Barack Obama tangles with the press

[tkdgirl]

From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan
SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Led by the Chicago press corps that has covered Obama for years, the candidate today faced a barrage of questions in what turned out to be a contentious news conference.
Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.

Obama claimed that when he had first denied the meeting between Austan Goolsbee and any members of the Canadian administration he provided "the information that [he] had at the time."

He added, "Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to reassure them. They reached out, unbeknownst to the rest of us; They reached out to Mr. Goolsbee, who provided them with a tangible conversation and repeated what we've said on the campaign trail."

When did the meeting take place? Why did the Canadian officials reach out? Did Goolsbee not come forward right away and admit the meeting to Campaign Manager David Plouffe and Obama when both denied it last week? These are questions that went unanswered as the press conference was cut short.

Much of the back and forth, though, between reporters and Obama was about his relationship with Tony Rezko, with reporters demanding to know why new details were emerging from the case though Obama and his staff had claimed they had been forthright with all the details.

Obama and Carol Marin, political editor at NBC5 in Chicago and columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times, tangled over how up front Obama had been about Rezko. Obama cut off her line of questioning, saying that Marin's questions were personally motivated.

"Carol, can I just say I have to really dispute this,” Obama said. “It is true that you wanted an individual sit down, but I don't think that's fair to speak for the entire Chicago press corps because on this -- Let me finish," he interjected as she tried to interrupt.
“Before you were reporting on these issues I had an avail,” Obama said, pointing to members of the Chicago press corps who were present, “where I literally stood there and took every question people could think of."

Lynn Sweet from the Chicago Sun-Times then jumped in and told Obama that he may have answered questions for the Chicago press, but many other reporters hadn't had a chance to hear him on the issue.

"I just want to make that point an issue," Obama said. "You may still have questions, which I'm happy to answer, but I don't think it's fair to suggest somehow that we've been trying to hide the ball on this. There have been more attacks. There have been several hundred stories written on this issue. The fact of the matter remains unchallenged."

Obama went on to detail his relationship with Rezko, repeating that the land deal had been a "bone-headed" move.

"On the other hand, there have been no allegations that I betrayed the public trust,” he argued. “There have been no allegations that I did him any favors.”

A third reporter followed, asking Obama why information about fundraisers or other details had not been answered by the campaign. He raised the issue of how details were emerging in the case, like the fact that Obama and Rezko had toured the property that resulted in the questionable land deal between the two men.

Obama continued to say that reporters' interest was due to the fact this was "a hot story."

He claimed that his campaign would be happy to provide the details, but when asked why the campaign hadn't been forthcoming, he said, "What happens is these requests I think can go on forever, and, at some point, we've tried to respond to what's pertinent to the question that's been raised."

He added, "There's no question that he raised money for us, and there's no dispute that we've tried to get rid of that money."

Toward the end of the press conference, the question of Goolsbee's meeting was raised again. Obama answered curtly and then walked out after a staffer called last question. The press erupted with shouts, but Obama continued to walk out.

He paused only to say, "Come on guys; I answered like eight questions. We're running late.”


On the flight from San Antonio to Dallas, Obama, unsurprisingly, did not wander back to make small talk with the traveling press corps.



Obama tangles with the press - First Read - msnbc.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read another report that said when Rezko and the Canadian gov't were mentioned, Obama's tone (and that of the entire news conference) changed. After the either question and answer, Obama walked away to more shouting questions from the press. As another blogger put it, are Obama's days of positive press over?

[kingcap72]

Hmm, I guess this shatters the belief that the press is giving Obama a free pass, while hammering poor Hillary.

[ingi]

Ask Tough Questions? Yes, They Can!


