Joan Walsh: "The cover obscured Lizza's BRILLIANT...and DISTURBING account of Obama!"

[ErinBerin84]

Is anyone watching David Gregory right now? Aside from the cover (which I wasn't offended by whatsoever, but I could see why some other people could find it offensive), she said "The cover obscured Ryan Lizza's brilliant and disturbing take on Obama's early Chicago days, which really just show Obama as a calculating politican!"

I didn't particularly find the article to be "disturbing", but I know others here thought it was a negative article...what did you guys think? Sometimes I just have a trouble seeing Joan Walsh's opinions as genuine , because I think she is "disturbed" in general about Obama winning the nomination and not Hillary.

btw, I have been refraining from commenting on the New Yorker cover either way since I don't really care, but Joan Walsh just bothers me (though it is probably my leftover feelings about her from the primary, so was anyone else as "concerned" as she was about the story about Obama? BTW, she thinks the cover is "hilarious". And again, I don't really care either way)

[bunnies]

1. Joan Walsh.

I am not a fan. She's never been "for" Obama. Did you hear that? She just said... "If he's MAN enough". WTF?! Sexism. Yay. She's a hypocrite.

[ErinBerin84]

4. yeah, I have heard her say the "man enough" thing before. That "disturbs" me, lol.

I turned it off though, so I missed it this time.

[fascisthunter]

12. she said "man enough"....?

my oh my there's a fly in her eye.

[bunnies]

34. More than a fly

Might even be a sty.

If she's MAN enough. :rofl:

[Kahuna]

33. She sounds like a Hillary 2012 holdout. What a foul piece of work she is.

:puke:

[bunnies]

36. Thats the feeling I get as well.

She's all... sexism sexism... then she says "man enough". This is a serious journalist? Please.

[babylonsister]

2. I'm with you about Walsh being 'disturbed' in general.

And yes, I'm listening. I preferred this analysis of Lizza's article by tnr:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x370968#370990

[anonymous171]

3. Then it's good that Obama made a huge deal out of the cover.

Distracts from the hit piece.

[tularetom]

5. Obama's a "calculating politician"? Good.

About time we had one of them people on our side for a change.

And it appears like he calculates well.

[grantcart]

6. She seems to try so hard to be relevant, and so often isn't

[mod mom]

7. Ryan Lizza was on Fresh Air with Terry Gross today. He did an excellent job.

[ErinBerin84]

9. He was on Hardball too. I think he made a good case for it.

BTW, is it just me, or does he try and look all "blue steel"-ish on (glaring at the camera in a certain way...maybe he switched to contacts or got laser surgery, and he isn't used to it yet) since he stopped wearing glasses?

[KoKo]

18. How many DU'ers really read Lizza's article inside the "New Yorker," though?

As opposed to "Reaction" from the "Cover Art?"

[Pirate Smile]

24. I did. I thought it was interesting. Here is my reaction to it which I posted on

a thread where someone was upset and thought it was a hit piece. The last few weeks have clearly shown that I fall on the pragmatist side of the Democratic Party.

"I read the entire article and while I certainly don't think the author was giving Obama the benefit
of the doubt on anything, I actually like the fact that he is a tough-assed customer as a politician.

I think a lot of Clinton supporters were worried he wasn't tough enough. Remember the crap about Edwards thinking he wasn't tough enough or was too nice.

I like this: "Instead of arriving in Springfield as the consensus candidate of his district, Obama was regarded as a troublemaker. “He had created some enemies,” Emil Jones, who in 2003 became president of the Illinois Senate, said. Burns described the fallout of the Obama-Palmer race this way: “It established a reputation that ‘you’re not going to punk me, you’re not going to roll me over, you’re not going to jam me.’"

I even liked this: "Before Nottage broke them up, Obama, who had learned to box from his Indonesian stepfather, supposedly told Hendon, “I’m going to kick your ass!”

Obambi be gone.

You don't get this far without being a tough customer - especially this fast. People want a significant amount of toughness in a President too.

