WALL STREET JOURNAL: Obama's Flaws Multiply

[BigBearJohn]

Barack Obama's San Francisco-Democrat comment last week – about how alienated working-class voters "cling to guns or religion" – is already famous. But the fact that his aides tell reporters he is privately bewildered that anybody took offense is even more remarkable.

Democrats have been worrying about defending Mr. Obama's highly liberal voting record in a general election. Now they need to fret that he makes too many mistakes, from ignoring the Rev. Wright time bomb until the videotapes blew up in front of him, to his careless condescension towards salt-of-the-earth Democrats. Mr. Obama has a tendency to make such cultural miscues. Speaking to small-town voters in Iowa last year, he asked, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"

Mr. Obama is the closest thing to a rookie candidate on the national stage since Dwight Eisenhower, who was a beloved war leader. Candidates as green as Mr. Obama make first-timer mistakes under the searing scrutiny of a national campaign. Even seasoned pols don't understand how unforgiving that scrutiny can be. Ask John Kerry, who had won five statewide elections before running for president.

For all his winning ways and natural appeal to the camera, Mr. Obama hasn't really been tested in a major campaign. In 2000, then-state Sen. Obama challenged Congressman Bobby Rush, who was vulnerable after having been crushed in a bid to become mayor of Chicago. Mr. Rush, a former Black Panther, painted Mr. Obama as "inauthentic" and beat him 2-1.

Mr. Obama has prospered in Democratic primaries. But as John Harris and Jim VandeHei note in Politico.com, that's in part because these primaries have "been an exercise in self-censorship" about Mr. Obama's weaknesses. It is "indisputably true," they write, that "Obama is on the brink of the Democratic nomination without having had to confront head-on the evidence about his general election challenges."

SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120821921853714665.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[CatsDogsBabies]

1. I am an Obama supporter

I plan to vote for him in the GE. I doubt that I will vote if he is not the democratic candidate. I do think he talks a bit long sometimes and is not quick enough to make his point. Maybe this is part of his having been a professor in the classroom - this is what his impromptu speaking style reminds me of. However, I don't consider talking too long or "missing cultural cues" to be a major flaw. Really, does it matter that he talked about Whole Foods in Iowa?

Are these really the kinds of standards we are using to determine if someone can be president. In general, Obama seems to have good judgment in things that are actually relevant. I grew up in SW PA; my father worked in a mill as a laborer. I don't live there anymore but I don't have a clue why Obama's comments are suppose to be so offensive. I still visit my hometown from timt to time and as far as I can see, PA has never recovered from the collapse of the steel industry in the early 80s. For goodness sake, Pittsburgh has lost over half of its population. I don't know why anyone took offense either. I don't think he was putting anyone down.

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. You don't win until they throw the kitchen sink.

It's a rule.

[Submariner]

2. WSJ is just another NewsCorp Murdoch/Fixed News rag

No credibility anymore.

[datopbanana]

3. dont say that. this is all hillary peeps have at this point.

[FatDave]

14. Their opinion page never had credibility to begin with.

[bluerum]

4. They give the * a pass, and go after Obama like this. If there is one thing

worse than elitism, it is moran boys club elitism.

Me thinks it is Wall Street that does not get it,,,,

[EFerrari]

8. Wall Street doesn't like Obama because he isn't part of the club

like McWar is or like Clinton is.

[jackson_dem]

5. Wow? How out of touch is Obama. He doesn't even understand why his remarks were offensive

He is as out of touch with small town America as his affluent, metropolitan base.

-snip-

But the fact that his aides tell reporters he is privately bewildered that anybody took offense is even more remarkable.

[barb162]

31. Yes, pretty revealing, isn't it?

tremendous cluelessness

:)

:hi:

[Craftsman]

34. That is the scary part, he does not know he why he offended people

The mark of an out of touch elitest.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeyondGeography]

7. "Mr. Obama hasn't really been tested in a major campaign."

