Hume falsely claimed Obama "contradicted what he wrote in his book" about town hall meetings
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Special Report, Brit Hume falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "contradicted what he wrote in his book" about town hall meetings and quoted from Obama's book The Audacity of Hope, in which Obama wrote: "One of my favorite tasks of being a senator is hosting town hall meetings." But contrary to Hume's assertion, Obama has hosted 18 town hall meetings in the past two months.
During the June 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume stated: "When [Sen.] Barack Obama declined to join [Sen.] John McCain's invitation to appear at a series of joint town hall meetings, he not only went back on an earlier indication that he would do that ... he also contradicted what he wrote in his book." Hume then quoted from Obama's book The Audacity of Hope: " 'One of my favorite tasks of being a senator is hosting town hall meetings. I held 39 of them in my first year in the Senate.' Obama said they are like, quote, 'A dip in a cool stream. I feel cleansed afterward, glad for the work I have chosen.' " Earlier in the show, Hume had teased his report by claiming that Obama has "changing positions" on town hall meetings.
In fact, in the passage Hume quoted from the book, Obama was not referring to appearances with his political opponents, as Hume suggested. Rather, he wrote:
One of my favorite tasks of being a senator is hosting town hall meetings. I held thirty-nine of them my first year in the Senate, all across Illinois, in tiny rural towns like Anna and prosperous suburbs like Naperville, in black churches on the South Side and a college in Rock Island. There's not a lot of fanfare involved. My staff will call up the local high school, library, or community college to see if they're willing to host the event. A week or so in advance, we advertise in the town newspaper, in church bulletins, and on the local radio station. On the day of the meeting I'll show up a half hour early to chat with town leaders and we'll discuss local issues, perhaps a road in need of repaving or plans for a new senior center. After taking a few photographs, we enter the hall where the crowd is waiting. I shake hands on my way to the stage, which is usually bare except for a podium, a microphone, a bottle of water, and an American flag posted in its stand. And then for the next hour or so, I answer to the people who sent me to Washington.
Attendance varies at these meetings: We've had as few as fifty people turn out, as many as two thousand. But however many people show up, I am grateful to see them. They are a cross-section of the counties we visit: Republican and Democrat, old and young, fat and skinny, truck drivers, college professors, stay-at-home moms, veterans, schoolteachers, insurance agents, CPAs, secretaries, doctors, and social workers. They are generally polite and attentive, even when they disagree with me (or one another). They ask me about prescription drugs, the deficit, human rights in Myanmar, ethanol, bird flu, school funding, and the space program. Often they will surprise me: A young flaxen-haired woman in the middle of farm country will deliver a passionate plea for intervention in Darfur, or an elderly black gentleman in an inner city neighborhood will quiz me on soil conservation.
As I look out over the crowd, I somehow feel encouraged. In their bearing I see hard work. In the way they handle their children I see hope. My time with them is like a dip in a cool stream. I feel cleansed afterward, glad for the work I have chosen. (Page 101)
According to washingtonpost.com's Campaign Tracker, Obama has hosted at least 18 town hall meetings since May 1, including one in Las Vegas the day before Hume's report:
- June 24: Las Vegas, NV
- June 23: Albuquerque, NM
- June 12: Kaukauna, WI
- June 5: Bristol, VA
- June 2: Troy, MI
- May 31: Rapid City, SD
- May 28: Thornton, CO
- May 22: Boca Raton, FL
- May 21: Kissimmee, FL
- May 19: Billings, MT
- May 18: Pendleton, OR
- May 17: Roseburg, OR
- May 16: Watertown, SD
- May 14: Warren, MI
- May 13: Lexington, KY
- May 10: Bend, OR
- May 9: Albany, OR
- May 2: Munster, IN
From the June 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: A little later on "The Grapevine," Barack Obama says now that he does not want a lot of town hall meetings about the election, but what has he said in the past?
[...]
HUME: And we'll examine Barack Obama's changing positions on town hall meetings when we come back.
[...]
