Barack Obama Flops, Then Flips – Part II

It’s Christmas in July. We’ll bring the presents. Part III of the continuing story of Obama’s Flop and flipping out coming real soon – if we can keep pace with the exponential rate of the Obama collapse.

For Obama, like his mentor Joe Lieberman, attacking fellow Democrats who have been on the front lines fighting for progressive values – for decades – comes easy. When it comes to Ripublicans, Obama loves to “reach across the aisle.” Today’s fast moving events require a further recap. Let’s do it via video.

Here is Obama, with his “new politics” straight from the Chicago fields of mud:

Hillary, taking a few moments from her fight with the Bush Pentagon, reminded Obama of his now clearly failed claim to be “new politics”. Unlike Obama, ranting, Hillary remains rational.

SEN. CLINTON: “Well, this is getting kind of silly. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but I’ve never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney, certainly. We have to ask, what’s ever happened to the politics of hope?

“I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries. And I have been absolutely clear that we’ve got to return to robust and effective diplomacy. But I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States president put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez and Castro and Ahmadinejad.”

Here at Big Pink we are not surprised by Obama’s Chicago Mud Politics.

Here is THE question and the replies by Obama, then Hillary, then Edwards:

Share

34 thoughts on “Barack Obama Flops, Then Flips – Part II

  1. I’m so glad you put that Obama video up running. He’s shouting, he wants to look into dictators’ eyes, searching for their souls?

    That video crystalizes his anger & high school bully nature. I’ve watched CNN playing it twice. I just hope they keep on playing that. Extraordinary. Do you know if other stations are playing that clip repeatedly?

    It’s almost his Dean moment.

  2. Senator Obama: (waving hand wildly) Oh, teacher, teacher, call on me. I’ve got the answer. Oooo ooooo, please call on me.

  3. do you have the direct youtube link for these three clips. I may want to post them directly on other sites.

  4. Kostner: If you double click on the arrow in the center of the video it will take you directly to the Youtube site. There you will find the “embed” information there- copy that and paste it on the website you want.

  5. Gosh how funny it is to see this ranting school boy Obama! Just can’t get over myself watching it over and over. Look at the frustration! The contract look at how cool Hillary looks!
    Go Hillary 08!!!!!!

  6. Admin,
    So, glad to see the videos – thank you so much for posting!
    Cant wait for Part III of the continuing story of Obama’s Flop and flipping!

  7. DCDem,

    You still owe me a diary. I strongly urge you to put thoese two clips on dailykos. Remember to put a eye-catching headline such as ‘Is this Obama’s Dean moment?’

    That image is actually pretty shocking. Lots of kossacks may read the exchange online, but picture is really worth a thousand word.

    BTW, can any expert help me out. I try to put this to mydd. Copy and paste the ’embed’ code, but it does not work. I was wondering whether I had to add some more codes.

  8. Can you just see this out of control naieve guy in the WH? How scary. As Dean said in Iowa….WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

  9. http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=1013604&srvc=home

    Not ready for prime time: Sen. Obama falters on security role
    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, July 27, 2007

    WASHINGTON – For Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night’s South Carolina debate: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?”

    “I would,” responded Obama.

    His explanation dug him even deeper: “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them – which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration – is ridiculous.”

    Hillary Clinton, next in line at the debate, pounced: “I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year.” And she then proceeded to give the reasons any graduate student could tick off: You don’t want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can worsen a situation.

    Just to make sure no one missed how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie, the next day Clinton told the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa, that Obama’s comment “was irresponsible and frankly naive.”

    To be on the same stage as the leader of the world’s greatest power is of course a prize. That is why the Chinese deemed it a slap in the face that President Bush last year denied President Hu Jintao the full state-visit treatment. The presence of an American president is a valued good to be rationed – and granted only in return for important considerations.

    cw-4Moreover, summits can also be traps if they’re not wired in advance for success, such as Nixon’s trip to China, for which Henry Kissinger had already hammered out the Shanghai communique. You don’t go hoping for the best, as Hillary’s husband learned at the 2000 Camp David summit, when Yasser Arafat’s refusal of Israel’s peace offer brought Arafat worldwide opprobrium – from which he sought (successfully) to escape by launching the second intifada. Such can be the consequences of ill-prepared summits.cw-3

    Obama enthusiasts might want to write this off as a solitary slip. Except that this was the second time. During the April 26 South Carolina candidates’ debate, Brian Williams asked what kind of change in the U.S. military posture abroad Obama would order in response to a hypothetical al-Qaeda strike on two American cities.

    Obama’s answer: “Well, the first thing we would have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response – something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.”

