Obama swatting away that reporter caught my eye too. In a word--weak-sauce. It's true that people say things they don't mean in elections in order to win--especially about their opponents. Obama isn't the first. But it's not wrong, it's not playing games, and it's not "having a little fun" to ask what's changed in terms of Obama's view of Clinton. There are a lot of ways to answer that question--but acting like it's unserious isn't a good look. White House reporters do a lot of stupid, inane crap. For my money, this didn't fall into that category.
« Drive-by in the day, then murder you in the dark... | Main | Where I get off the "old-school hip-hop" train » Dredging up primary dirt between Clinton and Obama02 Dec 2008 01:41 pm Comments (56)
Looks like he caught himself, after he stepped in it, and then pulled back. I don't know how the "just having fun" thing isn't belittling. Dude is just doing his job. 
I second sgwhiteinfla. Barack didn't say, "how dare you!" As for the general sentiment, I disagree. Barack is shaking off the W mindset, which is that it's always campaign season, you always have to kneecap the other guy. He's being an adult and governing, and that means he's not going to get relive his administration in the prism of the campaign, which is inherently petty and stupid.
I should also point out that the above clip Campbell Brown used was like the third or fourth question where the reporters were basically either questioning if the people he chose would actually do what the phuck Obama told them to which in my mind is unprecendented or they were using quotes to try to point out disagreements Obama had already had with members of his Cabinet like the quote Bob Gates had about not leaving Iraq. Here are the questions that came before that one. Honestly Campbell Brown brought out her azzhat last night. I was actually a fan too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZeQHsEC_e4&feature=related
I don't agree at all. Obama was speaking about a whole way of asking questions, not the Clinton issue per se. In other words, had the guy just been up front and said "You and Senator Clinton had many differences about foreign policy, including the issue of Pakistan. You questioned each other's experience., etc." I think Obama would have gotten to the point (which he then did). Pulling out that quote with an extra insinuation is not the way Obama wants challenges to go-- either come directly at him or don't come at all. Tone-setting, all about tone-setting. Not sneering, not dismissive, but a little elbow coming off the screen.
Coates The having fun thing was AFTER they had asked several similar questions already trying to put him on the spot. If you notice after he said the having fun line the rest of the room started laughing too. Here is a post from Joe Klein yesterday about it. He thought the reporters questions yesterday were, in fact, unserious http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/01/better-questions-please/
His initial response wasn't the most serious, but I think Campbell is taking her cutting through the bull thing a little too far... to the point where she's being dishonest in order to go on a fun little rant. (Of course, having been a fan of Brown during her anti-McCain/Palin rants and the Wrecking of Tucker Bounds, I'm probably wrong for immediately turning on her when she criticizes my man.)
Nuts to you all. I stand with Campbell.
We all know Ta-Nehisi is just defending his girlfriend: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/campbell_brown_on_the_daily_show.php (Just teasing, man. But your archives will always come back to haunt you.) I'm with the rest of the crowd here, Brown's fake righteous indignation is bullshit. The reporters asked a series of stupid questions, and Obama laughed at them by question 5. Step up your game, press corps.
Media Biased. Film at 11.
Coates Trust me I was a huge fan when Campbell Brown DESTROYED Tucker Bounds. But then he got DESTROYED on FoxNews and MSNBC also by other women so it wasn't all that impressive anymore. By the way, if she is really cuttinng through the bull then maybe she needs to do a story about Gen Barry McCaffery and how he used mostly NBC but also CNN among other networks to promote the agenda of defense contractor companies which he had financial arrangements with. I did a diary about it last night calling out Keith Olberman but it applies to Campbell as well. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/1/23914/7841/849/668331
If Obama's not allowed to tease the press, I don't know that it was even worth voting for him. He did follow up by directly answering the question re-treaded to him which is all the press can really ask for, especially after how they let the Bush administration walk all over them.
Appears to be the hostile media theory. It is applicable to sports, politics, religion, wars. I think Brown is overdoing it, but it is a question that should be asked. Sort of like Bush I being asked to explain his voodoo economics statement, then becoming a convert once he was named VP.
I did a diary about it last night calling out Keith Olberman I don't think you will get very far, he refused to comment on Imus after the "nappy" incident because he didn't want to make GEMSNBC look bad. I can see where Olbermann was coming from, but it was just hypocritical given that he slammed O'Reilly for being less of a corporate bootlick.