HUME: When Barack Obama declined to join John McCain's invitation to appear at a series of joint town hall meetings, he not only went back on an earlier indication that he would do that, but -- that is, attend them -- but he also contradicted what he wrote in his book.
In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes, in quotes, "One of my favorite tasks of being a senator is hosting town hall meetings. I held 39 of them in my first year in the Senate." Obama said they are like, quote, "A dip in a cool stream. I feel cleansed afterward, glad for the work I have chosen."
Sorry, MM, but it's clear that Obama IS contradicting himself.
He waxes poetic over town hall meetings ... until someone else is there to ask serious questions and hold him accountable.
Town hall meetings are no longer "a favorite task" if John McCain is there, too. (Obama responded that he's do two, one over the Fourth of July, when most of America is relaxing.)
Pretty lame, Barack. Pretty lame, IMHO.
Pretty lame, Barack. Pretty lame, IMHO.
So having a Town Hall meeting when Americans are off and not working so more can attend is lame? Actually you are lame shoes , very lame. IMHO
Shoes, you don't see a categorical distinction between the type of town hall meeting Obama was describing and the kind McCain proposed? Obama's description in his book is not a substitute or alternative to a campaign debate -- it's a meeting with an unopposed elected official. Joint town hall meetings are markedly different.
This is no more a contradiction than if I were to say first that I love cookouts, but then refused to participate as the main course in a ritual sacrifice performed by cannibals. They're both cookouts...
VY,
It is obvious that Obama is cutting and running from his statement above. Yes, he would share his podium with McCain, but you have a point, Obama will be the main course.
Well, let me put it this way. Let's say I were to agree with you that Obama isn't agreeing to a Town Hall-style debate event with McCain because it's a venue in which he won't perform well. Does that actually reflect poorly on his merits as a presidential candidate?
The dominant American language ideology -- the expectations and assumptions that Americans have about how language and speech operate and what they signify -- tends to equate off-the-cuff remarks as a reliable measure of a person's essential character. Hence the success and popularity of pundits on cable news and radio whose primary virtue is not a mastery of facts and logical arguments, but an ability to project strength and certainty without hesitation. Several linguists and sociolinguistic anthropologists have argued (compellingly in my opinion) that this is why Bush's image was for so long untarnished by his grammatical missteps and disfluency: no matter how badly he mangled his sentences, he never seemed reflective or introspective or self-critical, and instead seemed to convey a remarkable plain-spoken confidence <b><i>because</b><i> of his mispronunciations and jumbled speech.
I would be more than willing to concede that Obama's best speaking is done in more formal, moderated events. That's not a sign that he can't handle talking to foreign leaders or make quick decisions. In fact, his refusal to hold a Town Hall-style debate with McCain reveals absolutely nothing about his character other than the fact that he's aware of the positions from which he projects the most strength... and frankly, that's something that I would argue makes for a good leader.
Your points are well taken, but I actually think Obama is a very good extemporaneous speaker. I've seen him on The Daily Show and heard him on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and he's done very well, throwing mild, but funny, jabs at the shows' hosts.
Now, I understand that those are both relatively easy shows. The hosts aren't looking to make him look bad--but it's not completely easy, either; witness McCain's rather lame and unfunny appearances on The Daily Show. Dude hasn't hit a home run in years.
Obama's capacity for clarity of thought in difficult situations is, I believe, part of what makes Americans compare him to JFK.
"Obama's capacity for clarity of thought in difficult situations is, I believe, part of what makes Americans compare him to JFK."
I agree completely -- and indeed, I've heard Obama speak very persuasively and effectively in nonscripted situations. But I've also seen clips from conservative blogs that purport to catch him in gaffes and blunders when he's not behind a podium: usually when he's speaking one-on-one to someone who isn't holding a microphone or a camera. In these moments I don't doubt the clarity of his thought but rather the clarity of his expression in particular sorts of exchanges.
Perhaps he would perform fabulously in a Town Hall-style debate with McCain. Perhaps he wouldn't. I genuinely wouldn't bet one way or the other, given that McCain hardly seems like a compelling and inspiring figure when he's on or off script. All I'm arguing is that it's totally unfair to call Obama a coward because he refuses one debate format or another. (This reminds me very much of Bill O'Reilly's tactic of inviting someone on his show with the threat of calling the person a coward if the invitation isn't accepted.)
