Drudge flagged Obama hit piece on Politico -- which presented admittedly "trivial" inconsistencies -- apparently one hour before it was posted
In an article appearing in The Politico's March 27 print edition, Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen wrote that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has "shown a tendency toward seemingly minor contradictions and rhetorical slips," characterized Obama's alleged inconsistencies as "trivial," and wrote that "the senator's rhetorical miscues have been more curiosities than obvious political blunders." Nonetheless, Allen stretched these alleged "trivial" inconsistencies into a 1,200-word article headlined, "Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama," which appeared on the front page of the print edition. The Drudge Report flagged the article by posting its headline verbatim approximately one hour before The Politico posted the article on its website on the evening of March 26, according to Google News. Additionally, one of the so-called "curiosities" that Allen purported to expose were "strange echoes" of 2003 campaign speeches by former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) in Obama's current campaign speeches. However, these "strange echoes" appear to be little more than oft-used rhetorical devices that are not unique to any presidential candidate.
In the article, Allen conceded that the "rookie mistakes" he highlighted were in fact "trivial" and "small":
While trivial, the remark is the sort of throwaway line that can trip up a candidate in the heat of a national campaign, and it shows the challenge the young senator will face in coming days as his words are dissected and scrutinized with fresh intensity.
Obama's gift with language -- his powerful speaking style and the graceful prose and compelling story of his best-selling memoir -- has been an engine of his dramatic, high-velocity rise in presidential politics. But he has also shown a tendency toward seemingly minor contradictions and rhetorical slips that serve as reminders that he is still a newcomer to national politics.
For the first time, Obama is on a stage where small mistakes can have disproportionately large consequences. The Republican National Committee, working in league with Bush operatives, exploited similar blunders -- sometimes misleadingly -- to portray the last two Democratic presidential nominees, Al Gore and John F. Kerry, as inconsistent or hypocritical in ways that savaged both men's reputations.
The Drudge Report, according to the website's archives, posted an item at 5:28 p.m. EST (21:38 GMT) reading: "Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama... Developing..." The item remained on The Drudge Report without a link until 6:59 p.m. ET (22:59 GMT). The version of the article currently on Politico.com has a dateline reading March 27, and no earlier versions of the story could be located. However, according to a screen capture of Google News, the article was posted on Politico.com at least 17 hours before 12:37 p.m. on March 27 -- meaning the article was posted as early as 6:37 p.m. (which is 18 hours before) on March 26. Philadelphia Daily News senior writer Will Bunch also raised the issue of the relative timing of Drudge's and Politico's posts, writing on his Attytood weblog that Allen's article was "highlighted on the Drudge Report no later than 18 minutes after it was filed by Allen (how does he do it!)."
Blogger Glenn Greenwald also addressed Allen's article on March 27, calling it "a petty, trite hit piece on Barack Obama," and writing: "Central to the business and political plan of The Politico is, quite transparently, overt courting of Matt Drudge and active cooperation with him." As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Politico editor-in-chief John Harris and former ABC political director Mark Halperin authored The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 (Random House, October 2006), which includes a chapter titled, "How Matt Drudge Rules Our World." According to Harris and Halperin, Drudge "can influence the news like Walter Cronkite did," and "[i]f Drudge has a siren up, people know it's something they have to look at."
In his article, Allen wrote: "So far, the senator's rhetorical miscues have been more curiosities than obvious political blunders. For instance, some of Obama's campaign rhetoric has turned out to have strange echoes of lines that John Edwards used in his 2004 campaign." Later in the article, Allen presented his evidence of the alleged "strange echoes" in Obama's and Edwards' rhetoric:
Obama's more recent words are undergoing similar study, including lines that parallel rhetoric Edwards used in 2004. In some cases, it is standard political white noise like creating "a new kind of politics" -- a signature phrase of Obama's that Edwards used three years ago.
In the candidates' announcement speeches, the parallel was even more striking. "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington," Obama said as he launched his campaign last month, "but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." That carries a distinct echo of a line in Edwards' announcement speech in 2003: "I haven't spent most of my life in politics, which most of you know, but I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington."
These "echoes," however, may not be as "strange" as Allen claims. The rhetorical theme of a political "outsider" promising to "change Washington" is hardly unique to Obama and Edwards -- it has been used by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates for many years and is more akin to the "standard political white noise" Allen dismissed. For example, in his speech at the 2000 Republican National Convention, then-candidate George W. Bush said:
That outlook is typical of many in Washington, always seeing the tunnel at the end of the light.
But I come from a different place and it has made me a different leader. In Midland, Texas, where I grew up, the town motto was, "The sky's the limit," and we believed it. There was a restless energy, a basic conviction that with hard work, anybody could succeed and everybody deserved a chance.
[...]
That background may lack the polish of Washington. Then again, I don't have a lot of things that come with Washington. I don't have enemies to fight. I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect.