DougEMI I don't hold out any hope that he would do the story. But he actually posts on kos every now and then and so it wasn't really for him, it was for the rest of the community so they will call his azz out the next time he tries to post something and get some positive feed back. If you are going to be in the business of calling people out then that means when people at your company are phucking up you need to be calling them out too or just like you said its hypocritical. Its amazing that NOBODY is running the story though. Its like every network is covering each other's azzes
A few points: First, it was Clinton who was more critical of Obama's views of explicitly stating intentions to strike in Pakistan (which US is already doing), sit for talks with Iran, Syria etc. These were ofcourse minor differences within Democrats as compared to broader differences with Republicans. Given that Obama won, at the end of the day he has the final say. So Cliton would have to either convince Obama of her views or agree with him, and then implement his decisions. The question the reporter asked was about Obama's criticism of Clinton which might still hold under this setup. Second, you cant deny the press loves playing up rifts between Obama and clinton. The whole DNC period was spent by media prodding people to fight, while thy completely ignored that Republicans had a renegade holding a separate convention at RNC.
As someone who's not part of the press, I tend to agree with Obama on this; I could care less about past differences. What--we're they supposed to just say nice things about each other when running against each other? Now if the reporter queried about specific policy differences and the direction that Obama was considering now, then it would be a question of substance, but the rest is gossip--meh.
"By the way, if she is really cuttinng through the bull then maybe she needs to do a story about Gen Barry McCaffery and how he used mostly NBC but also CNN among other networks to promote the agenda of defense contractor companies which he had financial arrangements with." It will be a cold day in hell before that story is going anywhere. Barstow's story in April was also roundly ignored by the networks. They don't have a problem inviting Bart Gelmann to a bunch of shows, for example, for his story panning Dick Cheney, but when they themselves are the target, it's hunker-down time. Their stone-walling tactics are almost as good as the Bush administration.
sgwhiteinfla I should have read your Kos post first before commenting, I get where you are coming from now.
DougEMI Did you notice the part in the diary where I point out the fact that he has repeatedly said that he has never been asked to not do a story? Thats bullsh!t and everybody knows it but he comes off as if he will call out anybody who is doing wrong no matter who it is. Now mind you I do like his show and will watch it every now and then, but when stuff like this comes up he gets exposed and really not being much better than Bill O'Reilly who he is ALWAYS calling out for hypocrisy
Iverson said it best: "We talkin' about practice. Not a game. Not a game. We talkin' about practice."
Did you notice the part in the diary where I point out the fact that he has repeatedly said that he has never been asked to not do a story? Yes, I did notice that part. I guess that is his way of telling himself he treats them all the same. I saw O'Reilly do that on Maher's show years ago, acting like he was independent. He was asked by Maher to explain how he was different from Republicans and O'Reilly stammered about how he believes in global warming, but offered nothing else. I haven't seen O'Reilly in years, but he used to do that tough guy "I smack all sides" bit.
Gramsci is right: this was just an elbow to keep the press on their toes. We know that because he did go on to respond to, if not answer, the question. And how do you answer that question except to say, "despite all that stuff that was said in the campaign, I think she is the best qualified now." Which is what he said. I mean, the premise of the question and its alleged legitimacy come from the perception that it's hypocritical to criticize someone during a campaign and then praise them after a victory. But I deny the hypocrisy. Saying "her FP cred isn't as great as she says and doesn't on its face qualify her to be President" does not preclude later saying "this person is a good Secretary of State." But by explaining that point to the reporter--by saying, "look, guy, you're being a dick here"--even in a one-liner, you engage with the false premise, and you lose the point you're trying to make, which is "this is my FP team; here's what we're going to do for America." There was also another element, as the youtube video highlighted: the cameras were on Clinton, too, and Obama was in danger of embarrassing her further (after, you know, losing to him and then agreeing to work for him) depending on how much attention he even paid to those campaign comments. Why be a dick by settling the reporter's premises then and there? What does it gain you? It's all about pragmatism, and sometimes forthrightness has to lose out.
I call BS on Ms. Brown too. The press is doing its job? Since when? 8 years of kowtowing to Darth Cheney and alluva sudden, Obama is a serial liar because he pulled Hillary Clinton into his cabinet? Selecting Clinton as Secretary of State was based on a wide variety of factors. Her name recognition, "star power," First Ladyhood and wide world travel (regardless of context) are unique. Those considerations have to be weighed against her relative lack of "diplomatic corps" experience. Further, she's a tough character. She certainly held her own during a rough and tumble campaign season. Lastly, one can't ignore Obama's forward thinking political calculations. The country is in crisis. The markets are depressed and extremely volatile. We have "officially" been in a recession for nearly a year. We have huge international challenges facing us. Fanning the flames of an old and buried rivalry for the sake of the news cycle is "weak sauce." Campbell's mock indignation is weaker sauce than that.
