Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Better Questions, Please
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. Granted, these are political reporters, not national security or foreign policy specialists, but what sort of journalist expects the President-elect to tell the "inside story" of how he selected Hillary Clinton? (Those sorts of stories, if told at all, are wrenched from aides on background--and reported only after consulting multiple sources.) And 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."
There are better questions to be asked--some that might even elicit responses, although the President-elect's performance in these pressers is not only No Drama but also No News Obama. The question about whether Obama still favors the 16-month Iraq withdrawal timetable was a good one, even if it didn't elicit news. Still, I would have tried others along that line:
--Are you still going to call it the Global War on Terror?
--In a recent interview, you raised the possibility of Bill Clinton as special envoy to India and Pakistan, is that a real possibility now? Will you also have a special envoy for the middle east, and to begin the negotiations with Iran?
--What are you going to do about Robert Gates's staff of Bush Administration holdovers? Will there be a new Deputy Secretary and roster of Under Secretaries, will you retain the current secretaries of the armed forces? Do you still plan to raise the Pentagon budget?
--Could you give us a better sense of what the vice president's role will be in your Administration? With his foreign policy experience, will he be given specific overseas assignments--if so, have you settled on any yet?
No guarantee that those questions would be answered either, but at least they deal with substantive issues that are probably front and center in Obama's mind right now. Oh, and by the way, what questions would you ask?
RSS Feed |
Senior Writer Karen Tumulty has been TIME's National Political Correspondent since 2001, and has also covered the White House and Congress for the magazine. A native of San Antonio, she is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard Business School, where her career choice has significantly lowered the average salary of her graduating class. But she gets lots of free magazines. Read More »
Follow Karen Tumulty on Twitter
Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. His weekly TIME column, "In the Arena," covers national and international affairs. In 2004 he won the National Headliner Award for best magazine column. Read More »
Michael Scherer is the White House correspondent for TIME. He previously worked for Salon.com, Mother Jones, and the Daily Hampshire Gazette. A native of San Francisco, he graduated from U.C. Santa Cruz and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. Read More » Follow Michael Scherer on Twitter
Jay Newton-Small is the congressional correspondent for TIME. Born in New York, she spent time growing up in Asia, Australia and Europe following her vagabond United Nations parents. A graduate of Tufts University and Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism, Jay previously covered politics for Bloomberg News. And, yes, despite the misleading name SHE is a she. Read More » Follow Jay Newton-Small on Twitter
Amy Sullivan is a senior editor at TIME magazine, and author of the book The Party Faithful: How and Why Democrats are Closing the God Gap (Scribner, 2008). A Michigan native, she holds degrees from the University of Michigan and Harvard Divinity School. She writes about religion and politics for TIME, but no longer answers to the name "Bible Girl." Read More »
- Obama and Medvedev: Sunshine in the Moscow Drizzle
- Why Sarah Palin Quit: The Five Best Explanations
- Cutting Health-Care Reimbursement Costs by Putting Doctors on a Budget
- Is There Hope for the American Marriage?
- Michael Jackson's Missing Music: More to Come?
- Police Open Fire on Protesters in Honduras
- Do We Need Another Stimulus or Not?
- How Bad Are Auto Sales? 10 Questions and Answers
- HBO's Next (I Hope) Great Drama
- Why Obama's Afghan War Is Different
- Obama Travels to Russia
- Photos: U.S. Marines Open a New Offensive in Afghanistan
- Photos: Inside Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch
- Violence Erupts During Honduras Protests
- The History of the Bikini
- Photos: India's Contraband Wildlife
- Photos: A Madoff Family Album
- Michael Jackson: The Last Photos
- Public Enemy: The Extremely Brief and Violent Life of John Dillinger
- Photos: Sacha Baron Cohen's Outrageous BrÜno Promotions
- ABC News’ The Note
- Andrew Sullivan
- CBN’s Brody File
- Ezra Klein
- Foreign Policy’s The Cable
- Juan Cole
- Lynn Sweet
- Marc Ambinder
- Matthew Yglesias
- MSNBC’S First Read
- Nate Silver
- NRO’s The Corner
- NYT’s The Caucus
- Politico’s Ben Smith
- Powerline
- Ross Douthat
- Talking Points Memo
- The American Prospect’s Tapped
- TNR’s The Plank
- Tom Ricks
- Washington Monthly’s Political Animal
- WashPost’s 44
- WashPost’s The Fix
- WSJ’s Washington Wire
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Well Joe you if very hard for you colleagues to let the drama go. Having said that why were there so few reporters present who are national security or foreign policy specialists? Couldn't be because of the bean counters could it?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Two questions on nukes:
Will you get on the stick with Russia and try to get START renewed?
