Dominic Carter of NY 1 explains why it is awkward for Hillary to criticize Obama
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 14, 2008 - 10:57pm.
Rapid Response
Hello Everyone:
Right below is the brief portion of the transcript of CNN Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz from last Sunday, February 10 where his guest Dominic Carter of New York 1 explained the awkward situation that the Clinton campaign is in right now when it comes to criticizing Obama which I would completely agree with.
Here is his main point:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/10/rs.01.html
CNN RELIABLE SOURCES
Coverage of the Republican Presidential Race Unfair to Candidates?; Super Tuesday Stalemate on the Democratic Side
Aired February 10, 2008 - 10:00 ET
DOMINIC CARTER, NEW YORK 1: "The Clinton folks -- and I'll answer your question -- they're very frustrated. Because Obama is an African-American, they feel they can't criticize him for fear of turning off the Democratic base black voters. And then find themselves in a very difficult situation...
No, no -- but, Howard -- but if you look at -- if you look at what Senator Clinton has been saying, translated here, that Mr. Obama has not been properly vetted -- that's the term that she has been using. The fact of the matter is the Clinton folks are extremely frustrated, and I'm telling you this as a matter of fact.
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: OK.
CARTER: That they feel that Obama is not tested. And one does have to raise the question -- the Clinton folks may not be able to criticize him in terms of right now, but what's going to happen if he's the Democratic nominee? The Republicans are not going to be afraid to go after him.
KURTZ: Right. Right. Right..."
I agree with this excellent analysis from Dominic Carter and I also agree with Dan Abrams that the media invented a race war to bait Obama and Hillary which further hurts Hillary's campaign regarding this matter in my opinion:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14472
VIDEO: "Dan Abrams argues the media invented a race war to bait" Obama & Hillary
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 21, 2008 - 10:33am.
Dominic Carter in my opinion is absolutely correct when he said "Senator Clinton has been saying, translated here, that Mr. Obama has not been properly vetted" and that "Obama is not tested." This as far as I can see is a result of the blatant media bias that is going on right now against Hillary and favoring Obama giving him a free ride on the issues, on his past, and on his record:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14665
MEDIA STUDY: Media Boost Obama, Bash “Billary” and "NBC Is Toughest on Hillary"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 9, 2008 - 1:01am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14717#comment-282046
There is NO question in my opinion of anti-Hillary media bias...
and that Barack Obama has received a free ride from many pundits in the media as I have very credibly and thoroughly documented:
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 14, 2008 - 10:29am.
Hillary Clinton will be attacked by the media and she will get a lot of bad press IF they even perceive her as going negative on Obama which is exactly what happened to Bill Clinton!
Barack Obama in my opinion definitely needs to be exposed on the issues, on his past, and on his record BUT it has to be done in the right kind of way by the Clinton campaign so that Hillary does not get bad press over it and so that she does not suffer in the polls over it with many of "the Democratic base black voters" who Dominic Carter mentions!
I hope that this explanation helps us to better understand why this is really a very difficult situation and why it is definitely a highly sensitive issue for Hillary to go negative on Obama right now!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/10/rs.01.html
CNN RELIABLE SOURCES
Coverage of the Republican Presidential Race Unfair to Candidates?; Super Tuesday Stalemate on the Democratic Side
Aired February 10, 2008 - 10:00 ET
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The inevitable VP speculation is under way, way early, in my view. And "TIME" magazine has a piece -- if we could put it up -- with the headline, "Why Not Both?" "TIME" did a poll and found that 50 to 60 percent, depending on which order the ticket was in, supported the idea of these two candidates running together.
So, Dominic Carter, what explains this chatter in the media about how Hillary and Obama might make a good ticket together, when it's ridiculously early, because they're both still battling for the top prize?
DOMINIC CARTER, NEW YORK 1: Well, I just want to go back for one second, Howard, and point out one frustration that I know for a fact, because I'm getting it directly from them. And let's put it on the table.
The Clinton folks -- and I'll answer your question -- they're very frustrated. Because Obama is an African-American, they feel they can't criticize him for fear of turning off the Democratic base black voters. And then find themselves in a very difficult situation.
But to answer your question, and I raised the same issue to Terry McAuliffe in terms of the two of them on the same ticket. It doesn't help anything in terms of geography, but he pointed out and he was the one that floated the idea -- I didn't raise it, one of her campaign co-chairs -- he pointed out -- and this was an interesting point -- remember Clinton/Gore, two southern Democrats? And they pulled it off.
And so, you know...
KURTZ: Right. But my point is not whether the ticket would work, my point is why the press keeps obsessing on it at this point in the game.
But let me just briefly follow up with you, Dominic. They feel -- you say the Clinton campaign feels it can criticize Obama. I hear Hillary Clinton criticize Obama all the time on his health care plan and so forth.
CARTER: No, no -- but, Howard -- but if you look at -- if you look at what Senator Clinton has been saying, translated here, that Mr. Obama has not been properly vetted -- that's the term that she has been using. The fact of the matter is the Clinton folks are extremely frustrated, and I'm telling you this as a matter of fact.
KURTZ: OK.