These are the same morons who allowed our country to go into war based on their stenography of the Bush Admin phony case for war. They never challenged the Administration. They were co-conspirators in a war of choice. After 4,000 U.S. dead, over 100,000 dead Iraqis, and a generation of women and men coming home with devastating injuries they have some nerve asking about a darn primary race. If they were this persistent six years ago we may not have when to war. Their priorities are all screwed up and we have serious issues. They need to grow up. Brown and her ilk are full of bull and can’t see past their own pro media bias and false sense of entitlement.
In the spring, Clinton claimed Obama didn't have enough experience and she had more than enough. He knocked that horse out from under her: they are pretty much peers, and he settled that point rather firmly. In the fall, Obama believes Obama has enough experience to handle foreign policy. He thinks Clinton, who's roughly his equal on experience, also has enough. Not more than he does, but enough. In the spring, Obama also argued that, looking at the biggest global picture, he had better judgment than Clinton. In the fall, Obama still thinks he has better judgment, and thinks Clinton will do a fine job of putting those judgments into action. In the spring, he saw her mastery of complex issues, her formidable ability to press major points home, and her utter tenacity in the pursuit of success. In the fall, he wants to see more of that. He hasn't budged an inch and doesn't need to take anything back. He could spell that out. It would be true and clear. As a single move, it would be strong. He would have captured the reporter's pawn. Campbell Brown would not have had a chance to capture one of his. Look at the whole chess board. She'd be weaker, and she'd specifically be weaker as his voice in other capitals. He'd be weaker as our voice in the world. Not answering was the best answer.
Didn't know much about Brown, but never got passed her stupid rant about how the McCain campaign's sheltering of Palin was somehow a matter of sexism. In any case, I'll save my outrage over questions/answers I actually care about (and he's dodged plenty of those). Whether Obama actually believed everything negative thing he said about his opponents in the heat of a campaign is not one of them. Let's keep some perspective here.
What Sporcupine said. "She'd be weaker, and she'd specifically be weaker as his voice in other capitals. He'd be weaker as our voice in the world." Way to bring the true context.
Campbell Brown is just blowing smoke, just like most of these talking heads. Their favourite subject is the Clintons! Anything having to with a Clinton makes them crazy. They didn't sweat his pick of Biden for VP. Why? He's not a Clinton. I'm just waiting to see how the press will treat Hillary when she actually is Secretary. How many times will we have to hear about Vince Foster, Travelgate, blah, blah, blah. I am SO OVER it.
Agree with Sporcupine, totally. Obama needs to set the tone with the press from jump: I will take you seriously as long as you take me seriously. Questions hearkening back to campaign fights are traps in all kinds of directions. If you answer them with an explanation you provoke more of the same, plus you look like a wimp. If you ignore them completely, the press assumes you have no respect for them, and you don't want to do that either. (Though considering the way GWB treated them, may that is the way to go...) His answer was a bit dismissive, perhaps, but he showed that he has no trouble distinguishing campaign rhetoric from the down and dirty necessities of governing, and that he's not going to over-expose himself or his "team" to press probing.
You do realize that he was asked the question not once but twice by none other than Jake Tapper, a sensationalist journalist, and some other guy. If I was Obama, I would have been even cruder and told them I'm not answering any questions about the primary. So what about what he said during the primary? I don't even remember what he said. He didn't even belittle Hillary about her foreign policy creds all like that.
Also, where is Campbell's comment on Bush saying, he wasn't prepared for war. Where is the media's criticism and questions for the Bush administration. As someone already said, Hillary was much more critical of Obama's foreign policy. Shouldn't the question be why would Obama choose Hillary after the hard fought primary that they had? It shows you that Obama doesn't not hold grudges and doesn't let things people say about him, get to him.
These are the same morons who allowed our country to go into war based on their stenography of the Bush Admin phony case for war. They never challenged the Administration. They were co-conspirators in a war of choice. The same arguement could be made, and in fact was during the Primaries, except substitute the "media" with "Hillary Clinton". Hillary voted for the thing, the press didn't. There are also a fair share of anti-war people who chose Obama based upon his judgement regarding the war and other foreign policy matters. They might be curious as to why he chose someone who was a hawk on the issue to be the Secretary of State.
