May 2, 2008

Suddenly — and sensibly — the Dems want on Fox News.

Netroots irked.

ADDED: And I should say that I think Hillary Clinton looked great sparring with Bill O'Reilly. It worked out really well — for both of them. It's insane for Democrats not to try to reach all the people who watch Fox News. And you only look weak avoiding it. Now, the netroots look foolish bitching about it — but all their muscle-flexing and bragging about power and vengeful foot-stamping has always looked foolish.

65 comments:

Alan said...

Seriously, "what on" Fox News? The channel is friggin' kooky.

Alan said...

But then, I also have the same questions about the History Channel. I'm all UFO'd out.

Fen said...

They're throwing a temper tantrum because Hillary and Obama appeared on FOX and gave it credibility.

Ann Althouse said...

Ugh. Sorry. Want on...

Fen said...

For laughs, you should check out Red Girl's comments at the link. She thinks she's being clever...

Freder Frederson said...

I honestly don't see what good it does for Hillary to appear on O'Reilly. It's not like anyone who watches Mr. Falafel is actually going to vote for her. And he'll just get Dick Morris on a couple days later to tell everyone what an act of desperation it was.

Fox is an arm of the Republican party. Why the Democrats would bother with it is beyond me. Wallace is the only one at the whole network who makes an effort at being fair and balanced--and that is half-hearted at best.

Fen said...

Uh-oh. Looks like Team Obama just got busted using a doctored video in Indiana.

/via instapundit

Roger J. said...

The democratic candidates and Howard Dean can obviously do something the 'troots seem unable to: count viewers some of which will translate into votes. Of course, the 'troots inability to count is only matched by their inability to grasp reality. Couldnt happen to a nicer bunch.

Fen said...

Fox is an arm of the Republican party

If so, then the other outlets [CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc] are arms of the Democrat party. A mass of tentacles VS one arm, hardly fair.

And what about Bob Beckel? He's hardly a weak advocate for the Dems.

Roger J. said...

"Mr. Falafel?" Freder: could you splain that one to me (and I do know what falafel is).

vbspurs said...

Roger, Bill O'Reilly was involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit. The lady claimed in a sexy phone conversation when he was suggesting they shower together, that he said "falafel" when he apparently meant loofah.

Incidentally, I've never eaten a falafel. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Oh, and Ann, now that you correct your title -- awesome blogpost title. Quite right too.

Cheers,
Victoria

Roger J. said...

Many thanks Ms Victoria. Loofah--falafel--I can understand the confusion :)

garage mahal said...

Uh-oh. Looks like Team Obama just got busted using a doctored video in Indiana.

Yep. Game on. Enough of the triple bank shot attacks. I've got "This is the End" by the Doors cued on the IPOD, enemy war paint on, and I'll be heaving molotovs at these cocksuckers until they beg to stop. I'll be a Republican before I unite with these cretins. If this takes some sort of conversion process, like sweating it out in the woodshed for a week like Miles Davis breaking his heroin habit, so be it. My oldest is only 10, but I'm seriously thinking about taking him along for his first hunt.

The Drill SGT said...

even IF Fox only had right wing viewers, and I don't think that is true, Hillary was smart to go on.

He best attack on Obama includes the point that: "Hillary has the 'nads to be President"

If Obama can't handle O'Reilly, how can he talk to dictators?

I bet she regrets not letting the CBC and Fox host that debate earlier.

Bruce Hayden said...

It was great for Hillary because she got credit for going up against O'Reilly. And he makes a big thing about who is willing to face him and who isn't. She had the balls to do so, and that counts with his audience, not all of whom are registered Republicans.

And it was great for him, since he got record ratings out of it.

If Obama doesn't go on the Factor, then he will look like a pansy in relation to Hillary! Already does some, and this would just make it look worse.

Original Mike said...

It's not like anyone who watches Mr. Falafel is actually going to vote for her.

Clue. Less.

The nutroots are a bunch of pansies (can I say that word?).

Ron said...

If they put a loofah in O'Reilly's falafel, he'd kick them right square in their fahrfegnugens!

I'd bet O'Reilly confuses 'tahini' and 'bikini' also, which would be quite amusing...

Victoria, come up to A2, and share some falafel with me...we have many good places. I just had some for lunch!

knoxwhirled said...

he was suggesting they shower together, that he said "falafel" when he apparently meant loofah

I had forgotten all about that little tidbit. It had me laughing for days.