Will you press the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I agree with Joe here, and was equally irritated by the reporters this morning, who, like Ed (the chipmunk) Henry the other day, seemed to focus on "gotcha" questions...
I think Obama handled these stupid questions well, and sooner or later expect that he will be less accommodating to these approaches, and call them what they are...questions designed to get a headline on the reporters sites or papers.
There are too many important issues out there for the WH reporters to engage in this kind of juvenile behavior!
Thanks Joe!
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Joe Klein
.
The questions today were all "gotcha" type questions but such is the nature of our MSM now. Funny thing is if a blogger like say Greenwald or Yglesias were there they probably WOULD have asked some of the questions you posited. As it was the press only wanted to know how Obama feels about Clinton after the way he dismissed her foreign policy experience during the primary or if Obama will still get the troops out in 16 months since he picked people for his cabinet who said he was naive for claiming he would do so. Oh by the way I have been asking this question for the last 2 weeks but to no avail....
.
When was the last time, if ever, that the media asked a President Elect if the people in his cabinet would actually follow his orders? And if there isn't a historical precedent for it I would LOVE to know why you think it is happening now.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:10 pm
My fantasy president would look at the reporter that asked him that question like he was an idiot, then say, "Shut the f--k up! Next question!"
.
As for my questions, here are some:
I just recently found out that the cumulative bailout cost is in the trillions, and is more than the adjusted costs of the Marshall Plan, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and NASA combined.
(1) How is this feasible given our current economic condition?
(2) Will there be conditions attached to the bailouts, so that I as a taxpayer will see some sort of return on this outright theft?
.
What are your thoughts on the man who was trampled to death on Black Friday?
.
Do you agree that Mexico is a failed state, or is close to it? What are your plans for handling it? Is it foolish to concentrate so much on the Middle East when one of our bordering nations is sinking into anarchy?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Watch out Joe. You're running the risk of turning into a dirty hippie.
.
I'd ask questions about the two reports from the Defense Business Board and the collection of Pentagon analysts about the bloated defense budget, about weapons systems that don't work, and about weapons systems that have no mission but continue to be produced.
.
I'd also ask about closing bases in Japan and Germany, and question the reason for their existence.
.
Oh, and I'd ask exactly why the US needs to spend half as much as the rest of the world on defense.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:26 pm
You can't be surprised about a press that is so easily rolled over by news stories like this:
.
The small donor is a game changer in a lot of ways. It's not surprising that a former AEI-er is desperate to discredit it as a story.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Yes, Joe, what's with your colleagues lately? They seem to be more interested in the supposed frictions between Barack and Hillary or Hillary and Bill than the friction between India and Pakistan.
>
Obama was astute and remarkably prescient to have said that the relationship between India and Pakistan is key to resolving the Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan debacle. Reporters had an excellent opportunity today to follow up. They let us down.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Oh as for my question its a two parter
.
President Elect Obama will you commit to asking your new AG Holder to initiating an investigation into the Bush White House with respect to torture? And if not can you tell us how the nation is better served by NOT knowing what led to our Country participating in torture which, it has been said by a former interrogator of Iraqi detainees among others, put our men and women in our military in greater peril and was also done in contravention of the Geneva Conventions?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I think you put your finger on the problem: These were political reporters. All they know is politics, so they view every story in political terms. Their interest in policy is minimal -- they just want to know who wins and who loses and what bloc of voters is being pandered to. The blame rests not with the people asking the questions, but with the editors who send them there.
