NY Times review of Chuck Todd's book on Obama.
- Thread starter I FAN U
- Start date
The fact that it's coming from Todd is what I find so fascinating.
And there may have been others with a lefty slant (beyond Leon Paneta) that have publicly exposed this that have not caught my attention. I just find it very interesting that now the left is starting to lob grenades his way.
And there may have been others with a lefty slant (beyond Leon Paneta) that have publicly exposed this that have not caught my attention. I just find it very interesting that now the left is starting to lob grenades his way.
I'm fairly impressed with Chuck Todd
I've watched MTP more with him than I ever did with Gregory. I made it a point to watch him election night. I know he is a lefty, and he is no Russert, but he is in the top 5 talking heads.
His conclusions in his book are not surprising and are fairly obvious to any one who pays attention. As an aside, given the brief comment about Obama's reliance on his youthful White House team which included Sesan Rice and Ben Rhodes to the exclusion of Clinton is interesting on a number of fronts.
I've watched MTP more with him than I ever did with Gregory. I made it a point to watch him election night. I know he is a lefty, and he is no Russert, but he is in the top 5 talking heads.
His conclusions in his book are not surprising and are fairly obvious to any one who pays attention. As an aside, given the brief comment about Obama's reliance on his youthful White House team which included Sesan Rice and Ben Rhodes to the exclusion of Clinton is interesting on a number of fronts.
Re: I'm fairly impressed with Chuck Todd
I must confess that I rarely watch Meet the Press or other Sunday morning political shows--I only watch CBS Sunday Morning (with my son doing his own little "sun dance" when the trumpet starts playing at the start of the show).
My question is, how much of a "lefty" is Chuck Todd? Sure he was on MSNBC and all, but my general impression of him was that he's closer to the middle than the people who surrounded him on MSNBC (and certainly more to the center than David Gregory).
And to me the most important thing about his book is not what's in it (which sound like things people on the right said from the very beginning), but rather the fact that it was Chuck Todd who wrote it.
For a long time I have held the belief that whenever a politician is taking heat from both sides of the aisle, it means one of two things: (a) they are actually doing a very good job; or (b) they actually do, in fact, mostly suck at their elected position. John Kasich (Ohio's governor), in my opinion, is an example of (a). Obama? Well, I will let others decide that one.
I must confess that I rarely watch Meet the Press or other Sunday morning political shows--I only watch CBS Sunday Morning (with my son doing his own little "sun dance" when the trumpet starts playing at the start of the show).
My question is, how much of a "lefty" is Chuck Todd? Sure he was on MSNBC and all, but my general impression of him was that he's closer to the middle than the people who surrounded him on MSNBC (and certainly more to the center than David Gregory).
And to me the most important thing about his book is not what's in it (which sound like things people on the right said from the very beginning), but rather the fact that it was Chuck Todd who wrote it.
For a long time I have held the belief that whenever a politician is taking heat from both sides of the aisle, it means one of two things: (a) they are actually doing a very good job; or (b) they actually do, in fact, mostly suck at their elected position. John Kasich (Ohio's governor), in my opinion, is an example of (a). Obama? Well, I will let others decide that one.
It takes a while to overcome first impressions
Obama had a helluva opening statement in 2008. Those who bought it multiplied its effect.
Obama had a helluva opening statement in 2008. Those who bought it multiplied its effect.
You could be right about the right/left thing
Whatever he is off the stage, he seems to be objective on stage.
The recent criticism of Obama seems to include his policy positions. That is new territory for the MSM. MSM criticism about his arrogance and unwillingness to play well with others has been around since at least Bob Woodward wrote about how Obama screwed up negotiations on the 2011 budget deal.
Whatever he is off the stage, he seems to be objective on stage.
The recent criticism of Obama seems to include his policy positions. That is new territory for the MSM. MSM criticism about his arrogance and unwillingness to play well with others has been around since at least Bob Woodward wrote about how Obama screwed up negotiations on the 2011 budget deal.
You're giving them way too much credit.....
He's no longer useful to them, therefore, he is now under the bus....
Credibility? It's sort of like the credibility of some former posters here who used to regale us
with their wisdom of how the GOP was dead, and they had to act like 'progressives' in order to save themselves..
He's no longer useful to them, therefore, he is now under the bus....
Credibility? It's sort of like the credibility of some former posters here who used to regale us
with their wisdom of how the GOP was dead, and they had to act like 'progressives' in order to save themselves..
