Better Questions, Please

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?

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?

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!

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.

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?

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.

You can't be surprised about a press that is so easily rolled over by news stories like this:

The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) study asserting that Barack Obama actually raised most of his campaign money from "larger" not "small" donors has gained wide, often approving, coverage in recent days, from, among others, USA Today, The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, and countless other web sites. Almost inevitably such accounts have held a headline referring to the "myth" of Obama riding a wave of small donations to victory. The study's author himself uses it.
.
The "myth" [charge] is actually in the spinning of the report, including by its author, Michael Malbin, a former speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when he was Pentagon chief, and a resident fellow at The American Enterprise Institute from 1977 to 1986.
.
As usual in these cases, it's not that the numbers are wrong, it's the analysis and how the interpretation is being played by the media. Because, buried in the report, are all the figures and arguments for showing that the CFI's "myth" is actually a myth...
.
by CFI's definition, if you gave Obama $100 in 2007, then $100 when he kept battling Clinton in the spring of 2008, and then another $100 in September 2008, you were not a "small" donor.
.
...Even putting aside all this, the report relates, deep within, that Obama, in fact, received donations under $200 from a staggering 2.5 million people -- completely unprecedented. A closer look at the actual figures show that Obama got over $115 million from these donors -- while the other three ever got only in the range of $40 to $50 million. The study also notes that Obama's 2.5 million donors equaled the combined number of such donors for all candidates in 2004. Yet the media is now being accused of pushing the "myth" that there was something extraordinary about Obama's relation to small donors. Even accepting the report's definition, Obama received twice as much "small funding" as did Hillary Clinton.

.
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.

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.

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?

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.

You're just noticing this?! Sheesh.

Joe,

Only now you're noticing this?

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?

That was supposed to be WH "liaisons".

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.

Jackalasses

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?

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.

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

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...

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.

...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.

[...] 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 [...]

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...

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.