TUESDAY,  FEBRUARY 26,  2008

A growing unease

There seems to be a growing unease with Barack Obama, but it's still limited to columnists and a few brave reporters.  And the best stuff, incredibly, continues to come from foreign journalists, who know that the well-being of their own countries depends on the United States and its leadership. 

Here at home The Politico has a startling piece by Carrie Budoff Brown reporting on restrictions placed on journalists covering the Obama campaign.  For a man who says he'll reform Washington, indeed the entire Universe (and beyond), this comes as something of a surprise.  Apparently, we're getting a kind of "state" control that should concern anyone who cares about freedom of the press:

EDINBURG, Texas - For all the positive press Barack Obama receives, as he moves closer to clinching the Democratic nomination he is establishing himself as the candidate who keeps the most distance from the national media.

Reporters covering Obama can no longer move freely among the thousands of zealous supporters at his events — unless the reporter receives a staff escort through the security gates. (In one city, that meant using a port-o-potty outside because the route to the indoor plumbing ran through the crowd.)

And the traveling press corps has been shut out of monitoring Obama's satellite interviews with local media outlets, which is a normal practice on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign.

On top of that, the traveling media has been tussling with Obama aides to keep conversations with the candidate on his campaign plane on the record.

In any other campaign year, the media strategy might not raise eyebrows since it is standard practice for a frontrunner. But this is a year when the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, has set a new standard for press accessibility, creating a potentially stark general election contrast between a reticent Democrat and the most accessible GOP nominee in decades.

You would think that a man as articulate as Obama would welcome press contact.  There is something not good here.

And...

For his part, Obama attempted to connect with the traveling press corps Friday. But just as soon as he started, he was gone again.

He poked his head out from behind a blue curtain at the visitors center at the University of Texas-Pan American campus. Reporters, hunched over their laptops, looked startled at the sight of the candidate. They hadn't interacted with him in five days.

"Words matter. Don't listen to Hillary," Obama yelled to the four dozen media, beaming a mischievous smile. "That's a joke."

One reporter, sensing the rare opportunity to fire off a question, asked Obama about McCain's criticism of his pledge to talk with Cuban president Raul Castro.

"I didn't hear John McCain," Obama said, even though his campaign put out a statement on that very topic 30 minutes earlier.

A second later, the Illinois senator disappeared behind the curtain - off to do an interview with US Weekly, the entertainment news magazine.

Fine for Oprah.  Not fine for a president.

Now this is important

Rumblings about Obama are now coming from the U.S. military, and this could have a whammy effect in the general election.  He gets some vigorous defense from retired officers, but the doubts are growing among those who wear the stars:

Members of Washington's military and defense establishment are expressing trepidation about Sen. Barack Obama, as the Illinois senator comes closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination and leads in national polls to become commander in chief.

But his backers, including a former Air Force chief of staff, say the rookie senator believes in a strong military, and with it, a larger Army and Marine Corps.

"Any military person who concludes he's a left-wing, hair-on-fire, Kumbaya child of the '60s has sadly misunderestimated him, to use George Bush's term," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak.

Still, the mostly conservative retired officers, industry executives and current defense officials interviewed by The Washington Times cite Mr. Obama's lack of experience in national security. They also point to his determination to pull American combat units from Iraq at a time when a troop surge has reduced violence, damaged al Qaeda and allowed the Iraqi government to progress toward Sunni-Shia-Kurd reconciliation.

Yeah.  How about some tough press questions on this.

And...

No other Obama proposal brings more military criticism than his plan to bring home one to two combat brigades per month from Iraq — meaning all such units would be out by the end of 2009, his first year in office.

A senior Pentagon official said an Obama swearing-in "will give the Arab street the final victory, the best optics, and the ultimate in bragging rights. They win. We lose."

Retired Army Gen. John Keane, an architect of the Iraq troop surge, worries that talk of a U.S. pullout makes reconciliation more difficult. Gen. Keane has not endorsed any presidential candidate.

