« Clinton and the Lobbyists | Main | I Already » The Secret Obama04 Aug 2007 06:09 pm I agree with Brian Beutler. I'm struggling with how to express the fact that Barack Obama was stunningly impressive in . . . a secret off-the-record session with a few bloggers that I can't really talk about since it was off-the-record. It was, to me, much more compelling than what he offered at the debate on the record. Long story short: Candidates should save their impressive remarks for on the record sessions. Comments (61)
Oh, come on. You can tell us. Pretty please? Or we can play the guessing game! We can all try to guess what he said, and if one of us gets it right, you say something like, "Well, I certainly can't confirm or deny whether that is what he said, but..." Someone has to go first. 
At least tell us what the remarks were in reference too? Foreign Policy? Domestic? and let our imaginations run wild.
Why don't you tell the campaign you want to write up a highly-praising piece about the session? How could they turn that down? This is brutal.
Re "Candidates should save their impressive remarks for on the record sessions. " "Let the enemy come till he's almost close enough to touch, then let him have it and jump out and finish him up with your hatchet. "
No offense Matt, but you do some a bit too easily impressed.
Totally idle speculation... but maybe something about Israel? Hence the off-the-record nature?
Here's what He said: "42"
The feeling I get is that it's off the record, but senselessly so-that Mr. Obama said all sorts of basically uncontroversial things very well, and then did the whole wink wink nudge nudge thing. Really frustrating, because now the bloggers he met can't sing "Sweet mystery of life, at last I've found you..." while bragging about their experience. It might be a smarter move than it seems, however-now he's got all these impressed bloggers, who can't get the need to express their admiration for Obama out of their system the most straightforward way. Rather than getting a single complementary blog post from them, he may get pro-bias in the blogs these guys write for the next week. He's a total PR genius!
Re "I'm struggling with how to express the fact that Barack Obama was stunningly impressive in . . . a secret off-the-record session with a few bloggers that I can't really talk about since it was off-the-record. It was, to me, much more compelling than what he offered at the debate on the record. "
You know, if bloggers aren't going to say "Fuck you" when offered double-secret access, they're just regular old pundits with bad reporting skills.
Everybody who supported G.W. Bush in the first place did so because he was mighty impressive in person, though not in public. Obama - Bush/Cheney Lite! Anyway, if you, Matthew Yglesias, are going to support a candidate because of what he told you in secret, then scr*w you, we have no need of you. We've had too much of this already.
He's sandbagging.
Here's what He said: 42 I heard it was, "Rosebud." Anyway, if you, Matthew Yglesias, are going to support a candidate because of what he told you in secret, then scr*w you, we have no need of you. We've had too much of this already. The government doesn't actually require that you read MY. Yet.
LOL, some anger there from some posters. What's that all about? And I can't believe anyone would compare that idiot frat boy legacy President to the magna cum laude Harvard law student. The failure at every business he ever ran and probably guilty of corruption at that...to the community organizer, civil rights lawyer, constitutional law prof. I mean, seriously? C'mon. Talk about poor judge of character.
Seriously, though, "trust me on this one, I'm getting good vibes" is one of the most unyglesian lines I can think of.
I agree, I certainly hope Matt doesn't expect us to take that as at-all meaningful. That'd be insulting. Hadn't thought of it that way. It just seemed to be a genuine thought, agreeing with Buetler.
Candidates: more impressive when they're not worrying about which one sentence out of a 30-minute speech & conversation will be turned into the attack ad that kills their campaign.
No one's angry, but blogs are supposed to be about a certain set of journalistic techniques. Buying into lame bullshit like off the record sessions with candidates violates an ideal of transparency that's supposedly being offered up as an antidote to insider access journalism. It's not surprising to see how easily that ideal is overthrown, but I'd admire these guys a bit more rather than a bit less if they'd said, "Anything you say to us you say to our readers, and if you can't get on board with that than thanks but no thanks."
