Barack's Choice: Yes To Fox News, No To Hillary Clinton

Watching Barack Obama on Fox News Sunday, I was struck by something that hadn't occurred to me before: Maybe Fox News thinks they might have to deal with Barack being president and -- unlike Bill Clinton -- they see no immediate reason to try and destroy his presidency from day one.

How else to explain the civil tone of Chris Wallace's questions?... and the strikingly moderate analysis by the Fox pundits that took place afterwards?

I am no great lover of Fox News. And prior to watching the interview, I had been as prepared as a lot of people probably were to see a combative Barack Obama shining the light of truth on Fox New's real agenda. But when I saw the actual tone that Barack was using, I immediately realized that he was not there to accuse them of doing something negative towards him unless they did so in that moment.

This is called diplomacy... a largely forgotten skill... and the special quality that attracted me to Barack's campaign in the first place. Barack demonstrated that the foundation of his candidacy -- that the time for people from the left and right to talk to each other and seek common ground has come -- is still alive and well.

So, I applaud Barack for going on Fox News Sunday and giving Chris Wallace the benefit of the doubt... allowing for the diplomatic possibility that the interview could go well... which I think it did.

Senator Obama, you made a wise choice.

Comparing this to Barack's response to the reality-twisting, "do anything to win" behavior of Hillary Clinton, Bill "They played the race card against me!" Clinton, and the rest of Hillary's team... and I believe Barack has correctly decided that a "diplomatic discussion" -- (aka a debate on "the issues" that Hillary is demanding Barack have with her) -- is not going to happen. I think he realizes that any interaction with the Clinton campaign is going to be filled with "more of the same"... in other words, more of the politics of the past that his candidacy seeks to change.

We all know how every year Lucy promises Charlie Brown that she'll hold the football while he runs up to kick it. And we know that every year Lucy breaks her promise and pulls the ball away from Charlie Brown at the last moment, and he winds up flat on his back. It's called "The Leopard cannot change its spots."

So, in denying Hillary the debate she wants, he has made another wise choice.

I wouldn't be surprised if Barack is sad about having to choose to -- essentially -- let Hillary Clinton go. Because I believe that, in his heart, he really does want all of us -- including the Clinton's -- to work cooperatively for a better America... for a safer and healthier world.

But he has had to make a difficult choice. He has had to realize that -- until he is president -- he cannot attempt to work cooperatively with those who in actuality want to destroy the new politics he wants to bring to America. People for whom the politics of collaboration is either completely unknown or a psychological threat -- as the Clinton's have demonstrated is the case for them -- must be kept on the sideline at this point in time.

With Barack Obama's candidacy, this new politics is being given its best chance ever to reach the maturity necessary to become the mainstream way for politics to function in America. By appearing on Fox News Sunday, Barack showed us that this new politics can still happen...and that, at least in the case of Chris Wallace and the pundits who appeared with him, Fox News can potentially be part of the process of building this new political world. Barack showed us that you have to give "the better angels" in people a chance to show up. (And yes, I know that one Sunday morning interview show does not make for a completely transformed Fox News. But, as Chris Wallace said at the end of the interview, "Don't be a stranger." And I think Barack said "I won't be." I think Barack will be back on Fox News a number of times in the future.)

As for Hillary and Bill's "better angels"? Well, I'm sure they are in there somewhere. But given the campaign mindset the Clinton's have shown they will use for the rest of the nomination contest, I believe Barack is correct in assuming that the Clinton's will not let those angels speak until after the Democratic contest is over... if they let them speak at all.

In the movie "Sophie's Choice," Meryl Streep's character is forced by her Nazi tormentors to choose between saving one of her children and letting the other be killed or letting them both be killed. The sight of her letting her little girl be taken was one of the most painful moments I've ever seen portrayed on film.

As I've already said, I'm sure it's been painful for Barack to choose to let Hillary go. Perhaps he'll be able to throw a "spiritual lifeline" to her later. But his first priority is to make sure that the politics of the future survives this challenging time.

