NBC's Mitchell cherry-picked quote in support of claim that Obama is "long on charisma but short on substance"
On the April 26 edition of NBC's Today, during a segment highlighting Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) recent "surge" in the polls, chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell said: "Experts say so far Obama has been long on charisma but short on substance." Mitchell then showed clips from two recent appearances by Obama, including an April 23 speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in which he declared, "I still believe that America is the last, best hope on Earth." Following the clips of Obama's statements, a clip of NBC News political director Chuck Todd aired in which Todd asserted: "The public's going to be expecting him to start filling in the blanks, start being for specifics. So far, he's been for an idea of a candidate, but he hasn't been for specific things." However, Mitchell selectively quoted from that April 23 speech to make the claim that Obama's words were "vague" when, in fact, his remarks included many specifics regarding his proposals.
In an article on MSNBC's website offering a list of "dos & don'ts" for candidates taking part in an April 26 Democratic presidential primary debate in Orangeburg, South Carolina, Todd and NBC News deputy political director Mark Murray wrote that Obama should not "[o]ffer up inane details just to sound like you know what you're talking about."
Mitchell claimed that Obama was "vague" in his April 23 speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and cited this as her second example of Obama's apparent lack of "substance." She played only a brief clip of Obama stating: "I still believe that America is the last, best hope on Earth," but failed to note the specifics of his speech. From Obama's April 23 speech:
I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it's time to fill that role once more.
[...]
In a speech five months ago, I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shiite factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement and a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.
I acknowledged at the time that there are risks involved in such an approach. That is why my plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists.
But my plan also makes clear that continued U.S. commitment to Iraq depends on the Iraqi government meeting a series of well-defined benchmarks necessary to reach a political settlement. Thus far, the Iraqi government has made very little progress in meeting any of the benchmarks, in part because the President has refused time and again to tell the Iraqi government that we will not be there forever. The President's escalation of U.S. forces may bring a temporary reduction in the violence in Baghdad, at the price of increased U.S. casualties though the experience so far is not encouraging. But it cannot change the political dynamic in Iraq. A phased withdrawal can.
[...]
As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.
For the last twenty years, U.S. foreign aid funding has done little more than keep pace with inflation. Doubling our foreign assistance spending by 2012 will help meet the challenge laid out by Tony Blair at the 2005 G-8 conference at Gleneagles, and it will help push the rest of the developed world to invest in security and opportunity. As we have seen recently with large increases in funding for our AIDS programs, we have the capacity to make sure this funding makes a real difference.
Part of this new funding will also establish a two billion dollar Global Education Fund that calls on the world to join together in eliminating the global education deficit, similar to what the 9/11 commission proposed. Because we cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy.
As Media Matters for America has noted, the press often baselessly accuses Obama of lacking substance. On the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Peter Alexander claimed that "the conventional wisdom on Barack Obama is that he's a great speaker, a terrific orator, but hasn't really been all that specific about policy." However, an April 24 New York Times article also reported on Obama's April 23 speech in Chicago, citing specifically his policies regarding foreign policy and the war in Iraq:
If elected, he said, he would double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, which would be the final year of his first term.
"I know that many Americans are skeptical about the value of foreign aid today," Mr. Obama said. "A relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly both in lives and treasure to the United States down the road."
The United States also must build a 21st-century military, Mr. Obama said, in addition to "showing wisdom in how we deploy it." He called for expanding ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines. Less than 1 percent of the military can speak foreign languages like Arabic, Mandarin or Korean, he said, calling for additional training and recruitment to address the problem.
Mr. Obama said he would lead an effort to secure nuclear stockpiles and materials across the world within four years.
To prevent countries from building weapons programs, Mr. Obama endorsed the concept of an international nuclear fuel bank, proposed last year by former Senator Sam Nunn, who now advises the Nuclear Threat Initiative. As president, Mr. Obama said he would provide $50 million to get the fuel bank started and urge Russia and other countries to join.
