Obama's Waffle Controversy

Update: More from CNN on Obama refusing pressers for ten days or more and how the campaign teased them about it.

Barack Obama got cranky with a reporter today when asked a question at a diner about Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas.

As Sen. Hillary Clinton was preparing to campaign here today, Sen. Barack Obama was meeting with voters at a diner and apparently pretty hungry. "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner.

What's the big deal? Why is this news? Because, as Jay Newton-Small at Time's Swampland explains, Obama hasn't given a press conference in 10 days and the reporters had no other opportunity to ask him.
Journalists in general don’t relish asking politicians questions in awkward situations, like on a golf course or over a waffle. But sometimes our hands are forced: Obama hasn’t given a press conference in 10 days and the questions, some of them -- like Hamas -- rather important, are starting to build up. If he wins the nomination he'll be running again John McCain, whose philosophy is to give the press total access to the point of saturation; Obama might consider holding avails with a little more regularity. Then, maybe, reporters would let him to eat in peace.

Like Kevin Drum says, this is baffling.

Obama just doesn't give the press much access, sometimes shutting them down for weeks at a time. Why? Does this make sense to anyone else as a campaign strategy? I'm baffled by it.

< Wolfson on Primary Eve | Earth Day/PA Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Continuity (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:03:58 PM EST
    He has none.  He's a personality figure.

    Not a real statemen.
    That means.....gotta keep the press away so they don't catch onto to the anomolies.

    what is mean about it? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:03:36 AM EST
    Obama is tightly controlling his media exposure.

    It reminds me of someone special.


    What credentials justify Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by sancho on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:36:34 AM EST
    candidacy? That he lived in Indonesia as a child? That he wins questionable elections? Also, isn't he, in a sense, running on the singularity of his name, the uniqueness of being the one and only "Obama" candidate?

    Chucklng (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:52:53 AM EST
    I think you summed it up.  He's the one we've been waiting for, eh?

    The point is that, as a candidate for President, (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by sancho on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:58:25 AM EST
    Obama recalls Jimmy Carter but w/o the experience. He's also backed by some of the same people (Brzezinski, most notably) who backed (chose?) Carter. Quite likely his relationship with Brzezinski (whose daughter is Scarborough's partner on MSNBC) is analagous to Bush's with Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. Obama was at Coulmbia when Brzezinski was there and that's another subject he won't take questions on. Anyway, you are not voting for Obama, you are voting for the people he is "fronting" for (which includes the people who helped destroy his other oppenents in his other "elections"). It's not a cheery group (Goolsbee, his financial advsier, likely does not want to keep social security) and the story of Obama's rise, upon closer inpsection, is a little scary.

    Twice with the Clinton name (1.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:12:07 AM EST
    as the "fundamental premise" for her campaign gets a 1 for ignoring her own and remarkable resume.

    No, it's not an "I disagree" button (none / 0) (#219)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    It's a "this is offensive" button.

    don't feel sorry for me. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:25:11 AM EST
    feel sorry for the country if he is.

    Where you can really see "mean" (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by andrys on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:29:01 AM EST
    I have to wonder if your standards for this attribute would change and your tolerance for meanness higher when you see what happens to Clinton (rather than Obama) in an example like the HuffPost comments to their story on the Keith Olbermann interview with Clinton.

      It turns out that Obama declined to do interviews or send surrogates for serious interviews last night with

      Keith Olbermann, Larry King, and others.

      He declined due to being too busy.

      When you consider he hasn't even talked with the press assigned to him, for 10 days, one can wonder at the lack of confidence that shows in how he might say something 'wrong' ...


    spit-balls? (none / 0) (#221)
    by andrys on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:48:04 PM EST
    I'm stating facts, that Obama had avoided, for 10 days, press conferences for press that travels with him.

    And he decided not to do Olbermann's show nor to send a surrogate.  Same with Larry King.

    Make of that as kindly as you want what you will, but that is not spitballs though you evidently want to think so.

    Are we to refrain from criticizing Obama here too, in your book?  


    "Being so mean" (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by joanneleon on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    You can't be serious.

    Can I make a suggestion?  Could you go and read comments and diaries about Hillary Clinton in the left blogosphere over the last few months and then come back and tell us about being mean to Obama?



    High metabolism (none / 0) (#169)
    by 1jane on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:27:30 AM EST
    He needs to eat. Sheesh. Non issue.

    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:09:21 PM EST
    UGLY HEAD....he doesn't get it, but his art of bamboozling seems to be quite polished and at some level he must think he doesn't have to give no stinkin' interviews... :)

    BTW, have they stashed Michelle somewhere?  I prefer not to have to see her, but was just wondering.

    Not baffling... (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:10:03 PM EST
    not up to speed on emerging issues because you're too busy campaigning?  Avoid reporters until you can get your spiel straight.  Fewer chances for mistakes, gaffs, screwups and at this stage that is to be avoided at all costs.

    He seems a little testy about it tho...and in public and in camera range...not good....

    Obama not familiar with Hamas???? (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Saul Goode on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:22:25 AM EST
    not up to speed on emerging issues because you're too busy campaigning?

    If he doesn't have an opinion of his own yet regarding one of the most important political dynamics in the region, he has no business being anywhere near the White House...nor the Senate, for that matter


    Obama doesn't do well extemporaneously-- (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:45:54 AM EST
    Hes, haws, ums--says things which need repeated WORMing.

    So, if he hasn't been programmed recently, had his updates installed and tested, he just shuts up and sticks to situations where he can use the older, tested versions.


    Well....there ya go! (none / 0) (#210)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    Baffled by it, or Waffled by it? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Key on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:11:18 PM EST
    Obama waffled the question (paused or held back in uncertainty or unwillingness), which makes me a bit waffled (frustrated and perplexed by someone's decision to a waffle rather than answer a question).

    Where is Michelle? (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:12:14 PM EST
    Pssst, if they want Hillary to hurry up and quit, do they think this guy will be up for the GE competition in 7 months?...I forget as a child he took care of foreign policy.  

    Yes and that's how he handled it then (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:17:46 PM EST

    Reporter:  Answer me a foreign policy question

    5 year old Obama: Can't I eat my waffles?

    And he's been doing the same thing effectively ever since.


    Stellaaa (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:43:32 AM EST
    absolutely classic.  Now I have to dry off my keyboard and the top of my desk.

    On a scale of 1 to 5.  That's a 6.  


    Leave Obama Alooooone (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:08:54 AM EST
    What's he ever done to the press?

    Leave Obama Alooooone!


    But . . but . . .he's so open and honest (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    and eloquent and stuff!

    Wait, the W.O.R.M. says he wants to avoid the "gotcha" politics.

    Yeah, that's it!  It's the media's fault!

    Not just cranky... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by k on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:12:47 PM EST
    Kind of snotty, too.  From CNN:


    Later that afternoon while taping an interview for "The Daily Show," a reporter tried to ask Obama about a new Clinton ad and the Obama ad that came as a response. According to a pooled report, the White House hopeful asked the reporter if she was "supposed to be" asking a question then. He added that he would consider answering but that it would depend "on how well behaved you are." In the end, he did not take the question.

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:05:44 AM EST
    While taping an interview for the DAILY SHOW he was being snotty?  

    You guys will latch onto anything.


    tone (3.00 / 1) (#36)
    by rilkefan on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:32:33 PM EST
    I've seen it claimed that the waffle tone wasn't cold - just "hey, I've got a mouthful of waffle".  I could imagine the "well behaved" bit being said jokingly.

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:34:19 PM EST
    he never answered the questions and there is NO excuse, joking or not, to scold a grown woman like she is a 5 year old.

