The funny thing is the Clinton supporters have pointed to this as Bill really taking Fox down. But if you open the webpage for Chris Wallace's Sunday show, they link to that 2+ year old interview right on the main page! I guess Fox really hated Bill getting all riled up and taking them down several notches, eh?

No...you missed nothing. Matt Stoller is probably the biggest drama queen in the entire liberal blogosphere and considering that we're talking the liberal blogosphere, that's saying a lot.

And I find it hilarious that billy called Stoller "Greg Stoller". Both of these guys are really high on themselves and act as if they are The Gatekeepers and their word is bond. Nevermind the mental juijitsu needed to keep a logical train of thought on why it's okay for one politician to do one thing, while another is "caving" or "just another politician". The only thing Sargent has going for him is that he doesn't pretend to know any analysis. Stoller's biggest downfall is his sad attempt at analysis, especially since 90%o f the time he clearly has no idea what he's talking about...but you know...he has friends.

That's for damn sure...I've been pounding this point since last Sept. It kills me that they think they've Crashed the Gates, yet when Obama actually takes the strategies of Dean and implements them, they thing he's doing it wrong, namely because they were kept out of the loop.

I would suggest that, satisfying as that would have been, he needed to consider the strong Republican audience he would have on a Fox News interview. As TRUE as those words would have been, attacking the Republican base would have made many viewers immediately stop listening to what else he had to say. It's called "Rogerian rhetoric," and the base idea is that the minute you self-identify as the enemy of your audience, your audience stops hearing what you have to say.

This comes back to that whole "fighter" discussion we've been having. As far as I'm concerned, it's much more difficult for a candidate to consistently AVOID fights... even if it doesn't make as entertaining a TV clip.

We are electing a president, not a WWF wrestler.

nice

In this primary season, the Clintons definitely mastered the art of alienating black voters. And the superdelegates can see that too.

There are two false assumptions here I think.

One is that Obama only went on Fox to court lower income white voters. I think it was to appease the naysayers more than court anyone, and I think there are a dozen other important reasons equal to the "only" one you assert.

Second is that lower class whites aren't voting for him. I know thats how the media likes to sell it, but the truth is that he is not getting trounced in that demographic. He's losing that demographic yes but not like Hillary is losing the black vote.

These states that he is dominant, like Wisconsin, are not lacking in lower class whites, and I think we do a disservice to groups like lower class whites, of which I have been most of my life, to lump them together in a big group and assume they all think the same. People are doing this with the black vote as well, assuming they're all voting for Obama because he's black even though a year ago, they, like every other demographic in the nation, were firmly behind Hillary.

I enjoy your posts, Billy Sumday, but I have to say that this whole kerfluffle represents, to me, a serious over-reaction by a lot of people. Greg and Stoller overreacted, the post by Greg was an overreaction, and the response to the post (all the nasty crap being flung in Greg's direction) is an overreaction.

It's a political talk show, people. All this gnashing of teeth and flailing by everyone (Greg, Stoller, and all us political junkies) just gives Fox News more power.

As successful Southern politicians, the Clintons long ago mastered the art of appealing to black voters without alienating lower income white voters.

Guess they've lost their "mastery," huh?

There's no way to prove he failed. The Nascar crowd dislikes Hillary as much as they dislike any Democrat. Her problem is that she makes these voters completely defensive whereas Obama is trying to reach out to them. As an independent, I appreciate Obama's courteousness and I cannot handle Hillary's bellicose posturing. Super delegates understand that in order to win, the democratic party needs to draw in independents as well as some Republicans, including Fox viewers.

Have you been paying attention?

Last month there was a major poll, forget which pollster, where in a matchup of Hillary v., McCain, Hillary gets 55% of the African Am. vote to McCain's 45%.

Do you understand what that means?

Gore got 88%, Kerry got 90%.

She cant' win and despite your pronouncements, she knows nothing. She just hoping.