By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, March 4, 2008; A02

SAN ANTONIO It took many months and the mockery of "Saturday Night Live" to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a growl.
The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.
Reporters from the Associated Press and Reuters went after him for his false denial that a campaign aide had held a secret meeting with Canadian officials over Obama's trade policy. A trio of Chicago reporters pummeled him with questions about the corruption trial this week of a friend and supporter. The New York Post piled on with a question about him losing the Jewish vote.
Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. "That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged."
When those failed, Obama tried another approach. "We're running late," the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.
Before he beat his hasty retreat, however, Obama found time to assign blame for the tough questions suddenly coming his way. "The Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a 'kitchen sink' strategy," he protested. "There are, what, three or four things a day?"
Spoken like a man who had just been hit on the head with a heavy piece of porcelain.
Obama may be the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but to a large extent Hillary Clinton is setting the terms of the debate in the final days before Tuesday's crucial primaries. If Clinton doesn't win both states, even her closest advisers have said she'll face pressure to pull out of the race -- and yet, for the first time in months, she seems to have put Obama on the defensive.
First came her ringing-phone ad last week: "It's 3 a.m., and your children are safely asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?" Then the Clinton campaign trumpeted the acknowledgment that a top Obama aide had discussed NAFTA with a Canadian official -- contradicting adamant denials by Obama and his underlings. Add to that the opening of the trial in Chicago for Obama pal Tony Rezko, and Obama had lost any hope of controlling the theme of the day.
Even the much-mocked Clinton assertion that she offers "solutions" instead of Obama's "speeches" appears to have spooked him into a change in tactics. The candidate has largely disarmed himself of the mass rallies that have been the high points of his campaign in favor of small and sober town hall forums.
And so, Obama found himself in San Antonio on Monday, presenting a small group of veterans with a collection of small-bore policies that sounded downright Clintonian. "I led a bipartisan effort to improve outpatient facilities. . . . I passed legislation to get family members health care while they're caring for injured troops. . . . I've introduced legislation to make sure each service member receives electronic copies of their medical and service records upon discharge."
The modest proposals were met with modest applause.
For 40 slow minutes, Obama delivered his policy prescriptions and answered questions from the veterans. "I want the budgets to come in on time!" he told one questioner. He pledged to another his support for SR 1838, a new VA facility in the Rio Grande Valley. He told a third questioner about his plan for a $4,000 tuition credit. And the great orator found himself proclaiming that "it makes sense to have transferability."
Whatever. Reporters, at tables in the back of the room, answered e-mails and read newspapers. Obama, by making no news in his speech, had left them plenty of time to plot their ambush -- executed minutes later to the obvious surprise of the candidate.
"I don't have any preliminary statement," Obama said as he began his news conference, encouraging reporters to "just dive in." That was a mistake.
Tom Raum of the Associated Press led off with a question about whether an Obama aide had told Canadians not to take seriously the candidate's public rhetoric critical of the NAFTA trade agreement. "Let me, let me, let me, let me just be absolutely clear what happened," Obama answered, explaining that the meeting was a "courtesy" and involved no "winks and nods."
Then an agitator -- columnist Carol Marin with the Chicago Sun-Times -- broke in. Marin, a visitor to the Obama entourage who accused the regulars of being too "quiet," accused the candidate of concealing details about fundraisers Rezko had for him and a real estate transaction between the two.
"I don't think it's fair to suggest somehow that we've been trying to hide the ball on this," Obama answered. But this only provoked a noisy back-and-forth between Marin, Sun-Times colleague Lynn Sweet and Michael Flannery from Chicago's CBS affiliate. "How many fundraisers? . . . Who was there? . . . Disclosure of the closing documents?"
Obama, while repeating his formulation that it was "a boneheaded move" to do business with Rezko, tried to shut down the requests for more information. "These requests, I think, could just go on forever," he said. "At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what's pertinent."
Reporters, however, had a different idea of what was pertinent, and the questions about Rezko, NAFTA and other unpleasant subjects continued to come. An aide called out "last question," and Obama made his move for the exit -- only for reporters to shout after him in protest. "C'mon, guys," he pleaded. "I just answered, like, eight questions."
Ask Tough Questions? Yes, They Can!

[tkdgirl]

I think the MSM has their 'flavor of the week'. One week, its McCain, the next its Hillary, the next its Obama, and the cycle repeats itself. There is no way Huckabee would have won Iowa is the MSM didn't push him so much in the two weeks leading up to that.

I bet if you examined polls, where a candidate is in polls can be directly tied to the number of news stories about them at that time, and whether those stories are good or bad. Good stories? Polls go higher. Bad stories, polls sink.

[kingcap72]

^^You might have a point there with the news coverage/polls connection. Because that's the way it was during the lead-up to Iraq. Since the media was basically being Bush's mouthpiece about invading Iraq, the polls showed that a lot of people were in favor of the war, at the time. And now since the media coverage of the war shifted, the polls show more people are against it.

[tkdgirl]

Quite possible. Honestly, the media has their own agenda- and that's ratings. Their practice of building up and tearing down isn't done in the public's best interest- its done in *theirs*.