As John F. Kennedy repeated over and over when he ran in 1960, "This is an important election."  And this, in 2008, is an important election as well.  Our lives may depend on it.

The anointed

Marie Cocco takes a hard look at press coverage of both Obama and McCain, and points out that the media will anoint one of them:

WASHINGTON -- Someone's halo has to slip and when it does, the fall will be jarring and the crash unusually harsh. The national media have two anointed sons in Barack Obama and John McCain, each the repository of extraordinary favor and each now poised to become the presidential candidate who may well be chosen to be an object of unrelenting scorn.

That is how things tend to play out in modern presidential campaigns, from at least the dawn of the stage-managed Reagan era if not to the beginnings of John F. Kennedy's Camelot. Who will be the next Al Gore, ridiculed and reviled for his intellectualism, his mannerisms, the color of his suits and the kiss bestowed upon his wife? Who is the next George W. Bush, the candidate of seemingly limited potential who somehow became imbued with what seemed like limitless appeal?

And...

Soon comes the showdown. There are gaping differences between McCain and Obama on policies ranging from Iraq to taxes to health care. Yet the sorry journalistic track record of recent presidential history suggests that these will fade for at least one candidate as matters of personality and style -- and of course, the obsession with the horse race -- take precedence.

I'd have some doubts about that.  Exhibit A:  Look at the week's press assault on John McCain, much of it based on dubious information.  I'm guessing that the press will anoint Obama because of sheer ideological bias, and that style may play a smaller role than in past campaigns. 

Barack Obama is the dream of the sixties generation - a person of color, far to the left, in the White House.  Whom do you think runs the media?  There are plenty of people behind oak desks in editorial offices who believe that the greatest thing they ever did as young reporters was to disparage the American effort in Vietnam.  And they have plenty of comrades who believe that the most important event of the 20th century was Roe v. Wade.  Consider the mindset.  Consider how they'll cover this campaign.

Raising McCain

David Brooks counters the attacks made against John McCain by the Obama crowd, and does a fine piece of reporting on McCain's real record.   He does this in The New York Times.  As recommended before in this space, I hope he watches his back.  He might also take note of gift packages that tick and strange white powders on the seat of his chair.  Brooks:

McCain has fought one battle after another against lobbyists and special interests. And while I don’t have space to describe all his tussles, or even the lesser ones like his fight with the agricultural lobby against sugar subsidies, I thought that, amidst all these charges, it might be worth noting some of the McCain highlights from the past dozen years.

In 1996, McCain was one of five senators, and the only Republican, to vote against the Telecommunications Act. He did it because he believed the act gave away too much to the telecommunications companies, and protected them from true competition. He noted that AT&T alone gave $780,000 to Republicans and $456,000 to Democrats in the year leading up to the vote.

In 1998, McCain championed anti-smoking legislation that faced furious opposition from the tobacco lobby. McCain guided the legislation through the Senate Commerce Committee on a 19-1 vote, but then the tobacco companies struck back. They hired 200 lobbyists and spent $40 million in advertising (three times as much as the Harry and Louise health care reform ads). Many of the ads attacked McCain by name, accusing him of becoming a big government liberal. After weeks of bitter debate, the bill died on the Senate floor.

Yeah.  He's the real McCain.  Whether you like him or not, McCain has an honest record.  There may be blemishes.  There are certainly things he's done that we can oppose.  But to try to paint him as some kind of sinister hypocrite, which the Obama camp is now doing, just doesn't wash.

Brooks concludes:

We’re going to have two extraordinary nominees for president this year. This could be one of the great general election campaigns in American history. The only thing that could ruin it is if the candidates become demagogues and hurl accusations at each other that are an insult to reality and common sense.

Maybe Obama can start this campaign over.