Obama has done an excellent job switching gears from campaigning to governing. The nation's media has not.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:44 pm
You're just noticing this?! Sheesh.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Joe,
Only now you're noticing this?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Cliff-
.
NASA's budget is a measly $16 billion a year, and not all of that gets spent on space exploration. Compare that with the defense department's budget of $550 billion a year. In fact, the defense department spends more money on space than NASA does. You should probably take NASA off that list, since pretty much every other government agency outspends NASA.
.
Joe-
.
Ditto. When are the "WH" liasons for the news networks going to get the ax for asking stupid questions? Can it be soon? Please?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 2:21 pm
That was supposed to be WH "liaisons".
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Well Joe I guess it's time for the perennial Newseum panel to discuss the situation. If only your colleagues would take notes so that we didn't have to go through this after every election. Frankly, you would think that members of a shrinking industry in a shrinking economy would figure out a way to be even more relevant than usual. And here I thought that with the rise of Obama the era of incompetence would be over.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Jackalasses
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I'd like to know as soon as he enters office 1) what country or region Obama plans to address first 2) what leader he plans to meet or sit down with first and 3) where he's going to send Hillary first.
In other words, is he going to prioritize the problem spots or the allies? Is he going to meet with neighbors or get to the Middle East right away? Or Russia? Or Pakistan? What is the more urgent focus?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 2:33 pm
nathan777 - the list I read says: "NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion"
.
Whether this means the total running costs of NASA, or just getting it established, I don't know.
.
This also assumes a total bailout cost of $4.6165 trillion.
.
Also, on the comparison of the the DOD budget to the NASA budget: Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 4:12 pm
puhleeze Joe the "Journalist"
Ur just now realizing the fluffy softballs you people throw at your chosen one?
you make me laugh (at you) joe!!
--dp
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Reminds me of the inanity of reporters commenting on how "strong" Bush looked in his flightsuit on the deck of the aircraft carrier.
.
Oh, wait...
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I loved Obama's answer on Iraq. He still thinks 16 months is a good time line, but he is open to the suggestions of the people who want to stay there forever. He really is a centrist now, someone unburdened with the weight of consistency, especially where principles are concerned.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:16 pm
...Anyone who has argued in this thread that it's inconceivable for anyone to address a problem more than once, like dumasphilip among others, is an idiot.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:19 pm
[...] Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: journalism, Media — Jon @ 6:19 pm Joe Klein laments the quality of questions at Barack Obama’s presser today: Watching the Obama rollout of his national security team [...]
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I don't know, you guys.
.
Look at it this way:
.
The price of gas is down to $1.85, the Dow has rewound to 8800, the Iraq war is coming to a close, and the Dark Forces are leaving with the sunrise.
.
Didn't you all know that this was all just a bad hangover from a really, really bad party and that it's all over now?
.
The spiders took the absinth, too.
.
The last eight years were just a really bad alcohal-induced fever-dream and we can all wake up, drink some tomato juice, and look outside the broken windows to see what damage the guests did.
.
It really is December 1, 1999. Or, at least, it should be...
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:24 pm
This is always going to be a game of "get the guy." I think the press corps has had more access to the president elect since the election than they've had with Bush over the last three years, but I may be exaggerating.
.
Let's face that the current crop of journalists are less concerned about their collective intellectual curiousity, then they are about their TV Q scores and the infotainment (what passes for journalism in the 21st century) value of the sound bite.
.
To wit: How many times can the Obama vs Hillary meme can be repeated by the network and cable flacks?
.
No one should be surprised. Match this babble with what passed for policy related questions at the presidential debates. Gibson/Stephanopluos come to mind.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Watch out, Joe. You are qualifyting for membership into the DFH League. Your colleagues, eg Norah O'D and Mike Barnicle were following up the gotcha types at the presser on her show this p.m. They can't help themselves. They have decided that "We the Village idiots are going to behave like Village idiots : we are into gotchas". At MOURNING -not Morning Joe - Mika brought her father on to do a little put down job on HRC. They can't help themselves. Your colleague Richard Wolfe of Newsweek: no better. Poor old Ed Henry of CNN did a three'fer the other day which pissed off the Pres -elect. His response was laden with contempt. No Bin laden, just laden.