I FANU, Are you going to read the book...
...or just rely on the so-called liberal New York Times review?
I ask this question because I have defended U.S. presidents starting with Herbert Hoover as being generally treated unfairly by both the press of their times and some historians. In general the times in which they serve and events beyond their control often establish their legacy. Some are lucky, and some are not.
I do this because I have considerable empathy for anyone who has been in the Oval Office. Just getting to be president is a rather monumental task in my view.
Furthermore books written by everyday journalists and respected historians which I have read have all kinds of conflicting conclusions and innuendos which allow others to quote. Most interesting is that important information comes to light by researchers long after the president leaves office.
...or just rely on the so-called liberal New York Times review?
I ask this question because I have defended U.S. presidents starting with Herbert Hoover as being generally treated unfairly by both the press of their times and some historians. In general the times in which they serve and events beyond their control often establish their legacy. Some are lucky, and some are not.
I do this because I have considerable empathy for anyone who has been in the Oval Office. Just getting to be president is a rather monumental task in my view.
Furthermore books written by everyday journalists and respected historians which I have read have all kinds of conflicting conclusions and innuendos which allow others to quote. Most interesting is that important information comes to light by researchers long after the president leaves office.
Not on mine
It wouldn't be on my Christmas list as books about a sitting president or recently retired one usually don't add much to a good assessment about much of anything.
My experience tells me that the first best books to read are a president's account of his presidency which of course is heavily balanced in his own favor while at the same time offering a yardstick in which to measure other accounts.
From that point on, the reviews of a presidency depend a great deal on who is doing the research and what access the author has to people around the president along with how candid they are without a political bias. In this regard I put considerable respect on the Gates and Panetta accounts but less on what Chuck Todd has to write. This not because of bias but more upon accessibility and first hand observation.
So if I have to read an early account of the Obama presidency, I'd put the Gates and Panetta books ahead of the Todd book for someone who wants to give me a book about the Obama presidency for Christmas.
It wouldn't be on my Christmas list as books about a sitting president or recently retired one usually don't add much to a good assessment about much of anything.
My experience tells me that the first best books to read are a president's account of his presidency which of course is heavily balanced in his own favor while at the same time offering a yardstick in which to measure other accounts.
From that point on, the reviews of a presidency depend a great deal on who is doing the research and what access the author has to people around the president along with how candid they are without a political bias. In this regard I put considerable respect on the Gates and Panetta accounts but less on what Chuck Todd has to write. This not because of bias but more upon accessibility and first hand observation.
So if I have to read an early account of the Obama presidency, I'd put the Gates and Panetta books ahead of the Todd book for someone who wants to give me a book about the Obama presidency for Christmas.
Well to start with the most recent
president ( and I could find stuff on all of them). "No lobbyists in his administration, will be a very transparent administration, will close Guantanamo (sp??) Bay....) These are just the tip of the iceberg. All you have to do is read about his shenanigans in Chicago to rise to power and you'll know he's a cheat.
Bush told some whoopers also and his military service is very suspect.
To me a lie is a lie .... some people will say that's just politics. It may be but it's still a lie.
president ( and I could find stuff on all of them). "No lobbyists in his administration, will be a very transparent administration, will close Guantanamo (sp??) Bay....) These are just the tip of the iceberg. All you have to do is read about his shenanigans in Chicago to rise to power and you'll know he's a cheat.
Bush told some whoopers also and his military service is very suspect.
To me a lie is a lie .... some people will say that's just politics. It may be but it's still a lie.
NPT, Here is a long list...
...of scandals involving presidents which includes "vote-rigging, name-calling and dirty tricks on a monumental scale" according to this article.
NPT, this article makes it seem as if a good many presidents are tainted which I guess is the point you were making. True to form, I wouldn't be as tough on these gentlemen for their indiscretions and those of their aides as is the author Mike Dash.
...of scandals involving presidents which includes "vote-rigging, name-calling and dirty tricks on a monumental scale" according to this article.
NPT, this article makes it seem as if a good many presidents are tainted which I guess is the point you were making. True to form, I wouldn't be as tough on these gentlemen for their indiscretions and those of their aides as is the author Mike Dash.
Re: NPT, Here is a long list...
If you follow strict Webster/Merriam definitions Obama border on a racist narcissist.
egotistical, egoistic;
informal[/I]full of oneself
"
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another".
Obama believes that he is the supreme decider of what is best for America no matter what the opinion of the voters happens to be.