The supers aren't going to go against the pledge delegate count. Whomever has the majority, will be the nominee.

Popular vote won't sway them, unless they're 10 pledged delegates apart, which ain't happening.

It's over. Been over since she didn't win in BLOWOUT (20% +)in TX & OH just for her to START making up the delegate counts. She didn't do it.

The supers aren't biting. Her claims he's unelectable are bullshit & her hopes of including FL & MI, as is, are being dismissed by anyone but her supporters.

All she is doing is trying to damage Obama as much as possible because her final hope is that his candidacy will collapse completely.

NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

Billy, The Grackle Bird, Glad:

Back to his old nest fouling ways. Remember what a great laugh we all had when he wrote a blog promising to abandon his Dirty Bird behavior. Click on his name to read it, if you would like to have a good laugh over the self confession of Billy the habitual nest fouler.

The Clintons' ability to pull in white southern voters without alienating black voters does explain why Hillary won the state that perfectly combines these demographics, Virginia, as well as Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and why she will surely prevail in North Carolina as well.

It's an interesting theory. However, a few things. It's a nice spring Sunday. The NFL draft today. Fox News Sunday has less than 1.5 million viewers. It's consistently less than This Week, Meet the Press, or Face the Nation. I just don't know that enough of the "NASCAR crowd and lower-income voters" are watching it in Indiana to make a difference. Most of the people in this country are not the political junkies that we at TPM are. And the political junkies in Indiana have probably already made up their minds. That's all I'm saying...

I've been thinking about why I think Obama's not going to make it.

Keep both of your hands where we can see them, OK?

Actually I think he just wanted Fox to fire up the anti-Hillary rhetoric a few degrees since he's been taking most of the heat lately. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of stuff.

Billy,

A whole bunch of assumptions and strawmen in one post. Congratulations: I think you get the prize.

I've been thinking about why I think Obama's not going to make it.

At least you're thinking. But to think about only one thing for months and months may be kind of boring, but you do it for us all. We appreciate your sacrifice.

I think he demonstrated his most serious shortcoming on FOX today.

Only one today? You're just going to focus on one? Oh, wait, I see. Your assignment is to pick one of the more positive things that Obama's done and then try to blunt it wherever possible by miscasting or recasting it into the Clinton campaign's meme of the day. Ok. Proceed.

His only reason for going on FOX was to attempt to connect with the NASCAR crowd and lower income white voters. He may have failed.

This is a two-fer. You first tell us what his only reason was, without offering any proof that you have any particular insight. This is a clever rhetorical trick, but the fact is you don't know anything more than what your handlers tell you to talk about on a given day. What if he had more than one reason? What if the audience isn't the Mutt and Jeff stereotype you posit? Isn't Hillary supposed to be one of the guys this week? Your assumption in this single sentence sure sounds elitist to me.

Then you simply toss "He may have failed" up into the air, again without any supporting evidence. Just opinion, an opinion in support of a strawman. In other words, mere sophistry. In other words, crap.

OK, here comes the wisdom from the mountaintop:

I think Hillary Clinton is hanging in because the Clintons know something most of us don't know.

As successful Southern politicians, the Clintons long ago mastered the art of appealing to black voters without alienating lower income white voters.

The Clintons can see that Obama doesn't know how to do that.

They are counting on the super delegates coming to that conclusion, too.

I'll concede the point that the Clinton's learned how to triangulate and to say one thing to rural white voters, another to rich white voters like the Tysen Chicken family and the Waltons of Wal-Mart in Arkansas, and yet another version of things to black voters.

But that was before they had to run against a black man, and could pretend without much contrast and comparison, and before the 24/7/Youtube/intertubes world made it impossible for Bill to say something and then plausibly deny it. It's on tape, now, Bill. EVERYTHING's being recorded.

So, Billy Glad, I would appreciate it if you would start putting a little more effort into your arguments. This one was pretty lame.