I don't know. I read the article but I already knew about the Alice Palmer stuff and nothing else bothered me.

edit to add because I don't think it was clear - the Alice Palmer stuff doesn't bother me either. "

Here is the thread if you are interested in the other responses.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6496539&mesg_id=6496819

[Pirate Smile]

43. Did you check out the review on 538?

Here it is:

When Memes Collide



Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word epic by no means paints the most flattering picture of Barack Obama. His Obama is remarkably intelligent and very level-headed, but also understands every lever of power, and is ambitious to the point of being ruthless.

Well, no shit he's ambitious. For any American to go from a relatively unprivileged childhood (or a privileged one for that matter) to be on the doorstep of the Preisdency by the time he's age 46 requires a perfect storm of luck, intelligence, and ambition. Obama has ample amounts of each.

But the article is more remarkable for revealing what Obama is not.

One, he's not some Pierre Trudeau type of academic. Obama became interested in politics very early, and seemed to have some keen understanding of his upside potential. The sometimes languid pace of academia was not really compatible with that.

Two, Obama was not corrupt. He knew how to navigate the rules of the system. But he didn't cheat the system. Obama succeeded, for instance, in disqualifying Alice Palmer from the ballot in the Illinois State Senate because she faked hundreds of signatures to get her name on it, and then Obama called her out. That's maybe not the most mannerly, tea-and-crumpets way of doing things. But Obama didn't cheat. Palmer had cheated. What Obama did was to exploit some of the inefficiencies of the Chicago machine system. Tony Rezko donates, though legal channels, a bunch of money because he expects you to behave like a typical machine politician and do him illegal favors? What to do? Well, you take his money. And then you don't do him the favors.

Third, Obama is not any kind of radical, and particularly not any kind of radical black nationalist. His associations with people like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers may have arisen out of a certain amount of political convenience; they were significant players in the South Side political scene. But there is no evidence that he shared many of their political ideas. Hyde Park is not some liberal enclave in the way that Berkley or Boulder is. It is, rather, a place where people are very tolerant of different ideas. Liberal and even radical ideas, but notably also, conservative ones (where do Leon Kass and John Mearsheimer teach -- and where did Milton Friedman?). Hyde Park prides itself on being a laboratory of free thought and free speech, and so these people can lead a relatively happy coexistence there. But their views do not represent the consensus, and there is certainly no evidence that they represented Obama's.

And moving out of Hyde Park into the South Side community at large, Obama enjoyed relatively chilly relations with many of the district's more predictably left-liberal black politicians. Obama isn't a Black Panther. But Bobby Rush was. Obama tried to primary him out of Congress.

And so while some on the right (and others, less coherently, on the loopy left) will try and excoriate Obama for the political equivalent of not helping old ladies to cross the street, a lot of their favorite narratives about Obama are blown up by this article. Hence, the irony of the cover art. (The right's favorite punchline about the cover seems to be, "all humor has it's basis in reality" . To which I'd ask: what part has the basis in reality? The terrorist part or the terrorist part?)

That does not mean that the Obama that emerges from Lizza's piece is particularly warm and cuddly. He is certainly a very political creature, and there is something a little steely and postmodern about it all. But it is also not clear that Obama is playing some kind of angle. He seems, rather, to hold a lot of fairly mainstream, somewhat empirically-driven views -- still an idealist in certain ways, but not highly ideological. The White House may represent to him some sort of final step in his self-actualization, but he's not going there to get a blow job, or to play out some sort of Oedipal complex. It's all actually sort of ... boring.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/when-memes-collide.html

[beachmom]

61. I totally agree with you, Pirate Smile, and 538, too. I liked the article as well.

I will say, though, that the New Yorker article they did on Kerry, the Prosecutor (following him clinching the nomination in '04) was far more positive. However, considering we have lost two presidential campaigns in a row, it's actually nice to learn that Obama is a master political strategist, and he executes his plans with ruthless precision.