    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by angie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:40:59 PM EST
    he could have said it with a pretty please and a cherry on top and it would not matter -- this woman is a professional doing her job, not a naughty child in need of a time out. He deserves a slap down from the media over this, but I will not be holding my breath.  

    Not a funny joke when said to a (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by BlueMerlin on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:45:13 PM EST
    woman, i'm afraid.

    Congrats on finding (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:07:02 AM EST
    the hidden sexism.  

    wasn't hidden that well, imo n/t (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by angie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:50:06 AM EST

    It rarely is (none / 0) (#198)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:11:40 AM EST
    to those who wish to find it.

    You do realize that Daily Show interviews are mock interviews, right?


    Not hidden (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:17:12 AM EST

    I'm sure it ... (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:59:29 AM EST
    was said jokingly, but it's a very W kind of joke.

    Since it's Pennsylvania (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:13:55 PM EST
    let's use the German pronunciation:  Vaffle.  

    which just shows (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by tarheel74 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:14:05 PM EST
    that the press have a masochistic streak. Treat them like dogs and they will lick up to you, give them any importance and they will tear you apart. The Republicans know that, Obama learned that but unfortunately Hillary was way too nice.

    Isn't McCain a Republican? And he has them (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:41:48 PM EST
    over for a barbecue at his place. And treats them like bff's on the Straight Talk Express. It is just stupid for any pol to behave so arrogantly.

    And Bush too (none / 0) (#124)
    by ineedalife on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:30:34 AM EST
    Supposedly the reporters on the Bush plane got all the good stuff and the Gore reporters were jealous.

    O'Waffle image (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:18:27 PM EST
    okay, so between workin' and bloggin', I did a down n' dirty quickie logo for the Senator. Maybe I'll make a more realistic one tomorrow while procrastinating:


    {flickr seems to be hung up at the moment,. Hopefully it will be back soon}

    that's about says it all! (none / 0) (#104)
    by kimsaw on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:48:30 AM EST
    ohhh - that is funny! (none / 0) (#132)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:50:08 AM EST
    Wasn't it Joe Scar that said BO's the reason (5.00 / 11) (#32)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:23:12 PM EST
    Republicans pray to Jesus the other day on his show?!  I believe he said that in context of the BitterCling remarks, but BO is a regular gaffe machine these days.  Could BO have picked a more perfect breakfast food to mark his little snit?  God I hope this gets play, because the waffle is just an endless source of amusement.

    In all seriousness though, if BO is melting under the pressure of the primary and already hiding from the press and ducking debates, how is he ever going make it to November with the Republicans putting him through his paces rather than a woman and fellow Democrat who is boxing him with one hand tied behind her back?

    correction (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:35:50 PM EST
    if BO is toasting under the pressure of the primary...how is he ever going to make it...with the Republicans smearing him with butter and softening his crispened message rather than a ... fellow Democrat who is dribbling syrupy goodness around a bland doughy campaign

    No Pun Left Behind!


    Egg-sactly! (none / 0) (#200)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM EST

    Yes ... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:57:29 AM EST
    BO is a regular gaffe machine these days.

    Perhaps that was the problem, hard to shovel down the waffles when you've got your foot in your mouth 24/7.


    C-Span Calling (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by dazedreamer52 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:29:14 PM EST
    C-Span is now accepting calls from viewers.

    (202) 585-3885 For Republicans
    (202) 585-3886 For Dems
    (202) 585-3887 For Independents

    I think he sees things slipping away... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:30:59 PM EST
    and he's a bit ticked off

    That's the mark of someone who's not used to losing.

    He's communicating that he recognizes that he has lost his media darling status and the press can be a drag when they don't fawn all over you like they used to.

    More importantly...doesn't he know that politicians don't eat waffles in public during the election season?

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40:51 AM EST
    Obama has had a charmed political life.  I think he thought he could charm himself into the White House.  But he found out it's much harder than he thought.

    The mask is slipping... you can only keep the "act" up for so long.


    Great Googly Moogly (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:37:16 PM EST
    How many traits does he share with the Decider now? I'm sure we all have a little bit of old Scratch in us, for better or worse, but the parallels are getting more and more difficult to blow off.

    What exactly are we heading into the GE with? Someone who mimics Bush's policies vs someone who mimics Bush himself?

    Granted, Obama is no buffoon like dear leader. However, that just means he should know better. What a brat.

    Axelrod learned from BushBoy's successful (none / 0) (#208)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    presdential campaign. Choose someone with little national baggage (like votes on issues) and "brand" the candidate with Hope and Change.

    Keep as much info unrevealed as possible to allow the public to project on the candidate what they think he will do.



    I will donate the max to HRC for both cycles if (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:38:03 PM EST
    she shows up in NC next week to the debate as scheduled and just pulls out a box of Eggos and proceeds to debate against it.  Guaranteed the waffles do better than BO did last time out.

    <spews soda on screen> (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:56:52 PM EST
    I'll match that -- if you'll come over and wipe down my computer. :-)

    It's called "damage control" (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:47:46 PM EST
    Axelrod knows that BHO is about ready to blow his top.  It is best to keep Obama away from the press.  It's the model they have successfully adapted for one Michelle Obama  Silence is golden, or silence=death, depending on one's frame of reference.

    btw, OT, was it not too funny to see Teresa Heinz Kerry and Michelle Obama on stage together tonight?  

    Has Michelle O been kept away from the press? (none / 0) (#209)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    Obama and the media (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:05:59 AM EST
    Their relationship has been pretty lovey-dovey up until the ABC debate.  Since BHO "froze out" Fox News after their inaccuracies about the madrasa and using Osama instead of Obama, it alarmed him that ABC didn't tow the same line he found over @ MSNBC.  

    Obama's reactions when the media "turns" on him is like a man who gets bitten by his own dog.  It shocks him and angers him.  If he is giving local media access, well I can see that point.  But if he's being dismissive AND sexist towards reporters he needs to watch his back:  the media giveth and the media taketh away.

    BTW, the waffle thing....too easy, too easy.  The GOP could easily go from "flip flopping" to the "waffling" candidate.  

    Would this story waffling around (none / 0) (#86)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:18:04 AM EST
    be a sign that Obama's media darling status is gone coming right on the heels of his non-appearance on countdown and the LK show?

    BO is Royalty already (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by toddy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:16:18 AM EST
    Later that afternoon while taping an interview for "The Daily Show," a reporter tried to ask Obama about a new Clinton ad and the Obama ad that came as a response.
    The White House hopeful asked the reporter if she was "supposed to be" asking a question at that time and added that he might answer but that "it depends on how well behaved you are." In the end, he did not take the question.


    More and more (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:22:19 AM EST
    he's reminding me of Bush.

    Yes, we will (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:46:26 AM EST
    Last Zogby tracking PA poll.  Zogby says:

    "She now leads Obama, 51% to 41%, having gained three points over the past 24 hours as Obama lost one point, pushing her beyond the poll's margin of error to create a statistically significant lead for the first time in the Pennsylvania daily tracking poll."

    I hope BO loses the kitchen sink attack. To borrow the phrase from "In Living Color": Hated it.

    "It is better to remain silent... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by ig on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:07:32 AM EST
    and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:13:32 AM EST
    He shouldn't talk with his mouth full.

    The parallels are not the same because (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:17:31 AM EST
    a president can get away with no press conferences, but not a candidate who is not a sitting president.   A president can manipulate good coverage with surrogates, and don't forget there is the White House daily press briefing.  A candidate needs to stay in the news, particularly if the candidate is not yet the nominee.

    the parellels (none / 0) (#83)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:43:24 AM EST
    may not be the same but Obama may try to get away with it. Obama seems to be challenging Richard Nixon. Nixon had his Checkers speech, Obama his Reverend Wright speech. Both are disdainful of negative coverage. They both attempt to disembowel their opposition. Ask Alice Palmer (and the four others who were knocked off the ballot). Ask Jack Ryan. And then back in January Obama didn't like the commentary of Carville and Begala on CNN so he had them removed. It took three weeks before Clinton got them reinstated.