CARTER: That they feel that Obama is not tested. And one does have to raise the question -- the Clinton folks may not be able to criticize him in terms of right now, but what's going to happen if he's the Democratic nominee? The Republicans are not going to be afraid to go after him.
KURTZ: Right. Right. Right.
I want to move on..."
This article is saying what Hillary would probably like to say about Obama such as:
"But what policies exactly? Mr Obama's voting record in the Senate is one of the most left-wing of any Democrat. Even if he never voted for the Iraq war, his policy for dealing with that country now seems to amount to little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best..."
More people definitely need to be asking these kind of tough questions right now:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10689547
Barack Obama
But could he deliver?
Feb 14th 2008
From The Economist print edition
It is time for America to evaluate Obama the potential president, not Obama the phenomenon
EPA
THIS has been an extraordinary week for the man who could become America's first black president. Barack Obama has now won all eight of the primaries and caucuses held since Super Tuesday on February 5th, which ended, more or less, in a dead heat with Hillary Clinton. He has won by much larger margins than most people expected, trouncing his rival not just in heavily black states, such as Louisiana, but in ones that are almost completely white, such as Maine. On February 12th he took all three prizes in the “Potomac primary”—Washington, DC, Maryland and, by a socking 29-point margin, Virginia.
Mr Obama now has more pledged delegates than his rival—and he is likely to remain the front-runner for at least another three weeks (see article). Revealingly, Mrs Clinton made her Virginian concession speech from Texas—a state which votes alongside Ohio on March 4th and is already being billed as her last stand. Mr Obama is raising money at the rate of $1m a day, twice as fast as she is; indeed, she has been forced to lend her campaign $5m of her own cash and fire the two people who run her campaign (although her husband has a big say).
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10697083
Whatever happens, Mr Obama is already that rare thing—a political phenomenon. It is not just that he has managed to survive the Clintons' crude onslaught with grace. He has persuaded huge numbers of people around the world to reconsider politics in an optimistic way. To many Americans, a black man who eschews both racial politics and the conservative-liberal divide is a chance to heal the country's two deepest divisions. To many foreigners, he represents an idealistic version of America—the hope of a more benevolent superpower. Although Mr Obama's slogan “Yes We Can” has been turned into a pop video, the theme of his campaign echoes the Clintons' old tune—“Don't stop thinking about tomorrow”.
Optimism is a powerful emotion, but as that song warned, “tomorrow will soon be here.” That is why the real questioning of Mr Obama should begin now. With the brief exception of those four heady days after the Iowa caucuses, he has never been a front-runner; now he will be more fully scrutinised. The immediate focus will be on the horse race: can he win? But the bigger issue, which has so far occupied too little attention, is this: what would a President Obama, as opposed to Phenomenon Obama, really mean for America and the world?
Yes, you can; but not immediately
Begin with the horse race. Mrs Clinton is in a bad way—and deservedly so. The Clintons have fought a leaden and nasty campaign; at present, the prospect of a “Billary presidency” (even before you take into account the dynastic Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton aspect) is hardly enthralling. But Mrs Clinton is tough and smart, and now her rival will be under the media microscope. In debates she trumps Mr Obama on mastery of detail—and the race could well be a long, grinding one, perhaps decided in the end by the 796 “super delegates” from the Democratic Party's establishment. These people have tended to be loyal to the Clintons—though many might defect if polls still showed Mr Obama doing better against John McCain.
Mr McCain, whose lock on the Republican nomination looks stronger than ever following his own triple victory in the Potomac primary, is another part of tomorrow Mr Obama's euphoric supporters might think about. The Republicans are a mess, and the elderly Arizonan senator has plainly failed to stir up his party's supporters in the same way as either of the main Democrats. But Mr McCain is a brave man, with huge experience of international affairs and a much longer record of reaching out to his opponents in politics. Why should independent voters, who have often backed Mr McCain in the past, turn to the less proven man?
Of magnets and magic dust
That question is partly answered by Obama the phenomenon. His immediate effect on international relations could be dramatic: a black president, partly brought up in a Muslim country, would transform America's image. And his youthful optimism could work at home too. After the bitterness of the Bush years, America needs a dose of unity: Mr Obama has a rare ability to deliver it. And the power of charisma should not be underrated, especially in the context of the American presidency which is, constitutionally, quite a weak office. The best presidents are like magnets below a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into a new pattern of their making. Anyone can get experts to produce policy papers. The trick is to forge consensus to get those policies enacted.
But what policies exactly? Mr Obama's voting record in the Senate is one of the most left-wing of any Democrat. Even if he never voted for the Iraq war, his policy for dealing with that country now seems to amount to little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best. On the economy, his plans are more thought out, but he often tells people only that they deserve more money and more opportunities. If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline.
And the Obama phenomenon would not always be helpful, because it would raise expectations to undue heights. Budgets do not magically cut themselves, even if both parties are in awe of the president; the Middle East will not heal, just because a president's second name is Hussein. Choices will have to be made—and foes created even when there is no intention to do so. Indeed, something like that has already happened in his campaign. The post-racial candidate has ended up relying heavily on black votes (and in some places even highlighting the divide between Latinos and blacks)...