This is really disappointing. Instead of attending double-secret don't talk about it briefing, MY feels the need to report that he attended such meeting, but without any details. Instead of following the rules and just being there, he feels the need to report being there, but not report anything else. A man with any confidence in his schwang, as it were, would either attend and keep mum, or refuse to attend based on the fact that his confidence in his schwang prevents him from engaging in such silly "under the radar, hush hush" meetings, being a reporter and all, and having a responsibility to share things with readers as opposed to merely internalize them and share only those elements that fortify his own sense of importance while doing nothing to inform his readers. What a perfect storm of abandoning your job to inform readers and keep your own ego out of the mix. I suppose that is harsh, but I am truly disappointed. MY knows secret stuff about how Obama is impressive, but he won't share it with us. We should, however, be impressed that he knows this stuff because it was a secret meeting that he wasn't supposed to write about, but did, at least enough to know that he has his super insider status. Great.
Gotta agree with those upset by this -- Shouldn't the experience of the past decade lead every blogger/journalist to assume from the outset that 'off-the-record, may not be quoted' statements are equally likely to be full of crap as they are insightful[And that's being generous...]? To pass along statements like this sounds way too much like Judy Miller and others bleating 'trust me, I've got superdoubleplussecretaccess' - What's the downside for Obama [or any other candidate] here? This allows them to throw red meat to bloggers off the record, then when they later cave in, in public, there is no way to be held accountable for those statements made off the record. Either nothing will be reported out of those secret sessions, or they'll get the kind of buzz that MY and BB are offering - And we are supposed to take away from this a positive impression of the candidate? I don't have anything against MY and others going to off the record sessions -- but the willingness to pass along blog posts like this shows a pretty amazing double-standard when it comes to critizing the MSM for the same acts.
That's why I like Obama for what it's worth.
The Obama campaign regrets any airborne substances that may or may not have accompanied one or more of its presentations. Any use of rhythmically flashing lights and/or text was purely incidental. The Obama campaign is not responsible for any sudden outbreaks of hope, audacity, or any combinations thereof. The Obama campaign's introduction of any substance into Matthew Yglesias's bloodstream does not necessarily constitute endorsement of his views.
Wow. I'm assuming that this is one of the first times, if not the first, that Matt was asked to take part in an off-the-record talk. Bloggers have been so "ethical" about not doing this largely because no one's asked them to. Looks to me like Matt's trying to figure out how to handle this. I have some faith that he'll reach a good resolution for the future. With all due respect, the anger expressed here seems oddly disproportionate to me.
This comment thread is absurd. Yglesias likes Obama, and that is a matter of public record (literally, from contribution disclosures). As I recall, Yglesias mostly says nice things about Edwards, too, and is generally supportive of Clinton except on the rather important issue of her hawkishness. All Yglesias is saying here is (1)he met Obama and I'm impressed and (2) the statements didn't need to be off the record. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Yglesias did not get an envelope stuffed with cash (or other more sordid gratuity), he got ... access. He got that access because a lot of us read his blog. Now, Yglesias could be corrupted by this sort of off-the-record access, and I suspect the reason uncontroversial statements were made in person and off the record was to make selected bloggers feel valued. If Yglesias were corrupted by access, whether to Obama or to anyone else, that'd be a shame ... but why is everyone acting like he already has been? Really, how many are responding angrily because, in this post, it wasn't your preferred candidate Yglesias got access to and believes is a smart cookie?
Yeah, but you know who Obama thinks is impressive? Ezra Klein.
Bloggers have been so "ethical" about not doing this largely because no one's asked them to. Well that's the point, isn't it? If the high minded talk about insiderism disappears the second someone takes them seriously, then the high minded talk was a con, a mere virtue made of necessity. It's not that anyone's making so much of bloggers nodding along as Obama gives them some straight talk, but that a minor but real principle is in play.
"It might be a smarter move than it seems" If Obama is a genius for inviting sympathetic bloggers for a off-the-record conversation, so is George W. Bush, who did the same thing for sympathetic talk-radio types a few days ago (e.g., Sean Hannity). Two big differences though: 1) The top conservative talk radio broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh, was smart enough to say "no thanks" to this invite. 2) Even the softball tosser Hannity publicly opposed the president on policy recently (the immigration bill).