I suspected he knew he needed to do this when, in his speech after losing the Pennsylvania primary, he said:

I also know that real change has never been easy, and it won't be easy this time either. The status quo in Washington will fight harder than they ever have to divide us and distract us with ads and attacks from now until November.

With his appearance on Fox News and his rejection of Hillary's call for a debate, I'm now sure he does.

Keep doing what you're doing, Senator Obama. You have made a wise choice.

Follow Steven G. Brant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SteveBrant

Comments

[Grammie]

WAstateliberal, I hope you are still here. I responded to your comment from yesterday, in two parts.

The first part is on Pg 2 and the first part wound up here on page one.

I sent an E-Mail to Huff Po to inquire if there is a way to let another commenter know you have responded but have not heard back yet.

[bronceye]

While the interview did drag up the pointless and inconsequential preacher, pin and flag bs, it was civil albeit pointless. The review by the 4 neocons and a token(hey, he's black, has a mexican name and fux says he's a dem.-fair and balanced), was overly polite and had no bearing of the show's prevelant and contrived myopsy. I was surprised. Beltway Boys will have to spread the muck for the network this week.

[hopefulintexas]

But I wonder if Obama was seen by a bunch of people who have never listened to more than 30 seconds of him because he did it (yes, again) on FOX. It was redundant but I suspect a good move. . . . Just on the OFF CHANCE there are any reasonable thinking folks over there.

[atienne]

For those that believe Obama is 'afraid' to debate Hillary, I think you're missing the bigger picture. Chances are, he is our democratic nom and since this primary is dragging out, he HAS to start taking on McCain, NOW! I think it sends JUST the right message to the Clinton campaign...Hills is a non-issue at this point. Basically, the message is she is not worthy of a debate as it would be pointless. Anyone that thinks he's 'afraid' obviously doesn't realize that you can't be a coward or afraid to run for president, especially in his case! With all the nutjobs out there, his campaign is particularly dangerous. If you don't know the issues, go to mybarackobama.com and read them. It really isn't difficult!

[bobtr900]

Obama is playing with the dead and the lizard brainers by going on Fox. Apparently he acquitted himself well. My guess about Chris Wallace's more reasonable stlye of interview with OIbama is that the shunning that Fox got from the Dems has worked, at least to some extent. But reach out to a right winger conservative and you will draw back a bloody stump. They worship only profits and political power.

The James Bond movie, Tomorrow Never Dies, about the Carver Media Group is a perfect fit for Faux News and Rupert Murdoch. There is something terribly wrong, vitriolic and cancerous with those people.

If the shunning by the Dems worked that strategy should be used much more often and by we tyhe people if we care about America and democracy and a more civil discourse.

[AndrewGurn]

I think a lot of these, "OMGZ OBAMA IS GOING ON FOX NEWS.. oh wait, it turned out ok" comments are indicative to the fact that none of you ever watch FOX news and only think it's horrible because everyone else says it is.

FOX news is no more right than NBC is left. FOX has O'Reily and NBC has Olberman, both have braindead morning shows where the anchors tend to slip in little comments here and there, but when it comes to the news shows, the anchors for both networks are pretty good and the panelists are pretty evenly divided.

tl;dr Your fear of FOX news is unfounded.

[DrFelch]

What a load of crap, Andrew. Seriously, if you even knew what left WAS, you would not make such a
ridiculous comment, FOX are %100 right wing shills, and NBC is not far behind. How many times have NBC had Cliff Shechter on to plug "The Real McCain" for instance? That would be NONE.
Meanwhile, all we ever hear from all the media outlets is "Obamas pastor!!!" Or, if you prefer the FOX version.... "Obama is a muslim black radical who wants to enslave the white race!!" There is lots of very damaging stuff out there on McCain, and NONE of the major networks are doing anything to show it to the American public. Now, if you had said that Fox is no more right wing than NBC, I would have less of an argument. Take MSNBC for example. Senior political consultant? Pat Buchanan. Senior washington correspondent? Norah O'Donnell, a right wing repub. Morning show? Joe Scarborough, former right wing republican congressman and murderer, etc. Get real. You are not fooling anyone.

