I have to say, I am really getting sick of the argument, "if Obama (or Hillary) had said/done X..." It reminds me of nothing so much as a couple of kids fighting in the backseat and one of them whining that "Johnny hit me harder."
That said, Obama isn't running against Bloomberg. (If McOld taps him for VP-Candidate/Campaign-War-Chest and these comments blow up in Obama's face, I'll revise my assessment). And Bloomberg, for all his faults, is no McCain. He is no Giuliani.
What I think you still don't get is that a significant reason (if not the primary reason) that people got on Hillary's case for her terrible "McCain passes the C-i-C threshold" comment was that it was just so politically STUPID. It didn't even help Hillary. If she were to beat Obama, she would look like an abject fool in the general election trying to attack McCain's foreign policy judgment after virtually vouching for him. Meanwhile, it didn't help her in the primary because Democrats want to see her attack McCain not praise him. Again, why isn't Hillary tearing McCain a new one over his recent comments on Iran?
Posted by space at March 27, 2008 02:46 PMI am not an HRC or BO fan, but I don't see the speaker patting Bloombergonm the head for being a supporter of the war. I see the speaker saying the mayor has championed some OTHER ideas. What's the harm in that?
Posted by gtash at March 27, 2008 02:54 PM---nor do I see him patting Bloomberg on the head----
Posted by gtash at March 27, 2008 02:55 PMSpace:
Right on. It is truly getting silly at this blog to find something to blame on Obama. Bloomberg was a Republican but now he is independent. He introduced Obama for the economy speech he was going to make. It is common curtsey to say some good words about the person who introduces you. Common Turkana, get a life.
Posted by suresh at March 27, 2008 03:04 PMsuresh,
thanks for reading. maybe you missed this part:
I have no problem with Obama saying nice things about Bloomberg. It's politics. And it would be impolite to stand beside the man and tell the truth about him.
and gtash- if you read barrett, you'll see that bloomberg's other ideas- including the post-partisan crap- is crap.
Posted by Turkana at March 27, 2008 03:14 PMBloomberg is also one the major voices (and potential money) behind Broderella-fantasy "bipartisanship", which translates into English as "LIEberman and the Bushistas accomplish reich-wing goals as Democrats capitulate".
Posted by bartcopfan at March 27, 2008 03:34 PMbartcopfan,
exactly- bloomberg is a much better fit for lieberman than for obama.
Posted by Turkana at March 27, 2008 03:39 PMAs someone who actually LIVES in NYC, Bloomberg is an ass. Has he helped the economy of NYC, yes I'll give him that but he's DESTROYING the education system in the process, which in turn ultimately will HURT THE ECONOMY. He's got an idiot in charge of a bad school system, the schools are TEST-DRIVEN, then they actually DUMMY DOWN the tests (i know bc I've actually SEEN the math and reading tests) so that kids pass and so it LOOKS LIKE children are learning better.
And Bloomberg's bottom line has always been about money.
Posted by kacey at March 27, 2008 04:02 PMSo what was Obama supposed to say? "Fuck you, mayor"?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 27, 2008 07:30 PMYou know, the thing that struck me about Bloomberg's introduction of Obama was its symbolic and tactical brazenness.
So, get this: Barack goes to the world capitol of the financial services industry -- New York City. His speech is quite noteworthy because he essentially promises impose massive (not to put too fine a point on it) regulation on the whole financial services sector. Later today, Barack gave an interview in which he revealed plans to DOUBLE the capital gains tax, indicated he would start cutting federal spending with the defense budget, entertained the idea of giving a credit card to every federal employee to cut costs, defended his pro-trade credentials, and declared that he was 'non-ideological.'
Guess what the media focused on: Obama/Bloomberg ticket speculation. And that's exactly what the Obama campaign wanted. They were able to check the "Economy" message box today -- eliminating the distance between he and Clinton while also reassuring his Wall Street friends that he wasn't going to mess up their flow -- and the quite newsworthy (controversial, really) things they announced didn't actually make news.
Barack Obama played the MSM like a piano today. Hats-off. Honestly. Although, a demerit for cowardice for the Bloomberg gambit. Clever distraction, yes, but he (Obama) should have embraced the controversy his speech could have generated had he presented it without subterfuge.
This was hardly the most important thing to notice about Obama's speech explicitly calling for regulation of investment banks in future.
I'll await the post on the substance of Obama's speech dealing with the meltdown of the economy.
Posted by euzoius at March 28, 2008 05:39 AMBob in Pacifica, I think Turkana went on to say that Obama did nothing wrong in making nice with Bloomberg. And there was nothing wrong with it. If you are a politician and you go to a mayor's town (with lots of voters) it's probably a good idea to be nice to him. Obama is raking in tons of money, so he has no need for Bloomie as an income generator, or a VP. I'm sure the pro-Bush leanings of Bloomie have not escaped the Obama camp. This is a non-issue.
Posted by T2 at March 28, 2008 06:22 AMThis is the same whining crap that the Clinton camp has paid since she lost Iowa. Remember CIA hack false leader Gloria Steinem's whine in the NY Times back then?
So it's a slow news day. Obama makes a speech that is relatively non-controversial. What is a Clinton backer to do? Let's construct some kind of false paradigm. "Lookee! Nobody said anything about Obama being polite to the guy who introduced him. If Hillary was polite then people would be rude to her."
It's a bunch of useless crap. First, by making a straw man of the non-incident Turkana is saying that there is something wrong. Otherwise, why point it out? Second, what's the equivalent? Show us a similar circumstance. I imagine that Hillary and Bloomberg have shared a stage at some point. Why not wax long on how badly she was treated? Oh, that's not really the point? The point is that people who connect Bloomberg and Obama, like Turkana, shouldn't connect Obama and Bloomberg, because Turkana was just connecting them to not connect them.
Makes perfect sense. It was a slow day and Turkana didn't have anything to smear Obama with, so he wrote this.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 28, 2008 07:02 AM