Brandon Claycomb's comment is good. I am not bashing MY for being successful, or having insider access, or anything else. I read his blog and he is very smart and offers very good analysis in my opinion. What I object to is the tilt towards "I got to be there, but I can't talk about it." That is lame, and that is the focal point of this post. If his insider information was wrapped up in a larger analytical or story-telling context, so be it. This post is merely a triumphal "I got invited" message with nothing useful. My concern is that folks tend to get more interested in being there than in reporting what is being done. I am not accusing MY of doing this at this point, but this post is a rather disturbing example of how access can come to trump info. I'm not too worried about MY being corrupted or becoming like many of the media types that I (and others) scorn. I am concerned that he needs to have a few pointed reminders about the fact that we expect info and analysis...and not personal stories, when he is in reporter mode. I have no problem with little asides, observations, etc. (all great reasons to read blogs, and this one in particulaur). I do have a problem with this post (obviously). It servs no purpose other than than to be little more than a "neener neener" and that is flat-out insulting and really doesn't move the discourse ball forward at all. That said, my hostility is probably a bit over the top, and I find MY to be consistently on the mark and worth reading. At the same time, the fact that he responds to comments and criticisms is why he is so good, and why I write negative things about him once in a while.
Well, doesn't it seem like Mr. Yglesias has something of an agenda with his comment? Not to communicate to his readers how totally cool he is for meeting Obama, but to communicate to Obama's campaign that maybe it would be in their interest to let Matt write what Matt really wants to write about Obama? Would that possible, positive interpretation sate some of you transparencyites out there? Besides, what he could have done is simply not say anything at all, which, I think we call all admit, is even less transparent than what he actually said. Now we know that there was a touching moment between Yglesias and Obama, and we can eyeball his posts suspiciously looking for obvious snippets of prObamaganda. And if MY gets permission, he may be able to feed us the details. It seems like, in this particular game theory situation, Yglesias has made the best move available to him.
I think many commentators are missing the point. From what I gather from the post is that Obama missed an opportunity to display certain qualities to the American public but since he wanted to speak with bloggers and/or journalists off the record it's the candidate's loss. As for Matt not saying anything about the meeting, well he agreed to be at this meeting so it is not as if he can renege the agreement. An agreement is an agreement.
I myself do not care what Obama's remarks were -- it just seemed hilarious that Matthew is sounding like a teenage girl who's just discovered sex.
Word on the Bush point brothers. Everybody said the same about W. Look where that's got us.
Yeah, I get that vibe too. I can just hear the girl saying, "yeah, I just did something totally amazing, oh I wish I could say what it was... All I can tell you is that everything you've ever heard about it-well, it's way better than even that."
"What I object to is the tilt towards 'I got to be there, but I can't talk about it.' That is lame, and that is the focal point of this post." It is most certainly not "the focal point of this post." The focal point of this post is that MY is expressing some dubiousness about the whole idea of "off the record" sessions by candidates for public office -- and, as "Gordon Lightfoot" points out, signalling to the Obama campaign that it'd be a lot more effective if their candidate said the same stuff in full public view. I'm way to the left of both Matthew Yglesias and Barack Obama, but for crying out loud, Yglesias was criticizing the whole "insider" thing some of you are pillorying him for. Some of the comments above read like their authors read only the first sentence of Yglesias's post, lost their temper, jumped to an entirely mistaken conclusion about what MY was saying, and commenced screeching like Peggy Noonan on a coke binge. That's the most charitable explanation I can think of. A less charitable interpretation would be that some of you can't fucking read.
Here's what He said: 42. I heard he said "Tubal Cain".
Really, how many are responding angrily because, in this post, it wasn't your preferred candidate Yglesias got access to and believes is a smart cookie? Not me. I'm pissed because I can't evaluate myself whether Obama was brilliant. Or should I just take MY's word for it?
I'm pissed because I can't evaluate myself whether Obama was brilliant. Or should I just take MY's word for it? So don't take his word for it. Jeebus. If any reporter wants to spin for a candidate, he can, even as he respects whatever set of rules people set up. At best, readers are able to intuit when they're being spun. Blogs are nice, in part, because it's hard to maintain any sort of blogging pace while keeping up a credible facade that you are exactly what you are not. Prior to the donation coming up, was anyone really unclear about whether or not MY liked Obama?