    WaPo not much read then, and no boyz (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:53:46 AM EST
    in the press got on the Watergate bus, giving the story much play, until after the election -- and then some.  I was in the nooz biz then and, at my paper, in charge of the wires, so I remember well how all alone WaPo was with this.  For many other reasons along apples-and-oranges line, parallels just aren't there with Watergate.

    But a good book, and other parallels in terms of pack journalism on the campaign trail certainly still are so.


    Have you read (none / 0) (#149)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:12:00 AM EST
    The Boys on the Bus by Patrick...somebody?  About the Carter election.  Fascinating glimpse at how this stuff works, and how depressing it is that nothing has changed.

    Yeah it wasn't on my BFF's MySpace page either (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:13:48 AM EST
    I had to read about it on

    ... to name a few. But hey, they didn't beam me a jpg of what they're wearing to our daily summit in front of the Slop'n'Drool so they don't officially exist.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:20:06 AM EST
    when Senator Obama finishes his waffle he could try and explain to us one more time why his health care plan is better than the Clinton health care plan. And he might try to tell us the truth this time. And the poor mistreated media types might try and explain both plans honestly and completely.

    Or maybe waffles really are the most important topic. :)

    Turn the tables (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by joanneleon on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:38:08 AM EST
    Yet again, can you imagine what would happen if Hillary Clinton (or John Edwards, for that matter) said "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"  First, the blogosphere would explode with three hundred diaries in the span of a few hours.  Then the photoshopped pictures would show up.  Then the press would pick up on it, and then the comedy shows.  It would become a huge campaign gaffe.

    With Obama?  Not so much.  People will talk about how righteous it is to demand to eat one's waffle.  How wonderful!  Yes, let's all eat our waffles!  Let's declare today "National Waffle Day" and let's donate five million dollars to the Obama campaign in honor of waffles.

    Giant double standard.  Yet, still, I find people saying that the GOP wants Hillary to be their candidate and that they are working towards this and helping to crossing over to vote for her.  I say, the GOP is salivating at the idea of having Obama as the candidate.  This is the candidate they want to run against in the fall because they think they can take him down.

    As for avoiding press conferences, well, I find that to be baffling and I find it to be more than a little bit like our current president.  No pressers for ten days?  Is this a temper tantrum, punishing the press for the last debate?  Or is the campaign being overprotective of their candidate because he has been off kilter lately?  Either way, it's a problem.

    BTW, where is that momey really coming from? (none / 0) (#125)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:38:16 AM EST
    He doesn[t take it from Pacs? That is a lot of nickle and dimes he got.

    I haven't seen any analysis (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by joanneleon on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:17:55 AM EST
    of where the Obama campaign donations are coming from.  The CW is that it comes from gazillions of small dollar donors.  I wonder though.  We hear about average donation, but I've never seen a breakdown of donation denominations in tiers.

    I Belive that it . . . (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:57:27 AM EST
    . . . a calculated strategy of "gaff-avoidance."   No pressers, less opportunity to make that gaff that might give Clinton that needed boost before Pennsylvania voted.

    I didn't know Obama wasn't speaking to press (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:44:57 AM EST
    in the last 10 days.  That's a long time.  This is very interesting.  It is reminiscent of Bush in 2000, keeping the press at bay, creating a mystic, while giving the appearance of approachability.

    Very interesting indeed.  I told you folks, aloofness is not coolness, it's COLDNESS.  Obama is an introvert who is forced to be outgoing to win campaigns.

    The mask is slipping...

    Totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:42:26 AM EST
    but it did get Bush to the White House, but I really don't like it

    Press Corps (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:43:06 AM EST
    Someone else posted the examples.  He's been this way all along.  It was reported by the press travelling with him that he's aloof, rarely talks to them.  The time when he got upset over the questions was with the "real" press.  He was shocked they asked him hard questions.

    He doesn't do well with questions.  Just like in the debate...                        

    guessing now. (none / 0) (#188)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:49:37 AM EST
    He's probably been told by proprietors and senior editors that the reporters are open season and can be ignored and there will be no consequences in the columns.

    and another thing (4.00 / 2) (#3)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    how did all the media know to report Obama says he wont win PA?

    oh yeah they got it from a LOCAL interview he gave. because thats the interviews he is giving. the MSM is just bitter because he won't give them anything to put into their news cycles.

    You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds ya. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:40:46 PM EST
    Twist as much as you want. It ain't gonna change that Obama is just chicken of going anywhere he doesn't already know is friendly: like going on the Daily Show and backing out of a debate.  Like back when GW used to only go on Fox and refused to debate.  Kinda like that.

    Dance with them what brung ya (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:45:04 AM EST
    The national media have carried Obama a long way. He may be tired of playing their games, but they expect him to keep feeding them stories. You pay to play. I think that Obama is going to be amazed at how many people have helped him get where he is. Axelrod will sort him out.

    Axelrod will sort him out? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by kimsaw on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:58:38 AM EST
    The man is running for the Presidency and now the change maker who wants a more transparent government is running from the ones that have been dispensing his blather without investigation for over a year? He needs his campaign manager to sort him out? Who's going to sort it out for him if he's CIC? Axelrod? Michelle? That will make us so proud...probably for the first time! He's keeping his distance because there are too many questions and not enough real answers from this waffling wonder.

    Jeralyn, (2.00 / 1) (#9)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:12:06 PM EST
    did you even look into that claim?... he's given the press access over the last ten days.  that is factually incorrect and any internet search would yield the information...  

    Then do one (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:13:22 PM EST
    and get back to us

    Shouldn't you be taking that issue up (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:14:06 PM EST
    With the Times Swampland writer?

    no (4.00 / 2) (#20)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:15:56 PM EST
    it was correct.  i read it w/o seeing the specific "conference" reference.  that is true although he's done a number of interviews.  my bad.

    oops, sorry for my post (none / 0) (#31)
    by angie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:21:39 PM EST
    below, I wrote it before you posted this.

    according to Jay Newton-Small (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:34:39 PM EST
    who is assigned to cover Obama, who writes here at Time's Swampland...
    But sometimes our hands are forced: Obama hasn't given a press conference in 10 days and the questions, some of them -- like Hamas -- rather important, are starting to build up.

    So it seems reasonable for Jeralyn to believe that to be accurate and no further digging necessary.

    Did you wish to call Jay Newton-Small a liar?


    i suppose you were focused on (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:13:49 PM EST
    press conference... if so, you can disregard.  but the post makes it seem like he's not talking to anyone, which is not true.  many members of the press have had access to him over the past ten days.  maybe no press conference.

    So, link the videos (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:15:31 PM EST
    or audio interviews.  Let's see how accessible and transparent he is?   Hmmm?

    NPR (none / 0) (#204)
    by cleek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:37:01 AM EST
    for one, he did an interview on NPR yesterday.

    or maybe i was imagining it.


    A press conference (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:39:17 AM EST
    is a damned sight harder and potentially more revealing than an interview that can be framed.

    kinda like a debate! (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by kimsaw on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:01:11 AM EST
    wow the MSM I expected (none / 0) (#1)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:03:51 PM EST
    but blogs come on, he hasn't given a NATIONAL media interview.

    because he is doing all LOCAL news interviews, he just gave a radio interview that I listened to today.

    she is ignoring the national media to focus on the local because they will hit more PA voters, and right now no one but PA voters matter. he needs to get to as many PA voters as possible. so what would you do?

