Markos Moulitsas: "Psst, Barack..."

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Obama slams Gore
by kos
Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:23:49 AM PST

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/1/112349/1037/615/428561

Psst, Barack, slamming John Kerry and Al Gore is what Republicans do. Not Democrats.

Making an argument for his electability, Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000," according to a person at the event (rush transcript).

Funny, that. Last time I checked, Gore won his election. And really, is Obama going to argue now that the nation was divide because of the Democrats' fault? Is that the latest right-wing talking point he wants to peddle?

And Trippi slams the Obama campaign for its braggadocio.

Joe Trippi, a senior strategist for John Edwards, blasted Barack Obama's field program in Iowa on New Year's Eve, bluntly rebutting the Obama Campaign's attempt to promote its large crowds as a sign of momentum in the homestretch. "If the crowd numbers are that huge, and ours are this small, and they're going to kick our ass then there's no reason to explain it. Just show up and kick our ass. It's better if you don't say anything about it," said Trippi, who has overseen caucus campaigns for Howard Dean and Walter Mondale. "Anytime anybody starts throwing those kinds of things around, it's because they're in deep shit," he told The Nation.

And if anyone knows this, it's Trippi. Who can forget the Dean's campaign bragging on Iowa's Eve 2004?

Obama's recent embrace of right-wing talking points and wholesale embracing of Broderite "Unite 08" talking points suggests that he's giving up on Iowa and playing to the independent vote in New Hampshire. He has to stay close in Iowa to remain viable in New Hampshire, but I'm not sure why else he would decide to shit on Democrats at such a rapid clip these past few days.

Update: Hmm, the Obama partisans' response appears to be "it was a bogus quote". Well, tell that to ABC News which has independently reported the same quote. And Digby has more.

[bunnies]

1. Meh.

Kos = The creator of a popular blog. And then?!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

2. And then, he called Obama on his bullshit. n/t

[bunnies]

20. I have no problem with calling bullshit.

Do you? :shrug:

[antiimperialist]

4. Why don't you attack Kos' argument rather than him as a person?

Oh yeah, because you didn't even read it.

[bunnies]

12. I did read it. And my response wasnt exactly an "attack" now was it. nt

[antiimperialist]

3. Remember. It's not the media's fault that half the nation voted against Gore. It's Gore's fault

OK? Repeat after me: Gore's fault. Gore's fault. Gore's...

[Amerigo Vespucci]

6. To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen...

...Barack Obama is no Al Gore.

Apologies in advance to everyone who feels that Obama is the second coming of Christ.

He is NOT.

[NMDemDist2]

54. Must I remind everyone that Gore WON the popular vote in 2000? n/t

[jefferson_dem]

5. Both Trippi and Kos are all a'tizzy...?

Obama must be doing something right.

It's beyond hilarious to see Trippi, in particular, talk about Iowa campaign issues. Hellooo.... You fucked up and then bailed in 2004...

[Amerigo Vespucci]

8. "Obama must be doing something right"

Yeah, he's a real whiz kid.

[jefferson_dem]

19. Dude. Sarcasm aside...

I loves me some John Lee Hooker

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrVwGxlcFA

[antiimperialist]

29. Kos criticizes Cheney. Does it mean Cheney is doing something right?

Obama supporters are funny sometimes.

[jefferson_dem]

34. I think for myself and don't really need to lean to heavily on Makos's cues.

Do you?

[Jim Sagle]

37. Other times, they're just sad.

[zulchzulu]

7. Kos must be shitty with math skills

If you look at both the 2000 and 2004 elections, they were stunningly close at about 50% on each side. 50 + 50 = 100 last I checked. Can Kos (or anybody else) disprove that the elections were close to 50% for each side. I gotta see this.

As for Kos, he's been pimping for Edwards for a while now. I wonder why he's cherrypicking an Obama quote to make a statement that go against actual facts?

:shrug:

[JI7]

13. notice it's Kerry haters who are suddenly outraged

and lying about what Obama said.

[comradebillyboy]

21. I don't much like John Kerry

but I voted for him; his problem was that he was not nearly divisive enough. Bland and inoffensive won't cut it against the pukes. Edwards and Clinton are real fighters.

[babylonsister]

9. The same Kos who supported Obama two weeks ago? I'm not impressed. nt

[antiimperialist]

11. Another Kos hater who doesn't analyze his comments

You are a mediocre debater.

[babylonsister]

15. No, you're a tedious bore. This is only the 19th post on this, and I've

responded to a few. If you're that interested, stop starting new threads and go read the old ones.

[antiimperialist]

23. You responded to a few? How about you responded to zero?

The ad-hominem argument against Kos was the first in this thread by you.
ad-hominem arguments are weak because you address the person and not what he said.

[babylonsister]

32. The second thread I responded to today on this very topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3921981&mesg_id=3922258

And I don't read Kos except when someone posts something here; I find the website confusing. But FWIW, I find him quite full of himself and it now appears wishy-washy:



http://www.zimbio.com/Barack+Obama/articles/140/Markos+Obama+Obama+Markos

Markos, the birthing mother of Daily Kos, explains his rationale for abandoning support for Edwards and eloping with Obama:

I voted "Obama" this time, not necessarily because I support him, but because the alternatives are no good. Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn't taken public financing, I'd probably go for him (and who doesn't have a crush on Elizabeth?). But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him. I know his partisans have convinced themselves that this doesn't just not matter, but that it's a good thing! Good for them, I guess.