Do I detect a bit of jealousy from the posters here? I don't sense Matthew bragging about his access. If any of you had the opportunity to meet a candidate like Barack Obama in such an intimate setting, I'm sure you would all jump at the chance. And if Obama made the conditions of the meeting that it was off-the-record, would you really turn him down? I don't blame Matthew at all and I think he has a good point about Obama making those kind of meeting on-the-record in the future.
I don't see why so many of us are getting upset. MY gave us a tiny bit of information. While we don't know Obama's views on many things, we do know MY's views. If our own views are similar to MY's views then we can take this as a signal that Obama may be on the same page as us. For those of us who tend to disagree with MY a lot, this tells us that Obama is not our candidate. MY may not have been very direct, but he definitely gave us a little tidbit of information with this post. Any extra information, however small, is better than no information.
"Yeah, but you know who Obama thinks is impressive? Ezra Klein." Ha, you're cold brother. Here's a journalism ethics question (not rhetorical, I don't know the answer), does "off the record" mean a journalistic can publicly disclose he met with a source but cannot repeat what he was told or does it mean he keeps secret both the meeting and what was said? If its the former, what journalistic term of art would Obama have had use to meet with bloggers or journalists and not have that meeting publicized after the fact? If it's the latter, then Matt has already screwed the pooch and might as well give us a summary.
Good grief folks...MY is at an event, he probably could care less about writing at the moment but it's his job so he jotted down a little something for us wannabes to chew on... Building mountains out of mole hills...yeesh.
A better question would be whether any journalist should agree to do a non-disclosure interview to begin with. Or perhaps the question is whether bloggers are journalists. (I say no and then yes.)
I think PMH and Mike are missing what folks like me are trying to express. What the point is having an "off the record" session? What is the point of having stated you attended such a session? It's all about inside vs. outside. I will admit to being jealous/petty/whatever in terms of having access to the actual thoughts of people who are running to be president. I want to know, and I challegenge those who question this stance to inform me why I shouldn't know. I want to know. MY didn't help my efforts in this post, and he helped himself to "insider" status. Fair enough, it couldn't happen to a smarter or nicer (so far as I know) guy, but it bugs me. This post circulates in the "we who know things but won't tell" realm, not the reporting realm, and I don't like it. I want to know, goddamit, and I have a problem with anyone who thinks they know what to do with facts and information better than me. I'll make that decision, given the chance (not provided in this case).
These people aren't rock stars, take a weekend and find an event the candidate you want to talk to is at. They are dying to talk to you. I've met everyone in the top tier except Hillary (I saw her at a graduation once and probably could have button-holed her if I really wanted to).
"If any of you had the opportunity to meet a candidate like Barack Obama in such an intimate setting, I'm sure you would all jump at the chance." Never. Never ever. I wouldn't play mortgage-stakes poker with a guy on the pro-tour either. Politicians, especially those running for President are professional geniuses at charm. They make their living talking other very smart accomplished people into bending over for them, frigging actually killing & dying for them, out of love not out of fear. Of course, Matt is so slick and smart and cynical no pol can trick or fool him. It had to be the policy and ideas. But then why a private meeting?
Ok, Matt, here it is:Can Obama look you straight in the eye, shake your hand, lies his ass off, and you not have a clue? Can Obama talk you into doing things that are against your beliefs, values, violations of your integrity, and make you like it? Would Obama ever do such things? If the answer to these questions is "no", then you are out of your league, letting your ego cloud your judgement, and should stay a safe distance from the bastard. All the bastards.
"Can Obama talk you into doing things that are against your beliefs, values, violations of your integrity, and make you like it?" Are you implying that Obama sweet talked Yglesias into giving him head? Because that's basically the only reasonable inference from that statement.
"Are you implying that Obama sweet talked Yglesias into giving him head?" I don't remember mentioning oral sex.