VY,
I don't know if you noticed it but you seem to be the only one calling Obama a coward.
BHO can do what he likes. He simply looks disengenuous in saying he loves town hall meetings, (I'm paraphrasing) then refuses to engage in any.
I realize it is all politics. Nothing new there. Obama wants to run away from this without looking like he's running for some political reason. But it is old fashioned politics and it is counter to his claim to change politics.
I am looking forward to see them go head-to-head. The telegenic Obama may look to be JFK to McCain's Nixon when it comes to TV. Or maybe the old warhorse will press the kid into making claims that reveal his far left mindset. :-)
AA: "I don't know if you noticed it but you seem to be the only one calling Obama a coward."
You're right -- I haven't noticed, because I haven't done it. On the other hand, you did call Obama "chicken" and Wesley did call him a "coward".
I'm not sure how to carry on a conversation with someone who imagines that I wrote things that I didn't write, and conveniently forgets the very things that he/she him/herself wrote.
Town hALL MEETING format actually means the audience asks the question and the guest answers the question. It had nothing to do with McCain and Obama asking each other questions. Frankly if I were McCain, I would be very glad Obama has cut down the number. He will make John McCain seem every bit as slow and uninformed as can be. But, duh, guess what, aside form legal issues like McCain hocking his primary campaign funds from the Feds. The old FEC chairman that I note Bush ahs not resubmitted his name to be reappointed is a Republican and he flat out said McCain broke the law when he opted out of Primary matching funds by using FEC miney \to secure his loan, not by using donated funds. If I were a McCain advisor, I would advise him (real strenuously in fact) to tell his silly followers to shut their mouths NOW> But of course he will not do it because they are the very sick folks who hold their nose and try their best to get him elected. the poor guy ahd sold out on his straight talk express.
Of course Senator Obama is not contradicting himself. Just because Obama doesn't see the need for 10 joint town hall meetings with Gramps, doesn't mean he is contradicting himself.
If he said in his book, I prefer join town hall meetings with opponents who can't debate themselves out of a paper bag, then he'd be contradicting himself.
Doesn't really matter to me about the squabble between Hume's definition of town hall meetings and the one espoused by mmfa.
What would matter is seeing a series of unmoderated town hall debates between Obama and McCain....then we could really see what they're made of and what they believe in.
But there is a big difference between the two types of "town hall" meetings.
The type that Senator Obama is talking about in his book is very informal, with little or no media coverage. It's typically attended to by average, everyday people from the area. It's like an informal chat with lots of back and forth banter, with people asking real questions.
The type hack Hume is talking about is a structred "debate" that ends up with people asking questions with some of them trying to score political points with "gotcha" questions. We've seen it at pervious town hall debates.
The two don't really look anything alike.
You can argue all you want about the Hume/Obama definitions. As I said...I don't care.
What I do care about is seeing an "unmoderated" town hall debate between the candidates.
So you don't care if Hume lies?
See, we do. Anyone who wants honest government and honest reporting should care.
But you don't care. Thanks for explaining that so clearly.
But, you see, that's the point: what you're calling for is a town hall debate, not a meeting. This isn't just a definitional disagreement -- this is ultimately a contradiction in terms. Debates are not unmoderated and unmediated Q&A sessions, and they're not unrestricted arguments. Debates -- in the way you're talking about the term -- have at least some formal constraints and roles for each participant. If what you want is a Town Hall Debate because you think it will provide you a glimpse of the real person underneath the campaign, you're setting yourself up for a disappointment. A Town Hall Debate is simply another venue for another form of staged performance. Hume's account makes it sound as though Obama is running away from a chance to bare his soul, but that's hardly the case: he's refusing to engage in a particular brand of campaign event.
VY,
Hahaha.... Obama will meet with Ahmedinajad without preconditions but he's too chicken to do a one on one with McCain.
