Olbermann: Is Obama a Uniter, or Divider...of Democrats?

[quinnox]

Very interesting diary found on Daily Kos, makes some good points about Obama's false "uniter" campaign theme.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/15/21102/7703

Olbermann: Is Obama a Uniter, or Divider...of Democrats?

don't have video yet of tonight's Keith Olbermann, but he questioned whether the following passage from Washington Post bolsters Obama's claim of being a uniter or, in fact a divider...of his own party:

"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."

I myself have had problems with this quote.



Obama concedes that Hillary's reputation for being polarizing results from the unending, well-financed attacks from the Right Wing Noise Machine. Before he crossed over from the dark side, David Brock in Blinded by the Right confessed that he was paid well to lie and distort about non-conservatives, including Hillary Clinton. Despite well documented evidence of such lies and distortions by the Right that has led to the meme that Hillary Clinton is supposedly "polarizing," Obama perpetuates this label. I believe the reasons people here at DailyKos dislike Hillary Clinton - her vote for Iraq War, her refusal to outright apologize for it, her cautiousness, etc - are not the same reasons she has such high negative approval ratings.

Most Democrats outside the diaries of DailyKos give Hillary high approval ratings. In New York state, where the public knows her well after eight years, SurveyUSA polled her approval at 74%. Even among New York Republicans, she has an approval rating of 42%. These are people who know her and her work. Such numbers indicate to me that those who know the real Hillary don't see her as polarizing.

Most of her national negative approval ratings are based on vestiges of Right Wing attacks from the 1990s. Now, Obama himself concedes that Hillary's reputation is "not entirely a problem of her making." This raises two important questions I hope Obama would address:

1. What else has Sen. Clinton done that merits her being labeled divisive and polarizing?

2. If he thinks she is less qualified to unite the country because of a reputation that for the most part is not of her making, isn't he, in this case, claiming that the subject of years of false distortions and attacks - a victim, for lack of a better word - is damaged goods, even the one to blame for such attacks? Is he blaming the victim?

In another Obama vs. Hillary diary, some here suggested that Hillary should be considered polarizing because of the manner in which she conducted healthcare reform in 1993-1994. While I concede she could have been more skilled at passing such a massive overhaul, does anyone truly believe that this episode alone would account of this label of her being divisive?

Others have pointed to Clinton campaign response to the above quote from Obama as evidence of her divisiveness:

"It sounds like Karl Rove is writing Senator Obama's talking points," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "The reality is that as the campaign now gets under way, Senator Clinton's ratings are improving because Americans are seeing that she has the strength and experience to deliver change."

Why would Hillary's campaign say such a thing? Well here is what Rove had to say about Hillary on Rush Limbaugh today:

"There is no candidate on record, a front-runner for a party's nomination, who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has...

"She's not like a fresh and new character. She's someone who has been essentially known to the American people for 16 years. It's going to be hard to change the perceptions that people have had,"

How is the essence of these remarks different from Obama's line - "Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do."

I would add that, for those who claim Hillary was being divisive and polarizing by comparing Obama's words to Rove, how would these same people characterize Obama's assertion that Sen. Hillary Clinton's national security approach is "Bush-Cheney Lite"? Isn't that just as strident? And why is Obama somehow excluded from criticism despite using such strong rhetoric?

Finally, Keith Olbermann played a clip of how Hillary was reacting to the skirmish she opened with the White House after releasing her "Invisible" ad:


Dana Perino responded to the ad in part: "As to the merits of it, I think it's outrageous."

Hillary hit back: "Apparently I've struck a nerve. The White House just attacked me a few minutes ago," Clinton said. "Not only have I said it and am saying it, I will keep saying it because I happen to believe it."

My first reaction to this back and forth was to cheer Hillary. My second reaction was: I bet the Hillary-haters will twist this into more evidence Hillary is polarizing. Yet if Edwards or Obama had engaged in such a way, they'd applaud them. Which would be typical, considering the double-standards she held to around here.

[DURHAM D]

1. "...negative approval ratings are based on vestiges of right wing attacks..."

Those right wing attacks live on in all of their glory here at the DU as they are constantly repeated by supporters of other candidates.

The constant repeating of that clap trap here is why I made a decision to support Senator Clinton. I am sick of the unrecognized sexism (from both women and men) and sick of the WH/Rove corporate media party patter that is constantly repeated by people who call themselves progressives.

[quinnox]

3. well said

Yea, the not so hidden sexism is pretty foul when it comes to Hillary.

and sometimes I think Free Republic would be a better place for some of the rabid Hillary haters, they would find a welcoming audience there.

[DURHAM D]

4. I have often thought that some of the disrupters here -

(the people I refer to as fake progressives) are, if not the same people, the same personality type as posts at the Free Republic.

[quinnox]

5. agree

I have thought the same thing.

[TSIAS]

16. That's funny

Sometimes I think the same thing about HRC supporters.

[William769]

7. I don't even think free republic would take some of our rabid Hillary haters.

They are that ugly.