MRL - And I can't believe anyone would compare that idiot frat boy legacy President to the magna cum laude Harvard law student. The failure at every business he ever ran and probably guilty of corruption at that... Here we go again. The 'ol Lefty argument that liberals are geniuses, conservatives dummies. Al Gore was supposed to be so brilliant, so all knowing, that it was just an option for him to be President instead of going for his Nobel Prize in Physics, or Medicine, or maybe Literature. The Lefty's professed fear in the debates was that Noble Algore might be of such incandescent intellect that people wouldn't even be able to see him through the intense light...and worries that Gore would use his immense brain to talk so high above the American voters plane of comprehension, that it would take the NY Times weeks to explain the richness, depth, meaning of Gores remarks to the public. Then Bush out-debated the guy. Then we found out Gore was a Yale fratboy with lower grades and less challenging subjects than Bush. Who then failed out of law school, then failed out of Divinity school. Leading to John Kerry, another genius stepping up to replace blazing intellect Howard Dean. Though he out-debated Bush, people soon wondered why Kerry kept saying stupid things and was thought unlikeable. And it turned out that John Forbes Kerry had lower grade, lower SATs, lower IQ than Dubya and character questions to boot. And by 2004 most Americans knew how bad Bush was. Somehow, the Democrats managed to come up with the one candidate that Americans were sure to like less than Bush. Well done! MRL - (Compare Bush) to the community organizer, civil rights lawyer, constitutional law prof. I mean, seriously? C'mon. Talk about poor judge of character. 2 years in national office, no military, no executive experience. No private sector experience other than teaching law part time. No foreign policy experience. Somehow I don't envision civil rights lawyers and visiting adjunct constitutional law profs as relevant presidential quals - or Dershowitz and Tribe would be running for President. Obama despite his thin resume of his national, military, executive accomplishments, is an inspirational speaker with charisma. In short, he is to 2008 what empty suit John Edwards was to 2004's race. But, and it is a big but, unlike Edwards, who promised he would make Superman walk, Obama as a black person, does have full curative powers to forgive and redeem guilty white liberals of all their non-PC transgressions in life..absolve them of their oppressor, oppressor ancestors sins to race, class, and gender. GIven no white or Asian person with Barack's speaking abilities and Ivy League law credentials, but with his lack of experience and knowledge would ever be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate, Obama should stop his campaign. Instead, take the Tony Robbins, Jerry Falwell, Wayne Dyer approach. He could make millions on the speaker circuit and in books sales.
And I can't believe anyone would compare that idiot frat boy legacy President to the magna cum laude Harvard law student. The failure at every business he ever ran and probably guilty of corruption at that...to the community organizer, civil rights lawyer, constitutional law prof. I mean, seriously? Well, Bush impressed enough insiders to get to be President. Seriously. As to what MY wrote, suppose he wrote "Obama seemed stunningly dense, ignorant and arrogant....in a secret off-the-record session with a few bloggers that I can't really talk about since it was off-the-record." Would that have been ethical?
... that idiot frat boy legacy President This is a President with the lowest or second lowest approval ratings EVER, and he just strong-armed the Congress into passing legislation (the FISA stuff) about which "several Democrats said the bill would "eviscerate" the Fourth Amendment." "Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the measure "does violence to the Constitution of the United States." (quotes via dailykos.com). i.e., this President not only ignored his own oath to uphold the Constitution, he persuaded a majority of 500+ officers of the Constitution who had taken a similar oath to do so as well. And you call him "idiot frat boy"?
When reason tells you one thing and hope another, hope often wins. Obama is hope over reason.