If you follow strict Webster/Merriam definitions Obama border on a racist narcissist.
egotistical, egoistic;
informal[/I]full of oneself
"
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another".
Obama believes that he is the supreme decider of what is best for America no matter what the opinion of the voters happens to be.
Calling the Republicans anti-black...
...as Stein claims would be a lousy way to conduct political discourse, but I fail to see how this makes Obama a racist even if it is true. A racist by my definition thinks one race is superior to others, rather than saying one party is anti-black.
...as Stein claims would be a lousy way to conduct political discourse, but I fail to see how this makes Obama a racist even if it is true. A racist by my definition thinks one race is superior to others, rather than saying one party is anti-black.
I wish
Democrats would use that definition. For example, R will get labeled as racists if they are against affirmative action. Now which side of that issue thinks one race is superior to others? Democrats think black can't compete with whites on a level playing field and need help.
Democrats would use that definition. For example, R will get labeled as racists if they are against affirmative action. Now which side of that issue thinks one race is superior to others? Democrats think black can't compete with whites on a level playing field and need help.
Yep, that is the
reason I asked why you have empathy for them. They all lie and most, if not all, have pull dirty tricks to get to the top. Some of the things they have done may not have been illegal but IMO they were definitely immoral and/or wrong.
reason I asked why you have empathy for them. They all lie and most, if not all, have pull dirty tricks to get to the top. Some of the things they have done may not have been illegal but IMO they were definitely immoral and/or wrong.
Playing on fears of racism
One need look no further than meridian's response to Dave, above, to see how a question asked by a republican is assumed to be the product of racism (amongst other isms). Probably the most extreme example in recent days is Joe Biden's " they want to put y'all back in chains", or the Florida flyers claiming the Republican victories would turn the sunshine state into another Ferguson.
The Republican Party is becoming more diverse, and I don't think folks like Biden want that to happen.
One need look no further than meridian's response to Dave, above, to see how a question asked by a republican is assumed to be the product of racism (amongst other isms). Probably the most extreme example in recent days is Joe Biden's " they want to put y'all back in chains", or the Florida flyers claiming the Republican victories would turn the sunshine state into another Ferguson.
The Republican Party is becoming more diverse, and I don't think folks like Biden want that to happen.
Racism is about thinking...
...a particular race is inferior or a single race is superior.
In my view, in this thread, we are talking about playing the race card or using race as a part of a political tactic. Republicans like to remind us that the Democrats are beholding to minorities and have policies which favor minorities at the expense of whites and the more affluent (affirmative action and taxes on the wealthy). Democrats point to Republican ideas and policies as being detrimental to minorities (opposition to immigration amnesty and cutting social program funds).
So by my definition, the term racism is both overused and used incorrectly as part of our political dialogue by both parties. I will say this, any mention of the word sure stirs up emotional responses as is evidenced by reactions here at the Cooler over the years.
...a particular race is inferior or a single race is superior.
In my view, in this thread, we are talking about playing the race card or using race as a part of a political tactic. Republicans like to remind us that the Democrats are beholding to minorities and have policies which favor minorities at the expense of whites and the more affluent (affirmative action and taxes on the wealthy). Democrats point to Republican ideas and policies as being detrimental to minorities (opposition to immigration amnesty and cutting social program funds).
So by my definition, the term racism is both overused and used incorrectly as part of our political dialogue by both parties. I will say this, any mention of the word sure stirs up emotional responses as is evidenced by reactions here at the Cooler over the years.
Re: Playing on fears of racism
davegolf isn't merely "a Republican". He's a poster with a well-known history of racially insensitive posts, and his thread-starter expressly framed Lynch's appointment around race and gender. He's given people good reason to make just the sort of assumptions that meridian made, specifically including the post to which meridian responded. Not that Republicans will care what I think, but if the party wants to shed its racially-challenged image, it can't be oblivious to the problems caused by its more racially-challenged members.
Also, I'd like to see data for the proposition that "The Republican Party is becoming more diverse."
davegolf isn't merely "a Republican". He's a poster with a well-known history of racially insensitive posts, and his thread-starter expressly framed Lynch's appointment around race and gender. He's given people good reason to make just the sort of assumptions that meridian made, specifically including the post to which meridian responded. Not that Republicans will care what I think, but if the party wants to shed its racially-challenged image, it can't be oblivious to the problems caused by its more racially-challenged members.
Also, I'd like to see data for the proposition that "The Republican Party is becoming more diverse."
Similar threads
