But I don’t see it as a diplomatic response to an ambush. Or, at least, I don’t admire it as such. I think it was courageous and laudable for Obama to speak out, even to the extent that he did, on the universal problem of money in politics. Even more so because he’s at that point where he can be made or broken by the party establishment, and the safe thing would be to repudiate his past beliefs and not say anything that will ruffle the feathers of fatcats (if you’ll pardon the metaphor-mixing).
Except he didn’t speak out, he was caught in a rather flagrant abandonment of what he earlier claimed were his principles.
When Republicans are collecting contributions, that necessarily means they are corrupt and out of touch. When Democrats are collecting even more contributions, no corruption can possibly be imagined.
If it had come from a Republican, every one of you would be falling all over yourselves flaming him. But it didn’t, and therefore Lib gets the december treatment.
Hypocrites that you are.
Regards,
Shodan
How, exactly? Did I miss him saying eight years ago that he was so disgusted with the Democrats that he swore never to be their keynote speaker at a future convention? Which principles has he abandoned?
Boy, you really don’t want to be trying that tack with me. I wrote a law review article (hopefully soon to be published) about the execrable practices of both parties with regard to campaign finance. I focus on the bizarre tendency of large donors giving money to competing candidates or competing party organizations, contending that this is either completely economically irrational or else blatantly unconstitutional, and bad practice in any case. I agree with Obama - money is a huge problem for the Democrats and the Republicans. How, again, does this make me a hypocrite?
Actually, I wrote and then deleted a sentence about finding similar sentiments by John McCain also courageous and laudable. I decided against including it because I didn’t think someone would bother to play the partisan card when I was clearly (like Obama) holding both parties at fault. Guess I was wrong.
You do realize, don’t you, that things are kinda complicated out there in the real world? It ain’t always good guy-bad guy.
-
Check your frickin’ email.
-
I would love to see this argument. Any chance we can go round in GD about it?
-
Hey, look at that.
(Sorry, it’s the tertiary address.) -
Absolutely. I’ll try to find the time tonight or tomorrow to start the thread. You sound like you’re agape in disbelief at my assertion. grin
Ha! And to think I tried to sound politely indifferent. You know me too well. 
While I am not exactly agape, I am intrigued. Though I disagree with it so far on its face, I can’t really judge until you’ve laid the entire thing out.
No, he wasn’t embarrassed, but he does find it troubling.
The message is that the influence of money is overwhelming our democracy, and more than ever, you need to be sure of the man for whom you vote.
It wasn’t a flip-flop, or an evasion. He was not responsible for the state of affairs in 96, and has no illusions that the intervening time has improved that issue.
The question was a bushwhack. The answer was reasonable, and completely understandable to most of those listening.
If you are a Republican, you think his confidence in Kerry is misplaced. Perhaps that is reasonable. But, pretending that his confidence is based on a new appreciation of big money politics is ingenuous, at best.
Tris
Eight years ago he condemned the Republicans in good round terms for accepting large contributions. No ambiguity, none of this “I realize this is a problem for both parties”. Just clear condemnation of Republicans.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, and we get a truckload of evasive waffling and rationalization.
The principle being abandoned is “any political party that collects a lot of money is disgusting”. The identical circumstance that disgusted him so much with Republicans was going to be ignored until he got confronted with it. And, when confronted with it, he changed his tune.
It makes you a hypocrite because you have a double standard, just like Obama. Big contributions to Republicans = disgusting. Big contributions to Democrats = not disgusting, something to be glossed over.
Eight years ago, Obama did not hold both parties at fault. Only Republicans, and it was “disgusting”. Now the same thing is happening with Democrats, and he finds it so far from disgusting that he is a keynote speaker.
Congratulations on almost saying something non-partisan. I almost didn’t Pit a liberal for being a hypocrite once - do I get credit for that?
And spare me the sanctimonious horseshit about your not being partisan. As I said earlier, if it were a Republican saying exactly what Obama said, you would be fulminating furiously. But it was a Democrat, and therefore you are defending his attempt to weasel.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re a loon.
Oh, and from the OP:
Genius.
Actually, my interpratation is that he doesn’t disagree with his older statements at all, but he tried to tone them down so as not to offend his hosts at the DNC. He did not change his mind, he just didn’t want to cause trouble at a time when Democrats want to look united.
That is just from reading the quotes. I haven’t seen the interview, so I don’t know if it conveyed something different than just what is quoted.
I’m not getting the outrage, and I’m a Republican.
The guy is a politician. They’re all politicians. They all say things to support their own party and attack the other, and avoid saying things that attack their own party and support the other.
