Obama and Fox News

So let's see ... a right-wing media outlet taunts you for a few months, and the way to show strength is to cave in to those taunts? Kind of an odd approach.

We've spent the last few years in the netroots working to discredit Fox News as the propaganda network strives for mainstream respectability. The more it is viewed as a legitimate news outlet, the better it will be at injecting right-wing narratives into the broader media stream. It's why we fought so strongly against the attempts by the Nevada Democratic Party and the Congressional Black Caucus to partner with Fox on several Democratic primary debates. Debating on Fox made as much sense as Republicans debating on Air America. Or Daily Kos.

Given Fox's role in pushing several bullshit attacks against Obama (including the one about Obama attending a Muslim Madras while living in Indonesia in his youth), Obama had wisely steered clear of the network during the primary. Yet he clearly hit on a dilemma -- Indiana is an open primary, hence Republican crossover support could be key to victory in the state. And where do Republicans hang out? Yup. Fox News.

On the other hand, the network had consistently taunted his refusal to visit Fox. His appearance essentially sends the message that Obama is susceptible to caving to right-wing bullying taunts and threats. Perhaps not a surprise since that appears a trait embedded in the Democrats' DNA. In any case, the appearance presented several major problems:

1. It made Obama look weak, and he was.  Lucky for him, the Clinton campaign has been groveling at Fox's feet for so long, and so shamelessly, that Terry McAuliffe is now featured in one of Fox's self promotional ads. What might've been a point of differentiation between Obama and Clinton is erased -- they are both groveling cowards in the face of the VRWC.
2. It gave Fox a propaganda victory, allowing it to crow that:

   [Obama] very much wants to get away from any sense that he's a creature or a captive of the left.

   Who does Obama think is volunteering and contributing to his campaign? Fox-watching Republicans? Sure, candidates always pivot after their primaries and run to the "center", but Republicans don't generally piss on their base as they make that transition. Our side makes a ritual out of it. That's not how long-term movements are built.

3. It exposed his campaign as a bunch of liars. The Obama campaign's press show promised people that Obama would "take on" Fox News. Of course, none of that happened. That would've electrified "the left", and we know that Obama doesn't want to do anything that might make him look like a "captive" to it.

   The campaign would've been better off just being honest and upfront about Obama's motives, but that might've proven too cynical for supporters that think he can possibly "rise above politics". Of course he can't. Yet I suspect that much of the erosion in his momentum of late comes from people realizing that Obama can't possibly deliver what he's promising. If he promised to be a good president, one who delivered for people and improved their lives and restored America's standing in the world, then great. That he can deliver.

   But "rise above politics"? His refusal to acknowledge the political reality may very well be his greatest weakness. I hope it's all an act. I can take cynical political rhetoric. I expect it. And it's not like Clinton is offering anything different in that department. But if Obama actually believes it, then the Republicans will chew him up and spit him out. And either way, his campaign -- never good at setting expectations -- shouldn't have promised something that Obama is apparently incapable of delivering.

4. I know some people are upset that Obama "threw Daily Kos under the bus", or other such nonsense. He didn't. Here's the transcript:

   WALLACE:  But, Senator, if I may, I think one of the concerns that some people have is that you talk a good game about, let's be post-partisan, let's all come together -- just a couple of quick things, and I don't really want you to defend each one, I just want to speak to the larger issue...
   OBAMA:  No, look, I think this is fair.  I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left.

   During the Roberts -

   WALLACE:  John Roberts, Supreme Court.

   OBAMA:  John Roberts nomination, although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos, and was fiercely attacked as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights.

   In fact, there are a lot of liberal commentators who think I'm too accommodating.  So here is my philosophy.  I want to do what works for the American people.  And both at the state legislative level and at the federal legislative level, I have always been able to work together with Republicans to find compromise and to find common ground.

   That's not attacking Daily Kos, just using it as a foil for his political transcendence, or something. What I'm more concerned about is that Obama still thinks defending the spineless Democrats who voted for Roberts was a good thing, that it's righteous. But let's look at some recent 5-4 decisions, in which Roberts cast a deciding vote for the majority:

   Gonzales v. Carhart: Upholds ban on late-term abortion procedure, because women who undergo abortion may suffer from "severe depression and loss of esteem."

   Ledbetter v. Goodyear: Woman subject to discrimination in pay can't sue employer for back pay because she failed to sue within 180 days of the discriminatory action - even though she didn't discover it until years later. (And of course, few people ever know what their co-workers make in the first place, so good luck trying to find out if you are being discriminated against.)

   Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1: Quietly overturned Brown v. Board of Education, saying that school boards can't look at students' race in trying to integrate schools. So how else can you try to integrate schools? The court says you can't - achieving racial balance is not a legitimate state interest.

   Morse v. Frederick: School principal justified in suspending student for 10 days for holding up "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner during Olympic torch relay outside school grounds because banner "advocated the use of illegal drugs."

   Bowles v. Russell: District court said convicted criminal had 17 days to file appeal of habeas petition. Petition filed on 16th day. Holding: Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure only allow 14 days, so even though district court judge told petitioner (in the form of a court order) he had 17 days, that didn't matter. The petitioner is screwed by the judge's mistake, period.

   Obama wants to keep defending the Democrats who allowed these travesties to happen. Obama may feel righteous and proud of that, but I'd argue those Roberts-supporting Democrats deserve nothing but scorn. Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws, has never attempted to defend those Democratic votes for Roberts. They are indefensible.

So Obama showed weakness by caving to right-wing bullying taunts (thrilling our political foes), disrespected his base, gave Fox a propaganda victory, exposed his campaign as a bunch of liars who promised something their candidate was clearly incapable of delivering, and defended the Democratic spinelessness that gave us the most ridiculous Supreme Court in generations.

I won't pretend to guess whether this helps him in Indiana or not. It may or it may not. And since I've never put Obama on a pedestal, this doesn't knock him down. What this does demonstrate, and quite clearly so, is that Obama is quite willing to score cheap political points at the expense of his base, regardless how much it might embolden the very same people that are working to demonize him to the American people.

Update: MoveOn agrees. They suck too because they don't blindly praise every one of Obama's moves.