From the April 26 edition of NBC's Today:
MITCHELL: Clinton has seen Obama surge from behind. But now in the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, he has cut her lead in half. Among Democrats, she is first at 36 percent, but he is closing in with 31 percent. John Edwards a strong third at 20 percent.
STEVE McMAHON (Democratic strategist): There's no question that Barack Obama has gone from the person that everybody was watching to the person now that everybody is looking at as a front-runner. And with the front-runner label comes a target on your back. And it will be interesting to see how he handles that.
MITCHELL: Experts say so far, Obama has been long on charisma but short on substance, stumbling at last month's Las Vegas health care forum.
OBAMA [video clip]: We have a plan that we are in the process of unveiling.
MITCHELL: And vague at this week's foreign policy speech.
OBAMA [video clip]: I still believe that America is the last, best hope on Earth.
TODD: The public's going to be expecting him to start filling in the blanks, start being for specifics. So far, he's been for an idea of a candidate, but he hasn't been for specific things.
MITCHELL: While tonight's focus will likely be on Obama and Clinton as well as Edwards, the focus will also give other Democrats -- like [Sen. Christopher] Dodd [D-CT], [Sen. Joseph R.] Biden [D-DE], and [New Mexico Gov. Bill] Richardson -- a chance to emerge from the pack before it's too late.















I do not know where Andrea gets this from. I thought that the debate tonight was very informative. Obama seems very long on substance to me.
If I were to vote for a Democrat, it would be Joe Biden, a standout in tonight's debate.
Clinton & Obama were also impressive...
Richardson was awful. Edwards just ok, Dodd predictable, Kucinich unrealistic, Gravel comic relief.
Is this off-topic? Probably. Sorry.
It may be off topic but it is a good subject. I was wondering of Gov Richardson has a hearing problem, he seemed confused? Biden was very good tonight.
Doris,
I thought Richardson's performance went downhill after he fumbled his way through an explanation of his hesitancy to comment on the Gonzalez situation sooner than he did because he's Hispanic. Very bad judgment on that one, IMO. I'll give Richardson credit for answering honestly [even if it made him look foolish] To me he seemed off balance from then on.
I would love to see a double header of Clinton and Obama, two firsts by the Democratic party would definitely piss off the right! But first and foremost I want a strong leader capable of compromise when necessary and drive when required. Not some snot nosed base groveling "I only serve the ones who elected me" type of person.
...If Gravel doesn't make the presidency and he won't he could have a second career as a stand-up comic-political satirist or maybe a slot over at Air America. The guy is hilarious.
Lynn,
I don't know if you're a Seinfeld fan but if you are, do you remember the episode where Jerry had an outstanding fine [20 years I think] on a library book? There was a character who portrayed the "Library Cop" named Bookman. Gravel reminded me of him.
I don't watch it much now that it's in syndication and I intermittently caught episodes prior to that. The only TV shows I watch regularly are the Law & Orders. I'm addicted to those.
Andrea is too busy slowly sipping the champagne and resisting the temptations of the caviar dish at D.C. & New York cocktail parties to really care about investigating the issues. There's a few others in the MSM that suffer from this problem.
Sen. Obama - all style and no substance. I can't think of a single major policy contribution that the man has made to recent public discourse. Before I am accused of "smearing" him, please allow me to point out that his pathetic performance at a recent AFL-CIO conclave (on healthcare) left even hardcore Democrats disappointed. Obama is another media creation - good looking and long on rhetoric but short on competence and substance.
All that may be true. Even if it is he is Thomas Jefferson compared to Bush.
Solon,
I noticed last night on the MSNBC post debate rap up that ALL the conservatives present praised Hillary's debate performance they all agreed that she was presidential and they were extremely critical of Barak Obama. I don't know what's going on here, but I'm not buying this sudden admiration of Hilary Clinton. I think they want her to be the candidate because they believe that they can beat her. Barak seems to be their new target maybe because he's gaining in the polls. Who knows?
That makes sense to me.
Once again, did you even read the report at the top of this page? Lazy-a@@ Andrea Mitchell blathers on with some so-called conventional wisdom, MMFA debunks her claim, and then you come along and regurgitate the very same nonsense as she did, and pat yourself on the back for your clever analysis.
