Obama on Fox: I supported Roberts when I opposed him

posted at 9:57 am on April 27, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Give Barack Obama this: he performed a lot better on Fox News Sunday today than he did in the debate on April 16th. He stammered less when challenged, allowed his considerable personal warmth to surface, and kept his annoyance and anger in check. On the other hand, he offered about the same level of commitment to his answers as he did in Philadelphia, and gave at least a couple of whoppers.

One of the more interesting answers came in regards to Jeremiah Wright. He called Wright a “legitimate” campaign issue, which will seem rather shocking to the New York Times, the McCain campaign, and others who have demanded an end to the North Carolina GOP’s television ad. Obama complained that people took Wright out of context, but said Americans were honestly offended by Wright’s remarks, and that his relationship with Wright can inform voters of his values — but that voters should take into consideration the totality of Trinity United and Wright on those issues, and not just sound bites.

Obama sounded a lot less convincing when it came to responding to the William Ayers controversy. He called Ayers “tangential” to his life and suggested that Chris Wallace probably serves on boards with people whose politics he otherwise detests. Unfortunately for Obama, Wallace doesn’t devote a web page on his site defending those people as “mainstream”, as Obama does for Ayers and Dohrn. The pair still talk about overthrowing capitalism and parts of the government they find objectionable, and approvingly quote Mao lieutenant Chou En-lai while railing against the “unimaginable authoritarianism” of the American government. His answer, intending on freeing himself of the charge of equating Coburn and Ayers/Dohrn, instead made it clear that he sees both as political activists, morally equivalent at least in the present.

His final gaffe — and one that may make a few Republican commercials — came when Wallace challenged Obama to come up with real examples of bipartisanship and compromise on tough issues. He claimed he would have supported the partial-birth abortion ban if Congress had included an exception to protect the mother’s health, which would have been used as a dodge around the ban in every instance. Other than a single vote on tort reform, he could come up with no example of a time when he bucked Democratic leadership.

The most hilarious point came when Obama tried to claim credit for bipartisanship on the John Roberts confirmation vote — not because he supported Roberts. He voted against Roberts. However, Obama wanted credit for defending the few Democrats who did support Roberts on Daily Kos, and taking the venom of Kos’ readership for his defense. That’s bipartisanship — standing up to the Kos Kiddies? If that amounts to an act of courage for Obama, it tells you how bipartisan he will be prepared to be as President.

It wasn’t a disaster, but it still reveals Obama to be out of touch and hard to the Left. Don’t expect this to help in Indiana.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Slick Willie?

Meet SLICK BARRY.

rockbend on April 27, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Going, going…..

RobCon on April 27, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Redefining bipartisanship and leadership.

jukin on April 27, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Perfect, I was in the mood for a waffle breakfast.

forest on April 27, 2008 at 10:08 AM

This Obama phenomenon is an illustration of the power and utility of THE BIG LIE. Him being bi-partisan, post partisan, etc. Its so ridiculous, so outrageous, and such nonsense but he and his supporters say it with a straight face and continue to push that message doggedly. Say it enough, say it forcefully enough, spin it enough, and believe it yourself and eventually you can get everyone else to also.

D0WNT0WN on April 27, 2008 at 10:12 AM

“He called Ayers “tangential” to his life and suggested that Chris Wallace probably serves on boards with people whose politics he otherwise detests.”

LMAO. I suppose that kicking off your political career by going to a political meet and greet at the home of the persons whose politics you detest is also, um, tangential?

Dusty on April 27, 2008 at 10:18 AM

This Guy is so slick we could get a few barrel of oil out of him .

thmcbb on April 27, 2008 at 10:19 AM

And Ayers’ communism would not be “unimaginably authoritarian”? Well, I guess his kind of people will be the authoritarians in charge, so no problem, right?

Associations matter; the right needs to bring more light to who Obama’s friends really are. But good luck getting the common man to read anything in the news, other than the Daily Show.

Grafted on April 27, 2008 at 10:21 AM

“Even under low pressure, he keeps stumbling.”

Then we should keep the pressure on or better yet, increase it?

Egfrow on April 27, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Every time Obama talks these days, it just shows how much of a better, more prepared, and more focused candidate Hillary is.

Snake307 on April 27, 2008 at 10:27 AM

This incompetent Marxist would destroy the Republic within a year. God help us if we’re stuck with this bum.

rplat on April 27, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Obama’s entire campaign summed up in one line:

“O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!”

That’s it…

JetBoy on April 27, 2008 at 10:28 AM

He also said he supported the partial birth abortion ban when he voted against that.

clghitis on April 27, 2008 at 10:29 AM

I’m sure that I’m the only one that sent this to Chris :) but I’m glad he went there.

Chris, if you get this ask Obama to show some the voters here in NC to give some
examples of the CHANGE he is promoting. Can he give some examples where he
reached across the aisle and did not vote on a “politics as usual” basis. And
not something that he has done since he was running for POTUS. Give some
examples in the Illinois senate or US senate early on that would make him
different than all of those POLs that he is above.