In his speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, then-candidate Bill Clinton said:
How do I know we can come together and make change happen? Because I have seen it in my own state. In Arkansas, we are working together, and we are making progress. No, there's no Arkansas Miracle, but there are a lot of miraculous people. (Applause) And because of them, our schools are better, our wages are higher, our factories are busier, our water is cleaner and our budget is balanced. We're moving ahead. (Applause)
I wish I could say the same thing about America under the incumbent President. He took the richest country in the world and brought it down. (Applause)
We took on of the poorest states in America and lifted it up. (Applause)
And so I say to all of those, in this campaign season who would criticize Arkansas, come on down. Especially if you're from Washington, come on down.
As Media Matters documented, Allen has baselessly claimed that one of Obama's "big vulnerabilities" in the 2008 presidential race is "his frank liberalism in a time when the party needs centrist voters." As evidence of Obama's "frank liberalism," Allen cited his support for "civil unions for gay people" but ignored polling indicating that the majority of Americans, as well as the majority of self-identified "independents," favor same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions.















Well, you know, Drudge is right wing media so big surprise.
Bruce - Was gonna say the same thing. At least insofar as the people I know who are republicans swear by Drudge so..
Just remember, Drudge is right ALL THE TIME except when he's not, and if you see that big siren spinning around at the top of his site, well, something important is happening somewhere I can assure you.
Exactly Bruce.
But there's a LEFT-wing website called HinesSight that advertises itself as the Anti-Drudge site.
Guess what they feature? ;-)
Actually Drudge isn't always as one-sided as some seem to think, but trying to tell some here that is a waste of time.
Have you seen his site right now (Tuesday at 3:30 PM) ??? ROFLMAO...Quite a photo.
Who takes Drudge seriously , besides Hannity?
Hugh Hewitt takes Drudge very seriously. Which wouldn't matter if there was nobody dopey enough to take hewitt (or Hannity) seriously.
Uhhh, ABC?
"The Republican National Committee, working in league with BUSH OPERATIVES, exploited similar blunders..." Hmm? Bush operatives... Who could they be?
Look at that picture - is Drudge the model for Mallard Fillmore?
Rusty, did you miss the most recent discussion group re: "the hat"?
Whoa! Sorry, you guys have already covered it. I tend to skip the global warming threads these days. The ostriches are too obnoxious.
No apology necessary, Rusty. I wouldn't mind an item a day about the Republican fedora fetish.
Its funny MM points this out since MM does the samething.
Hi, New Troll! Care to expand on your remarks?
MM would love Drudge to link to them
GOP.Loves.The.Gays
It's ironic how the mainstream media likes to dictate what Americans don't care about despite polling data that suggests the opposite while at the same time the mainstream media is beholden to Matt Drudge, who most Americans don't care about.
And now "liberal" Joe Klein is dutifully repeating this nonsense as if it actually means something.
[link to time-blog.com]
The transparently coordinated birth of a smear, laid out for all to see. And yet, incredibly, people on the Right are still trying to tell us (in another thread) that these sort of topics are inconsequential and should be ignored.
It is amazing that anyone takes any of these right-wing blowhards seriously.
What ever happened to the good old days where the "entire" media did its job? You know the job I speak of..... telling the story, with its facts attached to it with opinion of the story in a clearly marked section called....OPINION or EDITORIALS!
If Barck Obama where to say that he would like to see us all driving cars that run on hydrogen instead of gas...... its his opinion, but its the story that should be told.......
"Barack wants us to be energy independent! Would likely be the front page story form a liberal
"Barack wants America's economy to tank" would likely be one from a right-winger
Either way, these story lines would be opinion, unless Obama said specifically he wants us to be either/or
But when Drudge or any right-winger says in their words that that could ruin our economy or if a progressive where to say that this would be the best thing for the world, it would be opinion not fact simply because we have no idea what it would do to our economy, good or bad. Change can be a scary thing
So, what ever happened to our 4th estate........ It died back in 1996 when Clinton made that fateful choice to allow the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to pass into law....... notice what has come out of that brain child:
Corporate consolidation of our media! Bad for truth and justice.... good for those that want to destroy our democracy!
I disagree. This "slow bleed" death of the fourth estate began when Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine. This gave rise to the cancers known as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
Most people don't care about Drudge?Than why is MM mentioning drudge??
In one day more people will click Dudgereport in a day than will click MM or HUff Post in a week.
and your point is if something it popular it must be accurate or quality?
What will it take to kill this intellectually lazy argument?
There was another article yesterday, investigated by Cohen of the WashPost, where LIFE magazine could not come up with an article that Obama cited in his book that "infuriated" him as a child. Obama corrected by saying it was probably "Ebony or something" but Ebony couldn't come up with the article in its archives either. These are things that can ding a candidate. Are democratic candidate above reproach or something? We should be happy that this is the only stuff that's coming up.
