Scarborough slowly walked back criticism of Obama's interaction with Chavez
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Since criticizing President Obama's smile and handshake with Hugo Chavez, Joe Scarborough has gradually walked back that criticism, ultimately saying, "I'm glad [Obama] smiled."
On the April 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough suggested that President Obama's smile and handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were not "the proper way to behave" and stated that "me and Pat [Buchanan] ... wonder if it's really a good idea to smile and shake hands with people who execute those that disagree with them, that shut down newspapers, and that arrest Americans." However, since making those remarks, Scarborough has gradually walked them back. Scarborough stated later on that edition of Morning Joe that his "bigger concern" was with Obama not responding to remarks by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega; declared later that day on MSNBC Live that "I don't care about a handshake and a smile"; and ultimately said on the April 21 edition of Morning Joe, "I'm glad [Obama] smiled," adding that Obama's greeting of Chavez was "not a bad thing."
Responding to co-host Mika Brzezinski, who defended Obama's interaction with Chavez, Scarborough initially stated during the 6 a.m. ET hour of the April 20 edition of Morning Joe: "Yeah, it's just me and Pat who wonder if it's really a good idea to smile and shake hands with people who execute those that disagree with them, that shut down newspapers, and that arrest Americans. That's just Pat and I. Everybody else thinks that's the proper way to behave." Scarborough also said during the 6 a.m. ET hour that "some terrorists across the globe" would see the smile and handshake as "a sign of weakness."
By the 7 a.m. ET hour, Scarborough was beginning to change his tune. During an interview with Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), Scarborough said:
SCARBOROUGH: Senator, I'm not so -- we keep talking about the handshake, and I suspect that the left will make this all about shaking hands and try to make it as small as possible. I think Pat and I's bigger concern -- and I will guarantee you the majority of Americans concerns outside of Manhattan and Georgetown will be the fact that he sat passively there while Daniel Ortega, a man with a remarkable amount of blood on his own hands, called the United States a tyrannical power, and the president said nothing.
Then, during the 9 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live, Scarborough went further, stating, "I don't care about a handshake and a smile":
SCARBOROUGH: [T]he bigger problem for me -- I don't care about a handshake and a smile -- I think a lot of Americans might be asking in the future why the president sat and listened to a communist, Daniel Ortega, attack the United States as a tyrannical country for 55 minutes and then got up and didn't respond.
Finally, responding to a Boston Globe editorial's statement that "conservatives at home reviled Obama for the handshake with Chavez ... [b]ut Obama had it just right when he" defended the greeting, Scarborough said during the April 21 edition of Morning Joe, "I want to clarify ... that none of us here think it was a problem that he shook hands with the president of Venezuela, and I'm glad he smiled. And I think that actually does have propaganda -- I mean, it doesn't only cut for Chavez; it helps us as far as propaganda inside that country goes. So that's not a bad thing."
From the April 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, welcome to Morning Joe. That's a beautiful picture, actually, look how happy they are. It's -- it's great. Welcome to Morning Joe. And Hugo Chavez -- he just -- Pat Buchanan, he just needs to be understood really.
PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC political analyst): Right. There's been a real misunderstanding.
SCARBOROUGH: There has.
BUCHANAN: Sensitive man.
SCARBOROUGH: There has. And it's kind of like you remember FDR at Yalta -- he thought that his winning personality could --
BUCHANAN: Sure.
SCARBOROUGH: -- convince old Joe to turn things around -- only enslaved a generation of people.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. We really should have been a lot -- we should have been a lot more respectful to, you know, Stalin. That would have changed things, I'm sure. So --
BRZEZINSKI: OK, we'll get to this.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.
BRZEZINSKI: We'll also get to --
SCARBOROUGH: Why can't we all just get along? Maybe next time --
BRZEZINSKI: I think we are. Just you and Pat.