MadisonMan said...

I would say they want on because it's news that they go on and they are somehow perceived as courageous to talk to a talking head. This too shall pass.

It's not like -- at this stage -- they are reaching out to a Democratic constituency by appearing on Fox -- but there are news articles written about them being on Fox.

Pogo said...

Unless he actually meant falafel.

Roger J. said...

"I honestly don't see what good it does for Hillary to appear on O'Reilly." --I can hear Hillary now--geee, should I appear on Olberman? nahh in the tank for Obama; should I appear with Chris Matthews? Not much viewership there either; [lightbulb comes on]I know, I can go on OReilly, and look a lot tougher than that pansy I am running against. And have a lot more audience and coverage. Clearly Hillary is a bit more reality based than is FF. smart move, Hill.

Roger J. said...

Pogo: (channeling Lloyd Bentson) I know loofahs and I know falafels, and clearly a loofah is no falafel.

Fritz said...

This is reflective of their disbelief in free markets too.

Methadras said...

Watching the Kos kids have internet epilepsy is always a good thing. The lefty nutbags always end up on the wrong side of every issue. Almost.

reader_iam said...

clearly a loofah is no falafel

Yeah, but get distracted and way over-fry falafel balls, and you get something that could be USED as a loofah. Trust me on this one.

***

I think of lot of O'Reilly fans are populists, and populists can come in different flavors. For this reason, I think the premise of Freder's statement is fundamentally flawed, and I can certainly imagine a sector of O'Reilly's audience going for Hillary, in the context of the choices at hand.

Context makes strange bedfellows.

Anthony said...

If Obama can't handle O'Reilly, how can he talk to dictators?

Because he and dictators see eye to eye on so many things. Unthreatening, donchaknow.

Richard Dolan said...

Perhaps by dealing with the evil Other, Hillary and O'Reilly both came out of the exchange for the better. It was obvious that they both wanted this to be a sensible, adult conversation. And you always get more out of debating with someone who disagrees and is willing to defend his/her reasons for disagreeing. O'Reilly does that more that H!, but he often just talks over his guests rather than engaging their points. The problem all along with the Dem "debates" is that the candidates never seemed to engage much of anything (beyond Bush bashing, of course, even when they agreed with him).

Pogo said...

Absolutely, reader-iam. O'Reilly's no conservaitve. He's a populist through and through.

It's a big tent, populism.

Salamandyr said...

I was always surprised the Democrats were so weeney-esque as to refuse to go on Fox News in the first place. The thing I found even more perplexing is how little scorn was heaped their way for it. The GOP got more flack over the YouTube debate, when they tried to duck that one.

Chip Ahoy said...

The Dems, I've come to believe, are Fascists at heart. They yearn for a one party system and media propounding a single message. I'm sorry to have to say this because I've long thought them the lovelier of the two parties. But that's no longer the case. Something terrible has happened and I dare say, it cannot be reversed. The interwebs has made all this apparent. On the individual level though, there's still a measure of hope but not much. In groups, they're intolerable -- rather like a chorus -- gay chorus, they all grunt, moan, and pfffft at the same time on cue without rehearsing and without even being aware of it. "Fox" is such a cue, as are the words, "Republican", "Bush", and "Texas". A finer example of forced conformity cannot be found. I've yet to meet a Liberal that doesn't gleefully hop aboard every single bandwagon that goes trundling past eager to be first among all in indignantly expounding the latest in social fads.

For those up there ↑ having so much difficulty understanding things, the reason they appear on Fox is because that's where the viewers are, you silly twats. Like it or not and irrespective of your constant snipes. I know it pains you to the core but the numbers don't lie. Stop acting so astounded. People out there actually think differently than you. Wow. Imagine that. Plus, O'Reilly is a hoot. (You probably haven't noticed your beloved MSM doesn't bother with two sides. Have you? There, you get one side and one side only. The prescribed truth. Yes, Fox is conservative, but where else are you even going to hear anything like that. Why do I bother? You're too far gone. Here, have yourself a Zinn.

Trooper York said...

O'Reilly's is really an entertainer and Hillary came off great. She was entertaining and personable and she had a chance to talk to a lot of people who normally dismiss her. Some of them might temper their dislike of her a tad when they see her in just such a situation. Now she can really make the netroots heads explode when she calls into Rush. He would be respectfully if combative and once again he is really an entertainer at heart. With the ratings and attention that would bring, she would be sure to get a bounce, just not in the rabib jacobite sections of kosworld.