Gotta love it. :-)
AA,
You are really becoming a talking points echo chamber, aren't you :)? Did you get that one from the McCain cut and paste section of his website?
Fried,
No cut and paste here... I would have been accused of plagarism... again.
What can I say? Great minds think alike. :-)
You aren't thinking with any great minds, AA. The McCain site is offering talking points to cut and paste on liberal blogs.
http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInteract/BlogInteract.aspx
(Today's talking points?!?! UGH!)
Why doesn't McCain want to do a town hall on the 4th of July?
AA,
Was the problem that you were accused of plagiarism, or was it that you were guilty of plagiarism?
There's a big difference you know, and the implication of being accused of something puts a strong emphasis on the fact that you might not have done it.
Contrast that with a fair admission that numerous times you have been caught plagiarizing, and we'd see that admission differently, and we'd see it as a whining baby complaining about being caught doing something wrong.
It's real easy to get your panties in a bunch when you don't understand the premise.
First of all, I don't care one bit about the silliness between the McCain and Obama camps about the meetings. They are both supporters of some type of scripted and controlled media event which allows them to double talk the public.
Secondly, irrespective of your attempt to tell me what kind of meetings or debates I want, here is what I would like to see...
The candidates walk onto the stage with no chairs, podiums, desks, or notes. NO MODERATORS. They can address a series of topics with set time frames and they can moderate themselves.
The candidate that won't do that...is a coward.
Wesley: "The candidates walk onto the stage with no chairs, podiums, desks, or notes. NO MODERATORS. They can address a series of topics with set time frames and they can moderate themselves. The candidate that won't do that...is a coward. "
Very good. But I have to ask: has any major candidate for president ever agreed to such an event with opposing candidates? I can't think of any time this has ever happened, so by your standards, I don't think we've ever had a presidential candidate (or, by extension, any president) who wasn't a coward.
The coward reference is to a candidate's unwillingness to debate without a moderator...nothing to do with their willingness to lead a charge up San Juan hill.
If you can't or won't stand before the American people and openly declare or defend your positions...some would call it shrewd politics...I'll continue to call it cowardice.
As others have capably explained to you, there's no evidence that any Presidential candidate has ever participated in the type of unmoderated debate you suggest. It's a crazy suggestion.
Top that off with the fact that it has nothing to do with the fact that Hume lied, and is only your feeble attempt to distract from his lie, and it really looks crazy for you to be suggesting this again this morning after this false meme had been beaten down so successfully yesterday.
It doesn't matter what you want.
This issue is about lies being told.
No one is biting on your attempt to distract us from the issue at hand.
It's worth noting, that where this Fox hack hume (and others) say "town hall meeting", what of course you know them to be referring to, is something better described as "a phony made-for-TV pretended political forum, complete with hand-held microphones and stools to lean on all hunched over poor posture sit up stand up straight you slouch, and quit walking around with that hand-held mike what are you doing a stand-up comic routine and who hand-picked those people waiting to ask you loaded questions on the made-for-TV phony reality show that bears no real resemblance to a real political forum, no more than do those awful debates"
I'm not sure why they say "town hall meeting": it doesn't look anything like any meeting at town hall I've ever attended.
And you should ask yourself: if this Fox hack hume wants these made-for-TV phony political forums so much, does that mean they serve the American People in any way... or that they present the candidates and their Policy opinions to us, in any unfiltered and objective way?
I heard the Obama campaign invoke the Lincoln-Douglas debates, in declining this foolish made-for-TV phony political form town hall crap... good.
We could use a few debates in the Lincoln-Douglas format: Mr. Obama's campaign can do this for us too, you know... they can take these debates back from the television hacks, and give them back to us...
It's what Mr. Lincoln and Sen. Douglas would do: it's what they did.
Dem,
I'd love to see it. If I remember correctly the debates went like this...
One would speak for an hour, the other an hour and a half, then the first would have another half hour. They alternate who goes first.
I wouldn't mind them shortening it to say 5 minutes- 7.5 minutes-2.5 minutes and letting the "townies" ask questions when picked through a random selection of those in the audience.