    National CNN, or the Local newspaper and 6'o clock news.

    There is no reason not to do both (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by ajain on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:11:19 PM EST
    Dont tell me there wasnt enough time for one presser in 10 day!

    There is a difference between the National media and the Local media. The National media focuses on a different set of questions and also tend to set the tone for the campaign. Also he is seemingly hedging from the press because of Carter meeting with Hamas and he doesnt want to get in the middle of that and the local press wont focus on those issues. And its not like he has done an incredible amount of local press.

    Makes me think that this is one of the reasons he passed up Countdown and Larry King.


    He Was Saving Himself For The Daily Show (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:19:33 PM EST
    ...apparently he thinks he will get more bang for his buck; but sometimes Jon Stewart shows no mercy and tonight would be a great time to bring
    Obama's flaws to light.  He showed a montage of Obama's flubs in the last debate, so will be interesting to see what he does tonight.

    he looked stoned (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:18:36 AM EST
    on the daily show.  I'm not saying he was, just that he looked that way.

    He got an even better tongue-bath than Kristol (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:17:09 AM EST
    Some forehead-smacking moments:

    Stewart set up the fungo with the "Waaahhhh, why won't the Bad Monster Lady Quit?" whine, which has become so repetitive I wonder why the O-campaign hasn't grafted it onto his plan for leadership. (The Bad Economy: Why won't it quittttt???, and Sure, Iran is throwing China (and Russia) around now, but I won't deride them earnestly until they see a mouse, jump up on a chair and flash their shapely stems while comically squealing "Eek! Eek!")

    Obama then "praises" Sen. Clinton by saying that her hard-fought campaign has been like Spring Training for him. Really?!? (Entitled much?)

    I'm mean, that was beyond a slo-pitch but a frackin' static t-ball and he still couldn't hit out of the infield ... or even show a modicum of class or humility by admitting that the contest wasn't over in PA yet.

    Then Stewart attempted to hand him some easy comedic moments by asking Obama to repeat, using some of his famous inspirational wizardry, some mundane phrases. Obama repeated them with a stilted, wooden delivery to a smattering of weak random laughter from the audience.


    sorry...typo (none / 0) (#8)
    by ajain on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:11:46 PM EST
    10 days!

    every time he is talking to the national (none / 0) (#21)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:16:18 PM EST
    press, is a second that could be given to the LOCAL press who will have greater access to the PA voters.

    why would he do anything else, he doesn't need to worry about voters in Minnesota or California getting his message right now, only PA matters, he has to focus in and get all he can.

    then he will move to IN and NC, and he will focus his attention on those states, the only reason for MSM interviews is really to speak to the supers. BO doesn't worry about speaking to states down the line he will focus on them when the time comes.

    but the point of the article is misleading, it makes it seem he is NOT giving interviews. which he is.

    and already people in this diary are attacking him for. its always something

    oh he is not giving interviews, oh well he is well then I will attack him because he should give national interviews, even though strategically speaking that makes no sense when campaigning only in 1 state.


    His press conferences are spotty (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30:22 AM EST
    because he's really not adept at answering questions that actually pertain to policy or events.

    He's a complete empty suit.  I've never seen a major Democratic presidential primary candidate that is as empty or has such a lame grasp of issues as Obama.

    Sorry TruthMatters, you're giving a WORM type presentation and also indirectly conceding that Obama is all about Obama running for office and in fear of revealing a lack of substance.

    He won't comment, in part (he REALLY doesn't want to go THERE), because he doesn't know what to say.

    It comes right back down to the point that Obama is basically a nothing.  He's taken credit where he's not due credit; in the Illinois legislature where he received credit for the work of others, in 'community organizing' where he again took credit for the work of others (the asbestos abatement matter), in the US Senate where he boasted about nuclear inspection regulations that he compromised away and then lied about both the substance of that act and the fact that even in its ineffectual final form it was never brought to a vote and never became law.

    Obama is the candidate about nothing who's really incapable of answering substantative questions.

    The media's romance with Obama is nothing more than his opposition to Hillary Clinton.

    A repeat: If Obama is the nominee the press will drop him like a one night stand and return to McCain, their everlasting love.


    I agree completely. He's weaker (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:39:42 AM EST
    than any Democratic nominee in decades. I think you'd have to go to the 19th century to find someone comparable.
    All he has is that great, stumbling charisma.. kinda like someone else we know, eh?

    Good point, but.... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Key on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:14:35 PM EST
    issues like the one he was asked do have a sort of national importance to them.

    Plus, interviews can be controlled more tightly than press conferences, and one on one interviews can be a lot less revealing than press conferences.

    Finally, what's wrong with holding a press conference that invites local AND national media?


    is there anything he (none / 0) (#24)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:18:08 PM EST
    needs to say? obviously if something was need he'd give one.

    but MSM has daily press calls with staffers, there is nothing they NEED to ask him, they ask the communications people on the calls.

    instead obama should be out getting votes. the MSM is just cracky because they have nothing to report.


    You're just circling back on yourself now (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:53:41 PM EST
    like a dog chasing its tail.  It's entertaining for us to watch up to a point, and it apparently entertains you, but it's starting to make you sort of dizzy -- if you look back through this read and read straight through what you said. :-)

    The communications staffers (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:17:10 AM EST
    aren't running for office. It doesn't matter if they know about Hamas and Carter's trip. It does matter if Obama knows about it and what he knows and what he thinks about it are important questions for the national media to ask. The fact that he is avoiding answering questions on foreign policy, and just about anything else, says that he doesn't know what he is doing, or he doesn't want to share his views with the voters for some reason. Either way, it is not the way a job applicant should behave towards the people who are taking the applications. Don't forget, the national media, such as it is, is where the rest of us find out what, if anything, Obama is thinking. So far, he isn't doing well in terms of policy and plans for the country. Basically, he doesn't have a clue and is hoping the rest of us won't find that out until after he wins the election. Which he won't because he doesn't have a clue and people will figure that out and vote for the one who does. If we are lucky, and I hope we are, it will be Hillary, who does have a more than a clue, going up against McCain. She has a good chance of winning because she can lay out policy, explain it, say why the opposition's policy is not as good as hers and make it stick. All Obama has is rhetoric and arrogance. That won't make an effective president. Just like he hasn't been an effective Senator. He should get a work ethic before he runs again. He is sorely lacking one at the moment.

    I wish you would honor (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:13:42 AM EST
    the name you choose to post under...  Truth does matter, but from what I have read of your posts, you seem to only see one side.

    Here are some examples of Obama with the media.  You can decide for yourself, but I  think that there is a clear pattern of censure of reporters that ask Obama questions he does not like.  

    Notice the photo here.  This can be interpreted anyway you like, but I see it as an other example of a pattern of behavior.   I think he is a passive aggressive pouter.  I also think that he says one thing while doing another.

    Here is an older article of what the press gets if they write something unfavorably of your candidate.

    This is a democracy and we have the freedom to express our opinions.  I just hope that we all can make informed instead of emotional decisions.  

    I see patterns of behavior in Obama that I find to be duplicitous.  His campaign has been attacking Hillary's character for months now.  We all know that her biggest negative is the perception of her trustworthiness, and he has Capitalized on that.  To have him say that he has not played dirty politics is just untrue.

    What can I think of Obama?... not much. I think he has shown me that he is a charming hypocrite that does not have the guts to stand up and answer for anything.  I do not recall him taking responsibility for his missteps and misspoken moments.  It is always the fault of others or taken out of context... Then, he has his army of followers that swarm whenever they worry that 'someone' might make him look bad.  To me, that 'someone' is Obama himself.


