Press Conference Follies
| Mon Dec. 1, 2008 4:20 PM PST
PRESS CONFERENCE FOLLIES....Joe Klein:
Watching the Obama rollout of his national security team from overseas — I'm in Europe, on my way to Afghanistan — I was struck by the inanity of most of the questions from my colleagues.
No kidding. Did any of you guys see it? Obama only took four or five questions, and nearly all of them were just plain dumb. (And yes, there is such a thing as a dumb question.) As usual, when TV cameras are on, reporters were drawn like moths to flame toward a certain Russertesque style of "tough" questioning that's completely content free and, in reality, childishly easy to sidestep for any competent politician. Klein again:
What's the point of raising the nasty things Obama and Clinton said about each other during the primaries? Did the reporter expect Obama to say, "Well, I still believe her resume is overblown, that's why I appointed her...oh, and by the way, she still thinks it's dumb to talk to the Iranians without preconditions."
Needless to say, Obama swatted this question away without raising a sweat. The result, as usual, was a missed opportunity to at least try to get some substantive news out of the announcement. What a bunch of nitwits.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Oh, to be a member of the Beltway's chattering class.
And when one considers his own rather dubious past practices, i.e., Primary Colors by Anonymous, it's not stretch to say that Joke Line has little or no standing for comments about the journalistic standards of his fellow kool kids.
Oh come on, did anyone really think that naming Hillary, who fundamentally disagrees with Obama on so many issues, to be SOS was NOT going to raise some questions? It was a dumb move and Obama will regret it. The people who voted for him did not do so just to wind up with Clinton in charge of foreign policy. There's no way for Obama to swat the questions away and if he tries to they will just keep coming up.
It would be a welcome development if the traditional media reciprocated the seriousness and competence of the incoming administration, but I frankly don't see it happening. At least since the Clinton years (and probably longer), the press corps has functioned as a circle-jerk of epic proportions, expending energy for instant and shallow gratification, leaving only a mess behind. And ready to do it all again tomorrow. Wish they had term limits....
Tim Russert-style "gotcha" journalism has reached its limit. When it was novel, it worked, but now anyone with a brain can anticipate the tough questions and formulate the answers before they walk in for the interview.
But most D.C. reporters are hacks, so you get you expect. It's hard to ask a good question.
And Helen Thomas was (is) far better than "gotcha" stuff. She asked real questions.
"The people who voted for him did not do so just to wind up with Clinton in charge of foreign policy. "
I voted for Clinton in the primary. I voted for Obama in the general election (rather than waste my vote writing in Hillary). I have no problem with Obama as president and Clinton as SOS. This isn't about tribalism, this is about returning America to greatness after an eight-year nightmare.
I voted for Clinton in the primary. I voted for Obama in the general election
I voted Obama in both primary and general, and am delighted to have Hillary on board. She hard-working, knowledgeable and smart, and obviously won't be shy about challenging Obama if she disagrees with them when they work together.
The Russert-gotcha question style is beloved of the DC press hacks because it looks superficially tough and can be easily understood by the stupid (both in their audience as well as among their circle-jerk colleagues). Since there's apparently no penalty for being a stupid questioner, I expect bad questions will continue to drive out good in MSM reporting.
What a bunch of nitwits.
In response to an earlier post, I wrote previously that I hadn't noticed any changes in KD's writing substance and style going back to the CalPundit day, but this post reminded me that I think I've noticed a somewhat more clearly discernible scorn for nitwits.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, BTW.
Actually Joel, it's about Obama doing what he said he would do when he was running for office. And had he said he would be naming Gates and Clinton, both of whom were for the Iraq war, and in Gates' case, for the surge, to positions of responsibility, would people still have voted for Obama?
I voted for Clinton and then Obama and I'm not the least concerned with democratic party tribalism.
I'm pretty sure everyone (Obama and Clinton included) is just excited to know there are only 49 days left and we will soon be able to celebrate in what's left of our country and move forward.
I also think it's great that Obama is not surrounding himself with yes men. The new administration needs to avoid sealing itself in a bubble and a strong knowledgeable cabinet is a good way to stay immersed in reality.
would people still have voted for Obama?
Did you see the guy the other team was running?
Hillary and Obama were on the same page moving forward (and I think it's arguable whether they would have differed on Iraq if Obama had been in the senate in 2003.)
Gates is another story. It'll be a smooth transition but it also seems to me it validates the idea that Democrats can't field a strong candidate for Secretary of Defense from their own ranks (and we're weak on defense in general). I'm hoping we find a replacement with a positive vision soon.
Milano, I have actually compared the Obama and Clinton positions on any number of subjects. Frankly anybody who says they fundamentally disagree on many issues has been listening to talk radio far too long. There are disagreements, but mostly they involve nuance. A heated campaign can be a dangerous place to reach firm conclusions. Political reporters are paid to blow any difference all out of proportion. Hillary is slightly right of Obama on foreign policy. No biggie.
The worry is that she will want to be her own boss.
Here are the questions that were asked today, as reported by the New York Times:
QUESTION: (Inaudible)?
[...]
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've selected a number of high profile people for your national security team. How can you ensure that the staff that you are assembling is going to be a smoothly- functioning team of rivals and not a clash of rivals?
[...]
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President-elect. During the campaign, you said that you thought the U.S. had a right to attack high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan if given actionable intelligence with or without the Pakistani government's permission. Two questions on that.
One, do you think India has that same right?
And, two, regarding what Karen just said, some people up there on the stage took issue with your saying that. They have strong opinions about issues ranging from Pakistan to the surge. And while they're all committed to have a successful United States, what private assurances have they given you that they will be able to carry out your vision even when they strongly disagree with that vision as some of them have been able to do in the past?
Thank you, sir.
[...]
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President-elect.
You've talked about the importance just now of having different voices and robust debate within your administration. But, again, going back to the campaign, you were asked and talked about the qualifications of the -- your now, your nominee for secretary of state. And you belittled her travels around the word, equating it to having teas with foreign leaders. And your new White House council said that her resume was grossly exaggerated when it came to foreign policy. I'm wondering whether you can talk about the evolution of your views of her credentials since the spring.
[...]
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President-elect.
You're known as a pretty good storyteller. Can you tell us a little bit of a story about how Senator Clinton was selected for this job? Was there a seminal moment? How was the offered extended? Can you give us some detail on how it was accepted and kind of the negotiation process that was involved here?
And, also, does Secretary Gates meet the requirement for a Republican on the Cabinet, or should we be looking for others as well?
[...]
QUESTION: Sir, do you still intend to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq in 16 months after inauguration? And did you discuss that -- the possibility of that -- with Secretary Gates, before selecting him?
I'm not sure exactly when Corporate Media lost their balls. Maybe it was when they became "corporate". DUH!
Somewhere along the line the 4th Estate abdicated it's duties as a democratic watch-dog and became more interested in increasing their net-worth. Our dominant media are ultimately accountable only to corporate boards whose mission is not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the whole body of our republic, but the aggrandizement of corporate executives and shareholders. Do you notice that local news channels NEVER interrupt the "commercials" to give you a Tornado Warning? It seems that only the content that THEY pay for is expendable. Never the content that YOU pay for. C'est la vie!
In our democracy the wolf that wins is the one we feed. And in our society, media provides the fodder.
THE MOST IMPORTANT NUMBER ON EARTH..............."350"!
Go to www.350.org to find out why. Do it for your grandchildren.