[FrenchieCat]

10. The all important KOS and his opinion on things......

Good to read. I don't buy it. Trippi is adding things that weren't said.

Certainly though...they can spread this untruth....since they think it will help.
Guess that they believe and wants us to believe that ABC has more integrity than the Barack campaign! How novel of them! :eyes:

[KingFlorez]

14. He did not attack Gore or Kerry personally

Nowhere did Obama attack anyone, he never even mentioned Gore or Kerry names at all in the quote I saw.

[antiimperialist]

16. Obama will respond quickly, if he disagrees with Kos

He responded to Novak even before Novak published his piece that was never published.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Obama's supporters have responded by showing that nowhere did

Obama mentioned the names he is reportingly said to have mentioned according to Kos and Trippi.....and Kos goes as far as to suggest that we should instead believe Corporate media ABC News/Disney Corp. instead.

How's that for fighting Corporate interests?

Maybe I should start a mantra that John Edwards said that corporate media always tell the truth! It would about equal Trippi and Kos's current trip here. :eyes:

[antiimperialist]

26. Same Karl Rove argument that he didn't out Plame because he said "Wilson's wife"

LOL.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Actually, no, it isn't the same thing....except to those who want to

advance the current twisted mantra for their own benefit.

LOL!

[antiimperialist]

33. Yes, it's the same thing

referring to somebody indirectly is still referring to them. We all know who ran in 2000 and 2004. We all know who's Wilson's wife.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

18. Who ran in 2000? In 2004?

Did he REALLY have to "mention Gore or Kerry names at all?"

Give me a BREAK. Prop up Obama all you'd like, but there was ONE Democratic candidate in 2000, and ONE Democratic candidate in 2004, and "mentioning Gore or Kerry names at all" wasn't really required.

But you already KNEW that, didn't you?

[FrenchieCat]

24. Obama was talking about the atmosphere around these elections.....

and he was correct.

Those who suggest that Obama was taking a personal dig at either of our past candidates are being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous by pushing that mantra.

[antiimperialist]

27. That wasn't the only atmosphere he was talking about

He was talking about today's atmosphere compared to the 2004 and 2000 atmosphere.

[JI7]

36. today's atmosphere is different, republicans aren't united as they were then

which gives Obama an opening to appeal to them. his speech at the 04 convention was a good start for him to be seen as someone who appeals to all.

[JI7]

25. the country was divided before they ran

[frazzled]

22. Psssst, Markos

Not too bright there, are you?

This quote (if real) was not about Gore or Kerry dividing the nation. It was about the nation being divided. And it was divided in 2000 and 2004, or the elections wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

[babylonsister]

35. Yup. The 'majority' of voters wanted a brew w/the blivet, and that

is the division I think Obama was talking about. No where did he mention anyone, and this has been totally blown out of context. Silly season personified!

[elizm]

28. I voted for Gore and Kerry but didn't WANT to...Neither of them inspired me...

But I voted for them because they were the Democratic nominee. This year, I will have a candidate that I WANT to vote for. So what Obama said was completely true for me.

[MessiahRp]

39. Gore and Kerry were much better candidates than Obama

So while you were in the vast minority in your opinion of our previous candidates, I feel for you because once Obama is ousted from the primaries you'll likely have to vote for someone you don't find inspiring to *you* again.

Lucky for the rest of us, those candidates tend to inspire *us* and not just *you*.

Rp

[elizm]

41. Sorry, but Obama is not going to be ousted. nt

[LordJFT]

43. Kerry was probably the weakest democratic nominee in recent history

his flip-flopping rivaled romney

[ProSense]

50. You really need to stop echoing RW talking points!

RW talking point: see.

[LordJFT]

57. you know very well that true statements don't become false just because right-winger's use them

Now obviously i would rather have someone who flip-flops a bit but shares my general ideology than someone like bush so i enthusiastically supported Kerry over bush, but that doesn't mean he wasn't one of the weakest candidates we could have nominated.

p.s. I generally don't consider articles that reliable when there's a blatant grammatical mistake in the first sentence.

[ProSense]

58. I don't consider an opinon comparing Multiple Choice Mitt to Kerry anything

but ludicrous!

[Didereaux]

55. Dukakis, followed by McGovern. History extends beyond your birth day. grin

[LordJFT]

56. and thank god i wasn't alive at the time

they lost because they were true liberals in a time when liberalism wasn't very popular in America, thank god you older folks woke up and smelled the bullshit :)

[Didereaux]

61. Dukakis was a DORKUS! McGovern was not.

[no name no slogan]

31. What's wrong with saying Gore and Kerry ran shitty campaigns?

2000 and 2004 were the Democrats to lose, and somehow, BOTH TIMES, they seized defeat from the jaws of victory.