Here we go again. The 'ol Lefty argument that liberals are geniuses, conservatives dummies. Uh, no, not really at all. I'm making claims about two individuals, not all liberals and all conservatives. There are plenty of liberals who I think are, on the whole, idiots, and plenty of conservatives who are, on the whole, brilliant. However, we have evidence for both of these two individuals. We have personal testimony from people who attended Yale with Bush saying that, yes, indeed, he was an idiot frat boy, branding his pledges, organizing parties, gifted at giving out clever nicknames and the social positioning of humorous insults. Awesome! The type of person I'm sure would be impressive in person because he has great social skills. Obama was magna cum laude at Harvard Law. Forget about being the first black president of the Review, he was freaking president of the Review! Who cares if he's black? He taught law at a top-10 law school in the country. I'm sorry, but idiots don't just luck into magna cum laude at a top-5 law school in the country and a job teaching law at the top-10 law school in the country. Period. Nice moving the goal posts though. 2 years in national office, no military, no executive experience. No private sector experience other than teaching law part time. No foreign policy experience. Somehow I don't envision civil rights lawyers and visiting adjunct constitutional law profs as relevant presidential quals And who said anything about being qualified for President? I said, "talk about poor judge of character. You're dishonest while constructing your shitty arguments, well done! So wanna address how you think his work in civil service and teaching reflects poorly on his character? Or defend Bush's record as a failed, corrupt exec as reflecting a shining character? GIven no white or Asian person with Barack's speaking abilities and Ivy League law credentials, but with his lack of experience and knowledge would ever be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate, Obama should stop his campaign. Instead, take the Tony Robbins, Jerry Falwell, Wayne Dyer approach. He could make millions on the speaker circuit and in books sales. Ah, so first, you blatantly misstate my comparison of two individuals as some sort of general statement about liberals and conservatives, then knock down your pathetic strawman (and poorly knock it down, at that). Then you blatantly misstate a comment I made about character as somehow construed to be discussing Presidential qualifications. Another bullshit argument. Then you add with not-so-thinly-veiled racism! Congrats. Well, what's the say about your character (or lack thereof)?
Well, Bush impressed enough insiders to get to be President. Seriously. Yeah, I know, what's that say about the judgment and character of said "insiders"?
"Obama seemed stunningly dense, ignorant and arrogant....in a secret off-the-record session with a few bloggers that I can't really talk about since it was off-the-record." Would that have been ethical? Yeah, I think so. Let's not pretend these off-the-record meetings are supposed to be value-neutral. I'd much rather that anyone who attends one is up-front both about attending such meetings and his impression after such meetings than keeping it all secret. Its inevitable that whatever was said in this meeting, the impression will filter its way into the blogging by shaping the way the bloggers in attendance view the candidate. Much better to at least have an idea of where the admiration or animosity is coming from than have no clue at all.
And you call him "idiot frat boy"? Er...yeah. I dunno, I was in a frat at a very old boy institution, so I can say with confidence, there are a lot of idiot frat boys who are exceptionally talented at social politics, manipulation, etc. Doesn't change the fact that they are, on the whole, idiots. That they have -no- character. They have very specific, narrow skills that are socially advantageous. I can't imagine the type of damage they could do if they had an entire political machine and host of intelligent political advisers behind them. Well, actually, I can imagine, because we're witnessing it right now. It certainly doesn't help that what they're up against is a spineless opposition party and an apathetic, uninformed electorate.
Bah, once he's hooked on being an "insider", the only way he's going to convey a negative impression is by faint praise. Otherwise he won't be invited again.
Another question was raised by Garance. Was this special 'off the record' section just for male bloggers? Isn't that, like, disgusting? And isn't it really disgusting that the guys who attended won't even give her query a straight answer? Please God, we can't be growing another crop of all white, all male 'serious' media personalities. I don't think the country can survive another generation of testosteroned bs.
Another question was raised by Garance. Yes but not a very serious one.
At the risk of having Patrick Nielsen-Hayden accuse me of not being able to read, I'm going to chime in with the critics of the secret-meeting thing. Leaving aside the question of whether MY was bragging about his high-level access, I think that the whole practice of off-the-record meetings is questionable. I understand if we are talking about a whistleblower whose life or livelihood is in danger if he or she is uncovered. Here, we are talking about a sitting United States Senator and presidential candidate. Why, precisely, should he be allowed to go off-the-record? Ever?
There's a (potentially) easy solution to this. First, it would be interesting to wonder if these super secret bloggers think that whatever Obama said in this meeting would hurt him if broadcast to the public. It would seem not, since they think it's better than what he normally says, but there is some political calculus involved here. If you want to win an election, sometimes it's better to be the lukewarm favorite of multitudes than to say something "controversial" that makes a few people really really like you but turns off everyone else (the Ron Paul route). So if it really was something that would help Obama, with a large portion of the electorate, they should just urge him to go on the record with the part that was so impressive--unless there is some legitimate reason why it can't be on the record. The Obama campaign needs some help--they should be in a receptive mood.
Comments closed August 18, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
tease.
Posted by Fred F. | August 4, 2007 6:16 PM