Law of averages being what it is, only a matter of time before a moment of candor eluded the thought police on left-wing radio.
Appearing on Ed Schultz's top-rated liberal radio show this past Monday, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman provided an example of this when he traced Obama's difficulties in overhauling health care to his vague promises about reform during the '08 campaign (click here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: What do you make of the president's leadership so far on this? Should the Democrats be this divided at this point on some of these major issues in health care reform and what responsibility does the White House bear for that?
Story Continues Below Ad ↓FINEMAN: Well, I think the White House bears all the responsibility because Barack Obama came in with a pretty strong mandate for change, for change we can believe in. And I think on health care, I trace the problems that he's had back to the campaign. Because even though he was for health care reform, quote unquote, it wasn't totally defined or even really carefully in focus, defined in a focused, sharp way that he could then take to Washington, to the Washington power structure, to his own Democratic Party, and say look, this is what the people voted for, they want this public option, they want this system that I'm proposing. He was playing it a little cute during the campaign, I thought, and he's sort of paying for it now.
More along the same lines from Fineman later in show (audio link here) --
SCHULTZ: Why do you think the president has chosen this direction? Was it just Hillary Not, I mean, to go the generic route, to go the big concept, the selling the big idea and let's not get hung up in the detail, let's just let the Congress figure it out?
FINEMAN: Yes, I think that's part of it as I already said. It's sort of trying to take the lessons from the failure of Hillary Clinton's plan in the early '90s and I think not really entirely the right lesson. But I also think that health care reform, and you know, people can disagree with me on this for sure, but I don't think it was the central passion of his campaign. In other words, his campaign was about change, about the demographics of change, about we are the change we can believe in, about making a statement about American society. It was also about the war in Iraq and ending, a clear message about ending the war in Iraq.
Health care was not, a specific health care plan, a public option, guaranteed universal coverage, you know, insistence day after day after day, was not really the message of his campaign, and I don't think that Barack Obama is by nature an attack dog. You know, he's not an attack-the-system kind of guy.
Fineman says Obama's campaign was "also about the war in Iraq." More accurately, Obama's early campaign, heading into the primaries and caucuses, was based mainly on his opposition to the Iraq war. This is what separated Obama from his major challengers, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, along with peripheral candidates such as Joe Biden and Chris Dodd (and eventually John McCain), all of whom voted in October 2002 to authorize military force against a Saddam-led Iraq.
Obama was the most explicitly anti-war nominee of either major party since 1972, when fellow Democrat George McGovern ran on a platform of opposition to American involvement in Vietnam.
Once the success of the surge in Iraq became too obvious for even Democrats to ignore, Obama changed the subject and wholly embraced the amorphous theme of "change," becoming a blank slate for liberals to project their hopes and purge racial guilt.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Fineman is pretty much correct . . .
August 27, 2009 - 11:55 ET by GalvanicHe's acknowledging implicitly what conservatives have been stating since the summer of 2008: the press wasn't interested in digging into Obama's past to learn more about his character and his politics, and the Obama we're discovering now is not even a Bush-43 let alone the second coming of JFK (Sorry, Chris Matthews.)
When the McCain campaign challenged Obama's lack of leadership experience, the Obama campaign cited his work as a community organizer, and the media was satisfied with that. In fact, a few even valued Obama's lack of leadership experience over that of Washington politicians because it was fresh and different and all about change.
While the MSM is still short of admitting buyers' remorse (Their main objective, afterall, was to cover the election of our first black President), guys like Fineman are at least conceding that Obama's political dilemma -- and hence, our national dilemma -- is Obama's fault. He can't blame the health care reform debacle on Bush-43 or the outnumbered Republicans on the Hill, and the public ain't buying the "immoral villains" label Pelosi threw at the health insurance providers.
President Obama is a weak leader both domestically and internationally, and the press is finding it increasingly difficult to cover the fact up.
And Obama has at least 3+ years to go!
Obama is also an opportunist
August 27, 2009 - 12:01 ET by FeynmanFanObama is also an opportunist who will say whatever is expedient at the moment. He doesn't actually lead; he only offers platitudes and is careful not to get involved in the heavy lifting.
That the press is finding it harder to cover up his weak leadership abilities is a very good thing.
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
and we're not surprised
August 27, 2009 - 12:14 ET by katainkentHow did he do in school? We have no idea. How did he do as a lawyer? We have no idea. How did he do in congress? He voted present (very often he was late to the floor). His name got attached to bills after the fact and he spent most of his time campaigning for his next gig.