[bobste]

You're kidding right? Fox has 1 or 2 decent anchors. However, the rest of the time it's filled with idiots. Hannity is fixated on destroying Obama. When Rev. Wright gave his NAACP speech last night I assumed Hannity would lighten up a bit - he had to be a tad embarrassed after hearing Wright and finding out he's not such a horrible guy. What did he do? He put a former NYC cop on TV to bash Obama for his supposed connection to Ayres. Hannity keeps repeating "Friendly", "sits on boards with..." - I'd sue him - it's simply a lie. He "sat" on a board with him years ago! Please... But Hanity can't be fair about it - if he was, he'd also mention that the Clinton's pardoned Ayres' associates. Ayres was never convicted, Ayres wrote the 9/11 piece in advance of the attacks of 9/11 (not in response to it). He would also mention that Mayor Daley of Chicago is still friendly with Ayres and continues to work with him. Why won't he mention these things? Probably because Mayor Daley is stronger than the Presidential candidates today and might make life miserable for Hannity.

The network is not even a news network to me... it's an opinion network run by the GOP.

[Grammie]

Part two

I hope you see this b/c I hung things up early last night and just found your response.

BTW, it is so pleasant to have a reasonable discussion with someone whose political philosopy is on the other side of the spectrum. I sometimes think it would be easier to find water in the desert. :) Witness the too bad the kids didn't push you in the ovens. How sick do you have to be to publish that in the open.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

There's no way to control who posts comments on the internet.... although really repulsive ones can be deleted. But I lean towards "freedom of speech"... figuring it's better to let people show their true colors (so to speak... and I'm not referring to blue vs red).

I'm glad you checked back and found my response. It is possible for people to disagree without being disagreeable. (I'm not sure who said that first.)

[LivingStardust]

3 words sum up why FOX is kissing up a bit:

FEAR OF PROSECUTION.

[marykins123]

(part 2)

4) Hillary, you, like me and the other Democratic candidates, had agreed on the DNC Rules for MI and FL before the first vote was cast. Since Super Tuesday you have changed' the party rules to meet your nomination. If 'changing' the rules at your pleasure would beyour Presidency - are you any better than Bush/Cheney in upholding the laws of our land or our Constitution?

5) Hillary, in past debates you have thrown out names so allow me to do the same so you can respond to what I think will be seen across the television screens of the Democratic voters this fall - if not by McCain, then the 527: Abdul Rehman Jinnah, Vinod Gupta, Jorge Cabrera, Johnny Chung, David Rosen, Anthony "The Pelican" Pellicano. The list is longer but because of time constraints I have limited to these - please respond to at least 2 names for the voters.

6) Finally, Hillary, you and the political pundits like to throw out the phrase that "Obama can't close the deal". Well, I would like you to explain to the voters and Superdelegates listening WHY when you were the presumed nominee, had the donors, had to answer to no negative campaigning, was ahead in Superdelegates, over a 20% margin in national polling, didn't you "close the deal" on Super Tuesday?

[bobtr900]

marykins123,
Very well said, you hit all the high points. Well done.

[marykins123]

It's NOT Obama that should fear another debate - it's Clinton who should fear a debate!

1) Hillary, if you have not been capable of managing your campaign without bringing it into the RED and have not paid your bills, what makes you think the voters believe that you would be capable of managing the faltering economy we will inherit from Bush?

2) Hillary, please explain to the voters and the world what exactly you meant when you said you would obliterate Iran? Did you truly mean that you would remove all traces of innocent Iranian children? Is this really how you would react when the red phone rang at 3AM?