[Pirate Smile]

63. Their planning and execution re winning the nomination was brilliant.

He is a long term thinker who doesn't act based on the day's news-cycle - neither does Plouffe.

Sometimes when the media is bashing him now - "he needs to do this", "he needs to do that", "why isn't he ahead by more", blah, blah, blah ... I have flashbacks to the summer and fall of 2007 - "He has to start attacking her", "He has to go on the offensive", "Where are the inspirational speeches", "He is boring and professorial during townhalls" and my favorite - "Kids never vote, the young people they are talking about will never actually show up for a caucus on a cold January night".

When they act all shocked that he isn't releasing high-volume, aggressive attacks based on the latest surrogates gaffe, I just remember the summer and fall of 2007.

The real show starts at the Conventions, although I'm looking forward to his foreign trip and his speech tomorrow. :)

[thepurpose]

8. I'm not impressed with Joan Walsh either.

[woolldog]

10. I can't stand Joan Walsh.

She is extremely biased and is still obviously bitter about the way the race turned out.

Anyone who is surprised Obama is a calculating ruthless politician is living with their head in the clouds. Nobody his age rises to levels that he has so quickly without being exceptionally calculating and gifted and lucky to boot.

[ErinBerin84]

11. exactly.

[KoKo]

21. I found her differing more to Smerkomish...more than getting any chance to speak and when she did

she seemed very "pro-Obama." I guess different folks see different things. :shrug:

[ErinBerin84]

26. "different folks see different things"

yup, which is why I asked for other opinions, and admitted that my distrust of Joan may be a result of my own pre-determined bias (seeing her use the "man enough" thing more than once just annoys me). It's just certain comments like that that kind of make me be like "Whaa?". But again, my perspective is not the be all and end all.

[KoKo]

13. well...I DID READ the NYorker article in FULL...it took a long time it's a 15 pager...

which most of us have little time for.

What bothered me was that the Art Work on the Cover...had NOTHING to do with Lizza's article...which one would have had to be a "policy wonk" to get through the whole 15 pages...because so much has been written about his period in Obama's life...that some folks eyes "glaze over" and those who really wanted to read the article, even though they were offended by the NYorker Cover...might have missed what Chicago Politics is all about and how Obama managed to over come it all.

The article by Lizza is such a disconnect from the "Cover Art" it's mind boggling. Yet the "Cover Art" is what the Bloggers and Cable and RW Pundits are focusing on.

Maybe this is a GOOD THING for Obama. Folks don't read the article (inside the mag) but get into arguments about the New Yorker Cover Art (which personally, I thought was disgusting because it wasn't a satire on the ARTICLE inside the Magazine but a blatant attemept to get folks to go out and BUY the MAGAZINE!

There's NOTHING in that article that would allow the "artist" to portray Michelle as a "gun toatin' Angela Davis" or Obama as "Osama." The article is all about his career in Chicago Politics.

It's all a STUNT! which kind of "pukes me out." :puke:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. No New Yorker cover is ever meant to illustrate an article within.

[KoKo]

16. Well...I've been reading New Yorker since 1970... and this was CHEAP..!

EOM

[liberal1973]

37. I agree

It was a cheap stunt.

[Skidmore]

14. Joan Walsh really made me angry this evening.

Whose side is she on anyway? With friends like this who needs enemies?

[KoKo]

17. Whose side did YOU think she was on that you were so angry. I didn't see

that she took a side. :shrug:

[beachmom]

62. This is typical of "liberal" pundits on TV. They stabbed Kerry in the back in '04, too.

I watch little cable. Waste of time. Only bits and pieces of KO, if that.

[mucifer]

19. I read the entire article. It portrayed Obama as cold an calculating and not caring who he steps on.

Also, the article ended by saying Obama is a big flip flopper. (I didn't agree with the ending.)

It was an interesting read.

But, hey we got two choices and I just gave Obama some more money today because as scary as he is I know mccain is 100 times worse.

