TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM
July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.11.2007
Easier Said Than Done

In one of his stronger moments at last night's Jefferson Jackson dinner, Barack Obama said:

Not answering questions because we’re afraid our answers won’t be popular just won’t do it... Telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear... Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do it.

I thought of that passage during this exchange during Obama's "Meet the Press" appearance today

MR. RUSSERT:  You were not in the Senate in October of 2002.  You did give a speech opposing the war.  But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record.  And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this:  In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports.  What would I have done?  I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war....

SEN. OBAMA:  Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war.  And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

Obama might argue that there's a difference between speaking as a nominee and speaking about the nominee. Still, even by his own account, this episode hardly seems to live up to the tough standards he set last night. 

Generally speaking, Obama turned in a subdued and largely newsless performance, and avoided any new attacks on Hillary Clinton. But the show aired at 8 a.m. in Des Moines and Obama didn't even finish speaking until around midnight, so he must've been draggy.   

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:35 PM with 1 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ralphnelle said:

This was Russert's weakest point. What was Obama going to do in July 2004, turn his convention appearance into an anti-Kerry/anti-war media circus? Things would be different if he had been a vociferous apologist for Kerry's war position. He chose to remain neutral, because it wasn't his moment to be in the spotlight (at least not for the entire week!).

This is the sort of pretend-objectivity/impartiality that produced GW Bush. It's the sort of non-sense that allows independents to cling to their mealymouthed "both parties do it" slogans that make me want to pull my hair out. Dig up some better examples, or drop it (or, better, go sign up for Hillary's team already, Mr. Crowley!).

November 11, 2007 6:23 PM