I agree. I'm glad the media are bravely revealing that Obama does not have 100% accurate recall of the events of his childhood like the rest of us have.
I find all of this humorous considering that Reagan claimed he filmed scenes from Nazi concentration camps when he never left the country during WWII, and told an audience of Medal of Honor winners a fictional story of a Medal of Honor winner (and a book full of other examples). But Obama's minor inconsistencies are going to keep him out of the White House, because like with Gore we can't tolerate a President who ever says anything but the unvarnished truth.
Rusty,
I have not run for any type of elected office and if I were too and was then asked to recall 100% of everything I did or went through as a child I couldn't do it.
You could put a gun to my head and I couldn't remember everything exactly as it happened, if you can, you must be gifted.
As for presuming that Barack as a nine year old and not remembering specifics of his childhood is crap reporting at best and right-wing attacking at worst!
If he were 19 at the time this might be a legit storyline.........
AT what point did the article in question or any of the posts supporting the article call into question Obama's lack of electability based on these issues? Any reasonable person can see Obama's memory deficiences are far less than Gonzales, Clinton (pick one), etc.
Oh, and Brabantio, it's not nice to pick on Reagan because he had alzheimers.
::sarcasm::
Whoops.
"The Politico reports on Obama's contention that he was conceived by his parents after their inspiration from the "Bloody Sunday" civil rights march in Selma, Alabama in 1965.
It turns out Obama was born in 1961 — four years earlier."
Another "foggy childhood recollection", eh Rusty and Brab?
Oh my god, stop the presses. That is huge.
No, that's definitely a valid question, and I'd like to see him answer it. That's an odd thing to make an honest mistake about, and equally odd to lie about as well...it definitely bears explanation. I'd just like to see the same standard applied across the board is all. If this sort of thing is relevant (and it certainly can be) than we should dispense with the lionizing of Reagan, and if it's not then we should dispense with the criticism of Obama.
If you read the whole bit (you can link to it from Drudge) Obama claims that he meant that his parents were inspired to conceive him by the whole civil rights movement, not any particular event like Selma. What he said during the speech made it sound very much like he meant Selma, though.
What frightens me is, if he'll lie about something like that then he might lie about something really important, like his favorite color or the last time he saw the dentist.
That's fine, then that's a simple and valid explanation.
I do have to disagree on some level here though, if it was really a lie, if he really made that claim the way it was presented, then that could be an issue. The thing about lies is that everyone lies at some point. You lie to be polite, you lie to get out of trouble, etc. For example, the Clinton lie doesn't bother me so much, because there's an obvious reason for it. It doesn't excuse the behavior, of course, but you can see a valid personal and political reason for it. But if someone says random untruths that don't have any purpose, that's a little more concerning. That's one of my big problems with Reagan. Habitual falsehoods indicate pathological behavior, either stemming from confusion or a disregard for the truth in general.
It seems odd, but it's true;lies about consequential things are less indicative of behavior patterns than lies about inconsequential things. If someone lies about things where the truth serves them just as well, or very nearly just as well, that indicates they are either extremely comfortable in being deceptive or don't understand the difference between the truth and the falsehood.
That's a good point, Brab. While I find Obama's "clarification" a little hard to swallow, it's even harder to believe that he would purposefully lie about something that would be so easily fact-checkable in an era when every word a politician speaks is gone over with a fine-tooth comb (as here). That would be incredibly stupid, which he doesn't seem to be. Maybe the most logical explanation is that he really did misspeak, or phrase his comments poorly.
Brab, agreed. My goal as a centrist lurking these boards is not to make one side the villain, but make sure both sides call it like it is. Real problems and complaints are sooooo much more legitimate and believable when there's no double-standard, and I think we see eye-to-eye on that.
If Giuliani doesn't get the Repub nomination I want more and more to see Mrs. Clinton make it. Her crap is well aired-out by now and we can concentrate on getting stuff done =>
What frightens me is, if he'll lie about something like that then he might lie about something really important, like his favorite color or the last time he saw the dentist.
Yeah. He has so many incidents of true national importance under his belt that he's been truly honest about, that this is really trivial and doesn't matter.
Admittedly he has fewer than Giuliani, who, after all, stood on rubble and cleaned up pee smell.
But I tell you what, I promise that if Giuliani tells a lie about the date of his conception, I will not make a big deal out of it.
Rusty, if you've got dirt on Giuliani that the tabloids haven't talked about yet, air it out man, air it out. I'm no hypocrite. Neither have I written off Obama as a serious liar; just don't want to hear excuses for it.
I got nothin' on Giuliani. Even if I did, he'd get a free pass from me because of that pee smell thing.
Well, at least your sarcasm is semi-funny, making up somewhat for you lack of ability to come up with a quality retort.
I try to provide the quality of response that a comment merits.