I welcome this debate and I think it’s healthy for our Democracy. I think it’s a sign of maturity because probably five years ago, six years ago, we might not have been having this debate. I think it’s interesting that there are some folks on the left, but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it who weren’t very worried about it when it was a Republican president.
Of course, despite yesterday’s warming rhetoric, the NSA’s widespread data collection was a highly and tightly kept state secret, which rather undermines the idea that this is a debate the White House welcomes.
Here we are talking about the post-Obama world, and where the Obama coalition is going to go. We think that Cory [Booker] is one of the people who is best positioned to advance that movement.Steve Phillips, founder of Pac Plus, a progressive SF-based super PAC. There is a recognition amongst Democratic and progressive operatives that the Obama coalition won’t necessarily make it to the polls for every future Democratic candidate, and that if the left wants continue to utilize that coalition, it will have to be intentional and thoughtful with regard to which progressives it supports. Pac Plus is going to pour between $1 and $2 million to help elect Booker to the recently-vacated senate seat in New Jersey, which will be filled via a special election this October. source
Basically, Republicans are attacking Obama where he is least vulnerable and at a time when they have minimal credibility. It isn’t working. By trying to turn everything into a scandal rather than saying Obama’s policies are wrongheaded—and rather than fixing their own image problems with minority, female, younger, and moderate voters—Republicans are focusing on attacking a guy whose name will never again appear on a ballot.Polling guru and political analyst Charlie Cook, explaining why Republicans’ attacks on President Obama may ultimately fall flat. Despite the media feeding frenzy over the three concurrent scandals to hit the Obama White House, the President’s approval rating has hardly suffered at all: In general, it’s hovered around 51%, with one poll even showing an uptick since April. Meanwhile, a recent CNN poll showed the Republican Party with the highest negative ratings—59%—that either party has received in more than 20 years. “Americans may not be ecstatic about President Obama and his policies,” Cook writes, “but compared with the Republicans, they think Obama doesn’t look so bad.” source
I admire their commitment to cover all sides of the story just in case one of them happens to be accurate.
That’s what Obama said about CNN at last night’s White House Correspondents Association dinner.
Let me explain why that is such a great line. CNN sees itself as “in the middle” between left and right, MSNBC and Fox. Just recently, in fact, CNN president Jeff Zucker praised the middle as the place to be. But CNN also sees itself as a great newsgathering organization that is all about truthtelling rather than ideology. “Keeping them honest,” as Anderson Cooper, face of the brand, likes to say.
Put them together and what do you have? Keep ‘em honest, but stay in the middle. Which doesn’t work. For what happens when one side is BS-ing us more than the other? What happens when independent and honest reporting shows that these people on this side are mostly right in what they’re saying, and those people on that side are distorting the case?
CNN wants to believe, tries to believe and I think does believe that this problem does not exist. Therefore we have to remind them about it, because it does exist. And that’s what Obama did: “cover all sides of the story just in case one of them happens to be accurate” is saying to CNN: Accuracy and truthtelling will be sacrificed to your ideology— the middle, no matter what it takes.
The sad part is, they had all these problems before they hired Jeff Zucker. And then they hired Jeff Zucker, a man whose entire recent career has been built on tone-deaf failures to understand his network’s audience, whatever that network might have been.