SCARBOROUGH: -- next time he goes overseas we'll give him dandelions. Yeah, it's just me and Pat who wonder if it's really a good idea to smile and shake hands with people who execute those that disagree with them --
BRZEZINSKI: Well, what we'll do --
SCARBOROUGH: -- that shut down newspapers, and that arrest Americans. That's just Pat and I. Everybody else thinks that's the proper way to behave.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: You don't want to have -- and while we're all very reasonable, and you all went to the finest, most open-minded universities in the Eastern establishment -- there are some terrorists across the globe who would see Hugo Chavez calling America's leaders devils, calling the United States an evil empire, and then seeing President Obama smiling and shaking the -- Chavez's hand, and see that as a sign of weakness.
Likewise, I will guarantee you our enemies -- and we do have enemies on the planet; I know this is shocking for some people -- but our enemies also saw Daniel Ortega, a communist leader, brutalize the United States verbally for 55 minutes, and the president sat there and smiled.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: Senator, I'm not so -- we keep talking about the handshake, and I suspect that the left will make this all about shaking hands and try to make it as small as possible. I think Pat and I's bigger concern -- and I will guarantee you the majority of Americans concerns outside of Manhattan and Georgetown will be the fact that he sat passively there while Daniel Ortega, a man with a remarkable amount of blood on his own hands, called the United States a tyrannical power, and the president said nothing.
GREGG: Well, clearly the president should have taken an opportunity to explain democracy to both Ortega and Chavez.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the April 20 edition of MSNBC Live:
NORAH O'DONNELL (host): Joe, I listened to you this morning -- you said the president's got the right idea about improving relations with these countries, but he's going about it the wrong way. Why?
SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, the president's taking us through so many vertiginous changes, whether you're talking about the economy or talking about foreign policy. It is hard to keep up with him. He said he was going to be a transformational president. He just has to be very careful. I don't care what anybody on the left says. The White House does not like this picture. They would prefer that he didn't seem to be so warmly greeting Hugo Chavez.
As [NBC News correspondent] Savannah Guthrie suggested, it was just a moment in time, but that is -- that could be a problem for him. And also, the bigger problem for me -- I don't care about a handshake and a smile -- I think a lot of Americans might be asking in the future why the president sat and listened to a communist, Daniel Ortega, attack the United States as a tyrannical country for 55 minutes and then got up and didn't respond.
He didn't have to jump up, storm out. He didn't really need to shake his fist. He could just quietly talk about the good things America has done and how we'll face up to the mistakes we've made but -- there was a way to do it, the president remained silent. And I'm sure there are some people in the foreign policy community on both sides that could be concerned with that approach.
From the April 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI: Next op-ed: Boston Globe, "Drama and no-drama, together." But Obama had it right when he answered the critics, saying, Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably one-sixth of the United States'. They own Citgo. It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the U.S.
If anything, President Obama's approach has hurt Venezuela's ability to blame Washington for the results of Chavez's policies. Obama conceded nothing as a matter of policy but gained goodwill by coming off as civil, reasonable, and willing to hear others out.
And I guess I would add to the argument that he is redefining the presidency of the United States and coming off a president who had a very different approach, one that many people thought was arrogant and perhaps seeing the world in black and white, as opposed to trying to engage.
BUCHANAN: Well, the question is does the behavior, which Joe and I thought was really -- was not up to what a president should do when his country's attacked -- does that really make you great friends down in Latin America? Or do people look at you and say, "What's the matter --
BRZEZINSKI: I don't think that he cares about being --
BUCHANAN: -- "with this guy that he won't defend his own country?"
SCARBOROUGH: Well, but, I want to clarify, only coming out of The Boston Globe editorial, that none of us here think it was a problem that he shook hands with the president of Venezuela, and I'm glad he smiled. And I think that actually does have propaganda -- I mean, it doesn't only cut for Chavez; it helps us as far as propaganda inside that country goes. So that's not a bad thing.
This "re-examination of principles" is nothing unusual for Scarborough, considering he's an ex-politician who undoubtedly smiled and shook hands with anybody who had the capacity to be a campaign contributor.