He campaigned on hope. He is the President who is full of hope. He is a hopeful person. And I am still asking anyone who will give me a moment "What exactly does that mean and how does that pertain to us, as a country." Its terrible that this man actually got voted in under the promise of something as amphorous as "hope and change"
___________________________________________
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller" Barack Obama (Dr. In Chief)
Obama appeals to the weak-minded; can Republicans as well?
August 27, 2009 - 13:36 ET by WarpThe Republicans need to come up with a couple slogans, something reminiscent of 'hope' and 'change' in order to win over a good chunk of Democrats in the next election. They'll need more than one slogan so that the masses do not perceive them as lacking ideas, but not more than two because that will just clutter the liberal mind and the Republicans really need those liberals to remember who they have the great privilege of voting for. The first of the two slogans must be short; 3 to 4 letters long so the average liberal can remember it and the second can be up to 6 letters long and will serve to provide an intellectual challenge for the educated liberals' capacity to retain platitudes. I suggest they use; "Free" and “Monies” – the average liberal will only recognize the word “Free” but likely will remember that they like “free” and proceed to vote for it; while the more educated and intellectual liberals will recognize both “Free” and “Monies” and whether they can put the two together and extract additional meaning or not, they’ll vote for either because they’re convinced they deserve both.
"... the press wasn't
August 27, 2009 - 12:26 ET by MikeB"... the press wasn't interested in digging into Obama's past to learn more about his character and his politics, and the Obama they're discovering now..."
There you go: fixed it for you. The right and the right-center knew about Barak, what he stood for, who he hung with, what he said about bankrupting the coal industry, etc., etc. The mediots had no interest in Barak, other than he said he was not Bush. They looked no further. Now they are.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
MikeB -
August 27, 2009 - 12:37 ET by FeynmanFanKind of like the whole Wizard of Oz thing about not paying attention to the man behind the curtain... The press are driven by what they want, not by what they see.
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
Absolutely . . .
August 27, 2009 - 13:26 ET by GalvanicThey're not even comfortable with letting Obama be Obama. Clowns like Chris Matthews proclaim that he is "our new JFK" and "Teddy Kennedy designated him the new (Kennedy) brother." They never studied the man's warts; they merely swooned to his inspiring (to some) rhetoric and projected their faded images of Camelot onto him, and are now at a loss to explain why he isn't behaving like the Kennedy model they assigned to him.
It's not that Obama is performing below standard; he is performing exactly to his standard. What he is failing to fulfill are their Camelot-esque expectations of him. He's not JFK -- he's not RFK -- he's not even Teddy. He's nothing more than he's been his whole adult life, and the MSM who wished so hard that he was much, much more are disappointed.
Who in this situation has been weak minded?
August 27, 2009 - 19:13 ET by needle“The mediots had no interest in Barak, other than he said he was not Bush. They looked no further. Now they are.”
The complacent and smug Left love consider themselves as “smart.” Indeed “smart” is how Liberals generally prefer to define themselves as implicitly apposed to rest of the country, which are basically dolts with respect to intelligence, education, being up-to-date, hip, etc. (Did I leave anything out?)
Considering all of that, I ask you: Who in this dam* important situation has been weak minded? Frankly, "weak minded" is itself weak; "deliberately intellectually negligent, to practically a criminal extent" is much closer to the mark.
- Relying upon the State Run Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.
Is this political analysis,
August 27, 2009 - 11:57 ET by mattmIs this political analysis, or sorrow and disappointment? You can almost hear the tears.
Does not compute..does not compute
August 27, 2009 - 12:04 ET by StarAZHowie never has anything new to say--I am amazed and maybe a teeny bit impressed. Dude!
Nice find
August 27, 2009 - 12:02 ET by BlondeAnd drat to George Bush for clearly shoving the Iraq war firmly into the victory column (although if Obama keeps fiddle faddling around that is not assured...way to go democrats, snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory).
While there is certainly truth in Fineman's assertation that Obama was playing it too cute, I think it goes much deeper than that.
Obama doesn't have a clue. That's why he's been more than willing to give the general marching orders, and let that idiot Pelosi marshall flawed (and clearly political bribes) legislation through, without a peep from Obama.
He doesn't want to know the details, that way he can't be held accountable. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.
We know how well that worked out for Marie Antoinette. Obama can't pretend to lead while following...if he continues with this strategy he'll be voted out of office, and I truly believe his whole czar scheme rises to the level of impeachability. So 2010 might become the harbinger for an earlier fall from grace for Obama if the republicans can manage to gain a decent mid-term gain in the House.
And that is my hope for change.
I hope he fails, too.