It was worse than weak. It reflects his mindset which I find disengenous. it is disengenous because he has the wrong job. I have come to the comclusion PE Obama wants to be on the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice. His decision making in filling his Cabinet is representative. e has chosen a diverse group of people whomhe wnats to advice him as he makes the final decision. he is acting as though he is going to be writing a brief on Constitutional law instead of acting as an executive. The people he has hired are politicians. Each has the instincts to amass power by spending money and being in the news. These positions are drama by definition unlike the Supreme Court where differences are only in the open during the cross examination periods before the entire bench and then subsumed in the writing of the brief reflecting the decision. Worse, the most of the "executives" he has hired have shown no managemnet skills except for Gates(he has sacked people at DOD for incompetence and not getting the job done), Napalitino(Career prosecutor and a Governor) and Geithner(ran the New York Fed). Clinton and Holder are political hacks in the worse way and have no management experience what so ever. They have Dept's in the most need of organizational revamping.
Sorry Coates. This is another one of those instances where Campbell Brown and I part ways. At least three different reporters asked a different variation of the same question, and for what? For the political junkies and the people who were paying attention during the primary season, we are all well aware of what was said between these two. Why does the press continue to treat us like we are children. I am no Hillary fan. In fact, I see the advantages of the pick, but if her campaign is a good indicator, I don't think that she has the management skills to lead the state department. That being said, these two have tried to bury the hatchet for months now, but the press just won't let it go. Look at the lead up to the convention, the press was practically salivating over the fact that Hillary was going to steal the show and do something to embarrass Obama. But horrors, of horrors, she ended up giving a pretty kick ass speech. Then the press predicted that she wouldn't stump as hard for Obama because of her campaign debts. Well, it turns out that she zig zagged the country not only stumping for Obama, but also raising money for his campaign. The truth of the matter is, yes, these two have clear differences. And yes, they may not have been fond of each other, but I think that their behavior toward the end of the campaign and the general election emphasizes that they do respect each other. For the press to continue to try to drum up drama is tedious. They have been doing that for the past two weeks now in the anticipation of the selection. Enough is enough. Both candidates have indicated that they know how to be mature adults and act in the best interest of the country, why can't the press do the same?
As I watch NBC calling Georgia for Saxby Chambliss I just gotta ask. Was it really worth keeping Lieberman after all?
I'd like to know where the newly indignant Campbell Brown was during the Bush years. Did she ask questions about torture, yellow-cake, Guantanamo, Katrina? Somehow, I don't recall her coming to that particular party. I just get tired of the fake indignation she's started serving up as her dish du jour. It's as unconvincing as the extremely plastic mugshot she uses. On the subject of foreign policy experience, it's worth recalling that HRC Tuzla-ed herself with no help from anyone else. Or did I dream that little girl with flowers? Sure, Obama gave her a hard time for resume padding - but that's politics for you. Everyone knows that things are said during primaries - and that politicians are not on oath during that extended silly season. The reason they go through so much nonsense is because the media likes the drama. Why do you think no one ever asks real in-depth policy questions during interviews and debates? Yes, Ms. Brown, I am looking at you too.
man, do you rally think that question was worth answering at a televised press conference? he's announcing his foreign policy/national security team and some body in the press wants a nuanced and complex answer? no the reporter wanted a sound bite. someone should have also asked hrc if obama is still not a muslim 'as far as she knows.' the naive left wing over-gown teenagers think they own obama. running in a Democratic primary is one thing, but being president of the united states is another. in reality, he deftly outsmarted the little wise-ass who asked the pissant question.
Can't stand Campbell Brown - just can't stand her. OT- I do LOL that Obama's had how many press conferences and hasn't called on Fox ONCE? Bwa ha ha ha ah ha
rikyrah The best part of that is the fact that none of the other networks like FoxNews so none of them are even covering the story. So the only place anybody can hear any complaints about Obama not calling on a FoxNews reporter is on......FoxNews. I told people before the election that FoxNews were nobodies until Bush got into office and now that Obama is there and in light of the stuff they pulled during the campaign he is slowly but surely shoving them down the road to irrelevance. Nobody wants to hear them whine and cry all the time over Obama and that includes a good section of their regular viewing audience. Sean Hannity will single handedly reduce their viewership in the next six months as as soon as Colmes leaves. Its bad enough when he has to "share" time, but who in the WORLD will want to watch a full hour of the hate box that is Sean Hannity? One person who I really hope Obama finds a place for in his administration is Bill Burton, he by far had the best PWNINGS of different FoxNews personalities, especially Megyn Kelly.