Michael said...

Freder Frederson: I honestly don't see what good it does for Hillary to appear on O'Reilly.

Her appearance on Fox News is one of her contractual obligations with Rush Limbaugh. Plus, she is a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Chip Ahoy said...

Did you notice Howard Zinn now comes in comic book form? That should suit you well. You can just look at the pictures and not bother with all them hard words.

Original Mike said...

O'Reilly's no conservaitve.

You can say that again!

franglosaxon said...

Has Michael Moore ever gotten a sit-down interview with McCain? His documentary was the highest-grossing ever, but I guess everyone who bought tickets was a park avenue fatcat, so I guess he's not populist enough (a self-made man who made his name taking on the ceo of GM in Roger and Me)...

Or maybe McCain can do an hour interview with Amy Goodman from Democracy Now. They can go over McCain's record of contradictory statements, reversals and flip flops on Iraq and tax cuts.

Hmmm.


p.s. those weren't "allegations" about O'Reilly sexually harassing a subordinate. It was recorded on tape. He settled with her to get the lawsuit dismissed.
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html)

Palladian said...

"I've got "This is the End" by the Doors cued on the IPOD, enemy war paint on, and I'll be heaving molotovs at these cocksuckers until they beg to stop."

How dare you insult cocksuckers by comparing us... err them with Obamatrons!

reader_iam said...

The vibe I get is that Obama doesn't want to dignify O'Reilly with a response. While I don't care whether he appears on O'Reilly or not, I think Obama needs to be careful about that vibe, in terms of the general election, at least.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

This was one of her very best appearances, because it gave her an opportunity to demonstrate what kind of a general election candidate she would be. Obama gets that chance pretty regularly, because the Republicans treat him like the nominee. But here you see her having a real debate with someone who's on the conservative side, and who's attacking her ideas from the right. This is really where she's at her best, and it shows how good she could be in a debate with McCain.

I thought she was at her best talking about Iran and also responding to O'Reilly's attack on her health care plan. He trashed her plan, said it would bankrupt the country, and that Moses would have to come down for it to be pulled off. People who think she doesn't have an instinct for political rhetoric should just look at how she immediately turned the Moses line around with, "And on those tablets, this is what's gonna be written..."

If anyone watched the rest of those two episodes, he had a series of guests lined up ready to trash her appearance from the right and the left--some Obama supporters, Dennis Miller, etc.--and they could barely say anything bad about it.

Original Mike said...

The general election is coming. While the nutroots had the power to strong arm the Democratic candidates in the primaries, it now becomes a liability if they stick to their parochial views.

Ari Melber, the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, told Politico by phone that progressive activists and the Netroots are “not happy about it.”

“I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants,” Melber said.


Oh, by all means, Dems. Follow Melber's advice.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

One quick note: I didn't like how O'Reilly said, "You know, your husband and I make a lot of money," and other times made statements along those lines, as if she hasn't made any and is just living off Bill. He's made more than her, but she's rich too. She was paid $10 million or whatever for her book. That came across as sexist to me.

Original Mike said...

Christopher: I actually took that as his way of attenuating what might have been seen as an attack on her; "you've made a lot of money" might seem more like a criticism, especially in the eyes of some of her supporters. I don't know if that was his intention, but it's the impression I had while I watched it.

Toby said...

Note that both Indiana and North Carolina hold open primaries. By doing well on O'Reilly, Clinton could have easily picked up some cross-over voters.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Fox is an arm of the Republican party

Freder, come up with something new already. I mean its not like they manufactured documents in an attempt to effect a presidential election or something biased like that.

Hoosier Daddy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Or covered up Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers...

Fen said...

or lied about Koran's being flushed...

Revenant said...

I honestly don't see what good it does for Hillary to appear on O'Reilly. It's not like anyone who watches Mr. Falafel is actually going to vote for her.

I dunno, sometimes it seems like you lefties watch more Fox News than the conservatives do. :)

Seriously, though, a lot of swing voters watch Fox News.

Revenant said...

He's made more than her, but she's rich too. She was paid $10 million or whatever for her book. That came across as sexist to me.

