FOX News Sunday: Wallace Asks If The 50 State Strategy Is "Arrogant" On Obama's Part
By Nicole Belle Sunday Nov 02, 2008 12:00pm
Chris Wallace--like the rest of the Fox News world--wants the world set up in easily definable terms: Liberals vs. Conservatives, Patriots vs. Pinheads, Red States vs. Blue States. The Barack Obama presidential campaign is clearly crossing those boundaries and I think that Wallace doesn't know how to cope with that. Obama has taken Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy and shown that Democrats can be competitive in traditionally red states. In fact, so much so that Obama is actually within the margin of error in McCain's home state of Arizona. But for Wallace, it's arrogant of Obama to advertise in states that Republicans have traditionally dominated.
Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe argues (and I believe correctly) that it is more the arrogance on the part of the McCain campaign to think they didn't need to set up a ground game in these states than it is for Obama to simply believe that there were enough voters seeking change to make these states competitive:
WALLACE: First, let’s talk about the thing I brought up with Rick Davis, the fact that you have decided to make a late push in North Dakota, in Georgia and even in McCain’s home state of Arizona. Is it there a touch of arrogance here? I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to focus your resources, focus your advertising and everything on the states that you need to lock up 270 electoral votes?
PLOUFFE: Well, Chris, we’re doing everything we can in the core battlegrounds: Ohio, where Sen. Obama will be today; Florida; Virginia; North Carolina; Indiana. All of those states we’re doing everything we think we need to do to try and win. In these three states, we’ve been organizing for some time, the reason Georgia is so competitive right now is all the organizational groundwork we’ve put in, why you’re seeing early vote numbers in such large measures. So, in North Dakota, Georgia, Arizona, we think all three of those are going to be close and there’s benefit to having the playing field to yourself. One of the reasons we’re so strong in states like Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, even in Florida, is the McCain campaign was arrogant. They were asleep at the switch and thought those states would not be competitive. So we had two-three months headstart, advertising, organizing. So in North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona, we think we have the playing field to ourselves, we think all three will be close, and we’re going to give it a shot to see how…now I think John McCain should be favored in all three of those states, but we think they’re going to be very close and if you look at Georgia, the early vote there—similar to North Carolina – is just striking in terms of its composition. And we think we’re heading to a very close finish there.
Finally, is it me or is the whole term "arrogant" a codeword for "uppity"? How dare that Democrat think he's going to get Georgia or North Dakota? Doesn't he know that those are America-loving red states?
Login or Register to post comments.
...it was a national election!
Mark B, you're right, this is a NATIONAL election and Obama's being strategic in going to "red" states to campaign. Is it the teensiest bit ballsy that Obama is "going after" McCain's so-called home state of AZ (or rather, his sugar-mama's home state)? Yes, I suppose it is a bit. But it's fairly simple - this race is close and getting closer in some states, so if we come to a tie in electoral votes (which is entirely possible), then it goes to the actual vote count, correct? In that case, then Obama's a GENIUS for trying to get as many votes as possible in states that are traditionally red states.
What the Hell is Wallace thinking? Does he think that some states should be sequestered and that campaigns should stay out of them? What ever happened to Democracy, where everyone gets to make their case and ask for votes?
••• FREE McCain-NOPE Stickers With Every T-Shirt •••
Michigan? When McCain thought he was losing MI, or it was getting too close, he pulled out of our state entirely to focus on others that were "important" in the race.
I love to remind the few republicans I know that their candidate thought we're not "important" enough to bother with. I enjoy seeing their little brains begin to melt.
Someone posted the video on YouTube (but with a different title).
Kristol broke down how the stars would need to align for McCain to win:
Sweep every swing state, snatch PA, snatch both OH and FL, and he'd STILL have to flip a close blue state like NV or NH.
That must have been some pretty powerful blotter, Bill dropped right before the beginning of the show.
But funny.
*
Should Bush have written an executive order to prevent Democratic candidates from campaigning in red states.
I bet they wish they had though of that criticism sooner. They could make sundown states, just like the old days.
The more it sounds like a dog whistle.
...I have read recently that he is continuing to put out directives and orders that will change important regulations in many agencies before he leaves office. Apparently, it will be much more complicated to undo all of these changes for the next President. What a scumbag! I'm sure the last order he signs will be his own freakin' pardon......
Let's hope Obama can do away with many of them by overriding them with executive orders of his own. You can bet he's got people watching this VERY closely. He'll have a list and he'll be checking it more than twice.