When we look back at the next four years a decade from now, it will be clear that the Clintonites obstructed necessary changes in domestic and foriegn policy that an Obama administration unburdened by Clinton baggage would have had the balls and the sense to push through. The general support for their inclusion - at least among democrats and in the MSM - indicates that people do not sufficiently grasp just how far off course and how near to real demise the US is right now. I am now far less enthusiastic about this administration's chances of turning things around than I was before I saw the cabinet appointments list (although I do feel like I am going to the only one in that boat for the next little while). Just wait and you'll see what I mean.
The media has been goofing around on this Obama-Clinton rivalry because that's what the vacuous traditional media does. It's not news, it's entertainment, and Obama was right to say they were "having fun". The media has a right to question Obama, and he should respond - but he's right to call them when they are asking stupid questions
The question was completely fair, but I don't think there was anything wrong with Obama's response, either. In a print or one-on-one interview, maybe Obama could be expected to provide some details to satisfy the curiosity about the drama machine that is Hillary. But there, in the presser, with the rest of the National Security team standing with him, I don't think it was the place to focus on Hillary. Maybe he did act like it was "unserious," but then the cable nets didn't exactly prove him wrong by spending their afternoon with silly talking heads and clip montages of Hill's "Shame on you, Barack Obama." As for Campbell Brown, I have to agree with the faux outrage charges. I like what she's been trying to do. But a potential pitfall with her "no BS" POV, I think, is that the media is often the biggest purveyor of BS, and if she doesn't acknowledge that, she's in danger of becoming just another righteous cable windbag. With this and now her Ed Rendell sexism outrage, she's got me wondering. It doesn't strike me as honest to say you love Eddie's candor and frankness 99% of the time, and then cry sexist when he says something less than PC about an issue that is personal for you (in Brown's case, working mothers' issues).
Connie - I disagree. I think the only way in which these reporters came across as vacuous or stupid was in their failure to press the specifics harder. I think the more we think out loud about this now, while the administration is still taking shape, the better, especially since it's Clinton's PR-focus that threatens to distract the administration from good long-term decision-making. The differences between Obama and the Clintons on policy are real and will affect this administration. It's up to all of us to do what we can to encourage them to do what's right for the country long-term, rather than what's politically popular at the moment - if we're capable of that.
To be a serious question the reporter must be expecting a serious and honest answer. That would be "Senator Clinton and I never had any substantial differences on U.S. foreign policy other than how we spoke on the issue of war five years ago. Those instances you cite were two poiticians exploiting some minor semantic error or intentionally misconstruing the others words while fully aware we actually were in agreement." Since that is an answer that can not be given it wasn't a serious question.
'The differences between Obama and the Clintons on policy are real and will affect this administration.' Obama had foreign policy differences with Richardson and Kerry as well, but there was never such loud fraccas over it. Obama and Gates also differ on certain issues. No one is ever gonna be lock-step with each other on foreign policy (or ANY policy) for that matter. What's reassuring (in my view) is that there isn't an idealogue to be found in Obama National Security Team. AND as Obama said 'The buck will stop with me' Change comes from the top.
Tim Care to explain what those differences are between Obama's and Hillary's policy stances are? I think we would all be interested in you schooling us. And by the way, if you felt that Obama could be side tracked by the people he himself picked for his cabinet then maybe you voted for the wrong guy.
I think it's interesting that people trust Obama enough to vote for him, but they don't trust him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt on staff appointments and cabinet positions. Quite frankly I find the armchair-quarterbacking on cabinet positions to be a bit counterproductive.
The Press doesn't get to scold President-elect Obama after nearly six+ years of giving the Bush Administration a pass. I had my fill of local news 25 years ago. After moving from Chicago to Atlanta and being informed every morning and evening that blacks were the only ones committing crimes in the metro area. Turned it off. Stopped the newspaper delivery. I had my fill of national news 6 years ago when, on the run up to the Iraq "war", it seemed no one in the traditional media wanted to question the intelligence reports that stated Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Turned it off. Cancelled the "news" magazine subscriptions. Thank God I discovered the progressive blogosphere! I know it's trite, but the bloggers read and watch so I don't have to. TNC you're included in my appreciation. I don't always agree with your perspective, and from time-to-time have no idea what you're writing about (sports, video games and hip-hop are some examples). But I don't want it ever to be the way it was. I thought the reporter's question was BS, and appreciated the way it was handled. Campbell Brown would carry more weight with me if I could recall any clips in my daily ingestion of blogs where she had called out Bush or anyone from the Bush administration about anything. If something could be pointed out to me I might change my mind. Otherwise I expect President-elect Obama to keep on keeping on.
