About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NY Times, Chicago Sun-Times reports left out key part of quote to suggest Michelle Obama was on the attack

August 21, 2007 8:20 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

14 Comments

In an August 17 New York Times article about how presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (IL) is "increasingly drawing sharp contrasts with his rivals" for the Democratic nomination, reporter Jeff Zeleny wrote: "Even Michelle Obama presented a contrast [during a campaign event] on Thursday as she introduced her husband in an open-air barn at the Cass County fairgrounds. She told a crowd of more than 200 people that family values and trust were important in the next presidential candidate. 'Our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House,' Mrs. Obama said." Zeleny did not provide Michelle Obama's full quote, nor did he explain to whom Michelle Obama was purportedly drawing a contrast. In the part of the quote The New York Times left out, Obama -- as blogger Greg Sargent noted -- immediately went on to discuss measures her family was taking to keep their children "grounded" while campaigning, indicating that her comments were not a reference to rival candidates but rather a statement about the efforts they were making to ensure that their children will continue to "come first."

After stating, "Our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House," Michelle Obama continued: "[S]o we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's [Barack Obama] traveling around, I do day trips" in order to be "home before bedtime." Atlantic associate editor Marc Ambinder wrote that one "recurring theme of her stump speech" is "the hard choices she and Sen. Obama have had to make about their work/family balance."

An August 21 column by the Chicago Sun-Times' Jennifer Hunter also selectively cited Michelle Obama's remarks and suggested that she was referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) in her statement. Hunter wrote that Obama's comment "could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons." But, according to Sargent, "The Obama campaign says this wasn't an attack on Hillary at all." Sargent stated that Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton sent him a statement saying: "The only family Mrs. Obama was referring to was the Obama family." Ambinder further noted that in highlighting Hunter's column, "Matt Drudge has other designs, and you can bet that the cable news networks will follow." The Drudge Report headline on the afternoon of August 21 was "Obama's Wife Slams Hillary?"

Later on August 21, CNN host Wolf Blitzer discussed Michelle Obama's remarks with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile and Republican strategist John Feehery on CNN's The Situation Room. Blitzer aired a clip of Michelle Obama saying: "One of the most important things that we need to know about the next president of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family, is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House." Blitzer then asked: "[W]hat do you think? Who was she referring to, because we're trying to read between the lines here." But rather than "read[ing] between the lines," Blitzer could have provided Michelle Obama's full comments, which indicate that she was discussing her family's efforts to balance family life with campaigning.

The full transcript of Michelle Obama's remarks, according to Sargent, shows that while "other parts of the speech did draw a contrast between Hillary and Obama," the context of Michelle Obama's statement "suggests that she was indeed talking about the Obama family right then." From her speech:

That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.

From the August 17 New York Times article, headlined "Obama Takes Sharper Tone to the Trail":

A dispute between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton over foreign policy, which began last month in a debate in South Carolina, has provided a new campaign narrative for Mr. Obama. He has tried to turn Mrs. Clinton's critiques on him back against her by reminding voters of his opposition to authorizing the Iraq war in 2002, when he was a state senator in Illinois and suggesting that he represents a break from the business-as-usual ways of Washington represented by both President Bush and Mrs. Clinton.

"It comes down to a question that the American people are going to have to ask," Mr. Obama said after a recent campaign stop in Le Mars. "Are you looking simply to replace George Bush and otherwise tweak the system and continue on a process of very modest incremental change? Or do you think that the problem is more than just George Bush and it's a problem with how Washington works?"

The message, aides say, is crafted either to lure voters to Mr. Obama's side or to keep them undecided a bit longer. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton seldom -- if ever -- makes reference to her rival as she campaigns.

"Hillary Clinton has fought for change her whole life, and she is the candidate with the strength and experience to make change happen starting in 2009," said Phil Singer, a campaign spokesman, when asked Thursday to respond to Mr. Obama.

It remains an open question whether the sharper tone -- a departure from his more professorial air early in his candidacy -- carries any risks for a candidate who pledged to campaign on a message of hope and a new kind of politics. Mr. Obama has told associates he finds the burst of aggressiveness to be liberating.

Even Michelle Obama presented a contrast here on Thursday as she introduced her husband in an open-air barn at the Cass County fairgrounds. She told a crowd of more than 200 people that family values and trust were important in the next presidential candidate.

"Our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House," Mrs. Obama said.

