity of old-world firepower is no reason to surrender to them. We have new weapons that give us more power than they imagine. The very fact that Edwards’ support has accelerated despite the media resistance, is evidence that the people’s message can be heard over the din of propagandists. We only need to keep our voices and our spirits up.

While the circumstances related above are specific to the campaign of John Edwards, it could (and will) apply to any candidate with the courage to take on entrenched media institutions. So even if Edwards is not your candidate, this is still your fight because your candidate will be next.

Developing: O’Reilly Tangles With Obama Aide

Posted by on January 5, 2008 at 12:47 pm. 7 Comments :

O'Reilly Fear FactorThe Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Bill O’Reilly had a less than cordial encounter with an aide to Barack Obama at a New Hampshire campaign event. Apparently The Fester wasn’t getting the preferential treatment to which he was accustomed. Here is Lynn Sweet’s account of this developing story:

The incident was triggered when O’Reilly–with a Fox News crew shooting–was screaming at Obama National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson “Move” so he could get Obama’s attention, according to several eyewitnesses. “O’Reilly was yelling at him, yelling at his face,” a photographer shooting the scene said.

O’Reilly grabbed Nicholson’s arm and shoved him, another eyewitness said. Nicholson, who is 6’8, said O’Reilly called him “low class.”

“He grabbed me with both his hands here,” Nicholson said, gesturing to his left arm and O’Reilly “started shoving me.” Nicholson said, “He was pretty upset. He was yelling at me.”

Secret Service agents who were nearby flanked O ‘Reilly after he pushed Nicholson. They told O’Reilly he needed to calm down and get behind the fence-like barricade that contained the press.

Obama had his back turned at this point and did not see any of this.

O’Reilly yelled “sir” at Obama and Obama walked over, not aware of what happened and told him he had an overflow crowd to visit.

This part is a little creepy:

Mr. O’Reilly said he thought Sen. Obama was great and that he loved him and loved to have him on the show and said he would think about coming on after the primaries.

O’Reilly “loves” Obama? With friends like that, who needs enemas? For all of O’Reilly’s obstreperousness, his only purpose in forcing his way up to Obama was to beg him to appear on The Factor. He didn’t even try to ask a substantive question. Since Obama and Edwards have refused to appear on Fox, I guess they feel they need to go out and stalk them. And I certainly hope that after Obama thinks about it, he will continue to decline to appear on Fox and particularly on O’Reilly’s program.

A few minutes ago (approx. 12:05pm), O’Reilly called in to Brian Wilson anchoring the Fox News broadcast. He denied that there was a scuffle but said, laughing, that he might have used profanity (called the aide an SOB). At the end of the call he menacingly warned mankind that “No one on this earth is going to block a shot from The O’Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen.”

Wilson, said that there will be limited video later today and that O’Reilly will show the whole thing on his show on Monday (presumably after having had time to edit/alter it).

I will try to stay on top of this and post video if it becomes available.

Update: Now Wilson says that the video will only be available on The Factor this Monday. Since when does a news channel withhold newsworthy video for two days? Since the video features their #1 personality and can’t be cleared for airing until they make sure it doesn’t reflect badly on him.

Update: For good measure, O’Reilly also crashed a Clinton campaign event (YouTube) earlier the same day and attempted to plant a question with a member of the audience. The woman stood up and fingered O’Reilly who Clinton then pointed out before answering the question.

Obama Snubs Fox

Posted by on January 31, 2007 at 4:48 pm. NO Comments :

Mary Ann Akers reports from behind the scenes in Washington:

Sources tell The Sleuth that the Obama camp has “frozen out” Fox News reporters and producers in the wake of the network’s major screw-up in running with the erroneous Obama-the-jihadist story reported by Insight magazine.

Finally, a public figure with the sense to make Fox’s fiction factory pay a price for broadcasting fake news. If more politicians applied this model to their press relations, Fox would be forced to think twice about running with unverified hit pieces. Or else they would have to be satisfied with exclusively Republican guests and subjects (that’s not too steep a fall).

The Fox reaction is to whine about reporters who are being punished for something they had no part in. What a load of disingenuous, denial-laden hogwash. It was not just the Barbie’s and Ken’s on the Fox morning show that spewed this trash. Several of the anchors of other programs delighted in pushing it along. And none of the on-air talking heads had the journalistic integrity to acknowledge the fraud in this story. There are no innocent parties at Fox. Anyone who didn’t report the debunking of the piece is as guilty as those who fanned the flames. And they certainly won’t make any points with the use of threats, as expressed by one courageous, anonymous source at Fox:

“Obama and his staff are in for a rude awakening if they think they can write off Fox News. If a candidate is serious about running for president, he or she is going to need a network like Fox to reach out to all those voters in the red and purple states.”

Another anonymous Fox spokesperson (even their spokespersons are afraid to go on record) said in response to questions of a Fox “freeze-out”:

“If true, perhaps Mr. [Robert] Gibbs [an Obama campaign manager] should reconsider that ill-advised strategy given his candidate is trailing by 20 points in the polls.”

I’m not sure what polls Mr. [Fo]X is referring to, but most polls show Obama at the top of the pack in the Democratic primaries. He is even competitive with the top Republican candidates. So apparently Fox’s defense after having been shown to be a purveyor of lies is to manufacture more lies.

Senator Obama made the right decision. Here’s hoping others follow.