[KoKo]

23. I could see that but I could also see a Calculating Politician that we DEMS NEED!

Now his horoscope sign is the same as Bill Clinton's and that means as a Leo "EVERYONE WILL LIKE HIM" so I think we might be getting (if he manages to get through the crap voting machines) a Clinton II that the People will Love who will have a Rocky Road...but who is of a "different time" and who knows who put him into office unlike Clinton who relied on the DLC Machine.

I read the article and thought it was fascinating. But, I'd read some snips of some of Obama's Political History before from reporters in the Chicago Trib. I could almost think that Lizza was lazy and just went around to "retrace the earlier Chicago Trib reporters "steps" to get a "little more detail" to put his piece in "New Yorker" when it was already decided that the "Cover Art Work" would be the REAL FEATURE and not Lizza's reporting! ...........But then I'm a cynical person after "Stolen Election 2000 and the Bush/Cheney Years of Crime and Corruption." :shrug:

[Pirate Smile]

38. It reminds me of this recent Borowitz column:

Liberal Bloggers Accuse Obama of Trying to Win Election

The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) is trying to win the 2008 presidential election.

Suspicions about Sen. Obama's true motives have been building over the past few weeks, but not until today have the bloggers called him out for betraying the Democratic Party's losing tradition.
"Barack Obama seems to be making a very calculated attempt to win over 270 electoral votes," wrote liberal blogger Carol Foyler at LibDemWatch.com, a blog read by a half-dozen other liberal bloggers. "He must be stopped."

But those comments were not nearly as strident as those of Tracy Klugian, whose blog LoseOn.org has backed unsuccessful Democratic candidates since 2000.
"Increasingly, Barack Obama's message is becoming more accessible, appealing, and yes, potentially successful," he wrote. "Any Democrat who voted for Dukakis, Mondale or Kerry should regard this as a betrayal."

Liberal bloggers said that they would be watching Sen. Obama's vice-presidential selection process "very closely" for signs that he is plotting to win the election.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/liberal-bloggers-accuse-o_b_110371.html

That bastard!

[KoKo]

49. lol's he's a great candidate but when we try to defend him by trashin NYorker Cover...

some of us even get trashed for that. It's a no win... :shrug:

[Pirate Smile]

50. Well, we are Democrats. Some of us don't seem to be able to function without

arguing with each other.

My Mom used to talk about her uncles arguing about politics while she was growing up. She said they would literally come to blows. They were all Democrats. :)

[KoKo]

51. ...and many of us aren't even the "brawling Irish" who made Dem Politics in Boston...

I can trash them...because I'm part Irish. Fighting spirits...take politics seriously...whatever. :D

[Pirate Smile]

58. LOL - I was talking about my Irish half of the family - no surprise there, obviously.

:D

[Pirate Smile]

20. Barack Obama is a calculating politician? Who Knew!

OMG - did people really think he just got where he was because of fairy dust and magic.

I love the shock, shock that he is a politician - and a smart one.

If anything, people should feel better that he know how to work the friggin system to actually get results.

People can lose the "Obambi" and "niave" crap. He knows what he is doing.

I can't believe Joan is so ridiculously immature about politics. Grow the f#$k up, Joan. She has been a consistent Obama critic. Moving somewhat over to being a supporter but barely. She had a person in the primaries and they didn't win.

[NattPang]

22. And the person that Walsh supported

isn't exactly as pure as driven snow
when it comes to playing political hardball.

[KoKo]

25. Ahh.....you want to "tar Walsh" saying she supported Hillary so her opinion as a Democrat doesn't

Count? Hey...I thought Obama's theme was UNITY...you sure aren't supporting him on that one. :-(

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

28. No tarring, But it takes to two to have unity.

[liberal1973]

40. I disagree with you on this

I think that Obama's message of unity is correct ,but if true what this Walsh said then it's her that doesn't support unity.