3) Hillary, you claim to be fully vetted by the Republicans. Explain what vetting you have had by the Repubs on: a) your husband's pardons and your taking of Presidential gifts on your way out of the White House, b) the Peter Paul fundraising lies, c) your brother taking money from people granted pardons by Pres. Clinton, d) what role did you play in the economy rebound in the 90's, e) Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewatergate, Billinggate, Castle Grande, Cattles Futures, f) Bosnia sniper fire lies. g) Chelsea was jogging by the Trade Center on 9/11. The voters need to hear and be shown you are FULLY vetted by the Repubs like you claim. Otherwise, Hillary, saying you are "fully vetted" is like a 'good speech' and we all know your opinion on good speeches.

(con't)

[Hophog]

I've been saying for a long time that just because HRC says she's been vetted doesn't make it so. But if you say something enough, people believe it. I'm guessing she wants not only voters to believe it, but the superdelegates.
Obama 08

[justobserve]

Brilliant analysis! coulldn't have said it better!
Avoid a bully is not being afraid as Clinton insinuated. He just refused to lower himself to her level. That's all! She just wants to show off her acting skills and needs audience, the kind of number that she has never been able to drawn in by her own. Shame on her! The more desparate she acts the more unelectable she becomes. America had enough of the Clintons.

[missjabez]

I couldn't agree with you more, Mr.Brant. Obama kept his priorities straight. He may not like Fox News, but he realized that their request for an interview was valid. I actually feared for him, but he used his diplomatic skills, and the kept the tone civil. I also feared that he would fall for Hillary's demand for a Lincoln/Douglas-style debate. I doubt that Hillary could have adhered to the lofty standards set by the LIncoln/Douglas debate. He apparently realized that the debate Hillary was asking for would not be to his advantage. Good thinking, Obama!

[blessedfrog]

As a Republican who is seriously considering voting for either Clinton or Obama in the General Election - I find Obama's refusal to debate Hillary for the first time on their own issues and not some big media controlled joke - really weak and cowardly. It is George Bush's game. Hide from the public and stand only in front of your admirers. The Lincoln-Douglass format would allow them each to say - right next to eachohter - juxtaposed - what THEY feel the real issues are and take eachother to task on specifics as oppossed to the grand and fun statements with no back up that they - and especially OBAMA get away with now - 'We need to educate our children!' YAY APPLA:USE - well how then ? we already increase spending constantly - at some point - the kiddies have to pick up a damn book and learn.

I do not see Hillary as being this nasty thing that you all make her out to be. Then again - I don't see Obama as the new Jesus either. I vote republican generally tho I never voted for Bush Jr. -

[Hophog]

And you want us to believe you're "seriously considering voting for either Clinton or Obama"?
Obama 08

[bentenrai]

Well friend, if I may suggest an opinion. As Hillary puts it, it's politics. You are bearing witness to a case of power play. In that game, the one in power decides the pace of the race. Hillary is trying to be fill that role in order to look more relevant to the superdelegates, Obama just won't let her dictate the pace, and thus willfully ignores her as relevant given that he's the one ahead.

It has nothing to do with cowardice. If he was a coward, he would have renouced Wright outright (Hillary would have) in his PA speech, not just the words he disagreed upon. After reviewing Wright's interview on PBS (freely available to view on the PBS website), I have come to the conclusion that Obama has made the right decision and his speech was not only politically brilliant, but also authentic, a rarity.

[bobste]

I still find it hard to believe that so many Americans expect the candidates to lay out the tactical details of every policy or plan. A President is like a CEO; they set the mission and surround themselves with people who can best get the job done - economists, military generals, etc. A President should be a strategic leader - not a tactician. It IS enough to be inspirational and to lay out the mission for Americans. If you look back, most Presidents complete goals promised, but do so in ways different than those originally laid out on the campaigns. BO is honest enough to say he needs to confer with Repubs, Indys, and Dems - AND generals, economists and other experts.

A CEO typically leaves finance to the CFO, tech to the CIO , etc...but simply lays out the mission.

Why are Americans fixated on the tactical details of every mission? It's more important that we accept the mission and hold candidates accountable for these goals.

[BBackSoon]

I see this idea of another debate as a great idea on paper, just like when politicians sell us on a lotto that all the money will go to education. And it does except they take all the other money away and spend it elsewhere and we still have the same crapy schools.