Don't you think the main reason she made $10 million off her book is that she's Bill Clinton's wife?

Cedarford said...

Freder Frederson said...
I honestly don't see what good it does for Hillary to appear on O'Reilly


As Joe & Mika noted on rival network MSNBC, Hillary went toe to toe and did well, and they also noted that O'Reillys ratings for the two Hillary appearances were through the roof as her supporters were pulled over to Fox as well as the curious.
Fox also made the appearance available to Hillaristas for distillation down to U-Tube and viral video bites.

***************
I imagine that Clinton's team is also regretting caving to Nutroots and Moveon.org and not agreeing to the CBC-Fox debate at a time when other media was in their "Coming Black Messiah" adulation phase.
It might have helped her in earlier contests that voters with no hint as to Obama's past and his judgement outside his "2002 Iraq speech went with the new guy & Preacher Speechifier the media loved and who they by omission, set up as almost without flaw and who was going to change all politics....
*******************
Garage - and I'll be heaving molotovs at these cocksuckers until they beg to stop. I'll be a Republican before I unite with these cretins.
On the other side, there are a host of people that feel the same way about the treacherous old dimbulb McCain and his team of morons.
My oldest is only 10, but I'm seriously thinking about taking him along for his first hunt.
Team Obama - *sigh* - You're only saying you wish to acquaint your children with evil weapons because you are ill-educated, don't have a great-paying job, and bitterly retreat into barbaric things like non-black supremacist Christianity and hunting.

*****************
Drill SGT - If Obama can't handle O'Reilly, how can he talk to dictators?

Yep.

***************

Fen said...

Ari Melber, the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, told Politico by phone that progressive activists and the Netroots are “not happy about it.... I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants"

Hey Ari, how's that withdrawal from Iraq working out? Sucker.

Hoosier Daddy said...

the Netroots are “not happy about it.... I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants"

Clearly the 'base' is suffering from a serious case of inflated self-worth.

I will say this, I find it interesting that Obama thinks he can bring us all together yet he still can't unite his own frigging party against the Wicked Witch of Arkansas (I say that with respect garage). If his uniting and leadership qualities were so strong, one would have thought Hill would have been a grease stain in the primary process by now considering his near messianic aura and rhetoric. Yet she's still in there and surging.

P. Rich said...

Michael said: Her appearance on Fox News is one of her contractual obligations with Rush Limbaugh. Plus, she is a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

How did you acquire zis secret informatzion? Vee must know! Zis is a dizaster!! Zey vill be comink for you zoon to tell zem.

Maguro said...

Don't you think the main reason she made $10 million off her book is that she's Bill Clinton's wife?

I suspect the publishing house viewed that $10M as a campaign contribution to a senator/future POTUS. No way Hill's book even approached breaking even for the publisher.

vbspurs said...

Ron, everyone wants to introduce me to falafels! I am unstirred.

Pogo wrote:

Unless he actually meant falafel.

Kinky, I love it! More than the recent talk of dildos, at that.

Cheers,
Victoria

blake said...

Many thanks Ms Victoria. Loofah--falafel--I can understand the confusion :)

No, no, no, you don't understand. It's prima facie evidence of his intellectual, moral and probably physical incapacity to..uh...to...agree with the left on everything? (I'm not sure what they're after, really.)

O'Reilly is many things, but as pointed out, he's not really conservative. Populism is more a source of leftist politics. (He does seem socially conservative, though. Social conservatism + big government leftism ... eaaugh. No wonder I can't watch him.)

reader_iam said...

Populism is more a source of leftist politics.

Pat Buchanan?

reader_iam said...

To what degree, and in what specific ways, do populism and progressivism, intersect, overlap, part company, or operate as entirely different entities? Now and historically?

Ralph said...

just not in the rabib jacobite sections of kosworld
Trooper, I assume you mean "rabid jacobin." I don't think Kos is interested in the restoration of the Stuart dynasty, but I don't surf that site.

Hattie said...

God I never thought I would agree with Althouse, but there it is. Those Obama supporters on The Huff Post and even on his official web site are horrifying. What's wrong with them? How could anyone work with them? I'm really concerned about their mental health.

vbspurs said...

RIA wrote:

To what degree, and in what specific ways, do populism and progressivism, intersect, overlap, part company, or operate as entirely different entities? Now and historically?

Populism's central theme is "the people" versus "the elites". That everyone knows.