    Pensylvanians don't watch national news? (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:17:57 PM EST
    Obama is running for President, not Alderman. In order to reach as many PA voter's as possible he has the entire media at his disposal. National, CNN, and the local news.

    We Pennsylvanians are too bitter to watch TV (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by kempis on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:13:50 AM EST
    It reminds us of what we don't have: palm trees, sunshine, thin people.

    God, just thinking about this makes me want to grab my Bible AND my shotgun....

    Seriously, I bet most Pennsylvanians have been doing what I've been doing: avoiding like the plague those local media outlets that have been utterly saturated with ads for both campaigns. I'm certain that people in Western PA are sick of both by now because they have to sit through a bazillion ads to keep up with the Penguins' NHL playoff games. :p

    Someone should do a study to see if there isn't a backlash effect of Pittsburgh Penguin fans voting en masse for McCain.


    I do not watch the local news (none / 0) (#135)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:52:47 AM EST
    I don't even watch CNN unless something big is happening and Paris riding to the police station was not that moment. I do READ CNN news and Yahoo News and ABC News and of course, here. Use to be 'there' and MSNBC but that ship has sailed.

    I am glad Hillary was able to appear last night on two networks. At the one, with KO, she was able to talk issues and not run away from the hostile press. And the other gave her 30 mins free air time to show once again that she is not afraid. She is ready to be CIC. Let's elect her.


    what are (none / 0) (#28)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:19:11 PM EST
    you seriously trying to make an argument that local media reaches more people in a state then national media?

    its about maximizing his exposure, and yes local interviews and the local media is more exposure in a single state then the national media.


    That's not (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:55:39 AM EST
    what he said.

    You've got to be kidding me.  

    You just said that a local TV station in PA covers the entire state.

    I really think that CNN, ABC, etc. cover more of PA than a local TV station.

    You're going through a lot of contortions trying to put together a defense.


    Are you sure you wrote that right? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:09:42 AM EST
    First you question a person saying local is more important and then you say local news coverage is more important.  Aw, the waffle effect.

    Now now, (none / 0) (#177)
    by joanneleon on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:35:02 AM EST
    can't you just let him eat his waffle?

    That's a nice rationalization (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by badger on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:18:37 PM EST
    but the point, as usual, is not whether Obama is right or not.

    The point, to use an anachronism, is that you don't antagonize people who buy ink by the barrel.

    One of the things a successful general election campaign requires (as McCain obviously understands and Obama doesn't) is good relations with the national press. The news anchor with the great hair in Wilkes-Barre is not going to make or break Obama's campaign in PA or in the general election.


    That was Dubya's Strategy (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Iphie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    he hasn't given a NATIONAL media interview. because he is doing all LOCAL news interviews
    Remember? He spoke with local media so he could avoid the "media filter," speak directly to the public and avoid the tough questions on national and international issues that the national media might ask. You know, the kind of issues that someone running for national office might need to prove proficiency on?

    The parallels between Obama and Dubya just keep piling up. I hadn't realized that Obama had adopted Bush's media strategy as well.


    Double up on the blueberry syrup (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:00:54 AM EST
    The local filter reinforced Bush's Regular Guy image, both flattering the small-market press and making the nationals feel righteous in covering it.

    No wonder they made such a big deal about knowing what was on Real America's mind. The blitherati were there when Conrad Birdie showed up Sweet Apple to kiss Kim MacAfee on the Ed Sullivan show.

    Obama should just have set the gaggle up with coffee and donuts and said he'd be with them in fifteen minutes and come off as magnanimous and concerned. You let your handlers do the herding otherwise.


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:38:58 AM EST
    Plus, he's trying to 'school' the press.  That sounds familiar, too.  Not that I don't think the press needs it but I don't think the manner he's employing is going to be particularly effective.

    Stop attacking the messenger (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:08:08 AM EST
    This is hardly the first time Obama's management of the media has been noted.  Politico did a story on it Feb 25 -  Obama stiffs, stifles national press.  He has also been criticized for refusing interviews with the gay press.  A few other examples include:

    Times Leader - Obama keeps local media at arm's length:

    The contrast between the two Democratic presidential candidates was evident in their approach to campaigning -- especially in Northeast Pennsylvania.
    Obama, on the other hand, declined interviews with the local media and would not disclose details of his trip. His time of arrival was estimated and an appearance at Whistles Pub & Eatery in Scranton was restricted to pool media.
    "Look, we're not here to answer questions from The Times Leader all day," said Sean Smith, an Obama press official. "You will get releases as soon as they are available."

    When Obama arrived at the airport Monday afternoon, he was whisked into an awaiting SUV and did not stop to talk with the 20 or so supporters who awaited his arrival. (Lexis)

    The AFP - Is Obama's media affair ending?

    Obama has kept the press at arm's length, giving fewer on-the-record briefings than Clinton, the once "inevitable" nominee who has become more accessible as her campaign has faltered.

    There are more but not worth the taking up the space here.  Bottom line, Obama is just like many other politicians using old school political tactics to control his message.  He may find he has to change strategies in a general election campaign against McCain or risk losing his one of his greatest strengths as a media darling.  


    After results tonight are in (none / 0) (#85)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:10:54 AM EST
    he will have the waffle to  blame. I wonder if he eat another waffle ever after.

    Look for diaries that say HRC made the evil waffle (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:00:00 AM EST
    And primed it to go off in Obama's face when the press was looking!

    Suggested serving: 'She'll throw the kitchen sink ... china ... the waffle iron ... a rat-tail comb ... a tub of Dippity Doo ... a hilarious longline girdle ... you name it ... '


    Nice! (none / 0) (#89)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:27:31 AM EST
    "Look, we're not here to answer questions from The Times Leader all day," said Sean Smith, an Obama press official. "You will get releases as soon as they are available."

    Reminds of what Colbert said at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2006.  Don't have the exact quote but something to the effect that the job of the press was to write down what the Bush Administration tells them.

    This is a new kind of politics?


    Sometimes I think (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:10:54 AM EST
    that Obama wants to be the next Bush or has told that he'll be the next Bush - complete with mini-dictator status and handlers.  Don't know about Dick Cheney though.  Perhaps Cheney has groomed his successor?

    Although I haven't always agreed with the Clinton Campaign, I've always been impressed with the Clinton Candidate.


    He's never really... (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:17:53 AM EST
    been press friendly and has them eating out of his hand. WHy would he want to ruin a good thing.

    Besides, he already answered like...8 questions.


    Whatever be his rationale (none / 0) (#84)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:52:30 AM EST
    it was a stupid thing to say to the media:  "Can't I just eat my waffle?" Sounds like a joke but true.  And this says more about him than bitter/cling.  It really conveys his innate arrogance.  What a spoiled brat!

    He should have made the 'event' (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:27:36 AM EST
    closed to the press if he didn't want to be bothered. If you're going into a diner to get press that you're a 'regular' guy, then you should expect to interact with people AND the press.

    When they did the Bloomberg quickie breakfast here, iirc, the press were kept outside while they ate.


    Room service (none / 0) (#151)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:14:52 AM EST
    If you are more hungry than you are concerned with world politics, then eat your waffle in your room. Then you can meet the press. You could have had just coffee. I believe Mr. BHO is showing a bit of testiness and it is not the side of him that he should be proud of. I am glad MSNBC and LKL mentioned that he had been invited and declined for what ever what reason. She was in Harrisburg. She did not have to go to them. I am sure they could have worked out something with the schedule. But local is one thing for him, national coverage might get him in trouble with the next state. Hey, I get to vote today. Great!