Robert from North Carolina

yakwill83 on April 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Slick Willie meet Blank Barry.

(What he is, and what he’s firing.)

profitsbeard on April 27, 2008 at 10:32 AM

“The most hilarious point came when Obama tried to claim credit for bipartisanship on the John Roberts confirmation vote”

Well, since he failed miserably in leading any Republicans to vote Nay, maybe he meant getting both men and women to do so. Other possibilities are:

- senators from different political ages
- senators of different state politics
- women of dress politics and pantsuit politics
- blue suit political men and gray suit political men.
- senators representing a large bitter constituency and senators who have represent a lot of whiny elitists.

Dusty on April 27, 2008 at 10:37 AM

puff piece.

ctmom on April 27, 2008 at 10:40 AM

He gets that Fox monkey off his back!

Lonetown on April 27, 2008 at 10:43 AM

which will seem rather shocking to the New York Times, the McCain campaign, and others who have demanded an end to the North Carolina GOP’s television ad.

Ed, McCain has very clearly stated that the issue is legitimate, just that the ass is pointless and reachy and does not need to be using Wright as a wedge.

Squid Shark on April 27, 2008 at 10:51 AM

I’m glad he went on Fox.

Spirit of 1776 on April 27, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Obama might also consider a public funded campaign IN THE FUTURE! What a frigging lawyer.

JAW on April 27, 2008 at 11:14 AM

He claimed he would have supported the partial-birth abortion ban if Congress had included an exception to protect the mother’s health, which would have been used as a dodge around the ban in every instance

Why can’t these democrats get it through their thick skulls that you can never perform a partial-birth abortion to protect the mother’s health? A doctor can perform a C-section or other live birth procedure in a fraction of the time that a partial-birth abortion takes. Because you don’t have to take the time to kill the baby!

meci on April 27, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Bah!

It was a S’mores interview.

Limerick on April 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM

One crude or rough measure of a bipartisan person is how they vote on the issue of judges, particularly Supreme Court nominees. There is no greater controversial issue than judicial nominees. And it’s were ideologues – on both sides – are more easily identified or show up.

The fact that Obama opposed both Alito and Roberts – Roberts!! – is clearly evidence (at least to me) that his words of transcending the partisan divide are mostly, yes Senator, mere words.

Words are indeed merely words when the person expressing them has little or no record of showing that they aren’t.

SteveMG on April 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Why does the media keep letting Obama get away with saying that Wright’s words are being distorted and deliberately taken “out of context”? Do Obama and the media not understand that the entire text of Wright’s sermons are available, and that the public can judge for themselves the context of Wright’s hateful words? Or does Obama just hope that if he repeats the “out of context” lie often enough, people will just assume it’s true, and not bother to check the context for themselves?

AZCoyote on April 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM

meci on April 27, 2008 at 11:21 AM

I’d be willing to accept Obama’s excuse for his failure to support a partial-birth abortion ban if, and only if, Obama could provide one example of a situation in which the partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to protect the mother’s life. (And “my husband/boyfriend said he was gonna kill me if I had another baby” is not an acceptable example).

AZCoyote on April 27, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Dear Mr Obama,

How are you going to keep ERs from closing? What is your plan for saving SS? How are you going to root AQ out of the mountains in Pakistan? Why talk with Iran when you won’t talk with Hamas? Would you sit on a board with a unrepentant PP bomber?

Mamby-pamby-tangential-horsepotatoes.

Limerick on April 27, 2008 at 11:34 AM

His vote against Roberts deserves more scrutiny, especially because he is a lawyer who claims to have taught constitutional law. John Roberts is widely acclaimed as one of, perhaps the, greatest legal mind of his generation. His prior jurisprudence showed no partisanship at all. He was a superstar in the legal professionl. There is zero chance that Barack Obama dd not know all of this, and yet voted against him anyway. I want to know why. What is there in Obama’s philosophy of law and jurisprudence that could cause him to vote against a man who was so obviously the most qualified person on the planet for the job?

rockmom on April 27, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Obama complained that people took Wright out of context, but said Americans were honestly offended by Wright’s remarks, and that his relationship with Wright can inform voters of his values — but that voters should take into consideration the totality of Trinity United and Wright on those issues, and not just sound bites.

How is this any different from Obama’s past comments on Wright? Brushing aside the condescension built in to this and other similar statements, I have indeed considered the totality of Trinity United and have gone far beyond the sound bites to find it a hive of hate inspired anti-Americanism.

scatbug on April 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM

rockmom on April 27, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Excellent observation. Obama claimed that he had the most liberal voting record because everything was designed to be polarizing, and I agree with your summation about Roberts’ nonpartisan record.