*
Earlier on Fox cable one of the talking heads seemed to think Obama was being snide or something like that for campaigning in Arizona. They are about as out of tricks as McCain is these days. I guess the people in Arizona should only hear from McCain.
In the eyes of some republicans, Obama should know his place. He should only campaign in the unreal America, not the real America.
Luckily for Arizonans - we like them too much to consign them automatically to the McToast dustbin.
*
Each of Obama's campaign reps are so good on these shows. They are calm clear and reasoned. He should be very proud of them and it also shows the type people Obama feels comfortable working with.
The only problem I saw was that Ploufe gave them too much information.
.
IOKIYR
.
Wallace is a wally. How quickly he forgets (read: ignores) how the RePubicHairs tried to eliminate the Democrats in the past two elections in an attempt to create a one-party state.
it IS arrogant to want to get votes in a national election?
Uh, wait a minute, scratch that...
WTF is these guys something, and can I purchase some ?
So it's elitist to ignore the so-called "red states", and it's arrogant not to.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Yes. "Arrogant" means "uppity." I grew up in the north and now live in the south, fairly deep south. I've been here for a long time. How else could this term creep into a political discussion? Arrogance? You think Sarah Palin is not now "arrogant?" I say WTF...
I totally agree that Wallace and his comments are ridiculous but do we always really have to read racism into every criticism of Obama? I really don't think it serves us well to do so as it tends to continue the us-versus-them mentality of race. It also blunts the impact of pointing out racist comments when they are actually made on the air (the Chicken Little effect). I'm not saying racism isn't still alive (it clearly is) and that code words aren't used (they clearly are) but let's not get carried away. Besides, I think one could easily argue that if Hillary were in the same position at this point that Wallace would be saying the same about her.
it would be Sexism!!
I'm sixty years old and have been hearing them blow those same dog whistles all my life.
The reason they use these dog whistles, like arrogant instead of uppity, is so people like you will give them the benefit of the doubt.
It isn't new, it isn't different, it isn't a misunderstanding.
It is how it is done, and has been done all along.
Further, it does not blunt the impact of pointing out racist comments when they are "actually" made. It teaches us how pervasive racism and sexism really is.
If North Carolina and Georgia are, in Palinesque terms, "real America," then I'll take the illusory America that I've got here in Minnesota, thanks.
...it'll be Alaska. But seriously, why the animosity towards southern states? I thought being liberal was about being inclusive. Every one of the states included in the "deep south" category has a strong Democratic Party presence. Lots of people where I live (North Carolina) are pro-choice, pro-labor, and pro-Obama. Why should we be vilified because Gov. Palin imagines there's a "false America?"
Not falsies America?
One thing is for sure. Chris Wallace knows arrogance. All he has to do is look in the mirror for a prime example. Frigging uppity cracker.
Ballsy? You betcha.
GoBama. 2008! 2012!
"Arrogant" is invoked when one recognizes that one has power the power to be arrogant.
"Uppity" is invoked when one believes that the person is "not in their place" that is, does not have power or right to be arrogant.
Calling Obama "arrogant" is a step up, conceptualizing him as an equal. Is, IMO, not racism there.
Watch Outfoxed and see if your opinion changes at all. These people are propagandists at their best with roots in the Lee Atwater wing of the Republican Party..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=67370...
Watch "Boogie Man" as well when that comes out. Peace.
Good analysis Nicole. You are right on the money as usual.
The GOP has given up the hope of McCain winning. The game plan is to pump up the 'us vs. them' rhetoric for the post-election showdown. To the GOP "us" means the "real" Americans in the southern and rural states. If Obama even wins a couple of those "red" states, it'll throw a wrench into their plans to delegitimize the Obama campaign by proclaiming, "no one in 'real' America voted for him!" It'll seriously hamper their ability to work the identity politics strategy that as become the lone tactic of the GOP.
I agree with an above comment. The more I think about it, there is definitely an undertone of, "we've accepted we can no longer OWN you black people, but its awfully arrogant of you think we'll actually allow you to be our leaders, so don't push your luck." I think this because if it was not for this rational, many other words would work better than arrogant. Ill-conceived, unfocused, etc. But that word "arrogant" implies that Obama has no right to be elected in those states and its insulting to them that he thinks he can be. Democrats have won the south many times. Even progressives have (eg, FDR). So if its not his status as a democrat, or his status as a liberal that makes his leadership so offensive, what is it? That list is very short, and I hate to say it, but race is the one characteristic left that makes the idea of him being president so insulting to the red states. As that one Palin supporter at a rally in Ohio said, "if you got a negro running, he's definitely a second-stringer".