[quinnox]

9. We do have some doozies here, that's for sure

[snowbear]

18. Billy... DU has more HRC supporters than any other Democratic site there is !!!!!!

How many other Democratic or left-leaning sites are you a member of?

You should be happy as a clam at DU!

Take a stroll to some of the other major sites and you'll come running home to DU and her supporters (both the real ones and the phony freeps)

Seriously.. Have you checked out many other sites?

(I'm guessing that you have, and that that's why you prefer DU)

[William769]

19. Actually I have not.

When I found DU I liked it so much, I stayed here. Don't need to go anywhere else, except maybe Hillary's website.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Well, he's right that he would unite Dems more than Hill.

Gobama.

[DURHAM D]

6. Obama can not/will not unite the Dems.

The largest active block of Dems are the early boomers. Obama told us we need to get over ourselves and stop fighting the old battles. My response - that little jerk doesn't know what he doesn't know.

He is telling the very people who became politically active around the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the pro-choice and pro-women's movements, the gay rights movements and every movement of the past 50 years to have a chat with the people on the other side of the table because we will find common ground. Bull shit - I hate everything they stand for and I stand for everything they hate. And frankly, he should too. Were it not for us early boomers he wouldn't be able to run for President. Is that what you call a party uniter? I feel personally insulted by his remarks, as do my friends.

My question to an Obama supporter who called for a solicitation last Sunday was which one of the members of the Repub leadership did Obama think he could have a talk with and get them to agree with him on the fundamental issues facing our country. I told the caller I was not talking about an agreement such as "I will vote for a bridge in your district if you vote for one in mine" but I meant who on the Republican side is going to all of a sudden support universal health care - the answer is not only no one in the leadership but none of the other 250 nationally elected Repubs. So, give me a break. No wonder the Dems are constantly having to deal with the wuss factor.

[durrrty libby]

11. "doesn't know what he doesn't know."

Absofuckinglutely.

I just laugh when he touts that he is the change agent

Well groovy dude, but change to what? He don't know what he don't know

Not interested in naiveté, inexperience or an empty suit.

[AtomicKitten]

15. thanks for the background of your POV -

It gives me some perspective.

I think Obama is trying to create a new paradigm in which sh*t actually gets done. At best, the causes of the 60s are still in the process of being achieved, incrementally.

I agree with Obama that what is now institutionalized acrimony is setting us up for further gridlock. There are two ways to achieve what we want: (1) A veto-proof supermajority, or (2) persuading enough votes from the other side of the aisle.

What impresses me most about Obama is his commitment to John Q. Public by not accepting PAC or federal lobbyist $$$ and by speaking out hard about sunlight in government.

And, for me, Obama opposed going into Iraq from the very beginning. It matters to me that Hill and Edwards both voted "yes" on it; I sincerely and from my very core believe neither should be eligible to run after demonstrating such epically poor judgment. I realize this also isn't a popular opinion here at DU, but I have ZERO confidence Kucinich's support will reach even 5%.

Obama's appeal is broad which means there are a lot of reasons to support him. My best advice to anybody who asks is to keep your eyes and ears open, make up your own damn mind (lots of fun here at DU!), and go with what (and who) makes sense to you.

Cheers.

[wyldwolf]

8. Olberman was tough on Obama... here is the transcript

The “Countdown” to 2008. Senator Obama says he‘s a uniter and Senator Clinton is not. But just in saying that, isn‘t he failing to unite Democrats?

The last time a politician claimed to be a uniter and not a divider, it was George W. Bush. Better luck next time. Our fourth story tonight, our “Countdown” to 2008, and since the uniter title is available, Barack Obama is picking up the theme. The Illinois senator saying one of the reasons he decided to run for president because Hillary Clinton is too divisive to get the country out of what he calls our ideological gridlock.

Senator Obama telling the “Washington Post”: “I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can. That is not entirely a problem of her making. So of those battles in the ‘90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do.”

Ironically, it is the same line of attack on Senator Clinton used by the White House after a new campaign ad said the middle class and even the troops are invisible to President Bush.

The soon to be removed presidential brain, Karl Rove, already rerunning his catch phrases again today, describing Clinton as fatally flawed, as he appeared with comedian Rush Limbaugh.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL ROVE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: She is who she is. There is no front runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling. She is going into the general election in the high 40‘s on the negative side and just below that on the positive side. There‘s no one who is ever won the presidency was started out in that position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Clinton seemed to revel in the White House. She made a statement late in Iowa today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Karl Rove attacked me today trying to, once again, poison the atmosphere. I feel so lucky that I‘m giving them such heartburn.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Watching it all, Anne Kornblut, national political reporter of the “Washington Post.”

Anne, good evening.

ANNE KORNBLUT, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, “WASHINGTON POST”: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Let‘s work backwards. The bromide is supposed to be for the challenger, don‘t attack the incumbent if you‘re not running against that incumbent, because in a way you let your actual opponents slide. But does that apply in this election. Isn‘t positioning yourself as being under attack by George Bush and Karl Rove—is that not a single best pieces strategy for a Democrat right now?