“Obama can't pretend to lead while following”
August 27, 2009 - 19:44 ET by needleObama can't pretend to lead, because he is simply not constituted to lead. One can not lead if one is lacking integrity and character. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they do not have in their whole stable of jackasses a single individual who comes close having enough integrity and character to be a leader. Certainly not Clinton (Hill or Bill), not Carter, and most certainly not Obama. You have to go all the way back to “The Buck Stops Here” Truman to find some one who comes close. And this is NOT an accident. Thanks to the media’s coddling, covering up for, making excuses for, and carrying water for everybody in the Democratic Party for decades, the media has essentially bred integrity and character out of the Democratic Party. Sarah Palin has integrity and character; and that is what scares the Liberals crazy.
One of the problems with the media is that they are so determined to promote their agenda that they do not give a rat’s *** about genuine leadership, whether it be on the right or the left. Gosh, now they are beginning to worry about Obama’s problems. How ridiculous. If Obama fails catastrophically enough, one possible beneficial outcome [theoretically] could be the media examining itself and how it contributed to the debacle.
I know. I know. Not until pigs fly.
- Relying upon the State Run Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.
Obama is
August 27, 2009 - 12:08 ET by boomercona rabble rousing streetwalker, aka "community organizer", and as such, his credo and modus operandi has always been, "Let's you and him fight".
Now he has nobody but himself and the Dims toward whom to be antagonistic.
Jan 21
August 27, 2009 - 12:52 ET by Jerry MackObama along with gobs of help from a fawning media was able to convince the majority of voters that he was " The one". They expected to wake up on January 21 and find that their problems had disappeared. The sun would be brighter, their debts gone, they would have new found friends and importance in life. An increasing amount of them are now finding out and admitting that they were hornswaggled.
Fineman is a racist
August 27, 2009 - 13:01 ET by carolina09What other explanation could there be?
Very good!
August 27, 2009 - 13:12 ET by RpeggioI have used that same line in other posts where Dems or media have started to question The One. Clearly they must be racist and are being unAmerican.
Where's Hillary, she said we have a right to criticize when it was Bush the left were beating-up.
Bingo!
August 27, 2009 - 19:57 ET by Jack ColemanMade me laugh out loud, carolina09
The Question Is WHY?
August 27, 2009 - 13:09 ET by RpeggioNo one in the media ever ponders WHY Obama played it cute or has kept his specific ideas and goals for healthcare reform unclear and ambiguous, allowing Pelosi and others to draft multiple bills that are muddying things up. The answer is quite simple, he's not making mistakes per se, he's not inept per se, he's simply so far radically left, socialist or whatever you want to call it, that if he shares his honest opinions, ideas and goals for healthcare reform, what he envisions as the best model, he'd sound like he did in 2003 and 2007 when he was more loose and open when speaking without teleprompters, and is on video/audio saying he's a proponent for single payer gov't healthcare....for moving towards no employer paid insurance...it's right there in his own words just a few years back when the media scrutiny wasn't making him speak carefully and ambiguously as he does today.
Folks dance around, "why is Obama not being more specific and driving his healthcare message?" Because if he spoke openly and truthfully as he did in 2003/2007, he'd be seen as the uber far left guy he is, that he wants socialized medicine, he wants economic justice, and in his own words, remake America. The MSM needs to wake-up soon, clearly they're playing catch-up with the Millions of Americans that are now paying attention and speaking their minds.
Most would just simplify
August 27, 2009 - 13:14 ET by 10ksnookerAnd say 'the shuck and jive act never lasts'. After you have seen the word play a few times, you get bored and walk off.
I don't think it was the
August 27, 2009 - 13:38 ET by motherbeltI don't think it was the central passion of his campaign. In other words, his campaign was about change, about the demographics of change, about we are the change we can believe in, about making a statement about American society.
No kidding. "Change we can believe in!" "Yes, we can!"
He never wanted to be more specific. He was selling people a message, not a plan. He would flesh out the details later.
I don't think that Barack Obama is by nature an attack dog. You know, he's not an attack-the-system kind of guy.
Did Fineman really say that with a straight face?
Good grief!
Present
August 27, 2009 - 17:00 ET by NorthCoasterYes Howard, the President is "Present".
It's obvious from his history in the Illinois Legislature that he considers himself above the details of life and work. It's all about getting his share of the pie and reveling in the trappings of the Office of the President.
Didn't you know that his election is an historic event and he should be viewed with fawning adulation?
As the poll numbers drop,
August 28, 2009 - 01:50 ET by RR GOPAs the poll numbers drop, the MSMtards become bolder (slightly) in their assessments of The One.
Rather like the way too much alcohol destroys one's inhibitions.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
I can attest to that.
August 28, 2009 - 04:19 ET by JWFMore accurately, Obama's early campaign, heading into the primaries and caucuses, was based mainly on his opposition to the Iraq war.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.