    I'm really happy for you! (none / 0) (#183)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:43:02 AM EST
    This was the first year that my primary vote meant anything and I've been voting for 36 years.  It feels pretty darn good.

    Orange Juice, not coffee (none / 0) (#197)
    by angie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:10:45 AM EST
    Obama doesn't "do" coffee from a diner.

    I must say (none / 0) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:18:28 PM EST
    That's a good-looking waffle picture.

    food porn n/t (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by angie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:25:15 PM EST
    That's a tasty looking waffle... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:36:49 PM EST
    Now I'm hungry.

    Didn't Carter have that property (none / 0) (#44)
    by BlueMerlin on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:38:21 PM EST
    as well?  Kind of off-putting to the press and generally insular?  It did not contribute positively to his effectiveness as president.  Smart as he was, it was a shame.

    ..and bring me the dam syrup !! (none / 0) (#45)
    by drewohio1 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:38:53 PM EST
    what Hamas , Carter, not going there, more important things like my fantastic diner waffle that was made for me. Now are you going to bring me some waffles or not...

    THe reason he is avoiding the press is that he is avoiding the truth that they have been his panzy's throughout the campaign and now since Saturday Night Live sketch the press found its backbone ... well lets just say it found a small backbone...

     remember that new conference that obama got slammed on and he didnt want to accept anymore questions... A true imposter ! , a lamb for the gop slaughter in the fall, dont take the trap, VOTE HILLARY !!!

    Wondering about media darling (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:51:19 PM EST
    status if he does not talk to them?  

    It won't last (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:20:48 AM EST
    if he's running against McCain.  They'll leave Obama with his waffles and run off to bring McCain donuts with sprinkles.

    and yet...it's working for him (none / 0) (#54)
    by g8grl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:00:36 AM EST
    Regardless of whether he lets them have access, they love him and will forgive him anything.  His strategy is to sit on his perceived lead and stifle anything that might change the narrative.  He doesn't want to do anything controversial (not that he ever did) or make any more gaffes.  He wants to coast into the nomination and Dean, Pelosi and the media are letting him do it.

    It won't continue working without tending though (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:58:13 AM EST
    Media still has to be managed. Also, what I've seen while following the horse race is that media weren't just talking up Obama as a "personality" but the Obama campaign and, count on it, themselves.

    Lamentably, when today's media are [flattered, appeased, spanked, fed "insider" hooey] what they'll ALWAYS report on is themselves, because they stink at what they do.

    Maintaining objectivity is a skill and discipline that good journalists work at and that most contemporary media boneheads don't even bother to develop. It's like steroid and performance-enhancing drug use in sports.

    Anyone who has pride in his or her craft wouldn't sign off on shoddy work, but not these hacks.


    the media does the same with Britney, Paris (none / 0) (#141)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:06:49 AM EST
    and other media-created rockstars -
    >>>>Regardless of whether he lets them have access, they love him and will forgive him anything.

    I agree with Obama on this one (none / 0) (#59)
    by mexboy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:31:18 AM EST
    Has the press no decency?

    I mean can't a man have a good photo op to tell those "bitter" voters how much like them he is?

    Look out Arteries (none / 0) (#60)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:36:19 AM EST
    here we come! LOL! Obama keeps eating like that we won't have to worry about him being the Democratic nominee. He'll have a coronary before August. ;-)

    now now now... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:48:04 AM EST
    waffles are good yummy things that...

    Well I was hungry and had a couple nutragrain ones that were in the freezer. They were yummy.


    Comfort Food (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:53:25 AM EST
    I guess he needed some comfort. ;-)

    good to "see" you :) (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:20:35 AM EST
    Same here. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:38:33 AM EST
    The link in the update (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:11:56 AM EST
    I think it's incorrect.

    You're right (none / 0) (#72)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:19:11 AM EST
    but I think it is too late, or early depending on your habits, for Jeralyn to correct it.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#74)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:35:31 AM EST
    Your Update link doesn't take us to CNN.

    I found the link (none / 0) (#77)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:47:21 AM EST
    but I'm having trouble getting it to fit the format. It spills over the margins.

    Slim Press avails (none / 0) (#91)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:32:55 AM EST
    There have been articles all along from disgruntled media who spent weeks following obama's campaign and got nothing but a few canned lines.  They never had free roam and were not too happy to be placed in cages, forbidden to mingle.

    This was before the rather humorous karmic story about Clinton's camp setting up the media in the Men's Room event, next to the lockers and urinals.

    The tone of his campaign is secrecy to hide his, forgive me, waffling and his history of judgment concerning his ties to controversial characters.

    The diplomatic - presidential material fascade would disappear if he had to answer questions.

    Obama is "present", we cannot ask him to confirm yes or no, or even open his mouth unscripted.

    Pass the syrup, this waffle is bitter.

    It's all politics. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:04:33 AM EST
    As some pointed out, McCain schmoozes the press shamelessly and this pays off for him.   It's up to Obama if he wants to woo the media or spurn it, but actions have consequences.

    And this time, it is not Clinton's fault.  

    But everything is Clinton's fault! (none / 0) (#97)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:36:15 AM EST
    Didn't you get the memo?

    Do you always wake up this early?  I couldn't sleep.  I'm too pumped up over the primary.  I did the same thing the day of the TX/OH primaries.  


    Yes, and it is early for me. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:43:37 AM EST
    2 am this morning.  I wouldn't call it insomnia because I hit the hay early - the kids can wake as early as 4 am.  The oldest went on a making pancakes kick a few months back - with or without adult supervision.  I strongly recommend WITH adult supervision!  ;-)

    I'll probably spend today doing as much yard work as possible - the better to stay offline!


    Pancakes, not waffles? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:14:39 AM EST
    Unsupervised pancakes spell disaster!  

    I remember those days, when my kids would get up super-early.  My daughter, when she's home from college, rarely wakes up before noon.  My son's a working stiff now that he's graduated from college, but he'd better be up early today to vote for Hillary!


    This link (none / 0) (#98)
    by Serene1 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:50:48 AM EST
    was posted in TM. Apparently a 527 attack ad against Obama


    Its brutual. I hope Team Obama has a plan to counter such attacks when it comes to GE.

    The Unity and Change Show is over (none / 0) (#100)
    by ig on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:22:17 AM EST
    Obama must know it. Doing only softball interviews and Comedy Shows is only postphoning the inevitable. He is unelectable in the GE, even with the Iraq and the Economy.

    Pure right wing wet dream! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:52:42 AM EST
    A bit cheesy for me.

    (I'm not a DP fan.)


    i agree, that one was cheesy. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:14:35 AM EST
    but there's so much more they're capable of coming up with that's a lot better than that.  thought this cartoon over at no quarter was pretty apt.

    That ad (none / 0) (#196)
    by smott on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    Will not affect anyone who doesn't already support the death penalty.  If that's the best they've got, BO will be OK.

    Personally I expect to hear the words "God DAMN America"  "bitter" and "cling" quite often this fall...


    Question: (none / 0) (#110)
    by feet on earth on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:04:41 AM EST
    Who said you can't have your pancake and eat it too?

    Yes he can!!! :^(  

    Obama (none / 0) (#116)
    by sas on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:49:51 AM EST
    is a neophyte.

    I still think he views this as an election for something like Prom King.

    Does anyone (none / 0) (#123)
    by ding7777 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:28:10 AM EST
    see an SNL skit in this?

    The "3 a.m. red phone" keeps ringing while Obama eats his waffle?


    KO showed why he's ducking the press (none / 0) (#126)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:39:00 AM EST
    Last night on Olberman, Clinton got trapped into saying something as a candidate that a president would never say. The entire discussion of whether the US would consider an attack on Israel justification for a US nuclear response is ridiculous.  