What is more tortured in US politics, is that the very premise of the United States being founded, is itself populist. You separated yourself from an elitist, controlling, condenscending, and aristocratic country, then controlled by the Whig party (who were more populist, if you will, than the Tories of that or any other day).

Both right-wing and left-wings in the US have spoken populist rhetoric whenever possible.

Consider the "America Party", which is better known as The Know Nothing Party, which hated Irish-Catholic ascendancy and sought to curb immigration in the 1850s.

As a nativist party, they preyed on the fears of ordinary Americans losing jobs (just folks) to immigrants, in what has been the constant leitmotif in America.

NOTE: The Know Nothings were a splinter group of the Whig/Democratic party (confusingly they were known as the American Republican Party too), and were against the leadership of the Democratic Party, many of whom were Irish-Americans. So "elites" for them meant those in power, or with influence, or seeking power, confusingly enough.

You can see shades of this in the anti-Obama worries.

Populism therefore was one of those plug-and-play ideologies, not limited to either right or left in this country.

In the volatile early to mid twentieth century, populism was more intimately connected to the Democratic Party, since Republicans were seen as the party of wealth and elitism. You weren't a Republican unless you were rich, well-to-do, educated, or surprisingly until FDR came along, black Americans (remember, the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves).

But after Robert Taft, the President's son, and noted isolationist, the Republicans started shifting. As Democrats became more leftist, in the full sense of the word (more socially and ideologically progressive), the Republicans seized on the "common man" theme, and have not let go since Nixon, the man who counted on the "Silent Majority".

Reagan made liberal a dirty word, based on the perception that the Democrats were a party run by elitist academics and millionaires out of touch with the common man.

The demise of the unions, the insistence on internationalisation as opposed to national appeal, and a toughening stance on traditionalism allowed a lot of previously blue-collar folk to come over to the party of Reagan.

Nothing I've said is really that new, so please take this as a refresher of sorts, which you can contest at will. :)

I agree that O'Reilly is a populist, but I disagree that he is not a Conservative, based on all this above.

He's a traditionalist. He's fiscally conservative, tough on crime, and insistent on defending the United States above all else (hence, he's a nationalist not an internationalist).

By every modern measure of American conservatism, he's a Conservative.

Cheers,
Victoria

blake said...

I started to explain, but Victoria's comprehensive dissertation is more than adequate.

I'd only add that conservatism, by some definitions, includes limiting government power.

That might not be a "modern measure" but it's one I use.

reader_iam said...

OK, we've a good start going on here.

I was issuing an invitation for people to state their definitions and sense of history, and then to think about them a bit and extend the concepts. Interesting that the two responses so far were from two people who 1) weren't among the people I was thinking weren't clear on this stuff, but 2) who apparently think I am among those people.

LOL. A clarifying moment, of which I do, and will, take good note.

(I'd beg to differ over your conception, and definition, of O'Reilly, Victoria, except that I feel more drawn by contemplating that clarifying moment. So carry on!)

Warm regards,

RIA

Fen said...

Those Obama supporters on The Huff Post and even on his official web site are horrifying. What's wrong with them? How could anyone work with them?

Yah, they really haven't bought into their own candiates Unity message, have they? I guess They Don't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About

What is more tortured in US politics, is that the very premise of the United States being founded, is itself populist.


And nice post Victoria. I'm curious, where does Shay's Rebellion fit into your analysis. Was it an outlier, or more of the same?

Ralph said...

Northerns Whigs usually became Republicans, Southern ones not so much.

AlphaLiberal said...

It's just plain bizarre that Ann can introduce this topic without a nod to reality: that Fox News is "stunningly biased," in the words of Governor Dean this morning on -- Fox News.

I know the Great Orange Satan doesn't want me saying this. But I think the timing is fine. The primaries are all but over so there's less chance for Faux News to mess things up.

Does anyone expect the Republican Party to have a say in the Democratic Primary? it makes no more sense for Murdoch's and Rogers Ailes' Fox to carry debates. Fox goes out of their way to make Democrats look bad.

If Fox had carried the Democratic primary debates, they would have run chryons saying things like; "Democrats: Why do they hate America?" and other insipid attacks.

It took strength to stand up to them and tell them to take a hike.

Of course, Ann Althouse is echoing right wing talking points on this issue and playing along that Fox is an objective news source. No surprise there.