Joe, the Clintons drive them mad. Strangely Tweety was very circumspect. Does this mean he has an eye on a Senate seat????????
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I'm with you Joe. I didn't used to crack negative on the MSM but now the shallow and often PoliTainment Tonight style of the questions is becoming frustrating to downright infuriating.
My question: How will you pursue a better course with Iran to keep it from worsening our relations with Russia?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Moderators:
.
Please note my disdain for the crappy basic text style of this board. It used to be good.
.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Perhaps Obama's move to select Senator Clinton was a genius move to distract the press. He must know they just can't keep their eyes off that shiny object. Kinda like it's fun to watch the right-wingers spend weeks and weeks working themselves up over the idiotic story about Obama being born in Kenya secretly! Genius--gives the crazy wingers busy work to keep them out of the way while Obama gets stuff done...
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I agree the questions were terrible. It was all gossipy stuff and nothing else.
Here is the president elect rolling out his national security team a few days after the terror in India and they want gossip. Joe, I feel bad for your profession. It's definitely going downhill fast.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:27 pm
bethnva, I gotta say I love your post because it's true. The shiny object will keep both the crazy rightwingers busy and the press as well.
two stones.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Well, since this is a national security and foreign policy team, I would suggest relevant questions regarding what the team would do. I would ask Obama to summarize his view of the past 60 years of foreign policy, what he thinks may be deficient or positive about it, and how this team will try to deliver something different (remember "Change"?), or just ride the same worn pony. I would ask if Russia couldn't be a closer ally in the war on Islamic terrorism, since that country is up to its eyeballs in it, and we helped advance the terrorists cause in their fight against Russia in Afghanistan. Campaign issues between Obama and Clinton here, now? I agree with Joe.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:29 pm
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."
--
She didn't say that! I challenge anyone to find a substantive difference between what Obama said in the GE about meeting Iranian leaders and what HRC has said: Both agreed that meetings between diplomats should occur without preconditions, but that careful preparation was necessary before any Presidential meeting. Obama briefly - in a debate - said he thought Presidential meetings without preconditions was a good idea, but he quickly backtracked. And Clinton was never opposed to meetings between lower-level US officials and Iranian officials without preconditions. It's a relatively unimportant error, but in a post about bad journalism a simple error seems inappropriate. The questions sound good though.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Another relevant question. Obama's take on Medvedev's tour through Latin America.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Derek says:
He still thinks 16 months is a good time line, but he is open to the suggestions of the people who want to stay there forever. He really is a centrist now,
________________________________________________________________
Gee Derek have you ever listened to Obama's speeches ever??? He's always said he'd be careful getting out, wanted to be out in 16 months but, would also listen to the generals regarding conditions on the ground...
I think you can find q-tips at the corner drug store.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:35 pm
How about:
In your judgment, should Bush and Cheney be on trial for war crimes, and if not, why not?
What steps will you take to reverse the erosion of civil liberties in this country?
You have spoken about open government, and have taken some steps towards greater transparency. How will you develop your approach, and how will you make it binding for future administrations?
Are you prepared to use the nuclear option if Republicans seek to filibuster important legislation?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:46 pm
basil, great questions. Also, do you believe that Iraq will sink into a sectarian, theocracy after withdrawal. How long will that take?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 8:58 pm
"Gee Derek have you ever listened to Obama's speeches ever??? He's always said he'd be careful getting out, wanted to be out in 16 months but, would also listen to the generals regarding conditions on the ground..."
..
Do you have a cite for that. I just checked his website and did a Goggle search and I could not find anything saying there was wiggle room on the 16 month time line. I did find references to him stipulating that a small residual force would be left behind, but that is all.
.
