By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 07/28 at 10:17 PM
(0)
Comments
Did one company get the jump on Barack Obama’s VP pick?
CNN’s Political Ticker notes that campaign buttons featuring Obama and U.S. Sen. Larry Craig—yes, that Larry Craig—surfaced over the weekend under the Obama campaign’s motto “Change You Can Believe In.“
Alas, it was a mistake:
The buttons, created by an Ohio-based company called Tigereye Design, was supposed to feature Obama alongside the Democratic Senate candidate in Idaho, Larry LaRocco. A retired editor for the Lewiston Tribune noticed the mistaken buttons and printed them in Sunday’s edition.
SIDEBAR: A retired editor? How did he print them in Sunday’s edition? END SIDEBAR
Dirty political trick? Or just plain ignorance?
And which politician do you think would be more upset by being placed with the other?
You decide. In any event, this is funny.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 07/28 at 09:48 PM
(0)
Comments
RealClearPolitics.com reports that Barack Obama is “pushing back furiously” against charges from John McCain that Obama “dissed the troops” by deciding not to visit them at an American base in Germany during his European tour last week.
The Obama campaign made—count ‘em—three separate statements on the subject on Saturday alone. (RCP has them here.)
I wrote last week about how this was “Barack’s bad move.“ There is already at least one viral e-mail going around about how Obama refused to meet with troops in Afghanistan when he was there early last week (which, in case you’re interested, is not true). Obama’s opponents don’t need any more material; they do well enough with what they have—and the things they make up—without him providing them with more ammo.
Obama seems to know that it’s just this kind of thing that can hang around long enough to sink a presidential campaign. Just ask the guy who “actually did vote for the $87 billion—before I voted against it.“ That comment spawned the infamous windsurfing ad that, fairly or unfairly, crystallized Sen. John Kerry, ensuring that it will live on in the minds of consultants—and politicians—everywhere.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 07/28 at 01:21 PM
(0)
Comments
Back when I used to play competitive softball, every now and then our pitcher would employ something we came to call the “unintentional-intentional walk.”
A great hitter would be at the plate with runners in scoring position. The game would be tight. We wouldn’t want to pitch to her, but we wouldn’t want to straight-out walk her, either.
So the pitcher would throw around the strike zone, but never in it.
Four pitches, none good to hit. If the hitter wanted to take her chances, we’d probably get lucky and pick up an out. If not, no harm done; she’d get one base and no RBIs, and we’d be no worse for the wear.
Courtesy of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, today I introduce you to the “non-endorsement endorsement.”
Sarkozy appeared with Barack Obama at a news conference Friday. He made the thinnest of attempts to conceal his preference of candidates in the U.S. presidential election – so thin, in fact, one reporter asked him straightaway if it was an endorsement.
Sarkozy made no bones about it: He loves Barack Obama.
Calling him “my dear Barack Obama,” Sarkozy sounded at times like a well-trained parrot – “I agree with Barack Obama” – even when it came down to which reporters would be recognized for questions (“I will simply say that I’m following Barack Obama’s lead”).
But wait! There’s more! From the transcript:
Of course, it’s not up to the French to choose the next president of the United States of America. Whomsoever that may be, we will work with him happily and gladly. But I am especially happy to be meeting with the senator I met back in 2006 when we talked in such impassioned terms about Darfur, what was happening there. And there were two of us in that office, and there were two of us in my office. And one of us became president. Well, let the other do likewise. Well, I mean, that’s not meddling.
Meddling: No. Insulting our intelligence: Yeah, a little bit.
And then:
So good luck to Barack Obama. If he is chosen, then France will be delighted. And if it is somebody else, then France will be the friend of the United States of America.
So, just to recap, “France will be delighted” if Obama wins, but France will still be our friend if it’s McCain.
Oh, good. For a minute there, I was worried.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 07/28 at 12:03 PM
(0)
Comments
Tying up some loose ends from Barack Obama’s Amazing Incredible Tour of Europe and the Middle East:
As an update to the “Despicable” post last week, the seminary student who stole Obama’s prayer from the Western Wall admitted his actions over the weekend, acknowledged that he and his group of friends tried to sell the prayer to a newspaper and then asked for Obama’s forgiveness. The young man tried to explain away the inexplicable folly as “sort of a prank.”
He adds that he hopes Obama wins the election.
With friends like these …
Did you know that American Foreign Service workers in Europe were forbidden to attend Obama’s speech in Berlin? State Department Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy (that’s some title) said, “We always maintain that no U.S. government Foreign Service person overseas should be seen to be advocating one side or the other,” adding that “it has nothing to do with who” the candidate is.
Predictably, HuffingtonPost.com found an exception: A speech John McCain delivered in Ottawa in June “prompted no such restrictions for the country’s Foreign Service workers” and was actually reportedly organized in part by the U.S. ambassador to Canada, who also attended the event.