And maybe some people will notice that Obama is not sweet and divine.  He's a tough political operator from a political class that takes no prisoners and believes itself to be quite superior to other mortals. 

Rough stuff ahead.  But McCain can dish it out as well.

Our artistic side

We at Urgent Agenda always strive for refinement, and we want to be sure our readers are current on the most important events in the arts.  Please know that The New York Philharmonic, under UI (Useful Idiot) Lorin Maazel, is playing in North Korea.  Top billing.  Good accommodations.  Undoubtedly, this will help feed the starving North Korean masses:

The Philharmonic began the concert with ''Patriotic Song'' -- North Korea's national anthem -- followed by the U.S. anthem. The audience stood during both anthems and held their applause until the conclusion of the second.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il did not appear to be in attendance at the 2,500-seat East Pyongyang Grand Theater.

''My colleagues of the New York Philharmonic and I are very pleased to play in this fine hall,'' music director Lorin Maazel said in English at one point. He then told the audience to ''Please have a good time'' in Korean.

North Koreans in attendance -- men in suits and women in colorful traditional Korean dresses -- fixed their eyes at the stage. Many wore badges with a portrait of Kim Il Sung, father of current leader Kim Jong Il.

So the big guy didn't show up.  But people wore badges with the big guy's dad.  Did Maazel, who's knocked the United States publicly, notice that this isn't the way we do things in democracies?  Or will he inform us that "we must understand other cultures"?  Which do you think?  Class?

Maazel made the usual comments about the value of cultural exchanges.  All boilerplate.

And then this:

The U.S. and North Korean flags were both on display at opposite ends of the stage. Following the brief prelude to Act 3 of Wagner's ''Lohengrin,'' the orchestra moved on to pieces that aimed to show the ensemble's importance in American music.

That included two pieces that premiered with the Philharmonic: Dvorak's ''New World Symphony,'' written while the Czech composer lived in the United States and inspired by native American themes -- and Gershwin's ''An American in Paris.''

''Someday a composer may write a work entitled 'Americans in Pyongyang,''' Maazel said in introducing the Gershwin work, a remark that drew warm applause from the audience.

Oh please.  I'd rather see a work entitled, "North Koreans Get to Vote."  Now there's a toe-tapper.

Haven't they noticed?

Apparently, the anti-war Democrats haven't noticed that things have changed.  They are today's reactionaries, living in the past, waiting to strum just one more guitar.  Having lost their battles in Congress, they plan, and plan, and plan:

Another desire by many Democrats is to tie the ailing economy to the war. A coalition of anti-war groups said this week that it plans to spend more than $20 million this year to convince voters that the Republican party's support for the war is bad for their wallets.

Still, other Democrats, including Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., say they want to pursue more votes to end funding for the war. Feingold sponsored Tuesday's measure.

According to aides, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who co-sponsored Feingold's proposal, agreed to stage Tuesday's vote in exchange for Feingold's earlier support of a defense policy bill. The measure is expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

Gee, I thought the standard leftist line was that right wingers go to war to make the economy boom, and create a lot of war profits.  I didn't know war was bad for the economy.  I guess this is the new economics.  Wait for next week.  There'll be a newer economics.

Correction

We end with a correction.  In last night's story on libel tourism I said that libel laws in England strongly favor the defendant.  Ace readers Bruce Goldman and Alan Weick point out that it's the opposite, and they are correct.  The context of the story makes that clear.  What I should have said is that libel laws in England put the burden of proof on the defendant, and that favors the plaintiff.  The entry has been corrected. 

In this country libel laws favor the defendant.  The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove his case.  For the defendant, truth is an absolute defense.  If you sue a newspaper for libel, you must prove that the story is false.  If you can't, you will lose.  If you are a public official suing for libel, the standard is especially high.  You must prove that a newspaper acted with actual malice in publishing the story. 

I welcome corrections.  Never hesitate to send them.

And, humbled, I will be back later. 

Posted on February 26, 2008.