I personally do not think we could trust Clinton to run a fair debate. At the beginning of this campaign some 75 years ago, I was undecided. In watching the debates and the 24-hour coverage, and the on demand blogging, I have decided that I cannot trust a Clinton. These people (there are 2 of them) are great at looking straight into the camera, dripping wet, with water falling from the sky and telling us “It is not raining, I have never seen rain and there will be no rain in my presidency.”

[kiga]

Mr. Brant,
Obama hiding and not debating is not a wise choice as you asserted. Voters need to have answers to their questions! OK, let's say he doesn't debate Hillary and wins the nomination. How is he going to hide from debating McCain? stop drinking the Kool Aid Mr. Brant and perhaps the common sense will come back to you! Good judgement not to debate Hillary? Good judgement not to seat Michigan and Florida delegate (revote or count the vote)? Good judgement not to address why he was in the "God damn America church for 20 years? Good judgement for getting kickback from Tony Razko in exchange for his contracts? I could go on by the posting is limited by number of characters. One last question, do you get paid directly by Obama campaign or from the Repbublicans?

[JamieStarr]

What answers are you still waiting for? They've had 21 debates.

Are you just not paying attention?

The losing candidate always calls for a debate in hopes that something catastrophic will happen to the front-runner. Obama has no reason to debate. These issues have been discussed ad nauseum.

And about your "points"...
- Good judgement not to seat Michigan and Florida delegate (revote or count the vote)?
The DNC was responsible for that decision. Why didn't Hillary cry about this before she was losing?

- Good judgement not to address why he was in the "God damn America church for 20 years?
You're being small-minded if you think that church is only about one comment made on one day.

- Good judgement for getting kickback from Tony Razko in exchange for his contracts?
What kickback? Every investigation shows that Obama did nothing wrong.

I could go on by the posting is limited by number of characters.
No, it's not. You just don't have any points based in fact.

Your candidate is going to lose. I'm sorry that angers you to the point that you have to make up arguments to support your side.

[kristin]

Do you get paid to promote Hillary's talking points?

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

kiga,

You have missed the core concept behind my post.. a post which is written from the context of the current situation: that Barack needs to win the Democratic nomination, after which he will take on John McCain. (He is already focusing on McCain as much as he can, even though Hillary is still in the race.) The different between debating Hilary and debating McCain is something you don't seem to grasp. Debating Hillary is no longer a key element of Obama's primary contest strategy, especially since her entire campaign is based on spinning reality (the old world of politics). Debating McCain will be a key element in the general election... and I know Barack will eagerly engage in that "next chapter" of this process.

However... if McCain turns out to be a candidate who also uses reality-twisting, Twilight Zone-type tactics... I will whole heartedly support Barack in denying McCain the right to throw that kind of B.S. at him as well.

Winning votes is the only requirement for winning elections. Debates are not required. If the case is made clearly.. (and I'm sure Barack is capable of educating the American people on this concept)... that a debate only permits the destructive politics he seeks to replace to strangle the new world of politics he is bringing into being, I'm sure a large enough percentage of the voters will understand for him to win the general election. I will gladly help him make that case!

[sd4peace]

In 20 debates and 1 BS fiasco, there has been ample time to debate the issues.

After ABC's ridiculous event a few weeks ago, I don't blame him, why would he allow another "debate" about issues that have no business in a campaign.

[Duffs]

Diplomacy. What a novel concept.

[bentenrai]

After 8 years that lacked it big time, I say diplomacy feels pretty fresh.

[hopefulintexas]

Yes! This is precisely how he has made so many people fall in love with him, no matter what political, racial, economic, or other background they come from. Good article and good call, Barack. That's how Barack will get his groove back after falling prey to Hillary's voo doo mojo over the last weeks. FOX also deserves some accolades here, too.

[lotuslike]

Bravo, Brant! It is fascinating and inspiring to see this man at work. I too think it was wise to accept this interview and turn Hillary away. Again, good, honest, astute choices in play here. Obama will make an excellent President.