Obama gave Americans an inadvertent peek into his leadership style as he was overheard talking with Tory (American equivalent: conservative!) Leader David Cameron in London. The two were discussing the way schedulers leave little time for reflection or thought during the day by cramming appointments into 15-minute increments – a phenomenon Cameron said the British call “the dentist’s waiting room.”
SIDEBAR: Please do not e-mail me anything about Austin Powers’ dental hygiene or any variation on any joke about British folk waiting to see dentists. I am just the messenger. END SIDEBAR
Cameron said, “You have to scrap that because you’ve got to have time.” Obama agreed. From Jake Tapper’s ABC blog:
And, well, and you start making mistakes,“ Obama said, “or you lose the big picture. Or you lose a sense of, I think you lose a feel—”
“Your feeling,“ interrupted Cameron. “And that is exactly what politics is all about. The judgment you bring to make decisions.“
“That’s exactly right,“ Obama said. “And the truth is that we’ve got a bunch of smart people, I think, who know ten times more than we do about the specifics of the topics. And so if what you’re trying to do is micromanage and solve everything then you end up being a dilettante but you have to have enough knowledge to make good judgments about the choices that are presented to you.“
Voters, in case you’ve missed it to this point, Obama is a big-picture person.
If you’re wondering about the positive press coverage Obama’s managed to commandeer throughout the campaign, give this story a quick read. It details how Obama was able to smooth the ruffled feathers of the press by giving them a little TLC.
Ah, who says journalists are a heartless, jaded bunch?
“You had me at hello.”
And speaking of positive press, have you seen the new People magazine? The Obama family is staring back at you. “The Obamas at home,” promises the cover; “Exclusive photos!” chirps the hot pink rectangular box. Check out this story if you’re interested in Mrs. Obama’s hula-hooping skills, what the girls think of their dad’s hairdo and what chores the might-be-president used to do before he spent Fourths of July in Butte, Mont. (Note: Web content offers the complete interview; the article is available only in the print edition.)
I was telling someone yesterday that the Obamas are maximizing their opportunities for positive press, and understandably so: Tactically, they know that once the conventions are over and as September gives way to October, 527 money is going to start making its presence felt in the race – and on the airwaves. Positive press, like this People piece and the Access Hollywood interview this month, represent the Obama campaign’s attempts at prophylactic preparedness for the juggernaut that is surely on the way.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 07/28 at 07:54 AM
(0)
Comments
In my humble opinion (I refuse to use annoying blogger language like IMHO), I think it’s clear that the Edwards story and the coverage – and lack of coverage – of it is one of the foremost examples we have of modern journalism losing its footing.
Less clear is why reporters and editors are losing their footing.
Is it bias, or is it incompetence? Is it lack of resources, or lack of will?
Or some awful combination of all of the above?
Over at Slate, Mickey Kaus offers “a rundown of media performance on the John Edwards front:”
The New York Times doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
The print edition of the Washington Post doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
Newsweek doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
Time doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
Katie Couric didn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
Brian Williams didn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
Charlie Gibson didn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
RealClearPolitics doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
HuffingtonPost doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday (and it’s their story!). I blame the commenters.
Mark Halperin doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
Mark Ambinder doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
One Roger Simon tells you what happened yesterday—but the other Roger Simon doesn’t!
Then, the kicker:
Has the gap between what the MSM lets you know and what happened—and what you can easily find out happened—ever been greater?
Need more? How about this interview with Enquirer editor-in-chief David Perel over at Death by 1000 Papercuts.com?
After talking with Perel for an hour, DBKP concludes that “it was easy” for “supermarket checkout staple” The National Enquirer to “scoop the combined forces of CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, Time Magazine, Newsweek, USA TToday, New York Times and the rest of the mainstream press in the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child affair:”
The steadfast “cone of silence” placed on the story by the Mainstream Media (MSM) made it easy for anyone willing to do the legwork to grab the story from a decidedly-uninterested “respectable” press.
How telling is this:
What was the Enquirer doing in the last seven months that the major press organizations could have been doing, but didn’t, that allowed you scoop them?
DP: We stayed on the story. We did it the old-fashioned way, with lots of legwork. We did what the major news organizations used to do: we knocked on doors, ran down leads and talked to people.
Mondo: Why do you think the “major news organizations” didn’t do this?
DP: I think it was a matter of interest. We knew – even though we couldn’t reveal them – that our sources were credible. We fact-checked their stories and they checked out. It was a giant puzzle and we started fitting the pieces together. But, we were interested in fitting them together; in doing the checking, the groundwork.
I think with all of the cut-backs the other news organizations has suffered, many of them may not have had the man-power or the resources to do what we did. It was a major commitment on our part to continue and stay on the story.
I think that’s what will end up making the John Edwards-Beverly Hilton story remarkable in the end: It reveals the extent to which the credibility of mainstream journalism, and mainstream journalists, is fallible.