Look at what they did to Howard Dean four years ago. I mean, that scream was way the hell over the top, but damn, you'd think Dean just got released from the nut house the way it was played in the media.

[pacific breeze]

Originally Posted by kingcap72

Hmm, I guess this shatters the belief that the press is giving Obama a free pass, while hammering poor Hillary.

ONE press conference hardly constitutes a hammering. He's been lauded for six months running, and now he and his supporters are whining about a few questions from home town press? This wouldn't even break a sweat on Hillary's brow; it would simply be business as usual.

[Grimmlok]

that's because hillary is an android and wasn't built with sweat glands.

Just tear ducts. They hooked her up to the evian factory for that stunt.

[tkdgirl]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

ONE press conference hardly constitutes a hammering. He's been lauded for six months running, and now he and his supporters are whining about a few questions from home town press? This wouldn't even break a sweat on Hillary's brow; it would simply be business as usual.

Have you noticed, though, that when one media outlet decides to dump all over Hillary, all the others follow suit? The same happened to McCain already. It will more than likely happen with Obama. Its a pack mentality, really. And its wrong. Its like watching a pack of wolves fight over a deer's leg. Disgusting.

[pacific breeze]

The pack mentality is alive and well, and not just with the press. Voters don't HAVE to accept everything they read and hear in the media. I sure don't. Maybe they should exercise some critical thinking skills and read more, and expose themselves to outside media sources to get different perspectives. With the Internet, there is no excuse not to read/watch analyses from other countries and from less mainstream media in the U.S.

People have access to all kinds of information on which to make their decisions, if they choose to use it. Getting all your "news" from TV and basing your opinions on that is crazy and shortsighted, IMO, given the very low quality and political bias of most of it.

[kingcap72]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

ONE press conference hardly constitutes a hammering. He's been lauded for six months running, and now he and his supporters are whining about a few questions from home town press? This wouldn't even break a sweat on Hillary's brow; it would simply be business as usual.

Where did you see Obama, or any of his supporters, whining? And the fact that you could honestly write the words 'this wouldn't even break a sweat on Hillary's brow' after she WHINED about the media bias against her is laughable.

[pacific breeze]

She whined after literally years of it with Bill, and a many, many months of it on this campaign. Even you can't deny that. And if Obama threatened to sue for some of the allegations and possible voter fraud that prompted her, his supporters would likely applaud him for fighting back. But with Hillary, she's a "whiner." Interesting, that.

[tkdgirl]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

The pack mentality is alive and well, and not just with the press. Voters don't HAVE to accept everything they read and hear in the media. I sure don't. Maybe they should exercise some critical thinking skills and read more, and expose themselves to outside media sources to get different perspectives. With the Internet, there is no excuse not to read/watch analyses from other countries and from less mainstream media in the U.S.

People have access to all kinds of information on which to make their decisions, if they choose to use it. Getting all your "news" from TV and basing your opinions on that is crazy and shortsighted, IMO, given the very low quality and political bias of most of it.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree. But, there are many- and it seems to be those over a certain age, and under a certain age- that are heavily influenced by what they see on the news- and never question it. The reasoning is 'it wouldn't be on TV if it weren't true'.

[sluce]

I was saddened by a report the other day showing many no longer read the paper or even bother to read more than the headlines when they are on-line. Mostly they watch the news to get the information they need.

[kingcap72]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

She whined after literally years of it with Bill, and a many, many months of it on this campaign. Even you can't deny that. And if Obama threatened to sue for some of the allegations and possible voter fraud that prompted her, his supporters would likely applaud him for fighting back. But with Hillary, she's a "whiner." Interesting, that.

But doesn't that contradict your previous post about how this wouldn't even break a sweat on Hillary's brow and that it's just business as usual? If that were true, then she wouldn't have whined about it at all, now would she?

And threatening to sue for voter fraud is one thing. Hillary was threatening to sue BEFORE the real voting even took place, just because she wasn't leading in the polls and felt that she would probably lose Texas. Two different things.

Originally Posted by tkdgirl

Oh I wholeheartedly agree. But, there are many- and it seems to be those over a certain age, and under a certain age- that are heavily influenced by what they see on the news- and never question it. The reasoning is 'it wouldn't be on TV if it weren't true'.

True. It's the same mentality that some people have when it comes to seeing something in print. They automatically believe that it must be true, otherwise it wouldn't be in a book or a newspaper.