Once again troll, you're wasting your time here. Go back to Free Republic, or watch yourself some Faux News.
Mitchell did it again tonight.
After the debate, she made the false claim that "entitlements like Social Security"" were never mentioned but that they are the "big elephant in the room" for the Dem. Party.
As always, she was making this up, because polls have shown that majority loves entitlements and SS the way they are. So she's a right wing flack. And don't you just love it when rich people gripe about entitlements?
Oh pshaw!
Who, in their right mind, would even “dare” to contemplate Andrea Mitchell as a vexatious woman? One shouldn’t be overly concerned. Andrea had to choose, after she thought really-really hard [like the current president!], how she was gonna shove one of her big, flapping Mary Janes into that teensy mouth of hers. Oh pshaw!
The longer they keep parroting this plainly false talking point, the more foolish they look. Mitchell might as well be saying, "I'm too lazy to do my job, so I'm just going to repeat this nonsense and attribute it to what 'experts are saying.'"
I bet when this talking point has played itself out, and the accumulation of Obama's speeches outweighs their ability to continue to lie about them, the new talking point will be about how boring Obama is now that he's "finally" gotten down to specifics. I can hear it now: "Obama was a charismatic shining star, but the excitement has worn off and now we have to listen to him drone on and on about health care and education and foreign policy and blah, blah, blah."
I was extremely impressed by Obama last night. Compared to any of the republican candidates Obama seems right as president. He obviously had some thoughtful ideas about his approach to the presidency and presented well.
For all of the complaining about Hilary she actually did an outstanding job as well. I expected more from Edwards, but he does have a lot on his plate at the moment and he was OK. BIden did fine, but he won't gain any traction, Kucinich is unrealistic and Gravel although I like him and he did make a few good points, I wouldn't vote for him. Richardson is DOA.
Obama, as all "first-tier" dems this time out, is obviously a pro mil-ind-complex guy (as is Hillary and Edwards, too). He is vague, talks tough on terror and as a talks concern for middle America. The media keeps talking about "first tier" as if these guys are our only real choices Stop feeding Americans this crap. WE'LL decide who is first tier. If we listen to you, come next time we elect a president, it will be BUSINESS AS USUAL. I'm tired of "charisma" as the most important quality most talked about by today's cowing, cowardly media (ugh, the shrill loud-mouthed Chris Matthew; Hardball, my foot. I'm am tired of fake-tough guy suck-ups)
Guys like Smerconish, and the fascist, "tough-on-terror", half-of-my-show-is-about-American Idol-and-Anna Nicole, Scarborough make it clear that a large piece of our mainstream media should not be allowed to be owned by major players in the mil-ind-complex. The conflict of interest would have been addresed by the founding fathers if they could have forseen it, I'm sure.
Smerconish says "no blood drawn." Smerconish, you are a coward. Blood was drawn, just not by your precious "first-tier", "charismatic" mil-ind-complex shills. You keep quoting Biden's joke as a high point. There was no less interesting comment or less revealing moment, and you dwell on it. Safe, safe, safe. Keep your job, keep your bosses at GE happy, but as a member of the "free" press and a watchdog and protector of the American way of life (the Constitution that is) you're a disgrace.
Gravel "drew blood," to be sure. But as a good (as in "don't rock the boat" good) fake-"tough" media cow you completely ignored it. Kucinich has guts too. Too bad you don't!
I'll say it, the camel in the tent is the media. The founding fathers would be organising an armed revolt if they were around today. Jefferson et al knew that a free press was the only way we could have a true democracy. Now, we have giant multi national corps that spend hundreds of millions bribing poloticians and they control the media that should be exposing this glaring conflict. By controlling the media they can make sure that only bribable poloticians get elected. I doubt this will change in the near future as this system is working so well that few people are aware that they do not have any representation, but eventually,poloicies regarding issues like immigration, health care, the enviroment will be so out of step with the vast majority that the populace will wake up and revolt.