I don't care about smiles and handshakes and talk about politeness and civility... all of that nonsense seems to hide some tacit and supposedly understood assumption: the Head of the State of Venezuela is an "enemy" to the United States.
You see what I mean? Isn't all of this smiling and handshaking nonsense about exactly that thing, about smiling and shaking the hand of an "enemy", isn't that the hidden and unexpressed implication behind all of this nonsense?
Get down to brass tacks:
Is Hugo Chavez an "enemy" to the United States, and if so then why?
Otherwise, without asking and answering that question first, isn't all the resulting talk about handshakes and smiles just a bunch of nonsense, hiding some implied and assumed conclusion about who and who is not an "enemy" to the American People?
Is the man our enemy, and why?
Once you have answered that all-important question, then the other stupid questions, about smiling and handshakes, they become no-brainers.
Smiling, handshakes a no-brainer? I think you'll reconsider the gravity of such actions after you see this:
That's right - our president denegrating the status of America by bowing to, smiling at, and shaking the paw of - generally cozying up to - the Mexican First Dog. If you don't recognize the international catastrophe that the Obama tour has become, then you're just not paying attention.
I just checked Amazon.com.
Cesar Millan's book is roaring toward No. 1 on the bestseller list.
Oh, the horror...
I just bought the book, I plan on reading it. All Americans should learn how others feel about us.
Which book is that?
Glad it was Obama and not Michael Vick.
I agree with you, demo2020. I think what some right-wingers might respond is that Chavez has shown support for Iran as perhaps his most egregious offense. His support for Castro and his remarks against Bush and the US would probably be second.
They would easily ignore the fact tha Chavez was elected and re-elected in internationally observed democratic elections. They would ignore his popularity among the poor in Venezuela. They would ignore the fact that Chavez had helped low-income Americans in the NE by reducing heating oil costs. So much easier to malign the man if you only talk about the negative.
Many of these same right-wingers probably long for the day when US-controlled dictators ruled Latin America. Democracy is so pesky sometimes.
In the dialogue that could and should ensue, about Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, and whether that nation or simply that man or both, are friend or foe to the American People...
I'd weigh in: That whether someone were Democratically elected or not, can hardly be the measure, for not only do we have perfectly peacable and friendly relationships with kingdoms and Kings, but so also do the very people of those kingdoms, have peace and goodwill with their Monarch: all of this despite there perhaps being nothing there that you would say was a Democracy... but what difference does that make, when it is peace and goodwill that make for our friends, and threat and hostility that make for our foes... and I would add further, that not only is Democracy no true measure of friend or foe, but there may even be military coups and military dictators, who are welcomed as friendly and as making the peace and goodwill of a nation, as any Democracy might make: Thialand is what I'm thinking of there, where military coups happen peacably several times every generation (we may be near one now), all to the welcomed stability of Government the people there want... anyway, I digress: the point is that Democracy can never be the true measure of friend or foe to us, or else we must say that Lichtenstein and Luxembourg are our foes.
And as you point out, Hugo Chavez is the head of a functioning Democracy anyway, so the point seems to be a win and win both.
I'd add also, that everything we say of Venezuela, we might also say of Cuba: regardless of their form of Government, they are not hostile or threatening to us, and so why would they be our foe?
And don't tell me about the missles of October, because if the past lives forever on in determining who is a threat to us, lives forever on despite the changed circumstances of the present, then we may as well still be at war with Germany and Japan, and for that matter England too.
As far as Iran goes, that becomes just another question on it's own, and not one that should distract us from determining the matter of Venezuala first, and whether they and Hugo Chavez are friend or foe to the American People.
I'm of the opinion sort of, that Hugo Chavez made such friendly overtures to Iran, simply to bedevil George W. Bush, who he obviously hated with great intensity... hated him enough to call him the devil: but hey, times and administrations change, and perhaps we are well presently exorcised in that regard.
Joe is such a twit.
What was he supposed to do Joe, get up and start a fight?