I guess he's been playing tidddly-winks for the past 14 months...Oh, and Hillary Clinton has stood for election in all of two contests prior to this, beating two non-entities on a friendly blue state. Obama got blown out by Bobby Rush in a race for Congress once, so you could easily say he's the more seasoned candidate of the two.

[totodeinhere]

9. Who has made more mistakes, Obama or Clinton?

Everybody makes mistakes, but it seems that Clinton has made far more mistakes than Obama has. In a few short months she managed to go from the inevitable nominee to the brink of elimination. To do that it took a lot of bonehead mistakes, yet the author of this article wants to emphasize Obama's mistakes? Give me a break.

[Tesha]

10. Why do Obama opponents on DU use so many Reich-Wing sources?

You forgot to quote this part:

> By JOHN FUND

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fund

> Earlier, Fund co-authored Cleaning House: America's Campaign for Term Limits
> (Regnery Gateway, 1992, ISBN 0-89526-516-8) with James Coyne. Some commentators
> claim that Rush Limbaugh's book, The Way Things Ought To Be, was ghostwritten
> by Fund.<1>

Tesha

[UALRBSofL]

30. Why do Obama supporters accuse any article that is anti-Obama as right wing?

I don't think the Wall Street Journal is a right wing rag! ! ! !

News and opinion:

The paper's editors stress the independence and impartiality of their reporters<21> and at least one study of media bias has found the paper's news bias is left-leaning, if anything. "A Measure of Media Bias", a December 2004 study conducted by Tim Groseclose of the University of California, Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri, stated that:

“ One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets . We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative. Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that "The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages." Paul Sperry, in an article titled the "Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal", notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division "Nazis." "Fact is", Sperry writes, "the Journal's news and editorial departments are as politically polarized as North and South Korea."<25> ”

The methods used to calculate this bias have been challenged by Mark Liberman, professor of computer science and the director of Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania.<26> Liberman says "that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement -- just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored."<27>

Since this study has been done, the ownership of the "Wall Street Journal" has changed. Rupert Murdoch, also an owner of "Fox News," now owns the "WSJ." Some fear that this new ownership will slant the newspaper more towards the right. <28> But the Wall Street Journal assures its readers that this will not be the case in its article "A New Owner" <29>and an Opinion Journal by L. Gordon Crovitz, "A Report to Our Readers" <30>.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal

[Tesha]

32. Sorry, you've got the wrong victim. I'm *NOT* an Obama supporter.

But I loathe what Hillary and her surrogates have done
during this campaign and the "But he did it first!!!"
whine belongs in first grade, not here.

You also need to work on your reading comprehension:
I didn't accuse the WSJ of being a Right-Wing rag
(although its R&O page absolutely, positively is);
I accused John Fund of being a Reich-Wing source and
provided a clear citation to prove my point.

Tesha

[tishaLA]

33. You realize you are actually PROVING the RW bias

of the Journal rather than disproving it when you post that, right? Because the article says that the news department is quite fair--and this is generally true--but that its opinion pieces are so conservative that the news division balls the editorial people Nazis. And you realize, don't you, that the piece above is from the aforementioned Editorial section, not the news section?

[Zodiak]

11. Oh look, a Rupert Murdoch source

What is this, the 50th piece of right wing BS posted on DU by a Hillary supporter to tear down Obama?

[Vinca]

12. A right wing rag hates Obama and loves Hillary . . . what a shocker. nt

[Doctor_J]

13. Anyone who reads/believes the WSJ is a fascist neocon psychopath, so

this doesn't really prove much

[Medusa]

15. GOP rag

what do you expect? She's their candidate of choice. It's so sad to see people who claim to be Dems quote right-wing thugs.

[UALRBSofL]

37. I sure thought Rupurt Murdoch endorsed Obama

Does anyone know for sure or remember? I suppose I could look it up.