KORNBLUT: There‘s no harm in any Democrat, particularly Hillary Clinton, going after this president. You‘ll notice that it is Karl Rove making the attacks on her. There‘s nothing but mileage in this for her.

OLBERMANN: Senator Obama, with this interview with your colleagues at “The Post,” seems to a split a very fine hair. He says that Hillary Clinton is too divisive to win, he is not. He is willing to be divisive enough to attack another Democrat for being divisive. It‘s like an M.C. Escher drawing.

KORNBLUT: It‘s debatable how much of a frontal attack I think that is. He is starting to draw a distinction between himself and Senator Clinton. She has stayed the front runner in all the national polls there, in a three-way tie in Iowa, where I am now. If he does not start to draw these distinctions and say what is different and what makes him better than her and her worse than him by default, he is not going to get anywhere. I think that is what he was doing there. It is not the same as a full-on attack. Certainly not something that we saw in the caucuses. Whether it will get to something like that, I don‘t know.

OLBERMANN: The mild stuff seems to be getting past people. There was something about Senator Obama and this issue of unifying that happened at the debate in Chicago that seems to go right past people. He was talking about roots to citizenship for immigrants. He suggested one of the tests should be are they learning English. In retrospect, I think I should have stopped the debate right there and said, did you really just say that? How unifying is that position going to be among Democrats in, say, Florida and New York and California and Texas?

KORNBLUT: Interesting question. The Obama campaign probably feels that he is inoculated on that kind of a point, being a direct child of an immigrant. But this is one of the crossover issues for him where he has got to appeal to both Republicans and Democrats. One of his selling points is that he can appeal to Republicans. When any Democrat talks about immigration in terms of terms that sound slightly tougher than the usual Democratic line, they could earn some Republican points.

OLBERMANN: Senator Clinton has gotten good press lately from many commentators on the right. Bruce Bartlett says that conservatives should consider. Fred Barnes, “She is firm and cool on foreign policy.” Rich Lowery, “She excels.” Those are people that you see on FOX noise is all the time. And David Brooks said, “The combination of experience and change.” Is that stuff to be taken on face value or do they really want to compete against her so much that they are boosting her primary candidacy?

KORNBLUT: I had the same conversation with Bill Crystal, of all people, who really commended her on foreign policy. There‘s two groups here. One of the serious foreign policy conservatives, who have been dismayed by the way Bush has handled the war in Iraq. They seem generally impressed with her views. Her pro-Israel stance. Everything she has said so far, they have been impressed with, particularly her support of the military.

Then you have political Republicans that are probably the Rove category. Republicans who like to see her run because they believe that she is the most beatable. As you heard, that clip that you played of him saying that she has these high negative ratings. Those are sensing up a bit of a fall for the Democrats in wishing it is Hillary Clinton, even though they do so at their peril. She is a very strong campaigner.

OLBERMANN: Anne Kornblut of the “Washington Post.” Anne, thank you.

[Berry Cool]

13. And tomorrow he will be tough on Hillary, and the next day tough on Edwards,

etc., etc., etc.

So what?

Of course, I say this knowing fully well that those who rabidly support one candidate or another won't believe me, and will just accuse me of being a worshipful Olbermann fangirl who thinks he can do no wrong because I won't admit that he is "obviously" unfairly favoring Candidate X, Y or Z. Oh well, what can I say? I truly believe he isn't, because I've watched him long enough to believe he truly isn't doing it and won't ever do it.

And as far as the candidates go, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not a registered Dem so I get no say in who the candidate is, so I really couldn't care less what kind of horse race goes on up till Election Day except as a distant observer. When the time comes, I will vote for the Dem no matter who it is. The alternative is unthinkable.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Yes, but he is never tough on Kucinich

Olberman is part of the ignore Kucinich media conapiracy. ;)

[Mutineer]

21. No, that is not what has been happening on his show.

He's been pro-HRC all the way. If only the other candidates running were so lucky where he was concerned.

But if you were half as concerned with politics, you'd be a registered Democrat so you could vote in a primary. Instead your primary concern is Olbermann's reputation. :eyes: I guess we know what's really important to you. The fight begins now, not when the nominee is chosen. The primaries are where it's at, but I guess the fan worship takes up your time and prevents you from being an active participant in that process.

[Cameron27]

10. I saw it and KO was right, and so are you in your prediction

that with the same evidence, Hillary would be accused of being polarizing, where Edwards and Obama would be praised.

[quinnox]

12. just to clarify, it's not my diary

I found it while browsing and copied it from Daily Kos.

[Cameron27]

14. Ok, thanks.

Whoever wrote it, I agree lol.

[ludwigb]

17. Olbermann's attack isn't fair. Obama Doesn't Blame Hillary

Olbermann reads too much into Obama's comments, which explicitly recognize that the attacks on her were unjust. Not a fair criticism.

I think Obama's comments have to be read in the context of his larger narrative that Americans are exhausted by the cultural wars of the 90s, the tensions of Gore/Bush, 9/11 etc. Clinton is associated with the 90s. What he is offering is something different, at least in terms of his political image and presentation to the American people.