Of course that's the absolute best most informative format for the candidates to address the American People, at the same time and in the same place: and they may address one another if they wish, rhetorically or not: of course, the other cannot respond until it is their turn, as the only real and inviolable rule to a debate, is that of equal time, uninterrupted and alternating: 10 minutes is a good length of time, no less: exactly how a presidential candidate can explain any policy opinion or anything at all, in 45 seconds or a minute or even two minutes, is a mystery to me: we are disserved (and insulted too) by having the candidate's appeals to us, sliced up into 45 second little bits of nothing: we are likewise disserved (and insulted), to have those same little 45 second slices of nothingness constantly interrupted by and alternated with the absolute worthless words of a political media hack of the television personality variety: it's not about them... who cares what they think... we're not voting for them anyway... if they're not a candidate for the Office, then why must we be subject to their idiot opinions?
We do not need to be subject in these things, to a political media hack: it is worse than a disservice to us... it is an insult, and an insult to our Democracy, to allow a political media hack to insert themselves and their idiot opinions, into our considerations of our next President.
You may ask, if we do not have such political media hacks to steer and direct the words and thoughts of those candidates (and steer and direct are the right words to describe what those hacks do), then how can we be sure that those candidates will address the important issues (like flag pins and Minister Farakhan)?
I said that the candidates themselves can address one another, either rhetorically or not: who better to steer and direct the words of a political candidate, than his opponent... whose words he may likewise spur and provoke, when his turn is taken: it is not about political media hacks though: it insults and grieves us that they interfere with our Democracy as they do, and have done... time for a change.
As for the notion that some bunch of amatuer wannabe hacks who knows who picked them and for what reason and what clever thing they'll blurt out (about flag pins and Farakhan)... as for those plants and amatuer hacks hand-picked?
We need them interfering with the debate, about as much as we need political media hacks of the professional television variety to do the same, and for the same reasons: it's no more about them, and their little moment on the stage, than it is about a political media hack... we no more need them to insult us by getting between us and the candidates, than we need the other.
It's a two man race, and a two man battle, and two men we consider to be our next President... we need no seconds in the duel, nor any third-person or third-party, or "third man in" the fight...
Which of the many spectators at the Lincoln-Douglas debates, stood up to interrupt Mr. Lincoln or Sen. Douglas, or to steer or direct their words and thoughts, or to insert (insultingly) their idiot words and opinions into our Democracy?
None did such an insulting thing... the stage belonged to Mr. Lincoln and Sen. Douglas alone, as it should have.
I know, you placed it correctly... I ? too.
The world according to FOX:
McCAIN... GOOOOD!
OBAMA... BAAAAAAAAD!
<And that's all you need to know...> ;>)
Ah the good old, lets throw some spurious bs out and see if it sticks, school of journalism. BLS, thats Bogus Lame and Stupid, not a bacon lettus and squash sandwich.
obama said he's meet mccain, any time anywhere. now, knowing he can't put two words together without a teleprompter, he won't meet him at all.
he said he'd take public financing, now he says he won't.
the guy is an inveterate liar, and cannot be trusted. plus he's a muslim.
"the guy is an inveterate liar, and cannot be trusted. plus he's a muslim."
Unreal. Speaking of liars, SSands, you just lost allllllllllll credibility. forever.
(I think it's called a zinger...) Thanks for the laugh. :-)
Sandscolumbushistybuff, your post has me concerned.Are you saying that Obama may be losing the old white bigot Republican bedwetter gullible pussy idiot vote that he was relying on?
Damn it, that's the bottom 5% of the 24% of Americans who still think Bush is doing a good job. I'm sure Obama was really counting on you morons.Har.
I sincerely wish you get a few good nights of Bingo in before you die, or the '08 elections, whichever come first.
You're accusation that Obama can't put a sentence together unless he reads it from a telepromter and calling him a liar may be all Senator Obama needs to put him over the top come November.
No one knows how the 23% club will be voting and they voted for and have supported a lying dunce for close to eight years now.
Your charges might just be all they need to swing to the Democratic Party.