Oh, and I thought you were going to take the high road.

Just like McCain, expediency is thy middle name.

Let me tell you something - a good part of what goes on on liberal blogs is and always has been trying to hold the MSM to a journalistic standard that it has totally failed to uphold for years.

When bloggers do things like link to a post that links back to themselves they will get called on it

That's the beauty of internet - instant bullshit meters.

If you don't like it - sorry. That's part of the function of this entire enterprise.

I totally agree with you. This was a nice place to read opinions and become better informed. It has turned into a bunch of self-adoring bloggers who cannot wait to rip the next person.

I heartily agree, codegen. I've defended Greg twice in the past few days, but no more. He gets it wrong too often for it to be merely error.

Lighten up a bit on poor Greg. It was just a lame attempt at a story hook. Which has now been adequately critiqued.

That kind of insult completely unnecessary. Show some respect to the people who run the site where you spend so much time. Pointed criticism like billysumday's is fair enough, but if you want to throw around insults, go do it somewhere else. How would you like it if I came into your office and announced to everyone that you didn't deserve to work there?

For the record, while I agree with Billy's criticism in this case, Greg Sargent is no hack. He does good work, and I appreciate him for it. Lately, he's shown a little more personality and verve in his posts, which I've been enjoying.

I just checked your comments. Here's another sweet one:

Greg Sargent, you are the definition of worthless.

Jayasurya, you are the definition of an ass.

That was just not nice saying that about Greg.

LOL.

I love your performances.

take this kleenex, *please*!

obliterate those teary streaking smears ...

I post on here all the time and tons of them get ignored. I wouldn't take it personally.

Hey, I won't ignore you.

I think the criticism and the criticism of criticism has reached critical mass. IOW: it's safe to come out. The thing is, posts go by quickly and generally don't last much past the first wave of comments. Sometimes they may, but that tends to be the exception, rather than the rule.

I've made some perfectly brilliant comments that get ignored. (OK maybe not brilliant, but my avatar is drinking too much) Also, sometimes no one comments because they agree. It takes some getting used to.

You have a very interesting background, and I would like to hear more from you.

Don't take it personally and please do keep posting because there are many of us who enjoy good comments such as yours. We just silently acknowledge it to ourselves :)

And to address your point, you're exactly right. Obama's campaign is about reaching across the aisle and not division. People like Greg Sargent, who are unabashed Hillary shills, don't "get" it which is why they are Hillary shills in the first place (hurr fighting spirit, look at how much good that did us)

Try posting and not reading for a while, and see if that works for you.

So, in other words, you're taking your toys and going home?

You're talking about comments, right? I don't see any posts in your blog.

Guaranteed ways to get a response to a comment:
- Criticize Obama
- Criticize Hillary on a thread with a high proportion of Clinton supporters
- Disagree with the writer of the blog
- Disagree with a previous comment (only works if the commenter is watching the thread.)
- Write something really funny about trolls or avatars
- Accuse cafe members of being insular

Kate: This is SO true. I am so disheartened the way this blogging has progressed to downright mean. We can disagree, but name calling is off the charts, and where is a little empathy?

Thanks for your post.

Actually, Laura Roslin is the missing fifth Cylon.

He drank their milkshake.

Want to lose the election?

Are you implying that some dudes opinion on a blog will make you not vote for Obama in the general?

Are you retarded or just mentally ill?

Not to dispute the stampeding herd metaphor or the excessive recommendations, but I think that the "charge" is a fair one. Sargent covered the whole story rather breathlessly. It seems to be gone now, but I recall live updates on the interview at TPM Election Central. And while Greg's post acknowledges Obama's solid performance, it bears an aura of disappointment, verging on pique. There is an implication that Obama has let "liberal bloggers" down by failing to take on Fox. The post is not about what Obama said in the interview; it's about how he didn't take Fox on as promised. It's a sort of meta-post about Greg's expectations. Hence billysumday's clever headline.