Seems like Obama voted against Roberts for another reason. The likely one is that he was nominated by a republican.

wise_man on April 27, 2008 at 11:53 AM

So in Obama’s eyes, standing up to Markos Moulitsas Zúniga’s followers is on the same level as standing up to Kim Il Jong or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Sounds like it could make a great commercial showing how Obama will stand up to America’s biggest enemies, mixing in images of Lil’ Kim in his military fatigues, Ahmadinejad during his defiant appearance at Columbia and Markos peeking into Ned Lamont’s window in that 2006 campaign ad.

jon1979 on April 27, 2008 at 11:57 AM

I think most Democrats are partial births !!

gary on April 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Excellent observation. Obama claimed that he had the most liberal voting record because everything was designed to be polarizing, and I agree with your summation about Roberts’ nonpartisan record.

Seems like Obama voted against Roberts for another reason. The likely one is that he was nominated by a republican.

wise_man on April 27, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Perhaps. But given what we have learned about him, I am more fearful that he is in fact a left-wing Critical Legal Studies disciple with very specific philosophical reasons for opposing the nomination of a mainstream judicial superstar like Roberts. Or, he is simply a dumb sheep who followed orders from Dick Durbin. Neither gives me much comfort.

rockmom on April 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Maybe he thought that Chris Wallace was only going to ask him about Hope and Change.

Cicero43 on April 27, 2008 at 12:14 PM

My Mother has always told me, “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.”

If that’s not a ripe Republican ad waiting to happen, I don’t know what is.

brewser on April 27, 2008 at 12:16 PM

It is my belief Obama voted against Roberts on philosophical reasons. I believe Obama is a Marxist, I think he believes in the nanny state and gun confiscation, and has the elitest attitude that we can’t govern ourselves. That we need people like him to make our decisions for us. I don’t think he believes in a hand up, rather a government hand out, along with redistribution of wealth. Yes I think he would be more dangerous than Hillary.

2theright on April 27, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Marxist? Yes, ‘progressive’ Marxist. Critical Legal Studies disciple? Of course. He went to Harvard, didn’t he?

petefrt on April 27, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Why does the media keep letting Obama get away with saying that Wright’s words are being distorted and deliberately taken “out of context”? Do Obama and the media not understand that the entire text of Wright’s sermons are available, and that the public can judge for themselves the context of Wright’s hateful words? Or does Obama just hope that if he repeats the “out of context” lie often enough, people will just assume it’s true, and not bother to check the context for themselves?

AZCoyote on April 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM

‘Taken out of context’ works for muslim apologists. Oh wait, . . .

RickZ on April 27, 2008 at 1:22 PM

People vote for Obama for one reason alone.

SouthernGent on April 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I hope Obama gets the nomination. Then, rather than having a repeat of the Carter presidency, I think what we are going to see is a repeat of the McGovern campaign, one of the worst presidential election defeats in U.S. history.

Rod on April 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I found myself mentally begging Wallace to follow up Obama’s explanation of Mr. Wright’s comments as a result from being from another time how his wife also had similar comments. Oh well, keep talking Barry!

trs on April 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Even we unwashed, knuckle-dragging, conservative bumpkins know why the Wright apologists are constantly using the “Out of context” defense?

Because the term “Out of context” implies that, were the quoted passage to viewed/heard in its proper place within the entire statement, what preceded the quote and/or what followed the quote would cause one to interpret the quote differently.

The quotes stand for themselves – I’ve seen what precedes and follows several of the various quotes attributed to the Rev. Wright and nothing alters the meaning of the words. The Wright Kool-Aid drinkers know that they may succeed in persuading people that the quotes would have a different meaning when viewed/heard “in context.”

It’s a classic “straw man” argument and the Obamaholics are using it like Pam – to keep the quotes from sticking.

Garnet92 on April 27, 2008 at 2:17 PM

SlickII, the sequell

davod on April 27, 2008 at 3:12 PM

People vote for Obama for one reason alone.
SouthernGent on April 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Yep, if you challenge his politics, lack of experience or his questionable character who is labeled the Racist?

Go figure…..!

Fox has drunk the Obama KoolAid, (see above)

dmann on April 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Obama Out of context for today’s America

davod on April 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Wow ,, slickyzoid! strikes again.

gr8inferno on April 27, 2008 at 5:54 PM

he could come up with no example of a time when he bucked Democratic leadership.

The most hilarious point came when Obama tried to claim credit for bipartisanship on the John Roberts confirmation vote — not because he supported Roberts. He voted against Roberts.

And thats why he is the Most Liberal Senator, WORSE THAN TED KENNEDY!

Chakra Hammer on April 28, 2008 at 1:13 AM

Sorry, Cap’n Ed, but the Fox interview I saw was the one where he started off strong for about 5 minutes or so and then ran straight for the cliff.

I watched him melt like a candle in Arizona.

Anybody could see he was lying (about most everything) because he defended before he was asked or he defended more than he was asked.

Anybody knows that the argument is lost when the interviewee believes he is compelled to talk over the interviewer.

He was right to refuse to appear on Fox News Sunday and he should have not changed his mind. On the other hand, I’d resign as chief of staff if I couldn’t prep him better than that.

Anyway, it’s all history now. He is Bruce Willis in Sixth Sense. Only question is how long it takes for the zombie’s brain to realize it’s dead.

All Chris had to do was sit there and watch.

platypus on April 28, 2008 at 2:43 AM