[high density]

16. Gotta love the asses who recommended this turd

Recommending WSJ op-eds now... What a fucked up idea for a forum named DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

[Armstead]

17. John Fund.....He must have coordinated this with his buddy Bill Kristol

[burythehatchet]

18. Fund isn't the toe licker right? He's the girlfriend abuser, correct? Just want to get my sources

straight

[Armstead]

19. yup

[Pryderi]

20. Don't feed the troll.

[Moderate-Democrate]

21. And multiply they will continue

[berni_mccoy]

22. Clinton's Lies Don't Add Up, but her Bullshit Divides and she Takes Away from the Party

There, is that enough math for you?

[mmonk]

23. The flaws are the exploitation of comments

to divide Americans and push the rightwing agenda by his opposition and the media. Therefore, it really won't be a campaign over the real issues, just more manufactured garbage.

[smiley_glad_hands]

24. Clinton + Murdoch+Fox+WSJ = Republicans. eom

[madrchsod]

27. you forgot "mellonhead" in pa

the guy who funds the destruction of the liberal democratic party.

[madrchsod]

26. john fund who thinks huckabee was a "liberal"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNfOiseKnoA&feature=related
YouTube - John Fund On Mike Huckabee's Liberal Record


:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Prophet 451]

28. Yeah, but it's the WSJ

They're one of the most extreme-right outfits already (meaning the Op-Ed page, not the Journal itself). The very fact that they describe Obama's record as "highly liberal" says it all (it's not, his record is fairly mainstream centre-left), these are the guys who describe anyone to the left of Attila the Hun as "highly liberal".

Let's be honest, the WSJ op-ed page is simply Bill-o with a better vocabulary.

[tabasco]

29. Nothing to post today from National Review?

It seems the Hillary supporters love the reich-wing publications.

[yardwork]

35. Who could have guessed that the WSJ editorial page would be critical of Obama??!

Wonders never cease.

/sarcasm

[uponit7771]

36. The WSJ op ed?!?!?! Are you really a dem?

[UALRBSofL]

40. Rupert Murdoch endorses Barack Obama

I'm just going to highlite the articles and you may look them up if you wish:

Digg - NY POST endorses Barack Obama
Jan 30, 2008 ... NY POST endorses Barack Obama. nypost.com — January 30, ..... Rupert Murdoch backing Obama? I think they did this just to kill Obama's ...
digg.com/2008_us_elections/NY_POST_endorses_Bara... - 78k - Similar pages

Rupert Murdoch's daughter to hold Barack Obama fundraiser - ...
Rupert Murdoch's daughter, Elisabeth, is to host a fundraiser for Barack Obama at ... Mr Murdoch's New York Post newspaper endorsed Mr Obama two months ago. ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20... - 47k - Similar pages

YouTube - Barack Obama receiving the endorsement of Ted Kenn...
Jan 28, 2008 ... It was easy for her since her sponser Rupert Murdoch owns the Fox network! .... Caroline Kennedy Endorses Barack Obama - CNN Coverage ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtmWAnIwFdc - 101k - Similar pages

MyDD :: BREAKING! Obama in bed with Rupert Murdoch
Jan 30, 2008 ... The New York Post just endorsed Barack Obama. In blog talk that means that Obama is now in bed with Rupert Murdoch. Did Murdoch feel that ...
www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/30/164230/682 - 40k - Similar pages

Murdoch Paper Endorses Obama - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Cri...
Jan 30, 2008 ... By Big Tent Democrat. Here's an endorsement you won't see written about in the Left blogs. Rupert Murdoch's NYPost goes for Obama: ...
www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/30/221733/001 - 62k - Similar pages

List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements ...
Steve Kagen endorses Barack Obama for presidential nomination ..... a b Rupert Murdoch's Daughter Holds Obama Fundraiser; ^ Solomont prodded Kennedy on ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presi... - 688k - Similar pages

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. John Fund? Really?

mmmmkay :eyes:

[DefenseLawyer]

39. Well I'll be damned, the WSJ doesn't like Obama

I have it on good authority that Grover Norquist, Tom Delay, James Dobson and Newt Gingrich aren't big supporters either. There will be no endorsement forthcoming from the John Birch Society either, I'm told. Damn it. Time to fold up the tents.