What these guys are really saying is that they want some type of military action against any countyry who bad mouths us or is a possible threat. The saddest part of this is that none of the conservative talking heads who believe this have ever put their butts on the line for anything this country has to offer. Nothing, nada. Chicken Hawks are the most dispicable form of human beings alive.
I think we should make a deal with Joe, Seannie and all the other TalkJocks that we will invade any country they desire when their children are old enough to join the military and fight for thier country. Only then, will they see the horrors of war. They never took that chance before.
Just to be sure, let's have the draft re-instated first, and no rich man's loopholes this time. I don't want to see Romney's priveledged urchins buying their way out of service to our country.
As I have often proposed... re-instate the draft and start with the children of the Rich and Powerful. Put the sons and daughters of CEOs and Congressmen at the top of the list.
Do that, and we'll be out of Iraq AND Afghanistan in two weeks.
No doubt about it. When trust fund babies start dying for high minded ideology, the powers that be will start protecting their legacy's. But more justice would be to draft those who espouse the glory of war. Forget the age value, draft Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coultier, Boortz, Michelle Bachman, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich etc. etc, and put them directly in front line combat for a complete tour. I've seen it before, narcissistic a$$holes like these guys would be the first to cower and never fire a round in the opposite direction. God forbid they be put in leadership positions. They would get their squad or entire platoon killed in days.
The sad reality about each and everyone of these figures is that they could have volunteered to serve this nation during a time of war and chose not to. some of them weasled their way out of serving and others simply had "better things to do." Of course, they have no problem calling for others to do the dying while they stand in front of the flag with their chins held high in patriotic defiance. It is these kinds of people who are more dangerous to this nation than any terrorist. H.G. Wells warned us of these people and gave us horrifying insight into what life would be like if people like O'Reilly and Hannity made decisions.
I agree 100 percent Chris.
What really bothers me is when they try to deflect the argument to Clinton saying that he evaded the draft etc. They don't see the hypocrisy of someone who supported the war in Vietnam yet went to great lengths to evade the draft. At least Clinton wasn't someone like Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Cheney who have all voiced their unwavering support for our effort but not their own.
Amen Worrier. The fact that Limbaugh spoke ill of Clinton's avoidance of the draft when he himself avoided it says it all. The reality is that if Limbaugh loved his country the way he says and was so militant about the defense of it, a cyst on his butt shouldn't have kept him from doing his duty. I call it "his duty" because he talks to this day about how we could have won that war, how we didn't fight it the right way, blah, blah, blah. O'Reilly is the same. He speaks of the deaths in Cambodia as being caused by our leaving Vietnam and the poor Vietnamese who now have to live under Communism. One has to wonder if he was so concerned about defending any of those people, then why did he choose to forego military service in favor of school? Seems to me that there would be plenty of time for school after serving your country.
The cold harsh reality is that when you wade through all their bluster they are nothing but scared little dogs. You know, the kind that loves to bark and act mean until you challenge them and what do they do??? They run.
OT, but today, the FBI listed an american as its most wanted, and went on to state he was an animal rights activist. I wonder, will AA, Dee and Fairliberal join me in condemning this report that purposely targets all liberals?
Well, he did it without smiling and shaking his hand.
No more than they were outraged about this priceless gem:
DOH!
IOKIYAR!
Now post the date that photo was taken. Check that date against our support of Iraq with Intel and military support (secret at the time). The US formalized relations a year later.
Tell me. Why would we have been outraged when this was taken?
Why? Because rightwing republicans were for Saddam before they were against him? Saddam wasn't the person who changed positions, was he? Republicans knew exactly what he was and did business anyways. Just because y'all were "so concerned" about Iran getting that much closer to Israel doesn't mean I really care about what Israel thinks. I'm all for pulling all support from them - they've got nukes now, let them do their own damned dirty work.
Believe it or not, I can actually agree with that. I would not be for us turning our backs on them, but it is high time we let them "handle" things on their own.
Maybe Barry see's it our way?
