RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Pak-ing heat
August 02, 2007 9:59 AM
Sorry I flaked on blogging yesterday; it was a busy day. We got a sneak peek at excerpts of the anti-terrorism speech of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, which we broke on Good Morning America. (FREE GMA VIDEO HERE) and a quick WEBCAST CONVERSATION HERE).
And HERE'S OUR DOT-COM STORY... And the longer piece we did for Nightline, complete with an Obama interview, CAN BE WATCHED HERE...
After Obama's speech - where he proposed taking out al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, with or without the permission of Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, his Democratic rivals tried to figure out how to respond.
Some said, "me, too!" Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told American Urban Radio News Network that, “I’ve long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America.”
Others did not. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., conversely, issued a paper statement saying, "Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power."
One thing Obama cautioned me in our interview was not to pay too much attention to the part of his speech focused on Pakistan. Ever the professor.
"One thing that I do think is important, Jake, and I just want to emphasize this; the story that comes out of this speech may unduly focus on that aspect that, as you put it, looks muscular, being willing to go after terrorists where they live," he said. "But keep in mind the other elements of the speech were as important, if not more important. If we don’t win over the hearts and minds of 1.3 billion Muslims in this world, it is going to be very difficult for us to win the long war on extremism. And that, I think, it just as much a focus as the other aspects of the speech. And I hope that comes through in your story."
It probably didn't, but to be fair, Obama had to have known that when he included that headline grabber in his speech. But HERE'S HIS WHOLE SPEECH if you want to read it…
What say you?
- jpt
August 2, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (3)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It'd be more wise for Obama to make these statements during a debate, when analysts are mining through an hour or so of comments by nearly a dozen people, and his opponents would have to make an immediate response, if any. Any comment would be both lost in the endless dialogue, if it was a small part or issue, or the statement would be that much more important if issue was studied further in the course of the debate. (Where's Jim Lehrer when you need him?)
Posted by: reyonthehill | Aug 2, 2007 1:28:44 PM
Mr. Tapper,
The way I understand news reporting is to report the story as it is. What most reporters do I observe is pick a word or sentence out of the context from a 35 min long speech, twist the words as it fits, give a phony objectionable title to make people see your version of story instead of the real news. That's unfair. I also don;t understand why media is obsessed with every little detail on Obama's issues. You should have given him credit that he presented a well thought out strategy on the issue when no one else did anything. He needs to. He is a young politician. Only 3 years in national stage. People of all walks of life wants to know where he stands on different issues that they consider very important. But media will find a connection of this speec with last weeks debate issue.
Let's encourage other candidates to bring forward their ideas and then you journalist can debate pros and cons of each candidate's position.
You are writing twisted version of stories but see even Edwards and Clinton are saying the same thing on that specific issue. Why don;t you write a headline that Clinton and Edwards will "invade" Pakistan.
Posted by: Sound Mind | Aug 2, 2007 12:49:37 PM
Sen. Obama's "tactic" of using an attention-grabber headline to focus interest on him, on his speech, and more importantly, on what he says in his speech, is a time-honored rhetorical device. It is also an inspired political move to put his opponents on the defensive for not having discussed the issue in the first place, as witnessed by their scrambling around yesterday to publicize what their positions on Pakistan are.
I don't want to appear cynical and/or jaded (although it may be far too late for that admission), but with today's news that the polls show Sen. Clinton well ahead of Sen. Obama, I have to wonder if this speech isn't also designed to shore up Sen. Obama's image among the Dems as a decisive leader.
Posted by: chuck | Aug 2, 2007 10:36:44 AM
Post a comment