Thanks
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Derek, I haven't tried to find a citation, but I distinctly remember Obama tempering his withdrawal statements by saying that he would call his military staff together and tell them to prepare a plan. That implies many possibilities for a withdrawal from the idiot war scenario.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 9:07 pm
formerlyjames the cites I found, including his website, stated very clearly that his time line was already based on advice from military leaders. The PM of Iraq also agreed to the 16 months and so did John McCain.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Derek, I defer to your cites. This is not an argument I want to get into. I personally would have told the military commanders to prepare for withdrawal yesterday. Plan a reasonable turnover of equipment to Iraq, and go. Same with Guantanemo. The arguments about these things can reach absurd proportions. There are 200 prisoners who stand as a symbol of the deneggration of the Constitution. That is a drop of water in the sea of the Islamic terrorist movement. It is so imperative that these prisoners be held, when their very detention and torture is questionable? Give me a break. I bow out of this discussion. Thanks, Derek.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 9:23 pm
We demand that our President-to-be is competent, articulate and caring. We expect the press to ask intelligent, focused and relevant questions. What do we ask of ourselves as commenters and commentators? Should we not make sure that our comments and suggestions are thoughtful, responsible and civil?
The opposite side of the coin to mature leaders is mature citizens. In between are mature "pressers" as Joe Klein calls his kind.
I challenge my fellow commenters, commentators and bloggers to write well reasoned, non-inflammatory, non-mudslinging messages to our leaders and pressers.
How else do we expect them to respect us and listen to us?
Jane Iddings, Blogger, GrowUpNow.info and BarackObamaRealMaturity.com
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 10:18 pm
My question finally emerged in my own head. I'd ask:
"You say you believe in strong personalities, and airing of contrary opinion, but there is very little scope of disagreement among your national security appointees. They are all what I would call Foreign Affairs realists. There are no isolationists, no neo-cons, more pointedly, nobody who disagrees with the central exceptionalism that underlies American foreign policy in the post war era. Who will provide the voice in opposition to America on a permanent war footing, with bases all around the world?"
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 10:29 pm
There is about as much diversity in Obama's cabinet as there is on CNN. It's hilarious to watch CNN roll out one Clinton retread after another to ask them why progressives are upset with Obama's choices. You would think they might pose the question to an actual liberal. David Gergen is the first one I've seen who said progressives have every right to be upset.
My question to Obama would be why do you think Republicans are so happy with your cabinet, while the Left isn't?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Derek, I couldn't agree more. Indeed, why are the fascists so happy with this? But I have no answer for what would make the left happy. Washington has people who don't hone to the foreign policy line? Seriously, I am at a loss as to who they may be. I believe our foreign policy sucks. I believe our intelligence agencies suck. But I can offer no alternative, because that is the way it has been, and maybe will forever be?
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 10:40 pm
formerlyjames I don't really give a sh@t any longer. Obama has made it clear, no liberals welcome. He fooled me once, it won't happen again.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Derek, I understand. I am not there yet. I'll give it a little more time.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 10:47 pm
formerlyjames, some excerpts from Merriam-Webster's definition of fascism: "stands for a centralized autocratic government" and "severe economic and social regimentation".
I don't think this applies to either of our current major political parties but I'll let you guess which party is closest to wanting more power centralized with greater control over the economy and society (it's not the Republicans)!
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 11:01 pm
andjp, in my opinion, the Republican Party is fascist. And I will accept part of your definition. Certainly, "...social regimentation" applies. Unfortunately, the "severe economic...regimentation" does not apply, as we are so severely aware now with the economic colapse.
.
So, andjp, this discussion can go long and hard. When people ask me what my political affiliation is, I respond, "Anti-Republican". I detest the party and its followers. I apoligize for detesting you as a member of that fascist organization. Go pray to your jesus.
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Don't assume I'm republican or religious because I detest when people use words they don't understand. The original fascist started out as socialists and while I'll agree that our country has moved left (toward socialism) over the last 50 years, democrats are occupying idealogical space that would have been considered out-right socialism 50 years ago.
I would also argue that buying huge pieces of companies with (borrowed) tax dollars (this goes for republicans and democrats) is extremely socialist and goes against everything this country was founded on (free-will and capitalism). Let the companies fail, the homeowners default, etc.; if there are no consequences there can be no freedom because everyone knows the government will eventually bail them out of their poor decision making.
We may agree that the country is headed down the wrong road, but unfortunately, we don't agree on the reasons.