After the convention, the both beat a hasty path to the right, completely neglecting any goodwill they had toward progressives (and the 50% of non-voters in 2000, who tended to skew towards the Democrats). Both Gore and Kerry were all to eager to follow the DLC/corporatist line, and ran campaigns dominated by consultants more interested in spinning than issues.

No matter who wins in 2008, if s/he runs the same kind of campaign that Gore and Kerry ran in 2000 and 2004, s/he will lose.

[MessiahRp]

40. You have your Bush talking points down.

Gore and Kerry BOTH won. There's evidence that the vote stealing went far beyond even the states that were most blatantly stolen (FL & OH) and there's a very good chance those elections were nowhere near 50-50 elections.

So keep on dogging what were successful campaigns had the opponents not blatant cheated and stolen the votes.

Rp

[no name no slogan]

44. If they were close enough to steal, then they were NOT victories

If Gore and Kerry both won, then why are neither one president? If FL would have been counted, Gore would have won-- but narrowly. Same goes with Ohio and Kerry-- NARROWLY.

Saying the elections were stolen may be true, but reeks of a cop-out. Given the circumstances of the country in 2000 and 2004, Democrats should have won by wide margins, both times.

Democrats should have won DECISEVELY in both 2000 and 2004. Let me repeat that for added emphasis: the Democrats should have won DECISEVELY in 2000 and 2004. Decisive, as in not dependent upon the electoral votes from one state (Florida and/or Ohio).

I've been working on Democratic presidential campaigns since 1988-- I've even been a paid staffer, so I've seen my share of disasters and missteps. And I am quite confident in saying that the 2004 campaign had the stink of Dukakis 1988 all over it. It had similar candidates (solid, dependable NE liberals pretending to be centrists) and made the same mistakes (kept silent while the Bushites waged smear campaigns).

Democrats need to get over the navel-gazing "don't blame me" bullshit if they want to win. Treating past campaigns as sacred cows beyond reproach is not productive-- it's damn near suicidal.

[ProSense]

53. What the hell kind of logic is that?

Sorry, I know the items are missing from your home, but it wasn't a theft because the door was open? The DNC under McAuliffe left the door open, the party infrastructure sucked!

[Honeycombe8]

38. Saying the DLC didn't have winning strategies in 2000 and 2004 is not slamming GoreKerry.

Get it?

I knew that you did. But I'm gonna guess the author is not an Obama supporter.

[antiimperialist]

42. But the DLC is said to have been too centrist, not divisive

Obama suggested that the DLC approach is best.

[Tactical Progressive]

45. "not sure why else he would decide to shit on Dems at such a rapid clip these past few days"?

These last few days?

Obama's entire game is shitting on Democrats. Past and present. Individually and as a party.

That's pretty much all he's done from the very start.

And it's not like he does it with any integrity; he lies constantly to create his smears.

[DemKR]

46. Go Kos!

[jbnow]

47. Obama's fuller quote was posted here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3923423

Then he said, per ABC News' Sunlen Miller, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats. We've done that in 2004 and 2000. 47 percent of the country on one side, 47 percent of the country on the other . . . We don't need another one of those elections."

The DU post gives links.

People have jumped to such quick and angry conclusions accusing people as soon as we get a bit of a quote...saves time I guess.
I complained about it over at Daily Kos too...between this and other out of context Obama quotes making front page diaries there context with so many jumping in to accuse Obama.

I don't care who the candidate is (well especially one of ours) we know a partial line or statement can be taken out of context and sound bad...the media has done it to all of our candidates and a couple of the wives (Edwards and Obama) making it sound like they attacked someone when they did not. Whoever first reports the quote knows it if they took it from the fuller quote, they cut it to make someone look bad.

But those of us who jump on it without checking are just as bad. I learned not to after making the mistake myself...not that I spread it or had the power to.

[Didereaux]

48. Obama pisses off KOS and unions, panders to religious right...what party is he in?

[DemKR]

49. bingo

[AtomicKitten]

51. Psst, Markos ...

In 2000 and 2004, Democrats garnered under 50% of the vote.

Close enough to steal. And they were.

That is not a diss, it is a fact.

[Major Hogwash]

52. Markos is a douchebag!

Final word on that putz.

[Sulawesi]

59. This is really getting stupid..."Obama slams Gore" is

simply not true. There are people around here slamming Obama, and a week ago slamming Hillary. Well, one of them is going to be your candidate soon, and it would make your life easier if you cut down all this tripe about one or the other being a evil or a republican stooge. It is pretty childish.

[Thrill]

60. Joe Trippi is another Loser

I have no interest in the opinions of these losers who couldn't beat Bush

[garybeck]

62. Obama is full of shit.

Kerry especially ran on "uniting the country" and took FAR too many steps in trying to please everyone and take the high road and not be critical

if Obama thinks we need MORE of that "take the high road" crap he's doomed.

[Czolgosz]

63. cool

[samsingh]

64. i think Obama's going to find that it's very easy to lose half the

electorate with the media spilling crap, poll hijacking, and corruption at all levels of the government pushing votes illegally to the repugs.