Later, she added: "This election is about truth and authenticity. There is nothing more important than your word. Truth does matter."

When he took the microphone, Mr. Obama used similar phrasing, saying, "Part of the change, by the way, is telling the truth to the American people about the very serious and difficult challenges and choices that we face."

From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the August 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: The wife of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama recently said that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. Joining us now in our "Strategy Session," Democratic strategist Donna Brazile and Republican strategist John Feehery. All right, here's the clip -- here's a little excerpt of what Michelle Obama said and is generating some commotion on.

OBAMA [video clip]: One of the most important things that we need to know about the next president of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family, is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House.

BLITZER: All right, what do you think? Who was she referring to, because we're trying to read between the lines here.

BRAZILE: Well, first of all, she was introducing her husband, and she's trying to tell an audience that really don't know Barack Obama that he's a family man, that he cares about children, he cares about families, and as president, he will restore family values to the White House. I don't think he was taking -- she was taking a swipe at the Clintons or the Giulianis or anyone else. She was trying to establish his credentials as a family person.

BLITZER: What do you think, John?

FEEHERY: I think she was talking about Hillary Clinton. No doubt about it. And the Clintons, oh, they have a nice family with Chelsea and the whole nine yards. I think that all that turmoil, it's just, you know, trying to -- the Obama campaign --

BLITZER: The Obama campaign denies that, and they point to the fact that she said "is he somebody that respects family values." She didn't say "is she somebody that respects us." Because you could read this and say maybe she's referring to [Republican presidential candidate] Rudy Giuliani, who's had a history of some problems.

FEEHERY: She's probably referring to Bill Clinton, actually. The fact of the matter is, the Obama campaign is a little bit desperate. They kind of remind me of my White Sox. They keep trying all these things, but they keep making mistakes. And they don't make up any ground in the polls, and I don't know what they're going to do. I mean, he himself said he's running out of time, so I think that that's going to be trouble for the Obama campaign.

BRAZILE: She's a straight-talking person. She's very smart, she's very articulate. She's an asset to the campaign, and I think if she wanted to take a swipe at somebody, she would not hide words. Michelle Obama would come out and say it.

BLITZER: She doesn't strike me as someone who is shy about anything.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by lostlogic (August 21, 2007 9:16 pm ET)
         

      I guess if there isn't enough controversy to entertain the masses they will keep inventing it.  Huffington Post pulled this one too...the picture accompanying the headline quote was a split picture of Michelle Obama and Hillary.  Someone asked on another thread why they have to keep explaning themselves why aren't they clear when they speak.  Well here is a perfect example if you read or heard Michelle Obama's comments in full you wouldn't have been questioning a Hillary conection the only reason anyone would now call for clarification is because they are only reading and listening to the sensationalized sound byte and headline.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (August 22, 2007 9:40 am ET)
           

        Well, we have to cut them some slack. After all, in their concerted efforts NOT to talk about the Iraq Fiasco and the LIES told to get us into it, they're running out of material. I mean, hurricanes and collapsed bridges can only hold the public's attention for so long. To fill the gap, they've immersed themselves in Presidential campaign minutia...we'll be sick of it by the time the election actually gets here.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Lynn (August 22, 2007 2:01 pm ET)
           

        Lost, I think the press are desperately sniffing out fights and conflict and now seem hell bent on inciting them even when they don’t exist. It's good for ratings and paper sales, bad for us. When I first heard this Michele Obama statement I thought there had to be more to this. She doesn't strike me as a low blow type of person and of course it's clear what she meant. This was just another nothing to see here moment as far as I'm concerned 

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (August 21, 2007 9:52 pm ET)
         

      I've seen any number of missrepresentations on this site, but this is sad. The Attack of the Kneebiters!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (August 21, 2007 10:22 pm ET)
         

      Why is this here?

      Ha that got your attention!

      Of course I'm just kidding [this time]

      This is one of the MOST blatant examples of MIS-information & outright MIS-representations I have ever seen highlighted on this site. Blitzer & the rest of the media should hang their heads in shame!

      Are there no more important stories out there to cover that they needed to create one by omitting part of what Mrs. Obama said?

      There is absolutely NO doubt that she was speaking about her own family. To try & turn this into an alleged attack on Hillary by pulling one part of her entire statement out of context is an outrageous act that defies any justification.