One of Obama's goals is to get Americans to work together to improve their lives with the support of his administration and any across-the-aisle supporters who haven't taken leave of their senses. If he and we are able to achieve this, I think it will gradually unite Americans, and, as you say, hamper the troublemakers' ability to work the identity politics.
We'll have to see what happens though. FoxNews and other rabid rightwingers are quite likely to throw spanners into the works and frighten otherwise decent (if ignorant) people from joining efforts to bring about changes that will benefit their lives. Somehow, they must be marginalized so their damage quotient isn't so high.
or George Wallace??
Wallace attempting to give Obama's campaign advice on where they should be campaigning is funny as hell. Everyone and their brother says this is one of, if not the, best run campaigns ever. So why would they give a damn about what Wallace might suggest? Wallace is just trying to justify sitting there in his chair with a microphone in front of him
THANK YOU ... Howard Dean !!!!!!!!
love the Palinesque wink on Wallace's face. I wish he would just go away as much as I hope Palin will go away.
Re this post, if Obama can employ this incredible army of campaigners, create such amazing organization and push traditionally red states to blue, imgaine what he will do as President. He is crossing lines, creating unity and bringing the people of America back into the process. We have the power. We can create change. We are the voice. We must not let up and be governed ever again by a fascist state.
Surely it would be arrogant to not have a 50 state strategy.
didnt just fall asleep the night he created that kid.
The 50 state strategy was wise not arrogant, I've always been impressed with Obama's smart politics. Obama could turn the whole country "blue" and we'd all be better off than in cretin "red". Bush's electoral map has been shattered, hopefully never to return.
for pushing hard for a 50-state strategy before Obama ran. It is to Obama's credit that he embraced that principle and acted on it. It blew campaign financing wide open, and now Americans can essentially choose their representatives by supporting them financially in large numbers if small increments, something that didn't happen before the Democrats realized the value of the internet.
McCain can't even "work" a computer.
The conservative interpretation of Barack Obama has always been that he's "arrogant" for being so "eloquent" and "lofty." I really believe that none of these terms would be hurled at a similarly positioned white candidate with the same vigor and malice. It's a good thing that we're already having this discussion, because years done the road, it will be a commonly-held view that Obama was depicted as uppity for seeking the presidency with such flair.
I think that if Hillary Clinton had gotten the nomination and employed the same tactics (which I'm not convinced she would have done, but for the sake of argument), they would not have hesitated to call her arrogant as well.
Of course Hillary's campaigning was based primarily on the old model of winning blue states, going after the other states with the largest number of delegate votes, and ignoring the smaller states. So I doubt she would have used the 50-state strategy. It came out of the DNC, not the DCC (her and Rahm Emanuel's bailiwick).
So a Chris Matthews wouldn't have had the grounds to label Hillary "arrogant" for this reason. It IS interesting to speculate how the campaign would have been different if she had won the nomination. For one thing, we know she would have given tit for tat in the nastiness game. There would have been charges and countercharges of dirty politicking, lies, the whole ball of wax, but I'm not sure the Republicans would have thought of calling her "arrogant" under those heated circumstances. (Unless it were a euphemism for "bitch", but then there are certainly equivalencies for McNasty's standard-fare dirty campaigning.)
They're already considered arrogant aren't they? I honestly feel Hillary would have lost this election had she been the front runner. There just seems to be too much history and steeled animosity towards the Clinton name from both sides. Most Liberals resent DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Hillary's problem will always be Bill, even if he had a great 8 years. There will always be the good legacy and the bad legacy, and we always remember the bad.
Oooh I love DOMAS, but prefer it with meat and rice instead of only stuffed with feta cheese.
I would remind you that Senator Clinton was called arrogant simply for running while female.
As for the arrogant thing, I just don't see it (although I wouldn't deny that they may be thinking it).
I can easily see them saying to any Democrat following the 50-state strategy that they were indeed "arrogant." But they certainly wouldn't be referring to any Democrat as "uppity."
There are cartloads of codewords out there: I'm just not biting on this one.
What's arrogant is to deliberately alienate half the country because you think you can intimidate or fire up the other half enough to vote for you. Fortunately, it looks like it won't work this time.