    Asked to be commander in chief, Obama could only play first-responder in chief. Caught off guard, he slipped into two automatic talking points: emergency response and its corollary – the obligatory Katrina Bush-bash.

    When the same question came to Hillary, she again pounced: “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.” Retaliatory attack did not come up in Obama’s 200-word meander into multilateralism and intelligence gathering.

    These gaffes lead to one of two conclusions: (1) Obama is unable to think on his feet, or (2) Obama is not ready to be a wartime president.

    During our 1990s holiday from history, being a national-security amateur was not an issue. Between the 1991 death of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, foreign policy played almost no part in our presidential campaigns. But post-9/11, as during the Cold War, the country demands a serious commander in chief. It is hard to imagine that with all the electoral tides running in their favor, Democrats would risk it all by nominating a novice for a wartime presidency.

    Do Democrats want to risk strike three, another national security question blown, but this time perhaps in a final presidential debate rather than a midseason intraparty cattle call? The country might decide that it prefers, yes, a Republican – say, 9/11 veteran Rudy Giuliani – to a freshman senator who does not instinctively understand why an American president does not share the honor of his office with a malevolent clown like Hugo Chavez.

  10. I don’t often agree with Charles Krauthammer;
    he spouts ring wing nonsense on Fox, too. This
    time he is right about Obama. Hillary has
    kept her cool and continues to hold Obama’s
    feet to the fire.

    I think you will find other Democratic prez
    candidates distancing themselves from Obama.
    This is a gaff of major proportions; he should
    let it go or no one (Hillary in particular) will
    want to have him on the ticket as VEEP.

  11. Kostner: I only do inflammatory with a light touch. I am not an overtly inflammatory kind of guy. I generally like to leave then guessing.

  12. When it comes to VP, I never thought Hillary would pick Obama to begin with. He would have been a spotlight stealer, something I find odd myself, as I don’t find him very charismatic or THAT good of a speaker.
    He was good in his 04 speech, but it went downhill from there. He speaks in a strange way, pausing in strange places, suddenly raising his voice at odd places. A bit annoying to me.

    But to my point, I think Hillary certainly made it know that she has no plans to pick Obama as VP, when she called him “irresponsible and frankly naive”. She would not go back and pick this man after such a statement, and frankly, I’m relieved!

  13. Just an aside note, a shameful plug perhaps, although I have nothing to do with this page, I would recommend people taking a look at http://www.taylormarsh.com/ she follows the campaign closely, and often goes to debates and such personally, she says she remains undecided, and perhaps will not publicly announce who she will support.

    But she is always fair, one of the very few places where Hillary is treated fairly, and often in a positive light.

    Just wanted to mention this site, if anyone else comes across another Hillary friendly/supportive site, let us/me know, we need every site we can find. (hope I haven’t crossed the line here admin :p)

  14. Gorto: I am sure that at some point the thought occurred to her, but you are absolutely correct–there is no way that Hillary is going to pick someone she has called irresponsible and naive. I expect Obama to start coming in for a crash landing.

  15. Gorto: Perhaps Hillary is using this issue to stop
    the “dream” ticket talk that has been circulating
    among pundits. Only a few people on the fringe
    subscribe to Obama’s “naive” position. I agree with
    you about being relieved.

  16. I wonder if he is attacking her as a strategy to keep him in the headlines. He has made no significant gains on her so perhaps it’s desperation. She may have swung fist but he will not let it go and he looks like a brat!

  17. today’s rasmussen poll has clinton ahead by 19 points!! i know tracking polls have crazy ranges but good news still. GO HILLARY GO!!!!

  18. I have had a bad feeling regarding Hillary and the polls the last few days.
    It hasn’t been easy trying to figure out which way people will lean regarding the back and forth between these campaigns.

    We Hillary fans see this going her way, Obama fans see it going his way, so I’m left wondering where everyone else goes, hehe.

    So at least it’s good to hear of the latest Rasmussen poll, may it only continue.

  19. churchofreality: My take on Obama is that his buttons have been pushed. We have found his buttons. Now let us push them.

  20. Gorto,

    Calm Down. You’re still inexperienced. Sometimes, you have to trust your instinct, not just a couple of polls. I really believe I have good instinct. When I saw these duel Obama/Clinton videos, I really felt it’s a mini-defining moment of Obama’s candidacy.

    Before this event, he’s hiding behind the radar, flouting his ‘hope’, ‘change’, ‘positive’ rhetoric. Those videos have refined him. I wish more people would have a chance to see them.

    Think strategically. This move may dampen Hillary’s ‘positive’ image a little bit in the short run, but it’s going to have a devastating effect on Obama’s image in the long run. Hillary is a known quality, there’s no way her ‘negative’ # is going to drop below 43 in my opinion, so this sort of skirmish does little damage to her in the long run. It is, however, very critical to bring her opponent’s number down at early stage.