[Major Hogwash]

41. I don't think that Walsh is a Democrat. I fail to see how she acts like one.

She criticized John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 incessantly during both of their campaigns.
I cancelled my subscription to Salon dot com because of it.

And all of her comments that may have been construed as supporting either one of them were followed by "yeah, but" with a detailed criticism of some position they took.

I don't think Joan is a Democrat.
Her opinion doesn't make any sense half of the time if she were one.
She's just simply another talking head on some irrelevant tv programs.
She goes on David Gregory's program because he is trying to make McCain look like a viable alternative to Obama.
Gregory never says that McCain's positions are insane or that they line up with Bush's exactly.
He always acts as if they are some subtle differences between them and yet there are none.

[KoKo]

44. Maybe Joan Walsh is a "Firedoglake" type of Progressive like some of us here on DU?

Salon is a Dem Web Site. The FIRST ONE OUT THERE..followed by Buzzflash and Media Whores Online.

Joan Walsh isn't the "enemy" any more than many DU'ers who are "in the background" these days...

We are all Democrats. And, we need "FULL FORCE" of Democrats to win. I worked for Kerry but was never enthused by him. Walsh is older...maybe she see's the pitfalls that campaigns can fall into. Just saying...don't throw out fellow Dems with some Repug Bathwater... "The Nation," "Greenwald's Blog on Salon" and "Firedoglake," "My DD" and others are all Dems...but they might have some views you don't agree with ...but we ALL WANT A DEM TO WIN in NOVEMBER....

[bunnies]

65. OR maybe shes just another Hill Shill.

Gee. Who could have seen THAT coming. :banghead:

[me b zola]

30. IMO, Joan isn't immature about politics, she's a Clinton hack

Joan is like (not all, nor probably not the majority) of some of DU's Clinton supporters from before the primaries who used to wag their fingers at critics of Hillary's policy stances and the frame from which she operates and tell us that we were naive, that we didn't understand how policy was made in DC.

What really slayed me about Joan's ramblings today was how she went on that if Obama was "man enough" to choose people smarter than himself for VP/his cabinet--this was in reference to having Bill back in the WH. Here's a for clue Joan--if Bill was smarter than Barack then there would have been no way that a Junior Senator could have taken down the Clinton machine that has been in place for 20+ years. Eat me, Joan.

[Pirate Smile]

39. Talk about using sexist crap. I love how people love to use emasculating language

against Democratic men but scream sexism at other times. Nasty. How MODO of her.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

27. Joan is quite the disappointment. I use to really like her too.

She needs to come on board the winning team.

[Median Democrat]

29. But Maureem Dowd Called "Obambi" A Naive Wuss, Not Ruthless!

I don't know which perjorative descriptor I am supposed to be mislead by. Marueen Dowd's description of a weak liberal who is referred to as Obambi or the ruthless Obama depicted in the New Yorker who is ready to take out the opposition.

Maybe David Gregory and Maureen Dowd need to have some coffee and work out whether Obama is Maureen Dowd's effeminate, weak and naive liberal "Obambi" or whether Obama is the ruthless, goal oriented take no prisoners politician depicted in the New Yorker.

[ErinBerin84]

31. haha, maybe that's why MSNBC had their hourly "How should GOP attack Obama" session all day today

Every hour, the pundit would say "According to one article, the GOP is confused over how to go after Obama. So what about it?", then deferring to one or two Republicans at a time each hour (never any Dems to counter), with "How should the GOP attack Obama?"

[Median Democrat]

42. Reading That Article - Hillary Looks Like A Wide Eyed Flower Girl

I've read past accounts of Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Obama defended Hillary in his book by noting that Hillary is described as "calculating" when she deviates from the Democratic orthodoxy whereas John McCain is called a "maverick" when he deviates from GOP orthodoxy. Yet, that article describes Obama in pretty cold-blooded, ruthless terms, rather than as a wide-eyed, inexperienced liberal. Instead, we get OBAMA: TESTED VETERAN OF THE CHICAGO POLITICAL MACHINE who pursues his ambitions with the singlemindedness of a political terminator.