    The right answer is to say that's a silly hypothetical, never going to happen, and not worth discussing. But you can't get away with that on the eve of a primary you have to win.  And the real answer is the unspeakable "Israel has its own nukes. The US doesn't enter into it."  Olberman shouldn't have asked such a loaded question, and Clinton should have refused to answer. But how could she?

    Likewise, the right answer to the "Should you negotiate with Hamas?" question is, "Duh. They are the elected government. With whom would you suggest negotiating?"  But you can't say that either.

    Respectfully, I don't think Hillary was (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:40:23 AM EST
    trapped at all.

    Really (none / 0) (#130)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:46:07 AM EST
    You thought that was a good answer?

    You disagree that a president would never have said that?

    Or you really think that Hillary believes the US should formally commit to nuking anyone who attacks Israel?

    How does the same logic not apply to Tokyo, or Mexico City?

    [eyebrows raised on all of these]


    A nuclear response for a nuclear attack (none / 0) (#131)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:48:46 AM EST
    on Israel. Standard deterrence talk.

    Can you point me to anywhere (none / 0) (#133)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:52:08 AM EST
    That says the US has made this commitment?

    Outside of NATO?


    Nato is the point of comparison, yes. (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:56:31 AM EST
    Having the US guarantee a response to a nuclear attack means that the member states don't need to acquire defensive nuclear weapons themselves.
    Hillary is proposing to cover MUSLIM nations too, btw.

    NATO is entirely different (none / 0) (#147)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:10:53 AM EST
    You're saying that Clinton is proposing to unilaterally promise to use US nuclear weapons in the defense of some to be determined list of countries?

    NATO is an organization with treaty obligations to its other members.  It is nothing at all like this.

    At a minimum, countries offered this protection would be required to sign the NPT, wouldn't they?  Israel is not.  WTF is the point of this policy if it doesn't have that as a minimum requirement?


    Um, Israel HAS already acquired (none / 0) (#182)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:41:45 AM EST
    nuclear weapons. And is not an NPT signatory. They don't need and shouldn't have an umbrella.

    Nato was spearheaded by the U.S. (none / 0) (#148)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:11:11 AM EST
    precisely to reinforce  its own policy of deterrence against the USSR (cold war) right after World War II.  The USSR is gone and communism is pretty much eradicated. But deterrence continues to be U.S. policy against all potential enemies.

    Except there aren't any enemies (1.00 / 1) (#176)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:34:48 AM EST
    to speak of.

    Enemies (none / 0) (#153)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:15:25 AM EST
    "potential enemies" of the US.

    Not of other countries.

    This is a major policy shift.  How do you square this with Israel not being an NPT signatory, and having nukes?


    Kennedy was citing Monroe Doctrine (none / 0) (#152)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:14:55 AM EST
    another past president.

    "Trapped" was wrong (none / 0) (#142)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:06:52 AM EST
    I just read the transcript. I watched the program last night, and I agree with you that I was wrong to say "trapped." She chose her words carefully and spoke clearly about a position she had obviously thought about both content and presentation of.

    That is what makes her CIC material! (none / 0) (#214)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:50:30 AM EST
    She knows what deterrence is and how it was effective during the Cold War.  With the growing proliferation of nukes in the world, this seems the best solution.  Our country has to fix the damage we caused by destabilizing a volatile part of the world with our actions in Iraq.  I think that Clinton is the only contender with  the vision and guts to do that!

    Here is a great post responding to Andrew Romano's blog for Newsweek.

    Gotta love this poster. I think that he shows reasoning, that while not flattering, certainly shows logic above emotion.  

    Posted By: stevelley (April 20, 2008 at 1:53 AM)
    In 1992, I voted for Bill Clinton, although I disliked him as a person.  In 2000, I liked George Bush as a person but I voted for Al Gore.  This year, Hillary Clinton is a big turnoff for me because she sounds arrogant, look fierce and almost inhuman, and acts so unwomanly that it is plainly menacing to a guy like me.  But I decided to support her rather than Obama or McCain.  I base my voting choice on what is best for the national interest, not some narrow personal sentiments.
    In 1992, I knew Bill Clinton to be a womanizer, but I also knew he was brilliant.  He has proven to be extremely capable in terms of managing our economy, paying down the debt, reforming welfare to the envy of Republicans, and keeping us from stupid wars.  He ordered a few cruise missiles to level the Al Quaeda training camps in Afghanistan and Sudan in the midst of his impeachments in August 1998 - and everybody thought he was trying to deflect attention.
    In 2000, I shared the sentiments of a lot of voters that George Bush was the more likable person, somebody whom you can have a few beers with in a bar just barely after 2 minutes of acquaintance.  I disliked Al Gore's professor-like talks.  But I voted for him because I knew he had more brain than George Bush.  How many of us now wish we had only invited Bush to a drink rather than voted him into office?
    This year, the monster-like Hillary Clinton is my choice for president.  On policy matters, she can quote half a manual without any hesitancy.  She would be feared by tyrants and dictators.  She is the kind of person who can lead the rest of the Free World and command the respect of even our enemies.  Remember, the US President is not someone whom you work with or talk to on an everyday basis.  You certainly do not sleep with that person, either, and should not judge him/her as if this was your spouse.  You do not have to like him/her before this person can rescue this nation from the current rock bottom.
    Contrast those qualities with her competitors who mix up Shiites with Sunnis or who deliver their domestic and foreign policy positions as if they had just rehearsed the speech two hours ago after being tutored by some Ivy-league professors.
    So many of us are also turned off by her vote to authorize Bush to invade Iraq.  How many of us realize that US Presidents are in the habit of misleading Congress or have never shared complete intelligence with Congress?  Just like LBJ who led ALL members of Congress except one lone dissenter (among 535) to sign onto the Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing the use of unrestrained force against North Vietnam in 1964, Bush followed this "glorious" tradition.  My hunch is, if Obama had already been elected into the Senate in 2003, he would have voted the same after reading the extremely menacing national security intelligence reports.   It was just a little more than a year after thousands perished in the twin towers that got leveled by terrorists.  If you were a Senator given this presidential intelligence report that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction, would you have rather risked a few million American lives in the belief that your lone judgment was better than an army of foreign service, CIA, and military intelligence officers whom you did not command?  In that context in early 2003, only when you were NOT in a leadership position in the federal government, in which Obama found himself, that you could afford to make fanciful arguments against that intelligence report.

    Don't see that (none / 0) (#218)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    I actually don't see how this policy discourages proliferation. And it certainly doesn't help deterrence, because it muddies rather than clarifies  what the US response would be to acts of aggression.

    Unless you think she means that she will not respond to acts of aggression other than nuclear attacks under this umbrella.


    Tokyo? Mexico City? (none / 0) (#150)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:13:08 AM EST
    I suddenly have a hankering for herring (red) this morning.

    No, I am serious (none / 0) (#162)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:22:57 AM EST
    If your point is that there is no imminent threat to Tokyo or Mexico City, then the response is that there is no threat to Israel either.  Japan is very close to a nuclear power with whom they are in some territorial disputes, and where there is a strong chance of political instability.  In the decade-long timeframe of Iran's supposed nuke acquisition, stuff could happen there too.

    But my point is not related to the question of imminent threats there.  My point is that this is a destabilizing policy, because the deterrent is of dubious credibility. The reason there are soldiers in Germany and in Korea was to make the US assertion of nuclear response credible.

    Moreover, it sets a precedent and creates an incentive for destabilizing responses. What prevents China from casting a similar umbrella over Iran and the Sudan?  Why wouldn't that be just as reasonable as the US doing this unilaterally?

    All for a country that has its own nuclear deterrent anyway?