    Dukakis had a favorable rating over 60% at the beginning. But Sr. Bush destroyed him in a second in the debate and follow-up ads. This Obama-Clinton episode may not raise to that level yet, but it will sure have very important impact in the long run.

  21. Gorto: The media narrative is that Obama is being childish. It’s not going to go well for him. All we have to do is to get to the nomination. Then we can start eviscerating the toady the Republicans put forth.

  22. Today’s Ras. tracking
    Hillary 42
    Obama 23

    On a seperate poll,

    28% trust Hillary the most in national security, 20% Rudy, only 15% Obama. This is his defining moment. He flunked it. Hillary is running a general election on national security. I’ve never seen a democrat beating a GOP (a faked 911 hero) so badly in national security credential.

  23. Pollster.com has a piece “unspinning” Howard Wolfson. Looks like Chris Matthews went after him pretty good. Of course, Matthews can’t stand Hillary and drools over Obama, so that’s no surprise.

    BTW, churchofreality, I think Obama is attacking her because he knows he’s not going to catch her just waiting for her to make an egregious error. She doesn’t do that. So this is his only chance.

    Also, Gorto, you make a very good point about what this means for Obama’s VP chances. I like the idea of Webb myself. I mean, if your campaign makes a point of painting your main opponent as inexperienced, it doesn’t make sense to pick someone like that as VP.

  24. Help wanted.

    Can somebody help me out on on the ’embed’ a youtube video in a diary. I tried to cut and paste the ’embed code’ provided by youtube link, but it did not work.

    It still showed the original code, not the actual video.

    Help!

  25. Paula,

    I didn’t watch hardball, I watched CNN. Howard Wolfson did very well there. Obama’s strategist was really bad, he was stuttering with no coherent answer.

    I only saw Wolfson twice on TV. My impression is that he can really think fast on his feet, but his style is a bit soft, hard to judge it’s good or bad at this stage. He’s still a little bit green as well. I think he passed the initial test as a defender of Hillary. But we’ll see how he continues to fare in the future. If it does not work out, Hill always has some other old Clinton pro in the line.

  26. Regarding that battleground poll some of you are worried(I personally don’t put much stock in general matchup at this point of time, its all propagada if Hill is in the lead). Here’s some background of that pollster somebody pointed out on mydd.

    No the Tarrance group isn’t just a Republican firm its the company that does GUILIANI’S POLLing. I know. I’ve personally met the man. If George Washingotn commissed Mark Penn’s firm would the results be credible? Uh no. This is like saying that Richardson’s internal polling is an objective indicator of his placing in Iowa.

  27. Kostner, your analysis is spot on. This entire episode has highlighted Obama’s inexperience, and tarnished his brand re. a new kind of politics. Hillary’s response to Bush Lite was perfect. This was the time to call him out. For too long he has been allowed to fly under the radar screen unchallenged. Now we see him flailing and behaving badly, on an issue which is central to the presidency. This gives the voters a realistic point of reference as he gears up with those new kind of politics ads, paid for by stupid money. As for Matthews, I think it is time for him to go interview Oscar the cat, or else wear a sign saying he is an Obamaniac truth in advertising.

  28. Kostner: These are the recent heads to heads

    FOX News
    07/17 – 07/18
    900 RV
    Giuliani 41%
    Clinton 46%
    Clinton +5%

    Battleground
    07/15 – 07/18
    1000 LV
    Giuliani 50%
    Clinton 44%
    Giuliani +6%

    Gallup
    07/12 – 07/15
    908 RV
    Giuliani 49%C
    Clinton 46%
    Giuliani +3%

    Zogby
    07/12 – 07/14
    1012 LV
    Giuliani 41%
    Clinton 46%
    Clinton +5%

    Rasmussen
    07/09 – 07/10
    800 LV
    Giuliani 43%
    Clinton 44%
    Clinton +1%

  29. kostner, Thanks for the background on Tarrance. Interesting! As for Howard Wolfsen, I’ve liked him since he first joined Hillary for her first Senate campaign. but she has plenty of other options if needed.

    I also agree with you about Hillary’s negatives probably not dropping below 40 percent. I always try to remind people that whomever we nominate is going to be there anyway when the Repubs/right wing/MSM get through with them.

  30. Does anybody know who Taylor Marsh is ? She has a devastating indictment on Obama.
    http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=25967

    Hannity calls Clinton a socialist (video).

    Neal Boortz and other wingnut talkers rant about Clinton’s alleged Marxism.

    But now Barack Obama has weighed in calling Clinton “Bush-Cheney lite.”