Yea t-bone we did support him didn't we! We gave him $15billion dollars in aid...right after he gased the kurds then used the gassing that we supported with our economic and logistical support as an excuse to invade him on 2001.
That happened after this photo op. Nice try though.
World events do make strange bedfellows sometimes don't they...
none of these things happen in a vacuum. Analyzing the "appropriateness" of this Obama/Chavez exchange has to be viewed in comparison with the Bush foreign policy where these dictators are concerned. where a handshake would never have happened. But what do we have as a result of the Bush years? little respect from many allies and a deteriorating reputation. I have no interest in Chavez, he is a thug. But I defer to Obama on this, let's see how his foreign policy plays out. It can't be worse so all these conservatives condemning this exchange need to calm down and open their minds to another way of doing business. maybe Obama is smarter than all of them, maybe he really knows what he is doing. At this point, until proven otherwise, I hope and believe he is.
Agreed James. Let him actually do something in regards to foreign policy first. While I was not happy with his first 100 days, let him at least do something other than shaking hands with other foreign leaders.
i am not happy with some of the stuff either, but I cannot reflexively criticize everything he tries to do out of the gate. let's see how things shake out first, as I said they can't be much worse than Bush.
-- I cannot reflexively criticize everything he tries to do -- james
Well said...and should be practiced by all. And liberals should quit reflexively supporting every move he makes.
We have a long way to go with Obama as president...and I prefer to judge his record on what he does...rather than what he says.
The handshake? Of course it was appropriate...what was he supposed to do...give him the finger? Much ado about nothing.
That would be a bad thing, indeed, were "liberals" actually doing that. Only in your fevered imagination is anything remotely resembling that happening, and you really should lie down and rest before your fantasies have you becoming a raving loony once again.
Was that a joke? Stop reflexively supporting everything he does? I am a liberal and I was all over him for his FISA vote for his dragging his feet on pursuing prosecutions, for him using the national security to deny information for the warrantless wiretapping court case to continue. I go to Think Progress and MOST of the liberals there are all over him. You keep projecting.
Ever see mmfa post anything negative about Obama? And don't give me that mission statement crap...they have County Fair for opinion pieces and the handful of panelists that write editorials weekly.
I have never gone to this county fair place so I cant comment on it but it is NOT this sites mission THAT is without dispute. However you did not SAY MMFA should quit reflexively supporting Obama you said
And liberals should quit reflexively supporting every move he makes.
THAT is what I was answering
You should really get up to speed...lots of good stuff at the County Fair.
Believe it or not. Your recomendation means something to me so I will give it a shot a bit later.
Ever see mmfa post anything negative about Obama?
Explains a lot if the only place you read or hear from Liberals is at MMFA.
I, too, am a liberal and I, too, take issue with things Obama has done. His Administration’s feet dragging and inaction on investigating Bush for war crime bothers me, as does his individual FISA vote you cite. Nonetheless, some will toss out stated opposition in order to protect their preconceived notions about so-called liberals.
Obama's first 100 days conclude on April 30. You might want to let Obama's next 10 days play out before you decide you don't like them.
and Dave tries so hard to be rational. Too funny!
"let him at least do something other than shaking hands with other foreign leaders."
Yeah - like give one of them a neck rub they didn't ask for.
On second thought . . .
This is getting really annoying. One of the President's duties is to meet with foreign leaders and try to make peace or prosperity for both countries. I detest the extreme-right-wing inflation of this "controversy" where Obama is shaking hands. I guess we are supposed to just invade and nuke countries that have leaders we disagree with? That is unfair to the millions of people that have no real control over who the leader might be.
If Obama farts, we get to hear the conservative fringe go on for three days on what they think he ate.
Oh my achingass...really funny and sadly, really true.
OPEN MIND, What kind of SBD stinking remark is that? You may go around tooting Obamas' horn but allow the Cons to break a little wind in this disapproval. ;>
Scarborough will say the most outrageous things at the start of the show and as guests push back and the show progresses, he'll start walking it back. His arguments never hold up in the battle of ideas. The only he knows how to do is bully Mika.