    The reason I thought watching the show that she had been trapped into this was that it is an incredibly bad policy position.


    I worry more than you, (none / 0) (#206)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    apparently, that we need to deter Israel, too.

    You're saying that CLinton's position is (none / 0) (#216)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:04:57 PM EST
    that she would nuke tel aviv in response to Israel aggression.

    Really?   I doubt the campaign would endorse that.


    Because nobody is threatening (none / 0) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:22:38 AM EST
    to nuke Tokyo and Mexico City.

    Simple answers to simple questions.


    Nobody is threatening to nuke israel either nt (none / 0) (#163)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:23:35 AM EST
    I was more concerned about (none / 0) (#170)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:28:49 AM EST
    a potential dem nominee telling two women not to worry that he was being frisky, because that was his cell phone vibrating in his pocket, not something else.

    She wasn't asked about Japan or Mexico (none / 0) (#175)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:34:43 AM EST
    Add Canada too. BTD was thrilled that she gave such a good answer.

    Canada is a NATO member n/t (none / 0) (#179)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:38:59 AM EST
    That was snark (none / 0) (#186)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:45:21 AM EST

    well then I was dumb n/effin'/t (none / 0) (#187)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:47:02 AM EST
    Deterence (none / 0) (#190)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:52:16 AM EST
    The logic is that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, that would encourage Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. to also persue getting their own weapons as a defense against the perceived great Shia threat.  An umbrella of deterence by the United States would eliminate the need for more states to join the nuclear club, and that is a good thing, IMHO.
    We don't have a pact now with all the Middle Eastern states, but that is what diplomacy is for.

    Yup.  It was a good answer.


    two problems with that argument (none / 0) (#195)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:01:28 AM EST
    1. Getting NPT signatories and enforcing the NPT is a much more effective measure than making dubious guarantees.  Iran is a signatory, and has made more than a few gestures toward negotiating a solution. This is a needlessly bellicose position at a time when none of those countries are threatened in any way.  

    2. As I said, this creates an incentive for other countries, like China, to extend similar umbrellas now, not in some neo-con fantasy future, especially as the most likely aggressor in the region is Israel.

    Really? (none / 0) (#202)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:17:30 AM EST
    How'd that NPT work out for North Korea, Pakistan and India?

    Three points (none / 0) (#205)
    by JayAckroyd on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:38:49 AM EST
    1. You left out Israel. Those are the only four non-signatories. And if Bush had pursued it, IMO, NK would have signed. WJC had set a foundation for successful negotiation.  But there are only four. That's about as good as you get.

    2. The US has failed to fulfill its part of the NPT bargain, and should itself substantially reduce its warhead supply.

    3. Pressure should be brought upon Pakistan and India both. Under this administration Pakistan has been given a free ride, and they are the most serious prolif risk.

    But the NPT has kept the region you're talking about nuke-free, except for Israel. I don't see any reason to abandon a policy that has been successful there. I especially don't see the reason for it when the first nation that is mentioned already has its own deterrent.

    Finally, don't you get a little worried when you're pushing a Krauthammer initiative. Those guys have been very, very wrong on US security policy.  


    Obama learned well (none / 0) (#134)
    by pie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:52:23 AM EST
    from Bush, apparently.  For a while there, he rarely had press conferences.  Among modern-day presidents, I'll bet he holds the record for fewest given.  Although after watching and listening to the painful proceedings, we should count ourselves lucky.

    I expect more from candidates like Obama.  I'm sure he doesn't want to get caught making verbal gaffes or statements that can be used against him, but that doesn't bode well down the line.  The man's not ready for the big time.

    This would only work if Obama was running (none / 0) (#136)
    by tigercourse on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 07:53:40 AM EST
    against Gore or Kerry in the general election. Treating the press poorly when your opponent is John "come here Candy, would you like a rib" McCain, is simply stupid.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:18:34 AM EST
    but this is wrong. See the above link to the new anti Obama 527 ad regarding his IL senate voting record. Have you seen Hillary running this type of ad? Of course not. What Hillary has put out there is nothing compared to what the 527's have in store for Obama. I understand his IL senate voting record is a virtual goldmine for the GOP.

    Disagree. (none / 0) (#143)
    by pie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:07:05 AM EST
    If Florida and Michigan had gone according to plan, the situation would be far different.

    And McCain will not be as nice to Obama.  

    It's going to be nasty.


    So, did U vote in the primary? (none / 0) (#180)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:41:14 AM EST
    Did U vote undecided? Or did U vote for Mitt? Please advise.

    Well... primaries are different from general (none / 0) (#158)
    by tigercourse on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:19:26 AM EST
    elections you know. The people who vote in them are different. John Kerry defeated a bunch of formidable opponents and went on to lose in the general.

    Obama has no chance (none / 0) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:23:59 AM EST
    against McCain.  Zero.

    it is Bushian media control (none / 0) (#144)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:07:55 AM EST
    Nut he did it cause he's so effing inarticulate.

    Obama's a Harvard trained lawyer---should be excellent on the fly.

    Typical, arrogant Obama (none / 0) (#160)
    by Universal on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:21:02 AM EST
    I just wrote a long post about this, but I foolishly closed the tab and lost all the information. So I'll keep this one shorter.

    Obama feels he doesn't have to talk to the media, because he knows that they will do his work for him and the only thing he is likely to do is trip over his own tongue if he keeps talking. The ABC debate demonstrated this quite well.

    Which brings me to today's primary, which I am soon going to go and vote in before the day gets much later.

    I just finished an article over at my site which ties together: A Chicago Sun Times article from today which discusses how Obama's `brand' has suffered in PA; the proper way to look at and frame today's contest; the political realities facing our party if Barack Obama is made our nominee; how North Carolina can't 'save' Obama in the eyes of the superdelegates; and the idiotic decision which our party's leaders are on course to make and a decision which will ultimately cost them their jobs:


    Some here at TL may also enjoy the back-and-forth my brother and I have had with several Obama fans on a few of the other "Politics" sticky threads. Once again, some Obamabots have gone to the apparently irresistible ethnic card to try to compensate for their faulty, invalid 'logic.' All are more than welcome to come join in the merriment of Obama supporters demonstrating to the world the barrenness of their belief in the amorphous, incoherent "change"/"hope" Obama catchphrases.


    Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal" AKA "RokSki"

    Part III: Obama Adviser David L. Boren re: Foreign (none / 0) (#172)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:29:07 AM EST

    Maybe more people would think twice about Obama if they really examined the company he keeps...David L. Boren, his new adviser on "foreign policy," for one....

    This is the final installment on my 3-part series on Boren. Anyone who really thinks Obama is going to bring change on energy and foreign policy is delusional!

    Obama's own arrogance and his phony message of "change" will ultimately do him in if he is the nominee.  No doubt at all...I wonder what the "progressive" blogosphere will do if they ever wake up to his real character, instead of seeing only the "mask" they want to see??

    Obama is Getting "Bubble Fever" (none / 0) (#192)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:54:04 AM EST
    Some people can adjust to life inside the bubble -- others cannot.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#194)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:00:23 AM EST
    I hadn't thought about that.  You could be right.

    No Foul Language (none / 0) (#203)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    Go read the rules.  It messes with the filtering software.

    ABC Called (none / 0) (#211)
    by rorev on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:11:12 AM EST
    They want their debate questions back.

    Wafflegate (none / 0) (#222)
    by Mister Snitch on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    You can complain in general about "not enough" press conferences if you like (although your idea of that and mine might differ quite a bit). But you CANNOT complain and say "this is news" when the guy has his breakfast right in front of him. That's not "your opportunity", and that's not his "excuse". That's his breakfast, and you're harassing him.