Also, I agree with the difference between "arrogant" and "uppity" by Dr. Grumpus. They're still trying to insult Obama, but they've recognized that he's in the lead now.
Excuse me Mr. Dirtbag -- Obama is running to be president of ALL 50 states, a fact that you have apparently overlooked. Convenient, eh?
*
No one accused the republicans for being arrogant when they starting trying to take Texas and other Yellow-Dog Democratic States.
Or stated the obvious that they were attracting Dixiecrats, but instead parroted Sprio Agnew's Silent Majority.
If things play out right these guys are going to be in a world of hurt when the new government takes over. Their hierarchy which uses bullying and smears for dominance will turn on each other - but their worst bile will be for the new government. It could get ugly as they go through those seven stages. Poor things, but like a animal trapped in a corner...
...judging by the last two elections. Why not sew up as many Electoral votes as you can possibly get from previuosly Red states - that just lessens the overall effect of any vote tampering, caging and voter fraud that you know the Repugs will be committing in the "battleground" states. If Obama picks up another 12 or 15 votes,
having Ohio stolen again may not be the decifding issue.
It also seems that we could ask the same question of Chris Wallace - don't you think you're being Arrogant to believe that your such a great "journalist" just because your Daddy was and passed along his good name ????
This word 'uppity' is one of the ugliest words in the English language. It's ok for a white person to be upscale, but not a black one in this fucked up mentality. Amazing people still think this way in 2008, they really need to join the human race and leave such notions of superiority in the dust bin of history.
An ugly word for an ugly concept.
*
WHICH of the 50 states don't we care about?
*
Arrogant,
Adj., 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. uppity AfroAmerican
3. someone who kicks McCain's White A--
4. Democrat
Arrogant. A defining characteristic of the re-Thuglican animal. I think I'd better add it to my list . . . .
Re-thug-lics -- the party of arrogant, immature, voraciously rapacious, despotic, doughy white, cowardly, angry troglodytes, bigots, racists, perverts, xenophobes, pedophiles, murderers, war criminals, homophobes, misogynists, self-hating women, fetid wombs and consummate chronic liars.
*
And booger eaters.
How dare that guy bring his message to the entire United States? Really, he'll only be president in blue states. Why the hell should he even try to reach out to anyone who isn't a moonbat liberal?
OMG.
Maybe by "arrogant", he meant "successful".
The horse-humping audacity of that man! Thinking he could win a presidential election or something!
There goes that Obama loving liberal media bias. Wallace is a maroon, gee i wonder who he's voting for
Chris Wallace is a bonehead. This is more than a race for the presidency. Obama has pursued all 50 states from the start and it's paying off. He doesn't view states as RED or BLUE. There are close Senate/Congressional races that we want to win. Pouring support and activity into traditional Republican states increases Democratic voter turnout which could tip some of these close races to the Democrats.
Also experts are using historical data for predicting turnout, splits...in order to come up with their poll numbers. Several factors may make such extrapolation in error in this election. One important one is that this is the first time we have had a black candidate for President. There will likely be record black turnout, which is especially important in the south (Georgia, Mississippi...). Obama is stronger with the Latino population by 2 or 3 to 1 over McCain whereas Bush owned this group in previous elections. This puts Arizona in play too.
I kept waiting for Plouffe to make. The down-ticket races are of great importance to the party. As Michael Moore pointed out a few days ago, the Republicans are seeing what happens when a "community organizer" goes to work, and they're not chuckling so much anymore.
And the millions of votes that will go missing come the election.
It could get ugly.
I dont know how many will actually go missing, but we have to expect that many(even a few million)
will do their own version of the flip-flop..with emphasis on the 'flip' part.
Beware of 'adjusted exit polls'...
it'll be "interesting" for sure.
as there was nothing else on the Tee Vee, and Chris Wallace was at his lowest point in an otherwise halfway decent interview at its very end, when he acted shocked that Plouffe said he would leave immediately if his wife went into labor (she is due Tue.) to which Wallace shook his head and said "You'll leave alot of people wondering if you do that.."
What a putz.
Putz is right. Wallace is a self absorbed, insensitive jerk who thinks the world was created exclusively for him and all living in it serve him. That's why he's on FOX. His dad should disown him immediately.
Chris Wallace is labeling democrats "arrogant". That's what Fox News does best, label Americans, categorize us then divide us.
All those Fox News commentators, or what ever you want to call them, have made out like bandits the last eight years serving as mouthpieces for the neo conserative agenda. They serve the GOP much like Pravda served the communist party. The Fox "news" organization is arguably the most biased on the TV airwaves.