      The media owes both the Obama & Clinton families a huge apology.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 22, 2007 1:03 am ET)
           

        You and your shilling for Hillary, Jeter.Can't you read between the lines? The Clintons were that one American family that had one of them mess around on their spouse.

        I just wish both sides would give it a rest with the "Family Values" stuff.Yeah, I'd like to see our country provide a good environment for those who want to raise families, but that comes down to basic economic factors and personal responsibility.

        As a non-family guy type. I resent the implication that my lack of a wife and kids makes me somehow incompetent or second-class.I want a government that does the chores it's supposed to do efficiently and leaves the values matters up to their employers (Us). 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 22, 2007 1:08 am ET)
             

          BTW, Jeter, I just got back from a stroll downtown for a bite and a drink, and it appears that your magic number may have changed, as the Angels seem to have a slight lead over your pinstriped poodles.

          Like 13 runs up  in the 8th. Ouch. ;0)

          Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (August 22, 2007 7:49 am ET)
             

          Well Beach I do wish they'd stop picking on my girl. I may not vote for Hillary, but I think I might have a crush on her. Maybe I'll make a video ;-)

          Of course, though this is clearly an example of MIS-information [that BTW just got repeated on the CBS Morning show] I don't know IF it could be defined as CONSERVATIVE MIS-information or that it furthers a CONSERVATIVE agenda. It may in fact be a boost to the other Democratic candidates if it can ignite a mud-throwing fight between between the Obama & Clinton camps.

          A few weeks ago I kept pointing out to the faithful here [aka Liberals] that Matthews playful flirting on the air did not fall under Conservative MIS-information, or any other category noted in MMFA's Mission Statement. Several posters told me it didn't matter. Really I asked? Then WHY have a Mission Statement at all?? Then Clams said [I'll paraphrase here] ' the Mission Statement is meaningless & MMFA can do whatever they want cause it's their site'

          Well Beach how can you argue against that brilliant [cough] logic?

          But I would like to point out that MMFA seems to have recently added a rejoinder to their Mission Statement: 

          Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

          Kind of opens up the playing field a tad by NOT mentioning Conservative anywhere..Interesting eh

          =====

          Beach, your 2nd post is off topic. I have a new favorite number & I'm not going to tell you what it is!

          I hate your Angeles. I hate the west coast. And until further notice I refuse to talk baseball.

          There...did you enjoy my tantrum? Hehehe...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 22, 2007 10:08 am ET)
               

            Cut me some slack, Jeter. It's only a few days until September, when the Angels are traditionally prohibited from winning any more games.

            And your "paraphrasing" of ClamsCasino was very irresponsible. I can't stand for taking quotes out of context or biased editing. ;0)

            Report Abuse
    • Author by clare1p7954 (August 22, 2007 12:39 am ET)
         

      Why can't the Democratics back Obama nomination ? We already know what the the Cliton's are yes it would still be bill in the white house...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by AussieBob (August 22, 2007 9:53 am ET)
         

      I quite agree, I'd like to see MMFA go after 'liberal' misinformation too. I don't think there's nearly as much of it because 'lefties' seem to get jumped on far more quickly and vociferously for their indiscretions (Bill Clinton being a prime example) but that doesn't excuse it IMO.

      That said, you don't have to 'read between the lines' to get what Mrs Obama meant if you listen to her full statement, and I for one am kinda disappointed that Brazile didn't simply request a showing of the rest of the comment to clear up the 'misunderstanding'. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MiddleLeft (August 23, 2007 9:25 am ET)
           

        I quite agree, I'd like to see MMFA go after 'liberal' misinformation too. I don't think there's nearly as much of it because 'lefties' seem to get jumped on far more quickly

        There is less need for that service as we have Fox and CNN doing that full time.  MMFA is a little mouse that is trying to be heard. 

        --ML

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by TheEagleScreams (August 22, 2007 8:34 pm ET)
         

      Well Michelle Obama said she was not talking about Hillary. If Michelle is as it is posted on The Chicago Times, is the strong one, with the backbone. Why is she not running instead of her Barack. We don't need a President that can't hold up to the mess they are going to be elected to. Besides it is not the wives Hillary has to debate, keep it straight. As far as the Clinton's go, thats old news. I don't believe there is that many that live in glass houses. I think all of us are aware of their PRIVATE life in the White House. Most candidates voted to give Bush authority to Use his Commander-in-cheif judgements. So keep that in mind.

      Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.