    She can’t be both, boys.

    Barack Obama has decided to discard his above the fray campaign, while simultaneously embracing his personality campaign. Today, not only did he scream that Clinton is basically Republican lite, aka “Bush-Cheney lite,” which is the worse thing you can call a Democratic presidential candidate, but Mr. Obama also chose to embrace the cult of Reagan. As a former Reagan Democrat I find this lurch into Reagan worship by a leading Democratic contender frightening. As a Democrat wanting to win in 2008 I find it counterproductive, to say the least.

    What is it with the bi-partisan fetish for all things Reagan?

    After all these years of Bush-Cheney, personally, I’m lookin’ for a little Big Dog.

    Then there are the facts revolving around Ronnie. First, Ronald Reagan came to power through the ineffective foreign policy of Jimmy Carter, especially after Desert One. You can disagree with that characterization, but as a recovered Reagan Democrat I can speak to why many of us moved over to vote for Reagan and it wasn’t just his optimism. It was his perceived kick-ass toughness. Secondly, Reagan never promised to meet with the Soviets in the first year of his presidency. He would never have uttered such a phrase. But one thing is clear, Ronald Reagan was an ideologue, an avowed partisan conservative, though he’d work with anyone to get the job done. Most presidents do

    It also seems Mr. Obama doesn’t understand what Reagan was all about. But that’s not the worst of it. Because of his unmitigated error in saying he was ready for a sit down with Castro, Mr. Obama seems to now have come unhinged from his “above the fray” politics, turning to not only attacking Clinton, which is fair game in a political high stakes race, but damning her with the one phrase no Democrat should ever call another unless they’re willing to go full on Joe: “Bush-Cheney lite.”

    Democratic primary voters put Clinton ahead by double digits in state polling. She’s had stellar performances in the debates and other forums, with Obama not coming across well at all; until this week when diplomacy and what a Democratic foreign policy should be took center stage. Clinton saw a weakness in Obama’s foreign policy philosphy on the diplomatic side and pounced. Obama pushed back, but went way too far. Now both campaigns are taking turns duking it out on tv, as Obama’s “Bush-Cheney lite” sounds more and more strident every time it’s played.

    Obama’s got cash to burn and he’s going to have to burn it to take Clinton down. He’s out spending her in primary states. Meanwhile, she continues to lead with Democratic primary voters. But Obama grabbing on to Reagan’s 1980 train is a walk towards the general election, which is a huge mistake in the midst of a primary battle, especially when you tag on the “lite” line. He’s run an impressive campaign in many ways, especially in fundraising. He’s a natural on the stump. But this week we have seen something else revealed in Obama’s styling. He can fight dirty. That’s good. But the different kind of politics Obama once offered, which was his major appeal, has imploded. That’ bad. That he’s willing to call his chief rival “Bush-Cheney lite” says something else entirely. That protecting the Democratic brand for all of our candidates is not important to Mr. Obama. It’s anything but a new kind of politics. If Obama weren’t who he is and I wasn’t giving him the benefit of the doubt, I’d call it swiftboating.

  31. kostner, I also just read Taylor Marsh’s post, which is on Hillary Hub, and was about to post it here, too, lol.

  32. Kostner, I have a really good ‘gut’ feeling about Hillary
    as well, it’s just that I am used to ending up on the
    wrong side. My team looses, my reality contestant don’t
    win, my vote is vetoed etc… so I guess I’m used to
    loosing, hehe.

    But this time around I feel really good.
    And this feeling has certainly increased with Hillarys
    solid performances in all the debates, she just doesn’t
    make mistakes. I love it. But it’s nice with reassurances.

    Taylor Marsh is a radio host, her blog is always updated
    and very neutral. She says she is undecided, or at least
    will remain that way officially. She very often goes to
    debates and conventions personally and blogs about it.
    She is really Hillary fair/friendly, one of the few places
    other than this place that I have found.

    I have also seen her on PoliticsTV.com she is a good
    political blogger.

    One last thing on Obama, his latest foot in the mouth
    incident.
    Saying off the record that he thinks he has the best
    foreign experience of all candidates, Republican and
    Democrat, is just MINDBLOWING!

    What an ass!!(pardon my French-and btw, how about Romney
    going around saying “Hillary couldn’t even get elected
    in France”. Way to repair broken bridges with old allies
    again huh? Typical republican ‘go it alone’ thinking.
    No restoring Americas reputation around the world here).

    I have been to more than 12 countries, can I be President??
    I have a passport!
    Which other candidate do you think lists as reason why
    they should be President, what they did between the ages
    of 6 and 10?
    He lived abroad and gathered foreign intelligence I suppose.
    (shakes head)

Comments are closed.