Fox News is a success the republicans can claim in their media consolidation. The neocon base is loyal, but misinformed and numbers in the tens of millions. The republican leadership has no use for the curious and educated. Don't like to fund education either. Keeps them in business.
The conservative hierarchy does not like to pay their share of taxes. Like Leona Helmsley once said, little people pay taxes. Now they demand permanent tax cuts.
The wealthy repugs, like Messrs Wallace, O'Reilly, Hannity, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Murdoch reap of arrogance. That is the bottom line.
Seriously, if an impressive white candidate were pushing in states that were close, or maybe he didn't even expect to win, you'd call him "ambitious."
Or if you wanted to skew negative, you'd call him, "overly ambitious."
But you're absolutely right, the word "arrogant" is code for "uppity." You see, the white establishment likes their blacks to be docile and unambitious. The preference would be invisible.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question, Chris.
Are you suggesting that candidates should only campaign in certain states??
Nicole asks, "Finally, is it me or is the whole term "arrogant" a codeword for "uppity"?
It certainly is. And bigots have used it ever since this was passed:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
-- AMENDMENT 15 to the U.S. Constitution.
So, it seems appropriate for us to refer to these bigoted people as "redneck rebels", not "conservatives".
Did you mean "unarguably" intead of "arguably"? I think we may see some discussion on whether faux should be allowed to use the word NEWS in their television name.
The idea of a person of color behaving in a way which reflects simple self confidence is disconcerting for "some" people, thus the quips about "arrogance". I ask readers to try to find this description applied to other candidates in past elections who have found themselves in a commanding position. Calling him "arrogant" is actually absurd: since when have you heard of a presidential candidate surrendering a state out of deference to his opponent or because he already has enough votes elsewhere?
That this same person is proving to be a wiser and stronger campaigner than his white opponent is verging on the inconceivable for "some" who are stuck in outmoded ways of thinking; get ready for a variety of excuses designed to dismiss the quality of Obama's campaign (and likely victory) along the lines of "He was just lucky" or "We was robbed!". Granted, this latter scenario will occur regardless of race, since the Right is having a difficult time as it is understanding why their ideology got trumped by reality!
Dean could have told him that he, himself, planned the 50-state strategy when he became the head of the Democratic National Committee. He started grass-roots organizations when he made his primary run in 2004. That was the beginning of the 50 state strategy. He was tired of the Dems ceding entire sections of the country to the GOP.
The party regulars fought him tooth and nail. They didn't like it and they didn't like his big internet push. Turns out that he was right and it's helping us get our guy elected. Thank you, John Dean. You are one smart cookie, and you should be rewarded.
methinks.
Credit where credit is due.
How dare you compete everywhere you're competitive? Did the RNC give you permission to go into those states? I quite think not. How presumptuous of you. How... how.. UPPITY!
PLOUFFE: Doesn't asking questions like that make you the RNC's little bitch? They should make you wear a pink pinafore while you squawk like a parrot for your master. SQUAWK, little birdy, SQUAWK!
In short, we'll stick our steel toed boots up your red-painted derriere any damn way we please. This cycle we're thinkin' sideways.
When the rest of the world called America arrogant for using its economic and military might to press for its interests, the Right said they were just sore about their inability to compete with the Greatest Nation On Earth(TM).
Well, that's all that Obama and the Democrats are doing with their financial and political might. Whatever happened to free speech, competition and the "marketplace of ideas"?
Hey, Chris Wallace, why is it "arrogant" to pay attention to ALL 50 states in a federal election? Isn't that democratic? Shouldn't that be encouraged in a federal election? For a long time now, most of the country has been blown off by both of the major political parties. That's one of the things that has pissed off the American electorate. Obama is paying attention to all the people, to all the states. The idea that democrats should do just that originated with Howard Dean and he should be commended for bringing democracy back to the American people. Barack Obama has the financial resources to reach out to all Americans because a huge number of everyday Americans have given him close to $700 million dollars to do so. They feel it's that important. Obama has excellently run a long and successful campaign in which he has sincerely reached out to Americans. You can call that arrogant if you want to. And, I can think you are a total asshole for doing so.
I think ANYTHING can happen on an election day like today. (OK, maybe we can rule out Nader this year.)
Even though I'm from a "blue state" (Maryland), I'm not taking chances. I've already voted (from outside the country) by absentee ballot.
Login or Register to post comments.