So he says “Republicans take big fat contributions! That’s an outrage!” Sometime later, a reporter asks the (reasonable) question: “Your party takes big fat contributions too. Are you outraged by that?”
What are his choices for answers?
A. Yes, I am totally outraged. (Next day’s headline: DEMOCRAT OBAMA CALLS DEMOCRATS’ CONDUCT OUTRAGEOUS. The Republicans make total hay of it; Obama wonders if the Green Party will take him.)
B. Why, no, that doesn’t outrage me in the least. (This is the answer of a hypocrite, one he could be hung by, and he’s too smart or has too much integrity, or both, to make it.)
C. Well, it’s a problem for both parties . . . . (duck ‘n’ weave, duck ‘n’ weave)
I’m not getting what the problem is with “C.” He can’t say “A” and he can’t say “B,” so what do you want him to say? This is politics. You make your opponent’s ideas and conduct sound bad, and you try to make your own ideas and conduct sound good. Hopefully you maintain an acceptable level of honesty and integrity as you do it, so that the process of getting the office doesn’t make people question your fitness to hold it. Obama did not back down from what he had said earlier, but he also did not give his own party a pass. More importantly, he did not give Russert a “Dem criticizes Dems” soundbite that would have been counterproductive not just to his own career, but to the whole party.
To expect absolute truth and honesty, without a scintilla of evasion or spin . . . It strikes me as naive and unrealistic. I think the guy did okay with the question, and I think he gave what was probably the best answer available under the circumstances. Which is not to say that I don’t agree that if the shoe was on the other foot (a Republican ducking and weaving), someone wouldn’t have started the exact same thread (or worse) about what a lying bastard the Republican candidate was – I have no doubt they totally would.
When come back, bring correct story.
Nice post, Jodi, but I wanted to correct you on one thing. Per the OP, Obama said, eight years ago, “The Democratic convention is for sale!” (It’s unclear the degree of outrage he felt, but I feel the exclamation point, at least, is warranted.) Now the reporter’s asking, “Well, this year’s Democratic convention is just as much for sale, if not more so, and you’re the keynote speaker. How do you like them apples?”
That is, it ain’t a question of partisan hypocrisy. The guy specifically called out the Democrats eight years ago, not the Republicans. The OP states as much, and the original article confirms that - available on Lexis, it’s Joe Frolik, “A Newcomer to the Business of Politics has Seen Enough to Reach Some Conclusions About Restoring Voters’ Trust,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 3, 1996, at 1A. In fact, Obama doesn’t mention the Republicans once in those eight-year-old remarks.
Here’s a larger excerpt:
Anyway, the hypocrisy Lib is trying to highlight doesn’t have to do with “it’s an outrage when their guys do it but not when we do it,” but rather “it was an outrage eight years ago; is it still an outrage now that you’re a relative insider?”
And the word ‘outrage,’ like Russert’s use of the word ‘offended,’ is a little strong, I think.
Or rather, what Lib, but more clearly and with less jackassery.
Slight hijack, but anyone who has done Q&A sessions after presentations knows that hemming and hawing does not imply an evasive answer is being constructed. Everyone I know has screwed up at least one answer - I’ve done my share, and gotten good feedback from my bosses, and people working for me have screwed up their share, and gotten feedback from me. The automatic start of a response allows you to construct and edit your real response, and make sure it is not flippant, arrogant, or a misinterpretation of the question. When Richard Nixon said “Let me say this about that” at the beginning of every answer he wasn’t necessarily being evasive. If a politician does not hem and haw, the question has a prestored answer.
[/hijack]
GADARENE –
D’oh! :smack: That will teach me to skim instead of reading for comprehension. :: Humbly :: Thank you for correcting my gaffe.
However! Fortunately for me, my point is still valid! (Pardon me while I mop my brow, grateful I don’t actually have to eat a whole crow.) The choices are still: A. Yep, it’s still for sale [Dem criticizes Dems]; B. Heck no! Things are totally different now! [Big fat lie]; or C. It’s a problem both parties have blah blah blah duck and weave. I still say A and B are non-starters, C is really the only thing he could be expected say (evade, evade, evade) and he actually did a pretty good job of it in that he didn’t reverse himself, didn’t criticize his party, and wasn’t intellectually dishonest. So I’m not seeing the problem unless one believes absolutely no spin or evasion or coloring should be allowed in the political process. If that’s the source of indignation, it’s refreshingly naive but not really realistic. Let he who is without spin cast the first stone.
Agreed.