What is true? Obambi? Or, Obama: The Political Terminator.

[NattPang]

35. He probably a cross section of a bit of, but really none of the above.

as a politician, he seems reasonable and pragmatic,
sticks to the rules (perhaps a bit to closely),
and is neither naive nor ruthless.

He's probably determined and motivated,
and at this time,
he holds much of our fate in his hands.

I personally hope that he is calculating,
and takes no prisoners.
Anythings short of that will not provide a good outcome.

[LowerManhattanite]

32. Ah, the ever-pained faced Joan Walsh...

...whose curdle-stomached look always comes off like she's opened her closet door, and pulled out her favorite pair of Manolos to ease into—only to discover to her disgust, a moldering, dead centipede carcass in one of them.

She's a griefer, and a particularly whiny one at that.

She can't get over it. Alas. :(

[burythehatchet]

48. Face frozen in a permanent look of concern. Sorry assed blabbing head.

[KoKo]

53. She has "frown lines" and she doesn't use "Botox." You want her to look like Pelosi?

She can't help her facial structure. At least she isn't plastic.

[KoKo]

45. The Cover DID "obscure Lizza's Brilliant and Disturbing" account of a Politicians Climb in Chicago

Politics. You are pissing on her for pointing this out? :shrug:

[hedgehog]

46. Nothing at all wrong with being a politician, as long as you use

your political skills to advance your goals. Using your political skills to tack to and fro with the polls (cough*triangulate*cough) until all you stand for is getting and keeping yourself in office.....now that's another story.

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. Joan Walsh: HILLARY '12!!!!

She's a parody of herself.

[KoKo]

52. OFGS...she's a Dem and Salon has always been Progressive...maybe you just don't like Progressives

but we are Democrats through and through. Sheesh.

[WyLoochka]

57. Salon employed that Tapper hack

for quite some time -not exactly "progressive" - and the simply awful Camille Paglia.

Joan Walsh is not a plus for Dems at all. She's a whining dispeptic fool.

[Skwmom]

67. We'll then she's a Dem who has demonstrated NO support for the

Democratic Nominee. In fact, she takes every opportunity to bash him. The Clintons must have her on speed dial.

[Colobo]

54. Joan Walsh is a sore loser.

[KoKo]

56. lol's. .... I remember when Repugs shouted "Sore Loserman" to Al Gore in Florida...

Sounds like you picked that one up and are using it against a Democratic Editor or a respected Online Dem Magazine.

[Colobo]

60. Sounds like I'm saying Joan Walsh is a sore loser... because I am.

[TexasObserver]

55. Joan Walsh's brain is rapidly turning into oatmeal

Joan needs to get over the primary season. She's still MAD!! Not just angry MAD - MAD MAD!!

She's always been a lightweight as a journalist, and now she's proving she does all her thinking with her emotions.

[beachmom]

59. I liked the article and wasn't disturbed at all.

Politics is a tough business.

[bunnies]

66. per Joan: You're "Man Enough" to handle it.

Good for you! :thumbsup:

Sexism is only insulting when its anti-woman. Oh wait... "Man enough" implies women are weak. Oh well! :thumbsup:

[Skwmom]

64. I think she is one of the Clinton gang working on a 2012 Clinton run.

It's far from the first time that she's bashed the Democratic nominee. Tonight, did you see how she was actually smiling before the show started?

Obama is getting bashed 24/7 by the corporate media, the Republicans and the gang of Clinton. That's why I KNOW he is the right guy for the job.

[Skwmom]

68. How anyone who supports the Clintons could call any account of

Obama disturbing is beyond me. It seems like you would have a higher than normal tolerance level.

[TwilightGardener]

69. Joan Walsh turned Salon into a disgruntled-Hillary-fan haven.

Read her articles and the LTTE--she's awful. She's even stated that she's not sure she can vote for Obama, and is open to voting for McCain. She does her best to undermine Obama--just like the panther-types we all know here.