"When we look back at the next four years a decade from now, it will be clear that the Clintonites obstructed necessary changes in domestic and foriegn policy that an Obama administration unburdened by Clinton baggage would have had the balls and the sense to push through." Where do you draw the line whether someone is a Clintonites, though? Does the mere fact that a person used to work for Bill Clinton administration means he/she is a Clintonite? Is Tim Geithner a Clintonite because he used to work for Larry Summers, for example? My own understanding of the word Clintonite is someone who is a Clinton loyallist, who owes his political career to the Clintons. Just the fact of having once worked for the Clinton administration doesn't qualify anyone to become a Cintonite IMO. So in that sense, there aren't a lot of Clintonites in the Obama's staff and cabinet picks. If we start seeing people like Harold Ickes, Bruce Reed or Terry McAuliffe getting jobs, then yes, we should start screaming "Clintonites!" And this point has probably been made a thousand times, but - if you're going to pick people with previous expericence in an administration, where else are you going to go? Carter-ites?
If Obama purged all people who have had dealings with the Clintons, you'd have a much reduced Democratic presence in Congress and the Senate, and a very much smaller Democratic party. Might be a tad hard to govern under those circumstances. I'd like to see what Obama actually does in his first couple of years before I draw any conclusions about his success or failure, liberalism or lack thereof. I am sorry to be blunt, but it really makes no sense to rush to judgment before we see the man in action.
Coates Your girlfriend Campbell Brown is now trying to call Ed Rendell sexist because he said Janet Napolitano doesn't have a family. I guess it doesn't matter that he was right huh? Campbell Brown is now officially Bill O'Reilly in a skirt.
Heh, I was half expecting the next post after tobyesterhase to be from georgesmiley or billhaydon. sgwhiteinfla, I also thought it was probably a bit much for Brown to call Gov Rendell sexist for that statement. However, it was a pretty dumb thing for Rendell to say that just because someone does not have a spouse or children, that person must not have a life. Huh? I know a lot of single people, men and women, who live rich, fulfilled lives. Who the heck is Rendell to make a judgment about these people's lives?
Campbell Brown seems to be trying desperately to copy the more annoying moments of the primary as part of her reporting technique. Currently we have "sexism" as our outrage topic. What will she try next - comparing Minnesota to Zimbabwe as the recount staggers on? I sincerely hope SNL decides that it's time to skewer her pretensions. I wonder if Tina Fey could pull off Brown's unctuous self-righteousness?
Campbell Brown = blowhard It's that simple. Coates stop slurping the Campbell soup. It's weak-sauce.
Peter I think Rendell was trying to make a point and wasn't thinking about his wording at the time. He was basically saying something I am sure we have all said or thought before and that is when you have a single person with no kids they have the ability to work long long hours without worrying about upsetting or disappointing someone. I agree that he shouldn't have said she doesn't have a life, but I don't think he meant it like her life was meaningless but moreso she wouldn't have anything to distract her away from her job at hand which by all accounts is going to be a tough nut to crack over at Homeland Security. But for Campbell Brown to try to call him out about that was just ridiculous. Its bad enough that CNN just hired like 3 more actual flag waving wingnuts, but now she is about to ruin her brand by not being genuine which was what drew people to her in the first place.
|
Subscribe to Ta-Nehisi Coates by Email 
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle  Monthly Archives
Recent Posts
Keepin It UnrealStanley Crouch Is A Gangsta RapperConfessions of a 30-Year-Old GamerRice, Rice, Baby!Compa$$ionate Capitali$MJust Another Quick-Witted, Egg-Roll-Joke-Making, Insult-Hurling, Chinese-American RapperThe Irrelevant Rev. SharptonWal-Mart's Urban RomanceBlack and Blue |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Coates
Campbell Brown is full of sh!t. She cut off the video right before Obama said and I quote "there's nothing wrong with that I'm not faulting it". Campbell Brown was blatantly intellectually dishonest with her diatribe. Watch this and se the full exchange and see if you still feel the same way. His full answer was about 2 minutes long
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2OZ3Os9R38&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/12/2/95037/9162/231&feature=player_embedded
Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 2, 2008 2:01 PM